Who was jesus, Prophet?

hey peoples of AE

i had a bit of a question, actually, but i decided to post it in the philosophy/theology section because it could prove to evolve into a good debate. (but if someone answers it strait up then if it gets moved to Q's and A's then that's fine with me)

BTW: if this question has been sufficiently discussed before in another post, just refurr me to the post and archive section where i may find it.

anyway, here goes.

For the sake of this discussion, lets make it clear that the god of the tanakh, the new testament and the Quran are the same (El'oheim, Allah, YHWH, the Lord ect.). This is the stance of most Muslims I'm assuming.
Now, as we know, the Jewish bible (the Tanakh) was the first revelation/s of the Divine to mankind. In this revelation the Divine establishes a covenant with Abram/ Ibrahim (a blessing of his reproductive abilities), which was later extended through the mosaic law. Then came the revelation of the Christ. This new revelation was possibly prophesied by the prophets of old, as the children of Israel had disobeyed the lord their god, thus breaching the covenant made between god and their ancestor, and were consequently sent into exile in Babylon. Thus god (speaking through the prophets) terminated the old contract, and divorced Israel. But he spoke of a new covenant that he would make with his people and extend that agreement with the other nations of the world. This new covenant was tied in with the messiah. Christ the messiah came, as prohesied. He established the new agreement between god and man. Then, some time later, Mohamed received his revaluation from the angel Gabriel, which introduced a different theology to the new and old testaments. The Quran is the final revelation of god, and the rest of the sacred scriptures (tanakh and new covenant)

are stages of god's revelation that lead to the final testament – the writings of The Prophet. Jesus is revered as a holy prophet, just as the other prophets (eg. Ibrahim) are revered. However jesus has one defining feature which makes him unlike the other prophets. Jesus claims to be not only sent by god, but to be, in essence, the personification of the divine himself. He makes this clear many times in scripture. (eg “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one can come to the father except through me”john 4:6 and “i pray that they would be one, just as you and i are one- as you are in me, father, and i in you”.john 17:21, “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was born I AM” John 8:57.). these are big claims.

so here is where i don't get it. If jesus is god(in complete oneness with the Divine All Powerful), and he establishes the new covenant, then why is another revelation of god necessary? Did god fail a second time in maintaining a global contract between himself and man, even though this one was according to him impossible to break and would last for all eternity? Was a third needed? But if Jesus is just a prophet as mentioned in the Quran, then why did he come. And on that note, if he was just a man inspired by god, yet he claimed to be god himself, the only two possible assumptions are he is a lying nut case or he is telling the truth. The is no middle ground. He either is the messiah or he isn't, and if he isn't, why does the Quran encourage its followers to read the teachings of a madman?

Just wondering

Edited by Truthisnotrelitive - 09-Jan-2009 at 02:38

hi es_bih

i appreciate you quick response, but i still know no more than before your post. you seemed to of side stepped the verses i quoted (and there are many more like them). Perhaps you should reread the whole chapter of John 17 to refresh your memory on jesus' claims. When he spoke of this oneness and of this father as mentioned, it is recorded on numerous that the jews then tried to stone him for making such claims. They understood jesus was saying he was the messiah, and people asked him this and he never denied it. To say he was speaking of something other than his divinity and just reffuring to himself as another son of Abraham(son of god) is taking the verse out of context, as the reactions of the Jewish public clearly prove. When peter responds to jesus' question on his own identity in Matt 16:16 and acknowledges him as the son of the living god, the messiah, jesus commends him and says that peter is blessed because jesus' father in heaven has revealed this to him. So jesus is clearly the messiah. Therefore the question remains- is the messiah god incarnate? Well jesus claims he was there before Abraham was born, and only god could make such a claim, unless jesus was 2000 yrs old at the time he said it, which is impossible as the bible clearly records his birth in quite a bit of detail. John the baptist states in the begining of the book of john ch. 2 “ He(Jesus) is the one i was talking about when i said “a man is coming after me who is far greater than i am, for he existed long before me.” now as John the Baptist is documented to be approximately six months older than his cousin, this seems a little odd too. The chapter goes on to talk about how jesus is anointed with the spirit of god and will go on to baptize with the spirit of god. Now if jesus is a man, why does he now have a measure authority over spirit of God,(a gift never bestowed on any other prophet) and can transform men and women with this spirit (baptizmo= greek for “to change one's image” as in dyeing a garment a different color). It seems a little odd that god would make himself subject to the will of a human prophet? Unless of course he is indeed part god of himself.

i was just wondering if you were also clear on the term Apostle. I understand that the comment you made about his validity as an apostle was just an opinion and wasn't representing mainstream Muslim thought. An apostle is someone who is sent on a mission by god. Now we know paul was sent by god to help spread the gospel, as the book of acts (which historical truths must be taken into account as The Prophet emphasized that the scriptures were part of gods revelation to man) clearly says he was commissioned by Christ to spread the word of god. Whether he was or wasn't, Mohammad seemed to think he was as almost half the new testament is written by paul (the man who claims jesus was god) and thus deemed the new testament fit to read and regard as truth in part.

Yes... anyway, i don't mean to sound like I'm attacking your beliefs, I just love a good debate and i can get a little heated at moments, so please don't let me offend you, es-bih, in any way. However i anticipate your response, which I'm sure will be sound, if not enlightening.

BTW

i also understand that jesus is part of the prophetic liniage of god's revelation, and is indeed imprtant. I've gathered that from many other sources who say the same thing when on the topic of jesus and Islam. However they're a little cloudy on exactly why he is so important.

Regards

TINR

Edited by Truthisnotrelitive - 09-Jan-2009 at 05:26

Now, as we know, the Jewish bible (the Tanakh) was the first revelation/s of the Divine to mankind.

That's a bit of a sweeping statement others know differently. For future reference a better word may be believe. 

It seems in those verses he is tuning down a notch his importance in the cosmos, hence no he is not divine according to those quotes. 

But either way you missed out this

Originally posted by es_bih It is relatively easy for either pov (point of view) to be presented through the Bible as there is no authoritative statement by Jesus confirming divinity, and there are verses in the Bible that hint at it possibly if looked at a certain way. Thus not much reason in a endless discussion on that mark.

In other words to each their own, and back to the question at hand Jesus Prophet.

For you everything that question Islam is crap. I'm reading this website for months and they have a totally decent language and friendly atitude toward Muslims.

Originally posted by Truthisnotrelitive so here is where i don't get it. If jesus is god(in complete oneness with the Divine All Powerful), and he establishes the new covenant, then why is another revelation of god necessary? Did god fail a second time in maintaining a global contract between himself and man, even though this one was according to him impossible to break and would last for all eternity? Was a third needed? But if Jesus is just a prophet as mentioned in the Quran, then why did he come. And on that note, if he was just a man inspired by god, yet he claimed to be god himself, the only two possible assumptions are he is a lying nut case or he is telling the truth. The is no middle ground. He either is the messiah or he isn't, and if he isn't, why does the Quran encourage its followers to read the teachings of a madman?

Because Jesus is not God, and Christianity as it is today is not what Jesus preached.

Every people to whom a messenger has come, have after a time, gone astray, forgetting or changing the message. When this has happened God has caused something to happen to remind them of the message, and give them the choice of belief, or disbelief. In previous years the message has been delivered by a messenger, or prophet, such as Ezikial, Jesus or Muhammed (pbut).
Jesus came to remind the Jews and their neighbours of their covenent with God. Some accepted and became what we now call Judeo-Christians, others rejected.
After Jesus death his message quickly became distorted. a whole raft of different versions of christianity spread including one started by Paul (Pauline Christianity). Documents from all perspectives were being written.
After several centuries of this the church organised under the Roman Empire and collected only a handful of these documents to be collected into the Bible. Each different document in the bible reflects the belief of the author of that document, and while we can be sure that every author lived within 100 years of Jesus death. We cannot be sure that any of them accurately reflects Jesus's belief. However we can compare people who were closer to Jesus, with people who are further. The book of James, written by Jesus's brother or cousin, is a perfectly Islamic document and in my opinion is even written in the same style of those trying (and failing) to emulate the Quran [God's] style. Other books however are badly written, difficult to understand, and their most common interpretation by 500AD was in clear breach of the 1st commandment and Tawheed.

Because the teachings of Jesus were buried and confused, Muhammed was sent to preach the message again. The purpose of this message was to teach again what people had forgotten, and to bring the Quran to mankind. The Quran is the word of God, the message of the prophets, revealed to mankind. There have been no messengers since Muhammed because the Quran is intact, and the message from God is still alive & available to read.

It is important to read the Old & New testaments because even though the message has been buried, it is still there. They are important historical documents written by believers and disbelievers, mumeen (true believers) and munafiqeen (hypocrites) concerning their opinion on a prophet. Some documents like James are very authentic to Jesus's teachings, others like Paul are not.

Does that answer your question sufficently?


Edited by Omar al Hashim - 10-Jan-2009 at 00:21

Wow. I don't believe I have ever read a thread so full of useless nonsense.

if it helps, however, i'll express my veiws as an argument, as no one seems to want to asnwer my question with a solid argument. 

Originally posted by Ako And bloody hell, Omar, I'll tell you the same things I tell the Mormons: If you wish to state that something has been corrupted or lost, then cite a specific instance and be done with it. If you do so, we may discuss it. Otherwise, you are simply pontificating to yourself. Your analysis of the Epistle of James would be considered nonsense by most historians. Not that mine wouldn't as well; I just object to your adoption of a facade of victimhood -- and I do believe that mine would be a bit better received, mister "trying (and failing) to emulate the Quran [God's] style". Wink If you wish, you may explain in a separate thread, why you believe that James' epistle is authentic and helpful, while Paul's is not. Anything less than a thread would not do justice to the topic. I understand that you may have been a bit put out by the rather disingenuous way in which this question was phrased (clearly as a transparent and rather infantile lead-in to a long, rather uninsightful explanation of why Jesus is, in fact, God, in spite of Muslim declarations). Still, I despise, the sort of statements you have made when they are not clarified. We already have one Da Vinci Code, we don't need to start writing another here on this forum. Anyway, please support your statements (and acknowledge the discussions you and I have had on them, as well), or stop pontificating. There is an intelligent discussion to be had in the realm of Christian-Muslim interfaith dialogue; feel free to join it at any time.

Don't get me wrong Ako, you have taught me more about Christianity than any other person I know, however to accept the Churches councils, whether Nicea, Vatican II or any inbetween you must first have faith in the Church. I do not accept that the Church(es) are acting in the best interests of our religion*. In my opinion a group of bishops sitting around and deciding a religious opinion is bidd'ah - innovation in religion, and should be condemned. They can decide a legal opinion, but not a religious one. I know you know there were many documents about Jesus that were not included in the NT, and that most of them have subsequently been destroyed (the Apocryphal Gospels). That is not to say that I believe that any of them may have been correct, quite possibly they are all wrong but I do not accept the role of the Church in deciding what is true and what is not, the Church was created after Jesus and does not represent him in anyway except its own claim.

My opinion on James is solely my opinion, but I have complete confidence that any Imam in the world could read the book of James as a Friday Sermon and it would go completely unnoticed. It is for all purposes a shining example of Islam in the NT. If you have further evidence on James I would love to hear it, but based on what I have read I am perfectly happy to say that I believe as he believes.

Otherwise everything I have said is entirely conservative, and we have been saying it for the last 1400 years. 1700 probably when you consider the dissenters over Nicea. If Jesus's teachings had not been covered up there would be no Islam today. It would be unnecessary. I respect that you consider the Church to be acting in the best interest of our faith, but we don't believe that the Church teaches what Jesus preached, and we won't accept the churches interpretation. The message of Jesus is in the Bible, however there is also alot there that Jesus would not have approved of. When navigating the Bible, the Quran is like your lighthouse.
I could not have answered Truth's question (which I didn't see any problem with) in any otherway, and I wasn't about the sugarcoat it to make truth more pleasing to you regardless of how much respect I have for you.

From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done. O people of the Book! There hath come to you our Messenger, revealing to you much that ye used to hide in the Book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary): There hath come to you from Allah a (new) light and a perspicuous Book, - Wherewith Allah guideth all who seek His good pleasure to ways of peace and safety, and leadeth them out of darkness, by His will, unto the light,- guideth them to a path that is straight. In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all every - one that is on the earth? For to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between. He createth what He pleaseth. For Allah hath power over all things." (Both) the Jews and the Christians say: "We are sons of Allah, and his beloved." Say: "Why then doth He punish you for your sins? Nay, ye are but men,- of the men he hath created: He forgiveth whom He pleaseth, and He punisheth whom He pleaseth: and to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between: and unto Him is the final goal (of all)" O People of the Book! Now hath come unto you, making (things) clear unto you, Our Messenger, after the break in (the series of) our messengers, lest ye should say: "There came unto us no bringer of glad tidings and no warner (from evil)": But now hath come unto you a bringer of glad tidings and a warner (from evil). And Allah hath power over all things. Quran [5:14-19]

Originally posted by Truth my intent is to dicover how muslim theology explains the contadictions between the bible and the Quran.

We consider that the Bible is written by several fallible authors, the names of whom are well known and often in the title of each document. The authors may have been trying their best (although some I am not sure about), but they may not have had all the information. Each document should be judged according to its merit. The Quran is the word of God, and as such is infallible. So if there is a contridiction we consider the biblical author to be in error.

(incidentally Ako I just ignored Menu)

*Our religion, as in the one revealed by God, which includes all believers whether they are muslim, christian, or jew.

Originally posted by erkut Francesco Carotta says Jesus was Ceasar .... :)   http://www.carotta.de/eindex.html

That's what happens when you smoke something funky and create a new theory without sobriety