Judeo-Christian Context of the Quran?
-
In short, this is where I have a hard time reconciling what Jesus said with what is in the Quran. Besides the traditional Muslim argument that the gospels are so corrupt that they cannot be trusted, is there anyone who has tried to reconcile Jesus' teaching and vision of the kingdom of heaven with Mohammed's teachings on how to live as a society?
Oh, nevermind. I think I figured it out.
-
Peace,
Oh, nevermind. I think I figured it out.
Would you like to share your thoughts?
The teachings of Jesus in the gospels are so extreme in their demands that there is no way that they could be adopted by any government or nation. What nation would survive by having as a law turning the other cheek, or giving to everyone who asked, or refraining from oaths, or refraining from judgment? Jesus gave no commands about fighting or taking spoil or taking lives in the cause of justice, and many of his teachings have to be ignored or manipulated by Christian theologians in order to say that there is such a thing as a "Christian soldier" or a "Christian nation". His teachings for the most part can only be applied individually or by a small group within the religious/civil community as a whole - some of which will bring the person at odds with the larger community.
Let me ask you this question, once you've received the hit on the other cheek what does Jesus teach? Does one go for a third hit? Look at Mohammed in Mecca, can you not see him apply the same teachings? Moses was unable to contain himself in the face of injustice. He applied retreat. Jesus can not retreat, he's in the land. He doesn't immigrate either. Stayed put.
Peter went to Rome. Paul went to Rome. Christianity gained the empire. Now did that work? Didn't Jesus mention Ahmad? Perhaps Peter went the wrong way. Maybe he should gone with the name you gave yourself and headed for the desert...
adjwi
-
Would you like to share your thoughts?
Peace.
Well, about the only way that I could possibly reconcile the two is to think of it this way Jesus' teachings form the ethics of individual interpersonal actions within the community. Person to person, the one who follows those commands of Jesus shows that he loves God in the context of a "religious" society where even God's laws can be twisted for personal gain, as Jesus addressed later. Moses and Aaron acted in similar fashion when they were attacked by their kin in the desert as they left Egypt. They did not pick up the sword, they fell on their faces.
With Jesus (and later Paul) abolishing the notion that the covenant community was by ethnicity (one inherits the covenant of God by being born Jewish and being circumcised), the community was now formed along lines of conscience where minimal instructions such as Matthew 18 was all that was really needed, because the people were "in one accord" and "held all things in common." All other matters were left to the Sanhedrin or the empire. But where Christianity got into trouble was when it came to power. Christians thrived under persecution and eventually recieved the sympathies of the Roman people. But Christians were woefully unprepared when the empire collapsed around them and they found themselves holding the reins of a failing state. The ecclesiastical system at the time was only good for matters of conscience, not for civil government. Either God never intended Christians to rule, or there was more instruction to come. Perhaps that is where Mohammed comes in. Given that I'm not a trinitarian, I would've rather lived in Muslim Spain than Catholic Rome. I would have been tolerated by Muslims but burned at the stake like Michael Servetus by Christians.
Let me ask you this question, once you've received the hit on the other cheek what does Jesus teach? Does one go for a third hit?
I've asked myself that question many times. Here's the best I can come up with. Literally in greek, it says if someone "slaps" your cheek, not "hits" your cheek. It is an open-handed strike intended to shame a person into fighting back. If you really want to harm someone, you hit them hard and you do not give them the choice to turn the other cheek. You simply keep hitting them until they are no longer a threat. If you want to shame and anger someone so that their emotions get the best of them, you slap them. Jesus was talking about the use of force by a superior power to shame someone. Jesus was telling his hearers to not allow themselves to be shamed or angered. Basically, he was saying, "No matter what someone else does to you, do not allow shame to make you a violent person." It semitic cultures (particularly the world of Muhammed), the vendetta was a big deal. A wrong had to be avenged. When shamed, pride and respect needed to be restored. Jesus was saying that vendetta system needed to be abolished.
To allow yourself to be hit twice before exacting revenge is not what Jesus was teaching. The amount of times a person turns the other cheek is irrelevent. It is about not being pulled into the "eye for an eye" system of justice that perpetuates violence forever. Why? Because God does not operate by it. If God were to take justice for every wrong committed by humanity, there would be none of us left.
Look at Mohammed in Mecca, can you not see him apply the same teachings? Moses was unable to contain himself in the face of injustice. He applied retreat. Jesus can not retreat, he's in the land. He doesn't immigrate either. Stayed put.
Peter went to Rome. Paul went to Rome. Christianity gained the empire. Now did that work? Didn't Jesus mention Ahmad? Perhaps Peter went the wrong way. Maybe he should gone with the name you gave yourself and headed for the desert...
Paul went to Rome in chains. Peter stayed in Rome because God told him he would be martyred there. Christianity never wanted the empire - it saw itself as a landless nation whose kingdom was not of this world. The empire sort of collapsed around them after they were too quick to jump into bed with Constantine to alleviate persecution and deal with the problem of Arianism.
Honestly, I don't get the Ahmad thing. Historically, there seemed to be some sort of prophetic expectation in the desert at that time - even among Christians. But the context of those passages in John does not support the coming Advocate being a person or prophet
John 1415-17 "If you love me, keep my commands. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another advocate to help you and be with you forever? the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you."
John 1426 "But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."
Mohammed didn't seem to come in the name of Jesus. While he mentions Jesus as the Word and the Messiah, he seems to leave out exactly what the message of Jesus was (he never quotes anything from the sermon on the mount or the sermon on the plain), and seems ambivalent to the idea of the crucifixion at best, and seems to care nothing for the implication of it. Granted, while Paul built such a complicated practical theology around the cross that it was easily understood, Mohammed says nothing about it. If you can help me make sense of this, I'd be grateful.
I'm sure we can agree that Christianity generally lost its way around Nicea. But I'm not sure if or how Islam fixes it. Perhaps I'm biased because of what I understand modern Islam to be in places like Saudi Arabia, and from less-than-positive interactions I've had with other Muslims. So I am proceding slowly so I do not make decisions based on incorrect biases and experiences.
-
Peace,
I need to give myself more time to respond to your last post, myowndeser. However, let me mention this first regarding your concern
Perhaps I'm biased because of what I understand modern Islam to be in places like Saudi Arabia, and from less-than-positive interactions I've had with other Muslims. So I am proceding slowly so I do not make decisions based on incorrect biases and experiences.
My understanding is that you are not alone. Todays 'muslims' are not to be considered the reference like todays 'christians' are not in your eyes. My understanding is that Jesus can see the spirit in the person who is blind to it his/herself. If you look for the spirit you will find it. If you refuse the spirit and the spirit finds you, perhaps one is left blind, kinda of like Paul. The spirit is in the quran. Those who believe in the invisible can see.
adjwi
-
Peace,
I need to give myself more time to respond to your last post, myowndeser. However, let me mention this first regarding your concern
My understanding is that you are not alone. Todays 'muslims' are not to be considered the reference like todays 'christians' are not in your eyes. My understanding is that Jesus can see the spirit in the person who is blind to it his/herself. If you look for the spirit you will find it. If you refuse the spirit and the spirit finds you, perhaps one is left blind, kinda of like Paul. The spirit is in the quran. Those who believe in the invisible can see.adjwi
Well said. ) I look forward to your upcoming response.
-
Peace,
I think it would be difficult to establish religion as something that is so personal that it could be separated from a person's interaction with society at large, and I'm not sure the Quran would even lend itself to be used as a framework for a human society where religion is a private thing.
When I look at the history of prophecy, all of those individual's concern is not with their beliefs, but with their people's belief. Their concern is outward, towards society. The problem they have is not verticle, it is horizontal. How do they solve that horizontal problem? How can society function justly? Resolving this seems to be a common thread throughout the history of prophecy. Does knowledge of the spirit help?
...is there anyone who has tried to reconcile Jesus' teaching and vision of the kingdom of heaven with Mohammed's teachings on how to live as a society?
There is work to do in this direction. Are you a worker?
All other matters were left to the Sanhedrin or the empire.
Jesus' concern and message is with his people. The Jews had previoesly held justice and that wasn't good enough. They wanted a king, the power from the people. Did that work? Seems not. What is clear with Jesus is that the problem is first within the people. Jesus has to cleans the people to a different identity in community with God.
But where Christianity got into trouble was when it came to power.
Going in the direction of power seems to be problematic. Holding power in itself appears problematic for anyone. It's not only a Christian thing.
Either God never intended Christians to rule, or there was more instruction to come.
What came next?
It is an open-handed strike intended to shame a person into fighting back. ...To allow yourself to be hit twice before exacting revenge is not what Jesus was teaching. The amount of times a person turns the other cheek is irrelevent. It is about not being pulled into the "eye for an eye" system of justice that perpetuates violence forever. Why? Because God does not operate by it. If God were to take justice for every wrong committed by humanity, there would be none of us left.
That's what I also see, you don't fight back. You can't let the anger move you to action. There must be self control. Complete self control. In that state of control one must move to defend the unjust action to an end. In complete self control. It ain't easy.
...But the context of those passages in John does not support the coming Advocate being a person or prophet
How about a book?
Mohammed didn't seem to come in the name of Jesus.
Does he seem to come in the name of God?
While he mentions Jesus as the Word and the Messiah, he seems to leave out exactly what the message of Jesus was (he never quotes anything from the sermon on the mount or the sermon on the plain), and seems ambivalent to the idea of the crucifixion at best, and seems to care nothing for the implication of it.
Who authors the quran, God or Mohammed? The quran never mentions Mohammed as author.
Granted, while Paul built such a complicated practical theology around the cross that it was easily understood, Mohammed says nothing about it. If you can help me make sense of this, I'd be grateful.
As you say, Paul was the builder. Was it easily understood? Not sure. It's seems to me of necessity to put all the pieces of the past to get the picture. The spirit is in all the pieces for those who have eyes to see. God bless.
adjwi
-
Peace,
When I look at the history of prophecy, all of those individual's concern is not with their beliefs, but with their people's belief. Their concern is outward, towards society. The problem they have is not verticle, it is horizontal. How do they solve that horizontal problem? How can society function justly? Resolving this seems to be a common thread throughout the history of prophecy. Does knowledge of the spirit help?...
...Jesus' concern and message is with his people. The Jews had previoesly held justice and that wasn't good enough. They wanted a king, the power from the people. Did that work? Seems not. What is clear with Jesus is that the problem is first within the people. Jesus has to cleans the people to a different identity in community with God.
But for Jesus, this wasn't the same issue. He seemed more interested with the one lost sheep as opposed to the other 99, the one lost coin, the prodigal son, etc. The individual, his/her relationship with God, and his/her behavior was the primary focus for him. Even when he did talk about community, he was willing to keep it in such small numbers of "where two or more are gathered in my name."
How about a book?
It seems to support the coming of the Spirit of God living in the very being of those that are God's people, enabling them to live the same quality and nature of life as Jesus did. For Christians, this was fulfilled on the Jewish Feast of Weeks as recounted in the book of Acts. Given that the christology rehearsed under inspiration by Peter in chapter 2 is certainly not trinitarian, there is a very good chance it is an authentic documentation of what Peter said.
Does he seem to come in the name of God?
Certainly. But Jesus warned more about false prophets than he spoke about the true ones he would send. I am not saying that Muhammed is a false prophet. I am saying that since Jesus mentioned false prophets more than he mentioned the coming true ones, it is a matter that requires caution. Jesus said in Matthew 23 that he would be the one who would send teachers and sages and prophets, not his Father. So what name and what character of God the prophet comes in is of great importance. You know as well as I do that there are many people "teaching" and "prophesying" in the name of God even today who have no business doing so. To know a true prophet requires wisdom and patience.
Who authors the quran, God or Mohammed? The quran never mentions Mohammed as author.
Forgive me, I did not mean to imply that Mohammed authored the Quran. What I meant to say was that the Quran does not put much emphasis on Jesus, and puts practically none on his teachings. It would seem to me that if a person comes who is truly the Messiah, and the Word from God, what he did and said would be of critical importance to understanding the message of God. But the Quran is cryptic when it comes to his death - the only thing it is sure of is that it was not the Jews who killed him. Many seem to interpret the Quran to say that there is no other revelation needed, that it completes all previous revelation, so the aim is to get people to believe in the message of the book, i.e. accept Mohammed as God's prophet. But this presents a problem because then Jesus' teachings are lost because nowhere does the Quran rehearse them for the reader. The books they are recorded in are (possibly) now obsolete in the face of the Quran. This does not make sense to me.
There seems to be a danger in it as well, because the aim is to get people to believe the message of the Quran. But one only has to look as far as the articles and discussion here to see that people can not agree on the person of Jesus. One says that he was not crucified but taken up bodily to heaven, one says the Jews only crucified a body and his spirit was taken up to heaven, another says the cross is superstition that entered into Christianity later, and the hadiths are most superstitious in saying that another person took his place. If Jesus was the Messiah, then what role does he play in salvation? The Quran seems to be silent on this issue, and that is what is causing me the most difficulty.
As you say, Paul was the builder. Was it easily understood? Not sure. It's seems to me of necessity to put all the pieces of the past to get the picture. The spirit is in all the pieces for those who have eyes to see. God bless.
Sorry, I mistyped and could not figure out how to fix my post. I meant to say that Paul was, and is, easily misunderstood. He described the means by which God works out his righteousness in his people. But unlike most Christians, I do not think Paul needs to be understood for a person to experience God working righteousness in a person. Most of the time, we are ignorant to what God is doing in our own lives as he forms and shapes us through the disciplines of prayer, fasting, and good works.
Let me ask you this I'm reading a biography of Mohammed, and some of it is pieced together from Muslim historians. What can you tell me about Mohamemd's mystical night journey to Jerusalem, and his ascent into heaven? According to what I read, Abraham was the highest in honor in heaven of all of God's servants. Do you think these stories are credible, and what meaning do you think they have?
Peace.
-
Peace,
But for Jesus, this wasn't the same issue. He seemed more interested with the one lost sheep as opposed to the other 99, the one lost coin, the prodigal son, etc. The individual, his/her relationship with God, and his/her behavior was the primary focus for him. Even when he did talk about community, he was willing to keep it in such small numbers of "where two or more are gathered in my name."
As you mentionned before, Jesus plays a pivotal role in history. Where the reference had been made to be 'the chosen people', the blood, matter, it moves to the spirit, the community with the spirit. His one-on-one approach you describe builds the hard core of what is to be built, let's say his church. Isn't this logical? How can he aim the masses to such a profound turn around. From the matter we move to the spirit. It's a complete structural refersal. The example I like to use is that of the pyramid. Structurally, the pyramid symbolizes for me a system of oppression. The structure's function is that of excercising power. It's materialistic, it's pressure upon it's base is deadly. The walls of the structure are of three, Korah and Pharaoh and Haman.
By removing the base, the pyramid falls, i.e. you don't attack the head. That was the work of Moses and his brother. The work was on the base. So the Jewish people are given the opportunity to occupy the head of the system with David. It's the same kind of structure that they have known. His successor arrives at the summum of the materialistic system. Nothing can surpass Solomon's construction which means a necessary decline afterwards. Rebuilding that splendor is being cried for to this day. That is not what is to happen. This is not what happened. It was destroyed, rebuilt and destroyed again.
Now imagine an inverted pyramid. Jesus, the Messiah, is the one from which all rests. His message, his well known formula structures the new walls. He is on the same axis as David but at a different pole. It is easy for me to see that star. So his building is in elevating others. He establishes the quality of this new building. Mohammed's work oriented towards Jerusalem is of the same nature.
When you shift direction towards Mecca, the structure is cubical. To do this the base of the inverted pyramid must be widened. The work is different. Society functions in a different structure. We're back to matter, but differently. The mind-set is different. There is as much room atop of this structure than at its base. No need for politics. No division of power. This is not about excercising power. We're into service. Unfortunately, I see the erosion of the structure beginning after Mohammed because of power. The natural pressure tends towards the pyramid again. The work of change must go back to Jesus. We need to go back to Jesus not via the church but via the quran. One by one.
Let me ask you this I'm reading a biography of Mohammed, and some of it is pieced together from Muslim historians. What can you tell me about Mohamemd's mystical night journey to Jerusalem, and his ascent into heaven? According to what I read, Abraham was the highest in honor in heaven of all of God's servants. Do you think these stories are credible, and what meaning do you think they have?
To me, this is entering into problematic territory. The best reading is contained within the quran. If you look in sura 53 it mentions the miraj. It is considered the 23'rd using the chronological order of reading. As for the isra referred to in sura 17, we find this to be sura 50 chronologically. Then was that event of isra and miraj at the same time? It all becomes murky for me. Difficult to conciliate. I could go into more symbolism but this seems sufficient for now.
adjwi
-
Peace,
As you mentionned before, Jesus plays a pivotal role in history. Where the reference had been made to be 'the chosen people', the blood, matter, it moves to the spirit, the community with the spirit. His one-on-one approach you describe builds the hard core of what is to be built, let's say his church. Isn't this logical? How can he aim the masses to such a profound turn around.......Now imagine an inverted pyramid. Jesus, the Messiah, is the one from which all rests. His message, his well known formula structures the new walls. He is on the same axis as David but at a different pole. It is easy for me to see that star. So his building is in elevating others. He establishes the quality of this new building. Mohammed's work oriented towards Jerusalem is of the same nature.
When you shift direction towards Mecca, the structure is cubical. To do this the base of the inverted pyramid must be widened. The work is different. Society functions in a different structure. We're back to matter, but differently. The mind-set is different. There is as much room atop of this structure than at its base. No need for politics. No division of power. This is not about excercising power. We're into service. Unfortunately, I see the erosion of the structure beginning after Mohammed because of power. The work of change must go back to Jesus. We need to go back to Jesus not via the church but via the quran. One by one.Interesting. You give a visual description that makes sense. The original followers of Jesus were labeled "Those who are turning the world upside down." That is what I thought of in your description of a pyramid flipped upside down. Let me ask this what do you think this work of change should look like? What do you mean by, "We need to go back to Jesus not via the church but via the Quran."?
To me, this is entering into problematic territory. The best reading is contained within the quran. If you look in sura 53 it mentions the miraj. It is considered the 23'rd using the chronological order of reading. As for the isra referred to in sura 17, we find this to be sura 50 chronologically. Then was that event of isra and miraj at the same time? It all becomes murky for me. Difficult to conciliate. I could go into more symbolism but this seems sufficient for now.
Is there a place with a chronological listing of the Suras? I started reading from front to back. Now that I'm reading Mohammed's biography, I'd like to follow along to where the Suras were revealed according to the events at Mecca and Medinah. Also, this book I'm reading says that the circumambulations around the ka'aba, the hajj, and the month of Ramadan were all religious beliefs before Mohammed and that they were associated with the tribes' worship of Allah (the High God) and other minor deities believed to be "begotten" by Allah - like Al-Lat. Any truth to that? If so, how do Muslims explain the seeming pagan origins of Islam? I have the feeling that there is history here that this book is not telling me - a religious history in Mecca that goes back to the origins of the ka'aba.
Peace.
-
Peace,
Let me ask this what do you think this work of change should look like? What do you mean by, "We need to go back to Jesus not via the church but via the Quran."?
This is a good question that although I have ideas about, but I don't have the answer to. Perhaps it would involve some sort of campaign of ones-on-ones. What I mean by going back to Jesus works both ways. 'Muslims' need to make the trip to Jesus and 'Christians' as well, as so with more difficulty Jewish people. How will Jesus be a sign for the 'hour' ? Using the quran as reference, today, in the light of history and science will be revealing. The reference is not an institution, it's not a particular person, it's the book.
Is there a place with a chronological listing of the Suras?
You can find it here. This isn't where I came upon it myself. Actually, I made a list of the order from the copy of the first quran I received. It's a Saudi printed version which indicates the number of the sura according to order of revelation and as Mecca or Madina. But you will find it here. This order is not unanimous, but what is? I myself consider it of great importance in the future.
http//www.submission.org/suras/app23.html
Also, this book I'm reading says that the circumambulations around the ka'aba, the hajj, and the month of Ramadan were all religious beliefs before Mohammed and that they were associated with the tribes' worship of Allah (the High God) and other minor deities believed to be "begotten" by Allah - like Al-Lat. Any truth to that? If so, how do Muslims explain the seeming pagan origins of Islam? I have the feeling that there is history here that this book is not telling me - a religious history in Mecca that goes back to the origins of the ka'aba.
When I first entered this forum this was the hot topic. I was really taken aback by these pictures and what they were described to represent. One needs to go beyond the image to understand. This is definitely something to think about. Everything is found to be questionned here. It's quite the maze.
? Reply #482 on January 13, 2007, 083206 PM ?
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13210.480From what I understand, St-Peter's Cathedral in Rome is built on the foundations of some sort of pagan temple, is that so? So it would seem like the same pattern would have been repeated in Mecca. Abraham is described as elevating the foundations and the question has been asked how do you elevate foundations? Building from what has been layed down before would do that. This allows the masses to enter. But the hard core isn't built from that. It would have suffered the innitial formation to get to the stage of masses.
adjwi
-
Peace,
This is a good question that although I have ideas about, but I don't have the answer to. Perhaps it would involve some sort of campaign of ones-on-ones. What I mean by going back to Jesus works both ways. 'Muslims' need to make the trip to Jesus and 'Christians' as well, as so with more difficulty Jewish people. How will Jesus be a sign for the 'hour' ? Using the quran as reference, today, in the light of history and science will be revealing. The reference is not an institution, it's not a particular person, it's the book.
It is an interesting idea. It would certainly disrupt (in a good way) some of the labels we have a tendency to label others and ourselves with. I read this passage from 1st John this morning, and I think it parallels the message of the Quran "Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous." (It also is in sharp contrast to the "justification by faith alone" I was raised with.) Can we recognize those who truly believe in one God and do and teach good works, regardless of what they are called? I don't know. Honestly, through my time here, I'm not sure I know what to call myself. Am I Christian? Most Christians say no. Am I a Muslim? What masjid would possibly think so? Regardless, I think I am getting closer to the truth. If you were in my shoes, what would you do?
When I first entered this forum this was the hot topic. I was really taken aback by these pictures and what they were described to represent. One needs to go beyond the image to understand. This is definitely something to think about. Everything is found to be questionned here. It's quite the maze.
? Reply #482 on January 13, 2007, 083206 PM ?
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13210.480From what I understand, St-Peter's Cathedral in Rome is built on the foundations of some sort of pagan temple, is that so? So it would seem like the same pattern would have been repeated in Mecca. Abraham is described as elevating the foundations and the question has been asked how do you elevate foundations? Building from what has been layed down before would do that. This allows the masses to enter. But the hard core isn't built from that. It would have suffered the innitial formation to get to the stage of masses.
Interesting stuff. While I think the suggestion that Bakka is Jerusalem and not Mecca is one that would just about get someone killed in certain places, the Christian tradition is that Jesus was crucified on the very spot where Abraham was to offer his son, not to mention where Araunah gave his threshing floor for the construction of the Solomonic temple. There seems to be some harmony there. On the other hand, Jesus used familiar religious concepts and imagery to speak his message, like his use of the imagery of the temple. Paul quoted the pagan poets, too. As for St. Peter's I'm pretty sure there is no location in Rome where anything was built without being located on something pagan. Romans loved their religion and covered about every square inch of the city with edifices dedicated to some deity. Once Christianity became the religion of the day, why not incorporate what was already there? Most of the early portrayals of Jesus in "Christian" Rome were of him beardless and riding in a chariot - surprisingly similar to Apollo, and certainly not even close to the way Jesus actually looked.
Peace.
-
Peace,
If I were you I would walk and reflect. My suggestion is to begin with 96-1, CSR 1, iqra in the name of the Lord...
adjwi
Will do. Thanks. )
-
Peace myowndesert, OK, I'll admit that Jesus was a real person. But do you think that the "miracles" he performed were literal or metaphoric? Does healing the blind mean that he fixed their eyes, or did he convince them to see the truth?
My personal opinion is that it doesn't matter. I believe that he did physically heal peopple, but men of tremendous learning did not, such as William Barclay. I think the important thing about the healing stories to keep in mind is the purpose for them. For instance, in the gospels, there is the story of the man who Jesus healed who was blind from birth. The narrative begins with Jesus' disciples asking him the question, "Teacher, who sinned that this man was born blind he or his parents?" Being good Jews, they were ultimately concerned with what was the justice of God in this man's life. It was a hypocritical conversation that ultimately had no resolution. But Jesus, as the representation of the character of God, was more interested in the state of the man rather than high-brow speculation. The "why" of the situation does not matter redemptive and loving action is what mattered to Jesus. Whether or not the man was actually blind or not each person must judge - after all, I was not there. But what matters is who is the God that sent Jesus the Messiah, and was ultimately behind his actions? Is he a God of unrelenting justice, ultimately punishing the man with blindness because of some idolatrous action taken by his mother before he was born, as Jewish tradition believed could happen? Or is he a God of mercy and love who desires to be incarnate (metaphorically) in the actions of people actively working to end humanity's blindness both of the physical and spiritual sort? If you can see this, then perhaps you too need to end blindness where it is around you. But you must start with your own blindness, as we all must do. As Jesus said, "Why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, when you have a log in your own eye? First remove the log from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
-
Mr. myowndesert,
Was Adam divine? And yet God made all creation bow to him. Iblis was cast out because he failed to bow. If Jesus was created like Adam, then tell me why he should not also be reverenced and obeyed by all of creation?
Not all creation was made to bow to "Adam". As far as the quran's description goes, it was the malaika (usually translated as "Angels" who were ordered to bow to "Adam". So, why on earth should Jesus be reverenced and obeyed by "all of creation"???
Anwar Azim
-
Also Adam comes from 'adami' meaning Mankind, as can be seen in 711. Adami also means 'black skinned person', and thus clearly refers to the first humans that originated in Africa. Malikah means 'those that carry out the Law' or also 'those that have control and authority', the short definition is 'Universal Forces'.
3 59 Verily, in the sight of God, the nature of Jesus is as the nature of Adam, whom He created out of dust and then said unto him, "Be" - and he is.* (3 60) the truth from thy Sustainer; be not, then, among the doubters!
*Lit., "The parable of Jesus is as the parable of Adam...", etc. The expression mathal (rendered above as "nature" is often metaphorically employed to denote the state or condition (of a person or a thing), and is in this sense - as the commentators have pointed out - synonymous with sifah (the "quality" or "nature" of a thing). As is evident from the sequence, the above passage is part of an argument against the Christian doctrine of the divinity of Jesus. The Qur'an stresses here, as in many other places, the fact that Jesus, like Adam - by which name, in this context, the whole human race is meant - was only a mortal "created out of dust", i.e., out of substances, both organic and inorganic, which are found in their elementary forms on and in the earth. Cf. also 1837, 225, 3020, 3511, 4067, where the Qur'an speaks of all human beings as "created out of dust". That "Adam" stands here for the human race is clearly implied in the use of the present tense in the last word of this sentence.
Jesus was born in a natural way as he is listed among the Prophets in 686-88 which fathers are blessed.
688 And from among their fathers and their descendants and their brethren. And We chose them and We guided them towards the Right Path.
The Quran is the Furqan, the Criterion between Truth and Falsehood, it explains where the Bible is tampered, the Bible cannot explain the Quran. See my book, 'The Evolution of Thinking'
http//19.org/index.php?id=91,548,0,0,1,0
-
Mr. myowndesert,
Not all creation was made to bow to "Adam". As far as the quran's description goes, it was the malaika (usually translated as "Angels" who were ordered to bow to "Adam". So, why on earth should Jesus be reverenced and obeyed by "all of creation"???
Anwar Azim
At what point in the history of creation did this event fall? I am willing to assume that God making the angels bow to Adam happened very shortly after Adam's creation by God. This would mean that, reasonably, the only beings in existence at the time were 1) God, 2) Angels, 3) animals, 4) Adam - the only human in existance at the time. God cannot worship another being, and animals are incapable of veneration except as God makes them. This leaves the only part of creation at this time that could actually choose to worship God and venerate Adam to be the angels. If angels were the only beings at the time that could actually choose to bow to Adam, and those are the ones that God commands to do so, then it would be a logical deduction that the "second Adam" would be venerated in like manner.
Jesus should be obeyed because he is the Word of God and the Messiah. The Messiah is a king. If you confess what the Quran says, that Jesus the son of Mary is in fact the Messiah, then wouldn't it be fair to say that he should be obeyed as well?
*Lit., "The parable of Jesus is as the parable of Adam...", etc. The expression mathal (rendered above as "nature" is often metaphorically employed to denote the state or condition (of a person or a thing), and is in this sense - as the commentators have pointed out - synonymous with sifah (the "quality" or "nature" of a thing). As is evident from the sequence, the above passage is part of an argument against the Christian doctrine of the divinity of Jesus. The Qur'an stresses here, as in many other places, the fact that Jesus, like Adam - by which name, in this context, the whole human race is meant - was only a mortal "created out of dust", i.e., out of substances, both organic and inorganic, which are found in their elementary forms on and in the earth. Cf. also 1837, 225, 3020, 3511, 4067, where the Qur'an speaks of all human beings as "created out of dust". That "Adam" stands here for the human race is clearly implied in the use of the present tense in the last word of this sentence.
If I remember correctly, the other passages in the Quran that talk about humanity as a whole refer to means of conception over a spectrum of time 1) first made from the dust, 2) then from a clot, 3) then from a sperm drop, sometimes in a different order. Logic would state that although Adam was made from the dust (which is why the root "black" is part of the root of the Hebrew "adamah" - dirt is black), every human since then is not. We are made from other human stock, which is why the Quran references things like leech-like clots and sperm drops. Adam's, and Jesus' conceptions were unique. While passages in the Quran may reference all of humanity through Adam, it certainly makes a distinction between how both Jesus and Adam were concieved.
The Quran is the Furqan, the Criterion between Truth and Falsehood, it explains where the Bible is tampered, the Bible cannot explain the Quran. See my book, 'The Evolution of Thinking'
rolls eyes Give me a break. Sound linguistic, archeological, historical, and most importantly <b>manuscript</b> evidence is what someone should look at before making allegations of tampering.
This is what I really do not understand about Islam. When Christians considered themselves partakers of the Abrahamic covenant thorugh Jesus the Messiah, they made the Jewish scriptures their own and interpreted them through the lens of what they experienced. Not only do Muslims NOT do this, but have disdain for Judeo-Christian scripture at all levels and do nothing but pass off the same incorrect and ahistorical "proofs" for tampering over and over again, even though nowhere in the Quran does God make the allegation that the People of the Book have tampered with their revelation. In fact, the opposite is implied in verses where Jews and Christians are told to be obedient to what was revealed to them. By the point of the revelation of the Quran, both Jewish and Christian canons were solidly established. If Christians are partakers in the Abrahamic covenant through Jesus the Messiah, who is prophesied of in the Torah, then wouldn't logic state that Muslims also be able to reasonably articulate thier faith from the Torah and Injeel? Wouldn't you expect the Quran to make certain assumptions that would be made clear through previous revelation, if the same God that inspired the Torah and Injeel also inspired the Quran?
Every time I consider converting to Islam, all I have to do is look at how many Muslims treat with ignorance and contempt the Jewish and Christian scriptures.
-
Peace MyownDesert,
Your conclusion on Adam and Jesus is non-Quranic. Jesus is clearly mentioned in the list of Prophets that have fathers, and thus including Jesus. Adam is a metaphorical name for the first humans and mankind in total, this can be seen in the difference uses of the words in the Quran.
As for the Bible, I study Theology at the University of Amsterdam, and I know the Bible is tampered with. It has nothing to do with me being Muslim.
-
Peace MyownDesert,
Your conclusion on Adam and Jesus is non-Quranic.
Then I guess it is a good thing I'm not a Muslim.
As for the Bible, I study Theology at the University of Amsterdam, and I know the Bible is tampered with. It has nothing to do with me being Muslim.
Interesting. I spent 2 years working on Master's level work in Theology in seminary, and I never came to that conclusion. There are manuscript differences, but to either assume that they are the result of deliberate tampering, or to assume that modern textual criticism can trump manuscript and historical evidence, is erroneous. Besides, don't you have an article on your website that incorrectly states that the King James Bible was translated from Jerome's Biblia Vulgata, among other incorrect statements about the Bible?
My problem is not with any assertions that the Bible has been tampered with. If there is evidence of deliberate tampering, fine. Let's talk about it, let's weigh the evidence in an objective manner. My problem is with the attitude of Muslims who have never bothered to understand the development of Judeo-Christian approaches to scripture and who make unfounded allegations about the validity of Christianity, and then get all bent out of shape the second anyone says anything remotely suggesting that there are any errors or manuscript differences in the Quran.