Is the Muslim Jesus cited in the Qur'an possibly historical?

[oldbadger]

With all due respect, the answer is "yes of course". Happens all the time. I said "all the time", not "every time" so don't ask me where to find Harry Potter which is a very bad argument.

...OK......... ??
Not Harry Potter....? OK
Alice in....... no no, of course not..... ummm


OK.... I give in.
If you will kindly give me an example of a fantasy book (not a fiction...... I quite like Bernard Cornwell's fictions, all based on history ) then I shall do my best to be 'umbled and told-off.

 

[oldbadger]

I think thou protest too much. You obviously can't prove that the gospels are of historical merit so you lash out at what you call "mythers" as if trashing "mythers" in some way supports your notions of history. Good luck with that.

I don't need good luck to identify mythers..... I just read them as they throw the whole bible in to the trash.

See? Mythers.....

 

[oldbadger]

With all due respect, the answer is "yes of course". Happens all the time. I said "all the time", not "every time" so don't ask me where to find Harry Potter which is a very bad argument.

BTW........ I don't think you wrote about fantasy books identifying historical folks...... I wasn't replying to you, although I do acknowledge your reply to that point.

 

[firedragon]

BTW........ I don't think you wrote about fantasy books identifying historical folks...... I wasn't replying to you, although I do acknowledge your reply to that point.

Haha. Apologies for disrupting a discussion mate. You know old age can make you too impatient. I think I didn't read all the posts to understand the context of your point.

 

[Terry Sampson]

What you have to say?

LOL! I say that your OP is a veritable minefield. Playing in this thread, I think, is risky business, if not dangerous.
Why do I say that?
Because, IMO, the prevailing understanding in my "neighborhood" is that Islam (i.e. very many, if not most, Muslims) consider the Qur'an to be "a stenographic revelation", by which I mean:

• According to the “the stenographic theory of revelation”, Allah dictated all the words of the Qur'an to Muhammad (whether directly or indirectly is moot); Muhammad recited what he was told without altering them; and what he recited was faithfully and accurately recorded by others without alterations. In the stenographic theory, all the words of the Qur'an are Allah's words.

Consequently, it would seem to me that, if the Qur'an is believed to be a stenographic revelation, i.e. Allah's words, the accuracy of whatever is recorded in it reflects on the credibility, not of Muhammad, but of Allah. Any inaccuracy in the Qur'an is Allah's. Ergo, challenging anything actually written in the Qur'an is a direct challenge to Allah. And that, IMO, is risky, if not dangerous.

 

[firedragon]

LOL! I say that your OP is a veritable minefield. Playing in this thread, I think, is risky business, if not dangerous.
Why do I say that?
Because, IMO, the prevailing understanding in my "neighborhood" is that Islam (i.e. very many, if not most, Muslims) consider the Qur'an to be "a stenographic revelation", by which I mean:

• According to the “the stenographic theory of revelation”, Allah dictated all the words of the Qur'an to Muhammad (whether directly or indirectly is moot); Muhammad recited what he was told without altering them; and what he recited was faithfully and accurately recorded by others without alterations. In the stenographic theory, all the words of the Qur'an are Allah's words.

Consequently, it would seem to me that, if the Qur'an is believed to be a stenographic revelation, i.e. Allah's words, the accuracy of whatever is recorded in it reflects on the credibility, not of Muhammad, but of Allah. Any inaccuracy in the Qur'an is Allah's. Ergo, challenging anything actually written in the Qur'an is a direct challenge to Allah. And that, IMO, is risky, if not dangerous.

In this thread, the Quran is not considered as anything but merely a book. Faiths put aside for better discussion of the topic. Hope you understand.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Hope you understand.

Indeed I do. But let's hope the easily-offended are not RF members, eh?

 

[Terry Sampson]

@Harel13
Unsolicited reading material relevant to this thread is attached below.

 

[Harel13]

@Harel13
Unsolicited reading material relevant to this thread is attached below.

Appreciated as usual

 

[firedragon]

Indeed I do. But let's hope the easily-offended are not RF members, eh?

Haha. I understand.

 

[Terry Sampson]

2. Jesus was called the "Messiah". - 3:45

Not so fast, amigo. I'm Johnny-come-lately to this party and am still going through the many pages in this thread, so it may have been noted elsewhere herein, but ... just in case it hasn't been: 3:45 actually says:

• When the angels said, “O Mary, truly God gives thee glad tidings of a Word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, high honored in this world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought nigh.
  • From The Study Quran: a New Translation and Commentary, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Editor-in-Chief,

My point: Yes, Jesus was called "the Messiah", but contrary to the claim in 3:45, the Matthew story of Jesus' nativity makes no mention of angels speaking to Mary, much less telling anyone that his name would be "Messiah" or that he would be the Messiah.

• Matthew 1.
  • 8 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. 19 And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. 20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” ... 24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

Luke's story of the nativity likewise makes no mention of angels telling Joseph or Mary that Jesus' name would be "Messiah" or that he would be the Messiah.

• Birth of Jesus Foretold
  Luke 1.
  • 26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you! 29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. 30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”

Note: In Luke's second chapter, angels appeared to the sheperds after Jesus was born and announced his birth as follows:

• 8 And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. 9 And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with great fear. 10 And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. 11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. 12 And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger.” 13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying,
  14 “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!

However, angels telling sheperds that a savior who is Messiah the Lord was born is NOT the same as angels telling Mary, before she knew she was pregnant, that she would have a child and that his name would be "Messiah".

 

[firedragon]

Not so fast, amigo. I'm Johnny-come-lately to this party and am still going through the many pages in this thread, so it may have been noted elsewhere herein, but ... just in case it hasn't been: 3:45 actually says:

• When the angels said, “O Mary, truly God gives thee glad tidings of a Word from Him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, high honored in this world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought nigh.
  • From The Study Quran: a New Translation and Commentary, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, Editor-in-Chief,

My point: Yes, Jesus was called "the Messiah", but contrary to the claim in 3:45, the Matthew story of Jesus' nativity makes no mention of angels speaking to Mary, much less telling anyone that his name would be "Messiah" or that he would be the Messiah.

• Matthew 1.
  • 8 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. 19 And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly. 20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” ... 24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife, 25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.

Luke's story of the nativity likewise makes no mention of angels telling Joseph or Mary that Jesus' name would be "Messiah" or that he would be the Messiah.

• Birth of Jesus Foretold
  Luke 1.
  • 26 In the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. And the virgin's name was Mary. 28 And he came to her and said, “Greetings, O favored one, the Lord is with you! 29 But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and tried to discern what sort of greeting this might be. 30 And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. 32 He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”

Note: In Luke's second chapter, angels appeared to the sheperds after Jesus was born and announced his birth as follows:

• 8 And in the same region there were shepherds out in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. 9 And an angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were filled with great fear. 10 And the angel said to them, “Fear not, for behold, I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. 11 For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. 12 And this will be a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in swaddling cloths and lying in a manger.” 13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying,
  14 “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!

However, angels telling sheperds that a savior who is Messiah the Lord was born is NOT the same as angels telling Mary, before she knew she was pregnant, that she would have a child and that his name would be "Messiah".

True. But the post is not comparing the Quranic episodes to the Bible. It is questioning the historical Jesus. Hope you understand.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Hope you understand.

I didn't, but now you're making me think about why I didn't.

 

[firedragon]

I didn't, but now you're making me think about why I didn't.

Haha. Im sorry but I just refuse to engage in any kind of theological discussion in this thread because it was not meant to be a theological discussion. Also, the thread is comparing the historical Jesus to the Jesus to the man Jesus as mentioned in the Quran I cited in the OP. Thats it. I respect your post brother, but if I engage with it it will be a trail of responses and my purpose is lost. I have asked the same question comparing the New Testament and the Historical Jesus with some specific points once and it became a bickering game and not a valid discussion with objective historical records being questioned or quoted.

This is the reason I refuse to discuss outside the exact topic of the OP. Said that with all due respect.

 

[Terry Sampson]

It is questioning the historical Jesus.

Okay, I've got myself sorted out now, ... finally. I do understand your decision to avoid theological debate, and I'm fine with that.

This is the reason I refuse to discuss outside the exact topic of the OP. Said that with all due respect.

Point taken.
To the question in this thread's title, I say: Yes, ... but he's barely recognizable.

 

[lukethethird]

I don't need good luck to identify mythers..... I just read them as they throw the whole bible in to the trash.

See? Mythers.....

How quaint, lashing out at those that don't share in your beliefs.

 

[columbus]

The entire gospels are pure fantasy about a godman that performs miracles. Believe all you want.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but that's not the way I see it all. I generally assume that at the heart of such legends there's a kernel of truth.

The basic story of Jesus is more than reasonably plausible. It happened a lot. A guy named Jesus, from Nazareth, became well known around Jerusalem. Doubtless he was intelligent and charismatic. Developed a following, got full of himself, made himself annoying to the authorities, got crucified for treason against the Romans. Even the John the Baptist connection is entirely plausible, even expected.
That doesn't mean there is any truth to all the rest of the Legend. From the Nativity to the Ascension, there was plenty of time between Jesus's conviction and crucifixion and the first signs of gospels for the story to grow hugely.

What you have to say?

Honestly, while I don't consider either the Bible or Quran truly historical documents I don't dismiss them outright. And the Quranic version of the crucifixion and afterwards seem quite the circumstances under which the Resurrection Legend would take hold. So I think it quite plausible.

Not that I'm anything like a scholar or anything.
Tom

ETA ~It seems reasonable to me that during Muhammad's years as a trader he would have a learned a great deal about the various versions of Abrahamic religion in the region. The version he kept probably was the most plausible he heard.~

 

[Terry Sampson]

the Quranic version of the crucifixion

And what, pray tell, do you think the Quranic version of the crucifixion is?

 

[columbus]

And what, pray tell, do you think the Quranic version of the crucifixion is?

That Jesus escaped death and fled the country.
Tom

 

[lukethethird]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but that's not the way I see it all. I generally assume that at the heart of such legends there's a kernel of truth.

The basic story of Jesus is more than reasonably plausible. It happened a lot. A guy named Jesus, from Nazareth, became well known around Jerusalem. Doubtless he was intelligent and charismatic. Developed a following, got full of himself, made himself annoying to the authorities, got crucified for treason against the Romans. Even the John the Baptist connection is entirely plausible, even expected.
That doesn't mean there is any truth to all the rest of the Legend. From the Nativity to the Ascension, there was plenty of time between Jesus's conviction and crucifixion and the first signs of gospels for the story to grow hugely.

It's a story about a superhero with supernatural powers, we don't write history from stories about superheros, so assuming history in this case is special pleading. The characters may be based on real people but their roles here are invented for theological purposes, as is the entire story. Even if a given scene is based on an actual event, how would we know?