Can theological difference between the Gospels and the Qur'an be resolved?

[Dawnofhope]

This question is mainly for adherents of a Theistic religion. Can theological difference between the Gospels and the Qur'an be resolved?

Let's consider the Surah of Maryam or the 12th chapter of the Qur'an titled Mary. We have the story of Mary and her relationship with God as she is informed as a virgin she has become pregnant with Jesus. The baby is born and her people are understandably shocked and disturbed she has conceived a child outside the sanctity of marriage.

Then she brought him (the baby) to her people, carrying him. They said: "O Mary! Indeed you have brought a thing Fariya (an unheard mighty thing).
"O sister (i.e. the like) of Harun (Aaron) [not the brother of Musa (Moses), but he was another pious man at the time of Maryam (Mary)]! Your father was not a man who used to commit adultery, nor your mother was an unchaste woman."
Then she pointed to him. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?"

The next part of the story is simply stunning as we have the baby Jesus providing a theological assessment of Christianity.

"He ['Iesa (Jesus)] said: Verily! I am a slave of Allah, He has given me the Scripture and made me a Prophet;"
"And He has made me blessed wheresoever I be, and has enjoined on me Salat (prayer), and Zakat, as long as I live."
"And dutiful to my mother, and made me not arrogant, unblest.

The concept of the a Prophet with a Revelation (Moses and the Torah, Christ and the Gospel) is introduced as a central Qur'anic theme.

"And Salam (peace) be upon me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive!"
Such is 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary). (it is) a statement of truth, about which they doubt (or dispute).
It befits not (the Majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son [this refers to the slander of Christians against Allah, by saying that 'Iesa (Jesus) is the son of Allah]. Glorified (and Exalted be He above all that they associate with Him). When He decrees a thing, He only says to it, "Be!" and it is.
['Iesa (Jesus) said]: "And verily Allah is my Lord and your Lord. So worship Him (Alone). That is the Straight Path. (Allah's Religion of Islamic Monotheism which He did ordain for all of His Prophets)." [Tafsir At-Tabari]
Then the sects differed [i.e. the Christians about 'Iesa (Jesus)], so woe unto the disbelievers [those who gave false witness by saying that 'Iesa (Jesus) is the son of Allah] from the meeting of a great Day (i.e. the Day of Resurrection, when they will be thrown in the blazing Fire).

This theological analysis gives consideration to such weighty themes as the resurrection, the Sonship of Christ, and references to sects and divisions within Christianity.

These verses may offer an insight as to why a new Revelation is necessary and Muhammad does not simply ask His people to follow Judaism or Christianity.

Let's put aside the obvious question as to what extent the text is literal or allegorical. The Muslims now believe that the Christian Gospel is corrupted and the Christians believe Muhammad was corrupt to begin with and never had a Revelation from God.

I believe the Gospels and Qur'an are BOTH Revelations from the same God, and that BOTH the Muslims and Christians have misunderstood the Teachings of their Founders.

Is it possible to reconcile the apparently disparate theologies of Islam and Christianity?

If so, how?

 

[YmirGF]

One would think that such a stunning event as that of an infant addressing a crowd would be the part of mainstream public knowledge LONG before Muhammad made the claim... 600 years after the supposed event. If true, it would be a foundational part of Christian mythology and yet all we hear on the matter from Christians is the sounds of crickets. Given that no infant has been known to speak words, at a few days old, let alone complete sentences, makes the claim unworthy of a serious response. It's a claim that has no credibility and one, no one, in their right mind, would believe.

You ask us to set aside the question of credibility and yet this is a foundational part of the Islamic Jesus and so cannot just be tossed out the window. It is an obvious fabrication and wholly unreliable. Seriously, the first words out of Christ's mouth was basically a commercial for Islam? Not likely. Again, if true, I'm confident saying this would have been common knowledge by the time Muhammad started his raving.

Further to this, the Muslim Jesus and the Christian Jesus are so radically different that they may as well have been talking about different people. I see no way that the differences can be bridged without ignoring large swaths of both Christian and Islamic dogma.

 

[stvdv]

This question is mainly for adherents of a Theistic religion. Can theological difference between the Gospels and the Qur'an be resolved?

Interesting question !

I believe that one of the major lessons in life is "Do not Judge others"

If that is true AND God exists AND having these "omni's"
then I understand God created this unsolvable issue (Koan like)

Solution is simple: It will be solved when understanding "Do not Judge others" as being the major lesson to learn

 

[Augustus]

If true, it would be a foundational part of Christian mythology and yet all we hear on the matter from Christians is the sounds of cricket

A lot of these baby Jesus things in the Quran are mentioned in apocryphal Gospels such as the Syriac Infancy Gospel and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.

 

[YmirGF]

A lot of these baby Jesus things in the Quran are mentioned in apocryphal Gospels such as the Syriac Infancy Gospel and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.

While writing, I thought that was the case, of obscure Christian tales, but personally, I would think such a monumental event as described would have been common knowledge after 600 years.

 

[Dawnofhope]

You obviously haven't met too many infants with a penchant for discussing theological concepts. For that reason, I did make the comment:

Let's put aside the obvious question as to what extent the text is literal or allegorical.

One would think that such a stunning event as that of an infant addressing a crowd would be the part of mainstream public knowledge LONG before Muhammad made the claim... 600 years after the supposed event.

Of course whether or not it literally happened is completely besides the point. It almost cetainly didn't.

If true, it would be a foundational part of Christian mythology and yet all we hear on the matter from Christians is the sounds of crickets.

Not true. There are an abundance of infancy gospels, mostly aligned to a school of Christian thought that was called gnosticism, later to be deemed heretical.

Infancy Gospel of Thomas - Wikipedia

One called the gospel of pseudo-Matthew has a story just like the one in the Qur'an.

You ask us to set aside the question of credibility and yet this is a foundational part of the Islamic Jesus and so cannot just be tossed out the window. It is an obvious fabrication and wholly unreliable. Seriously, the first words out of Christ's mouth was basically a commercial for Islam? Not likely. Again, if true, I'm confident saying this would have been common knowledge by the time Muhammad started his raving.

Genesis has stories that are clearly allegorical and not literal. The resurrection/ascension narrative relies on a cosmology from a bygone era so is almost certainly allegorical and not literal. Why should the Qur'an be any different?

Further to this, the Muslim Jesus and the Christian Jesus are so radically different that they may as well have been talking about different people. I see no way that the differences can be bridged without ignoring large swaths of both Christian and Islamic dogma.

If we insist on literal interpretations with a dogmatic approach to the sacred texts of both religions then we won't make much progress.

 

[Jumi]

A lot of these baby Jesus things in the Quran are mentioned in apocryphal Gospels such as the Syriac Infancy Gospel and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas.

I was taught these in Lutheran mandatory religious education, though how much of that was the teacher's own preference I can only guess.

 

[wizanda]

Is it possible to reconcile the apparently disparate theologies of Islam and Christianity?

Rabbinic Judaism's ideas are the source of Islam; neither match what was stipulated within the Tanakh...

Yeshua/YHVH Elohim is the son of the God Most High (El Elyon).

Yeshua came with his own Gospel, he was not given scriptures as the Quran implies.

According to some texts satan has deliberately set these diametrically opposed, so they all fight each other in the Battle of Armageddon.

The theology of the Divine Council, with Yeshua/YHVH at its head, wasn't known by Muhammad or by Rabbinic Judaism after the Babylonian Exile... With one God Most High (El Elyon) manifesting reality.

If so, how?

We would need to get Judaism to acknowledge it has been wrong, and has ignored the Divine Council... Whilst turning an Elohim into the God Most High.

We'd then need Islam to acknowledge that the Divine Council is mentioned in the Quran, and that Allah never appears to mankind; so when beings have appeared, they have to be Elohim not El Elyon.

Then Judaism could accept Yeshua was an incarnation of their Lord; yet not the God Most High, which would fix Christianities idolatry of worshiping a man as God.

Tho this would take Jews rejecting Rabbinic Judaism, Christians denying Christianity (John, Paul, Simon), and Muslims denying the Quran...

To actually follow what exists, and what was originally instructed; rather than what has been made up to obscure it.

In my opinion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If we insist on literal interpretations with a dogmatic approach to the sacred texts of both religions then we won't make much progress.

Much depends on whether you define progress as (re)interpreting conflicting text such that they coexist or as understanding and appreciating each body of text as written.

 

[1213]

…Is it possible to reconcile the apparently disparate theologies of Islam and Christianity?

If so, how?

Maybe, if Muslims accepts this teaching from Quran:


…The Messiah, Jesus….was but a messenger of Allah …believe in Allah and His messengers. …
Surat An-Nisā' 4:171
Surah An-Nisa [4:171]

 

[YmirGF]

You obviously haven't met too many infants with a penchant for discussing theological concepts. For that reason, I did make the comment:

Thank you, @adrian009 for the good laugh. No, I've not met any days old infants who had a penchant for waxing on about theological concepts.

Not true. There are an abundance of infancy gospels, mostly aligned to a school of Christian thought that was called gnosticism, later to be deemed heretical.

Infancy Gospel of Thomas - Wikipedia

One called the gospel of pseudo-Matthew has a story just like the one in the Qur'an.

I was thinking of that when I wrote it but am not that conversant on the subject, so stayed the course of my comments. It is amusing that they were deemed heretical rather than simply loopy.

Genesis has stories that are clearly allegorical and not literal. The resurrection/ascension narrative relies on a cosmology from a bygone era so is almost certainly allegorical and not literal. Why should the Qur'an be any different?

Only very rarely is the Bible considered to be the literal word of god (and curiously the English translations, at that), whereas the Qur'an is almost universally considered to be the literal word of god in Muslim circles.

If we insist on literal interpretations with a dogmatic approach to the sacred texts of both religions then we won't make much progress.

I recognize that, @adrian009 but perhaps its just better to scrap the whole mess.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Maybe, if Muslims accepts this teaching from Quran:


…The Messiah, Jesus….was but a messenger of Allah …believe in Allah and His messengers. …
Surat An-Nisā' 4:171
Surah An-Nisa [4:171]

That Qur'anic verse certainly highlights three key differences in theology between the Christianity and Islam.

(1) The Divinity of Christ

(2) The Trinity

(3) The Son ship of Christ

The next aspect is from an investigation of the sacred writings of both Islam and Christianity, how can we resolve them.

The question can be reframed as how can Jesus be God and not God?

How is Jesus both the 'Son of God' and not the 'son of god'?

How can we best understand the relationship between the God, Christ and the Holy Spirit so as we have a monotheistic as opposed to triune God?

I don't know if that's a conversation you want to take further?

I'm Adrian btw.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Thank you, @adrian009 for the good laugh. No, I've not met any days old infants who had a penchant for waxing on about theological concepts.

I'm pleased you got my humour.

I was thinking of that when I wrote it but am not that conversant on the subject, so stayed the course of my comments. It is amusing that they were deemed heretical rather than simply loopy.

It wasn't the baby Jesus story the church had problems with. It was a whole range of other ideas. Baby Jesus talking would worked in nicely with the gospels otherwise considering all the other miracles with allegorical meanings.

Only very rarely is the Bible considered to be the literal word of god (and curiously the English translations, at that), whereas the Qur'an is almost universally considered to be the literal word of god in Muslim circles.

Christianity has its fair share of fundies and plenty of Muslims can think outside the square.

I recognize that, @adrian009 but perhaps its just better to scrap the whole mess.

But what would I do with all my free time if I stopped having all these interesting RF discussions?

 

[Dawnofhope]

We would need to get Judaism to acknowledge it has been wrong, and has ignored the Divine Council... Whilst turning an Elohim into the God Most High.

We'd then need Islam to acknowledge that the Divine Council is mentioned in the Quran, and that Allah never appears to mankind; so when beings have appeared, they have to be Elohim not El Elyon.

Then Judaism could accept Yeshua was an incarnation of their Lord; yet not the God Most High, which would fix Christianities idolatry of worshiping a man as God.

Tho this would take Jews rejecting Rabbinic Judaism, Christians denying Christianity (John, Paul, Simon), and Muslims denying the Quran...

To actually follow what exists, and what was originally instructed; rather than what has been made up to obscure it.

In my opinion.

Adherents of each faith recognising they worship the same God, they are taught similar morals, and to work and live together might be an easier road, don't you think?

Little steps become big steps and eventually .... well, lets see that the future holds

 

[Dawnofhope]

Much depends on whether you define progress as (re)interpreting conflicting text such that they coexist or as understanding and appreciating each body of text as written.

The capacity to revise one's understandings in the light of new knowledge is essential to human progress, don't you think?

 

[wizanda]

Maybe, if Muslims accepts this teaching from Quran:

2:285 The Messenger has believed in what was revealed to him from his Lord, and [so have] the believers. All of them have believed in Allah and His angels and His books and His messengers, [saying], "We make no distinction between any of His messengers." And they say, "We hear and we obey. [We seek] Your forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the [final] destination."

4:150-151 Indeed, those who disbelieve in Allah and His messengers and wish to discriminate between Allah and His messengers and say, "We believe in some and disbelieve in others," and wish to adopt a way in between - Those are the disbelievers, truly. And We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating punishment.

If Muslims read religions globally without distinction, it would be a start to understanding.

Adherents of each faith recognising they worship the same God, they are taught similar morals, and to work and live together might be an easier road, don't you think?

They don't worship the same God.... Tho if we want a made up religion that sounds nice, they agree.

Allah by definitions in the Quran is El Elyon (God Most High), and is referenced as the 'Most High' within the Quran...

Then the Quran goes on similar Rabbinic Jewish tangents, that their Lord is Allah... Whilst stating they took for themselves Lords; yet Allah is their only Lord...

So this messes up the Tanakh, and theology globally, as the Lords are avatars.

YHVH Elohim is Lord of Israel, and is a manifestation from the Most High... Yeshua is this same character.

The Quran starts changing the Tanakh, and implying it was Allah (God Most high) who spoke to Moses, when it was YHVH Elohim... This is what Rabbinic Judaism did, and isn't based on facts.

So lets put it this way:

• Rabbinic Judaism denies the God Most High exists, and worships a being (YHVH) who turned into Yeshua Elohim, who they also deny.
• Christianity have been educated by Judaism's ideas that the God Most High was really YHVH, who was actually Yeshua.
• Islam have the God Most High (Allah); yet deny the Divine Council, so YHVH doesn't even exist, Yeshua wasn't who he said he was.

The whole thing is like a sad joke of theological understanding, with most facing the opposite way from God.

In my opinion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The capacity to revise one's understandings in the light of new knowledge is essential to human progress, don't you think?

Yes, but eisegesis is far less intellectually honest and far less noble. So, for example, to employ archaeology and philology to better understand Hebrew scripture is progress. To simply pretend that the 'day' referenced in Genesis 1 represents something which better conforms to today's science is rationalization.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Yes, but eisegesis is far less intellectually honest and far less noble. So, for example, to employ archaeology and philology to better understand Hebrew scripture is progress. To simply pretend that the 'day' referenced in Genesis 1 represents something which better conforms to today's science is rationalization.

If science clearly establishes a fact that contradicts religious belief, I go with the science.

I can see the value of archaeology and philology in making sense of Hebrew scripture but it has its limitations. Sadly a lot of history eventually vanishes with time.

For me science generally, world history, comparative religion and psychology are more useful to make sense of today’s world. I can’t see the relevance of a lot of Levitical law for the Modern world. Can you?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

If science clearly establishes a fact that contradicts religious belief, I go with the science.

I can see the value of archaeology and philology in making sense of Hebrew scripture but it has its limitations.

I tend to be suspicious of "yes, but" statements.

I can’t see the relevance of a lot of Levitical law for the Modern world. Can you?

In many cases, no.

 

[Koldo]

This question is mainly for adherents of a Theistic religion. Can theological difference between the Gospels and the Qur'an be resolved?

Let's consider the Surah of Maryam or the 12th chapter of the Qur'an titled Mary. We have the story of Mary and her relationship with God as she is informed as a virgin she has become pregnant with Jesus. The baby is born and her people are understandably shocked and disturbed she has conceived a child outside the sanctity of marriage.

Then she brought him (the baby) to her people, carrying him. They said: "O Mary! Indeed you have brought a thing Fariya (an unheard mighty thing).
"O sister (i.e. the like) of Harun (Aaron) [not the brother of Musa (Moses), but he was another pious man at the time of Maryam (Mary)]! Your father was not a man who used to commit adultery, nor your mother was an unchaste woman."
Then she pointed to him. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?"

The next part of the story is simply stunning as we have the baby Jesus providing a theological assessment of Christianity.

"He ['Iesa (Jesus)] said: Verily! I am a slave of Allah, He has given me the Scripture and made me a Prophet;"
"And He has made me blessed wheresoever I be, and has enjoined on me Salat (prayer), and Zakat, as long as I live."
"And dutiful to my mother, and made me not arrogant, unblest.

The concept of the a Prophet with a Revelation (Moses and the Torah, Christ and the Gospel) is introduced as a central Qur'anic theme.

"And Salam (peace) be upon me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive!"
Such is 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary). (it is) a statement of truth, about which they doubt (or dispute).
It befits not (the Majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son [this refers to the slander of Christians against Allah, by saying that 'Iesa (Jesus) is the son of Allah]. Glorified (and Exalted be He above all that they associate with Him). When He decrees a thing, He only says to it, "Be!" and it is.
['Iesa (Jesus) said]: "And verily Allah is my Lord and your Lord. So worship Him (Alone). That is the Straight Path. (Allah's Religion of Islamic Monotheism which He did ordain for all of His Prophets)." [Tafsir At-Tabari]
Then the sects differed [i.e. the Christians about 'Iesa (Jesus)], so woe unto the disbelievers [those who gave false witness by saying that 'Iesa (Jesus) is the son of Allah] from the meeting of a great Day (i.e. the Day of Resurrection, when they will be thrown in the blazing Fire).

This theological analysis gives consideration to such weighty themes as the resurrection, the Sonship of Christ, and references to sects and divisions within Christianity.

These verses may offer an insight as to why a new Revelation is necessary and Muhammad does not simply ask His people to follow Judaism or Christianity.

Let's put aside the obvious question as to what extent the text is literal or allegorical. The Muslims now believe that the Christian Gospel is corrupted and the Christians believe Muhammad was corrupt to begin with and never had a Revelation from God.

I believe the Gospels and Qur'an are BOTH Revelations from the same God, and that BOTH the Muslims and Christians have misunderstood the Teachings of their Founders.

Is it possible to reconcile the apparently disparate theologies of Islam and Christianity?

If so, how?

You tell me. Is it possible to get a Muslim to, at the very least, accept the crucification and ressurrection of Jesus? Put aside the Godhood matter. Can a Muslim accept just those two things ? Because there is no way Christians would accept dissenting opinions on this. It is absolutely out of question.