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

[firedragon]

The OP question: Is the Muslim Jesus cited in the Qur'an possibly historical?

No, but it does have historically correct information. Same deal with the Gospel accounts. I don’t see the purpose of the Quran as portraying an historically correct Jesus.

The purpose of the Gospel writers however was most likely to meet the urgent needs of some of the Churches, particularly with the impending Jewish-Roman conflict, and to provide a written account of the Life and Teachings of Jesus the Christ. As conflict and crisis drew near, Christ hadn’t returned as some had expected. It was now over 30 years since Christ had been crucified and eye witnesses to the Life and Teachings of Christ were becoming scarce. Some key leaders were Martyred.

The purpose of Muhammad’s Teachings OTOH was to educate His followers about Prophets that had lived beforehand. However in regards Christ it was also to highlight essential Teachings and correct misconceptions. Muhammad’s audiences unlike some of the Jews Christ taught, had little prior knowledge of Judaism. They had been pagans and often nomadic tribesmen with limited or no education. Muhammad Himself was illiterate. So the purpose of the Gospel writers and Muhammad’s aims were quite different as was the capacity of Their respective audiences.

However to answer the question of historicity we need to examine the facts concerning the Life and Teachings of Christ. That involves a critical, historical and textural analysis of all the key works including those within Christendom such as the NT books but non Christian works such as Josephus and Tacitus. The Quran being compiled six hundred years after Christ was crucified would not be considered a useful or valid source of historical information by Non-Muslim scholars

The overwhelming consensus of historians is that Jesus was an itinerant preacher who had a following, was baptised and crucified. There are a few historians who regard Jesus as purely mythical. There’s no reputable historians that I’m aware of who claims Jesus lived but He wasn’t crucified or executed.

For the purposes of the OP question, it is the crucifixion of Christ where Western historians and Mainstream Muslims most vigorously disagree in regards the historical Jesus. As one Muslim has indicated, the Quran is all important and the Quran doesn’t place value on the reliability of historical knowledge. That attitude would be a major turn off for many non-Muslim Westerners such as myself. The lights go out. The only way any significant numbers of westerners would think as Muslims do, is if they were to convert to Islam. I can’t see that happening anytime soon but at least we can have civilised discourse and agree to disagree. Thanks again for starting the thread @firedragon.

You are discussing various other things brother. Its your prerogative, but its not relevant. Peace.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Yeah? In the NT too? I was not aware.

In which case the Muslim Jesus doesn't sound any different from the Christian Jesus.

Well no... remember the the first Christians were Jews. Some of the Sanhedrin and other jewish leaders tried to get Jesus killed but the Romans did the killing in the end. Some jews said that Jesus blood be upon them and all their children, but that wasn't all Jews, and they were incited by their leaders. The Bible doesn't lump all Jews together and say that they are all responsible for the death of Jesus. That would be Jewish deicide which the NT doesn't support but some Christians do. Plus Jesus had to die according to the Bible so him being killed was a good thing. So those who did the killing should be thanked.

Jewish Deicide (cool name):
Jewish deicide - Wikipedia

 

[Harel13]

So those who did the killing should be thanked.

Ooo, Ooo! Do we get a medal?






Somehow, I feel not...

 

[Harel13]

That would be Jewish deicide which the NT doesn't support but some Christians do.

It took a long time until most Christians stopped believing it does...

 

[Samael_Khan]

Ooo, Ooo! Do we get a medal?






Somehow, I feel not...

No no no. The Romans should get the medal.

You guys get the consolation prize.

 

[Harel13]

No no no. The Romans should get the medal.

Darn Romans. (big understatement)

 

[Samael_Khan]

It took a long time until most Christians stopped believing it does...

Oh yeah. I have looked up the history of the Jewish persecution. You guys were usually used as the enemy for the leaders to rally the mobs.

I even read that people gave the Jews the jobs they hated, such as banking, and then when the Jews got rich people started hating they had. And they accused you guys of causing the Black Death because you guys didn't get it much, because your cats ate all the rats. The Jews are always in a lose-lose situation.

 

[Harel13]

And they accused you guys of causing the Black Death because you guys didn't get it much

Recently, there have been in the news reports that Jews around the world are now being blamed for Covid-19...

I even read that people gave the Jews the jobs they hated, such as banking, and then when the Jews got rich people started hating they had. And they accused you guys of causing the Black Death because you guys didn't get it much, because your cats ate all the rats.

a. At least some of these hateful jobs became hateful because church leaders preached that they were evil positions. That's why you have Shakespeare portraying Shylock the Jew as a mean, evil, greedy money-lender.
b. I heard the Black Death claims were because the Jews supposedly practiced witchcraft. The cat point is interesting. I was often told it had to do with Jewish ritualistic washing - washing hands before eating, after, when waking up in the morning, after using the bathroom, and mikveh, of course - in other words, they kept better hygiene than the average non-Jew. However, many Jews still died, much like the non-Jews.

The Jews are always in a lose-lose situation.

Definitely.

 

[Samael_Khan]

Recently, there have been in the news reports that Jews around the world are now being blamed for Covid-19...

WHYYYYY am i not surprised....

a. At least some of these hateful jobs became hateful because church leaders preached that they were evil positions. That's why you have Shakespeare portraying Shylock the Jew as a mean, evil, greedy money-lender.
b. I heard the Black Death claims were because the Jews supposedly practiced witchcraft. The cat point is interesting. I was often told it had to do with Jewish ritualistic washing - washing hands before eating, after, when waking up in the morning, after using the bathroom, and mikveh, of course - in other words, they kept better hygiene than the average non-Jew. However, many Jews still died, much like the non-Jews.
.

Yeah, they were considered evil positions and a few Jewish haters want those positions. The irony.

Yeah, for whatever reason, the Jews didn't contract the plague, so people in their ignorance thought that the Jews caused it by using witchcraft.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Can you show me this historical evidence? If its the Bible, sorry that's not historical evidence. If you wish to discuss if the Bible is historical you could always do that in a new thread. I am not considering there Quran or the Bible or any other book on theology as a historical evidence. This is just to see if the Quran matches with the Historical Jesus.

Anyway, if there are any historical sources that say Jesus was crucified for sure I would like to see that. And as claimed throughout these 20 or whatever centuries if you could produce some evidence to Jews being the murderers let's see some historical evidence. It will be nice. Thanks.

What is a historical evidence? And how is it determined if a historical evidence or story is valid.

The validity of historical documents is always logically tested. This is how, for example, the archeologists make conclusions. Surely Bible is a historical evidence! It dates back fairly close to the time of Jesus, and the narrators claim They witnessed all those events. It states Jesus was crucified. Now, you would have to see if there is anything else that can give us doubt about what Bible says with regards to crucifying Jesus.. Are there any other historical evidences that shows Jesus was not crucified?. Even in some early Jewish documents a man by the name Jesus is said to have claimed to be Messiah, and was killed.
If you are saying Bible is wrong regarding crucifixion, it is your job to show evidences to disprove it.
If you wanted to see, if what Quran says literally matches with history, obviously it is your job to show historical evidences that shows Jesus was not crucified. What did happen to Jesus then?

 

[firedragon]

What is a historical evidence? And how is it determined if a historical evidence or story is valid.

The validity of historical documents is always logically tested. This is how, for example, the archeologists make conclusions. Surely Bible is a historical evidence! It dates back fairly close to the time of Jesus, and the narrators claim They witnessed all those events. It states Jesus was crucified. Now, you would have to see if there is anything else that can give us doubt about what Bible says with regards to crucifying Jesus.. Are there any other historical evidences that shows Jesus was not crucified?. Even in some early Jewish documents a man by the name Jesus is said to have claimed to be Messiah, and was killed.
If you are saying Bible is wrong regarding crucifixion, it is your job to show evidences to disprove it.
If you wanted to see, if what Quran says literally matches with history, obviously it is your job to show historical evidences that shows Jesus was not crucified. What did happen to Jesus then?

Maybe you should read through this thread. There were some good discussions.

 

[firedragon]

Recently, there have been in the news reports that Jews around the world are now being blamed for Covid-19...

Thats the silliest thing Ive heard. But truly, I have not seen any News report or anything of the sort. Let me see, it will be some interesting entertainment to read something as dumb as this.

 

[Dawnofhope]

That's what I said as well.
A three day death, I believe, if carried out by a pro.

So how does that refute anything I wrote? You've just helped my case

And the spear thrust could have saved his life, whoever was up there. All those fluids emptied from the lung?

Time for a review.

Who said the fluid emptied from His lung? Let’s consider the narrative from the Gospel of John:

Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.
Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.
But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:
But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.
And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.

John 19:25-38

It seems clear enough the Jesus died of traumatic hypovolaemic shock due to injuries sustained from the beating He had sustained in the lead up to the crucifixion.

Hypovolemic shock - Wikipedia

Thirst is a classic sign and the fluid and blood most likely arose from his abdominal cavity as a result of ruptured internal organs such as his spleen, liver and bowel. That’s why he died relatively quickly. Admittedly the fluid could have arisen from his lung or even heart with a haemothorax or pericardial tamponade.

Hemothorax - Wikipedia

However there were no breathing difficulties reported and Jesus was able to speak clearly to His mother and probably the apostle John just prior to His death. Having a spear thrust into the lung is not a recognised treatment of haemothorax!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

You learned in the university that "1. Muhammad hung around with a lot of Jews and Arian Christians 2. and was influenced by their beliefs. 3. Undoubtedly, however, he had his own ideas as well. 4. The Quran was a mixture of all this."?

Can you please quote the textbook that taught you this exact points?

This was back in 1991 at CSULB under Dr. Robert Eisenman. I forgot what texts (plural) we used long ago (besides a translation of the Quran).

 

[lukethethird]

Hi.....
Based upon the balance of probabilities, the stories of both the Baptist and Jesus are true, but with frills attached .... mostly for Christianity.

The Temple, it's Priesthood corruption, the coinage, the abuse of the peasantry, the Immerser's movement..... the lot...... and Jesus.

All there....

The stories of the Baptist and Jesus are pure fantasy, yet some still believe.

 

[lukethethird]

Are you asking about historical reliability of the Gospels?

The historical reliability of the Gospels refers to the reliability and historic character of the four New Testament gospels as historical documents. While all four canonical gospels contain some sayings and events which may meet one or more of the five criteria for historical reliability used in biblical studies,[Notes 1] the assessment and evaluation of these elements is a matter of ongoing debate.[Notes 2][1][2][3][4] Almost all scholars of antiquity agree that a human Jesus existed,[5][6][7][8]but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts of Jesus,[9] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[10][11][12] Elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the Nativity of Jesus, the miraculous events including the resurrection, and certain details about the crucifixion.[13][14][15][16][17][18]

Historical reliability of the Gospels - Wikipedia

I see the Gospel accounts as being written between the fourth and eighth decade after Christ was crucified. While I don’t see the Gospels as being completely historical accounts, I am certain they contain some valuable historical information. What is and isn’t historical is part of a discussion that’s been ongoing since the nineteenth century.

Historical documents, honestly?

 

[firedragon]

This was back in 1991 at CSULB under Dr. Robert Eisenman. I forgot what texts (plural) we used long ago (besides a translation of the Quran).

You learned in the university that "1. Muhammad hung around with a lot of Jews and Arian Christians 2. and was influenced by their beliefs. 3. Undoubtedly, however, he had his own ideas as well. 4. The Quran was a mixture of all this."?

Now you say that Dr. Robert Eisenman at Long Beach taught you these points in 1991 but you forgot what the "texts" were.

Of course after thirty years you might not remember. Maybe there were not texts whatsoever. If you claim there was a text book in the university that taught these points, then you should name it. Otherwise, its just a could be and a maybe. Not valid.

Peace.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Historical documents, honestly?

Do you believe there is any historical basis to the Jesus presented in the Bible?

 

[lukethethird]

Do you believe there is any historical basis to the Jesus presented in the Bible?

There is no information that corroborates the gospels, none, and no, Johnny come lately historians that didn't provide sources notwithstanding. Did the author of Mark have a particular itinerant priest in mind when he wrote his gospel, who knows? If the gospels have any historical basis to them at all, how would we know?

 

[firedragon]

The stories of the Baptist and Jesus are pure fantasy, yet some still believe.

You believe Jesus himself is a fantasy or mythology or is there another view you possess?