Muslims are Christian???

wil said:
Interesting...so are you indicating that Muslims see themselves as Christian? (Believing Christ is G!d/Allah?

This counters my understanding of what i often hear. "We are all Muslim, most just don't know it yet."

I thought a main belief of Islam is that they honor Jesus specifically not as Allah, but as a prophet, a Jewish prophet along with the rest...and Muhammad (pbuh) is the last and supercedes the rest (as far as changes to laws and understandings go)
Click to expand...

In fact, Christians and Muslims are actually cousins because both are the two branches of same ancestor Abraham. One branch was headed by Ishmael, which became Islam. The other branch headed by Isaac became Christians.
 
dattaswami2 said:
In fact, Christians and Muslims are actually cousins because both are the two branches of same ancestor Abraham. One branch was headed by Ishmael, which became Islam. The other branch headed by Isaac became Christians.
Click to expand...

I think you forgot the Jews.
 
wil said:
Interesting...so are you indicating that Muslims see themselves as Christian? (Believing Christ is G!d/Allah?

This counters my understanding of what i often hear. "We are all Muslim, most just don't know it yet."

I thought a main belief of Islam is that they honor Jesus specifically not as Allah, but as a prophet, a Jewish prophet along with the rest...and Muhammad (pbuh) is the last and supercedes the rest (as far as changes to laws and understandings go)
Click to expand...

I think you didn't understand that sentence you are quoting. It says Muslims are NOT Christians.
 
RJM said:
The gospels and the accompanying apocrypha are what we have of Jesus’s life, apart from the rather sparse mentions in the Quran. As far as I know the apocrypha do not wholesale reject chunks of the gospels, but rather attempt to fill in-gaps, but in a way that is accepted by most scholars as mostly suspect.

So of course there will always be debate about the meaning of the gospels, but it is not acceptable simply to discard the parts we don’t agree with – or the entire gospel of John -- as ‘corrupted’ without being able to provide alternative supporting historical texts. IMO

It has to be accepted that the Gospels and the Quran differ significantly and irreconcilably concerning the death on the cross and resurrection, which are core Christian beliefs?
Click to expand...

The Gospel of John as an example is not necessarily taken as "entirely corrupted". I have never heard terms like that used by Bible scholars. What they would say is that there is a redaction, textual interpolations, maybe four different authors, and they are all anonymous.

But it's true that the Gospels and the Qur'an differ significantly and irreconcilably in some matters. Yet, I don't know what scholars you are referring to when you say they think the so called apocrypha are "suspect". That's not how scholars refer to them as far as I know.

What you must analyse though is that the Gospels are attempts at writing Jesus's biography and the Qur'an is nobody's biography. They are poles apart. Different genre altogether. That is if you look at them as just natural writings by human authors. If you look at them as divine revelations, they are still very different. Not just in stories but as a whole. They are still different in genre.
 
dattaswami2 said:
In fact, Christians and Muslims are actually cousins because both are the two branches of same ancestor Abraham. One branch was headed by Ishmael, which became Islam. The other branch headed by Isaac became Christians.
Click to expand...

That's the Islamic view. You are directly referring to the Islamic tradition and belief, but you missed something quoting the Islamic tradition. The Islamic theology is that Islam did not "become", it was always there, and is not a "thing" to become. It's the Dheen or way that existed since eternity.
 
Firedragon said:
What you must analyse though is that the Gospels are attempts at writing Jesus's biography and the Qur'an is nobody's biography. They are poles apart. Different genre altogether. That is if you look at them as just natural writings by human authors. If you look at them as divine revelations, they are still very different. Not just in stories but as a whole. They are still different in genre.
Click to expand...
Yes

The issue is when people try to use the New Testament to support their own theories about Jesus -- that Jesus did not die on the cross, for example. The Gospels say Jesus died on the cross. Nobody has to believe what the NT says, but it cannot be used as evidence to support the exact opposite of what it actually does say -- to support the theory that Jesus did not die on the cross, for example.

There are hundreds of theories about Jesus. However the NT Jesus is the Jesus who died on the cross and was resurrected.

These theories about Jesus require separate evidence because the NT does not supply that evidence, unless by cherry-picking and manipulation of passages out-of-context.

The apocrypha are what they are.
IMO
 
RJM said:
The issue is when people try to use the New Testament to support their own theories about Jesus -- that Jesus did not die on the cross, for example. The Gospels say Jesus died on the cross. Nobody has to believe what the NT says, but it cannot be used as evidence to support the exact opposite of what it actually does say -- to support the theory that Jesus did not die on the cross, for example.
Click to expand...

That's true.

RJM said:
There are hundreds of theories about Jesus. However the NT Jesus is the Jesus who died on the cross and was resurrected.

These theories about Jesus require separate evidence because the NT does not supply that evidence, unless by cherry-picking and manipulation of passages out-of-context.

The apocrypha are what they are.
Click to expand...

that's true.

I was only pointing out the way you represented scholarship and biblical studies. Also to point out the genre differences in the books you referred to. It's was nothing about justifying anything based on the New Testament.

Hope you understand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Firedragon said:
That's the Islamic view. You are directly referring to the Islamic tradition and belief, but you missed something quoting the Islamic tradition. The Islamic theology is that Islam did not "become", it was always there, and is not a "thing" to become. It's the Dheen or way that existed since eternity.
Click to expand...
I think perhaps in terms of tawhid, that is correct.
However, regards scripture and "the law", I wouldn't be so sure.

What about "the law" regarding the Sabbath, for example?
 
muhammad_isa said:
I think perhaps in terms of tawhid, that is correct.
However, regards scripture and "the law", I wouldn't be so sure.

What about "the law" regarding the Sabbath, for example?
Click to expand...

What do you mean by sabath? Could you open a new thread about that?
 
Firedragon said:
What do you mean by sabath?
Click to expand...
The sabbath is a day of rest, a mandatory non-work day.
It's mentioned in the Qur'an as being prescribed to Bani Israel..

Also, one could mention "pilgrimage to Macca", and the prescribed number of 5 daily prayers.
The dheen of Islam is the final revelation from Allah SWT.
Hope you understand ;)
 
muhammad_isa said:
The sabbath is a day of rest, a mandatory non-work day.
It's mentioned in the Qur'an as being prescribed to Bani Israel..

Also, one could mention "pilgrimage to Macca", and the prescribed number of 5 daily prayers.
The dheen of Islam is the final revelation from Allah SWT.
Hope you understand ;)
Click to expand...

Whats the arabic word used in teh Qur'an for Sabbath? And whats your problem with it? Could you explain? So the sabbath changed. Could you show me from what day to which day according to the Quran?

Thanks.
 
Firedragon said:
Whats the arabic word used in teh Qur'an for Sabbath? And whats your problem with it? Could you explain? So the sabbath changed. Could you show me from what day to which day according to the Quran?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
1667161193114.png

I am not referring to any particular day. I am not making any specific claim about it. ;)
..just that we don't know for sure "the law" given to former prophets.
We can be sure of tawhid, without a doubt.
 
The Quran makes a difference between the Faithful (later called Muslim) and the Christians and the Jews. As to the message of the Quran, the Faith (later called Islam) is neither Judaism nor Christianity, nor is it a new religion founded by Muhammad, but rather a renewal of the religion that confirms and clarifies the Word of God that has come to Noah, Abraham and the Jewish prophets, for all people.

In my view, the Message of the Quran is much closer to the teachings according to the Gospel accounts than Christian and Islamic scholarly teachings are. Christians differ from in that they believe in the Word that has come to us through Jesus (p.b.u.h) but not to Muhammad (p.b.u.h). In contrast to the schism between Judaism and Christianity which took place after Jesus (p.b.u.h) left our world, the schism between Christianity and Islam already began in the active time of Muhammad (p.b.u.h.) through the refusal of the Quran and its Messenger by the Christians.

In the following, Islamic scholars also refused the Torah and the Gospel as writings of the "disbelievers" who rejected the Quran (although those who wrote them lived long time before Muhammad (p.b.u.h), and although, in my view, the Quran incites to accept and to follow the Gospel as it was available in the time of Muhammad). Many claim that there must have been an original Gospel writing that had later been corrupted (although there is not the faintest hint that a such original writing ever existed, neither in historical sources nor in the Quran).

This comes along with the misunderstanding, both of Muslim and Christians, that the accounts according to Mark, according to Luke, according to John and the one probably falsely attributed to Matthew are the Gospel/Injil. But the Gospel is the "Good Speel"="Euangelion": the Good Message. The Gospel is the Message, not a book.

Another obstacle is that the Gospel accounts seem to contradict the Quran. Many contradictions can however be resolved or at least explained.

I am currently working on an edition comprising the four canonical Gospels, the relevant passages of the Quran, the collection of Hadith falsely attributed to Thomas, some Islamic Hadith, cross-references to Jewish, Christian and Islamic sources and comments from an informed Muslim view. I am doing this for the Muslims in order to dig a little bit of the buried path to the Word that came to us through the penultimate prophet and Messiah.
 
Last edited:
dattaswami2 said:
In fact, Christians and Muslims are actually cousins because both are the two branches of same ancestor Abraham. One branch was headed by Ishmael, which became Islam. The other branch headed by Isaac became Christians.
Click to expand...
I know this is an old thread but I've been trying to search for something to comment on.

This is an incorrect statement. The descendants of Isaac and the descendants of Ishmael are cousins. Christians and Muslims are not technically cousins as any race can become one.

There.. I posted a meaningless opinion 😂
 
Faithfulservant said:
I know this is an old thread but I've been trying to search for something to comment on.

This is an incorrect statement. The descendants of Isaac and the descendants of Ishmael are cousins. Christians and Muslims are not technically cousins as any race can become one.

There.. I posted a meaningless opinion 😂
Click to expand...
The ascendence to Ishmael refers to the Arabic people. There hadn't been much left (maybe even nothing) from Abraham and Ishmael as far as the religion is concerned. Islam accepts and builds on the prophets of the Jewish tradition, like the other Abrahamic religions.
In contrast to Jews, Christians and Muslim are not a people but brothers and sisters in faith within their belief. In that sense, one could call them (together with Jews, Mandeans, Druze, Baha'i) cousins in faith.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top