Harmony between the Bible and the Qur'an

[Grace Seeker]

Dear Grace Seeker:

You are still making premature conclusions without even looking at the evidence.

As did you when you posted:

Perhaps the two above statements explain what this argument is all about. Two groups are presented: Trinitarians and Christians.

Christians should believe what is explicitly written in the Bible. While Trinitarians are Christians who, in addition, believe what is not explicitly stated, for example, that Jesus is God.

For you ended up missing an explicit statement that I posted, a statement that I understand as putting forth the divinity of Jesus taken directly from the Bible. You see "we" trinitarian Christians do use the Bible. But while you are saying that our comments are interpretations of things that are not there. I would like to see you find an in the Bible an explicit statement of your main thesis:

There is sufficient evidence in the Bible to show that Jesus is not God.

Search all you want in any version you want and I don't believe you will find a single version (not even one published by the Jehovah's Witnesses) that says, "Jesus is not God." Yet that is you stance. Hardly one supported by any explicit biblical statements. You do every bit as much inferring as you accuse me of doing. And ignore or those texts such as I've already posted that would suggest anything different. Please, don't accuse me of ignoring the evidence when you clearly are mastered the art of doing so yourself. I'm waiting for that book you say has it all explained in it.

 

['Abd-al Latif]

Thank you for that Grenville..that's the whole point I was trying to make. All the ambiguity surrounding the trinity while it has no clear definition and is without obvious textural and rational proof.

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings Grace Seeker,

Thank you for your detailed reply.

What are you considering the "core of Christianity"? If you mean our doctrinal teachings, you are correct that they came later. If you mean our scriptures, then they came first. I see the same thing happening in Islam. I once asked what I thought was a rather innocous question about music in Islam, and found that I had accidentally stirred up a hornets nest. Different followers of Islam would quote different verses at each other to prove their point which in the end seems to be based more on latter interpretations of the meaning and applications of those verses than the verses themselves, for in fact the verses have been taken two different ways by people who I suspect see themselves as equally true to Islam, but have different answers to that very simple quesiton. So, you see the development of doctrine does take place over time.

Regarding the “core of Christianity”, I was referring to the doctrinal teachings. However, there is a stark contrast between Islam and Christianity in this regard. Unlike Christianity, Islamic doctrine has not “developed” over time. Its teachings were perfected during the time of the Final Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). As for Qur’anic exegesis, it is based upon well-grounded, systematic principles, derived mainly from the Qur’an itself, the Sunnah, and statements of the Prophet’s (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) Companions. Thus, people are not free to interpret verses as they like, and where differing interpretations exist, they are not representing some kind of “development” of doctrine where the scripture must be changed to suit the circumstances.

This was actually something I was wondering about the Bible – does it have any principles regarding scriptural interpretation? Otherwise, who is to say one interpretation has precedence over the other? Perhaps this is why there are so many disputes on the matter?

Incidentally, on the issue of music, there is scholarly consensus that it’s forbidden; just because some people are following their desires and finding any kind of justification for them does not make their view a valid one.

What you declare to be the way God "usually" communicates with people, I would say is not the way that God usually worked at all. Not that he never did, but that it is not his usual means. And it isn't what I understand Jesus' presence on earth to have been about either. Jesus' preaching was ancillary to the reason that he came, which was simply to reconcile people back to God. Not by calling them to righteousness and obedience -- though he did that as well -- but by being a means to bridge the gap between God and humanity. Jesus established, in his own words, "a new covenant in my blood." This had been prophesied generations before by the prophet Jeremiah (see Jeremiah 31:31), and then was accomplished by Jesus and that accomplishment is what the Gospels are about, not some message contained in a lost Injeel.

The reason I mention God’s “usual” practice is because throughout time, we find a pattern in the way God communicates to people and brings them back to guidance. He sent Prophets and Messengers to nations to teach them a clear message from God – one which they had previously forgotten and corrupted. The pure and simple message of monotheism was often corrupted into polytheism. And many of these prophets are recognised in both Islam and Christianity: Adam, Noah, Jonah, John, Zakaria, Job, Jacob, Lot – to name a few. This is why I find it confusing why, in the case of Christian belief, God would suddenly find the need to actually come down Himself in the form of a man, instead of sending prophets as in every other case.

I also did not understand the role of Jesus you explained. Surely, to reconcile people back to God, would they not need to be called to righteousness and obedience? Does this not involve giving them a message? I would have thought these are inseparable and part and parcel of the same thing. But instead, you’ve mentioned how the story of Jesus is more important than his message, and that his words are somehow less important than his deeds. Yet, I would have thought that if God were to come down to mankind, would not all these aspects be equally important, as opposed to some to the exclusion of others? Moreover, you've said Chrstians should focus more on who Jesus was, as opposed to what he said. Yet we have people debating over who he was, hundreds of years later. Hence, whether we call it Jesus' message or his story, it still seems to have been established in Christendom long after he was gone.

As to who had the authority to convey this story, anyone who had knowledge about it. It did not take divine revelation and inspirtation for people to tell one another about that which they had experienced for themselves. You see, the question you asked presumes that there is need for special revelation when in fact there is not. Jesus had made all of this known and people were free to share experience with one another.

Of course, it does not take divine inspiration to tell a story. But I explicitly mentioned the “core beliefs”, i.e. the doctrinal teachings. Surely, one would need to be inspired by God to know what does and doesn’t constitute His religion? This is not a matter of experience. Also, from the above, you’ve mentioned that Jesus wasn’t mainly here to preach a message. From where, then, did the teachings of Christianity arise and going back to my earlier question, who had the authority to decide what is and isn't a correct teaching? Does this also mean that the Bible is not a message to mankind, but simply a story?

As far as statutes go, these are just visual aids to remind us of important figures (pun not intended) in the history of our faith. They serve the same role as paintings and photographs. And while I know that Islam also excludes them from houses of worship, I do know that Muslims have personal photographs of family members and other important people in their lives. Statues are not to be worshipped for that would be idolatry. But the representation of a person is not in and of itself idolatry unless that figure is also worshipped in place of God. Like I said, I don't participate in the using of such figures in a house of worship because I think that some people can get confused and begin to give more attention to the figure than to God, and I don't want to set that risk up for them. But when it happens the problem is with people's ability to remain focused on God as they should, not with the figure. I've seen similar issues when people focused to much on some other artifact that was present in a worship center because they had given it (supposedly to the glory of God) as a memorial in their loved one's name, and when that object was removed they got upset as if one was attack the very focus of their worship. As far as I'm concerned that is just as much idolatry as any other form, and yet it doesn't involve a figure of a person or any other thing. But people still sometimes give things more devotion than they do God and whatever the object is that they devote to it is wrong.

What you said regarding people becoming confused over figures is similar to the Islamic position – such statues are not allowed as they open the door to idolatry, and Islam closes the door to such evils to prevent people falling into those traps. Hence, things that lead to evil are prohibited in addition to the evil itself.


In summary, I find the notion of doctrinal development through debate and dispute – almost like a process of trial and error, especially with regards to beliefs at the centre of the religion such as the trinity, to be a very strange one. For a God of infinite ability and power, it is difficult to accept that His message could be anything but clear and easy to understand, as opposed to requiring unending explanations and analogies which themselves cannot be understood as we have seen earlier.

Regarding the trinity, it undermines God’s ability. Why is it that He needs to be in 3 forms to know what’s going on/communicate with mankind etc. Is He not powerful and able enough to remain One and know everything that occurs in this universe, be it a leaf falling or a grain in the darkness, as well as to communicate to mankind without humiliating Himself?

These are some of my thoughts in browsing this thread. Sorry for so many questions!

Peace.

 

[Walter]

Dear Grace Seeker:

As did you when you posted:

I would like to see you find an in the Bible an explicit statement of your main thesis:

Search all you want in any version you want and I don't believe you will find a single version (not even one published by the Jehovah's Witnesses) that says, "Jesus is not God."

Please review my post 247. Also, since you keep mentioning Jehovah Witnesses, please be advised that I am not sufficiently versed in what the Jehovah Witnesses believe, and I have never read their bible.

Please also re-read my last post. The "main thesis" is extracted below for your convenience.

"Is Jesus God? Perhaps He is? The point is that there is insufficient evidence in the Bible to conclude that He is. Therefore it should remain a personal matter between the individual and God, and not a mandatory belief with violent consequences for those who do not share it."​

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Grace Seeker]

Muhammad, it seems we long ago abandoned the topic of this thread, so I'll not use that as an excuse for replying to each of your points. But, you did write a long post and were I to address each of them individually, we might be here till Jesus returned (which we both expect) and we could be eye witnesses as to whether his actions then were more in keeping with what Christians or Muslims understand will be true in the last days or surprises us both.

Rather, what I note is that we really do have different points of origin for how we each process our own scriptures and I am sure that we bring those processes to the reading of the other's scriptures as well. The differences are really much deeper than just saying that Jesus is God or that Allah has no partners, but the manner by which God/Allah chooses to communicate and interact with mankind, and the reasons for him doing so.

So, for the moment, I'll just deal you summary statement:

In summary, I find the notion of doctrinal development through debate and dispute – almost like a process of trial and error, especially with regards to beliefs at the centre of the religion such as the trinity, to be a very strange one. For a God of infinite ability and power, it is difficult to accept that His message could be anything but clear and easy to understand, as opposed to requiring unending explanations and analogies which themselves cannot be understood as we have seen earlier.

Yes, I agree there is an element of trial and error to it. In some ways I would have liked to have seen God write it all down in the sky for the world to read there. Or he could have least carved it in stone, he has been known to do that before. But he didn't. Not in Christianity, and not in Islam either. We are both left to interpret the message that we have. Christians believe that process has been guided by the Holy Spirit protecting the message. Islam believes that Gabriel checked Muhammad's recitations of the Qur'an. For all of the proofs both camps like to put forth, in the end those are both faith statements.


BTW, I'm not oppposed to answering any of your other questions. I just ask you to list them one or two at a time so that I might know which are the more important ones to you. I'll check the "Questions About Christians" thread later to see if you post them there.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Dear Grace Seeker:
Please review my post 247.

I both remember it and have reviewed it. You did not provide any expliclit statements from the Bible where Jesus said, "I am not God." Isn't that what you mean by explicit? Rather, your infer that position from some of the things that he does say. Well, from other things that he says, I infer the opposite.

Also, since you keep mentioning Jehovah Witnesses, please be advised that I am not sufficiently versed in what the Jehovah Witnesses believe, and I have never read their bible.

OK. I mention them because your comments seem very much like those that I have heard JWs make.

Please also re-read my last post. The "main thesis" is extracted below for your convenience.

"Is Jesus God? Perhaps He is? The point is that there is insufficient evidence in the Bible to conclude that He is. Therefore it should remain a personal matter between the individual and God, and not a mandatory belief with violent consequences for those who do not share it."​

Regards,
Grenville

You cannot here say that perhaps Jesus is God and, as you said in post #247 that the Qur'an says that he is not and still call for a harmony between the Bible and the Qur'an. The Qur'an does not leave Jesus' divinity as an option, there can be no harmony with a book that (by your statement here) does.

But, based on your prior statements, I don't think that you actually hold that option open. I think you have reached a conclusion that Jesus is not God. I have no problem with it being a matter of personal belief. I do not make it madatory or there are violent consequences. All that I assert is that it a prerequisite for using the label Christian. Christians DO BELIEVE that Jesus is God. Even non-trinitarian Christians do believe that Jesus is God: " The fact that Jesus is God is as firmly established in Scripture as the fact that God is one. The Bible teaches that Jesus is fully God and fully man" (THE ONENESS OF GOD, David K. Bernard, internet series on [Oneness] Pentecostal Theology).

 

[Muhammad]

Dear Grace Seeker,

Apologies once again for my previous long post - perhaps I went overboard with the questioning.

We are both left to interpret the message that we have. Christians believe that process has been guided by the Holy Spirit protecting the message. Islam believes that Gabriel checked Muhammad's recitations of the Qur'an. For all of the proofs both camps like to put forth, in the end those are both faith statements.

I'm afraid the comparison here is inaccurate. In Christianity, the very message itself is something that seems to have been developed, involving an element of "trial and error" as you said. This development of doctrine is believed to have been guided by the Holy Spirit. In contrast, the core message of Islam has always been clear and the doctrine was perfected at the time of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Thus, interpreting the scripture in Islam involves going back to how it was understood in the beginning, not new interpretations we invent now. As for the preservation of the Qur'an and the protection of its message, that would be a separate discussion of its own and has already been discussed elsewhere.

I will consider posting in the 'Questions about Christianity' thread, as suggested.

Peace.


P.S. Some posts have been moved over to Grenville's thread here.

 

[Walter]

Dear Mohammed:

In Christianity, the very message itself is something that seems to have been developed, involving an element of "trial and error" as you said. This development of doctrine is believed to have been guided by the Holy Spirit. In contrast, the core message of Islam has always been clear and the doctrine was perfected at the time of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Thus, interpreting the scripture in Islam involves going back to how it was understood in the beginning, not new interpretations we invent now. As for the preservation of the Qur'an and the protection of its message, that would be a separate discussion of its own and has already been discussed elsewhere.

For completeness, it is not the development of Christianity that has changed, for Christianity is based on the teachings of the Bible which have not changed. What has changed and developed over time are Christian religious traditions. I believe that the same is true for Islam and Islamic religious traditions.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Follower]

Grenville-In your opinion is this an accurate site to study from?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html

Do you believe that Polycarp was martyered for his belief that Jesus was the Son of GOD?

And that Jesus was a mere man choosen by GOD to bear our sins?

 

[Imam]

I hope this post gets the topic back to light

GreyKode, . I'm just reporting what has been shared with me here on that point. I have talked about Jesus as THE Messiah in the past. But I have also on those occassion experiecned that many a time I have had Muslims make a strong point about how Jesus is a messiah, but that there are many messiahs mentioned in the Bible so Christians shouldn't think that he is so unique.

Jesus is the only person described in the Qur’an as the Christ or Messiah.

but giving him a title been given to others before him doesn't make him the so called (long awaited Tanakh's Messiah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_messianism).

I can understand why some Islamic traditions would try and redefine the term Messiah in reaction to the unnecessary Christian religious traditional barrier of equating Jesus the Christ with God. .

Exactly the opposite of what you say, the Islamic traditions redefined some of the Messiah's rules to be in accordance with some of the teachings of the Bible !(details later).....


anyway mentioning the Islamic traditions in the issue of the Term of (The Messiah) is irrelevant as both the Quran and the the Islamic traditions gives the term (The Messiah) nothing beyond (A title of honor is given to Jesus)



As

the evidence should come from the Qur’an.

I'm waiting to read the Quranic or the Islamic traditional view on Jesus to be this so called prophesied Tankah' messiah.

(the term son of God,what Quranic trinity?) in later pot inshAllah.

peace

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings Grenville,

I don't understand the difference between what you call Christianity and "Christian religious traditions".

 

[Grace Seeker]

anyway mentioning the Islamic traditions in the issue of the Term of (The Messiah) is irrelevant as both the Quran and the the Islamic traditions gives the term (The Messiah) nothing beyond (A title of honor is given to Jesus)

So, just to be clear. While Muslims speak of Jesus the Messiah, they don't mean it as a reference to the role of THE unique Messiah of either the Jewish Tankah nor the Christian New Testament. Rather, Jeus is specially anointed by Allah and therefore is appropriately considered the messiah Jesus(meaning "anointed") just as he is also appropriately the rabbi Jesus or the prophet Jesus, but he is no more THE Messiah than he is THE Rabbi or THE Prophet to the exclusion of all others.

Have I got that correct as far as the usage of the term "messiah" in the Qur'an is concerned?

 

[Imam]

So, just to be clear. While Muslims speak of Jesus the Messiah, they don't mean it as a reference to the role of THE unique Messiah of either the Jewish Tankah nor the Christian New Testament. Rather, Jeus is specially anointed by Allah and therefore is appropriately considered the messiah Jesus(meaning "anointed") just as he is also appropriately the rabbi Jesus or the prophet Jesus, but he is no more THE Messiah than he is THE Rabbi or THE Prophet to the exclusion of all others.

Have I got that correct as far as the usage of the term "messiah" in the Qur'an is concerned?

yes

Jesus mission is clearly described in the Quran, he is neither

the Jewish version (someone from the seed of David who in his reign will gather the Jews back , There will be no more hunger or illness, and death will cease, The Jewish Temple will be rebuilt resuming many of the suspended mitzvot )

nor

the christian version (A person in a triune god who came to perform blood atonement)..

He simply came to :

1-reaffirm the message of monotheism:


Holy Quran[5:72]
But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with Allah,- Allah will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no one to help.

2-revoke certain prohibitions :

Holy Quran 3:50 "'(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.

 

[Follower]

Now that doesn't make sense. Why call Jesus the Messiah in the Quran, what is the point?

Why would GOD confuse the issue when He knows the way the term is used for both the Jews and Christians?

 

[Zafran]

salaam

Jesus pbuh is the messiah - even muslims believe in the Messenic period which comes after Jesus pbuh defeats the Anti-christ/Dajjal el messiah - which basically means the imposter messiah.

The hadiths have quite a bit of information on the whole role of Jesus pbuh near the end of times where he fufils his role as the messiah.

 

[Grace Seeker]

he fufils his role as the messiah.

Now the way you used the phrase "as the messiah" here is very similar to Christian usage that the Messiah has a defined role. It also seems to contrary to what Imam just wrote about it being a title of honor, and not about it being a defined role.

 

[Zafran]

Now the way you used the phrase "as the messiah" here is very similar to Christian usage that the Messiah has a defined role. It also seems to contrary to what Imam just wrote about it being a title of honor, and not about it being a defined role.

Hes going defeat the anti christ (Dajjal) and it is a title as it means "anoited one" furthermore the hadiths do talk about is role when he comes back again preety political.

I believe Imam was talking about Jesus's pbuh role when he was here and sent to the tribe of Isreal (specifically in the Quran) - then he was as Imam has explained a prophet to the children of Isreal - but the hadiths also talk about his role when he comes back too.

I may have gone off topic a bit.

 

[Imam]

Why would GOD confuse the issue when He knows the way the term is used for both the Jews and Christians?

.

Follower

I'm afraid you missed the point ..


The Title (מָשִׁיחַ,) Mašíaḥ (Hebrew) , Masīḥ (Arabic)

has the same meaning for Jews and Christians and Muslims (The anointed one)

the difference is of the function of the one who have such title.

 

[Walter]

Hi Follower:

Grenville-In your opinion is this an accurate site to study from?

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/polycarp.html

Perhaps you could try an authoritative site like Calvin College's Library

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Grace Seeker]

Hi Follower:



Perhaps you could try an authoritative site like Calvin College's Library

Regards,
Grenville

Nothing wrong with Calvin College's www.ccel.org site. But are you insinuating that www.earlychristianwritings.com is NOT an authoritative site?