The Mission

[Leslie P]

So it was suggested on another thread that I might talk about the reasons for rejecting Islam, and I feel I should do this. I think one stands out. What was Jesus' mission, and did he succeed?

Please correct any misunderstanding about Islamic belief on this question, but I think it was:

Calling to Tawhid (1)

Confirming and updating the Torah (2)

Bringing the Injeel (3)

Performing healings and similar (4)

Prophesying Muhammad (5)

 

Now we can agree on (4).

If (3) ever happened as an Islamic gospel, it has been lost, making that part unfulfilled.

If (5) ever happened, it too has been lost, making that part unfulfilled. There is no evidence the Early Church thought anyone else was coming, in fact quite the opposite.

Given that Islam has a pretty negative view of Christian monotheism, that (1) seems to be worse than unfulfilled.

 

This leaves (2) Now under Islamic understanding, this would make Jesus' impact on humanity amounted to some minor adjustments to individual Torah laws, some healings and an emphasis on compassion in Torah. If one then adds the altered Christian monotheism which gets heavily condemned in the Qu'ran, it feels like his mission was something worse than a failure.

Have I misunderstood something? There is more to be said about this, but let's start with clearing the weeds and stones of misunderstanding before planting seeds.

Thanks for any replies!

[Ashvazdanghe]

13 hours ago, Leslie P said:

Given that Islam has a pretty negative view of Christian monotheism, that (1) seems to be worse than unfulfilled.

Hi respectfully Islam has not negative view of christian monotheism but on the other hand it doesn't verify  trinity as Christian monotheism ;

13 hours ago, Leslie P said:

There is no evidence the Early Church thought anyone else was coming, in fact quite the opposite.

All christian sources about coming anyone else after prophet Isa/Jesus (عليه السلام) have been censored or destroyed by Nicaea council which in modern christianity (Paulism) everything about coming anyone else after prophet Isa/Jesus (عليه السلام) have been censored or destroyed or misinterpreted . 

13 hours ago, Leslie P said:

it feels like his mission was something worse than a failure.

According to Islam he has fulfilled his duty in best form but his teachings after him have been altered by enemies of prophet Isa/Jesus (عليه السلام) & god likewise Paul in similar fashion of  doctrine of altering message of prophet Musa(عليه السلام) by corrupt rabbis who have been enemies of prophet Muas (عليه السلام) & God.

[Eddie Mecca]

15 hours ago, Leslie P said:

did he succeed?

Jesus (peace be upon him) passed with flying colors...the Jews and Europeans lost...the Jews seriously strayed by failing to acknowledge their rightful Messiah and by attempting to assassinate him...Europeans failed by completely contaminating and paganizing the original teachings of the Messiah...especially as it relates to adulterating pure and undiluted Semitic monotheism 

Edited February 17 by Eddie Mecca

[Eddie Mecca]

16 hours ago, Leslie P said:

Have I misunderstood something?

You've fundamentally misinterpreted everything dear sister

16 hours ago, Leslie P said:

What was Jesus' mission

Guide the lost sheep of the House of Israel...spiritualize overly rigid interpretation of the Halakha...herald and help usher in the new Muhammadan aeon 

Edited February 17 by Eddie Mecca

[mahmood8726]

 I will leave this. If jesus(عليه السلام) succeded in convincing all/most of the people there and Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) had preserved his enjil, then there would have had no need for Allah(سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) to send muhammad(صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), these disagreements in all fairness are not a good reason to reject a religion.

 

Jesus(عليه السلام) like all prophets(عليه السلام) came as a warner, it was up to the people to listen or not.

 

This argument itself being made can also be used against Christianity. From what I am aware, every prophet(عليه السلام) in the Bible needed a natural disaster on their people because their people didn't listen to them, did prophet lot(عليه السلام) for example fail? I don't think so.

Edited February 17 by mahmood8726

[Leslie P]

On 2/17/2025 at 5:48 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Hi respectfully Islam has not negative view of christian monotheism but on the other hand it doesn't verify  trinity as Christian monotheism ;

All christian sources about coming anyone else after prophet Isa/Jesus (عليه السلام) have been censored or destroyed by Nicaea council which in modern christianity (Paulism) everything about coming anyone else after prophet Isa/Jesus (عليه السلام) have been censored or destroyed or misinterpreted . 

According to Islam he has fulfilled his duty in best form but his teachings after him have been altered by enemies of prophet Isa/Jesus (عليه السلام) & god likewise Paul in similar fashion of  doctrine of altering message of prophet Musa(عليه السلام) by corrupt rabbis who have been enemies of prophet Muas (عليه السلام) & God.

Hi there. Thanks for the reply.

But if Jesus' mission was to reinforce Tawhid, it was a failure, given that Christians preach a form of monotheism that isn't acceptable to Islam. “And do not say, 'Three'; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. “ (4:171)

There is no evidence at all of the Nicene council working in this way, I'm afraid. We do however have a lot of knowledge about groups that opposed the Early Church's mission- the Judaisers, the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Nicolaitans...but no sign at all of any group that taught about a further prophet.

 

[Leslie P]

OK I've read everyone's comments carefully (thanks for them!), and you seem to be saying that later developments erased Jesus' mission, which is exactly what I'm saying, if that mission was the one Islam says it is. In fact, things are arguably worse than if he hadn't come. Which seems a bit odd, if God was with him.

[Leslie P]

In Genesis, we read about how humanity got it wrong, and had to be exiled. But God had a plan to rescue us. Abraham was told that because of his obedience, through his descendants humanity would be rescued.

The Torah was given to Moses so that through obedience to it, humanity could be rescued by Israel. But Israel kept going wrong and was unable to complete the mission. God exiled many of them to Babylon. The prophets wrote about how God was going to forgive them. That God would return to Jerusalem, the exile would end, and the promised Kingdom of God would begin.

Then a Jewish prophet arrives. He says that the Kingdom of God is about to being, that forgiveness is at hand, that God is about to keep His word to the Jews.

He tells parables, issues warnings, predicts his death and resurrection, talks about the Kingdom of God as not just for Jews, but for every human. A historian would say there are multiple sources and forms, continuity and discontinuity with Judaism. There is overwhelming support for all this in Paul's writings, a mere 20 years after the event.

 

TLDR; we have masses of evidence what Jesus said.

 

So how do I explain the rise of the Christian movement? By a mission from God that ended in failure, and for which we have no historical evidence of any kind? Or a mission from God that succeeded, and for which the evidence is immense?

[PureExistence1]

5 hours ago, Leslie P said:

things are arguably worse than if he hadn't come. Which seems a bit odd, if God was with him.

Hello, things are definitely arguably worse cuz "people"...i have a migraine at the moderate stage right now, waiting for my rescue med to kick in, so please bear with me if this is disjointed.

The perception that things are "worse" despite Jesus' coming can be understood through his mission and its historical impact.

Jesus mission was spiritual not political..He came to offer salvation and reconciliation with God, emphasizing love, forgiveness, and eternal life rather than immediate worldly transformation. His teachings focus on inner transformation and the hope of a future kingdom of peace (John 18:36)

Human agency and free will...(Seems like humanity in general is mostly getting this part wrong.)

The world’s continuous struggles are not evidence of Jesus' failure but people's continued misuse of free will. Despite Jesus’ message, people still choose selfishness and division over love and unity. Were having this issue within islam too.. its an issue with all of humanity.

 Ugh..

Anyway, while the world remains imperfect, Jesus teachings have profoundly influenced human history, inspiring movements for equality, compassion, and justice.

Jesus warned his followers about suffering and challenges in a fallen world (Matthew 24:12-13). However, he also promised ultimate redemption and hope through faith and while Muslims dont agree with the idea of having "faith" in the trinity, the crucifixion or jesus resurrection, when it comes to having faith that God will be just and fair and that there IS a judgement day, angels, the hereafter, His forgiveness, etc and that jesus was a Prophet who guided to the straight oath if monotheism, we definetly have faith in those things.

Anyhow, the apparent disparity between Jesus coming and the worldly conditions highlights the tension between spiritual promises and human responsibility in a broken world.

(Thank God for speech recognition-the light and contrast on my phone is unaliving my eyes)

Take care:)

 

Edited February 20 by PureExistence1

[PureExistence1]

On 2/20/2025 at 7:25 AM, Leslie P said:

Hi there. Thanks for the reply.

But if Jesus' mission was to reinforce Tawhid, it was a failure, given that Christians preach a form of monotheism that isn't acceptable to Islam. “And do not say, 'Three'; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. “ (4:171)

There is no evidence at all of the Nicene council working in this way, I'm afraid. We do however have a lot of knowledge about groups that opposed the Early Church's mission- the Judaisers, the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Nicolaitans...but no sign at all of any group that taught about a further prophet.

Hello,

Unitarianism, as a Christian theological perspective, holds that God is a singular entity rather than a Trinity. Unitarians reject the doctrine of the Trinity, viewing Jesus as a fully human teacher and not divine, and consider the Holy Spirit to be a title or aspect of God rather than a distinct person. This view emphasizes strict monotheism and rejects the idea of co-equal, co-eternal persons within the Godhead.

There were indeed early Christian groups and theological movements that could be described as "Unitarian" in the sense that they rejected the Trinity and emphasized the singularity of God. These included the Ebionites, who viewed Jesus as a human prophet, and Monarchians, who emphasized God's oneness, including dynamic Monarchianism, which saw Jesus as a man empowered by God. Additionally, Arianism, which argued that Jesus was created by God and subordinate to Him, was a prominent early non-Trinitarian belief.

The doctrine of the Trinity was not fully developed or formalized until centuries after Christ's life. It was codified at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE and further refined at later councils. Before this, early Christianity exhibited significant theological diversity, with various interpretations of Jesus' nature and relationship to God.

The argument that Jesus did not explicitly teach the Trinity is supported by scholars who note that the doctrine developed gradually over time through theological debates rather than being directly taught in Scripture. Thus, it is not surprising that early Christians held Unitarian-like beliefs, reflecting their Jewish monotheistic roots.

The doctrine of the Trinity became the dominant Christian belief through a combination of theological development, ecclesiastical authority, and political influence.

Early Theological Debate

In the first few centuries, Christianity exhibited theological diversity. Many groups, such as the Ebionites, Monarchians, and Arians, rejected the Trinity and emphasized strict monotheism. However, proto-Trinitarian ideas began to emerge in early Christian writings, such as the baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 and triadic references in texts like 2 Corinthians 13:14. Church Fathers like Theophilus of Antioch and Tertullian began articulating Trinitarian concepts in the second and third centuries.

The Council of Nicaea (325 CE)

The turning point came with the Council of Nicaea, convened by Emperor Constantine to resolve theological disputes, particularly Arianism. Arius argued that Jesus was created by God and not co-eternal with Him. The council condemned Arianism as heretical and adopted the Nicene Creed, affirming that Jesus was "of the same essence" (homoousios) as the Father. This marked the formal establishment of Trinitarian doctrine.

Political and Ecclesiastical Enforcement

Constantine's support gave the Nicene Creed significant political backing. Subsequent emperors used state power to enforce orthodoxy, exiling dissenters like Arius and later suppressing other non-Trinitarian groups. The Council of Constantinople (381 CE) further refined Trinitarian doctrine by formally including the Holy Spirit as co-equal with the Father and Son.

Suppression of Non-Trinitarian Beliefs

Over time, dissenting views were marginalized or labeled heretical. Non-Trinitarian groups like Arians, Sabellians, and others were persecuted or forced underground. The alignment of church and state ensured that Trinitarianism became the dominant theological framework in mainstream Christianity.

Thus, a combination of scriptural interpretation, theological debate, political power, and suppression of dissent solidified the Trinity as central to Christian orthodoxy.

 

[Leslie P]

On 2/20/2025 at 9:00 PM, PureExistence1 said:

Hello, things are definitely arguably worse cuz "people"...i have a migraine at the moderate stage right now, waiting for my rescue med to kick in, so please bear with me if this is disjointed.

<snip>

(Thank God for speech recognition-the light and contrast on my phone is unaliving my eyes)

Take care:)

 

Hi there. Thanks for the reply. I hope you're feeling better!

This was a very good point well made. The effect of Jesus has been to introduce compassion and charity on a massive scale.

However I would then ask the question, “What did Jesus think His mission was”? Did He think it was to increase compassion? The Qur'an says it was to reinforce Torah and Tawhid with some lightening of the load, predict Muhammad, and doesn't mention compassion. Would Jesus have said compassion if you'd asked Him?

And as said earlier, Torah was rejected, the understanding of Tawhid dramatically changed, and the prediction completely lost. If Jesus wanted differently, the huge weight of historical evidence says otherwise.

 

[Leslie P]

On 2/21/2025 at 6:44 PM, PureExistence1 said:

Hello,

Unitarianism, as a Christian theological perspective, holds that God is a singular entity rather than a Trinity. Unitarians reject the doctrine of the Trinity, viewing Jesus .

<snip>

Thus, a combination of scriptural interpretation, theological debate, political power, and suppression of dissent solidified the Trinity as central to Christian orthodoxy.
 

Very little is known about the Ebionites, making it next to impossible to make them the basis for anything much. Monarchianism developed in the second century, by which time Trinitarianism was long established. Arianism is even later, and it and some Monarchianisms still teach that Christ was a divine being.

The Trinity is there in all but definition in the New Testament. Jesus is identified as God (Philippians 2:10 ref Isaiah 45:23) and the Holy Spirit as well (1 Corinthians 3:16, Acts 5:3-4); see also Matthew 28:19.

I wouldn't say the Nicene creed is wrong, but I would say it is unhelpful. Whereas the NT keeps a distance from analysing the exact relationship between the Trinity, Nicea went into a lot of confusing detail. They also miss out vitally important things about Jesus' mission.

What is very notable is that, unlike making Torah optional, Paul had no problem whatsoever with Trinitarianism. Unlike his anger at the Judaisers and his lengthy analysis of the purpose of Torah, he never needs to justify Jesus as God, or criticise those who oppose his teaching.

In short, there is no evidence the Early Church taught Unitarianism, but Paul's letters tell us that Trinitarianism was universally accepted very quickly after the events.

[PureExistence1]

6 hours ago, Leslie P said:

“What did Jesus think His mission was”? Did He think it was to increase compassion? The Qur'an says it was to reinforce Torah and Tawhid with some lightening of the load, predict Muhammad, and doesn't mention compassion. Would Jesus have said compassion if you'd asked Him?

Hi Leslie, thanks for your well wishes I appreciate them! Now I am at the tail end of fighting some kind of a just cold that I've had since last tuesday. But it looks like I'm coming out the winning end thank God! 

So compassion has always been a big part of all the prophets missions, I don't know if that necessarily needs to be restated whereas other points per prophet may need to be pointed out. The nature of  prophets and how they are is on of compassionate which is probably why many references have been made to the fact that many were shepherds before they were prophets, showing the compassion that they had for their "herd" and their ability to manage and guide.

Per my understanding, it's never really what the Prophets want, rather it's what God wants of them and then whatever parts of God's message they are responsible for delivering, it is up to the people how they enact that and whether they follow exactly what the prophet revealed and taught or do something otherwise with it.

As you know, Islam says God kept sending prophet upon prophet to people because they kept screwing up which is just the nature of being a human, I suppose, so it's not really a matter of what Jesus wanted. It was never a matter of what any of these prophets personally wanted because all of their wills perfectly aligned with God's will as far  as their mission was concerned. There was no "them" in the picture to a lesser or greater extent. I put it that way because there were instances of certain prophets leaving their people, such as prophet jonas, out of frustration of them not listening, which does show a bit of having personal will, but the will is never against what God wants, it was out of frustration of the people not following what he was preaching of what God wants that he left, and after realizing this, God then rescued and delivered him to another people that followed him.

(As far as the story of prophet Jonas goes, there is even a supplication that people will use which is taken directly from the Quran. God quotes the prophet in the Quran as saying:"La ilaha illa anta, Subhanaka, inni kuntu minaz-zalimin" (There is no deity except You; exalted are You. Indeed, I have been among the wrongdoers 21;87) because he recognizes that he was oppressive to his own soul by leaving the original people out of frustration..

The whole thing about him being swallowed by a whale or a fish came to play as the cause and effect in this world for him making the decision he made to leave.

Anyhow, Islam recognizes that as far as prophets are concerned, there was some variation in their perfection.

6 hours ago, Leslie P said:

Paul had no problem whatsoever with Trinitarianism.

I think others have probably already mentioned that for us, Paul is highly suspect and likely an infiltrator that either he himself or other Jews at the time had  made a calculated decision that his "conversion" would allow him to infiltrate and mislead Christians by putting in the doctrine of trinity that would prevent Christianity from leading to any ultimate truth and basically disrupt it from the foundation up. 

The problem we all have is the lack of documentation as far as what secular sources outside of our own books say. The New testament says one thing, the Quran says another, and you as a Christian will follow what your book says and us as Muslims will follow what our book says. So at the end of the day, neither one of us is probably going to convince the other of anything different than what we already believe although I do think it's important that we dive into these subjects to figure out as much truth as is possible, however at the same time, again I refer back to the lack of specific information being available to us. We are going by what the Quran says for our guidance and proof and due to lack of other sources of information out there, that's really all we have to go by but that's what we're supposed to do as Muslims is follow the Quran above all. So while some stuff we may not be able to outright prove through external sources, at the end of the day we have to refer back to our holy book for our guidance and we are firm in what we are being guided to as being the truth as You Are about yourself and christianity. 

It's frustrating because when I first converted to Islam 14 years ago I really thought things would be more cut and dry/black and white as far as historically provable information is concerned.. I'm not referring to either Christianity or Islam but rather in general, as far as historical references during my research phase went and seem to be going

 

[Leslie P]

Thanks for the reply. I hope the cold is better. Ginger and honey are a way ahead if not.

Paul sent by the Jews trying to destroy Christianity? Not a common suggestion, certainly among scholarship.

What would be your evidence for this?

Given that he failed in the worst possible, most counterproductive way, why did he not stop?

Why did the disciples like Peter not stop him; they actually knew Jesus, and had the authority to terminate Paul's preaching like Musk on DEI.

[Leslie P]

I can't agree with the NT/Quran symmetry here. The Quran's claim is that it is revelation. To those that don't accept that, it cannot be used as good historical evidence given the distance in time from the events.

However the NT is so much closer. Paul was writing a mere 20 years after the events, well within living memory. With the gospels it's a bit more vague but as a rule of thumb 50 years after, again within living memory or not long after.

This means that those who reject any divine inspiration can use them like any other historical documents. They are biased, edited and need understanding in their context, but that's true of any historical document.

We can do history with them.

 

And applying normal historical processes, it is so clear that Jesus thought his mission was to start the long awaited Kingdom of God (KoG). He saw his impending death as a necessary part of that mission.

There are lots and lots and lots of different types of evidence that say that he saw the KoG as his mission (historians would talk about multiple attestation of sources and forms). There is no evidence he saw the continuation of Torah, reaffirmation of Tawhid and prediction of Muhammad as his core missions.

Furthermore, there is the tolerably obvious point that if those had been his missions, he would have been forgotten as a footnote in history. Whereas starting the KoG through his resurrection would be expected to create an explosion from his followers. Which is what happened.

[Nad_M]

An interesting aspect of the NT's narrative is the appeal to secrecy as regards various themes Jesus was supposed to accomplish according to those writers.

The appeal to secrecy is one of the devices needed to paint the Jesus of the NT as a success rather than failure. His disillusioned followers and converts wanted him to be more than another prophet calling out the Jews for their transgressions and who was defeated by his enemies. The only thing higher in rank in Jewish scriptures is the awaited end times davidic king who shall fulfill well known criteria and usher the utopian Kingdom of God. But Jesus did not fit the role prior to his crucifixion, he had to do it a little later, within the generation of the disciples at his cataclysmic return and forcefully establish the kingdom of God. The prophecy failed of course and further reinterpretations were needed. The kingdom of God became a spiritual thing, with its associated Christologies and Pauline concepts.

The writers however did not know the prediction they put in Jesus' mouth would eventually fail. They still expected it to happen, and so had no choice but to paint the plot as a secret because the Romans were on the lookout for any rebel leader. If, as Christians nowadays claim, the kingdom of God was something else all along then Jesus' job is done; he wouldnt need to come back so as to violently establish what the Jews and his disciples anticipated, and the Romans feared. If Jesus' kingdom of God had nothing to do with what everyone (including his disciples) understood and anticipated, then he did not need to fear the Romans either and be secretive about his operation. The Romans would have allowed this Jewish sect and their spiritual kingdom of God to flourish so as to supplant the rebellious messianic HB ideology of world dominance which every 1st century Jew expected, and still does till this day.

Further, even by Christian standards, none of what Jesus did, or was done to him, brought about "victory over sin and death". These are still plenty, even among sincere Trinitarians.

Anyway one turns it, the contrived NT narrative paints Jesus as a false prophet and false messiah. This is worse to those that love and follow him, than the Quran's proposition.

Christians are always taken aback by the purpose the Quran gives to Jesus. Being "just a prophet" is to them a degrading proposition, not only in light of Paul's christologies, but because in the biblical paradigm, "just a prophet" carries with it a paradigm of sinfulness. Yet here again, Islam untangles the distortions of past scriptures, as it paints prophets as the highest spiritual potential humans can achieve, the most sublime examples of morality and the highest legal and spiritual authorities.

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 3/9/2025 at 11:18 AM, Leslie P said:

Why did the disciples like Peter not stop him; they actually knew Jesus, and had the authority to terminate Paul's preaching like Musk on DEI.

Hi this is totally comparing apples with oranges which Musk has not terminated DEI although he has suppressed it which it will re emerge by returning democrats to power .

There is some reports which disciples like Peter have tried to stop Paul which even you have mentioned their struggle in another threads which Paul has had support of both of  wealthy rabbis & pagan Romans while disciples like Peter have not any supporter except few poor  & weak people which Paul & his supporters have suppressed any opposition by brute force & spending too much wealth & heavy censorship .

On 3/9/2025 at 11:21 AM, Leslie P said:

There is no evidence he saw the continuation of Torah, reaffirmation of Tawhid and prediction of Muhammad as his core missions.

Reaffiration of Tawhid prediction of prophet Muhammad (pbu) as his core mission has been proven in multiple threads in debates from th Bible & both  Testaments which you have denied it based on your biased mindset which KOG has been refuted by @Nad_M which prophet Isa/Jesus has not saw the continuation of  distorted Torah which he has removed distortion of Torah & made rules easy for his followers but his teachings has been distorted by Paul & wealthy rabbis & pagan Romans in order of continuation of  distorted Torah .

On 3/9/2025 at 11:21 AM, Leslie P said:

Whereas starting the KoG through his resurrection would be expected to create an explosion from his followers. Which is what happened.

This is not happened by his resurrection which  Christanity has been spread by colonizers through their brute force & massacre & genocide & bloodshed  which in recent years  Christanity has not succeful growth although of  heavy propaganda & spending too much resources by evangelist which they are feeling threat from rate of growing Islam although all of their highest efforts for making  most evil image from Islam which in a losing battle they have tried to relate growth of Islam to  fertility rate of muslims while they see perishing their false prophecies but on the other hand they see proving prophecies about Reaffirmation of Tawhid prediction of prophet Muhammad (pbu) by prophet Isa/Jesus (عليه السلام).

 

[Leslie P]

On 3/11/2025 at 5:47 PM, Nad_M said:

An interesting aspect of the NT's narrative is the appeal to secrecy as regards various themes Jesus was supposed to accomplish according to those writers.

...<snip>...

Christians are always taken aback by the purpose the Quran gives to Jesus. Being "just a prophet" is to them a degrading proposition, not only in light of Paul's christologies, but because in the biblical paradigm, "just a prophet" carries with it a paradigm of sinfulness. Yet here again, Islam untangles the distortions of past scriptures, as it paints prophets as the highest spiritual potential humans can achieve, the most sublime examples of morality and the highest legal and spiritual authorities.

Thank you for the replies, folks.

 

But why did the Early Church even want to paint Him as a success, if in fact He had failed?

Calling yourself Messiah and failing, meant you weren't the Messiah, and we know this for a fact because secular historians (Josephus etc) tell us that's what happened, in theory and in practice. We know that whenever a wannabe Messiah died, the followers went home.

But that's not what happened here.

Jesus fulfilled the prophecies, not in the generally expected way, but in a way that made perfect sense. The promise to Abraham fulfilled, that Israel would bless the world. Death overcome by a God-given guarantee of resurrection, with Jesus first. The Kingdom of God begun by the Messiah, with sin still present in the world, but now forgiveness was available to all humanity.

It makes perfect sense that Jesus' followers would spread this victory message as enthusiastically and as widely as possible. It makes no sense to spread a message about total failure.

The only thing that makes any sense historically to explain that the disciples were talking about Jesus' message, rather than hiding at home, is that Jesus' resurrection happened; because that would be a complete game changer.

[Leslie P]

On 3/12/2025 at 7:27 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Hi this is totally comparing apples with oranges which Musk has not terminated DEI although he has suppressed it which it will re emerge by returning democrats to power .

<snip>...

This is not happened by his resurrection which  Christanity has been spread by colonizers through their brute force & massacre & genocide & bloodshed  which in recent years  Christanity has not succeful growth although of  heavy propaganda & spending too much resources by evangelist which they are feeling threat from rate of growing Islam although all of their highest efforts for making  most evil image from Islam which in a losing battle they have tried to relate growth of Islam to  fertility rate of muslims while they see perishing their false prophecies but on the other hand they see proving prophecies about Reaffirmation of Tawhid prediction of prophet Muhammad (pbu) by prophet Isa/Jesus (عليه السلام).

 

Could you identify where I said Peter tried to stop Paul, because I have no idea where? Thanks.

Paul was hurt very badly by the Jewish leaders (2 Cor 11) and was repeatedly locked up by the Romans (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon all written from prison). His church members, by contrast, were very poor (e.g. 2Cor 8), and often slaves. Paul was in no position to enforce anything by force, and was frequently on the receiving end of pain.

You may be right that other threads prove the prediction of Muhammad, but it might be helpful if you'd summarise the evidence here. Thanks again.

Peter and the other disciples, after lengthy discussion, backed making Torah optional (Acts 15). Surely if one of Jesus' missions was to enforce Torah, that would not have happened? There is no evidence outside the Qur'an that Jesus wanted Torah to continue after His death, and given that Torah was still optional long after Paul died, we can assume the disciples were good with it ending.

[Abu Hadi]

3 hours ago, Leslie P said:

Thank you for the replies, folks.

 

But why did the Early Church even want to paint Him as a success, if in fact He had failed?

Calling yourself Messiah and failing, meant you weren't the Messiah, and we know this for a fact because secular historians (Josephus etc) tell us that's what happened, in theory and in practice. We know that whenever a wannabe Messiah died, the followers went home.

But that's not what happened here.

Jesus fulfilled the prophecies, not in the generally expected way, but in a way that made perfect sense. The promise to Abraham fulfilled, that Israel would bless the world. Death overcome by a God-given guarantee of resurrection, with Jesus first. The Kingdom of God begun by the Messiah, with sin still present in the world, but now forgiveness was available to all humanity.

It makes perfect sense that Jesus' followers would spread this victory message as enthusiastically and as widely as possible. It makes no sense to spread a message about total failure.

The only thing that makes any sense historically to explain that the disciples were talking about Jesus' message, rather than hiding at home, is that Jesus' resurrection happened; because that would be a complete game changer.

Why Jesus (peace be upon him) has so many followers in the modern world has nothing to do with 'Christology' as you put it or your interpretation of the meaning of the word 'Messiah'. It has to do with the fact that Jesus (p.b.u.h) was a Prophet, sent by God and the vast majority of his teachings, thing like being kind to the poor, giving charity, obeying God, prayer, glorification of God, practicing humility, healing the weak and oppressed, etc, are Divine teachings that are reflected in all the Abrahamic faiths, including Judaism and Islam. That is what survives. The truth never dies and anyone who follows truth will also live eternally. Christianity exists (unlike other Messianic cults) because the vast majority of Christians, in their daily lives, try their best to follow those basic teaching, mentioned above. That is why, period, and that is why Muslims and Christians, in the absence of conflicts being stoked by external forces who have a vested interest in this conflict continuing, have lived together in peace for the vast majority of history. 

At the same time, I cannot stay silent about the corruption that happened within Christianity, which diverted the followers of Jesus into believing in things about Jesus which are not true. Read the Bible. Jesus himself never said 'I am God' or 'I am All Powerful, like God', etc. The trinity is something that was said about Jesus, which Jesus himself did not say. In addition, if you look at those verses in the Bible that talk about trinity, they were introduced into later versions of the Bible, in a language that Jesus did not speak, and many hundreds of years after Jesus left this earth. 

If the trinity was 'The thing' that would send people to heaven or send them to hell, as some Christians believe, don't you think God would have been clear and explicit about this and would have preserved this throught the Abrahamic faiths, as the concept of Divine Unity (One God) is preserved in all these traditions ? A just God would not speak in riddles and metaphors (as the Christians do to explain the Trinity) and would make the concept prolific and easy to understand. I believe in a just God, therefore I can't accept this idea (i.e. of the Trinity). 

[mahmood8726]

3 hours ago, Abu Hadi said:

Why Jesus (peace be upon him) has so many followers in the modern world has nothing to do with 'Christology' as you put it or your interpretation of the meaning of the word 'Messiah'. It has to do with the fact that Jesus (p.b.u.h) was a Prophet, sent by God and the vast majority of his teachings, thing like being kind to the poor, giving charity, obeying God, prayer, glorification of God, practicing humility, healing the weak and oppressed, etc, are Divine teachings that are reflected in all the Abrahamic faiths, including Judaism and Islam. That is what survives. The truth never dies and anyone who follows truth will also live eternally. Christianity exists (unlike other Messianic cults) because the vast majority of Christians, in their daily lives, try their best to follow those basic teaching, mentioned above. That is why, period, and that is why Muslims and Christians, in the absence of conflicts being stoked by external forces who have a vested interest in this conflict continuing, have lived together in peace for the vast majority of history. 

At the same time, I cannot stay silent about the corruption that happened within Christianity, which diverted the followers of Jesus into believing in things about Jesus which are not true. Read the Bible. Jesus himself never said 'I am God' or 'I am All Powerful, like God', etc. The trinity is something that was said about Jesus, which Jesus himself did not say. In addition, if you look at those verses in the Bible that talk about trinity, they were introduced into later versions of the Bible, in a language that Jesus did not speak, and many hundreds of years after Jesus left this earth. 

If the trinity was 'The thing' that would send people to heaven or send them to hell, as some Christians believe, don't you think God would have been clear and explicit about this and would have preserved this throught the Abrahamic faiths, as the concept of Divine Unity (One God) is preserved in all these traditions ? A just God would not speak in riddles and metaphors (as the Christians do to explain the Trinity) and would make the concept prolific and easy to understand. I believe in a just God, therefore I can't accept this idea (i.e. of the Trinity). 

Well said, if the most important foundation of your religion, is only possibly understood through interpretations of implicit verses, then there is a major problem here. 

[Ashvazdanghe]

12 hours ago, Leslie P said:

Paul was hurt very badly by the Jewish leaders (2 Cor 11) and was repeatedly locked up by the Romans (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon all written from prison). His church members, by contrast, were very poor (e.g. 2Cor 8), and often slaves. Paul was in no position to enforce anything by force, and was frequently on the receiving end of pain.

Hi this is a hilarious joke which you have relied on lies of a great liar which mentioned verse have no relation to prophet Isa/Jesu (عليه السلام) which such things are just fabricated stories which has been innovated by Paul which even it has been true it has been making show off by Paul & Jewish leaders & Romans in order to simpleton Christians accept him between themselves in similar fashion which a devoted agent may receives torture & imprisonment in order to can be accepted as interior between target group in order to corrupt target group from within which maybe he has not forced anything by force but on the other hand he has poisoned Christianity from within which in later generations his innovations have became tradition of Christians by brutal force of corrupted church & bishops by support of Roman kings who converted to corrupted Christianity in order to preserve their place as kings  .

But while everyone was sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. Mat 13:25

12 hours ago, Leslie P said:

Could you identify where I said Peter tried to stop Paul, because I have no idea where? Thanks.

25 Historical Proofs The 12 Apostles Utterly Rejected Paul As An Anti-Christ Apostate

 

Reply Proving Apostles Rejected Paul

However, the apostles did catch on — a fact that the “Jesus of Damascus” tried to delay taking place as long as possible. The earliest church that traces to the 12 apostles known as the Ebion — the Poor — did exclude Paul from canon — a well-known fact that is generally ignored. Here are 12 proofs:

1. After the Jesus of Damascus visited Paul on a road outside Damascus, Paul rushed to Jerusalem to see the 12 Apostles to tell them what happened. However, the Jesus of Damascus told Paul in a trance at the Temple that the 12 apostles will not believe he met the true Jesus, and this “Jesus” told Paul to leave Jerusalem without meeting them for that reason. See Acts 22:14-22.

2. Then three years later, Paul went to Jerusalem, and spent a brief time with Peter over two weeks. There Paul also met James, the brother of Jesus, but no other apostles. (Gal. 1:18.); (Gal. 1:19). Paul speaks about a point up through fourteen years where he can still brag in all his encounters that the apostles “imparted nothing to me” (Gal. 2:6). In context, this was said to the Gentiles to prove apparently that Paul’s revelations from the Jesus of Damascus alone suffice.

...................... Next, Jude said this person and his followers also teach Balaam’s error. What was that? It was eating meat sacrificed to idols (Rev. 2:14) — something Paul endorses multiple times unless you are around a “weak” brother who thinks it is wrong. You refrain only if such a “weak” minded brother might see you exercising the right to eat meat sacrificed to idols, and violates his “weak” conscience. See 1 Cor. 10:28-29; 1 Cor. 8:4-12.

...............https://nonorthodoxy.com/25-historical-proofs-the-12-apostles-utterly-rejected-paul-as-anti-christ-apostate/

Jesus And Apostles’ Multiple Warnings About Paul’s False Teachings

I Think Paul Gave It His Best Shot. He Did As Good As He Could, Considering His Polluted Lineage, Damaged Corrupted Tree, And Confused Self Image.

Paul had NO IDEA that he was being “set-up” to be THE Anti-Christ!!!

I think that Paul did his level best to further the healing power and good news about Jesus. The problem is that Paul was already so deeply flawed, and totally engulfed in darkness, that there was NO WAY he could span that gulf, that quickly. Paul was cleverly used by Lucifer to get a second jesus, a hip new jesus inserted in between the covers of what we know as The Bible.

Quote

Paul was born into, and deeply entrenched into the Babylon Mystery Religion, the direct predecessor to modern Freemasonry. His household growing up was a hub of the elite from all over the world. He would have been exposed to every kind of religion and belief system imaginable. Did you ever wonder how it was that Paul got audiences with high and mighty, secular men of his time – rulers and leaders? Because they all knew him since he was a toddler. He grew up sitting on their laps. So youngster Apollonius of Tyana grew up, found a new calling, starting a new religion, christianity, and he wanted to share it with his old family friends.

The way our current Bible is constructed, the Lord allowed his opposite to be placed inside the cover of His Holy Word AS A TEST!!! WHO ARE YOU GOING TO CHOOSE, Jesus or Paul???

Choose you this day whom you will serve. Joshua 24:15

Everything About Paul Was Repulsive And Foreign To What The Real Apostles Learned From Jesus In Person

https://nonorthodoxy.com/25-historical-proofs-the-12-apostles-utterly-rejected-paul-as-anti-christ-apostate/

https://nonorthodoxy.com/2021/07/01/jesus-and-apostles-multiple-warnings-about-pauls-false-teachings/

[Ashvazdanghe]

12 hours ago, Leslie P said:

Peter and the other disciples, after lengthy discussion, backed making Torah optional (Acts 15). Surely if one of Jesus' missions was to enforce Torah, that would not have happened? There is no evidence outside the Qur'an that Jesus wanted Torah to continue after His death, and given that Torah was still optional long after Paul died, we can assume the disciples were good with it ending.

Hi you just ot prove your point which The holy Qur'an only supports real divine teachings in Bible & Torah while distorted texts in Bible & Torah have been rejected which holy Qur'an has brough better & final divine command so therefore it has  not been no need to follow Bible & Torah after revelation of holy Qur'an which Act 15 for nullifying circumcision & making Torah optional has been innovation of Paul & Barnabas in opposition to teachings of prophet Isa/Jesus (عليه السلام).

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

13 hours ago, Leslie P said:

You may be right that other threads prove the prediction of Muhammad, but it might be helpful if you'd summarise the evidence here. Thanks again.

 

 

 

 

Prophet Muhammed in the Bible

Quote

Lord Manifests On Mount Paran:
There is an important prophecy in the Bible:

“And he said, the Lord came form Sinai, and rose up from Seir unto them; he shined forth from Mount Paran, and he came with ten thousand saints; from right hand went a fiery law for them.” (Deuteronomy 33:2).
Coming from Sinai refers to the appearance of Moses (عليه السلام) and rising up from Seir alludes that of Jesus (عليه السلام). The prophet who shone forth from Mount Paran could be no other than the Holy Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) of Arabia, as Paran is the ancient name of the part of Arabia where the children of Ishmael (عليه السلام), the ancestors of Hazrat Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم), settled.  The Arabic form of the word Paran is Faran or Pharan. Jacut’s Geographishes Worterbuch (F. Westenfielt, Leipzig, 1862, Vol. III, P834) says that Faran is a name of Mecca. The word Faran seems to be the Arabic Farran. It means two refugees. It appears that the place took the name from Hager and Ishmael, who came there as refugees. Dr. A. Benisch call it in his translation of Pentateuch the desert of Paran.  What unmistakably points to the identity of Hazrat Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is the phrase: “he came with ten thousands of saints” and “from his right hand went a fiery law for them.” At the time of the conquest of Mecca, ten thousand holy men followed at his heels and he was the bearer of the law of the Quran. Hence, the prophecy has been wonderfully fulfilled in the person of Holy Prophet Muhammad, (peace and blessings of God be upon him).

https://en.shafaqna.com/120899/prophet-muhammed-in-the-bible/

Lecture 8: The Word Muhammad in the Bible

Shi'i beliefs in the Bible

Thomas McElwain

https://al-islam.org/shii-beliefs-bible-thomas-mcelwain/lecture-8-word-muhammad-bible

https://al-islam.org/person/thomas-mcelwain

[Abu Nur]

On 2/20/2025 at 5:25 PM, Leslie P said:

But if Jesus' mission was to reinforce Tawhid, it was a failure, given that Christians preach a form of monotheism that isn't acceptable to Islam. “And do not say, 'Three'; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. “ (4:171)

Reading the New Testament, I observe that Jesus (عليه السلام) teaching are very spiritual and the problem with the spiritual teaching is that people can easily misunderstanding the meaning behind his words and the speaker nature.

The reality and this is his true teaching is that what he wanted to demonstrate to people is the spiritual aspect of Jewish religion and the seeing the Kingdom of God, where if someone open the eyes of his heart (when the person borns agein), he will see this immaterial kingdom. He will also see the manifesting of God everywhere and sees Jesus as God manifestation in earth, which means that whatever Jesus (عليه السلام) did is God works and His will. When people started to think the nature of Jesus, they got confused thinking that he must be the same essence of God and body is just an earthly body. This is absolutely wrong, because Jesus essence is different from God, because whatever God manifest in Reality is different from the essence of God.

[Leslie P]

On 3/16/2025 at 8:06 PM, Abu Hadi said:

Why Jesus (peace be upon him) has so many followers in the modern world has nothing to do with 'Christology' as you put it or your interpretation of the meaning of the word 'Messiah'

<snip>

A just God would not speak in riddles and metaphors (as the Christians do to explain the Trinity) and would make the concept prolific and easy to understand. I believe in a just God, therefore I can't accept this idea (i.e. of the Trinity). 

There's a lot to agree with here. However there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus' message went far beyond a simple “Be nice to people” message. We have a huge pile of documents for what the disciples believed, and it is that Jesus saw His task as setting off the Kingdom of God, and all that goes with it (forgiveness of sins, defeat of death etc). The NT is packed with Jesus talking about it (over 55 statements about it, parables, sayings, warnings...)

The Kingdom of God (KoG) is a precise term used in C1 Judaism. The OT prophets talked about it, and in C1 Israel the people were waiting for God to keep His promise, return to Jerusalem and bring the KoG in (see e.g. Isaiah 40).

Jesus must have said things that sent the Early Church in the direction of Jesus as God, because they would never ever have gone in that direction by themselves as C1 Jews. Further, they had very clear experience of the Holy Spirit guiding them, and that would also have moved them in that direction.

But it's not so much who Jesus said He was, but what He said He would do. And then did.

God said He would return to Jerusalem as King (Isaiah 40 done in Luke 19:28-48 ). He would redeem His people ( Isaiah 41:14 ). In addition was Jesus' role in starting off the Kingdom of God, a task which God said He would do. (See e.g.  Daniel 2:44 ).

Because Jesus did these things, the people that knew Jesus, people like Peter, drew the only possible conclusion, that Jesus was the One in whom the identity of God is revealed.

[Leslie P]

Thank you for the replies, everyone. There's too much here for me to do at one sitting, so I'll work my way through them.

[Abu Nur]

4 hours ago, Leslie P said:

Jesus saw His task as setting off the Kingdom of God

The Kingdom of God is already here and always have been. When Jesus return, he will give his people (Jews and Christians) the ability to see it. He will purify their soul by permission of God and make them born to life and see God. For Muslims it will be Imam Mehdi (عليه السلام) who will do the same thing.

[Leslie P]

On 3/23/2025 at 9:27 PM, Abu Nur said:

The Kingdom of God is already here and always have been. When Jesus return, he will give his people (Jews and Christians) the ability to see it. He will purify their soul by permission of God and make them born to life and see God. For Muslims it will be Imam Mehdi (عليه السلام) who will do the same thing.

Is this a universal belief amongst Muslims? My understanding was that Christians and Jews went to Hell with no possibility of remission.

Not according to Jews, including Jews today. This is the sort of thing they're thinking of: 

here

BTW, note that the passage is saying that one day God will act to bring His glory to the peoples of the earth. Which leads me on to...

 

[Leslie P]

On 3/16/2025 at 8:06 PM, Abu Hadi said:

If the trinity was 'The thing' that would send people to heaven or send them to hell, as some Christians believe, don't you think God would have been clear and explicit about this and would have preserved this throught the Abrahamic faiths, as the concept of Divine Unity (One God) is preserved in all these traditions ? A just God would not speak in riddles and metaphors (as the Christians do to explain the Trinity) and would make the concept prolific and easy to understand. I believe in a just God, therefore I can't accept this idea (i.e. of the Trinity). 

 

On 3/17/2025 at 12:00 AM, mahmood8726 said:

Well said, if the most important foundation of your religion, is only possibly understood through interpretations of implicit verses, then there is a major problem here. 

There's a misunderstanding here. Faith is not the same thing as belief. The Greek word used for faith is pistis, which means making a decision to follow Jesus. Putting on the uniform. Signing a contract to serve. Having 'the right sort of faith' is not really what it's about.

However there's certainly a lot more than a few debatable Jesus quotes to go on here. Firstly, for sure Jesus must have said things that led the disciples to see Him as God. There is no way any of them would have gone in that direction otherwise.

Secondly, in the passage in the post above and elsewhere in the Old Testament, God says that one day He will act to destroy sin and death for humanity, and establish His Kingdom. Given that this was done by Jesus, it follows that Jesus must be God.

Thirdly, there was no debate at all within the Early Church about Jesus as God. Paul talks about it without justifying himself, explaining, or complaining about people opposing him on this. By contrast, he has to put a lot of work and anger into what happens to Torah. This must mean that the disciples- the ones who knew Jesus best- were in full agreement on Jesus as God.

Finally, there are all the sources, from John through Paul to Pliny, which say that Jesus was regarded as God in human form. There is no evidence people thought otherwise.

[Leslie P]

Have a happy Eid!

[Abu Nur]

10 hours ago, Leslie P said:

Is this a universal belief amongst Muslims? My understanding was that Christians and Jews went to Hell with no possibility of remission.

Not according to Jews, including Jews today. This is the sort of thing they're thinking of: 

here

BTW, note that the passage is saying that one day God will act to bring His glory to the peoples of the earth. Which leads me on to...

 

No belivers is going to hell and the belivers among the Jews and Christians are honored and will be honored when Jesus (عليه السلام) returns. The link you gave is only talking about the belivers of Jews and does not include the wiked ones. Wiked jews will be destroyed like how it was done in the past.

In the Qur'an 6:75 "Thus did We show Abraham the kingdom of the heavens and the earth.

Right now only the saints can see The kingdom of God, but when Jesus (عليه السلام) comes, then all the believers will see it, because they will be honored, purified and perfected by Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).

Edited March 31 by Abu Nur

[Abu Hadi]

22 hours ago, Leslie P said:

 

There's a misunderstanding here. Faith is not the same thing as belief. The Greek word used for faith is pistis, which means making a decision to follow Jesus. Putting on the uniform. Signing a contract to serve. Having 'the right sort of faith' is not really what it's about.

However there's certainly a lot more than a few debatable Jesus quotes to go on here. Firstly, for sure Jesus must have said things that led the disciples to see Him as God. There is no way any of them would have gone in that direction otherwise.

Secondly, in the passage in the post above and elsewhere in the Old Testament, God says that one day He will act to destroy sin and death for humanity, and establish His Kingdom. Given that this was done by Jesus, it follows that Jesus must be God.

Thirdly, there was no debate at all within the Early Church about Jesus as God. Paul talks about it without justifying himself, explaining, or complaining about people opposing him on this. By contrast, he has to put a lot of work and anger into what happens to Torah. This must mean that the disciples- the ones who knew Jesus best- were in full agreement on Jesus as God.

Finally, there are all the sources, from John through Paul to Pliny, which say that Jesus was regarded as God in human form. There is no evidence people thought otherwise.

I think there is something you are not quite getting in the discussion. 

First, when you repeat dogma here, it has no effect on us Muslims. We have either not been raised with this dogma or we 'did our homework' enough to see thru it. For example, the mythology that Greek is the 'mother language' of Christianity or that Jesus(p.b.u.h) had anything to do with the greek language or culture. Jesus was a follower of the religion of Prophet Moses and Abraham, not a follower of the Greek Pantheon. He was from the area of Palestine, where the language was Hebrew, not Greek. He spoke a dialect of Hebrew called Aramaic, and this was the language he preached in, not Greek. Any kind of reference you make to greek is, at best, a translation of a translation of the words of Jesus that was written by others (other than Jesus) long after he departed from the earth. So it hold no weight with us, although you might believe it. To use Greek concepts regarding Jesus as a basis for your discussion with Muslims concerning Jesus(p.b.u.h) is, well, useless. It is like the sound of one hand clapping, i.e. it makes no sound other than what you imagine it to make. 

Second, if you want to have a discussion with Muslims, you should at least know the basics about how Jesus(p.b.u.h) is conceived of in Islam. In order to do this, you must be familiar with at least a few Quranic concepts regarding the issue. It seems you don't have this understanding, again, why the discussions you post go nowhere. 

In the Quran, Jesus(p.b.u.h) is know as a Nabi, from the Arabic word 'Naba', which means to announce. The connotative meaning is to make an announcement from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), God. Jesus(p.b.u.h) is also a Rasoul, a messenger, which means that unlike most Prophets, he had a written book from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) which he taught to the people. This book is known as the 'Injil'. It is not the present day Bible, which possibly contains some of the original Injil but which also contains alot of other stuff which isn't part of the Injil and isn't from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). Because we don't currently posses the original 'Injil', we have no way to know what in the Bible is Injil and what is not, except thru using logical arguments and comparing what is in the Bible with what is in the Quran and authentic hadith. 

When you discuss with Muslims concerning Jesus(p.b.u.h), this should be the starting point of your discussion. The words of Paul (which is most of the New Testement) do not concern us and carry no weight with us (Muslims) for a few reasons. First, he lived after the time of Jesus and never met him (as even Christians admit). Second, some of the theories he had regarding the existence of Jesus(p.b.u.h), such as the Trinity, are not supported by the words of Jesus, even according to the Bible. The suppositions made in this regard were made by those who lived long after Jesus and had more in common with the Greek and Roman religions (i.e. Zeus and Apollo, etc al) than they did with the religion of the Hebrew people from which Jesus came. Third, the words of Paul directly contradict the Quran, which is the main thing for us (Muslims). So this last one is why you will never be able to convince a Muslim of these suppositions made by Paul and others. They would need to stop believing in the Quran, i.e. leave the religion of Islam, before they would accept these. 

Edited March 31 by Abu Hadi

[TheWayofTheSalaaf]

On 3/30/2025 at 8:04 AM, Leslie P said:

 

There's a misunderstanding here. Faith is not the same thing as belief. The Greek word used for faith is pistis, which means making a decision to follow Jesus. Putting on the uniform. Signing a contract to serve. Having 'the right sort of faith' is not really what it's about.

However there's certainly a lot more than a few debatable Jesus quotes to go on here. Firstly, for sure Jesus must have said things that led the disciples to see Him as God. There is no way any of them would have gone in that direction otherwise.

Secondly, in the passage in the post above and elsewhere in the Old Testament, God says that one day He will act to destroy sin and death for humanity, and establish His Kingdom. Given that this was done by Jesus, it follows that Jesus must be God.

Thirdly, there was no debate at all within the Early Church about Jesus as God. Paul talks about it without justifying himself, explaining, or complaining about people opposing him on this. By contrast, he has to put a lot of work and anger into what happens to Torah. This must mean that the disciples- the ones who knew Jesus best- were in full agreement on Jesus as God.

Finally, there are all the sources, from John through Paul to Pliny, which say that Jesus was regarded as God in human form. There is no evidence people thought otherwise.

There is no basis in the Bible to say Jesus is God. You do not even cite scripture you just use circular reasoning. Christians believe this therefore the text must say that. At one time one of the largest sects of christianity rejected the trinity, one of the biggest was called arianism. So they did not see your truine formula. Before I became a Muslim I was a Christian and learned to read koine Greek. I have copies on microfilm of some of the oldest Bibles that exist. Part of the reason I am Muslim is because I can read the Bible in its original languages. I am currently learning Arabic and hope to be able to read the Quran with out the aid of translations. Though the bible does not show us that Jesus is God, I have found something much like the Shahada. 

[Northwest]

On 3/2/2025 at 11:35 PM, PureExistence1 said:

The problem we all have is the lack of documentation as far as what secular sources outside of our own books say. The New testament says one thing, the Quran says another, and you as a Christian will follow what your book says and us as Muslims will follow what our book says. So at the end of the day, neither one of us is probably going to convince the other of anything different than what we already believe...again I refer back to the lack of specific information being available to us. We are going by what the Quran says for our guidance and proof and due to lack of other sources of information out there, that's really all we have to go by... So while some stuff we may not be able to outright prove through external sources, at the end of the day we have to refer back to our holy book for our guidance... 

It's frustrating because when I first converted to Islam 14 years ago I really thought things would be more cut and dry/black and white as far as historically provable information is concerned...

@PureExistence1 For this reason alone interfaith dialogue is rarely as fruitful as billed. If a claim cannot be independently verified, or is not falsifiable (i.e., miracles), then these debates are rather predictable. Ultimately human subjectivity prevails, based on personal experience, if not preference. Culture and upbringing, rather than evidence, serve as modulators. Some backgrounds are so different as to constitute different universes, i.e., the postmodern West and ancient Israel. In the end communities and their narratives end up being self-contained. Problematically, if one believes that God created—and can suspend—logic, then one can believe in logical contradictions, i.e., the Trinity. (For the record: I relied on my own reasoning to reject the Trinity, rather than any religious source. Logic alone is sufficient, religious disagreement providing an additional basis.) Moreover, if a religion tells one to mistrust external sources, then one is left with nothing other than one’s creedal heritage.

@Leslie P In the NT Paul basically cites Scripture and private revelation rather than Jesus’ life. He rarely, if ever, explicitly references the sayings and doings of Jesus himself, if such can be presumed to have existed. Moreover, he makes clear that his teachings are his own, i.e., his “gospel” (cf. Romans 2:16, 16:25; 1 Corinthians 15:1,3). He does not defer to an apostolic chain; his “tradition” is his own. So Paul cannot be relied on exclusively as a source. The original repository of Jesus’ teachings, the Jewish “church,” has been largely lost to history, having been eclipsed by Gentile-dominated Pauline Christianity. In other words, the former, where residual, is read through the latter. Early Christianity as a whole is rather sparsely documented, so we have very few external sources to go by. There is little indication in these that Jesus even existed, incidentally; though this does not disprove Jesus existence, it does show the degree to which we are “handicapped” in our understanding.