Concerning the Islamic Conception of Jesus

[Sundance]

I am an Ahmadiyya peaceful Muslim. I will make it easier to understand the issue.

1. Jesus was son of Mary from mother side. Muslim and Christian both believe it. Right, please?
2. From fathers side Jesus was son of Man as per Gospels. I will quote from NT if one has not seen it. We Muslims also believe it. Right, please?
3. Jesus did not die on the Cross as G-d had told him. G-d saved Jesus.And it is reasonable. Right, please?

One should be happy to know this as it is a good news and Gospel as I understand means good news. Right, please?

Regards

1. Mary was Jesus’s earthly mother, yes. As you know, Christians believe in the virgin birth as do Muslims. However, if she was untouched, Jesus had no earthly father. His Father was God Himself, through the Holy Spirit.

2. Joseph, although not biologically Jesus’s father, was His father by marriage, but the term ‘Son of Man’ has its origins in King David and the later Hebrew Prophets.

3. God in the New Testament had appointed Jesus to die. Jesus was subsequently resurrected, so the story went.

 

[Sundance]

You're going to be really pxssed about this but when Jesus comes back, in addition to a few Christians is going to have billions of Muslim followers who are waiting for him to return just like Christians are, I'm sure Jesus wouldn't be stupid enough to try and take sides in some big Muslim/Christian divide.

Whenever He’s supposed to come back, much will be made evident to all.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Jesus wrote nothing himself that is known to us. The NT contains four accounts by people claiming to report his life and teaching. So we do not know what his words actually were, with any certainty.

While that is true, the Gospel writers most likely heard what they wrote based on eye witness accounts that were passed on through oral traditions. As they were most like written between 66-100 AD, or at a time when some who had first hand experiences with Jesus were still around. They were no doubt redacted accounts to meet the needs of the church at the time but would have some degree of reliability in conveying what Christ actually taught.

I'm no biblical scholar but my impression is that references to Jesus as the son of God - and other theological ideas that became part of Christianity - are mostly in St John's Gospel, rather than the synoptic gospels. Most scholars seem to agree St John's Gospel was written later than the others. So there has to be at least the possibility of some retrofitting of theology to the narrative.

The phrase ‘Son of God’ is certainly present in the Synoptics as well as the Gospel of John. However the phrase only begotten Son is present only in John 3:16.

Son of God (Christianity) - Wikipedia

The Gospel of John is certainly an important basis for important theological concepts such as Christ’s identification with God Himself (John 1:1) that most Islamic theology rejects.

I'm not aware of any historical record, apart from the gospels, that independently says Jesus was crucified. Do you have something in mind?

How about Josephus and Tacitus?

The first and most extensive reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 18, states that Jesus was the Messiah and a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate. It is commonly called the Testimonium Flavianum.[1][3][4] Almost all modern scholars reject the authenticity of this passage in its present form, while the majority of scholars nevertheless hold that it contains an authentic nucleus referencing the execution of Jesus by Pilate, which was then subject to Christian interpolationand/or alteration.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] The exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear, however.[11][12]

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia

The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate is both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[5][6][7] Paul Eddy and Gregory Boydargue that it is "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[8] Scholars view it as establishing three separate facts about Rome around AD 60: (i) that there were a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the time, (ii) that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome, and (iii) that at the time pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Roman Judea.[9][10]

Tacitus on Christ - Wikipedia

 

[exchemist]

Muslims teach that the Injil (The Gospel) was given to Jesus. That say that Jesus, in the original Injil, claimed to be a prophet or a messenger from God, but not the son of God. They say that the Christians corrupted and changed the text.

Ah, OK thanks I've looked this up now and see what you mean. According to Islam, Jesus was a prophet who received a revelation called the Injil (Euanggelion, gospel) and that was the basis of his teaching. According to what I have now read, I think the point may be that Islam considers some traces of this "original" gospel remain in the (so they say) corrupted texts of the Christian NT. So possibly they may rely on these fragments to derive some doctrine.

But I speculate: I don't know anything about this.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Jesus did not die on the Cross as G-d had told him. G-d saved Jesus.And it is reasonable. Right, please?s

Many prophets of God were killed by enemies, as Quran says, right please? God did not save Them! Why should have God saved Jesus from getting killed?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Jesus wrote nothing himself that is known to us. The NT contains four accounts by people claiming to report his life and teaching. So we do not know what his words actually were, with any certainty.

I'm no biblical scholar but my impression is that references to Jesus as the son of God - and other theological ideas that became part of Christianity - are mostly in St John's Gospel, rather than the synoptic gospels. Most scholars seem to agree St John's Gospel was written later than the others. So there has to be at least the possibility of some retrofitting of theology to the narrative.

I'm not aware of any historical record, apart from the gospels, that independently says Jesus was crucified. Do you have something in mind?

Given, Quran is saying Jesus was not killed. How can you prove Quran is telling the truth?
And if it cannot prove it, why would Allah expect Christian's believe it?

 

[Link]

Language has different meanings to words. That said, I read the Gospels and find almost nothing wrong in it. I have a minor disagreement or maybe misunderstanding about what it says about women and harsh talking against divorce, but that's about it. Rest I pretty much agree with.

The first sentence I said with regards to your topic, is that expressions like sons of God which meant at a certain time righteous servants like Noah and Jesus at a point was the only one like that present on earth in the open, and from what I see, if you remember words, their context, and root meaning, the Gospels are definitely monotheistic.

From what I see, Jesus (a) was showing what they had with his predecessors all the way back to Moses (a) and showing what they neglected of God's anointed kings, and what kings really meant when for example, Abraham (a) was one, Isaac (a) and Jacob (a) are kings, and what they had of the chosen kings from Aaron (a) to him who were successors of Moses (a) was not something trivial.

And so he emphasized on himself with regards to that. He was not the only word of God spoken, nor the only spirit from God nor the only son of God, but he was the only one children of Israel and the world had access to on earth at that point. That is why he says he is the path to God you can't by pass the path to God. But before him, what was the path to God?

This is why the talk of John, Elijah, and the comforter to come, is all key, and what the holy spirit is in connection to all that.

I just understand Gospels way differently then Christians.

 

[oldbadger]

I’ve encountered many different perspectives on Jesus ........................................holy man or a renegade. No sweat here.

OK.

Yet, concerning Islam, my anger has been kindled. ....................... they claim that the Christians have it all wrong about Jesus,

I'm a Deist (impartial)? , and they are probably right.

My question here is this: if Muslims say that Jesus was a prophet, would a prophet lie about his identity and his message?

He would not........ he did not.

Jesus in the New Testament claims to be the Son of God, many times referring to God as “[My] Father”.

No he did not. He claimed he was a 'Son of Man'.
And Apostle John was not there so his ideas about the claims of Jesus really don't count.

Muslims claim that it was fabricated. He was not crucified, but was taken up to Heaven. Why, when both scripture and history confirm the Crucifixion of Jesus as having taken place?

A Jew called Jesus Son of the Father demonstrated so aggressively that week that a person died in the melee. Hre was convicted and sentenced to death but the people, ALL the people so loved him that he was pardoned by the Roman Prefect and released. It is in the bible, but Christian editors removed his first name (Jesus) in the story from later bibles and left his name in Eastern Aramaic to confuse Roman readers........ Barabba means 'son of the father.'. Hey! Does that ring a bell for you?

I invite my Muslim friends to read His Words from themselves and evaluate whether or not He was a liar. If you’re willing to concede that He was telling the truth, logically speaking, it would nullify your religion’s claims, would it not?

Muslims don't have to concede, nor do Bahais which don't believe that Jesus was God, etc etc.

Just read the story and see that Jesus Barabbas, Jesus son of the father, was freed and so could go back North through Galilee, just as was written.

 

[exchemist]

While that is true, the Gospel writers most likely heard what they wrote based on eye witness accounts that were passed on through oral traditions. As they were most like written between 66-100 AD, or at a time when some who had first hand experiences with Jesus were still around. They were no doubt redacted accounts to meet the needs of the church at the time but would have some degree of reliability in conveying what Christ actually taught.



The phrase ‘Son of God’ is certainly present in the Synoptics as well as the Gospel of John. However the phrase only begotten Son is present only in John 3:16.

Son of God (Christianity) - Wikipedia

The Gospel of John is certainly an important basis for important theological concepts such as Christ’s identification with God Himself (John 1:1) that most Islamic theology rejects.



How about Josephus and Tacitus?

The first and most extensive reference to Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 18, states that Jesus was the Messiah and a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate. It is commonly called the Testimonium Flavianum.[1][3][4] Almost all modern scholars reject the authenticity of this passage in its present form, while the majority of scholars nevertheless hold that it contains an authentic nucleus referencing the execution of Jesus by Pilate, which was then subject to Christian interpolationand/or alteration.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] The exact nature and extent of the Christian redaction remains unclear, however.[11][12]

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia

The scholarly consensus is that Tacitus' reference to the execution of Jesus by Pontius Pilate is both authentic, and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[5][6][7] Paul Eddy and Gregory Boydargue that it is "firmly established" that Tacitus provides a non-Christian confirmation of the crucifixion of Jesus.[8] Scholars view it as establishing three separate facts about Rome around AD 60: (i) that there were a sizable number of Christians in Rome at the time, (ii) that it was possible to distinguish between Christians and Jews in Rome, and (iii) that at the time pagans made a connection between Christianity in Rome and its origin in Roman Judea.[9][10]

Tacitus on Christ - Wikipedia

Thanks, I was forgetting these.

 

[Sundance]

OK.

I'm a Deist (impartial)? , and they are probably right.

Not if you’re using the New Testament as a vantage point from which to speak.

He would not........ he did not.

He actually does a number of times, quite explicitly at that.

No he did not. He claimed he was a 'Son of Man'.
And Apostle John was not there so his ideas about the claims of Jesus really don't count.

He does, actually in both Matthew’s Gospel and Mark’s, which is the earliest.

A Jew called

Jesus Son of the Father demonstrated so aggressively that week that a person died in the melee. Hre was convicted and sentenced to death but the people, ALL the people so loved him that he was pardoned by the Roman Prefect and released. It is in the bible, but Christian editors removed his first name (Jesus) in the story from later bibles and left his name in Eastern Aramaic to confuse Roman readers........ Barabba means 'son of the father.'. Hey! Does that ring a bell for you?

And the name of the Apostle who betrayed the Nazarene, did his name not translate to “God is thanked”, “thanksgiving”, or “the one praised”? What’s your point here exactly, my friend?

Muslims don't have to concede, nor do Bahais which don't believe that Jesus was God, etc etc.

To reiterate, there is no issue with a divergence of perspectives on Jesus. This poses no issue. There is an issue, however, with claiming that the New Testament doesn’t teach something that it plainly does in attempting to justify whichever perspective you hold. It’s dishonest.

Just read the story and see that Jesus Barabbas, Jesus son of the father, was freed and so could go back North through Galilee, just as was written.

My friend, I think you may want to reread your New Testament.

 

[oldbadger]

Not if you’re using the New Testament as a vantage point from which to speak.

Surely.... Let us just do that.

He actually does a number of times, quite explicitly at that.

He does, actually in both Matthew’s Gospel and Mark’s, which is the earliest.

No. Let me show you just one example for each title.

Son of the Father: All the Jews were the children of their God, as Jesus told many times, just like this:-
Mark: {11:26} But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
..... you see? God was THEIR Father.

Jesus, Son of Man:
Mark: {2:10} But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, .......
........ you see?

So I do know my NT. Yes?

And the name of the Apostle who betrayed the Nazarene, did his name not translate to “God is thanked”, “thanksgiving”, or “the one praised”? What’s your point here exactly, my friend?

No. Look, I don't mind you trying to redirect me, but you must be accurate in your redirection. The one who betratyed the Nazarene was not an Apostle. He was a Disciple. That's different.

I was trying to tell you about Jesus, Son of the Father, who demonstrated in the Temple, was arrested, convicted and sentenced, but who was released upon the wishes of the people who all loved him so. He was called Jesus but Christians removed his name from the accounts and used Eastern Aramaic for his name, this to confuse the readership, and you maybe?

Bar-Son of
Abba = Father
Jesus Barabba(s)
Here comes the NT for you:-
Mark 15:7} And there was
[one] named Barabbas, [which lay] bound with them that
had made insurrection with him, who had committed
murder in the insurrection. {15:8} And the multitude crying
aloud began to desire [him to do] as he had ever done unto
them.
Matthew {27:16} And they had then a notable
prisoner, called Barabbas. {27:17} Therefore when they
were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will
ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is
called Christ?
Matthew {27:21} The governor
answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye
that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas.
Luke: {23:18} And they cried
out all at once, saying, Away with this [man,] and release
unto us Barabbas: {23:19} (Who for a certain sedition made
in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison.)
John: ]{18:39} But ye
have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the
passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King
of the Jews? {18:40} Then cried they all again, saying, Not
this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.

Note well how John (who was not the disciple, only the apostle) had no idea who Barabba was, that he had demonstrated in the Temple causing riot.... John thought he was a robber.

To reiterate, there is no issue with a divergence of perspectives on Jesus. This poses no issue. There is an issue, however, with claiming that the New Testament doesn’t teach something that it plainly does in attempting to justify whichever perspective you hold. It’s dishonest.

Wrong. Both Bahai and Islam do not accept that Jesus was resurrected. There is evidence that Jesus was never crucified. There is other evidence (for another belief) that Jesus never died on the cross.

My friend, I think you may want to reread your New Testament.

My friend. I just did.

 

[Sundance]

Surely.... Let us just do that.

You got it, my friend.

No. Let me show you just one example for each title.

Son of the Father: All the Jews were the children of their God, as Jesus told many times, just like this:-
Mark: {11:26} But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.
..... you see? God was THEIR Father.

Jesus, Son of Man:
Mark: {2:10} But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, .......
........ you see?

So I do know my NT. Yes?

My friend, regarding your use of ‘Son of the Father’, while in one sense, you would be correct in asserting that Israel in the Hebrew Scriptures is called ‘God’s son’, this reflects only half of the truth regarding Jesus’s use of the term. He also used the term ‘Son of God’ in a sense of saying that He was divine, hence (for example) some other Jews accusing Him of blasphemy:

“It is not for a good work that we stone you, but for blasphemy because you, being a man, make yourself out to be God.”

There are a myriad of verses in which either Jesus Himself (or one of the followers, or another person in the New Testament) proclaims that He is the Son of God. For the sake of a swift and sharp rebuttal, I’ll only need one verse, and not just any one, but THE ONE (Ground Zero for Christianity):

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”

(John chapter 3, verses 16 through 18 NASB)

These verses right here make Jesus’s claim in the New Testament as the Son of God unequivocally clear, so that NO ONE AT ALL reading it can say, “He didn’t say that He was God’s Son!” It’s right here in black and white (or red, if you have that type of Bible). This is the source of my annoyance and anger with Muslims when talking about Jesus. They say “Oh, Jesus never said thaaat.” BS’ing me, man.

No. Look, I don't mind you trying to redirect me, but you must be accurate in your redirection. The one who betratyed the Nazarene was not an Apostle. He was a Disciple. That's different.

I was trying to tell you about Jesus, Son of the Father, who demonstrated in the Temple, was arrested, convicted and sentenced, but who was released upon the wishes of the people who all loved him so. He was called Jesus but Christians removed his name from the accounts and used Eastern Aramaic for his name, this to confuse the readership, and you maybe?

Bar-Son of
Abba = Father
Jesus Barabba(s)
Here comes the NT for you:-
Mark 15:7} And there was
[one] named Barabbas, [which lay] bound with them that
had made insurrection with him, who had committed
murder in the insurrection. {15:8} And the multitude crying
aloud began to desire [him to do] as he had ever done unto
them.
Matthew {27:16} And they had then a notable
prisoner, called Barabbas. {27:17} Therefore when they
were gathered together, Pilate said unto them, Whom will
ye that I release unto you? Barabbas, or Jesus which is
called Christ?
Matthew {27:21} The governor
answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye
that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas.
Luke: {23:18} And they cried
out all at once, saying, Away with this [man,] and release
unto us Barabbas: {23:19} (Who for a certain sedition made
in the city, and for murder, was cast into prison.)
John: ]{18:39} But ye
have a custom, that I should release unto you one at the
passover: will ye therefore that I release unto you the King
of the Jews? {18:40} Then cried they all again, saying, Not
this man, but Barabbas. Now Barabbas was a robber.

Note well how John (who was not the disciple, only the apostle) had no idea who Barabba was, that he had demonstrated in the Temple causing riot.... John thought he was a robber.

Either way, Apostle or Disciple, he was one of the Twelve. As such, it wouldn’t make a difference.

OK, they shared a first name. Jesus, the Christ and Jesus Barabbas. We know this. Big deal. Several collections of people in the Bible share the same name. Two of Jesus’s disciples were named James as was His brother, James the Just. Judas Iscariot shares the same name with Judah, one of the Patriarchs of Israel. There was Joseph, another of the Patriarchs, and Joseph, the husband of Mary. Mary herself and Mary of Magdala. What’s your point here?

Wrong. Both Bahai and Islam do not accept that Jesus was resurrected. There is evidence that Jesus was never crucified. There is other evidence (for another belief) that Jesus never died on the cross.

Historians and NT scholars are in agreement that there are two events from the Life of Jesus that are historical fact: His Baptism and His Crucifixion.

I never state that they believe in what the New Testament teaches, which is fine. I stated (once, again) that [explicitly] Muslims — believing, oddly enough, that it had been corrupted and that Christians changed it — should not make the serious mistake of attempting to look to the New Testament for proofs of their doctrine. Such is a failure from the jump. It’s impossible.

My friend. I just did.

OB, I love you dearly, man, but oooooh boy. Please reread the New Testament. In full. Please.

 

[oldbadger]

................ some other Jews accusing Him of blasphemy:

“It is not for a good work that we stone you, but for blasphemy because you, being a man, make yourself out to be God.”

“For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.

For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.

He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”

(John chapter 3, verses 16 through 18 NASB)

These verses right here make Jesus’s claim in the New Testament as the Son of God unequivocally clear,

I've already tried to tell you that Apostle John was not Disciple John.
Apostle John did have a good collection of accounts, but he had no idea of where to place them in an accurate timeline. All you have quoted id John.

. This is the source of my annoyance and anger with Muslims when talking about Jesus. They say “Oh, Jesus never said thaaat.” BS’ing me, man.

If it's not there in the synoptics, it's not there.
Why would Muslims upset you, a non-Christian, quite so much?

Either way, Apostle or Disciple, he was one of the Twelve. As such, it wouldn’t make a difference.

If you cannot get such small details correct, then you'll have a difficult time with me.

OK, they shared a first name. Jesus, the Christ and Jesus Barabbas. We know this. Big deal.

Whoa there! Jesus Barabbas = Jesus son of the father. That is a very big deal, isn't it?

Judas Iscariot shares the same name with Judah, one of the Patriarchs of Israel.

No......... Judas' full name was much different.
And you have not worked out his full name and what his nickname was, nor why, methinks.
YOu don't know as much as you think, maybe?

Historians and NT scholars are in agreement that there are two events from the Life of Jesus that are historical fact: His Baptism and His Crucifixion.

Historians and NT Scholars would mostly scream at each other if in the same room.
The account of Jesus Barabbas cannot be overlooked.
Alternatively, if Jesus was crucified, his surviving the cross can be debated from both biblical and using one Josephus account.

OB, I love you dearly, man, but oooooh boy. Please reread the New Testament. In full. Please.

I'll like you back, but try not to be so arrogantly dismissive, is my suggestion.

 

[Sundance]

I've already tried to tell you that Apostle John was not Disciple John.
Apostle John did have a good collection of accounts, but he had no idea of where to place them in an accurate timeline. All you have quoted id John.


If it's not there in the synoptics, it's not there.
Why would Muslims upset you, a non-Christian, quite so much?

Dude, Jesus’s (and subsequently, His Disciples’) understanding of Himself as ‘Son of God’ is unequivocally established in every single one of the Four.

In Matthew chapter 16, verses 16 and 17:

“Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.”

Mark chapter 1, verses 9 through 11:

“In those days Jesus opening, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him; and a voice came out of the heavens: “You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased.”

Luke chapter 10, verses 21 and 22:

“At that very time He rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit, and said, “I praise You, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. All things have been handed over to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.” ”

See? All four.

And I’m interested in it as one who was brought up a Christian, and one invested in making sure that integrity and honesty in religious matters is manifest. I don’t see it concerning this topic. Jews, though they do not at all believe, will never say about Jesus in the New Testament, “Jesus never taught that he was the son of God.” They say, “He did teach that, but we don’t agree. We don’t believe him.” They will never try to pull verses from the New Testament in saying this. They would stick to their own Bible.

If you cannot get such small details correct, then you'll have a difficult time with me.

If you choose to try to justify making arguments stemming from nothing more than a tunnel vision,
Houston, we got a problem.

Whoa there! Jesus Barabbas = Jesus son of the father. That is a very big deal, isn't it?


No......... Judas' full name was much different.
And you have not worked out his full name and what his nickname was, nor why, methinks.
YOu don't know as much as you think, maybe?

As to what Barabbas’s name means, it’s inconsequential because there is clear distinction made between Jesus, the Christ and Jesus Barabbas.

Concerning Judas, again it’s inconsequential as it would serve to divert from the point I made.

Historians and NT Scholars would mostly scream at each other if in the same room.
The account of Jesus Barabbas cannot be overlooked.
Alternatively, if Jesus was crucified, his surviving the cross can be debated from both biblical and using one Josephus account.

Normally, yes. On the topic addressed here specifically, however, they’ve reached a consensus.

I'll like you back, but try not to be so arrogantly dismissive, is my suggestion.

I understand, OB.

 

[Baroodi]

I agree, That it

current Bibles were all written by people after Jesus. The facts were lost intentionally and subjectively

 

[Baroodi]

How God can be delivered by a human? Who was running the universe or created it before he was born? metaphoric explanation here is not logical.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

I’ve encountered many different perspectives on Jesus and the Gospel, from the beauty of the Bahá’ís (which is rather close, in my opinion, to the NT), to the mind-blowing conception of certain Hindus as an expansion or plenary portion of God (namely, Krishna or Vishnu) in the material world, to others as another rising-and-dying deity worshipped alongside their own as followers of indigenous religions do, to others as a holy man or a renegade. No sweat here.

(By religion, I myself am no Christian, merely sympathetic to it.)

Yet, concerning Islam, my anger has been kindled. Why, you may ask? Well, they not only differ with the New Testament (which, again, is perfectly fine. Understandable.), but they claim that the Christians have it all wrong about Jesus, Jesus didn’t say what He’s recorded as having said about who He was and what He would do. He said something different from what they believe He said.

My question here is this: if Muslims say that Jesus was a prophet, would a prophet lie about his identity and his message?


Jesus in the New Testament claims to be the Son of God, many times referring to God as “[My] Father”. Those around Him understood that He made such claims. Why do Muslims ignore these passages? Additionally, He had foretold his own death (by crucifixion), and the New Testament makes it abundantly clear this is what became of Jesus, not to speak a word to His Resurrection from the dead and eventual return. Yet, Muslims claim that it was fabricated. He was not crucified, but was taken up to Heaven. Why, when both scripture and history confirm the Crucifixion of Jesus as having taken place?

I invite my Muslim friends to read His Words from themselves and evaluate whether or not He was a liar. If you’re willing to concede that He was telling the truth, logically speaking, it would nullify your religion’s claims, would it not?

Hello!

Speaking on behalf of all Muslims as their spokesperson, It isn't Jesus we consider the liar, but the writers of the New Testament and teachers and interpreters of it. Thank you. Islam Out *mic drop*

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

There is literally no way to establish right or wrong on this since all scripture is subjective, thus not objective.

What, if anything, is objective, and what qualifies anything as objective ever rather than subjective, considering one can't even confirm with certainty not only what anyone else is seeing let alone that anyone is even seeing anything at all, except of course you.

 

[Trailblazer]

Hello!

Speaking on behalf of all Muslims as their spokesperson, It isn't Jesus we consider the liar, but the writers of the New Testament and teachers and interpreters of it. Thank you. Islam Out *mic drop*

Ditto for the Baha'is. Jesus was just an innocent bystander when Paul and the Church fathers revamped His teachings and purpose.

 

[DagonVarunaMitraApolloZan]

Ditto for the Baha'is. Jesus was just an innocent bystander when Paul and the Church fathers revamped His teachings and purpose.

Yeah, and who knows, maybe even Paul didn't say what they attributed to him or mean it that way, who knows where the corruption may have started and who was really responsible and where it got really twisted, since there were very early Christian sects which seemed to have beliefs which differed from the Post-Nicean Creed types.