Quran VS Bible , a thoroughly comparative study,arranged by items

format_quote Originally Posted by Al-manar

As we know that the first person of the trinity the father (Allah) is recognized as divine by both Muslims and Christians……and when it comes to the holy spirit though thought to be divine by Christians yet he is hardly worshiped ,venerated (we will get back to that point soon)

When we honor and worship Christ, the Father and the Holy Spirit are honored & worshipped. We see them as one in essence and nature not just purpose, and they are NOT God's associates or partners in the father. Besides, this is not the issue here.

The issue is why is it that myself and even scholars infer that Allah's understanding or Muhammad's was that the trinity consisted of the Father, Mother and Son. This is not Biblical Christianity never has been, and Mary has never been thought to actually be God by anyone accept what Muhammad understood was who Mary was to Christians judging from Allah's question to Jesus S 5:116.

The Quran doesn't have to say the Father, Mother and Son are the Holy Trinity to Christians. We have enough information to make a satisfying and positive deduction or inference that no one as been able to unequivocally gainsay in any way, shape or form.

I have not gotten a clear sentence or two explaining this to me. In my minds eye, and until it is explain clearly, and not with an esay of 500 words trying to or attempting give a convoluted an explanation that actually evades the topic, IMO, will this cease to be a discreptancy in my minds eye

format_quote Originally Posted by Burninglight

When we honor and worship Christ, the father and the Holy Spirit are honored & worshipped. We see them as one in essence and nature not just purpose, and they are NOT God's associates or partners in the father.

That is your belief that you infered from the book that you believe fully to be the word of God. but we disagree with that....

format_quote Originally Posted by Burninglight

I have not gotten a clear sentence or two explaining this to me. In my minds eye and until it is explain clearly and not with an esay of 500 words trying to or attempting give a convoluted explanation that actually evades the topic

I think some readers would disagree with your judgment,I neither gave convulted explanation nor evaded the topic !!
... I thought you were going to quote me ,refuting knowledge with knowledge ........

anyway ,thank you for reading ... and that is not the end of the line .... the thread filled with varierd topics ,if you wish to comment..

Regards

I enabled my account to rebut this guy and you ban him the minute I make my entry?

^lol .

I am tempted to unban him... but it's best to leave him out. He was trolling anyway.
He pretended to be sincere, but it was very clear that sincerity was far from his mind.
Notice how he kept peppering every other post of his with well known bits and pieces mostly used by anti islamic sites, and notice how he ignored everything everyone else wrote. That's how these new brand of evangelists do these days.
He kept mentioning same thing about Muhammad (saw) which I gave evidence of refutations more than a week ago, and I gave him several warnings for him to stop doing that.

format_quote Originally Posted by ßlµêßêll

I enabled my account to rebut this guy and you ban him the minute I make my entry?

he didn't need a re-but [we've done plenty of that], he needs a but(t) kicking...

I am tempted to unban him... but it's best to leave him out. He was trolling anyway.
He pretended to be sincere, but it was very clear that sincerity was far from his mind.
Notice how he kept peppering every other post of his with well known bits and pieces mostly used by anti islamic sites, and notice how he ignored everything everyone else wrote. That's how these new brand of evangelists do these days.
He kept mentioning same thing about Muhammad (saw) which I gave evidence of refutations more than a week ago, and I gave him several warnings for him to stop doing that.

exactly!

The prologue of John ,additional points (P.2):

Having already shown the impossibility to accomodate the theology of the prologue of John with Islam,now let’s get to the opposite direction ,exposing this time ,not a muslim but a christian input to accomodate the Quranic Jesus (as a word) with the logos christian theology, !!

Christian:

Quran 3:45 : "(And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah)."

Quran 4:171 "O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and his word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him:

These passages support Jesus’ prehuman existence, that prior to becoming man from Mary, Jesus already existed with God.
If God's Word is eternal and Jesus is God's Word,Therefore, Jesus is eternal.

Muslim :

First: other verses shows that all creatures (including Jesus) are simply a by-product of God's creative command (word)

Holy Quran 3:47 She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man has touched me." He said: "So (it will be) for Allah creates what He wills. When He has decreed something, He says to it only: "Be!" and it is.

Holy Quran 3:59 Jesus´ case with God was the same as Adam´s: He created him from dust; then told him: ´Be!" and he was.

Jesus and Adam(according to the verse) etc .. are not the (be,word) itself but its by-product.

Second : no contradiction in calling Jesus ,on one hand ,(a word) in verse 3:45 ,on the other hand, (a by-product of a word) in verse 3:59 ......

In Arabic the object can be called by the name of its source....

Holy Quran 31:11 Such is the Creation of Allah(heaven and Earth). now show Me what is there that others besides Him have created: nay, but the Transgressors are in manifest error.

heaven and earth (creatures) as objects ,were called by name of the source (the creation of Allah) ,the same way we can call the sky (God's power) , an affliction (God's wrath) etc......

Christian: Quran 4:171. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was a messenger of Allah, and his word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him:

The Quran never calls anyone, with the exception of Christ, a spirit from God. the very Spirit of the living God

In verse 58:22:
"Thou wilt not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, loving those who resist Allah and His Messenger, even though they were their fathers or their sons, or their brothers, or their kindred. For such He has written Faith in their hearts, and strengthened them with a spirit from Himself. And He will admit them to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, to dwell therein (forever).

In order for the Spirit to be able to strengthen believers everywhere implies that the Spirit is omnipresent. Yet only God is omnipresent which essentially means that the Spirit is God.

Muslim : Calling Jesus a spirit from God,bringing verse 58:22 would weaken dramatically your position

1- A creature (Gabriel) is called ,The spirit,Allah's spirit in the Quran

check our input on the holy spirit

Quran VS Bible , a thoroughly comparative study,arranged by items

2- who told you that in order for a force to support the believers to be divine in essence? the holy spirit is supposed to help in special ,extraordinary situations not for everyone ,everywhere,everytime ....... who would assume that Gabriel needs to be omnipresent in order to support some selected believers in some selected times ?!!.....

3- Assuming, for the sake of argument , that the spirit supporting the believers in verse 58:22 to be the divine holy spirit (according to you) , then it can't be the same spirit describing Jesus in Quran 4:171 ....
Jesus is not the holy spirit,but is certainly was supported by the holy spirit, isn't it?

...

Jesus as prexistent ,creator or agent of creation:


our last posts,we visited verses in John with his idea of jesus prexistence and as a creator ....

Are there other verses with the same idea in other books in the new testament?

Yes for sure ....

the writer(s) of :

1 Corinthians 8:6
Yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.


Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.


Hebrews 1 1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.


Though Trinitarians understand the verses as Jesus God the prexistent creator, Unitarians understand the verses as the function of God the Father as the SOURCE of creation is distinguished from Christ's role as MEDIATOR of creation
the Father alone is the source and his first creation (the only direct creation by Him), His only-begotten son, is the channel through whom he caused all the rest of creation to be.

again both of their understandings are against Islam ... Jesus neither God the creator nor the channel through whom he caused all the rest of creation to be.

Calling Jesus God?

John 20:24 Now Thomas , one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe. 26 A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"



while trinitarians believe the passage as the clearest affirmation of Christ's deity in the Bible,the greatest single testimony recorded in the Scriptures. yet unitarians note:


It is perfectly appropriate for Thomas to respond to Jesus’ resurrection with a confession of faith both in Jesus as his Lord and in God who sent and raised Jesus…If we understand Thomas’ confession as an assertion that Jesus is God, this confession in 20.31 becomes an anti-climax.” Greg G. Stafford ,Jehovah's Witness apologist and author

Jesus never referred to himself as “God” in the absolute sense, so what precedent then did Thomas have for calling Jesus “my God”? Given the language of the time, and given that Jesus did represent the Father and have divine authority, the expression used by Thomas is certainly understandable. .....The context of the verse shows that its subject is the fact that Jesus was alive. Only three verses earlier, Thomas had ignored the eyewitness testimony of the other apostles when they told him they had seen the Lord. The resurrection of Christ was such a disputed doctrine that Thomas did not believe it (the other apostles had not either), and thus Jesus’ death would have caused Thomas to doubt that Jesus was who he said he was—the Messiah. Thomas believed Jesus was dead. Thus, he was shocked and astonished when he saw and was confronted by Jesus Himself. Thomas, upon being confronted by the living Christ, instantly believed in the resurrection, i.e., that God had raised the man Jesus from the dead, and, given the standard use of “God” in the culture as one with God’s authority, it certainly makes sense that Thomas would proclaim, “My Lord and my God.” There is no mention of the Trinity in the context, and there is no reason to believe that the disciples would have even been aware of such a doctrine. Thomas spoke what he would have known: that the man Jesus who he thought was dead was alive and had divine authority. biblicalunitarian.com

I agree with the previous in the sense that caling Jesus God seems at odd with the context ....

in spite of the various theories to render the word God metaphorically ,according to, Brown, Raymond E :There is no significant tendency among modern scholars to deny that John 20:28 identify Jesus with God.

Muslims' position?
the passage is claimed to be a discourse between a resurrected jesus and one of his disciples !... It means clearly that the whole passage and in context is against what the Quran defines as the true Injeel , don't you agree that the Quran denies crucifiction ,resurection? Again my reminder , how on Earth you build a concept that based on parts of the new testament that the Quran strongly goes against?
what muslim who cares for so called post resurrection narratives?!!

The authority of Jesus would support a belief of him as God?


Jesus’ Authority to Forgive Sins & Heal the Sick (Mark 2:6-12)


Mark 2:6 But there was certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, 7 Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? 8 And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? 9 Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? 10 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath authority on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) 11 I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. 12 And immediately he arose, took up the bed, and went forth before them all; insomuch that they were all amazed, and glorified God, saying, We never saw it on this fashion.

commentaries:

format_quote Originally Posted by [COLOR="#0000CD"

Eerdmans Commentary on the Bible,by international team of 63 biblical scholars[/COLOR] ]

The surprise in the story comes when Jesus does not simply heal the man, but pronounces his sins forgiven
(v. 5: "Your sins are forgiven"). Some scribes (Luke 5:21 adds "and Pharisees") witness the event and, hearing Jesus' words, regard it as "blasphemy." They reason. "Who can forgive sins but God alone?" (v. 7). Why do the scribes think this? To answer this question, we must ask in what sense Jesus has forgiven this man's sins. Is his pronouncement an instance of the divine passive? If so, Jesus is saying, "Your sins are forgiven by God]." But in this case, the scribes should be accusing Jesus of presumption, for assuming priestly prerogatives (e.g., "Who does this man think he is? A priest?"). Or is his pronouncement based on his own authority, in which case the scribes' thoughts of blasphemy are better founded. The answer is suggested by v. lo, where Jesus says that "the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins." The self-designation "Son of Man" and the qualifier "on earth" point to Daniel 7, where a human ("one like a son of man"), coming with the clouds of heaven, approaches God (the "Ancient of Days") and receives authority (Dan 7:9-14). The "clouds of heaven" are antithetical to "on earth." with the latter presupposing the former. That is to say, because the "Son of Man" receives authority from heaven, he possesses authority on earth, among other things, to forgive sins. Only twice in Mark is Jesus accused of blasphemy. and both times Jesus identifies himself as the "Son of Man." The other passage is found in the hearing before Caiaphas the high priest. Jesus declares that he is the "Son of Man" who will be "seated at the right hand of Power, and corning with the clouds of heaven" (14:62). Caiaphas reacts in horror and calls the statement blasphemy . As the human being described in Daniel 7. the human being to whom divine authority is granted. Jesus has authority to forgive sins, or, in the case of someone like Caiaphas. he has the authority to sit in judgment. Jesus has not claimed to be God (if he had, the scribes would have reacted much more violently); he has claimed to be God's vice-regent on earth, proclaiming God's rule and offering forgiveness to those who respond in faith to the proclamation. The link between sin and sickness, forgiveness and restoration of health, is well illustrated in a later rabbinic saying: "A sick man does not recover from his sickness until all his sins are forgiven him, as it is written. 'Who forgives all your iniquities; who heals all your diseases' Ps 103:31'1(6. Ned. 41a). It is also worth noting that in the Aramaic paraphrase of Isaiah (i.e., the Tar gum) the suffering servant of Isa 5z:13-53:1z is understood in messianic terms as one through whom Israel's sins can be forgiven. A few phrases are instructive:"... in that we attach ourselves to his words our sins will be forgiven us ...before the Lord it was a pleasure to forgive the sins of us all for his sake ... he shall beseech concerning their sins ... yet he will beseech concerning the sins of many, and to the rebels it shall be forgiven for him" (Te. 11a 53:5, 6. it, tz). To defend his claim that he truly does possess divine authority to forgive sins, Jesus asks his critics: "Which is easier, to say to the paralyzed man, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or DO say, 'Rise, rake up your pallet, and walk?'" (2:9). The word of healing is harder because it can be verified; the word of forgiveness is easier because it cannot be verified. Therefore, to prove that he really can do the easier (i.e., forgive the man's sins) he does the harder (i.e., heal the man's paralysis). Jesus commands the paralyzed man to rise, take up his pallet, and go home (v. He does so, and everyone is astounded and glorifies God (v.12). This response stands in stark contrast to the grousing of the scribes only moments earlier. "We never saw anything like this!" No, they had not, because the authorized Son of Man had never before been among them. .

.................................................. ............................................

format_quote Originally Posted by [B

Jesus Forgives Sins.Austin Cline ,Regional Director for the Council for Secular Humanism[/B]]



If God is the only one with authority to forgive people’s sins, then Jesus assumes a great deal in forgiving the sins of a man who came to him to have his palsy healed. Naturally, there are a few who wonder about this and question whether Jesus should do it.
Note that the scribes don’t actually say anything — they are thinking it. Jesus perceives what they are thinking or, more likely, he knew that his actions would be questioned, knew what some people must have been thinking about him, and addressed his response to the most likely candidates in his midst.
Already in the second chapter we are encountering Jewish authorities accusing Jesus of blasphemy. This is the charge upon which they would convict him at the end of Mark’s gospel, so the theme is being established by the author early on. Of course, if it were true that Jesus were blaspheming, why doesn’t anyone do something about him right now? Why didn’t they do something about John the Baptist who, according to Mark, was also forgiving sins — or at least taking action that caused people’s sins to be forgiven?
It is strange that Jesus should react so negatively to people questioning his authority to forgive sins. He should have expected it — and now he has the perfect opportunity to explain that he is God and therefore has the authority to forgive sins. For some reason he keeps quiet about this. On the other hand, John the Baptist seems to have gone around forgiving people’s sins, so maybe it wasn’t strange for people to claim the authority to do that.
Notice here the basis upon which Jesus does assert his authority to forgive sins: his power to heal the sick. Perhaps there are good reasons for Jesus not to assert his divinity at this point and to these people, but why claim that the authority to forgive sins is demonstrated through the ability to heal someone? Lots of people were going around at the time healing people and exorcising demons — did they also have the authority to forgive sins? John the Baptist isn’t depicted as healing people, so on what authority did he baptize people for the remission of sins?
This was a time when people believed that the sickness and disability were signs of sin — either your own sin or the sins of your forefathers being visited upon you. In this context, maybe the connection between the forgiveness of sins and healing sickness is not so strange after all. By healing palsy, Jesus is showing he is able to eliminate what many would have regarded as a physical manifestation of crimes against God — and how might one do this without also having the authority to forgive those crimes?
This also puts the faith of the man’s friends in a different light: if they had faith that Jesus could heal, perhaps they also had faith that Jesus could forgive. We cannot be certain about this because the connection is tenuous, but it is a real possibility.
This is where Jesus first refers to himself as the “Son of man” — note that it is not the “Son of God.” The two titles are not the same. In Aramaic, Son of man is an honorific which means something akin to “human being” and confers no divine significance. It is important to keep in mind that in the earliest of the four gospels, Jesus does not refer to himself during his ministry as the Son of God or as being divine in any way, even when given the chance.
At no point in the gospels are we told what Jesus meant by the title “Son of man” — it’s possible that he had in mind something other than the usual sense. That, however, would have made matters rather confusing for early listeners and readers of the stories. After all, they couldn’t be expected to read “Son of man” the same way unless it was used in its normal, casual sense.
Historically, Christians have treated the title “Son of man” as having more significance and, therefore, this passage has more theological weight than it may seem For Christians, it signifies Jesus’ fate of suffering, dying, and being raised again. This has been read as creating a link between Jesus’ authority to forgive sins and his eventual resurrection..

format_quote Originally Posted by The Gospel according to Mark: meaning and message,George Martin

This is the first time that Jesus refers to himself as the Son of Man. It is a description or title that Jesus will use often for himself, and it can carry different shades of meaning. Son of man is an Aramaic idiom for human being, and thus Jesus might be using it simply as a way of saying "I." But it also has other associations, particularly of a heavenly "one like a son of man" in the Inik of Daniel who is given authority by God (Dan 7:13-14). Jesus uses the Son of Man in a complex way, referring to himself as a human who has been given extraordinary authority by God, the authority to forgive sins on earth. Jesus brings God's forgiveness to earth as God's unique agent. That you may know echoes Old Testament texts in which God says he will do something that will demonstrate his might (Exod 8:18; 9:14). Jesus is about to make a similar unmistakable demonstration of his authority.
11 He said to the paralytic, "I say to you, rise, pick up your mat, and go home." The word translated rise is the same word that will later be used for rising from the dead (12:26; 14:28; 16:6): the man's rising from his paralysis is a sign of much greater rising to new life in store for us through Jesus. Pick up your mat, for you will no longer need it to lie on all day long. Go home and begin your new life.
12 The man is able to do as Jesus commands because of Jesus' command. He rose, picked up his mat at once, and went away in the sight of everyone. He was carried in on a mat; now he leaves carrying it—a sign of the complete change Jesus has made in his life, spiritually as well as physically. His healing happens at once, and it is manifest in the sight of everyone. The people in turn were all astounded and glorified God. Again, people are astonished by what Jesus does (see 1:22, 27); they now have a somewhat fuller realization that he is God's agent, and consequently they glorified God for working through Jesus. They say, We have never seen anything like this, yet at least some of them had to have witnessed Jesus' previous healings and exorcisms in Capernaum (1:32-34). What sets this particular healing apart from Jesus' previous healings has to be its link with Jesus' forgiving the man's sins: no one had ever claimed to forgive sins and backed up that claim with a demonstration of authority.
.

the other so called trinity proof text from the synoptic gospels,are even weaker than the previous passage !!!


2- Mt 11:27 "all things have been handed over to me by my Father".


Congratulations !.......


3- Mark 2:23-28 "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath

format_quote Originally Posted by Jesus: Lord of the Sabbath?.Austin Cline ,Regional Director for the Council for Secular Humanism

Among the ways Jesus challenged or defied religious tradition, his failure to observe the Sabbath in the manner expected seems to have been one of the most serious. Other incidents, like not fasting or eating with disreputable people, raised some eyebrows but didn’t necessarily amount to a sin. Keeping the Sabbath holy was, however, commanded by God — and if Jesus failed to that, then his claims about himself and his mission could be questioned.
What does Jesus do to arouse the ire of religious leaders? Nothing, personally — he isn’t depicted as having done anything himself here, but his disciples are “working” on the Sabbath by plucking ears of corn (presumably to eat because they were hungry). It couldn’t have really been corn because that is a New World crop, unknown in Europe or Asia at this time. A better translation is “ears of grain.”
These don’t appear to be their grain fields and hence their grain, so it’s curious that the Pharisees don’t complain about what seems to be theft. Some scholars have argued that the disciples were eating that which had already fallen at the side of a road, as if that made it acceptable; but this isn’t supported by the text.
In fact, what are the Pharisees doing there to begin with? Do they just wander through random fields on the sabbath? Of course not — but Jesus’ opponents, whether scribes or Pharisees or someone else, always manage to appear at just the point Mark needs them to. This should be a signal to readers of the literary, rather than historical, nature of the text.
Jesus is targeted by the Pharisees because, if the disciples were his followers, then it could be presumed that their activities met with his approval. Jesus defends the actions of his disciples by arguing that when a person is hungry, it should be acceptable for them to take whatever action is reasonably necessary in order to stop being hungry. He bases this on an incident involving David when he took bread that was supposed to be restricted to priests, yet Jesus gets the details of the story wrong.
First, David was alone at the time of this incident and therefore could not have given bread to anyone who was “with him.” Moreover, the priest from whom David received the bread is named in 1 Samuel 21 as Abimelech, not Abiathar. Abiathar is Abimelech’s son and successor, but is not mentioned until 1 Samuel 22. Why would Jesus make such errors — unless the words are actually those of Mark, who often makes mistakes about what the scriptures say?
Whatever the accuracy of Jesus’ (or Mark’s) memory, the fact remains that even David’s actions receive no justification — it is simply assumed that unless otherwise noted in the scriptures, David’s actions were honorable. The only justification may be that human needs are placed above religious laws — so, when a person needs to eat, that is more important than any laws prohibiting certain actions on the sabbath.
Thus the Pharisees are presented with a difficult choice: allow Jesus to be exonerated by the parallel actions of David, or undermine their own traditions of accepting the actions of David as just and good. Because we don’t hear any more of this and charges about this are not brought up later, we could assume that the Pharisees go with exonerating Jesus, although that surely annoyed them to no end.

Jesus’ statement that the “Son of man” is lord of the sabbath is interesting because he does not base this on the idea that God is lord of the sabbath — something we should expect if “Son of man” is a title with divine connotations. Instead, Jesus bases this on the fact that the sabbath was made for the sake of men and, presumably, that men are more important than the sabbath. This suggests that the title “Son of man” has purely mundane and human connotations..

To conclude : I think nothing compelling to suggest from the passage,or any other passages from the synoptic gospels, that the writers,in spite of their highly elevated view of Jesus, believed in him as God ...

Trinity conclusion

lessons we've learned :

1- The danger of the reading with preconceived ideas, expectations ...
for years I used to read the trinity proof texts (especially John) with preconceived ideas that they are misunderstood by Christians ,but days taught me the true meaning of objectivity which requires me at least not to ignore the other possible meanings of a text ... I applied that lesson not only on Christianity but Islam as well .....some of the textual interpretation by some Islamic schools of thought no longer seems for me as crazy as I used to judge them before ......

2- who made Jesus God , and when ?
the Jewish sect that formed the so called (Early Christianity) began to think of Jesus in very exalted terms not centuries after his missions but few years ….
The exaltation of statue for Jesus was gradual from a prophet and teacher of wisdom to promised king messiah to pre-existent son of God ,God ….
As we explained before(with textual support), During his life, Jews had different understandings of his role … those differences were due to factors:

they must have asked themselves whether the mission of such miracles’ worker (Jesus) based on divine plan (eg; prophecies) ? If so who exactly he is? Is he a prophet ? the prophet that Moses mentioned? Elijah returned to Earth? The promised Davidic king messiah?
Though those who put him in the category of merely a prophet had never found trouble with that notion even after the end of his mission ,as nothing he did or was done to him including the hearsay of his crucifixion) disqualify him from the office of a great prophet who been slaughtered (just as some preceding Jewish prophets) …….
Those who were in trouble were those who zealously motivated to include him in the king messiah category ..... may be some of them were disappointed by the Jewish propaganda that they killed Jesus ,and shifted their hope of him as the king messiah to a prophet but others modified the term davidic king messiah to fit a slaughtered messiah ...

As Wayne A. Meeks:Woolsey "Professor of Biblical Studies Yale University" notes:

"They couldn't go away as they were supposed to ... have to deal with that fundamental question, - what does this mean that the one that we had all of these expectations about has been crucified? How do we deal with this, not merely the end of this life, but the shameful end of this life? And, the amazing thing is, they said, "Hey, Pilate's right - he was the King of the Jews, and moreover, God has vindicated this claim, that he is the King of the Jews, by raising him from the dead." Now, this is where the Jesus movement properly understood, which is to become Christianity, begins, with trying to explain that hard fact.... And so the early Christians, as proper Jews, they begin to search the scriptures, [looking for] what clues are hidden here which no one has noticed before.... They begin to find promises in scripture of an anointed king who will come at the end of days, a notion which they share with many other Jews, at the same time. So, this is where it all begins, with this kind of interpretive process, which of course goes in many different directions."


That was the first deviant step taken by those who formed the Christianity of the new testament ......They weren’t satisfied by calling him merely a prophet so they put him in the more exalted wrong category (king messiah) .. I’m not saying that with bias to the Quran (that negates the category of king messiah to Jesus) but any objective reader to both the old and new testament would find out easily the difficulty harmonizing the Jesus of the new testament with the king messiah of the old testament ….

The other deviant step ,is their exalted view of Jesus
That happened not more than 20-30 years after the mission of Jesus ,some of the adherent to the Pauline Christianity used to venerate, pray to Jesus (hymns) eg: 1 Corinthians 16:22....
it would be exaggeration to conclude that the Christians believed that Jesus was somehow “fully God,”( Early Christianity showed considerable theological diversity) but regarded Jesus as far more than simply an inspired, human teacher of wisdom. He was someone to whom they prayed as if they were praying to God. It is a similar case to the catholic prayer to Mary …….

Remember Philippians 2:5-11?
Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


1 Corinthians 8, the relationship of Jesus Christ to God the Father is extraordinarily intertwined. Jesus not only receives God’s unique name of Lord, but also he is the agent through whom God created all things and all people. Thus Jesus has begun to take on the attributes of God’s Wisdom as portrayed in the Hebrew Scriptures and other ancient Jewish writings. In Proverbs, for example, as God creates the universe, Wisdom speaks in this way: “When [God] marked out the foundations of the earth, then I was beside him, like a master worker; and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always” (Prov 8:29-30). God created, but Wisdom was the master worker. In 1 Corinthians 8, all things come from God, but all things come through Jesus Christ the Lord.

Even the synoptic gospels 30-40 years after the mission of Jesus have exalted view (won’t reach the limit of divinity though), the writer(s) of John (supposed to be the latest) developed and elaborated the notion of divinity…..

You see? The notion of the divinity of Jesus (or at least its seed),is there 20-30 years (if the dating is accurate) after the mission of Jesus ,initiated by Paul …..


3- what may explain this startling theological development,why they deified Jesus? The answer though complicated ,yet impressive.....


till next post

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

Yes, I agree that the Quran denies the crucifixion..

that depends on the way the verse be understood , If you accept the common understanding (substitution of someone looks exactly like Jesus) then the Quran denies not the act of crucifixion itself.
on the other hand if you understand it differently ( the whole matter of crucifixion was a conjecture,hearsay accounts based on Jewish conjecture of those who opposed Jesus) then the Qur'an denies it completely ....

there is a claim that Most secular scholars acknowledge the crucifixion" such claim may be true, or it may not. (I have in my library those secular scholars who buy it and others not necessarily from among those who believe in the Christ myth , won't buy it )Many scholars would suggest that the earliest layer of traditions concerning the death ofJesus was created by historicizing OT prophecies, and that this prophetic tradition was later developed into a single extended story through the narrative pattern of "The Suffering and Vindication of the Innocent One" (see Crossan 1995, 1; A. Dewey 199(1, 108).


anyway the scholars who handled the matter, are either Christians or atheists ..if they are Christians then no wonder they all would love to believe in the historicity of not only the crucifixion but also the resurrection , the massacre of the baby innocents in Bethlehem etc.....

on the other hands the irreligious scholars ,though deny the resurrection narratives (that comes at the feet of the crucifixion narratives ) historically ,they buy the crucifixion ,and the reason?
they say there was no strong reason for the writers to fake the story (though they would accuse the writers of faking details of the story for theological purposes) , they wouldn't fake a scandalous story ,shameful death about their messiah ..also if he wasn't crucified and kept on living ,what sense of such narrative then ?
the answer for eg:: they didn't really fake it ,they heard it as a conjecture from his enemies ,and he disappeared from the scene and been raised to God ..


I know that such answer won't satisfy those irreligious secular scholars ,and I never intend it to be proved historically ,it is based on the belief that the Qur'an is the word of God . on the other hand I'm not satisfied with their opinion which not supported by evidence and should be backed up with a reference .. they clearly indicate that the basis of suggesting that it did happen relies almost entirely upon the Christian teaching and documents.
Non Christian sources amount to a couple of unreliable passages one of which was almost certainly amended by Christians and the other of which may well have been sourced from Christians(check the scholarly works on the forged "Testimonium Flavianum",even if assuming it original ,Josephus needs to have been an independent witness to the information contained in the Testimonum or to have used a source which was an independent witness to this information, i.e. if Josephus did write it, but he based his information on a Gospel or another Christian source, then it is of no value in supporting the crucifixion of Jesus.
also the Tacitus's passage, that does not make it clear whether he is citing Christian teaching or accepted Roman history.
.

the Qur'an take on the crucifixion can't be challenged ,not only the common understanding of the verse (the substitution) won't help those who would like to criticize, but also challenging the other understanding (no act of crucifixion happened) not supported by plausible evidence , sufficient for stating that the crucifixion is fact.
once again

No claim of crucifixion by historical witness.

some elaborations to those points coming later,inshallah,in the thread.....................

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

Note that the term 'crucifiction' is a creation of Ahmad Deedat ,This new word implies that the 'crucifixion' is a 'fiction' or a made-up story.

I hope you (and other members) converse more in the thread for the benefit .....
thank you for your note ,and May Allah bless his soul Ameen ....

format_quote Originally Posted by Al-manar

that depends on the way the verse be understood , If you accept the common understanding (substitution of someone looks exactly like Jesus) then the Quran denies not the act of crucifixion itself.

I think brother Mustafa was saying that the Qur'an denies the crucifixion of Jesus (alayhi assalaam), which it does, completely:

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

Yes, I agree that the Quran denies the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus.

Pickthall
And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.

Yusuf Ali
That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- (4:157)

format_quote Originally Posted by Insaanah

I think brother Mustafa was saying that the Qur'an denies the crucifixion of Jesus (alayhi assalaam), which it does, completely:

Pickthall
And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.

Yusuf Ali
That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- (4:157)

I don't know whether Bro Mustafa held that understanding or the other eg;

Dr. Laleh Bakhtiar
(4:157)and for their saying: We killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the Messenger of God. And they killed him not, nor they crucified him. Rather, a likeness to him of another was shown to them. And, truly, those who were at variance in it are in uncertainty about it. There is no knowledge with them about it but they are pursuing an opinion. And they for certain killed him not.

if we go to the Arabic pronoun (ha) which is translated (it) in bold in Pickthall and yusuf Ali ,we could have a hint why they translated it differently....

format_quote Originally Posted by Al-manar

if we go to the Arabic pronoun (ha) which is translated (it) in bold in Pickthall and yusuf Ali ,we could have a hint why they translated it differently....

As far as I know, that ha at the end of shubbiha is not a pronoun, but is the third letter of the root verb shabbaha in it's passive (maj'hool) state. There is no Arabic word for 'it' here with the verb, it is implied, the word for 'it' comes later: innallatheenakhtalafoo feehi la fee shakkin minhu.

But please correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, I have a rather old copy of the Pickthall translation, and the 'it' is not in bold. I no longer have my old copy of the Yusuf Ali translation, but his thoughts on the matter sometimes seemed to be at variance with the mainstream Islamic view, for example his now infamous footnote to 19:33, which stated that "those who believe that Jesus never died should ponder over this verse." This has now been removed by many.

I have never heard of Laleh Bakhtiar, but just been researching. Not a translation to be relied upon, with her feminist leanings resulting in changing the meanings of some words.

And Allah knows best in all matters, and may He forgive me if I said anything wrong.