Islam has a significantly different view on Jesus (like: he didn’t die (or resurrect, obviously), no trinity plus other things). Point is, could Islam be based on a branch of Christianity that was not affected as much by the Roman Empire (the various councils)? A branch that might even go further back than 325 CE? Does anyone have any knowledge/info on this subject? Bart? 🙂
This is how Moslem see Jesus (as per my knowledge):
1. Born from Virgin Birth, son of Marry, he had no Father, he is created by miracle, by God’s word “Kun Fayakun” “Be and Let it be”
2. Ability to Talk to refute Jew when he was Baby, who accused Marry for Adultery, just only to refute, after that not
3. Marry and Jesus leave Jerusalem for while during Jesus childhood (some said to Egypt, some say to Damascus) due to threat from their own people
4. Full of Miracles, from Childhood till his Adulthood : make clay bird and put it into life, heal the leper, blind, bring food to his disciples, resurrect the dead
5. Messanger of God, Fulfillment of Torah, thru his hand, there is new interpretation of Mosaic Law, he is last prophet for Israelite and also to give news for the next coming prophet like Moses which is Muhammad (as believed also by Essene that wait another Prophet like Moses)
6. as a promised Messiah to the Jew, King of the Jew, that will bring Kingdom of David, the Kingdom that work by the God’s law, Law of Moses, but Jew reject him, they don’t want to fight with him against Roman
7. Indeed, Jew make Conspiracy for him, also declaration as Messiah is against Roman
8. God save Jesus when Roman try to crucified him. They didn’t kill him nor crucify him. This crucifixion event is just Illusion and people start to believe they already crucified him but actually not
9. How God save Jesus? there are couple interpretation
a. Totally Illusion (as mention by some Nag Hammadi Scripture)
b. Substitute Theory (as mention by some Nag Hammadi Scripture)
c. Swoon Theory (the most weak, i personally don’t take this theory)
10. God raised Jesus to Heaven
11. Anyone who claim the Messiah and died on the Cross as per Jews understanding is not Messiah, In this event i think Jews and Christian Divorce, in Christian Theology, they have their own term of Messiah, suffering Messiah for atonement of sin. Moslem still use Jews understanding. No one should die for other sin, everyone responsible for their own.
12. Jesus will fulfill his Messianic task by the end of time, his Second Coming, the purpose if to build Kingdom of God, serve HIM in One Accord. Jews dont believe in Second Coming, since they already reject Jesus on first place, they reject him in the first place
13. Thru Jesus Second Coming, everyone will agree that he is true Messiah. Moslem, Christian and Jew will unite. But, before his second coming we will face some Tribulation Time, all these 3 figures is Human, real person:
a. Al Mahdi (2nd Muhammad, he will unite all the Moslem)
b. Anti Christ (Moslem will fight Anti Christ, we believe Jew will go with Anti Christ in the beginning, Ant Christ is the Biggest Deceiver)
c. Jesus Christ (Moslem and Christian unite, he will kill anti christ, and Jew will admit that Jesus is Messiah, all these 3 abrahamic faith will unite and under Jesus command, everyone on Earth should follow him, (Pagan, atheist, etc), if not than should be killed, this is to unite all people into one believe, that is the purpose of Messianic Age)
14. Fight with Yajuj Majuj (Gog Magog ?)
15. He will rule for 40 years and die, Moslem already prepare his burial place, beside our beloved Prophet Muhammad
16. After his time, now the time for Qiyamah (End of Days), Destruction of this Universe for Judgement Day
Summary: Jesus Christ is True Messiah, God save him from Jews Conspiracy and any attempted Murder, true Messiah should not die. Moslem still consistent with the purpose of Messiah is to build Kingdom of God on earth. Second coming of Jesus Christ is his time to fulfill all his messianic task. “Serve Him (G-d of Abraham) in One Accord”. as mention by Zephaniah, as we believe, all human being will embrace Islam, only one Religion.
“For at that time I will change the speech of the peoples to a pure speech, that all of them may call upon the name of the LORD and serve him with one accord.” [Zephaniah 3:9]
kjeldsenanders said
[C]ould Islam be based on a branch of Christianity that was not affected as much by the Roman Empire (the various councils)? A branch that might even go further back than 325 CE? Does anyone have any knowledge/info on this subject? Bart? 🙂
Perhaps you should address this question to Dan Brown.
In reality, the Jesus material in the Quran is largely the product of heretical texts (such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas) and oral stories dating from mid Second through Sixth Centuries in the regions of modern day Jordan and the Arabian Peninsula. Islam developed out of that milieu, as Mohammad was likely a product of Petra (not Mecca).
This was derivative material, much of it Gnostic, and often originally written in Coptic (not Greek).
There is virtually no evidence of an older, non-canonical branch of Christianity snuffed out by councils of the Roman Empire. We have well over 50 (and close to 100) NT papyri dating from prior to the Fourth Century. The amount of pre- Fourth Century papyri for non-canonical texts is far, far more limited. And, even in the case of many of those texts, such as the Egerton Gospel, there is little in the way of evidence to indicate a separate branch of Christianity — and certainly not one which survived to be included in the Quran.
Finally, Second Century documents such as the Diatessaron and the Muratorian fragment are very strong evidence that post-Nicea Christianity looked a lot life (if not identical to) Second Century Christianity.
There may be clues that the Christianity known by early Islam was different than normative Christianity. The clues point to Ebionites or a form of Jewish Christianity. In the Sahih al-Bhukhari 1.3 (Hadith), the Prophet’s wife seems to have known a man named Uzza who had converted to Christianity before Islam, but wrote the Gospels in Hebrew. Another intrigue is in the Quran – 5.6 – where Muslims are instructed that meat of the People of the Book (includes Jews and Christians) are halal for them – permitted. Not absolute proof but I think these small clues may point to a variance with the standard Christianity of the time.
Sahih al-Bukhari is a 9th Century text, based on oral stories circulating in the reason. It’s a bit hard to believe that an oral history 800 years old would have more accurate information than texts based on oral history that was less than 50 years old.
On Halel, that’s entirely consistent with the view of Islam as the true Abrahamic religion, and characterization of Jesus of Nazareth as merely a prophet. Christianity’s break with dietary restrictions was decidedly non-Abrahamic.
My take is that Muhammad didn’t like the idea that Allah would allow one of his prophets to be killed by unbelievers. I mean, think about his own situation. Why would he want to believe that? Why would the all-powerful one allow such a thing? It doesn’t fit his worldview, and it doesn’t fit most of the biblical texts he was reading.
In the OT, prophets are basically never killed by their enemies. Oppressed, perhaps. Mocked. Imprisoned. Not killed. They are always triumphant in the end, though of course still mortal men, who must either die a mortal death, or be taken up into heaven.
Jesus probably believed something similar–until his teacher, John the Baptist was killed by Herod. Then, perhaps, his thinking began to change. If John could be killed, anyone could. “No man born of woman is greater than John the Baptist.” God’s ways are not our ways, and His plans for us are not for us to decipher.
Muhammad’s path was very different–through no desire of his own, he became a military conqueror. Of course that’s going to lead to a different mindset.
And, I must say with all respect for Islam, which has produced many deeply spiritual men and women–a more worldly one.
vergari said
Perhaps you should address this question to Dan Brown.
In reality, the Jesus material in the Quran is largely the product of heretical texts (such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas) and oral stories dating from mid Second through Sixth Centuries in the regions of modern day Jordan and the Arabian Peninsula. Islam developed out of that milieu, as Mohammad was likely a product of Petra (not Mecca).
Here I need to be blunt: Islam definitely was not a product of Petra. This idea belongs in the same dustbin as the idea that Jesus didn’t exist.
There is no way at all that Muslims could have made such a significant historical change in their origins story without it leading to a great deal of controversy; and had that happened, the controversy would have been noted in the history books, which are already replete with far more inconsequential debates about minor matters.
No person would have tried to spread such a massive change, whether ruler or not, because they would be guaranteed to look like complete IDIOTS; their reputations would have been ruined, and their enemies would have rejoiced at the huge propaganda victory scored by them as a result.
Omar6741 said
vergari said
Perhaps you should address this question to Dan Brown.
In reality, the Jesus material in the Quran is largely the product of heretical texts (such as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas) and oral stories dating from mid Second through Sixth Centuries in the regions of modern day Jordan and the Arabian Peninsula. Islam developed out of that milieu, as Mohammad was likely a product of Petra (not Mecca).Here I need to be blunt: Islam definitely was not a product of Petra. This idea belongs in the same dustbin as the idea that Jesus didn’t exist.
There is no way at all that Muslims could have made such a significant historical change in their origins story without it leading to a great deal of controversy; and had that happened, the controversy would have been noted in the history books, which are already replete with far more inconsequential debates about minor matters.
No person would have tried to spread such a massive change, whether ruler or not, because they would be guaranteed to look like complete IDIOTS; their reputations would have been ruined, and their enemies would have rejoiced at the huge propaganda victory scored by them as a result.
Putting aside whether Petra was truly the original holy city of Island — as it may have been Jerusalem — what contemporaneous evidence is there that “Bakkah” (“the place of the one who weeps much”) and the Ka’ba (“the sacred place”) should be associated with Mecca?
Islamic tradition holds that the Qu’ran was collected on two separate occasions during the mid 7th Century, with redactions during the caliphate of Abd al-Malik at the end of the 7th Century, coinciding with a systematic campaign to destroy non-conforming Qur’anic material. Taking these Islamic sources seriously, it means that by the dawn of the 8th Century, the only Qurans in existence were less than a decade old — even though Mohammad had been dead for 70 years.
Written recordings of internal debates within Islam (in the form of Hadith) did not begin in earnest for another century. So there is a serious black box of missing information during the post-Muhammad period up to the time of Abd al-Malik. But here is what we know:
1. No historical maps from the period reflect the existence of Mecca in the 7th Century.
2. Mecca is described as “the mother of all cities” — a phrase that makes far more sense in reference to Petra than Mecca.
2. There is no contemporaneous evidence that Mecca was on a trade route, and, indeed, its location would indicate that it is not.
3. Petra does appear on ancient maps, and was a major trading hub.
4. Descriptions in the Qu’ran (describing the Holy City as having a valley and nearby mountains, all with foliage, and near the remains of Lot) do not match the topography/geography/climate of Mecca.
5. Early mosques point towards Petra, until the time of Abd al-Malik, when they started to change to point to Mecca.
Is the case rock solid for Petra? No. But the evidence is far stronger in favor of Petra. Combine that with scarce mentions of Mecca in the Qu’ran and the descriptions of the Holy City being in conflict with Mecca, and the evidence is almost overwhelming that Islam is not a product of Mecca.
isal_m_a said
looks like you build argument based on Dan Gibson bookswell, i would say, there is always some people have weird theory, same as today Flat Earth that think Earth is flat
Rather than the ad hominem comparison to a flat earther, perhaps you could provide some evidence that the theory about non-Meccan roots for Islam is wrong. Omar at least posited that such a change (from Petra to Mecca) would have found its way into early Islamic texts as reflecting a controversy. However, the counter to that is that there simply isn’t a lot of early information from the post-Mohammad but pre- Abd al-Malik period (circa 630 to 690).
you need to believe in “Conspiration” theory first in order to take this assumption
Same as what Flat Earther, they need to believe on Conspiration Theory
So, is there any prove that Abdul Marwan changes Petra to Mecca?
there should be huge riots for sure for any changes in such as like Holy City
isal_m_a said
you need to believe in “Conspiration” theory first in order to take this assumptionSame as what Flat Earther, they need to believe on Conspiration Theory
So, is there any prove that Abdul Marwan changes Petra to Mecca?
there should be huge riots for sure for any changes in such as like Holy City
So is your argument that any 8th century religious tradition, which turn out to be diverging from historical facts, is tantamount to a conspiracy theory?
Rather than simply label an argument who don’t like with a pejorative like “conspiracy theory,” it would be helpful if you could seek to explain that items in my post. Believe me …. I have no axe to grind here and am completely open to Mecca being the original Holy City from when Mohammad came. But for me to do that, I would like an explanation for things like:
— why no historical maps from the period reflect the existence of Mecca in the 7th Century,
— why Mecca is described as “the mother of all cities,”
— why there is no contemporaneous evidence that Mecca was on a trade route,
— why Mecca does not match the topographical, geographic and climatic descriptions given of the Holy City in the Qu’ran, and
— why early mosques, until the time of Abd al-Malik, do not point towards Mecca, but to Petra.
If you have answers for these, it would go a long way to convincing me.
i dont think any scholar take this theory seriously, just like we treat flat earth, nothing serious
Of course, again you need to believe on “Conspiration” Theory to believe this is true, Flat Earth also has their own methods to prove Earth is flat, even you show them Earth Picture is round, they said it is Conspiration
About Mosques not in correct Qibla direction, lot of today Mosques in Indonesia are facing Kenya, it just matter if technology at that time, now we have GPS, so we can pretty sure, also looks like Dan Gibson just cherry pick the Mosque
Also, changing Holy City is really really BIG BIG issues, since it deal with all Hajj Ritual, since this ritual relate with location
There was civil war in Moslem history due to Political Leader, do you think there will be no civil war due to Holy City movement? think about it
Moslems will not take this Petra theory seriously, just like a joke
Mecca in Ancient Text
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
From Bible Perspective
isal_m_a said
i dont think any scholar take this theory seriously, just like we treat flat earth, nothing seriousOf course, again you need to believe on “Conspiration” Theory to believe this is true, Flat Earth also has their own methods to prove Earth is flat, even you show them Earth Picture is round, they said it is Conspiration
About Mosques not in correct Qibla direction, lot of today Mosques in Indonesia are facing Kenya, it just matter if technology at that time, now we have GPS, so we can pretty sure, also looks like Dan Gibson just cherry pick the Mosque
Also, changing Holy City is really really BIG BIG issues, since it deal with all Hajj Ritual, since this ritual relate with location
There was civil war in Moslem history due to Political Leader, do you think there will be no civil war due to Holy City movement? think about it
Moslems will not take this Petra theory seriously, just like a joke
Mecca in Ancient Text
** you do not have permission to see this link **
** you do not have permission to see this link **
From Bible Perspective
I will take a look. Thank you.
vergari said
Rather than the ad hominem comparison to a flat earther, perhaps you could provide some evidence that the theory about non-Meccan roots for Islam is wrong. Omar at least posited that such a change (from Petra to Mecca) would have found its way into early Islamic texts as reflecting a controversy. However, the counter to that is that there simply isn’t a lot of early information from the post-Mohammad but pre- Abd al-Malik period (circa 630 to 690).
There is quite a lot of information concerning that period. We know of the year of nosebleeds during the caliphate of Uthman — people got a lot of nosebleeds for some reason, in Madina. We know of a dispute between Sad ibn Abu Waqqas and Abdullah ibn Masud about repayment of a debt: quite a funny read in many ways. Why anyone made this stuff up has never been explained.
4. Descriptions in the Qu’ran (describing the Holy City as having a valley and nearby mountains, all with foliage, and near the remains of Lot) do not match the topography/geography/climate of Mecca.
There is foliage in Mecca, there is a valley, and there are nearby mountains. As for the people of Lot, the site the Quran is referring to can be found in the Negev, on a major ancient trade route that the Arabs used regularly. It seems that Muslim scholars relied on Biblical traditions to identify the remains of these people as being in or near the Dead Sea, eve though the Quran does not depend on these Biblical stories; this was an error, yet both Muslims and non-Muslims imitate it blindly.
5. Early mosques point towards Petra, until the time of Abd al-Malik, when they started to change to point to Mecca.
Early mosques do not point towards Petra. The earliest mosque of all most definitely does not — the mosque in Madina, which has pointed to Mecca since the earliest times. Recently discovered mosques in the Negev do not point to Petra either.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert