Stories of Jesus in Islamic tradition.

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Had He prayed on the cross to be saved, He would have been.

Would he have? According to your scriptures, he seemed quite troubled that God had forsaken him on the cross.

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Yes, the "righteous path" is the one that results in the salvation of all mankind. Are you suggesting the righteous path is the one that results in all mankind being damned?

So you believe that for mankind to be saved, an innocent man had to be brutally tortured and executed, the more brutal, the better. Cool.

Getting back to the original topic, rather than you're-right-I'm-right bickering, another story of Jesus, quite a few of the "Muslim" traditions involving Jesus originate not from the Islamic scripture, but from later muslim scholars or religious figures, so I'm a bit more wary of them, but still, some of them are really interesting.
For example, while Jesus is famed in Islam for being a Prophet who discarded material living, here is one saying:
"Jesus met a man and asked him, What are you doing? 'I am devoting myself to God,' the man replied. Jesus asked, 'Who is caring for you?' 'My brother,' said the man. Jesus said, 'Your brother is more devoted to God than you are'."

edit on 12-12-2012 by babloyi because: (no reason given)

Maybe you should look into what the verse about being forsaken actually means.
Psalm 22
There is a start. I will let you find the rest yourself.

While they may be interesting, does it mesh with Biblical Jesus?
Mar 10:21
Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Seems Islamic and Biblical Jesus have different opinions. I also do not want to get into a who is right argument. I have a question that no one wishes to answer. Why should a Christian (or Muslim), abandon Biblical Jesus who has historical authenticity in favor of Islamic Jesus which has no historical authenticity whatsoever?

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

It has been answered several times already here. The Jesus of the Biblical narrative has just as much "Historical Authenticity" as the Jesus of the Islamic narrative- almost none at all.
If one were to switch over from the "Islamic Jesus" to the "Biblical Jesus" or vice versa, it wouldn't be because of anything to do with historical authenticity.

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

It has been answered several times already here. The Jesus of the Biblical narrative has just as much "Historical Authenticity" as the Jesus of the Islamic narrative- almost none at all.
If one were to switch over from the "Islamic Jesus" to the "Biblical Jesus" or vice versa, it wouldn't be because of anything to do with historical authenticity.

What year do we have a written record of the Biblical Jesus' life? What year for Islamic Jesus?

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

You mean the stories specific to the Bible about Jesus, i.e. the Bible?
The earliest existing New Testament text that mentions anything about Jesus would be Papyrus 52, which has a fragment of the Gospel of John, chapter 18, verses 31 to 33, 37 and 38, about his trial (but not his execution). Even at its earliest, it is dated to about the first quarter of the 2nd century, almost a hundred years, or at least 2 generations (unless whoever heard it was a very small child, and then relayed the information to someone else in their old age, who then wrote it when they themselves were older) from after the events it speaks of.

So as I say, for a "believer" (of either faiths) it isn't going to be the dates, or the "historical authenticity" that sways them either way.

Originally posted by babloyi
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

You mean the stories specific to the Bible about Jesus, i.e. the Bible?
The earlist verifiable New Testament text that mentions anything about Jesus would be Papyrus 52, which has a fragment of the Gospel of John, chapter 18, verses 31 to 33, 37 and 38, about his trial (but not his execution). Even at its earliest, it is dated to about the first quarter of the 2nd century, almost a hundred years, or at least 2 generations (unless whoever heard it was a very small child, and then relayed the information to someone else in their old age, who then wrote it when they themselves were older) from after the events it speaks of.

So as I say, for a "believer" (of either faiths) it isn't going to be the dates, or the "historical authenticity" that sways them either way.

It's nice of you to avoid my question by only answering half of it. Usually done when someone knows they are wrong, and would rather not admit it. So we have written accounts of Biblical Jesus within possibly 2 generations of Jesus' life/death. As earlier accounts have been found it has strengthened the position of historical authenticity. How many years after Jesus death does Islamic Jesus make his appearance?

How "authentic" is two centuries as far as ancient texts go? Is it common to have texts written within two centuries of the event? How about other ancient works? How many copies do we have? How many years separate the oldest surviving copy from the original work for other ancient works?

Jesus in the Islam bible, 600 years later after the fact and changed for self purpose, the revelation leading humanity to 1st Eden where the end comes backs the bible rendition and not the Islam information taken from Christianity and Judaism . The people have been deceived for a purpose, don't be so fickle. The Sovereign Jesus has been denigrated in Islam with a specific purpose.

From seat 17 of the Judgment seat.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Flyersfan, why do you defend the bible so much in this thread?

You see, my original idea was to base my reply around the fact that you hold a low opinion on Moses. So I was running a few searches so I could quote your statements against Moses.

To my surprise I found this thread of yours where you yourself have expressed doubts and suspicions regarding the NT account

You said....

He wasn't really that nice of a guy. According to scripture he did God's work but he also threw in a few things that are highly suspect. For example, supposedly God said 'do not kill', but then supposedly God tells Moses to go out and mass murder men, women, children and beasts .. but that it's okay for his soldiers to keep the teenage virgin girls as sex toys

Was it a conspiracy on the part of Peter, James and John to tell the story in order to build their church?

. But I really have a problem with the thought of Moses being there ... considering all he did. (unless God is REALLY REALLY forgiving - which could be) That kinda puts a damper on the rest of the story being accurate. At least as far as I'm concerned.

These are YOUR words.

Also, here is a link that compiles the number of times Moses appears n the NT.
wiki.answers.com...

Jesus himself spoke respectfully of Moses. So what now? Are those parts all fabrications by the authors of the bible?

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

Let's start to address your lies. First we can deal with "Ransom".

Christians who believe God demanded Jesus' life as "ransom" obviously see God as a bloodthirsty tyrant who will NOT forgive until a sacrifice has been made.

You claim David and Adam are called Son of God. What verse? It's a complete lie.

Complete lie?
David is called a "begotten" son of God in Psalms 2:7
Adam is called "The son of God" in Luke 3:38

Looks like you haven't read the very bible you are defending so passionately.

Use logic, but you are denying scripture and instead inputting what YOU believe is logical, not what IS logical. I gave you verses that 100% say Jesus' death was a sin sacrifice, do you care to address the scripture? Didn't think so.

God never demanded human sacrifice. Period.
This logic refutes Christian belief that Jesus' death was a "sin sacrifice".

Jesus "death" was a 100% Roman style execution... but Christians interpret it as a "sin sacrifice".
So it is Christians who are denying logic and the scripture when they say Jesus' death was a "sin sacrifice".

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

You keep mentioning zombies, what verse in the Bible has zombies?

Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.
-Matthew 27:51-53

Dead bodies. Rising from the grave. Walking into the city.
Would have been a spectacular scene, eh? Yet, this account doesn't appear anywhere else in the bible. It doesn't even appear in Roman records.

You can read this thread that I had made about it. I had asked certain questions in that thread, which the usual gang of Christians didn't feel like answering.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

You keep mentioning zombies, what verse in the Bible has zombies?

Then, behold, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom; and the earth quaked, and the rocks were split, and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised; and coming out of the graves after His resurrection, they went into the holy city and appeared to many.
-Matthew 27:51-53

Dead bodies. Rising from the grave. Walking into the city.
Would have been a spectacular scene, eh? Yet, this account doesn't appear anywhere else in the bible. It doesn't even appear in Roman records.

You can read this thread that I had made about it. I had asked certain questions in that thread, which the usual gang of Christians didn't feel like answering.

Zombies has a specific definition.

zom·bie/ˈzɒm bi/ Show Spelled [zom-bee] Show IPA
noun
1. a. the body of a dead person given the semblance of life, but mute and will-less, by a supernatural force, usually for some evil purpose.

I know you like to ignore the actual meaning of words like you did with ransom, but sorry, I won't let you. They were not zombies, they were people raised from the dead. The only one who doesn't like to answer questions in this thread so far is you. Let's stay on topic, please answer the question I am not asking you for about the 5th time.

Why should anyone (Christian or Muslim) ignore the Biblical Jesus which has far more historical authenticity and accept the Islamic Jesus with zero historical authenticity? You have yet to answer the question I asked you back on page one.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

They were not zombies, they were people raised from the dead.

Well, it does not change the fact that they were dead bodies who were brought back to life.

If you don't want to call them "zombies", fine.
But is it that this spectacular event does not appear in any other gospel? Why is it that even the Romans don't have a record of it? Either they felt the dead rising to life was no big deal... or it was a fabrication on the part of those who authored the bible.

Why should anyone (Christian or Muslim) ignore the Biblical Jesus which has far more historical authenticity and accept the Islamic Jesus with zero historical authenticity?

I'm not asking anybody to ignore the Biblical Jesus. The purpose of the OP was to broaden ones understanding of Jesus' character by also taking into account Islamic traditions on Jesus.

I, for one, am very grateful to sk0rpi0n for presenting the Islamic view of Jesus.
In my opinion, it is not so dissimilar from that which Gnosticism teaches.

However, I feel many others are not fully appreciative of sk0rpi0n's respectful portrayal of Jesus/Isa.
Instead of kind words of thanksgiving, they choose to insult and denigrate sk0rpi0n's faith.

It makes me ponder just who is actually adhering to the teachings of Jesus, and who is following the diabolical ways of the Slanderer and Accuser...

Perhaps we ought to consider the Talmudic stance on Jesus and contrast this to Islam's perspective.

I, myself, am not a Muslim but nevertheless, as a true Christian, will I always support Islam over Judaism.

Originally posted by Aesir26
I, for one, am very grateful to sk0rpi0n for presenting the Islamic view of Jesus.
In my opinion, it is not so dissimilar from that which Gnosticism teaches.

However, I feel many others are not fully appreciative of sk0rpi0n's respectful portrayal of Jesus/Isa.
Instead of kind words of thanksgiving, they choose to insult and denigrate sk0rpi0n's faith.

It makes me ponder just who is actually adhering to the teachings of Jesus, and who is following the diabolical ways of the Slanderer and Accuser...

Perhaps we ought to consider the Talmudic stance on Jesus and contrast this to Islam's perspective.

I, myself, am not a Muslim but nevertheless, as a true Christian, will I always support Islam over Judaism.

So as a true Christian you choose the faith that calls Christianity a lie, and says Jesus was never crucified? What is the Talmudic stance on Jesus? The OP has attacked Christianity and the Bible numerous times here. There has been zero respect. I have not once attacked Islam or their book.

The OP has a respectful portrayal of Isa, not Jesus. The two are not one and the same. I ask you the same question I have asked him which he refuses to answer. Why should anyone disregard Biblical Jesus which has enormous historical authenticity for Islamic Jesus which has zero historical authenticity? This has nothing to do with what faith is right. They can BOTH be wrong, and the question stands.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04


Followers of Islam believe in Jesus; followers of Judaism do not believe in Jesus.
Really, it's as simple as that.

reply to post by Aesir26


I appreciate your words.

I know I tend to go overboard while discussing religion with Christians. I will make it a point from now on to show restraint and choose my words.

Originally posted by Aesir26
reply to post by OccamsRazor04

 

Followers of Islam believe in Jesus; followers of Judaism do not believe in Jesus.
Really, it's as simple as that.

Actually followers of Judaism believe Jesus was a prophet. You clearly enjoy being lied to.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

The OP has a respectful portrayal of Isa, not Jesus. The two are not one and the same.

Muslims believe Jesus was born of a virgin... that he was the messiah and will return to slay the anti-christ and rule the world. The only difference is that Muslims don't believe Jesus was divine.

reply to post by Aesir26


A hypothetical:

If a Muslim met Jesus, he would invite Him into his home, feed Him and give Him lodging.
If a Jew met Jesus, they would have Him either stoned, thrown off a cliff, or crucified.

Originally posted by sk0rpi0n
reply to post by Aesir26

 

I appreciate your words.

I know I tend to go overboard while discussing religion with Christians. I will make it a point from now on to show restraint and choose my words.

How about you simply answer the question I have asked you now 6 times. Why won't you answer? This has nothing to do with Christianty Vs. Islam. Both can be 100% wrong, you still need to answer.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

Actually followers of Judaism believe Jesus was a prophet. You clearly enjoy being lied to.

LOL, what?

Jews have traditionally seen Jesus as one of a number of false messiahs who have appeared throughout history. Jesus is viewed as having been the most influential, and consequently the most damaging, of all false messiahs.

en.wikipedia.org...'s_view_of_Jesus