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

[oldbadger]

Pre-gospel Christianity was good enough for Paul.

No, it wasn't. That's why Christianity became known as 'Pauline'...... he built it the way he wanted.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

I just pondered on your answer, and I realy dont understand how you can claim what you said.
But then again, it is obviously your choice to make a claim that the whole of the Quran is the exact words of Allah.

It's not **my** claim, it's the Qur'an's claim, and it's format/style.

Even when Allah told Muhammad that Satan intervened and revealed the Satanic verses to Muhammad.

You're getting confused. What you're describing is not in the Qur'an and holds no validity in any chains of narration, but rather simply a myth that got popularized. What you're describing isn't historical to Muhammad, and is not relevant to even discuss.

So, who decides if the Quran is actually revealed by God, or Gibriel, or Muhammad, or in the Quran's own experience, Satan.
But to claim that this is the unchangeble words of Allah only, is also a myth, just as all the other claims that the quran never changed, was never edited, never altered etc.
But, enjoy your opinion, even if I dont agree, you have a right to believe it.

And among men there is he who disputes about God without knowledge and follows every rebellious Satan; Against him it is written down that whoever takes him for a friend, he shall lead him astray and conduct him to the chastisement of the burning fire.
(Qur'an, Surah 22:3-4)

 

[VoidoftheSun]

2:22.​

Love DT!

 

[VoidoftheSun]

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.

I don't see much light in any version of Christianity whatsoever. Especially not in Catholic and Protestant forms, both which are devil-worshipers.

However I think there is good reason to respect and admire the Coptic Orthodox.

But Christianity will always be a "false-religion" and a very late addition (4th century).

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.

That has no bearing on the Qur'an itself.
Prophet Muhammad (A.S.) appointed Ali as successor, Ali had a very very special and unique place in the Prophet's life and himself was divinely guided. Ali was Muhammad's son in law, one of the very first people to ever convert to Islam, one of the most intimate people with Muhammad. Ali was also married to Muhammad's daughter Fatimah.
Anyway there is initiatic succession between Muhammad and Ali that really deeply shows in the words and actions of Ali. Ali was a spiritual leader and a man akin to Buddha and Jesus in his wisdom.

On the other hand the ones that ended up evolving into the majority sect of Sunnism was a political movement led by Umar at the time who wanted to get Abu Bakr elected to rule Mecca and he succeeded. By the time we reach the Umayyads, there is very very intense hostility towards Ali, typified in the tradition of cursing Ali (yes, cursing the son-in-law of the Prophet).



Christianity divided much more chaotically, there where so many sects and only a few were over successive disputes. The war between Paul, James and Peter was only one thing.
Neither James or Peter were the true successors of Jesus, James was.
There is only one Jamesian book in the New Testament, which goes to show how deeply the Nazarene religion of Jesus (not "Christianity") has been buried. There is not much else to say, Christianity is just a personality cult which is not meant to make sense, it's supposed to inject emotions into you through your skin like heroin.


Sunni and Shia is like what would have happened if the stream of churches that became the Catholics hadn't been successful in their oppression and destruction of the simultaneous other forms of Jesus-sects competing with them. In particular, if the Nazarenes/Ebionites (the real Jesus-followers) hadn't been genocided and were still around today.

 

[eik]

I don't see much light in any version of Christianity whatsoever. Especially not in Catholic and Protestant forms, both which are devil-worshipers.

A gross oversimplification. You're confusing churches and their hierarchies with the sources of religion, and even with their deity(ies). To consign all Catholics and all Protestants as "devil worshippers" is wrong and obviously defamatory, even if many are clearly in error. For not all indulge in the sins of the flesh, and many lead moral lives.

Yet I would concur that there are many in these churches given over to devil worship, but I would never go so far as to claim that a "form of religion" was itself given over to devil worship unless devil-worship itself was prescribed as an article of religion or of a church, although it may well be the case with some protestant denominations (for which the word "protestant" is a misnomer for "heretic").

The thing with Catholicism is that it doesn't in practice require the average Catholic to subscribe to the whole baggage of philosophical twaddle contrived down the centuries that their hierarchies spend their lives engaged in.

For the antics of the heretics do always not demand the members or adherents themselves engage in heresy, and in most cases the articles or books of religion remain the bible and the God spoken of therein, which are unimpeachable, even if the members themselves may be impeached on a range of matters relating to scriptural deviancy.

However I think there is good reason to respect and admire the Coptic Orthodox.

But Christianity will always be a "false-religion" and a very late addition (4th century).

Christianity is not "4th century." Even archaeology disproves it. Philosophical Christianity may be 4th century, but Christianity is more than philosophy and never was about philosophy.

That has no bearing on the Qur'an itself.
Prophet Muhammad (A.S.) appointed Ali as successor, Ali had a very very special and unique place in the Prophet's life and himself was divinely guided. Ali was Muhammad's son in law, one of the very first people to ever convert to Islam, one of the most intimate people with Muhammad. Ali was also married to Muhammad's daughter Fatimah.
Anyway there is initiatic succession between Muhammad and Ali that really deeply shows in the words and actions of Ali. Ali was a spiritual leader and a man akin to Buddha and Jesus in his wisdom.

On the other hand the ones that ended up evolving into the majority sect of Sunnism was a political movement led by Umar at the time who wanted to get Abu Bakr elected to rule Mecca and he succeeded. By the time we reach the Umayyads, there is very very intense hostility towards Ali, typified in the tradition of cursing Ali (yes, cursing the son-in-law of the Prophet).

As I suggest Islam is all about humanism, politics, marriage, descent, etc. All of this is completely missing from the origins of Christianity.

Christianity divided much more chaotically, there where so many sects and only a few were over successive disputes. The war between Paul, James and Peter was only one thing.

Was never a "war." Rather there was mutual respect unlike in Islam where this is literally "war."

Neither James or Peter were the true successors of Jesus, James was.
There is only one Jamesian book in the New Testament, which goes to show how deeply the Nazarene religion of Jesus (not "Christianity") has been buried. There is not much else to say, Christianity is just a personality cult which is not meant to make sense, it's supposed to inject emotions into you through your skin like heroin.

I cannot relate to anything you say. All of it is untrue. Christianity is a "cult of the spirit" if you like, but such is allowed where "God is spirit."

Sunni and Shia is like what would have happened if the stream of churches that became the Catholics hadn't been successful in their oppression and destruction of the simultaneous other forms of Jesus-sects competing with them. In particular, if the Nazarenes/Ebionites (the real Jesus-followers) hadn't been genocided and were still around today.

The Catholics were not successful, except in Europe. Non-catholic forms of Christianity survived everywhere outside Europe and even within Europe protestants arose from the beginning. Yet this is to pretend that "success" is linked to political dominion. In Christianity there is no correlation between "success" and political dominion, as there is in Islam.

 

[firedragon]

Was never a "war." Rather there was mutual respect unlike in Islam where this is literally "war."

You mean Paul vs James was not a war! How many were their followers to even discuss the concept of a war which you are depicting? Could you please give a number based on history how many were there?

If you are talking about Islamic "war" as in the Sunni vs Shia division you should know that it was a power struggle for a state or a kingdom. It was already a state. In the Judaia and whatever surrounding areas the question is in play, the Romans were the government, so James vs Paul could never be a war.

I understand that you are a sensible person, but please try to be more sophisticated in your comments brother. Make it quantifiable and compare apples to apples.

Peace.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

As I suggest Islam is all about humanism, politics, marriage, descent, etc. All of this is completely missing from the origins of Christianity.

That's far from true. Islam isn't anti-world like Christianity but it certainly doesn't glorify it either:

Know that the life of this world is just play and diversion, and glitter,and mutual vainglory among you and covetousness for wealth and children—like the rain whose vegetation impresses the farmer; then it withers and you see it turn yellow, then it becomes chaff,while in the Hereafter there is a severe punishment and forgiveness from God and His pleasure; and the life of this world is nothing but the wares of delusion.
Take the lead towards forgiveness from your Lord and a paradise as vast as the heavens and the earth, prepared for those who have faith in God and His messengers. That is God’s grace, which He grants to whomever He wishes, and God is dispenser of a great grace.
(Qur'an, Surah 57:20-21)

As for politics, it's just a part of every day life, likely for your yourself. Even Jesus in the New Testament conveys political views, the Old Testament is full of politics (from Moses all the way through to the Davidic line). Politics as we know it is very heavily influenced by the Abrahamic religions.
With religion, political views are usually an extension of theological, philosophical and eschatological views.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

A gross oversimplification. You're confusing churches and their hierarchies with the sources of religion, and even with their deity(ies). To consign all Catholics and all Protestants as "devil worshippers" is wrong and obviously defamatory, even if many are clearly in error. For not all indulge in the sins of the flesh, and many lead moral lives.

I'll take ownership to that without flinching.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

I cannot relate to anything you say. All of it is untrue. Christianity is a "cult of the spirit" if you like, but such is allowed where "God is spirit."

I'd recommend diving into this bombshell mammoth book from Robert Eisenmann: https://www.amazon.com/James-Brother-Jesus-Unlocking-Christianity/dp/014025773X

 

[firedragon]

The Catholics were not successful, except in Europe. Non-catholic forms of Christianity survived everywhere outside Europe and even within Europe protestants arose from the beginning. Yet this is to pretend that "success" is linked to political dominion. In Christianity there is no correlation between "success" and political dominion, as there is in Islam.

Then how did Catholics thrive to have more numbers than protestants today? And what do you mean protestants arose from the Beginning? Are you claiming everyone who protested was a "protestant" or are you talking about protestants as you know now? In that case the beginning you are speaking of is with Martin Luther in 1517 when he put out his 95 thesis. So your so called "Beginning" is only 500 years old mate.

What a statement you made saying "In Christianity there is no correlation between "success" and political dominion, as there is in Islam.", that's a most ignorant, bias, bogus statement any intelligent individual can make. You are talking just like a Shepard of innocent, ignorant people on TV for money. Read up. You have turned this thread into a war of bigotries with your mind numbing ignorance and irrelevant generalisations. I did not read all of your comments because I generally ignore or shrug off completely irrelevant comments, but now I see I was mistaken thinking what I thought about you mate.

 

[eik]

Then how did Catholics thrive to have more numbers than protestants today?

Simply because the Catholic church was very successful in persecuting protestants up until the reformation. But in many European countries Catholics which were once in the majority are now in a minority.

And what do you mean protestants arose from the Beginning?

Of course they were all labelled by Catholics as heretics: gnostics, dualists, Manichaeans, etc. Opponents of Catholicism were never credited as Chrisians. Yet many of them were, even if somehow in error, but error is a relative thing: Waldenses, Hussites, Lollards, Abigenses, Cathars, Bogomils, Donatists, Pelagians, antitrinitarians etc. were all in some sense bible believers. Almost every Catholic doctrine had its opponents in Europe, from the perpetual virginity of Mary to the doctrines of papal supremacy.

Are you claiming everyone who protested was a "protestant" or are you talking about protestants as you know now? In that case the beginning you are speaking of is with Martin Luther in 1517 when he put out his 95 thesis. So your so called "Beginning" is only 500 years old mate.

Protestantism started well before the reformation, from the year "dot." Although not "organized protestantism" necessarily. As I said, every Catholic imposition on biblical teaching there has ever been has been protested by someone, even the Nicene Creed was protested by those contemporaneous with it, not on the basis that it repudiated Arianism, but on the basis that it introduced pagan philosophy into Christianity. Organized protestantism also existed long before the reformation, as per the groups I mention above.

What a statement you made saying "In Christianity there is no correlation between "success" and political dominion, as there is in Islam.", that's a most ignorant, bias, bogus statement any intelligent individual can make. You are talking just like a Shepard of innocent, ignorant people on TV for money. Read up. You have turned this thread into a war of bigotries with your mind numbing ignorance and irrelevant generalisations. I did not read all of your comments because I generally ignore or shrug off completely irrelevant comments, but now I see I was mistaken thinking what I thought about you mate.

Eh? When did Jesus ever say that political dominion was the hall mark of Christianity? He said his kingdom was not of this world. As Paul said, "there is a remnant chosen by grace." Rom 11:4. As Rev 12:6, the women (the church) flees into the desert to escape the persecution of the world. If you think Christianity is a game of thrones, you're in the wrong ball park! Although that's not to say it isn't always a good thing when rulers do believe. It is but so many do not believe.

 

[eik]

That's far from true. Islam isn't anti-world like Christianity but it certainly doesn't glorify it either:

Know that the life of this world is just play and diversion, and glitter,and mutual vainglory among you and covetousness for wealth and children—like the rain whose vegetation impresses the farmer; then it withers and you see it turn yellow, then it becomes chaff,while in the Hereafter there is a severe punishment and forgiveness from God and His pleasure; and the life of this world is nothing but the wares of delusion.
Take the lead towards forgiveness from your Lord and a paradise as vast as the heavens and the earth, prepared for those who have faith in God and His messengers. That is God’s grace, which He grants to whomever He wishes, and God is dispenser of a great grace.
(Qur'an, Surah 57:20-21)

As for politics, it's just a part of every day life, likely for your yourself. Even Jesus in the New Testament conveys political views, the Old Testament is full of politics (from Moses all the way through to the Davidic line). Politics as we know it is very heavily influenced by the Abrahamic religions.
With religion, political views are usually an extension of theological, philosophical and eschatological views.

The last words of Christ were "Now my kingdom is not of this world" Jn 18:36, which is a far cry from Islam's preoccupation with winning thrones.

 

[firedragon]

Simply because the Catholic church was very successful in persecuting protestants up until the reformation. But in many European countries Catholics which were once in the majority are now in a minority.

I am not a Catholic or Protestant so I don't have anything persona in this matter like you obviously do, but what ever you say here, Catholics are still the majority, and that's not some emotional statement like the one you are making, its just simple numbers.

Of course they were all labelled by Catholics as heretics: gnostics, dualists, Manichaeans, etc. Opponents of Catholicism were never credited as Chrisians. Yet many of them were, even if somehow in error, but error is a relative thing: Waldenses, Hussites, Lollards, Abigenses, Cathars, Bogomils, Donatists, Pelagians, antitrinitarians etc. were all in some sense bible believers. Almost every Catholic doctrine had its opponents in Europe, from the perpetual virginity of Mary to the doctrines of papal supremacy.

How about Arians? Lol. Mate, are you saying that your protestant Christianity is the same as all of these names you mentioned?

Protestantism started well before the reformation, from the year "dot." Although not "organized protestantism" necessarily. As I said, every Catholic imposition on biblical teaching there has ever been has been protested by someone, even the Nicene Creed was protested by those contemporaneous with it, not on the basis that it repudiated Arianism, but on the basis that it introduced pagan philosophy into Christianity. Organized protestantism also existed long before the reformation, as per the groups I mention above.

So do you consider the Catholic Church "protestant" as well because they were a minority in the beginning? Lets say do you consider the "Arians" as protestants as well because they were also a so called group that were protesting?

Eh? When did Jesus ever say that political dominion was the hall mark of Christianity?

I don't know mate. You tell me what you even ask that question. You are saying things, and then you ask others questions as if they said it.

He said his kingdom was not of this world. As Paul said, "there is a remnant chosen by grace." Rom 11:4. As Rev 12:6, the women (the church) flees into the desert to escape the persecution of the world. If you think Christianity is a game of thrones, you're in the wrong ball park! Although that's not to say it isn't always a good thing when rulers do believe. It is but so many do not believe.

Irrelevant, straw man, and all kinds of logic has gone with the thames.

 

[eik]

I am not a Catholic or Protestant so I don't have anything persona in this matter like you obviously do, but what ever you say here, Catholics are still the majority, and that's not some emotional statement like the one you are making, its just simple numbers.

Catholics are in a majority In 12 countries in Europe. They are not in a majority in a roughly similar number, although far more if you include eastern european countries.
5 facts about Catholics in Europe

How about Arians? Lol. Mate, are you saying that your protestant Christianity is the same as all of these names you mentioned?

Arians have never comprised a specific European denomination until JWs came along from the USA in the 1890s. Oh yes, unitarianism did become legal in 1813 (in the UK), but I don't think even arians would accept them as true Christians, as they are so wacky in their opinions, being the embodiment of all kinds of heresies. They were never a large UK denomination.

No my brand of protestantism isn't identical to all of what I've mentioned. In any case many protestants have remained part of the Catholic church whilst doing their protesting, like Lollands.


Catholicism does allow for a fair lattitude of views. There are today plenty of internal Catholic "protestants" who disagree with other Catholics about all kinds of things. The main thing you have to do to be a Catholic is accept the Pope as the head of the church, which I could not do, and also accept things like transubstantiation and the like, which I also could not do.

So do you consider the Catholic Church "protestant" as well because they were a minority in the beginning? Lets say do you consider the "Arians" as protestants as well because they were also a so called group that were protesting?

There was nothing to protest about in the early church, because the average Christian only had the scriptures and little else. Although the Roman church was early regarded as first amongst equals, the Roman Catholic church didn't really exist as such until after the Council of Chalcedon when it began to exert a more dominant force over the other churches, becoming very much an unequal power and refusing to recognize other churches. It's powers became especially strong in the 6th century and afterwards when resurrected after the Goth invasions of Rome by the Byzantium empire. It grew extremely strong from the 8th century when it assumed territory directly in the form of the papal states.

So arians as protestants? Not really, both because of heresy and the wrong era: it was really a philosophical controversy rather than a religious controversy, as it rebelled again a prevailing trinitarian philosophy not so much a biblical doctrine as originally conceived; although afterwards was extended into all kinds of wierd beliefs. To be protestant requires a degree of orthodoxy that I wouldn't bestow on arians who deprecate the status of the Word as God in John 1. If you include muslims as arians, then I guess they are currently the most successful arian denomination, but that is because they are so political. I suppose they might be called protestant but as with unitarians they seek the complete overthrow of Christianity, so not really protestant as such.

I don't know mate. You tell me what you even ask that question. You are saying things, and then you ask others questions as if they said it.
Irrelevant, straw man, and all kinds of logic has gone with the thames.

??????????? The bible is never a "straw man." The church is about the salvation of souls not the establishment of thrones.

 

[firedragon]

Catholics are in a majority In 12 countries in Europe. They are not in a majority in a roughly similar number, although far more if you include eastern european countries.
5 facts about Catholics in Europe

Majority in the world. We don't have to hide facts.

Arians have never comprised a specific European denomination until JWs came along from the USA in the 1890s. Oh yes, unitarianism did become legal in 1813 (in the UK), but I don't think even arians would accept them as true Christians, as they are so wacky in their opinions, being the embodiment of all kinds of heresies. They were never a large UK denomination.

No my brand of protestantism isn't identical to all of what I've mentioned. In any case many protestants have remained part of the Catholic church whilst doing their protesting, like Lollands.


Catholicism does allow for a fair lattitude of views. There are today plenty of internal Catholic "protestants" who disagree with other Catholics about all kinds of things. The main thing you have to do to be a Catholic is accept the Pope as the head of the church, which I could not do, and also accept things like transubstantiation and the like, which I also could not do.

It was you who said all of them were protestants. And you are wrong. Read up.

??????????? The bible is never a "straw man." The church is about the salvation of souls not the establishment of thrones.

Nope, it is you who is creating straw man. If you can't understand that sentence, google it.

 

[eik]

It was you who said all of them were protestants. And you are wrong. Read up.

It's a matter of definitions and I don't accept yours. I was using protestant to include "pre-protestant" which, in being contextually obvious, does not make my "wrongness" worthy of note.

Beside which the word "protestant" includes notable pre-protestants by common usage today. In pre-protestant days you were automatically assumed to belong to the church you were baptized in, which would have been Catholic, whatever views you held, even if you construed the Pope as antichrist, like Servetus & Wycliffe, who were always technically Catholic even though they held that view. Every "history of protestanism" will treat of these "pre-protestants" as if protestants.

 

[firedragon]

It's a matter of definitions and I don't accept yours. I was using protestant to include "pre-protestant" which, in being contextually obvious, does not make my "wrongness" worthy of note.

I didn't define anything mate. I was just pointing you. What you were wrong, is about Arians. Absolutely.

Beside which the word "protestant" includes notable pre-protestants by common usage today. In pre-protestant days you were automatically assumed to belong to the church you were baptized in, which would have been Catholic, whatever views you held, even if you construed the Pope as antichrist, like Servetus & Wycliffe, who were always technically Catholic even though they held that view. Every "history of protestanism" will treat of these "pre-protestants" as if protestants.

You said all of those people including Arians were protestants. Now you seem to be changing your stance. But then again, this conversation is over.

Peace.

 

[eik]

I didn't define anything mate. I was just pointing you. What you were wrong, is about Arians. Absolutely.

You said all of those people including Arians were protestants. Now you seem to be changing your stance. But then again, this conversation is over.
Peace.

So you're just trying to trip me up, eh? Pathetic, as I said nothing of the kind. I did not say "Arians were protestants." I said the exact contrary:

.
"So arians as protestants? Not really, both because of heresy and the wrong era:"
​

I said that to be a protestant, you have to have a reasonable amount of Christian orthodoxy, which today's arians do not have, so are not to be deemed "protestants" because they desire to overthrow Christianity itself. As to ancient arians, one "might" say that they were "protestors" but eventually too heretical to be classified as protestants IMO because of denying John 1. Yet the issues were far more subtle in the early church, than today's very crude arians, and included many flavours of "arian" / semi-arian controversy.

As to era, I suggested that in the early church, protestants didn't have cause to exist because the church was neither sophisticated enough (or heretical enough) for anyone remotely orthodox to desire to break off communion. As the arian controversy was "initially" largely philosophical and largely political, the desire to break off relations didn't arise. Eventually the hardline arians got excomunicated entirely, and became officially "heretics" rather than protestants.

I also conceded individual protestors against all kinds of things, as exists in Catholicism today. But they are not strictly "protestants" and were not strictly protestants in the early church.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

The last words of Christ were "Now my kingdom is not of this world" Jn 18:36

So you're saying that (as you believe Jesus is God incarnate, etc). That's God doesn't own the material world? so you're saying that earth is somewhere that God's power and influence is limited etc?

"Do you not know that God's is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, and that besides God you have no guardian or helper?" (Surah 2:107)

"To Him is the kingdom of the heavens and the earth: He gives life and brings death, and He has power over all things. He is the First and the Last, the Manifest and the Hidden, and He has knowledge of all things." (Surah 57:2-3)

Aka, the kingdom of God is everything inner and outer, all of creation manifest and hidden is God's. "as on earth as it is in heaven" very much.

which is a far cry from Islam's preoccupation with winning thrones.

There is no "Islam" there, it is Muslims and not in a monolithic manner. If you see the world like that, then I feel very sorry for you, black and white glasses.

 

[firedragon]

So you're just trying to trip me up, eh? Pathetic, as I said nothing of the kind. I did not say "Arians were protestants." I said the exact contrary:

.
"So arians as protestants? Not really, both because of heresy and the wrong era:"
​

I said that to be a protestant, you have to have a reasonable amount of Christian orthodoxy, which today's arians do not have, so are not to be deemed "protestants" because they desire to overthrow Christianity itself. As to ancient arians, one "might" say that they were "protestors" but eventually too heretical to be classified as protestants IMO because of denying John 1. Yet the issues were far more subtle in the early church, than today's very crude arians, and included many flavours of "arian" / semi-arian controversy.

As to era, I suggested that in the early church, protestants didn't have cause to exist because the church was neither sophisticated enough (or heretical enough) for anyone remotely orthodox to desire to break off communion. As the arian controversy was "initially" largely philosophical and largely political, the desire to break off relations didn't arise. Eventually the hardline arians got excomunicated entirely, and became officially "heretics" rather than protestants.

I also conceded individual protestors against all kinds of things, as exists in Catholicism today. But they are not strictly "protestants" and were not strictly protestants in the early church.

Nope. You have a problem.