Harmony between the Bible and the Qur'an

[Grace Seeker]

"I was sent to the lost sheep of Israel....................."
Clearly shows what Jesus's message was.

But Jesus says more than just this regarding his message, his ministry and his purpose for coming. To quote only this portion of it is like quoting only that part of the Qur'an which agrees with Christian teachings and then discarding the rest that runs counter to it as fabrication. You would scream "cherry picking" and worse if we Christians were to do that.

"Go baptize all nations in the name of the father, the son and the holy spirit...", I believe is considered a fabrication according to chrisitian scholars.

I suspect that if you look hard and long enough, you can find some "scholar" (a word I intentionally put in quotes for I don't know that all who are sometimes called such are truly scholars) who would support just about any opinion one might produce. My own research, which includes the critical apparatus for the passage in questions, indicates that there is general acceptance that the phrase which I believe you are referring to should be:

πορευθεντες ουν μαθητευσατε παντα τα εθνη βαπτιζοντες αυτους εις το ονομα του πατρος και του υιου και του αγιου πνευματος

A good translation of that into English is rendered by the NIV:

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit... (Matthew 28:19)

You will note the difference between what you wrote and what I have posted. You say: "Go baptize all nations..." I say: "Go and make disciples of all nations...."

Even if the trinitarian forumla, "in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit", is understood to be a scribal addition, there is no reason to suggest that the words whereby the disciples are sent to all nations have as their source anyone other than Jesus. It fits very much in harmony with the rest of Jesus' message which appears to have been much more universal, even in his own earthly ministry, than just to Israel. After all we often see Jesus do ministry in many other locations outside of Israel and with non-Jews so that it is obvious from his very own actions that he didn't see himself restricted in the way you appear to infer from that single text. Perhaps that text, since it is the one that seems out of character with the rest of what Jesus said and did, is the piece that is fabricated if any are?

 

[Walter]

Where is it explicity stated in the Bible that Jesus is not God? I don't want inference, I want an explicit statement.

I will do so in the sister post.

What Christian tradition held that God was one part of a Trinity? None that I know of. The tradition I am familiar with holds that the concept of trinity is used to describe the God who exists in three persons and yet is just one God. That is certainly different than what you just said.

Hi Grace Seeker:

You have misunderstood my post. Christian tradition assumed the trinity to be a trinity of God, consisting of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, rather than a trinity of God (who is explicitly described in the Bible as the Father), the Son (who is explicitly described as the Son of God and the Messiah), and the Holy Spirit.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Walter]

LOL!! Interesting Grenville - I remember you saying that you believe that Jesus is GOD's WORD incarnate.

It might help if you told us what denomination you were- Jehovah Witness [which I believe I remember you saying that you were not]; Christadelphian -then I can see how you believe the Quran and Bible are in harmony.

On another thread I have shown where Jesus did not reprimand people when they worshipped Him. Are you saying that Jesus should have corrected the people?

Hi Follower:

I am simply a seeker of the truth, and in so doing, I intend to interpret all evidence honestly, and be as conscientious looking for evidence that supports my biased views as those that do not.

As a lamb, an excuse that I was misled by my teachers could be considered reasonable. However, it is an unreasonable excuse for a sheep, and it is totally irresponsible for a shepherd.

As a professional Engineer, I am personally liable for any advice that results in quantifiable damage. How liable do you think that religious leaders should be who refuse to rigorously examine the teachings that they promote to their adherents. You must be aware that the consequences are eternal.

Now to your issue about people worshipping Jesus. Your argument was that since Jesus did not actively stop people from doing something, then we should adopt similar behaviour. Well, they spat upon Jesus, and beat Him, and mocked Him and He did not object, but was led as a Lamb to the slaughter. By your reasoning, we should have a ritual of spitting on Jesus.

Follower, when Jesus wanted us to follow Him or his teachings, He would often tell us to “do likewise”. Be guided accordingly.

I would recommend that you at least read Brothers Kept Apart, which assumes that authenticity of both the Bible and the Qur’an and finds harmony without compromising the teachings or damaging the integrity of any verse in the Bible and the Qur’an. Be a Seeker of the Truth rather than a promoter of religious tradition.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Grace Seeker]

I will do so in the sister post.



Hi Grace Seeker:

You have misunderstood my post. Christian tradition assumed the trinity to be a trinity of God, consisting of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, rather than a trinity of God (who is explicitly described in the Bible as the Father), the Son (who is explicitly described as the Son of God and the Messiah), and the Holy Spirit.

Regards,
Grenville

You are correct regarding what Christian tradition means by the Trintiy. It cannot mean the other, which suggest (wrongly I believe), because the second form of trinity that you speak of would not be a trinity at all. It would simply be a grouping of three independent beings. There is no triune nature without the inclusion of a unity. For instance the Three Musketeers may have been all for one and one for all, but they were still three independent musketeers there was no trintiy among them because they were not triune.

To speak, as you have, of God as being independent of the Holy Spirit is to speak of H2O as being independent of water vapor. It cannot be done, for while H2O may not always appear as water vapor, water vapor is nonetheless always H2O.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Now to your issue about people worshipping Jesus. Your argument was that since Jesus did not actively stop people from doing something, then we should adopt similar behaviour. Well, they spat upon Jesus, and beat Him, and mocked Him and He did not object, but was led as a Lamb to the slaughter. By your reasoning, we should have a ritual of spitting on Jesus.

The problem with that argument is that everywhere else in the Bible when people respond in worship to the disciples or to angels that these holy men and beings tell those doing it to cease doing so and that only God is to be worshipped. The only other individual we see in the Bible accepting worship of himself other than Jesus is the devil. If Jesus is truly holy but not to be worshipped as God, he would have said so. For him not to be worshipped as God and to still accept worshipped that is to be reserved for God would to make him the devil, and I don't think you believe that about him.

You can't have it both ways. If Jesus is holy and accepts worship that is only to offered to God, then he is saying that he is God. But if you insist that he is not God and yet receives worship (which, as Follower points out and you agree, he does), then he is not God incarnate but the devil incarnate. I see no other option besides these two.

 

[Walter]

The problem with that argument is that everywhere else in the Bible when people respond in worship to the disciples or to angels that these holy men and beings tell those doing it to cease doing so and that only God is to be worshipped. The only other individual we see in the Bible accepting worship of himself other than Jesus is the devil. If Jesus is truly holy but not to be worshipped as God, he would have said so. For him not to be worshipped as God and to still accept worshipped that is to be reserved for God would to make him the devil, and I don't think you believe that about him.

You can't have it both ways. If Jesus is holy and accepts worship that is only to offered to God, then he is saying that he is God. But if you insist that he is not God and yet receives worship (which, as Follower points out and you agree, he does), then he is not God incarnate but the devil incarnate. I see no other option besides these two.

Dear Grace Seeker:

This appears to be the strongest evidence that you have offerred and which I have seen. Please note that I did not agree that Jesus was actually worshipped, I was simply responding to Follower's line of reasoning while assuming that his details were correct. These details still need to be verified.

I am a little busy at present, but will investigate this tonight and respond then.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[aadil77]

How about harmony on the stories of the prophet Lot (Lut)

 

[Follower]

Grenville - yes, some unbelievers spit, mocked and slaughtered Jesus because they thought He was blaspheming.

Jesus was either telling and showing the truth about himself - the 'I am', GOD's WORD in the flesh or He was a liar.

We all now that Jesus was sinless, GOD's essence in human flesh- the infinite in the finite-

graceseeker and imam- I just had to use it!!

 

[Follower]

Grenville - I would recommend that you at least read Brothers Kept Apart, which assumes that authenticity of both the Bible and the Qur’an and finds harmony without compromising the teachings or damaging the integrity of any verse in the Bible and the Qur’an. Be a Seeker of the Truth rather than a promoter of religious tradition.

I am not a follower of church tradition, but one of scripture alone.

The problem is not whether Christians see the harmony, we see exactly what this verse, the Holy Bible and secular history has told us- Muslims do not:

004.157
YUSUFALI: That they said, "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 knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

004.158
YUSUFALI: Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-

Muslims also have a different definiton for the word Messiah. Again we can see the harmony between the Holy Bible and the Quran but the Muslim can not. The Muslim must look to hadith and tsafir, in other words tradition for understanding of the Quran.

 

[Walter]

The problem with that argument is that everywhere else in the Bible when people respond in worship to the disciples or to angels that these holy men and beings tell those doing it to cease doing so and that only God is to be worshipped. The only other individual we see in the Bible accepting worship of himself other than Jesus is the devil. If Jesus is truly holy but not to be worshipped as God, he would have said so. For him not to be worshipped as God and to still accept worshipped that is to be reserved for God would to make him the devil, and I don't think you believe that about him.

You can't have it both ways. If Jesus is holy and accepts worship that is only to offered to God, then he is saying that he is God. But if you insist that he is not God and yet receives worship (which, as Follower points out and you agree, he does), then he is not God incarnate but the devil incarnate. I see no other option besides these two.

Dear Grace Seeker:

Given that the Greek word for worship has a range of meanings, including to: kiss, faun, crouch, prostrate, reverence, and adore, we need to examine the context of each usage. Let us examine some evidence.

When satan wanted Jesus to worship him, he prefixed “fall down” to worship so that there would be no doubt as to the intent. Jesus replied that only God should receive this type of worship and did not include Himself as a recipient. If He had, then we would probably not be having this discussion.

We should note that even when the action of falling down is prefixed to worship, it still may not indicate actual worship. Please note Jesus’ parable of the unforgiving servant.

The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. (Matthew 18:26)​

I do not believe that Jesus was stating that the servant was worshipping his master as we should worship God. Therefore, we may agree that there are some challenges with making conclusive statements on this issue. Let us continue with some explicit evidence.

In John’s account of Jesus with the woman at the well, Jesus clarified that the Father should be worshipped, and again, did not include Himself as a possible recipient.

After Jesus’ death and resurrection, Jesus’ disciples only talked about worshipping God, not Jesus in their letters.

Therefore, while we have no conclusive evidence that Jesus should be worshipped, we do have explicit evidence that God alone should be worshipped. Therefore, it is not useful to limited yourself to the two unlikely options of Jesus being either God or the Devil. You should include the likely option that Jesus is exactly whom He states that He is, namely, the Son of God and the Messiah.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Walter]

Dear Follower:

You wrote:

“I am not a follower of church tradition, but one of scripture alone.”​

Well, Brothers Kept Apart assumed that both the Bible and the Qur’an were authentic and found harmony without compromising any of the teachings of the Bible. If you do not believe that there is harmony between the principal teachings of the Bible and the Qur’an, then you should read the book. If you are already a believer, then well done.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Grace Seeker]

Dear Grace Seeker:

Given that the Greek word for worship has a range of meanings, including to: kiss, faun, crouch, prostrate, reverence, and adore,

You need to read your Greek reference works a little more closely. First there is more than one word in Greek that gets translated as "worship" in English. But there is one dominate one, proskuneo. It doesn't actually mean all the things that you list, but those connotations help to develop it's meaning and it's primary meaning is definitely to worship. But you are correct we need to examine the context of each usage.

The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. (Matthew 18:26)

I do not believe that Jesus was stating that the servant was worshipping his master as we should worship God.

Agreed that this servant was not worshipping his master. But I do not agree with your subsequent statement:

After Jesus’ death and resurrection, Jesus’ disciples only talked about worshipping God, not Jesus in their letters.

While we don't know who the author of the letter to the Hebrews is, we do have this testimony within it:

And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he [God] says,
"Let all God's angels worship him." (Hebrews 1:6)

There is no doubt that this is the sort of worship which is reserved for God for God continues to speak and says of the Son:

But about the Son he [God] says,
"Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom..." (Hebrews 1:8)

Note that in this last verse God himself calls the Son "God". To me that settles it. Jesus is the Son and the Son is to be worshipped and worshipped as God, or at least that what the author of Hebrews says that God says.

Jesus is also worshipped in John 9. This is not someone begging like in Matthew 18, this is a person responding with an act of faith being placed in Jesus as the Son of Man and worshipping him as a statement of that faith. In other words, this is the sort of worship that is reserved for God, and Jesus still accepts it.

Likewise the worship that the disciples offer in Matthew 28 is again that which is to be offered to God and identical to that which Cornelius offered to Peter, but that Peter rejected on that grounds that he was just a man. Well, if Jesus was just a man, surely he too would have rejected this that first the blind man and then the disicples offered him. He did not.

 

[Follower]

"Well, Brothers Kept Apart assumed that both the Bible and the Qur’an were authentic and found harmony without compromising any of the teachings of the Bible. If you do not believe that there is harmony between the principal teachings of the Bible and the Qur’an, then you should read the book. If you are already a believer, then well done."

But it does comprimise teachings of Islam- How could Muslims have been lead so far astray from the Bible teachings?

Do you simply assume that the Holy Bible is GOD's Word or do you have proof?

Grenville what is your proof that the Quran is the word of GOD?

Who are the witnesses to the encounter of Gabriel and Mohammad?

How is it that Gabriel reacted to all the people in the Holy Bible so differently to Mohammad?

Do you also believe that the Book of Mormon is GOD's word?

 

[Walter]

Dear Grace Seeker:

Please be advised that the “dominant” word proskuneo is used in both of the following verses.

The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped (proskuneo) him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. (Matthew 18:26)

And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he [God] says,
"Let all God's angels worship (proskuneo) him." (Hebrews 1:6)​

While you willing to agree that the first verse does not include the type of worship directed at God, you confidently declare about the second verse:

There is no doubt that this is the sort of worship which is reserved for God.

Even John 9 and Matthew 28 that you referenced uses the same word as the first verse mentioned above. Therefore, you should revisit your conclusion:

To me that settles it.

I will respond to the Hebrews 1:8 passage in the sister thread.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Walter]

"Well, Brothers Kept Apart assumed that both the Bible and the Qur’an were authentic and found harmony without compromising any of the teachings of the Bible. If you do not believe that there is harmony between the principal teachings of the Bible and the Qur’an, then you should read the book. If you are already a believer, then well done."

1 But it does comprimise teachings of Islam- How could Muslims have been lead so far astray from the Bible teachings?

2 Do you simply assume that the Holy Bible is GOD's Word or do you have proof?

3 Grenville what is your proof that the Quran is the word of GOD?

4 Who are the witnesses to the encounter of Gabriel and Mohammad?

5 How is it that Gabriel reacted to all the people in the Holy Bible so differently to Mohammad?

6 Do you also believe that the Book of Mormon is GOD's word?

Hi Follower:

In response.

1. It only conflicts with the few Islamic teachings that are already in conflict with the Qur'an.

2-3. Let me reiterate that Brothers Kept Apart assumed that both the Bible and the Qur’an were authentic, and found harmony without compromising any of the teachings or damaging any verse in either book.

4. Who were the witnesses when Gabriel appeared to Mary?

5. I do not want to speculate. If you wish, we can have an academic discussion about this on another thread.

6. I have not read it and therefore will not speculate about what it contains.

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Grace Seeker]

Dear Grace Seeker:

Please be advised that the “dominant” word proskuneo is used in both of the following verses.

The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped (proskuneo) him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. (Matthew 18:26)

And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he [God] says,
"Let all God's angels worship (proskuneo) him." (Hebrews 1:6)​

While you willing to agree that the first verse does not include the type of worship directed at God, you confidently declare about the second verse:

Indeed, for the context of the actions of the angels shows that this is truly worship -- that is why you have to address Hebrews 1:6 and Hebrews 1:8 together. You can look at them in isolation from each other. The Matthew passage where it is not worship is the unusual use of proskuneo, not the Hebrews passage.

 

[Walter]

Dear Grace Seeker:

I noted that the “dominant” word proskuneo is used in both of the following verses.

The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped (proskuneo) him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. (Matthew 18:26)

And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he [God] says,
"Let all God's angels worship (proskuneo) him." (Hebrews 1:6)​

You have responded by stating that "the context of the actions of the angels shows that this is truly worship" in reference to the Hebrews passage.

Please look at the actions of the servant and compare them with the actions of the angels. The servant "fell down and worshipped" while the angels were simply directed to worship.

GS, you stated: "The Matthew passage where it is not worship is the unusual use of proskuneo, not the Hebrews passage."

Who must make the determination of whether the use is "usual" or "unusual"?

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Grace Seeker]

Who must make the determination of whether the use is "usual" or "unusual"?

Regards,
Grenville

Arrgh! Proskuneo is usually used to refer to worship -- worship that is directed toward God. Will you not grant this? Thus when it means something different, as it does in the Matthew passage, it is an unusual use of the word.

Given that its usual usage is to speak of worship of the type reserved for God, it is incumbant on those who want to give it another meaning to provide the justification for that other meaning. I've accepted that it does mean something short of divine worship in the passage from Matthew. But you're going to have to show me more to prove that it might mean something less than that in Hebrews.

 

[Walter]

Arrgh! Proskuneo is usually used to refer to worship -- worship that is directed toward God. Will you not grant this? Thus when it means something different, as it does in the Matthew passage, it is an unusual use of the word.

Given that its usual usage is to speak of worship of the type reserved for God, it is incumbant on those who want to give it another meaning to provide the justification for that other meaning. I've accepted that it does mean something short of divine worship in the passage from Matthew. But you're going to have to show me more to prove that it might mean something less than that in Hebrews.

Dear Grace Seeker:

The point is that clearly there are several meanings to the word, which you now seem ready to acknowledge. What this means is that we can speculate on the likely interpretations elsewhere, but a level of uncertainty remains.

There are several Biblical teachings that are repeatedly and explicitly stated. A selection of those that are not vulnerable to diverse interpretations can be confidently declared as doctrines. However, verses that lend themselves to diverse speculative interpretations should not be made into doctrines.

John concluded his Gospel thus.

And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name. (John 20:30-31)​

Why not simply acccept what is written without adding speculative opinions?

Regards,
Grenville

 

[Grace Seeker]

Why not simply acccept what is written without adding speculative opinions?

Regards,
Grenville

When you quit trying to make the Bible say that Jesus is not God, a doctrine of yours that is never actually stated in the Bible, but you present as true when it is only one of your speculative opinions, then we can talk about my use of speculative opinions.