Toto

The Muslims would not necessarily have cared about the canonical texts.

It seems like an unnecessary assumption, that there were independent sources that fed into Luke and lay around and then fed into the Qur'an. The sources for the Qur'an would have been Christians, who had read the gospels of Luke and others. They would not have necessarily considered the same things worth preserving that you would, and they might have been guided by different theological concerns.

Duvduv

Yes they were, but their interpretation may have changed over time and were considered more "authentic" than the canonical texts forming what was described as the corrupted Injil.
And the information about the story of the Baptist is interestingly more similar to the canonical story than ia the nativity of Jesus.
For all the greatness they attribute to Jesus, they simply state as fact his assorted miracles without any detail.
And they don't cite any aphorisms to be traced to the canon either.

I also wonder why the Arabic word is Injil as the derivation from the Greek evangelion when the Arabic should have at least used something like Fanjilun since Arabic has no V.

Huon

According to the belief of the Muslims, the Injil was corrupted, any Injil.

The Christians believe in the Trinity, which implies that Jesus was the second aspect of God.

John the Baptist is a prophet. Almost everybody accepts the idea that somebody can be a prophet. Of course, not all self-proclaimed prophets are really authentic prophets.
Jesus was a prophet, but he was not the second aspect of Allah.
Muhammad was able to say many things. The hadiths are a proof.

tanya

Can we identify genuine prophets, irrespective of the source of the claim?

sotto voce

Many seem eager to say so, definite articles included.

'Second' is an ambiguous word, that may be interpreted with ordinal value, giving Jesus demotion. The word invention 'trinity' does not refer to aspects of deity, but to persons, i.e. individuals, which in effect states that one person is three persons; which is technical nonsense. One cannot write a grammatical sentence that involves the actual meaning of 'trinity'.

The word 'trinity' is testament to the unshakable conviction of much of mankind that Jesus of Nazareth was sole deity made manifest, sane men being driven to apparent insanity by his record.

The authors of the Qur'an were among those convinced that Jesus of Nazareth was sole deity made manifest, and attempted to recognise trinitarianism as Christian orthodoxy. This was undoubtedly in the mind of Wojtyla when he famously kissed a copy of the Qur'an in public, his organisation being the one that originated trinitarianism or tritheism. There are other positions adopted by the Qur'an that he approved, that justify the view that Islam represents a sister of that organisation.

mountainman

Isaac Newtown was not one of them.
He distrusted Athanasius and his gang.




The modus operandi that the Arian philosophers used to demote Jesus. The heretics seemed to want to demote Jesus.

The history of which is a post-Nicaean import into christian doctrine from Plotinic Platonism.


According to Bertram Russel, Plotinus's metaphysics begins and ends with a trinity he called "One Spirit Soul". These three were not equal. The One was supreme. The Christians hijacked the 4th century Platonic philosophy for their own inventions of Christology.

Huon

You will be surprised : I cannot !:redface:

Huon

That is how Islam became a variety of Christianity. But it is still difficult to explain that to Ahmadinedjad and the guy of el Qaïda, wotsis name, I don't remember ?

sotto voce

Isaac Newton had the advantage of being able to count.

As you would.



Like the other heretics.

There is a view that Greek thought influenced Christian, but imv the evidence is for influence in the other direction. I think that Plotinus reacted adversely to genuine Christian teaching, just as the Constantinians did. He was not the only Greek philosopher to adjust in that way. As for trinitarianism/tritheism, it could have been obtained simply by deliberate, perversely fundamentalist misreading of the NT. That was the dullard Roman way, that even soldiers could understand. It fits with the rest of the Romanist paradigm of turning Jesus' teaching on its head while retaining the same sort of nomenclature.

sotto voce

Only if the moon is made of cheese.