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

[eik]

I can ask you many questions, because I have read the book. Assuming you have too since you are quoting it, can you answer these most basic questions based on the same book. Please go ahead, or just ignore the questions like you did earlier already which would go to show you just quote anyone with out any knowledge on the subject.

Have I "quoted the book?" You do have very great tendency to misquote other users. This is the second time, in almost as many posts that you are alleging things of others posters that are plainly untrue. I have not quoted the book, but cited its existence; and I have certainly read a detailed synopsis of the book by an Islamic expert in another book, whose name I will not reveal, but I have not read the book myself, although it is on my list of books to read. Anyway, you are unable to answer my point in citing this book, which is that there is "no divine authority" in Islam for anything.

If one is seeking "divine authority" one won't discover it in Islam. All one will disover is a diverse range of opinions on this and that, as theologically diverse as the Umayyads are from the Wahhabi, which is presumably why Islam is reduced to "fire and sword" to exert its "supremacy."

 

[firedragon]

Have I "quoted the book?" You do have very great tendency to misquote other users. This is the second time, in almost as many posts that you are alleging things of others posters that are plainly untrue. I have not quoted the book, but cited its existence; and I have certainly read a detailed synopsis of the book by an Islamic expert in another book, whose name I will not reveal, but I have not read the book myself, although it is on my list of books to read. Anyway, you are unable to answer my point in citing this book, which is that there is "no divine authority" in Islam for anything.

If one is seeking "divine authority" one won't discover it in Islam. All one will disover is a diverse range of opinions on this and that, as theologically diverse as the Umayyads are from the Wahhabi, which is presumably why Islam is reduced to "fire and sword" to exert its "supremacy."

Ah so you didn't quote the book. You just cited he is a scholar but you didn't quote the book you mean?

So what are you saying here?

Question begging. For who decides who has studied the Koran the most thoroughly? For myself I prefer to rely on scholars such as Christoph Luxenberg. He has a book, The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran: A Contribution to the Decoding of the Language of the Koran being an English-language edition (2007) of Die syro-aramäische Lesart des Koran: Ein Beitrag zur Entschlüsselung der Koransprache (2000). You might find the erudition in this book greater than that of your average Imam,

Anyway, do you have a habit of citing books you never read or understood?

And can you substantiate your claim that "You might find the erudition in this book greater than that of your average Imam" and "I prefer to rely on scholars such as Christoph Luxenberg"?

1. Who is he?
2. Whats his scholarship?
3. Why did he make an error about the same manuscript in his cover?
4. What is the manuscript on the cover?

I asked you many questions. Of course since you have no clue, you cannot answer. Your bogus escape route of straw man arguments are expected of course. Go ahead.

 

[eik]

For this, you need some more from the Bible.

I've read it many times.

I don't wish your dismissive, apologetic answers, I am only showing you the same gutter game the type of people like you play.

No, your're playing the gutter game from this reason:

The events you refer to in the bible take place circa 1000 years before Christ, and 1500 years before Mahomet. The people lived a hand to mouth existence. There was no "social security" no prison camps ,no guns, no use for prisoners who like Spartacus might rebel and overthrow their Masters, and no surplus of food. Where a people had shown itself to be completely and utterly at emnity with the Israelites and their God, only their destruction was warranted.

The example I quote is from an era where law was the universal practice of all civilized nations. Christ himself showed that due process must be followed. Mahomet abandoned it to order the killing of idolators (period), not for any other reason than that they are "idolators." It's in the Koran too.

 

[firedragon]

I've read it many times.


No, your're playing the gutter game from this reason:

The events you refer to in the bible take place circa 1000 years before Christ, and 1500 years before Mahomet. The people lived a hand to mouth existence. There was no "social security" no prison camps ,no guns, no use for prisoners who like Spartacus might rebel and overthrow their Masters, and no surplus of food. Where a people had shown itself to be completely and utterly an emnity with the Israelites and its God, only their destruction was warranted.

The example I quote is from an era where law was the universal practice of all civilized nations. Christ himself showed that due process must be followed. Mahomet abandoned it to order the killing of idolators (period), not for any other reason than that they are "idolators." It's in the Koran too.

Rape and the Spoils of War (Judges 5:30)

They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera’s spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil. (Judges 5:30)

Sex Slaves (Exodus 21:7-11)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

God Assists Rape and Plunder (Zechariah 14:1-2)

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

 

[eik]

Rape and the Spoils of War (Judges 5:30)

They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera’s spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil. (Judges 5:30)

Sex Slaves (Exodus 21:7-11)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

Muslims know a lot about that too. Think Yazidis. Think harem of the Ottoman sultans where thousands of women were kidnapped for the harem. Kidnapping on a grand scale? The Barbary pirates kidnapped Christians for centuries. Slavery? Muslim participation in slavery was not abolished in Saudi Arabia until Treaty of Jeddah, May 1927, 120 years after the 1807 Act abolished slave trafficking in the UK. In other gulf states, not until much later.

In ancient Israel, they lived a hand to mouth existence, but also all slaves were to be freed every 49 years. Slavery in Israel was not like slavery in civilized society. More like indentured servitude. It was necessary to prevent starvation where no social security existed.

Actually I was wrong about dates. The law was given circa 1500 years before Christ. Completely different era then. States lived in a near permanent state of war with their neighbors. Different times, different culture. The law was geared to promoting welfare and happiness.

God Assists Rape and Plunder (Zechariah 14:1-2)

Lo, a day shall come for the Lord when the spoils shall be divided in your midst. And I will gather all the nations against Jerusalem for battle: the city shall be taken, houses plundered, women ravished; half of the city shall go into exile, but the rest of the people shall not be removed from the city. (Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

Indeed. The wrath of God is a terrible thing. Muslims should know it also. 1.7 million muslims were killedin the conquest of Khwarezmia 1219-1221by Genghis Khan including civilians (25% of the population), and up to 2 million by Hulagu Khan in 1258 at the seige of Baghdad.

See also Revelation for a large prophecy of the huge amounts of wrath visited on mankind for not believing in.....Jesus Christ.

 

[firedragon]

Muslims know a lot about that too. Think Yazidis. Think harem of the Ottoman sultans where thousands of women were kidnapped for the harem. Kidnapping on a grand scale? The Barbary pirates kidnapped Christians for centuries. Slavery? Muslim participation in slavery was not abolished in Saudi Arabia until Treaty of Jeddah, May 1927, 120 years after the 1807 Act abolished slave trafficking in the UK. In other gulf states, not until much later.

In ancient Israel, they lived a hand to mouth existence, but also all slaves were to be freed every 49 years. Slavery in Israel was not like slavery in civilized society. More like indentured servitude. It was necessary to prevent starvation where no social security existed.

Actually I was wrong about dates. The law was given circa 1500 years before Christ. Completely different era then. States lived in a near permanent state of war with their neighbors. Different times, different culture. The law was geared to promoting welfare and happiness.


Indeed. The wrath of God is a terrible thing. Muslims should know it also. 1.7 million muslims were killedin the conquest of Khwarezmia 1219-1221by Genghis Khan including civilians (25% of the population), and up to 2 million by Hulagu Khan in 1258 at the seige of Baghdad.

See also Revelation for a large prophecy of the huge amounts of wrath visited on mankind for not believing in.....Jesus Christ.

Ignorance. Intellectual dishonesty. You just jumped from your lies, and your B.S scholarship and insults to Israel, kidnapping and someone else in a forum about Jesus. Check yourself. Ciao.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Christianity began as a heretical Jewish sect, which eventually got kicked out of the synagogues. It eventually became a new Gentile religion, and no concern of ours.

I don't believe the early Jewish believers thought Jesus was God, except maybe for Paul, who remember came from Turkey -- he was a diaspora Jew.

On the contrary, the first Christians were all Jews.
Jesus was a jew.
Even before Paul, the Jews recognised Jesus as the Word of God.

Please take note that the first Jewish Christians understood that God was a Triune God.
It was the Existance of God, which is called YHWH.
Then the Spirit of God, YHWH Ruach, and then the Word of God.

Jesus was not just some man who claimed to be God, forbid such idolatory.
He was also not some man made a god by some Jewish sect, this would be impossible to have any Jewish believer to preach.
Anyone accusing even Paul of such, are deliberately ignoring the fact that NO JEW WOULD EVER HAVE DONE SUCH!
The Word of YHWH was sent to earth, and had to be in the form of a Man.
The physical DNA body of Jesus was not God, but the Word, or Mind inside this body was God.

 

[firedragon]

Even before Paul, the Jews recognised Jesus as the Word of God.

Thats interesting. Where is it stated that before Paul the Jews recognised Jesus as "Word of God"?

 

[eik]

Ignorance. Intellectual dishonesty. You just jumped from your lies, and your B.S scholarship and insults to Israel, kidnapping and someone else in a forum about Jesus. Check yourself. Ciao.

Intellectual dishonesty (about what - historical facts?)

Your lies (About what?)

BS scholarship (More you know, anyway)

Insults to Israel (Never mentioned "Israel" the country)

Kidnapping (you mentioned it first).

Check yourself? (In the righteousness stakes, muslims have few saints but many "warriors for Allah." May be it is true that Islam and Christianity really have nothing in common, not even a communal "Jesus")

 

[firedragon]

Intellectual dishonesty (about what - historical facts?)

Your lies (About what?)

BS scholarship (More you know, anyway)

Insults to Israel (Never mentioned "Israel" the country)

Kidnapping (you mentioned it first).

Check yourself? (In the righteousness stakes, muslims have few saints but many "warriors for Allah." May be it is true that Islam and Christianity really have nothing in common, not even a communal "Jesus")

Tsk. Ciao.

 

[SA Huguenot]

Thats interesting. Where is it stated that before Paul the Jews recognised Jesus as "Word of God"?

Perhaps my English translateed to Afrikaans was not so brilliant.
Actually it was poor.
My intention was to say that the Jews who became Christian, even before Paul, realised that Jesus was the Word of God.
My word Recognised and realised and my intention of pinpointing to the Jews who lived during Jesus' time, could understand that a Jesus could be the Word of God.

This was the case in Jesus' acceptance as Him being God.
Not because a Man can become God, but because the manifestation of the Word of God, could become a man.

After I read William Christian Pauli, or Zebi Nasi Hirsch Prinz's publication, how can 3 be one, I looked at his sources and was amaised at the fact that the first century Jews had no problem in understanding the Trinity.
It was an Old Testament feature, Jewish scripture such as

• Jerusalem Targum by Jonathan Ben Uzziel, dating long before the Christian era.
• Targum Onkelos (on the Torah)
• Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel (on the prophets)
• He also consulted the writings of Philo Judaeus of Alexandria who lived 20 BC to about 50 AD.
• Whilst he consulted the Zohar, he made it very clear on page 5, “I will also consult thee, but must as I love thee, yet thou must be beneath the Word of God. Thy testimony I cannot receive, further than it agrees with Moses and the Prophets.” The reason for his resistance to the Zohar was because he knew the Cabbalistic influence was non-scriptural and he knew they were misusing the Zohar.
• C.W.H. Pauli made it very clear on page 2. The “Biblia Magna Hebraica” (Hebrew Bible) will be his instructor and it overrules everything else.

Once you understand that the Trinity was a concept long before Paul, you will have to conclude that Christianity is the heir to the Tanakah.

 

[firedragon]

Perhaps my English translateed to Afrikaans was not so brilliant.
Actually it was poor.
My intention was to say that the Jews who became Christian, even before Paul, realised that Jesus was the Word of God.
My word Recognised and realised and my intention of pinpointing to the Jews who lived during Jesus' time, could understand that a Jesus could be the Word of God.

This was the case in Jesus' acceptance as Him being God.
Not because a Man can become God, but because the manifestation of the Word of God, could become a man.

After I read William Christian Pauli, or Zebi Nasi Hirsch Prinz's publication, how can 3 be one, I looked at his sources and was amaised at the fact that the first century Jews had no problem in understanding the Trinity.
It was an Old Testament feature, Jewish scripture such as

• Jerusalem Targum by Jonathan Ben Uzziel, dating long before the Christian era.
• Targum Onkelos (on the Torah)
• Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel (on the prophets)
• He also consulted the writings of Philo Judaeus of Alexandria who lived 20 BC to about 50 AD.
• Whilst he consulted the Zohar, he made it very clear on page 5, “I will also consult thee, but must as I love thee, yet thou must be beneath the Word of God. Thy testimony I cannot receive, further than it agrees with Moses and the Prophets.” The reason for his resistance to the Zohar was because he knew the Cabbalistic influence was non-scriptural and he knew they were misusing the Zohar.
• C.W.H. Pauli made it very clear on page 2. The “Biblia Magna Hebraica” (Hebrew Bible) will be his instructor and it overrules everything else.

Once you understand that the Trinity was a concept long before Paul, you will have to conclude that Christianity is the heir to the Tanakah.

Brother, with all due respect, there are no Jewish scriptures or any kind of document including the completely hellenised Philo who speaks about the logos has anything to do with "Jesus". Citing them is not valid.

There is nothing in the New Testament written before Paul started writing so there is no documentary evidence to anything before Paul.

Anyway Ibn curious. Can you quote me the exact words of Pauli as you have cited and how that makes "Jesus the word of God and was so before Paul"?

 

[lukethethird]

Thats interesting. Where is it stated that before Paul the Jews recognised Jesus as "Word of God"?

Philo wrote essays about the first born son of God that may have influenced Paul.

 

[firedragon]

Philo wrote essays about the first born son of God that may have influenced Paul.

But the question is about "before Paul".

 

[eik]

Tsk. Ciao.

Good riddance.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The only reason a person would have for believing the Quran accounts of Jesus are historical is if they believe that Muhammad was literally given this information by an angel of God. If you go by scholarship, it's pretty obvious that the closer to the event a claim is, the more likely it is to be correct. The gospels themselves are pretty far removed, and already filled with a lot of legend.

 

[lukethethird]

The only reason a person would have for believing the Quran accounts of Jesus are historical is if they believe that Muhammad was literally given this information by an angel of God. If you go by scholarship, it's pretty obvious that the closer to the event a claim is, the more likely it is to be correct. The gospels themselves are pretty far removed, and already filled with a lot of legend.

No matter, every word of the gospels is the historical truth. Just pretend you didn't read the supernatural bits and you too can believe.

 

[firedragon]

The only reason a person would have for believing the Quran accounts of Jesus are historical is if they believe that Muhammad was literally given this information by an angel of God. If you go by scholarship, it's pretty obvious that the closer to the event a claim is, the more likely it is to be correct. The gospels themselves are pretty far removed, and already filled with a lot of legend.

No. The only reason to believe the Quran accounts in the OP are historical is to compare with historical sources and verify if the information is in accordance to what ever we have from historical sources.

You are talking "Not about" the OP but something else. As you would see throughout this post most people have been irrelevant you have done the same.

 

[lukethethird]

No. The only reason to believe the Quran accounts in the OP are historical is to compare with historical sources and verify if the information is in accordance to what ever we have from historical sources.

You are talking "Not about" the OP but something else. As you would see throughout this post most people have been irrelevant you have done the same.

We don't have historical sources, just theology, of which there is no shortage of.

 

[firedragon]

We don't have historical sources, just theology, of which there is no shortage of.

I am not referring to theology. As you will see in this thread we have discussed Josephus and Tacitus, while neglecting theological interpolations into the antiquities of the Jews. So this thread has nothing to do with theology or any theological sources. It is a simple identification of historical points the Quran is making and comparing it to other historical sources we have may it be the ver few we do.

 

[VoidoftheSun]

No matter, every word of the gospels is the historical truth. Just pretend you didn't read the supernatural bits and you too can believe.

Which one?