Is the Muslim Jesus cited in the Qur'an possibly historical?

[Rival]

They do not say they took it from eyewitnesses, there were no witnesses and there is nothing to support the notion of this oral tradition. The epistle writers know nothing of this so called oral tradition. Interesting that you claim to know what people were saying back then.

So you don't believe people were passing along stories about Jesus before the gospels were written? So for 60 years people just forgot about him? Is that what you're telling me?

Yes, the gospels do say this. I feel like you're trolling me now.

 

[Rival]

Luke, 1:1,

1:1 Since many have undertaken to arrange in proper order an account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as from the beginning the eyewitnesses and those becoming ministers of the Word handed down to us, 3 so also it seemed good to me, accurately following and investigating everything from the first, to write to you in order (an account), most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the words (of the gospel) you have been taught.*

 

[eik]

As Abrahamic religions come so they each insist upon the tenet of progressive revelation through God's messengers........ the thread here is posted by a Bahai so you'll need to ask him about that. I'll give @adrian009 a heads up on that. EDIT: Oops..... he didn't, it was @firedragon 's. ..... but he might make mention about progressive revelation .....

Obviously you have little clue as to the biblical plan of salvation. The way of salvation was completed 2000 years ago (approx) in accordance with many biblical prophecies. Nothing was ever mentioned about a Mahomet in the bible.

Mary, who was quite estranged from and by Jesus (at Magdala) was urgently needed to be returned or reversed in to Christianity for a Roman following, to replace their important Godesses like Venus. And you moan about Islam needing her. Roman Christianity needed her!

I am not a Roman Christian.

Nope! The gospels are full of manipulations, additions, spin and waffle and the more a researcher reads through them, so the more editing is discovered. All the evidence that we have for Jesus and his mission is based upon the 'Balance of probability' rather than any Direct or Primary evidence. So it's no use chucking bricks at Islam about that.

So you (& Islam) doesn't believe in the Jesus of the gospels. I think we knew that.

That's you talking from a very biased position. Islam takes the OT history very seriously, builds it laws from the early books. It's no good to chuck muck at Islam...... Christianity has needed cleaning up ever since Paul and John left their writings.

How very defamatory of the sublimest literature the world has ever produced. Islam was not codified as a religion until long after the era of Mahomet. Then it was done by politicians for political purposes, to consolidate Islamic conquest and culture.

As for "muck" in Islam, it doesn't need to be invented. Muslims engage in endless apologies for Islam, once the light of Christianity shines. The controversies in Islam are greater than those in Christianity. Islam split into two parts almost as soon as it was formed, because ultimately it was not ordained of God, but a humanist creation. Christianity only divided after it became embroiled in and distracted by philosophy after some centuries.

You do realise that when John turned the story from 'anger about the priestshood' to 'anger about the Jews' that he caused two millenia of very wicked Antisemitism?

John & Paul were both Jews. They had a right to critique their own people, but they didn't only critique Jews. And antisemitism is not of Christians, so again defamatory of Christians.

I have been very very lucky on this thread, because a challenging post caused me to look up an old work acquaintance for info, and he gave me the real foundation link from Islam to the bible to an historic Jesus. These things happen by chance, but I'm very pleased.

Islam knows nothing of the biblical Jesus.

Y/N questions aren't tricks, only to those who dare not give a straight answer.

So do I! Brilliant! I never realised Islam was that keen!
John, pretending to have been the disciple, extending a 12 month mission to 3 years, not even knowing what Jesus did, when or where....
John did not know what Jesus and the disciples did in during the last week at the feast...... couldn't get a single day's events right. Well done Islam!

John was the disciple that Jesus loved. He had another perspective. Trifling differences do not create a sense of fabrication but a sense that different apostles had different perspectives and understandings of the sayings of Jesus. Only a few could really understand him. One was John.

I must say that you are very full of bitterness towards the bible and the apostles. I can't credit you with impartiality in this. If you are ever to learn anything of Christianity, you'll need to let go of your preconceptions. Paul and John never harmed a fly.

 

[lukethethird]

So you don't believe people were passing along stories about Jesus before the gospels were written? So for 60 years people just forgot about him? Is that what you're telling me?

Yes, the gospels do say this. I feel like you're trolling me now.

Luke, 1:1,

1:1 Since many have undertaken to arrange in proper order an account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as from the beginning the eyewitnesses and those becoming ministers of the Word handed down to us, 3 so also it seemed good to me, accurately following and investigating everything from the first, to write to you in order (an account), most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the words (of the gospel) you have been taught.*

Luke proceeded to copy Mark almost word for word, he added a birth story and a post resurrection story that differ from Matthew's, he copied sayings from Matthew or from a common source, and added some parables. That's plagiarism. The fact that Luke's birth story differs from Matthew's discounts oral tradition and that he copied Mark's gospel rules out eyewitnesses. You merely believe what you have been told to believe.

 

[Rival]

Luke proceeded to copy Mark almost word for word, he added a birth story and a post resurrection story that differ from Matthew's, he copied sayings from Matthew or from a common source, and added some parables. That's plagiarism. The fact that Luke's birth story differs from Matthew's discounts oral tradition and that he copied Mark's gospel rules out eyewitnesses. You merely believe what you have been told to believe.

Of course oral accounts will differ, that's how the game works.

So where did Mark get his from?

Where do Luke's different accounts come from?

Where does the birth story come from?

What were people saying in the ~40 years about Jesus that nothing was written? Radio silence?

 

[lukethethird]

Of course oral accounts will differ, that's how the game works.

So where did Mark get his from?

Where do Luke's different accounts come from?

Where does the birth story come from?

What were people saying in the ~40 years about Jesus that nothing was written? Radio silence?

People tell stories, it's what we do.

 

[Rival]

People tell stories, it's what we do.

.............


Yes. That's called an oral tradition.

Stories passed from people.

 

[firedragon]

Of course oral accounts will differ, that's how the game works.

So where did Mark get his from?

Where do Luke's different accounts come from?

Where does the birth story come from?

What were people saying in the ~40 years about Jesus that nothing was written? Radio silence?

All the answers to each point will be "possibilities" alone because no one knows or have a clue.

Your question about where does Luke get his "different accounts" from has a hypothesis that they had several other sources. Im sure you know of the synoptic problem.

 

[lukethethird]

.............


Yes. That's called an oral tradition.

Stories passed from people.

People can make stories up. No one can show that any of the gospels have any connection to oral tradition, in fact it has been demonstrated that the gospels derive from forms of midrash and plagiarism, in other words, a literary tradition, but you are certainly free to believe what you like.

 

[Rival]

People can make stories up. No one can show that any of the gospels have any connection to oral tradition, in fact it has been demonstrated that the gospels derive from forms of midrash and plagiarism, in other words, a literary tradition, but you are certainly free to believe what you like.

It doesn't matter whether the stories are fictional or not. A story being passed along is an oral tradition.

 

[oldbadger]

Kindred the world over still do this now.

Yes, I expect so.
And they always have, always did.
And their memories were amazing, reaching far back, or so I have read.
We stretch out to find abilities as and when we need them, maybe.

I do like your Gibran quote. The Prophet has to be my favourite book. Now there is a prophet.

 

[lukethethird]

It doesn't matter whether the stories are fictional or not. A story being passed along is an oral tradition.

True, but the gospels have been exposed as a literary tradition.


Psalms 22:18 “They divide my clothes among themselves and throw dice for my garments.” (NIV)
Psalms 22:1 “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (NIV)

MK15:24 “And they crucified him. Dividing up his clothes, they cast lots to see what each would get.”

Matthew 27:46About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").

The list goes on and on, the old testament re-written to tell a new story.

 

[Rival]

Yes, I expect so.
And they always have, always did.
And their memories were amazing, reaching far back, or so I have read.
We stretch out to find abilities as and when we need them, maybe.

I do like your Gibran quote. The Prophet has to be my favourite book. Now there is a prophet.

I actually heard it in a Dream Theater song.

 

[oldbadger]

How do you know what people were saying back then?

Because I have read about OT, especially as was used by African and Mid East peoples.

Communities that mostly could not read used OT. Where I live we still have records of songs that told of past situations and incidents. Even our childrens songs and nursery rhyms hail from way back in history in remembrance of bad sicknesses, wars, bad monarchs etc.
That's a form of OT as well.

 

[Rival]

Yes, I expect so.
And they always have, always did.
And their memories were amazing, reaching far back, or so I have read.
We stretch out to find abilities as and when we need them, maybe.

I do like your Gibran quote. The Prophet has to be my favourite book. Now there is a prophet.

2:22.​

 

[oldbadger]

I don't think you have any evidence that Paul turned "a beautiful movement in to a nightmare." The nightmare only began with the trinitarian philosophers, of which Paul was not one.

I am fairly sure that I have all the evidence that I need, although, of course, I cannot use many of the letters attributed to him because he didn't write those ones. So I would need to sift trough the genuine material again.

 

[Rival]

True, but the gospels have been exposed as a literary tradition.


Psalms 22:18 “They divide my clothes among themselves and throw dice for my garments.” (NIV)
Psalms 22:1 “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (NIV)

MK15:24 “And they crucified him. Dividing up his clothes, they cast lots to see what each would get.”

Matthew 27:46About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?" (which means "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?").

The list goes on and on, the old testament re-written to tell a new story.

And yet you set your religion as 'Xian'? I'm confused.

 

[oldbadger]

Obviously you have little clue as to the biblical plan of salvation. The way of salvation was completed 2000 years ago (approx) in accordance with many biblical prophecies. Nothing was ever mentioned about a Mahomet in the bible.

I am not a Roman Christian.

So you (& Islam) doesn't believe in the Jesus of the gospels. I think we knew that.

How very defamatory of the sublimest literature the world has ever produced. Islam was not codified as a religion until long after the era of Mahomet. Then it was done by politicians for political purposes, to consolidate Islamic conquest and culture.

As for "muck" in Islam, it doesn't need to be invented. Muslims engage in endless apologies for Islam, once the light of Christianity shines. The controversies in Islam are greater than those in Christianity. Islam split into two parts almost as soon as it was formed, because ultimately it was not ordained of God, but a humanist creation. Christianity only divided after it became embroiled in and distracted by philosophy after some centuries.

John & Paul were both Jews. They had a right to critique their own people, but they didn't only critique Jews. And antisemitism is not of Christians, so again defamatory of Christians.

Islam knows nothing of the biblical Jesus.

John was the disciple that Jesus loved. He had another perspective. Trifling differences do not create a sense of fabrication but a sense that different apostles had different perspectives and understandings of the sayings of Jesus. Only a few could really understand him. One was John.

I must say that you are very full of bitterness towards the bible and the apostles. I can't credit you with impartiality in this. If you are ever to learn anything of Christianity, you'll need to let go of your preconceptions. Paul and John never harmed a fly.

That whole post shows the bias and prejudice of some Christianity, I'm afraid.

I have no doubt about the historic Jesus, he just ran a totally different mission to the one that Paul floated...... Jesus tried to hold up John's mission after the arrest.

Sometime I must run a thread on John the Apostle.

 

[lukethethird]

And yet you set your religion as 'Xian'? I'm confused.

Pre-gospel Christianity was good enough for Paul.

 

[oldbadger]

MK15:24 “And they crucified him. Dividing up his clothes, they cast lots to see what each would get.”.

You think the clothing that was ripped off Jesus was worth anything? Bloody soaked and ripped up to shreds and you think that Roman soldiers could make anything out of a peasant's rupped up garments?

That was a typical example of reversing in to past prophecy to fool future converts. Typical.