Jesus in the Qur'an and the Bible

[challupa]

How so? He had a mother.

Then he had a father. Plain and simple.

 

[YmirGF]

Scriptures provide an ideological presentation of prominent personas. I live in the hope that in the future, archaeological discoveries and historical research will give us further insight than what ideology and theology give us.
Im also in the opinion that many archaeological discoveries have being embedded in sensationalism. therefor leaving us in historical shadows as there is a limit to our knowledge of Judah and the land of Israel 2000 years into the past. I would certainly not give ultimate and absolute authority to the words of religious texts (New Testament, and the Qur'an), that would be a grave injustice to the nature of a fascinating quest to discover the humanity of the Jewish teacher, who has had such an impact (whether by his death or by his life) on the course of history.

I believe that neither of the scriptures represent the true representation of Yeshua, the Jewish man of 1st century Galilee, who has left the green hills of his region and traveled to the desert of Judah, and to Jerusalem, the city of many paradoxes.

Now this is a perspective that I have no problems with whatsoever. I think it is akin to intellectual bankruptcy to put too much weight into the words of either text and that is why I commented about his followers at the beginning of this sorry excuse for a thread.

 

[Fatihah]

My money would be on his followers, not on some upstart that arrived 600 years after the fact, but hey... that's just me. :flirt:

Response: What do you mean? Muhammad (pbuh) follows Jesus.

 

[Muhammad Rasulullah]

Then he had a father. Plain and simple.

Your argument has no basis. And no evidence.

 

[Muhammad Rasulullah]

Actually I'm panentheistic.



I love how Muslims try to back up the Quran using... the Quran!

Anyway back to the point of this thread, obviously one would prefer a source much closer in time and place to the historical Jesus than a man who lived more than half a thousand years later in a far off land who knew neither Jesus nor his contemporaries.

Well what else should I use? And I'm not backing up the Quran it stands on its own. What source the bible? Those manuscripts date back to only 200-300 years after Jesus. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were not the disciples of Jesus they were merely pen names. The early followers of Jesus never believed he was son of God, God incarnate nor died and was ressurected. And all of these beliefs by christian's can be shown false by using their own bible. Is this the source much closer you are referring to?

 

[Muhammad Rasulullah]

Because this world is still around, and the prophecy says that the Messiah wouldn't appear until the Last Day.

What prophecy show me where?

 

[Fatihah]

Well, Jesus' disciples, excluding Paul, of course, were contemporaries of Jesus. Just as Muhammad's closest disciples were contemporaries. Although, I don't believe in either religions, I think Jesus' contemporaries would know more than Muhammad.

Would you believe that the Baha'i Faith provide better or accurate view on Muhammad than the writings of the Hadiths, fatihah?

Response: I wouldn't say so but at the same time I am not very familiar with the Baha'I view.

 

[Muhammad Rasulullah]

Oo, ok. My apologies for assuming.
And, awesome!

Lol! Me too.

In fact, I find it kind of insulting to say "Actually, Jesus never said...". It's like "How would you know? Were you or one of your parents there?"

Well we know Jesus never said certain things like exclaiming to be God and the son of God because he being a messenger and prophet of Allah had no right to say those things. It would contradict who Allah is and he was not sent to do and attribute what christian's attribute to him.

 

[Muhammad Rasulullah]

Another point which I wanted to raise, and I see it has been touched in a post above.
To get some proportions: Jesus is mentioned 25 times in the Qur'an, while in the New Testament Jesus is mentioned in name about 1000 times. the NT is dedicated to Jesus, do these facts place the Qur'an as a source we should rely on in order to get a true representation of Jesus? (this was a rhetorical question BTW).

The mentioning of a person's name does not give credibility to its source. It is what is said about Jesus that is in question.

 

[Caladan]

The mentioning of a person's name does not give credibility to its source. It is what is said about Jesus that is in question.

And yet your lack of reference to my first post in this thread which discusses the credibility and motives of what is said about Jesus is evident...

 

[Shahzad]

Well we know Jesus never said certain things like exclaiming to be God and the son of God because he being a messenger and prophet of Allah had no right to say those things. It would contradict who Allah is and he was not sent to do and attribute what christian's attribute to him.

O rly?

From Mark 14:

61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

References to the divinity of Jesus abound throughout the Gospels, especially the John Gospel.

 

[Muhammad Rasulullah]

O rly?

From Mark 14:

61 But he held his peace, and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him, and said unto him, Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed? 62 And Jesus said, I am: and ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

References to the divinity of Jesus abound throughout the Gospels, especially the John Gospel.

This seems totally different then what it says in Luke 22:70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. In Luke's account Jesus did not he was. Another contradiction.

 

[Shahzad]

This seems totally different then what it says in Luke 22:70 Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God? And he said unto them, Ye say that I am. In Luke's account Jesus did not he was. Another contradiction.

In Luke, Jesus doesn't deny he was the Son of God. If he was opposed to such a belief he would have rebuked it, instead he subtly encouraged it. He didn't openly proclaim it to the Jews because that would have resulted in his execution for blasphemy, which eventually happened anyway. In Matthew, Jesus congratulates Simon Peter for working out his real identity.

 

[Caladan]

The mentioning of a person's name does not give credibility to its source. It is what is said about Jesus that is in question.

In case you missed this:

And yet your lack of reference to my first post in this thread which discusses the credibility and motives of what is said about Jesus is evident...

 

[Muhammad Rasulullah]

In Luke, Jesus doesn't deny he was the Son of God. If he was opposed to such a belief he would have rebuked it, instead he subtly encouraged it. He didn't openly proclaim it to the Jews because that would have resulted in his execution for blasphemy, which eventually happened anyway. In Matthew, Jesus congratulates Simon Peter for working out his real identity.

In Luke's account he does not subtly encourage it. They are asking him about the charges being brought against him being the son of God. And his reply is not yes I am. It is you say that I am. If he did not accept the title then this is a way of denying it and throwing the false charge back at them. In the following chapter when brought before Pilate he gave the same reply and Pilate replied Luke 23:4 I find no fault with this man.
Jesus not being found at fault means that the charges of him being the son of God brought against him were false because he denied them and did not accept the title as the Son of God.

 

[Muhammad Rasulullah]

In case you missed this:

I'm not sure I'm following but what can archeological evidence tell us about Jesus's teachings and his nature and character? Nothing Jesus said was ever documented during the lifetime of Jesus and he never instructed anyone to do so. The only evidence that can be used is theological evidence because this is what the belief is based on. When I say theology I mean the scriptures which christian's and muslim's follow.

 

[Caladan]

I'm not sure I'm following but what can archeological evidence tell us about Jesus's teachings and his nature and character? Nothing Jesus said was ever documented during the lifetime of Jesus and he never instructed anyone to do so. The only evidence that can be used is theological evidence because this is what the belief is based on. When I say theology I mean the scriptures which christian's and muslim's follow.

Here is an example: archaeological finds have included texts, and archaeological remains of the communities responsible for the texts. an archaeological find of new texts which refers to Jesus during his time can give new insight to the historicity of Jesus and his followers.
theology is not accepted as evidence in the academy nor in mainstream scholarly research, beliefs are indeed based on theology as you say, but evidence and academic research should not be.
the scriptures which Christians and Muslims follow give us a fantastic and ideological look at biblical figures, not substance to base history upon.
virgin birth? walking on water? turning water into wine?
such events are not historical, they are fantastic beliefs to the simple people, and recognized as ideological descriptions to the better educated.
neither the NT, nor the Qur'an are a reliable source into the 'true' historicity of Jesus, these are ideological representations, ahistorical and partly based in appeal to superstition.

 

[Muhammad Rasulullah]

Here is an example: archaeological finds have included texts, and archaeological remains of the communities responsible for the texts. an archaeological find of new texts which refers to Jesus during his time can give new insight to the historicity of Jesus and his followers.
theology is not accepted as evidence in the academy nor in mainstream scholarly research, beliefs are indeed based on theology as you say, but evidence and academic research should not be.
the scriptures which Christians and Muslims follow give us a fantastic and ideological look at biblical figures, not substance to base history upon.
virgin birth? walking on water? turning water into wine?
such events are not historical, they are fantastic beliefs to the simple people, and recognized as ideological descriptions to the better educated.
neither the NT, nor the Qur'an are a reliable source into the 'true' historicity of Jesus, these are ideological representations, ahistorical and partly based in appeal to superstition.

The Quran rest on no superstition. The story of Jesus in the Quran rests on no superstition either. Jesus's birth is a matter of history. Religion is a matter of belief so what would it mean if you found an archeological writing which describes Jesus being born of a virgin within five years of his birth would that prove absolutely he was born of a virgin? No because this is still a matter of belief. Archeological evidence for a person of non-belief does nothing but for the believer does much because it re-affirms or refutes what one would believe. The only thing that would suffice most non-believers is if yo found a letter from Jesus or his maother Mary saying it was a virgin birth.

 

[Caladan]

The Quran rest on no superstition.

Really? the vast majority of people would consider the tale of Muhammad riding a winged horse with a woman's head as superstition if this belief is taken at face value.

The story of Jesus in the Quran rests on no superstition either. Jesus's birth is a matter of history.

Jesus' virgin birth is certainly not a matter of history, it is a matter of certain religious beliefs.

Religion is a matter of belief so what would it mean if you found an archeological writing which describes Jesus being born of a virgin within five years of his birth would that prove absolutely he was born of a virgin? No because this is still a matter of belief.

Again, and this is very simple, I am not looking for ideological and theological accounts, doing research demands far beyond the substance for theology, for example historians examine the account of Josephus, a Jewish historian who lived during the 1st century and made references to people who were part of Jesus' life as well as a reference to Jesus himself.

Archeological evidence for a person of non-belief does nothing but for the believer does much because it re-affirms or refutes what one would believe.

This is a pretty simple POV, are you saying that people have no interest in historical information? not even one of great magnitude and vast implications? many archaeologists and historians have refuted countless religious beliefs with their research and excavations, but the real process as I see it is not refuting scriptural accounts, but investigating history as the prime motivator, religious accounts simply make way to historical evidence and information, that or religious accounts are simply part of a greater historical jigsaw.

The only thing that would suffice most non-believers is if yo found a letter from Jesus or his maother Mary saying it was a virgin birth.

Again I must point to a simple POV by your part, 'non-believers' are not after proofs of religious phenomena, they are after historical accuracy and validity, and are not satisfied with works of religious fiction with bits and pieces of history.

 

[challupa]

Your argument has no basis. And no evidence.

Why does it have no basis? Every human born has had a father why not Jesus? You have no evidence that Joseph wasn't his father. There is also no known proof that he even lived for that matter. If you want to believe in a virgin birth, that's your business, but don't expect anyone else to because it isn't possible.