Who was jesus, Prophet?

beorna wrote: Omar al Hashim wrote: 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. I agree with you in many points you said about the bible, but pardon, your sentence above which I marked, is this your real opinion or is it a joke. I am not sure. Perhaps you can help me.

Of course it is a real opinion. Shared by every other muslim on the planet.

This Qur'an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book - wherein there is no doubt - from the Lord of the worlds.[10:37]

Oh, then I am sorry. I probably will never understand you true believers. It is fascinating, all the guys who know what God wants and who can hear God speaking on christian, jewish and muslim side. God is speaking to all three groups ( not to mention all the greater or little fractions) but unfortunately he can't decide to say the same things to them. Perhaps it is because God must be on old, old man.

Truthisnotrelitive wrote: 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?

I don't think we can comprehend the actual contemporary significance of any prophet - no matter who it was.

beorna wrote: But you forgot the census in 6/7 AD. Nobody knows what cosmic situation is mentioned in the bible. So just reliable is the census and the death of Herodes. This are more than ten years. I think Herodes was very cold at the census and not interested in any birth.

I don't really think his date of birth is that important. Considering the number of people alive now that don't know how old they are, 3 years here or there over 2000 years ago hardly matters.

Northman wrote: I don't think we can comprehend the actual contemporary significance of any prophet - no matter who it was.

That is all a matter of how much historical information we have. Considering we have considerable historical information about Muhammed (pbuh), I don't think it is too difficult to comprehend his contemporary significance. At least no more difficult than for any other historical figure.

Mohammed claiming he had a series of revelations while living in the cave, would be questioned about kind of mushrooms he had eaten.

Muhammeds opponents frequently accused him of such things.

Another interesting part is, that neither of them actually wrote anything. The scriptures we consider holy are all sources of other people with their own agenda, claiming that this is what the prophets said, this is what happened. Is this what makes Jesus and Muhammed special compared to other "prophets" - that someone actually took time to write about their deeds?

The Quran was scribed by Zaid as narrated by Muhammed. Muhammeds copy, and Abu Bakrs copy were made during Muhammeds lifetime. The first publication of the Quran under the Khalif Usman was done by Zaid. However you are technically correct as the Quran is not about what Muhammed said, what happened, or about his deeds. This is something that is frequently not recognised by people who haven't read the Quran - it has very little to do with Muhammed. No Islamic ceremony either is about Muhammed*. Muhammed is only an example as to how to practice, and a teacher of the religion. What Muhammed said and did is in the Hadith, which wasn't written down until quite a while afterwards, but then is only a secondary document in Islam.

Considering the fact, that we know how little we can trust different sources and authors, maybe it all should be taken with a huge grain of salt - to say the least.

Welcome to Hadith science


*Many people, especially in times gone past, do celebrate the Prophet's Birthday, but I do not consider this to be an Islamic holiday as such, because there is no religious significance to it. Similarly, people sometimes celebrate the birthdays of other Prophets as well.


Edited by Omar al Hashim - 12-Jan-2009 at 04:18

Oh, so your using the dispute over his birthday to highlight how little we know about Jesus?
That's a fair point in that case. Although my own grandmother doesn't know her birth date, and I do know quite a lot about her. So its not the best example.


Edited by Omar al Hashim - 12-Jan-2009 at 08:58

beorna wrote: Oh, then I am sorry. I probably will never understand you true believers. It is fascinating, all the guys who know what God wants and who can hear God speaking on christian, jewish and muslim side. God is speaking to all three groups ( not to mention all the greater or little fractions) but unfortunately he can't decide to say the same things to them. Perhaps it is because God must be on old, old man.

erkut wrote: Jesus says "Eloi eloi lama sabaktani?" (Father father why did you left me?). The son speaks to Father. So i think (Father-son-holly spirit) are 3 different "person", or there is something schyzofrenic...

this quote certainly has tensions with the notion of the trinity as it does infer a greater separation of the parts. IIRC a particular group of Gnostics,  believed that Jesus/Joshua was inspired from his baptism (shown by the dove descending from heaven) until some time before the crucifixion. Explaining the problem so to speak, even if they never accepted  the extreme/Pauline view of Jesus actaully being  god on earth, which eventually became mainstream. I think this is very close to Islam, no?

The trinity part (along with the 'son of god' concept) will always make Christianity much more complex that it could of been. I get what the priest is saying on this, but try explaining that to an illiterate peasant back in the day. Skip pass too hell and brimstone vs heaven and clouds....


Edited by Leonidas - 12-Jan-2009 at 11:15

I've always assumed the Herod of Jesus' birth was Archelaus and the Herod of the crucifixion and John the Baptist was Antipas. And later in Acts they are the Agrippas. Seems reasonable.

I agree about the other problems.