Are their different versions? I sure dont...not the ones that showed up framed when I googled
Muslims are Christian???
- Thread starter wil
- Start date
But surely that is a matter of perspective?
The Samaritan Torah has variant readings that alter the meaning. Which text is the right, uncorrupted one?
Iirc some theological positions hinge on the Septuagint translation, and would not seem as compelling if based on the Hebrew text. But my memory won't tell me which ones, so I'd have to do tedious homework to supply the references
Again, which text is the uncorrupted one?But the New Testament accounts of the crucifixion and resurrection do not hinge on translation and interpretation?
Regardless of translation, the NT gospels all say that Christ died on the cross and, with the exception of Mark which merely references the empty tomb, that he rose from the dead.
The Quran, regardless of translation, rejects both.
The issue is: can I reject the crucifixion and resurrection, while still insisting I do not refute the Bible -- in this case the New Testament?
Regardless of translation, the NT gospels all say that Christ died on the cross and, with the exception of Mark which merely references the empty tomb, that he rose from the dead.
The Quran, regardless of translation, rejects both.
The issue is: can I reject the crucifixion and resurrection, while still insisting I do not refute the Bible -- in this case the New Testament?
Last edited:
Considering the Gospels predate the Quran by several centuries, why should they be regarded as corrupted/false? The only justification is that the Quran was recited to Muhammad (pbuh) by the angel Gabriel. Rejection of the gospel Jesus all hinges on that belief.
The two accounts do not tally.
The two accounts do not tally.
Given that the texts, Hebrew Bible, Gospels, Epistes, Quran, are not even without internal contradictions, I feel, yes, why not, why insist on cross-scriptural consistency? But I don't really feel strongly about it either way, and don't want to get into arguing for religions I do not follow.
Beyond my pay grade!
It's a reasonable point. Regarding the Septuagint specifically, I wonder whether that's a matter of interpretation, as opposed to corruption – or perhaps the interpretation leads to corruption, the interpretation corrupts, as it were ... some would argue that translating a text from one language to another is fraught with problems, all manner of things lost ...
I was rather aiming at the bland, "your text doesn't agree with mine, so yours is corrupted" argument. But the question is more nuanced, for sure.
I think there's two things at play here. The one is text issues.
The other is a matter of doctrine and dogma. To a (traditional) Christian, Jesus Christ is the incarnate Son of God. To both Jews and Muslims, He's not. The Resurrection is fundamental to (traditional) Christian belief, it's not a text issue.
Yes, fully agreed in this context.
However, I was mostly responding to RJM's question whether someone might claim to be Christian while rejecting certain canonical works as corrupt. My reply, in essence, was "since there are internal contradictions even in the canonical texts, why not?" To illustrate my point, while there was never a schism of adherents of "Light and Darkness were separated on the first day of creation (Gen 1:4) refuting those who maintained it was on the fourth day (Gen 1:18) and vice-versa, obviously, both cannot be true, and each faction might accuse the other of glossing over the irreconcilable difference. If it can happen within the same chapter of a canonical text, well, why get hung up about differencec between texts so severely separated by time and place of composition as the Gospels and the Quran?
I understand that a central article of the Christian faith is based on the resurrection accounts. And this is where I pointed out that I have no investment in either view as I am neither Christian not Muslim.
Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
(Matthew 11:28-29
KJV)
Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.
(Matthew 11:28-29
KJV)
This one?
I believe in God, the Father almighty,
creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead.
On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven,
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic Church,
the communion of the saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and the life everlasting. Amen.
No .. not died .. ascended to be with God Almighty
..and Jesus will return during the apocalypse .. which appears to be coming
relatively soon.
However, all mortals eventually die.
The question is, is Jesus a mortal or is he "a god man"?
Strict monotheism says that no human being can be God !
Christians do not have the same strict definition of monotheism as Jews and Muslims,
although they share the kalima / shema ..
i.e. There is none worthy of worship except G-d who has no partner in Sovereignty
Last edited:
Not sure about that..
Depends on the definition of Christian and Muslim.
A Christian who accepts the authenticity of the Qur'an and Muhammad being very close to Almighty God can be both,
imo
They don't stop believing in God or Jesus.
No. We should not discard a thing "because we don't like it".
However, we should discard things if we have good reason to believe that they are misbelief.
There is a difference between a disbeliever claiming that scripture is a "fairy tale " or fiction, and Biblical, cannonical scriptures being accurate or reliable in their details, imo.
I would say that it is very important to know the background to establish what people believed at the time of writing,
along with the political situation in the middle east.
Cannonical scriptues are not claimed to be written or dictated by God Almighty. Why should human beings accept / prefer
one belief system over another?
Is it purely cultural, or is it primarily about our own souls and what seems good to us?
That's what I meant, sorry. Muslims believe Jesus did not die on the crossNo .. not died .. ascended to be with God Almighty
Yes. What Unitarian Christians believe. Christ's life and message are taken up in part by very many people, while discarding other parts of it. Whereas a Muslim is required to believe in the entirety of the Quran, and in Muhammad (pbuh) as the prophet. To reject a single verse of the Quran is to reject it all?
The good reason being in the case, that the Quran does not agree? Believe one, or believe the other? Else select the parts of the NT gospels I like, and reject the rest?
Last edited:
But the Quran is believed to have been dictated to Muhammad (pbuh) by the angel Gabriel, as the direct voice of Allah. It is a belief? A belief not shared by many?
NB: I meant: a belief that many do not share
Last edited: