Why does Islam still reject the historical Jesus?

Status
Not open for further replies.
letusreason said:
I'm sure the whole world is wondering this.
Click to expand...

we don't, actually. we just reject the crucifiction. as Christians turned Jesus into a god, that seems more a rejection of the historical Jesus.

Jesus is numbered among the 5 greatest prophets, we call him the Messiah, and we await his return. how is that a rejection?
 
YusufNoor said:
we don't, actually. we just reject the crucifiction. as Christians turned Jesus into a god, that seems more a rejection of the historical Jesus.

Jesus is numbered among the 5 greatest prophets, we call him the Messiah, and we await his return. how is that a rejection?
Click to expand...

Well that is an argument not evidence.
 
Why do Christians reject Hercules? If Jesus was the son of God and Mary. Then why reject Hercules the son of God and a woman further back in time?
 
Jesus was mentioned as one of the Prophets (Peace be upon them all). You can find that in the Qur'an, and you can ask any Muslim that. Evidence:
"Behold! the angels said, 'Oh Mary! God gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him. His name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter, and in (the company of) those nearest to God. He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. He shall be (in the company) of the righteous... And God will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel'" (3:45-48).
"Christ, the son of Mary, was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how God makes His signs clear to them; yet see in what ways they are deluded away from the truth!" (5:75)."He [Jesus] said: 'I am indeed a servant of God. He has given me revelation and made me a prophet; He has made me blessed wheresoever I be; and He has enjoined on me prayer and charity as long as I live. He has made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable. So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)!' Such was Jesus the son of Mary. It is a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute. It is not befitting to (the majesty of) God that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter, He only says to it, 'Be,' and it is" (19:30-35)."

So we just view him as a messenger from Allah (SWT), like the other messengers.
 
YusufNoor said:
it answers your question. mine is, why do you reject the historical Jesus?
Click to expand...

Excellent question.

Karl said:
Why do Christians reject Hercules? If Jesus was the son of God and Mary. Then why reject Hercules the son of God and a woman further back in time?
Click to expand...

Another excellent question.

You guys are on a roll today.
 
Also there is a personality discrepancy. Hercules had much the same personality as Zeus. He liked to rape and pillage and be a big bully just like his dad, a totally "might makes right" attitude. The God of the Jews is a wrathful God and Jewish foreign policy was to kill and take the lands from people of other religions. But Jesus was different, he was peaceful, tolerant and forgiving. So how could the wrathful vengeful God be his father? Would the genetics of Mary override His might? Impossible! I'm sorry but Christianity just does not compute to me. I cannot believe in something so fantastically illogical.
 
Amazing you guys got the topic off Jesus onto islam then onto paganism.
 
I believe the rebuttals posed in the thread were designed for you to rethink your premise here - but that went waay over your head and you think they posted offtopic?

No, they've received questions such as yours many times over, and know how to answer them - further, they know when not to answer because the premise (your question) is faulty in the first place. That's what you didn't understand unfortunately.

Scimi
 
WHY DOES ISLAM STILL REJECT THE HISTORICAL JESUS?

There is no physical or archeological evidence for Jesus (pbuh), and all the sources we have are documentary. The sources for the historical Jesus are mainly Christian writings, such as the gospels and the purported letter of the apostles. The authenticity and reliability of these sources has been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.

In conjunction with Biblical sources, three mentions of Jesus pbuh in non-Christian sources have been used in the historical analyses of the existence of Jesus. These are two passages in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, and one from the Roman historian Tacitus. Both from the 1st century AD.

Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus Christ pbuh in Books 18 and 20. The general scholarly view is that while the longer passage, known as the Testimonium Flavanium, is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery. Of the other mention in Josephus, Josephus scholar, Louis H Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9 1 and it is only disputed by a small number of scholars.

Roman Historian Tacitus referred to Jesus pbuh and his execution by Pontius Pilate in his Annals (written ca. AD 116),book 15 ch.44. Robert E. Van Voorst states that the very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians make the passage extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe and Boyd and Eddy state that the Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Christ's crucifixion, although some scholars question the authenticity of the passage on various different grounds.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ#Authenticity_and_historical_value for more information on the contestation of the authenticity of Tacitus account of the crucifixion.

This is your premise for an "Historical Jesus".... unless you meant "Christological Jesus" which would be a bias stemming from scripture only.

As for your historical Jesus (pbuh) well, as you can see - the very idea of an historical Jesus (pbuh) is contested within scholarly circles. So really, don't you think you're jumping the gun a little to assume that you can ask this question of Muslims?

Scimi
 
letusreason said:
Amazing you guys got the topic off Jesus onto islam then onto paganism.
Click to expand...

actually, that is the course that Christianity took! you haven't responded to my counter-question, why do you reject the historical Jesus?
 
Scimitar said:
WHY DOES ISLAM STILL REJECT THE HISTORICAL JESUS?

There is no physical or archeological evidence for Jesus (pbuh), and all the sources we have are documentary. The sources for the historical Jesus are mainly Christian writings, such as the gospels and the purported letter of the apostles. The authenticity and reliability of these sources has been questioned by many scholars, and few events mentioned in the gospels are universally accepted.

In conjunction with Biblical sources, three mentions of Jesus pbuh in non-Christian sources have been used in the historical analyses of the existence of Jesus. These are two passages in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, and one from the Roman historian Tacitus. Both from the 1st century AD.

Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references to the biblical Jesus Christ pbuh in Books 18 and 20. The general scholarly view is that while the longer passage, known as the Testimonium Flavanium, is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery. Of the other mention in Josephus, Josephus scholar, Louis H Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in Antiquities 20, 9 1 and it is only disputed by a small number of scholars.

Roman Historian Tacitus referred to Jesus pbuh and his execution by Pontius Pilate in his Annals (written ca. AD 116),book 15 ch.44. Robert E. Van Voorst states that the very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians make the passage extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe and Boyd and Eddy state that the Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Christ's crucifixion, although some scholars question the authenticity of the passage on various different grounds.


This is your premise for an "Historical Jesus".... unless you meant "Christological Jesus" which would be a bias stemming from scripture only.

As for your historical Jesus (pbuh) well, as you can see - the very idea of an historical Jesus (pbuh) is contested within scholarly circles. So really, don't you think you're jumping the gun a little to assume that you can ask this question of Muslims?

Scimi
Click to expand...

Islam would be nothing without the NT otherwise his existence would not even be considered based on the evidence you have shown!
 
YusufNoor said:
we don't, actually. we just reject the crucifiction. as Christians turned Jesus into a god, that seems more a rejection of the historical Jesus.
Click to expand...

You reject the crucifiction or the resurrection? I don't find the crucifiction all that special or hard to believe. I could be convinced either way on it. Lots of people were crucified. Many people still are executed by governments around the world. It is the resurrection that is the extraordinary claim needing extraordinary evidence.

If you reject the crucifiction, how do you guys say Jesus died? Did he go on to live many years longer and raise a family, etc? And is there an official muslim doctrine on this? Because Scimi seems to accept the crucifiction, unless I am reading the above wrong?
 
Last edited:
No I don't accept the crucifixion, I was just pointing out to LetUsReason that when it comes to the "historical Jesus" vs the "Christilogical Jesus" there's a heck of a LARGE difference.

According to the Historical Jesus - the idea of crucifixion is debated and a hot topic even in todays scholarly circles - whereas the "Christological Jesus" will be a view a Christian pushes through a bias which has no basis in history.

This is the point LetUsReason failed to address in her post... now, onto LetUsReason's last post:

LetUsReason said:
Islam would be nothing without the NT otherwise his existence would not even be considered based on the evidence you have shown!
Click to expand...

Dear brother, I have not shown you anything from the Quran nor the Ahadeeth - what I have posted above is from the scholarly articles found within your faith - not mine...

If I was to push a comparison from the Quran to your "version" of the bible - you'll be seriously left wondering why you didn't do your research - and then facepalming at the thought of not being able to win a debate no matter how learnt you become on your own scripture and mine... have you not noticed? When it comes to the comparatives between Christianities NT and the Quran - the Quran always wins out, leaving the bible looking like a book written by pseudo Christian scribes who were pushing pagan agendas in the court of infamous pagan Constantine... you sure you wanna go down that road?

Really brother - think and pray before you take this step. You may have to question your own faith if you do.

Scimi
 
Last edited:
Scimitar said:
No I don't accept the crucifixion, I was just pointing out to LetUsReason that when it comes to the "historical Jesus" vs the "Christilogical Jesus" there's a heck of a LARGE difference.
Click to expand...

So it is a good question then, do you actively reject the crucifiction, or are you just not convinced or concerned with it (which would be my own position)? Is it a matter of importance to Islam? If so, why? Does Jesus being crucified have any basis on Islamic faith or claims? I can see how the claimed resurrection would, but crucifiction?
 
"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". S. 4:157 Pickthall

Because it is said in the Quran. Why would we want to disbelieve despite what might be said/claimed otherwise.

Peace :shade:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top