The Muslim Jesus
May 6, 2011 at 7:45 pm
(This post was last modified: May 6, 2011 at 7:46 pm by DeistPaladin.)
I find the paradox of the Muslim beliefs about Jesus to be as much confusing as intriguing. They seem to have a love-hate relationship with the Bible, considering it a corrupted book that got it all wrong and yet it's their only detailed source of information about Jesus, one which they actually quote when it suits them. I'm wondering if any Muslims here could clear this up.
Here are some sections of a recent post that caught my curiosity (bold emphasis mine):
Different Muslims that I've talked to seem to have similar ideas about the early history of Christianity. The idea is that Islam hearkens back to a more pure form of Jesus' teachings, one consistent with their own beliefs. Protestant Christians make very similar claims, so it's not hard for me to get the idea. Old religions have the luxury of appealing to the authority of antiquity, being the established church. New religions usually take the tactic of claiming not to rebel against that authority but rather appealing to some idea of a pure, simple original teaching that's been corrupted by the old. This is the approach Muhammad seems to have taken with his ideas about Jesus.
The problem with the Muslim variation on this strategy is it seems to undermine its own claims. Muhammad's only source of information came from the very people he claims got it all wrong. Muslims sometimes quote the Bible but say it's been corrupted (much like the bold sections of the post above). If it's been corrupted, than how can we know anything about Jesus?
The post cited above is filled with conspiracy theories about how the true teachings of Jesus were suppressed by the emergent Catholic Church. Then how do we know what they really were? And if God told Muhammad the truth about Jesus, why not also tell the Christians and save both sides form 1500 years of needless bloodshed?
While the Protestant dreamscape regarding an earlier, purer form of Christianity are the stuff of fantasy, at least they have some scriptural basis for their claims. The truth is that there were many Christianities during the first few centuries prior to Nicaea (and some centuries thereafter). They varied so wildly as to make the distinctions between Islam and modern Christianity look like petty hair-splitting. However, none of the versions I know of would be consistent with Islam nor did they expect a future prophet like Muhammad. What, if anything, is the Islamic dreamscape about the early teachings of Jesus based on?
Here are some sections of a recent post that caught my curiosity (bold emphasis mine):
(May 6, 2011 at 11:18 am)alemcodon Wrote: I cant see how anyone could possibly question Jesus’s existence, the bibles, the millions of books that were written, the records that were kept still remain to this day, just not the their original format.
It’s a well known fact that when the romans adopted Christianity in order to make it their own, they re-wrote the bible, added a lot of fantasy and metaphorical ideas which later people started taking as literal meanings ie son of god, died for our sins, the trinity etc.
They collected and burned the original aromaic bibles, and possession was punishable by death. Segments of some of these earlier bibles have been recovered but they are never properly translated or published since it clashes greatly with modern Christianity.
Different Muslims that I've talked to seem to have similar ideas about the early history of Christianity. The idea is that Islam hearkens back to a more pure form of Jesus' teachings, one consistent with their own beliefs. Protestant Christians make very similar claims, so it's not hard for me to get the idea. Old religions have the luxury of appealing to the authority of antiquity, being the established church. New religions usually take the tactic of claiming not to rebel against that authority but rather appealing to some idea of a pure, simple original teaching that's been corrupted by the old. This is the approach Muhammad seems to have taken with his ideas about Jesus.
The problem with the Muslim variation on this strategy is it seems to undermine its own claims. Muhammad's only source of information came from the very people he claims got it all wrong. Muslims sometimes quote the Bible but say it's been corrupted (much like the bold sections of the post above). If it's been corrupted, than how can we know anything about Jesus?
The post cited above is filled with conspiracy theories about how the true teachings of Jesus were suppressed by the emergent Catholic Church. Then how do we know what they really were? And if God told Muhammad the truth about Jesus, why not also tell the Christians and save both sides form 1500 years of needless bloodshed?
While the Protestant dreamscape regarding an earlier, purer form of Christianity are the stuff of fantasy, at least they have some scriptural basis for their claims. The truth is that there were many Christianities during the first few centuries prior to Nicaea (and some centuries thereafter). They varied so wildly as to make the distinctions between Islam and modern Christianity look like petty hair-splitting. However, none of the versions I know of would be consistent with Islam nor did they expect a future prophet like Muhammad. What, if anything, is the Islamic dreamscape about the early teachings of Jesus based on?
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
