Posted by Amir on 5/15/2009, 12:58 pm, in reply to "Re: Jesus(peace be upon him)"
41.212.201.235
"I'm afraid I don't get your point. It is my understanding that the word "Allah" is still used by Arabic speaking Christians as well as Muslims when they refer to God. Are you claiming that Muslims are the first ones to use the term in this way?"
What i am claiming is that muslims were not the first to use the word Allah for God and that indeed the name of God is Allah.
"So far as I know, the Gnostic material is generally later material which was written after orthodox Christianity had been established. "
An ancient text known as the Apocalypse of Peter was discovered and is in the Coptic language but was probably copied off of a Greek original. Scholars date it to the 1st century c.e.Compare it to the time frame of the canonical Gospels which are dated about 4th century.
"While the Gnostic authors undoubtedly knew many legitimate facts about Jesus and His disciples, I am unaware that any of them were eyewitnesses or were directly acquainted with eyewitnesses."
I would suggest you watch the film "Banned from the Bible".some of Saint Peter's apocalypse were banned from the current Bible, and these Epistles contain what Islam claims - that Jesus didn't get crucified on the cross and it only appeared that he was. This banned part also says that Jesus was standing next to the cross laughing.These are the parts of the Bible that only few people in the world know about.
In regards to the New Testament, there are 24,000 epistles (letters) found so far that were written about Jesus. Constantine, which came around year 325 decided to chose the current 30+ books and gospels of the "Cannon" or New Testament. But before that, many books or epistles were believed to be inspired, including this banned apocalypse. In fact, this apocalypse was "very popular" and was widely believed that it was "SPIRITUALLY INSPIRED TO SAINT PETER".
"I really don't believe that Muslims theology is compatible with Gnostic theology. If you think that Mohammad was a Gnostic, please, lets discuss it. I'm fascinated by that prospect. That would be a highly informative line of reasoning."
No the prophet Muhammad was not a Gnostic.
"On the other hand, if Mohammad was not a Gnostic, then this passage appears to have no relevance to the discussion. If you reject the truth of Gnosticism, than you are trying to establish Mohammad's validity by appealing to a book which you yourself know is not true."
I don t follow this line of reasoning.As u know i believe in only part of the Bible.Let us consider an example where we have to give a verdict or an account or anything else by refering to information available to u.If it is to be given in the most detailed possible then u must make use of all information available to u.My point is simply that i believe in part of the Bible because it agrees with the Quran.If The Bible was indeed wholy corrupted then how come it agrees with the Quran?Similarly consider that u r an eye witnness to an incident and it happens that while reporting it ,there is a need of another eyewitness.Now u know that u were the only witness and that there were probably no one beside u.If however at that moment someone u know (and let's assume he's your enemy) comes and says he also witnessed the same incident.At first u would doubt it because u do not believe him but as he gives a detailed description of the exact occurence of events which matches yours u are forced to believe him.Whether he is a liar is irrelevant because if he was indeed lying,it is impossible for him to give an exact descripton as yours.I am not a gnostic but since there writings about the crucifixion matches that of the Quran and the hadiths ,it is acceptable to us.As far as there is anything which matches with the Quran we will accept it and if it matches wholly with the Quran we will accept it as such.It doesn t have anything to do with being dishonest or not,because if we accept a book we are being witness to it containing truth and that would be possible to verify only if we know of the truth and in this case we would refer to the Quran.
"You can not properly use the Bible to support something which actually contradicts it."
As i mentionned above this would be true only if the Bible and the Quran were in total contradiction ,however this is not the case.
Muslims and Christians agree and disagree on several points regarding Jesus.Muslims disagrees with resurection bases on accounts from the Quran and to some extent the Gospels.
The gospels state also that after Jesus appeared to be dead, a man struck at his body with a lance, and that the blood gushed out from his body. We know that blood does not flow from a dead body. This indicates that Jesus was still alive.
The gospels state that Jesus was laid in his tomb, and that a heavy stone was laid above the tomb, and that on Sunday, the body was missing, and that the stone was removed from the mouth of the tomb. We have the right to suspect that some of the disciples of Jesus removed the stone and rescued him. Were Jesus resurrected miraculously, there would have been no need for removal of the stone. God is able to raise him from the grave and keep the stone where it was. The removal of the stone seems to be a human, and not a Divine, work.
There is a way to reconcile the Qur'anic statement with the statements of the gospels: The difference between the two statements could be a difference between appearance and reality.
No doubt, some event had taken place at the time of what seemed to be the crucifixion of Jesus and his death on the cross. The life of Jesus was full of miracles, and so could be what seemed to be his death. It could have been that another person (such as Judas, the one who betrayed him) was miraculously likened to him, and he, not Jesus, died on the cross.
There is another way to reconcile the two statements without resort to assumption of any miracle: Suppose Jesus was put on the cross, and that he had fainted, so he appeared dead, while he was still alive.
The international society of the Holy Shroud has recently concluded that the stains of blood on the shroud of Jesus indicate that Jesus was still living when he was taken down from the cross. Otherwise, there would be no blood on the sheet which covered his body afterwards.
A Christian, believing in the crucifixion of Jesus, would have a hard time reconciling two of the principles in which he believes, namely: Jesus is God, and Jesus was crucified. A crucified person cannot be God because he is unable to protect himself, let alone be almighty.
A Muslim, on the other hand, does not have such a problem. He believes that Jesus is a prophet and no more. A prophet may be persecuted and crucified, because a prophet is not supposed to be almighty. Although Islam does not have the problem of contradiction, it has solved the problem which it does not have. Jesus was not crucified. God had protected him.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread