Judeo-Christian Context of the Quran?
-
Muslims tell me this means that Jesus was not killed on the cross, but by tradition say someone else was put in his place. But what about John 1017-19?
Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.
The passage from Surah 4 and John 10 are staggeringly in parallel. Jesus makes it clear that no man takes his life, but he lays it down willingly in obedience to God. So the Quran is right of course the Jews did not kill him or crucify him, he allowed them to do so. Their power over him to take his life was only an appearance. The passage in John makes it clear that submitting to the cross and being resurrected were commands given to him by God, and his statement caused division among the Jews, similar to the phrase from the Quran "Those who dispute are in doubt of him, they have no knowledge except to follow conjecture.."
Does this make sense?
No, makes no sense and ?those who differ are full of doubts? means exactly that ? no one except God knows truth of matter and all interpretation is conjecture.
Although as to ?how? only God knows we are assured?
-
That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not-
-
Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-
As to parable of the good shepherd; teaches all prophets submit their lives to God and are one in purpose; the rest of John chapter 10 even the term ?son of God? is clearly explained?
http//onlineparallelbible.com/john/10.htm
John 10
29 My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all. No one is able to snatch them out of my Father's hand.
30 I and the Father are one."
31 Therefore Jews took up stones again to stone him.
32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from my Father. For which of those works do you stone me?"
33 The Jews answered him, "We don't stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy because you, being a man, make yourself God."
34 Jesus answered them, "Isn't it written in your law,'I said, you are gods?'
35 If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture can't be broken),
36 do you say of him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world,'You blaspheme,' because I said,'I am the Son of God?'
This also agrees with Qur?an?
John 2017
'I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.'Surely Allah is my Lord and your Lord, therefore serve Him; this is the right path.
Peace
-
-
What I do see possible are people who historically were Christians entering the deen and participating in establishing the right path today. People who seek the continuity of the work of Jesus with the use of the quran. This I see.
Lol, no offense, but I am already rejected by many of my Christian brothers for believing that Jesus is not divine. What makes you think I would be treated any differently in the deen because I still use the title "son of God" for Jesus (in its proper usage), and believe there is no man greater than Jesus? Regardless of whether or not I come to believe the Quran is true and can reasonably articulate my beliefs from the Quran, you and I know my beliefs would not be welcome in the community.
No unity is achievable in my mind in exclusion of the quran. The book has to be read, not as a spectator but as a participant.
It must also be read in light of previous revelation. I do not believe the Quran can be properly understood without being able to understand the Torah and the New Testament.
Referring oneselve as Christian refers one to Christ and indentifying one other than to God directly opens the door to association.
I'm assuming you are referring to the Quranic adminition not to join partners to God. I call myself a Christian because I hope and pray to live up to his example. I pray for God to grace me with his Spirit so I may live as Jesus did. This in no way assigns equality with God to anyone. Jesus lived in perfect submission to God, and I desire to do the same. There is for me but one God, all-powerful, ineffable, all knowing, all good, and one authority, Jesus, through whose example and teachings I come to know the one true God. Thus far, I am investigating as to how the Quran fits into this. It does, so far, seem to bear witness to the same revelation, but I will not answer hastily. As the Quran says, "I will show you my signs, so do not be hasty." But I do not believe that the Quran condemns me for taking Jesus as a patron, which is the same as calling him "lord" with a little "l". Quran 931 condemns those who took priests and monks as patrons in place of God and the Messiah, not those who take Jesus as a patron.
Peace.
-
Peace,
Let me answer this way I see the possibility of continuity and affirmation of the work of Jesus, but the word "progress" is one that I cannot acknowledge. Jesus occupies a special place in the history of God's revelation. Prophets have indeed done miracles, some even ascended to heaven. But Jesus in the Christian tradition is the only person to die, resurrect, and ascend into heaven, not to mention his miraculous birth. He is the only one that has attained to the final resurrection of the dead, while all others sleep awaiting the day of judgment. I do not know how there is the possibility of progress from that.
The notion of progress in history is important for me and in the realization of succession there must be success. Is it possible then to see such progress in a life with the knowledge of heaven? Living the life which promises heaven. Can we see this with Mohammed and those who accompannied him? Where they living the life which promises heaven? What kind of life is that today?
adjwi
-
No, makes no sense and ?those who differ are full of doubts? means exactly that ? no one except God knows truth of matter and all interpretation is conjecture.
For a Christian, the cross is not a matter of conjecture or interpretation. For me, it does not mean that Jesus died on the cross for my sins so I can go out and commit as many as possible, but for a perfect example of how I must also live. The cross as a historical reality becomes a spiritual truth to which I must live up
Galatians 524 - "Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires."
For a Christian, if the crucifixion is not a real event, then there is no freedom that can ever be gained from the temptations that are common to all humans.
It is true that all prophets submit their lives to God, but no one did it better or as perfectly as Jesus. Even Moses sinned against God and was not allowed to enter the promised land, but Jesus was obedient even to his death on the cross, therefore God raised him from the dead as the firstborn from the dead and given him a name above all names.
As to your comments about the meaning of "son of God" you do know that I am a Unitarian Christian, and already agree with you on that point, right? I'm not saying that the Quran is wrong, I'm saying I think what I have read thus far agrees with the Bible.
Peace.
-
Peace,
Regardless of whether or not I come to believe the Quran is true and can reasonably articulate my beliefs from the Quran, you and I know my beliefs would not be welcome in the community.
What community? Where is the community today? Do you see one? I can't see anything myself. Must we build the community? Will such community assume a rightful governance? Historically I see that the community building process was inniated by Jesus. Before that it is more a question of individuals (Noah), family (Abraham) and people (Moses). Community begins with Jesus. Governance of the community by the community with Mohammed. We must now look towards a world community from what I can see. Can you see this?
adjwi
adjwi
-
The notion of progress in history is important for me and in the realization of succession there must be success. Is it possible then to see such progress in a life with the knowledge of heaven? Living the life which promises heaven. Can we see this with Mohammed and those who accompannied him? Where they living the life which promises heaven? What kind of life is that today?
I see what you are saying. Certainly the hope of all people who are striving towards God is that we personally and as the human race are progressing towards that kind of life. However, the danger is that in the name of progress we discard things that should not be cast away. The life and example of Jesus is perfect. He is the Word from God. And he expected no less of people than complete maturity "You must be perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect." as he said in the sermon on the mount. While perfect revelation and teaching may need to be re-interpreted and re-applied in different times and places, we can never go beyond perfection. I can agree to the possibility that Mohammed referred back to the perfect example of Jesus by setting things straight that had gone crooked. But I would disagree with the idea that Mohammed progressed from Jesus to something more complete in the Quran, as if something was lacking in what Jesus did or taught.
What community? Where is the community today? Do you see one? I can't see anything myself. Must we build the community? Will such community assume a rightful governance? Historically I see that the community building process was inniated by Jesus. Before that it is more a question of individuals (Noah), family (Abraham) and people (Moses). Community begins with Jesus. Governance of the community by the community with Mohammed. We must now look towards a world community from what I can see. Can you see this?
It is a high goal, to be sure. There are dangers, as well. I have personally experienced the destructive side of religious communities, and since that time I am very cautious. Are you suggesting the Quran as more of a civil/community rule than a religious one?
-
Peace,
Are you suggesting the Quran as more of a civil/community rule than a religious one?
I see islam as God's answer for a human society. Religion is perhaps more of an individual thing, ones relation with God. It's by definition a private domain. Society is a natural phenomena and human society naturally moves towards civilization. That natural movement of society tends towards the establishment of a cult. I see the problem in the cult immobilizing the movement or else the cult becoming the movement. The cult must serve as a direction for the movement.
Adam, like Jesus is the movement, the ruuhi. Abraham like Mohammad is the direction, the quibla, Noah like Moses is the people, aanas. The quran enables us to unite the movement of the people in God's direction.
adjwi
-
Peace,
I see islam as God's answer for a human society. Religion is perhaps more of an individual thing, ones relation with God. It's by definition a private domain.
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. After all, doesn't the Quran require that people of the book be put under a tax when their land is conquered? If a person is put under a tax simply because of what he or she believes, then religion in Islam is certainly not something that is between a person and God.
Adam, like Jesus is the movement, the ruuhi. Abraham like Mohammad is the direction, the quibla, Noah like Moses is the people, aanas. The quran enables us to unite the movement of the people in God's direction.
This is a tricky area for me when it comes to the Quran. Mohammed gave rules for combat, taking spoil, tribute, etc, basically lots of pragmatic things a civil government would need, and I must admit that Muslim soldiers under Saluhaddin were much more humane during the Crusades than European Christian soldiers were because they followed the Quran. But Mohammed's teachings in this area are much closer to being like Moses than Jesus. 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.
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?
Peace.
-
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.