Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

Why call it Injil?

49 views

Skip to first unread message

Jorge Batista

unread,

Oct 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/3/98

> Now, in the Greek of the time, if I am correct, there was no
> punctuation such that one could tell the difference between "my lord"
> and "my God" and "my Lord and my God." The issue here is whether or
> not Thomas said "and" or not. And if the issue of the divinity of
> Jesus rests on whether Thomas used the conjunction or not, we are in a
> very sorry condition....
>
> AbdulraHman Lomax
> mar...@vom.com
> P.O. Box 423
> Sonoma, CA 95476

There is something important missing in this discussion that I would
like to touch upon by taking a brief, but relevant, digression.

In an effort to understand the meaning of words, it is often
enlightening to remove them from their context and to "isolate" them
to study their possible meanings. This can help us get an idea of
the breadth of meaning possible for the word or phrase in question.
It can also give us renewed appreciation for the importance of
context. That is, depending on the context, the meaning of a word or
phrase can vary drastically.

However, in the end, we must return to the original context in which
the word or phrase is couched, in order to get at it's intended
meaning. The same applies to sentences, verses, paragraphs, in
short, to all communication.

An example from the Qur'an should help clarify:
In 5:85 we have:
And nearest among them in love
To the Believers wilt thou
Find those who say,
"We are Christians":
Because amongst these are
Men devoted to learning
And men who have renounced
The world, and they
Are not arrogant. (AYA)

And in 5:54 we see:
O ye who believe!
Take not the Jews
And the Christians
For your friends and protectors:
They are but friends and protectors
To each other. And he
Amongst you that turns to them
(For friendship) is of them.
Verily God guideth not a people unjust. (AYA)

Taken outside of their context and placed side by side, it would
appear that we have a contradiction. After all, how can those
nearest to Believers (Muslims) in love be rounded up along with the
rest and made an example of people the believer is not to have as
friends? The answer lies in putting the verses back in their
context. Doing so, we begin to get the sense that the Qur'an
distinguishes between good and bad Christians. And this distinction
is based, in part, on the actions of the Christian in question. A
good Christian is expected to demonstrate devotion to learning and
renunciation of the world and of arrogance, among other things. So
there is no contradiction.

Now, if we take 5:85 further in the context of 5:86 does it's
meaning not change significantly again?
And when they listen
To the revelation received
By the Apostle, thou wilt
See their eyes overflowing
With tears, for they
Recognise the truth:
They pray: "Our Lord!
We believe; write us
Down among the witnesses. (AYA)

Now, along with displaying the characteristics mentioned in surah
5:85, the good Christian will recognize in the Qur'an what God has
revealed to the Apostle (Muhammad) and will react "with tears" and
with a confirmation of belief.

So, context does matter; it is essential in assessing the meaning in
communication. Here ends my digression.

That said, I would like to consider the context in which Thomas
exclaimed, "My Lord and my God" in further detail. I believe the
discussion thus far has succeeded in taking the phrase in question
out of the context in which it is found and looking at the possible
alternative meanings. And, in this regard, I believe Mr. Lomax is
right in saying that Thomas was not necessarily claiming Jesus'
divinity. But let's study the context a little further and see what
happens.

A reading of chapter 20 shows the main points of the narrative are
that:
1) Jesus had been crucified.
2) Jesus had died and had lain in a tomb for several days already.
3) Jesus resurrected.
4) Jesus appeared to his disciples in miraculous ways numerous
times.
5) The disciples mostly had the same initial reaction to what they
had seen or heard regarding the resurrection: disbelief.
6) Jesus' appearance was not that of an apparition but was real,
physical.
7) The markings on Jesus' body, the things he said, and his actions,
proved to the disciples the reality of his resurrection.

The above sets the stage. Now let's look at Thomas' mindset and how
he responds.
24Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the
disciples when Jesus came.
25So the other disciples told him, "We have seen the Lord!" But he
said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my
finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will
not believe it."
26A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was
with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among
them and said, "Peace be with you!"
27Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach
out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe."
28Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed;
blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Thomas is confronted by the overwhelming joy of the other disciples
and the amazing news they have conveyed to him about Jesus'
resurrection. There is actually nothing new in this; after all,
Jesus had already prophesied his murder and resurrection (e.g. Luke
9:22 And he [Jesus] said, "The Son of Man must suffer many things
and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the
law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to
life."). But now it is an actual, historical, fact with credible
witnesses to support it. However, Thomas does not budge. He stands
firm in his disbelief.

Thomas has come down to us through history as a negative example for
Christians. "This is how Christians should not behave", we hear.
Yet, we have much to say to his credit. Thomas was not one to
believe just because the other disciples, actual witnesses, told him
what had happened. He certainly was no pushover. Moreover, he was no
dreamer. He wanted hard facts that he could put to the test. He had
heard all that Jesus had promised, from the Master's own mouth. Now,
when all appeared lost, was the time to put Jesus' promise to the
test. If it could not be true now, it would never be true, and
Jesus, much as he is loved, would be a total failure because his
own words would prove him wrong.

But there is one more important characteristic about Thomas that is
commendable. While demanding that Jesus' promise and the other
disciples' witness pass a specific test (namely, that he can see for
himself), he did not harden his heart to the possibility that Jesus
had indeed risen. How do we know this is so? Because when given the
opportunity to see for himself, Thomas did not continue in disbelief
but exclaimed "My Lord and my God!"

And this to his credit. Again, how do we know? Because Jesus said
so: 29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have
believed; ... Voluntary belief from the heart is what Jesus is
always looking for, and he got it from Thomas.

Now, what was it that Thomas did not believe that he subsequently
believed after seeing and touching Jesus? Did he come to believe
Jesus was a prophet? A teacher? A good man? A miracle worker and
healer? No. He already knew all that and had seen it for himself.
But what did he come to believe? Two possibilities remain:
1) Jesus did, in fact, resurrect physically
*and/or*
2) Jesus is, in fact, God.

One of these two possibilities, or both, is demanded by the
narrative and by the witness of Thomas. No other possibilities are
allowed by the unfolding events in the narrative. In other words, by
placing Thomas' assertion back in its context, where it belongs, all
other possible interpretations are excluded.

Why is this important? Because, even if one wishes to choose the
more restrictive interpretation, i.e., that all Thomas was
expressing was amazement and not asserting Jesus' divinity, one is
still left with the fact of Jesus' historical, physical
resurrection, as witnessed by the previously skeptical Thomas and
others. On the other hand, this also shows that the more inclusive
interpretation, i.e., that Thomas was, indeed, asserting Jesus'
divinity, is in harmony with the narrative. There is no
contradiction.

And what is the significance of this? Muslims often give a simple
counter-argument about Thomas only having expressed amazement, not
an assertion of Jesus' divinity, to the simple Christian claim that
Thomas recognized Jesus as God. And in doing so, they believe they
have put the issue to rest when all they have done, perhaps without
realizing it, is move from one interpretation that they refuse to
accept to another that is, really, equally unacceptable to them.
That is, they remain confronted with the fact of Jesus'
crucifiction, death, and physical resurrection almost 2000 years
ago, which is as problematic for the Muslim as the assertion of
Jesus' divinity. The mainstream Islamic interpretation of the Qur'an
does not accept Jesus' divinity nor his crucifiction, death, and
physical resurrection.

As with the Qur'an, so with the Bible. These points are missed when
Thomas' assertion is taken out of context. But they become
undeniable when Thomas' exclamation is brought back into its
context. Indeed, context is essential.

Now, do we need to leave the discussion here? No, I don't think so.
Indeed, Thomas' asserting the divinity of Jesus would be consistent
with the witness of others and with Jesus' own testimony. There are
plenty of articles addressing this topic and I would be very happy
to discuss this in a subsequent communication with whomever is
interested.

But for now, it would suffice to end this message with Jesus' own
response to Thomas, which is the challenge that he sets before the
whole world, the reader included:

29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed;
blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

May God's blessings be upon you,
Jorge

Dr. M S M Saifullah

unread,

Oct 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/5/98

On 3 Oct 1998, Jorge Batista wrote:

Assalamu-alaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

> In an effort to understand the meaning of words, it is often
> enlightening to remove them from their context and to "isolate" them
> to study their possible meanings. This can help us get an idea of
> the breadth of meaning possible for the word or phrase in question.
> It can also give us renewed appreciation for the importance of
> context. That is, depending on the context, the meaning of a word or
> phrase can vary drastically.

Actually, the traditional exegesis of the Qur'an is carried out by taking
things *in context*. Hence there is nothing like '"isolating" the verses
and stripping them out of context.

The importance of context (maqam) was recognized and formulated for the
study of the text of the Qur'an by Muslim linguists whose work in this
respect anticipated by many centuries modern linguistic thinking. Internal
relationships were encapsulated in the dictum: al-qur'an yufassiru ba'duhu
ba'dan (different parts of the Qur'an explain one another), which, given
the structure of quranic material, was argued to provide the most correct
method of understanding the Qur'an.

In one of the papers appeared in the book (Context and internal
relationships: keys to quranic exegesis: A study of Surat al-Rahman
(Qur'an chapter 55), by M.A.S. Abdel Haleem) "Approaches To The Qur'an"
edited by Hawtings and Sharif, we read that:

--------

One of the important contributions of scholars of balagha was their
recognition of the concept of maqam (the context of the situation) and its
role in determining the utterance and providing the criterion for judging
it. A central issue in 'ilm al-ma'ani is: mutabaqat al-kalam li-muqtada'i
'l-hal 2 (the conformity of the utterance to the requirements of the
situation).

Al-Khatib al-Qazwini explains:

The context that demands the definite, generalization, advancement of part
of a discourse, and inclusion (of particular words) differs from the
context that demands the indefinite, specification, postponement and
omission; the context of separation differs from that of joining; the
situation that requires conciseness differs from that requiring
expansiveness. Discourse with an intelligent person differs from discourse
with an obtuse one. Each word with its companion is suited to a particular
context. A high standard of beauty and acceptability of speech depends on
its appropriateness to the situation and vice versa.

Tammam Hassan points out that when scholars of balagha recognized the
concept of maqam, they were one thousand years ahead of their time, since
the recognition of maqam and maqal as two separate bases for the
analysis of meaning has been arrived at only recently as a result of modern
linguistic thinking. When they said li-kull maqam maqal (each context
demands its own distinctive form of speech) and li-kull kalima ma'a
sahibatiha maqam (each word, with its companion, should have its own
context) they hit on two remarkable statements that could be applied
equally to the study of other languages. When Malinowski coined his famous
term 'the context of the situation' he did not know that scholars had
formulated the same concept a thousand years earlier under the name maqam.

Scholars of usul al-fiqh have recognized the importance of the notions of
maqam and maqal for the study of the Qur'an. In his muwafaqal Shatibi
states:

The science of ma'ani and bayan by which the i'jaz of the Qur'an is
recognized, revolves around knowing the requirements of the situation
during the discourse from the point of view of the discourse itself, the
discursant, the discursee or all of them together; for the same statement
can be understood in different ways in relation to two different addressees
or more. A question with one and the same form can imply other meanings,
such as agreement, scolding etc. Likewise an imperative can have the
meaning of permission, threat, incapacity/impossibility.

Another key tool of quranic exegesis is the internal relationships between
material in different parts of the Qur'an, expressed by quranic scholars
as: al-Qur'an yufassiru ba'duhu ba'dan (different parts of the Qur'an
explain each other). Utilization of such relationships is considered by
Ibn Taymiyya to be the most correct method of tafsir (asahh al-turuq). He
explains; 'What is given in a general way in one place is explained in
detail in another place. What is given briefly in one place is expanded in
another.' Shatibi states that many quranic verses/passages can only be
properly understood in the light of explanations provided in other verses
or suras. This old concept in quranic studies may, thus, be viewed within
the framework of the modern linguistic concept of 'intertextuality' which
involves the dependence of one text upon another.

Certain themes have been treated in more than one place in the Qur'an,
including, for instance, God's power and grace, the hereafter, stories of
earlier prophets, etc. The conciseness or expansion in one place or
another depends on muqtada'i 'l-hal, and an expanded statement in one place
clarifies a concise one in another. Sound linguistic analysis surely
requires that a technique of comparison in such situations should not be
ignored. commenting on stories of earlier prophets, Shatibi again remarked
that their purpose was to strengthen the Prophet in the face of various
forms of denial and obstinacy from his opponents at different times. The
form of the story would echo a situation similar to that which the Prophet
was facing.

----------------------------

> That said, I would like to consider the context in which Thomas
> exclaimed, "My Lord and my God" in further detail. I believe the
> discussion thus far has succeeded in taking the phrase in question
> out of the context in which it is found and looking at the possible
> alternative meanings. And, in this regard, I believe Mr. Lomax is
> right in saying that Thomas was not necessarily claiming Jesus'
> divinity. But let's study the context a little further and see what
> happens.

An episode is recounted in the twentieth chapter of John and Thomas is
quoted as saying, My Lord and My God. I will try to demonstrate that if we
are *really* taking about exegesis use context and internal relationships
in the Bible itself, then there could be other interpretations.

> Now, what was it that Thomas did not believe that he subsequently
> believed after seeing and touching Jesus? Did he come to believe
> Jesus was a prophet? A teacher? A good man? A miracle worker and
> healer? No. He already knew all that and had seen it for himself.
> But what did he come to believe? Two possibilities remain:
> 1) Jesus did, in fact, resurrect physically
> *and/or*
> 2) Jesus is, in fact, God.
>
> One of these two possibilities, or both, is demanded by the
> narrative and by the witness of Thomas. No other possibilities are
> allowed by the unfolding events in the narrative. In other words, by
> placing Thomas' assertion back in its context, where it belongs, all
> other possible interpretations are excluded.

Actually, Mr Batista's analysis here is faulty because Paul mentioned in 1
Corinthians chapter 8, saying that there are many lords and gods ...yet for
us there is but one God, the Father,... and one Lord, Jesus Christ...

Hence he makes a distinction mention the God and Lord. For the theological
argument of Trinity, the distinction between Father and Son is essential.
But now we are left with an unorthodox doctrine, namely that Jesus is the
Father. This ancient heresy has been branded by the Church as
Patripassianism, Moarchianism, or Sebellianism. The impossibility of an Mr
Batista's interpretation of Thomas is now pretty clear.

A strictly literal explication would mean the unacceptable doctrine that
Jesus is the Father. So interpreters say that Father is here equivalent to
God. However, we cannot possibly be obliged to understand that Jesus meant
to say that seeing him was exactly the same as seeing God because he was
God. Our reason is found in the contrariety of John 5:37 You have neither
heard His (God) voice at any time nor seen his form.

Jesus (P) also had a God (John 20:17), but Almighty God does not have a God
that he calls upon. Or does God pray to himself?

> Why is this important? Because, even if one wishes to choose the
> more restrictive interpretation, i.e., that all Thomas was
> expressing was amazement and not asserting Jesus' divinity, one is
> still left with the fact of Jesus' historical, physical
> resurrection, as witnessed by the previously skeptical Thomas and
> others. On the other hand, this also shows that the more inclusive
> interpretation, i.e., that Thomas was, indeed, asserting Jesus'
> divinity, is in harmony with the narrative. There is no
> contradiction.

Well, if you read the ancient doctrines of Christianity you will find that
assigning divinity to Jesus(P) was a belief held by one of the groups.
Other believed in other aspects of Jesus(P) too. Merely, interpreting the
words of Thomas to assign divinity to Jesus(P) is something very later in
Christian history. For the first 100 to 150 years of Christianity, the
scriptures were the OT and the words of Jesus(P) were consider as
authoritative.

> As with the Qur'an, so with the Bible. These points are missed when
> Thomas' assertion is taken out of context. But they become
> undeniable when Thomas' exclamation is brought back into its
> context. Indeed, context is essential.

I have indeed shown that context has local as well as broad meaning.
Contextually, if we isolate the words of Jesus(P), we will reach the
conslusion that Jesus(P) was in no way divine.

Wassalam
Saifullah

Jorge Batista

unread,

Oct 10, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/10/98

Hello Catherine, Ahmad,

I have revised my message some. I added a reference to an-Nisa' 4:157,
because of its relevance to the discussion and because I believe it is
probably the main reason for Muslim opposition to the biblical witness
under critique. I also added a few words to help explain the connection.

I do hope you can post it now!

Thanks,
Jorge

Message follows
---------------

On 5 Oct 1998, Dr. M S M Saifullah wrote:

> Actually, the traditional exegesis of the Qur'an is carried out by
> taking things *in context*. Hence there is nothing like
> "isolating" the verses and stripping them out of context.

Thank you for your response and also for the Qur'anic references you
mentioned. I'm sure they will prove useful. However, it is possible
you misunderstood me. I agree with you completely that context is
essential. I believe I made that clear in my message, although the
way you edited it for your response may prevent the reader from
understanding this fully.

The fact that context is essential is, in part, what motivated me to
reply to Mr. Lomax's article. Traditional exegesis of the Qur'an may
be carried out by taking things in context, but I sensed that Mr.
Lomax was not dealing with Biblical context sufficiently. I believe
his explanation remained somewhat out of context. But I was giving
him the benefit of the doubt by stating that there is some value in
taking words out of context (to better understand possible meanings)
so long as one returns them back to their context for final
evaluation. In other words, I am not advocating taking words out of
context and leaving it at that. On the contrary, I am advocating
taking words back to their context for proper understanding. I hope
this makes my position clear so we can move on.

For the remainder of my article, I tried to show that placing
Thomas' statement "My Lord and my God" in its proper context limits
the possible meanings to two. Namely, either 1) Jesus was crucified,
was killed, resurrected physically, was seen by witnesses and
ascended to heaven, but Jesus is not God, or 2) Jesus was crucified,
was killed, resurrected physically, was seen by witnesses and
ascended to heaven, and Jesus is God.

While Mr. Lomax was arguing against Jesus' divinity, I was arguing
for the historical fact of Jesus' betrayal, crucifixion, murder,
physical resurrection, attestation by witnesses and ascension to
heaven, regardless of whether Jesus is God or not. This is the
context of the narrative, this is what shocks Thomas and draws him
to believe in Jesus and this is what we are confronted with.
Frankly, the question of Jesus' divinity is subordinate to this in
the context of John chapters 19-20. It need not even come up. The
text cannot be more clear about Jesus' physical resurrection from
death at the hands of his enemies.

Regretfully, Dr. Saifullah, you did not comment on this. Since you
have clearly expressed the indispensability of context, I am puzzled
at your silence about the context in which Thomas exclaimed "My Lord
and my God", namely the resurrection of Jesus. That is what is
important. This is what Jesus himself confronts us with.

Your zeal to prove that Jesus is not God may take you on an exciting
journey through the pages of the Bible, but you first need to deal
with Jesus' death and resurrection which is the context of Thomas'
exclamation. Muslims need to understand that simply attempting to
prove that the context of John chapters 19-20 does not support the
divinity of Jesus answers nothing because the text is very clear
about Jesus' crucifixion, death, and physical resurrection. And
this fact is just as unacceptable to mainstream Muslim belief.

Muslim opposition to the biblical witness of Jesus' crucifixion,
death, and physical resurrection is based, in large measure, on
differing Islamic interpretations of an-Nisa' 4:157,

And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary,
Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it
appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are
in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a
conjecture; they slew him not for certain.

I believe there is considerable variety of interpretation among
Muslims as to what actually happened and so, the prevailing Islamic
wisdom has been not to conjecture what actually transpired. The clear
witness of the biblical narrative stands in sharp contrast to this.

I would like to discuss your points about 1 Corinthians chapter 8,
John 5:37, John 20:17, etc. in a subsequent communication. I believe
you bring up good questions and they should be addressed properly.
But first, please consider the context carefully and do not be quick
to dismiss Jesus' words:

John 20:26 Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among

them and said, "Peace be with you!"

John 20:27 Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here; see my

hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting
and believe."

John 20:28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"
John 20:29 Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have

believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have
believed."

Respectfully,
Jorge

-------------
On Thu, 8 Oct 1998, Catherine Hampton wrote:

> I'm sorry, but the guidelines to soc.religion.islam require that posts
> be relevant to Islam. In my opinion, your post is not sufficiently
> relevant to Islam for posting, so I cannot approve it.
>
> If you want to reword your post to make the connection to Islam clear, I
> will be glad to review a revised post.
>

Dr. M S M Saifullah

unread,

Oct 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM10/12/98

On 10 Oct 1998, Jorge Batista wrote:

Assalamu-alaikum wa rahamatullahi wa barakatuhu:

> The fact that context is essential is, in part, what motivated me to

> reply to Mr. Lomax's article. Traditional exegesis of the Qur'an may
> be carried out by taking things in context, but I sensed that Mr.
> Lomax was not dealing with Biblical context sufficiently. I believe
> his explanation remained somewhat out of context. But I was giving
> him the benefit of the doubt by stating that there is some value in
> taking words out of context (to better understand possible meanings)
> so long as one returns them back to their context for final
> evaluation. In other words, I am not advocating taking words out of
> context and leaving it at that. On the contrary, I am advocating
> taking words back to their context for proper understanding. I hope
> this makes my position clear so we can move on.

Yes, we all agree that context is very important and especially when we are
dealing with the Qur'an. The traditional way to explain the Qur'an is by
the Qur'an itself (internal relationship), i.e., different parts of the
Qur'an explain each other. In conjunction to this we also have the context
of the situation itself. The context here could involve the period of
revelation, reason for the revelation etc. Any basic book on 'Ulum
al-Qur'an, i.e., Sciences of the Qur'an is sufficient to understand what I
am talking about.

> For the remainder of my article, I tried to show that placing
> Thomas' statement "My Lord and my God" in its proper context limits
> the possible meanings to two. Namely, either 1) Jesus was crucified,
> was killed, resurrected physically, was seen by witnesses and
> ascended to heaven, but Jesus is not God, or 2) Jesus was crucified,
> was killed, resurrected physically, was seen by witnesses and
> ascended to heaven, and Jesus is God.

You have two things to take; either Jesus(P) is God or he is not. If
Jesus(P) was crucified and killed, then he is not God because God can not
be killed. Jesus(P) himself said that he had a God (John 20:17), but
Almighty God does not have a God that he calls upon. This is a very
*explicit* statement from Jesus(P) denying his divinity. Now if you any
problems with this statement then I am sorry that I am convinced that you
are convinced that Jesus(P) is God and looking no further.

> Regretfully, Dr. Saifullah, you did not comment on this. Since you
> have clearly expressed the indispensability of context, I am puzzled
> at your silence about the context in which Thomas exclaimed "My Lord
> and my God", namely the resurrection of Jesus. That is what is
> important. This is what Jesus himself confronts us with.

Let me repeat in clear terms what I said concerning you 'analysis' in
context. I have not taken anything out of context. My only explanation is
using other verses to explain the statement of Thomas. Paul mentioned in 1

Corinthians chapter 8, saying that there are many lords and gods ...yet for
us there is but one God, the Father,... and one Lord, Jesus Christ...

Do you follow what I am trying to say? What I said is if Jesus(P) is Lord
as well as God then you run into the problem that Jesus(P) is both Father
and Son according to Paul who said, "there are many lords and gods ...yet

for us there is but one God, the Father,... and one Lord, Jesus Christ... "

I would suggest that you ponder over it carefully and comapre it with what
I said.

> Your zeal to prove that Jesus is not God may take you on an exciting
> journey through the pages of the Bible, but you first need to deal
> with Jesus' death and resurrection which is the context of Thomas'
> exclamation. Muslims need to understand that simply attempting to
> prove that the context of John chapters 19-20 does not support the
> divinity of Jesus answers nothing because the text is very clear
> about Jesus' crucifixion, death, and physical resurrection. And
> this fact is just as unacceptable to mainstream Muslim belief.

Yes, we have heard of all those nice little explanations from Christians
before. But the problem still persists. If Jesus(P) was indeed God then he
could not have been killed. When Jesus(P) died who controlled the affairs
of the Universe? The Qur'an is very clear about the status of Jesus(P)

"And when Allah said: O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you say unto mankind: Take
me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he said: Be You glorified. It
was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it,
then You knew it. You know what is in my [innermost] self but I know not
what is in Yours. Truly! You, only You are the Knower of things hidden. I
spoke unto them only that which You commanded me, (saying): Worship Allah,
my Lord and your Lord, and I was a witness over them while I dwelt among
them, and when You took me You were the Watcher over them, and You are
Witness over all things." Qur'an (5):116-118

By the way, the kind of 'Christianity' you are trying to push as
'mainstreams Christianity' has its origins in fourth century. Bart Ehrman
says in his book "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture"

"Christianity in the second and third centuries was in a remarkable state
of flux. To be sure, at no point in its history has the religion
constituted a monolith. But the diverse manifestations of its first three
hundred years - whether in terms of social structures, religious practices,
or ideologies - have never been replicated. Nowhere is this seen more
clearly than in the realm of theology. In the second and third centuries
there were, of course, Christians who believed in only one God; others,
however, claimed that there were two Gods; yet others subscribed to 30, or
365, or more. Some Christians accepted the Hebrew Scriptures as a
revelation of the one true God, the sacred possession of all believers;
others claimed that the scriptures had been inspired by an evil deity. Some
Christians believed that God had created the world and was soon going to
redeem it; others said that God neither had created the world nor had ever
had any dealings with it. Some Christians believed that Christ was somehow
both a man and God; others said that he was a man, but not God; others
claimed that he was God but not a man; others insisted that he was a man
who had been temporarily inhabited by God. Some Christians believed that
Christ's death had brought about the salvation of the world; others claimed
that his death had no bearing on salvation; yet others alleged that he had
never even died. "

Now if you are trying to push your brand of Christianity which originated
in fourth century as a 'mainstream' Christianity, then go back study your
Church history.

Christians in the first 150 years or so did not have anything like NT. For
them it was OT which was considered as scripture and Jesus(P)' words taken
as authoritative. Till today, there is no consensus on how many books need
to go in the Bible or how many are 'inspired', to put everything in a
familiar way. The Catholic, Protestant, Greek Orthodox, Syraic, Ethiopic,
Coptic etc. have *different* number of books in the Bible. So, if the real
'inspired' Bible can stand-up, our job will get simpler.

The second point is that of doctrine of trinity and its historical
development. The New Catholic Encyclopedia informs us that

".......It is difficult in the second half of the 20th century to offer a
clear, objective and straightforward account of the revelation, doctrinal
evolution, and theological elaboration of the Mystery of the trinity.
Trinitarian discussion, Roman Catholic as well as other, present a somewhat
unsteady silhouette. Two things have happened. There is the recognition on
the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians, including a constantly
growing number of Roman Catholics, that one should not speak of
Trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification. There is
also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma
and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified
Trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of Christian origins to, say,
the last quadrant of the 4th century. It was only then that what might be
called the definitive Trinitarian dogma 'One God in three Persons' became
thoroughly assimilated into Christian life and thought ... it was the
product of 3 centuries of doctrinal development"

These words speak of themselves.

This essentially means that Jesus(P), his followers and Church fathers were
unaware of the doctrine of Trinity. What you call the 'mainstream' or
'true' Christianity was *not* there in the first three hundred years of
church history. How are we to believe you Christians who had NO NT Bible in
the first 150 years or so as well as doctrine of trinity for another 150
years at least as 'mainstream' Christians?

> And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary,
> Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it
> appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are
> in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a
> conjecture; they slew him not for certain.
>
> I believe there is considerable variety of interpretation among
> Muslims as to what actually happened and so, the prevailing Islamic
> wisdom has been not to conjecture what actually transpired. The clear
> witness of the biblical narrative stands in sharp contrast to this.

Let me again quote Bart Ehrman's book "The Orthodox Corruption of
Scripture" if we have forgotton

If you read any book on early Christian doctrine (e.g., J N D Kelly's) it
will tell you more than what is mentioned above.

Now tell us should we believe in you or should we believe in the early
Christians who worshipped one God? And of course, why?

Please remember that when you reply next, tell us which Bible is inspired
(i.e., Catholic, Protestant, Greek Orthodox, Syraic, Ethiopic, Coptic etc.)
and why? At least we should be sure of which text of the Bible is
authoritative, is it not? There is no point discussing theology if your
scripture's status is unknown. I am sure, inshallah, you will agree with
me. In the end I can only say:

"Say: 'O people of the Scripture! exceed not in your religion the bounds
[of what is proper], trespassing beyond the truth, nor follow the vain
desires of people who went astray in times gone by, who misled many, and
strayed [themselves] from the straight path.'" Qur'an (5):77

Wassalam
Saifullah

0 new messages