Jesus in the Qur'an and the Bible

[ayani]

Response: What do you mean when you say that Jesus was conceived by God's Holy Spirit?

simply that God's Spirit / presence / holiness was the fathering agent in bringing Jesus to existence in Mary's womb.

so Jesus was begotten by God, hence the understanding that Jesus is God's Son.

 

[Fatihah]

simply that God's Spirit / presence / holiness was the fathering agent in bringing Jesus to existence in Mary's womb.

so Jesus was begotten by God, hence the understanding that Jesus is God's Son.

Response: Yes. We believe in islam that Allah(God) brought Jesus into existence as well. But the exception is when you say that Jesus is begotten. Begotten means to produce through intercourse. This is an attribute which should not be attributed to God because God does not do this. Many christians and perhaps you yourself do not hold this to be true as well, but when you say the word "begotten", that is exactly what you are saying because that is what the word means. If the christians do not believe that God had intercourse with Mary and produced Jesus then they should use another word.

 

[ayani]

actually, "begotten" means "to father".

and in a normal human context, this means sex, as we're physical creatures limited to an extent by our bodies.

but the angel Gabriel describes it this way-

the Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the Holy One to be born will be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:35)

the begetting is through God's Spirit overshadowing and falling upon Mary- not through sex. as God is Spirit (though not limited to such) and does not need relations to accomplish His will.

 

[Fatihah]

actually, "begotten" means "to father".

and in a normal human context, this means sex, as we're physical creatures limited to an extent by our bodies.

but the angel Gabriel describes it this way-

the Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the Holy One to be born will be called the Son of God. (Luke 1:35)

the begetting is through God's Spirit overshadowing and falling upon Mary- not through sex. as God is Spirit (though not limited to such) and does not need relations to accomplish His will.

Response: You should look up the word "begotten" because it does not mean "to father" my friend.

 

[Breathe]

Honestly, I wonder how much of the debate between Jesus being son of God, begotten by the Holy Spirit, etc, is simply down to semantics... simply down to the meaning, the actual or conception of that word.

 

[ayani]

well, it depends on whom you ask. one of the central beliefs about Jesus for Christians is that He is God's Son. conceived by the Holy Spirit, and so sharing in His Father's attributes, divinity, and nature.

Muslims also assert the virgin birth, but deny that Jesus was conceived by God's Spirit, or shares anything in common with God.

a Muslim can spiritualize or allegorize the Christian belief that Jesus is God's Son, but for Christians it's a title which does matter. the Gospels and the Quran do share things in common, but it's the differences wich make the texts essentially irronciliable.

 

[Fatihah]

well, it depends on whom you ask. one of the central beliefs about Jesus for Christians is that He is God's Son. conceived by the Holy Spirit, and so sharing in His Father's attributes, divinity, and nature.

Muslims also assert the virgin birth, but deny that Jesus was conceived by God's Spirit, or shares anything in common with God.

a Muslim can spiritualize or allegorize the Christian belief that Jesus is God's Son, but for Christians it's a title which does matter. the Gospels and the Quran do share things in common, but it's the differences wich make the texts essentially irronciliable.

Response: Which is the big difference between islam and christianity which should be understandible. Using terminology that is degrading to Allah(God) is unlawful in islam but christianity wants to make an exception. The thought of using a word that does not befit your mother or father I would assume you would throw out and not give different meaning to it but christianity does not do this for God. This is just not a natural thing to do for someone you love.

We, both muslims and christians, believe in the virgin birth of Jesus but for whatever reason, christians would still insist on using the term "begotten" despite it's meaning instead of simply using another term, yet keeping the same story. This is what muslims take exception to. Only the most beautiful names should be attributed to both God and Jesus and yet christians would rather show differently.

Also, many say that Jesus is the only begotten Son but according to the bible, David is the begotten Son as well. In the book of Psalms ch.2:7 we read:

"I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou (art) my Son; this day have I begotten thee."

 

[ayani]

Fatihah ~

yes, this is true. David is described as begotten by God, through his anointing as king- not through his birth by God's Holy Spirit.

Christians also understand a lot of David's writings to refer prophetically to the Messiah to come. David speaks about himself in many places symbolically, and literally about the Messiah who will come generations later.

and i realize that to a Muslim, the idea that God shares His divinity with Jesus, or begot Jesus, is outrageous and shocking. it's insulting to the Muslim idea of God, and contradicts the Quran.

but Christians believe it is the case. our Jesus / Yesu is very different from the Quranic Isa ibn Maryam. if a Muslim didn't believe the Quran gave the truer account of Jesus, they wouldn't be a Muslim,

 

[Fatihah]

Fatihah ~

yes, this is true. David is described as begotten by God, through his anointing as king- not through his birth by God's Holy Spirit.

Christians also understand a lot of David's writings to refer prophetically to the Messiah to come. David speaks about himself in many places symbolically, and literally about the Messiah who will come generations later.

and i realize that to a Muslim, the idea that God shares His divinity with Jesus, or begot Jesus, is outrageous and shocking. it's insulting to the Muslim idea of God, and contradicts the Quran.

but Christians believe it is the case. our Jesus / Yesu is very different from the Quranic Isa ibn Maryam. if a Muslim didn't believe the Quran gave the truer account of Jesus, they wouldn't be a Muslim,

Response: Exactly. Christianity uses a word and give it a different meaning to fit their liking. "Begotten" means to be conceived through intercourse in it's literal meaning but changes when we talk about Jesus and then the same word picks up a different meaning when we talk about David. This shows a clear play on words which the christians see as o.k. to play with the word of God. A christian would not do it to their beloved mother or father but can, somehow, with God.

Thus the question becomes as to why play with the meaning of words anyway? If God's word is true, why change it? This holds as evidence that the bible is not the complete word of God. Surely there may be true accounts, but the bible as a whole is not true. The biggest difference with islam in comparison to christianity seems to be that the scholars of islam were able to and are willing to separate what is false from what is fact with no hesitation. The christians though have a problem with this and instead insist on defending what is written and giving it new meaning instead of rejecting it all together. Why is this? Rejecting what is false is a good thing my friend, not the other way around. Especially when we speak of God.

A clear example of this is the 1952 version of the bible when 32 scholars of the highest eminence, backed by 50 cooperating church denominations, threw out verses of the bible as a fabrication. They are:

Mark ch.16:9-20
Luke ch.24:51
1John ch.5:7

But after protests from the christians of the bible and a large uproar of the christian world, the verses were put back in 1971 and have been there since. This goes to show that the christians know that the bible is not completely the word of God and even christian scholars have shown this but because the mass of christianity likes these verses and other verses as well, they keep them in. Not because they are true, but because they like them. But in the case of God, even the christian should know better than to do this. If you are a truth seeker and love God, you would reject the verses and not worry about what another christian would say and what pleases you but do so because of your love to God. It's hard to reject something you love, I know, but if a person really loves God and clearly sees error in his word, there should be no hesitation to throw it away. Keep what is good, yes. But what is not, should be rejected. There is no harm in that. Not for my sake, but for God's sake.

 

[Breathe]

Mark ch.16:9-20
Luke ch.24:51
1John ch.5:7

Why does the first section (Mark 16:9-20) clearly say these are not in the earliest and most reliable, yet the other two do not?

It'd be interesting if you can show some sources on this, this kind of thing fascinates me. Do you expect many more verses to be considered as alterations as time goes on?

 

[Fatihah]

Why does the first section (Mark 16:9-20) clearly say these are not in the earliest and most reliable, yet the other two do not?(End quote)

Response: I'm sorry but I couldn't understand your question. Could you rephrase it?

Quote: Odion
It'd be interesting if you can show some sources on this, this kind of thing fascinates me. Do you expect many more verses to be considered as alterations as time goes on?(End quote)

Response: Many has already. I can direct you to many sources. Assuming that you want to view the sources to know the truth, you would have to know whether these sources are actually reliable right? Well that's the hard part. Any site I refer you to would naturally be a non-christian site thus a person can make the claim that these things are only being said to go against christianity. Then the best site would be to find one in which christians themselves say that these verses are fabrications but as you and I know, a christian wouldn't do that.

So what can I show you as reliable. The best thing I can refer you to is a debate between a muslim and a christian. The muslim is Ahmed Deedat and the christian is Jimmy Swaggart. In the debate, Deedat says the exact thing I say to you and has said it throughout his debates and know christian has denied it, even Jimmy Swaggart. He holds up both bibles and proves to everyone the how and why there's a difference between the 1952 and 1971 versions of the bible and no one denies him. You can watch this debate on youtube. Simply type in "Deedat and Swaggart" and enjoy. It's broken into 23 parts.

 

[Breathe]

Response: I'm sorry but I couldn't understand your question. Could you rephrase it?

Ah, sorry - let me try again.

In the Bible I have and in Biblegateway.com, Mark 16:9-20 has "((The early and most reliable ... )) " etc - whereas "the other two" (Luke 24:51 and 1 John 5:7) do not have any indication that their legitimacy is questioned. Why not?

Response: Many has already. I can direct you to many sources. Assuming that you want to view the sources to know the truth, you would have to know whether these sources are actually reliable right? Well that's the hard part

It depends if the source is legitimate, and if the person is a Biblical scholar to me, not their religion - so long as they don't have an agenda in mind I don't mind.

 

[Fatihah]

[QUOTE:Odion]Ah, sorry - let me try again.

In the Bible I have and in Biblegateway.com, Mark 16:9-20 has "((The early and most reliable ... )) " etc - whereas "the other two" (Luke 24:51 and 1 John 5:7) do not have any indication that their legitimacy is questioned. Why not? (end quote)

Response: I see. Good question. It would depend on what version you have. Some scholars may not know of the other two verses. In my king james version of the bible here at home, it doesn't say anything as to the earliest, most reliable,.. etc. Also, it is naturally not not befitting for christianity to point out to everyone all the mishaps they find in the bible.

 

[Muffled]

[QUOTE:Odion]Ah, sorry - let me try again.

In the Bible I have and in Biblegateway.com, Mark 16:9-20 has "((The early and most reliable ... )) " etc - whereas "the other two" (Luke 24:51 and 1 John 5:7) do not have any indication that their legitimacy is questioned. Why not? (end quote)

Response: I see. Good question. It would depend on what version you have. Some scholars may not know of the other two verses. In my king james version of the bible here at home, it doesn't say anything as to the earliest, most reliable,.. etc. Also, it is naturally not not befitting for christianity to point out to everyone all the mishaps they find in the bible.

Luke researched his sources. Since there is information that is of a highly personal nature to Mary, it would be safe to believe that he received his information from Mary. I don't know how you can get more authentic than that.

 

[menj]

The more I read up on the Holy Spirit, the more I believe it's just a term for Shekinah (Sakina for you) or God's Will. I used to follow the idea of being a person, I haven't found a lot of scriptural basis for that. I don't understand the idea of Gabriel being the Holy Spirit of Islam either, though (you'll have to PM me or open a new topic and 'explain this.

In Islam, one of Jibril's (Gabriel) titles is "Ruh al-Qudus", which is analogous to "the Holy Spirit" of the Bible. It is also reported in the New Testament that John the Baptist (Yahya) and his father, Zechariah (Zakariya) were visited by the Holy Spirit, suggesting that this is a reference to a being and not some fuzzy concept.

 

[Muffled]

Response: Yes. We believe in islam that Allah(God) brought Jesus into existence as well. But the exception is when you say that Jesus is begotten. Begotten means to produce through intercourse. This is an attribute which should not be attributed to God because God does not do this. Many christians and perhaps you yourself do not hold this to be true as well, but when you say the word "begotten", that is exactly what you are saying because that is what the word means. If the christians do not believe that God had intercourse with Mary and produced Jesus then they should use another word.

There is no word in English for a virgin having a baby so the only word that is available is "begotten." Begotten is the normal way babies are conceived. There is no word for an exception so to convey the concept of conception the word "begotten" must be used.

I think this is Islamic mythology. God could do it if He wanted to but as the Qu'ran says, it isn't something that He does.

 

[menj]

It depends if the source is legitimate, and if the person is a Biblical scholar to me, not their religion - so long as they don't have an agenda in mind I don't mind.

Actually you can just refer to Bruce M. Metzger, "The Text of the New Testament. Its Transmission Corruption And Restoration" for a proper documentation of that. With all due respect to Brother Fatihah, you do not need to see the debate between Deedat and Swaggert for that.

 

[Gharib]

There is no word in English for a virgin having a baby so the only word that is available is "begotten." Begotten is the normal way babies are conceived. There is no word for an exception so to convey the concept of conception the word "begotten" must be used.

I think this is Islamic mythology. God could do it if He wanted to but as the Qu'ran says, it isn't something that He does.

yes god could do it if he wanted to, he created that after all, but if god did that then he would not be unique, he would be like humans and therefore he would not be a god.

god is unique from everything else, thats why god has no begining and no ending, unlike humans. god has no children nor parents, unlike humans. god does not eat, sleep, drink etc unlike humans.

 

[Breathe]

In Islam, one of Jibril's (Gabriel) titles is "Ruh al-Qudus", which is analogous to "the Holy Spirit" of the Bible.

But to me, this doesn't make sense... and within the Bible, the Holy Spirit "descended upon" Jesus and the disciples. What would that mean if it was Jibril?

It is also reported in the New Testament that John the Baptist (Yahya) and his father, Zechariah (Zakariya) were visited by the Holy Spirit, suggesting that this is a reference to a being and not some fuzzy concept.

But couldn't this be imagery? Moses saw God's back, for example.

Actually you can just refer to Bruce M. Metzger, "The Text of the New Testament. Its Transmission Corruption And Restoration" for a proper documentation of that.

I'll see if I can find it, thanks.

 

[Gharib]

to odion, the quran reffers to Gabriel (as) as the holy spirit, just as menj has already said. in a verse of chapter 2 Allah (swt) states that we enforced Jesus (as) the son of Mary with the holy spirit, reffereing to Gabriel (as)