ansarthemystic

Since many christians seem to base their rejection of Islam on the differing character of Jesus and muhammad I would like to talk about what four major religions have to say about Jesus.
These include christianity, islam,Talmudic judaism,and Hinduism.

I am posting this because I have only been geeting responses from atheists(god bless the atheists), but barely a christian response. Where are the christians?

To begin, a friend of mine began by asking what right does Muhammad(PBUH)have to prophethood. He is not from the line of Isaac(PBUH). And she added that Jesus(PBUH) was a peace-lover,celibate man. Muhammad(PBUH), they say, was alecherous man with 12 wives, was a warrior, imposter, plagarizer.

Let's examine what christians really believe about Jesus(PBUH) before we get to what the other religions say and before we compare Jesus(PBUH) and Muhammad(PBUH).

So what we have is this:18 years of Jesus'(PBUH) life is missing from the gospels. What could he have possiby been doin from the age of 12 to 30, when his ministry began. The apochryphal gospels and books tell us, why did the church leave these books out? After these 18 years, Jesus returns with some serious delusions of grandeur. He performs magic tricks that David Copperfield would be jealous of, he proclaims that the kingdom of God is nigh, and he allegedly proclaims himself God, Son of God, Son of Man, Third Person in the Holy Trinity. All this apparently unawares that the Jews never expected the Messiah to be divine,the OT never suggested such, and that anyone who died on the cross was accursed by God, as the OT said.

Any thoughts?

This is only part 1. The next installments will be Jesus(PBUH) in Judaism, Jesus(PBUH) in Islam, and Jesus(PBUH) in Hinduism, and Jesus(PBUH) versus Muhammad(PBUH)

peace and blessings

not a theist

For the most part, the apocryphal books are very late and even less reliable than the canonical books. The two possible exceptions to this are the gospels of Peter and Thomas. All of the others are virtually worthless for any understanding of the historical Jesus and even these two are probably of minimal value.

ansarthemystic

Really?

Even the Gospel of Barnabas? The contemporary of Jesus(PBUH).The disciple of Jesus, who lived and worshipped with Jesus(PBUH), and wrote his gospel account with his own hand, whereas the other canonical gospels were wrtitten 70 years after the death of christ?

Ireally don't think so!

peace and blessings

ansarthemystic

We have already seen that Jesus, apart from the Apochrypahal Gospels, was a delusional, god-wanna-be, with a quick temper, and a knack for parental disobedience, according to christians. Jesus was supposedly god so he never could actually die so the christian idea of vicarious atonement of sins, is a moot point.He only appeared to die, so it was NOT true sacrifice.

What about jesus being a peaceful, pious, celibate man?

Jesus(AS) said that he came to bring a sword not peace. Jesus(AS) said that he will set mother against daughter, father against so, brother againgst brother. Jesus(AS) said to his disciples to take up swords to defend themselves, while contradictorily talking about turning the other cheek, and do unto others, and he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword.Jesus(AS).Jesus(AS) said that he who does not hate his family members can not follow him.

Jesus(AS) drank alcohol, ate flesh of animals(clearly something prophets did not do in Israel), and was married to Mary Magdalene doubted by christians but I have proof!), so he HAD SEX!Add to this that god wasn't supposed to require sleep, sex, food, or drink.

This all of course according to christianity.Of course as a muslim I believe that Jesus(AS) is innocent of the lies.

Now what does Judaism say about Jesus(AS)?The Talmud says that he is accursed, a liar, a vile human being, an imposter, an illegitamte child, born of the slutty Mary!

I refuse to quote from the Talmud since it does say any Goyim(NON_JEW) who reads the Talmud shall be killed!

thoughts?

peace and blessings

not a theist

The gospel of Barnabas is a medieval forgery.

<a href="http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/Blackhirst_Barnabas.html" target="_blank">Barnabas and the Gospels:
Was There an Early Gospel of Barnabas? by R. Blackhirst </a>
"THE extant Gospel of Barnabas, often classified among the "modern apocrypha," survives in Italian and Spanish versions and is, no doubt, the product of the late Middle Ages."

<a href="http://www.bendigo.latrobe.edu.au/sae/arts/barnabas/Entry.html" target="_blank">THE MEDIEVAL
GOSPEL OF BARNABAS</a>

<a href="http://www.spotlights.org/barn-1.htm" target="_blank">THE GOSPEL OF BARNABAS:BAD NEWS FOR MUSLIMS AND CHRISTIANS by John Barcus and Keith Small</a>
"...this gospel does not make a convincing or credible claim to be the authentic gospel of Jesus Christ."

<a href="http://www.arabicbible.com/islam/barnabas/barnabas_cont.htm" target="_blank">THE GOSPEL OF BARNABAS AN ESSAY AND INQUIRY by SELIM ABDUL-AHAD and W.H.T. GAIRDNER</a>

<a href="http://answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/barnabas.html" target="_blank">Origins and Sources of the Gospel of Barnabas
by John Gilchrist</a>

<a href="http://home.t-online.de/home/chrislages/barnarom.htm" target="_blank">The "Gospel of Barnabas" in recent research</a>


No real text critical scholars now consider the current version of the Gospel of Barnabas to be authentic.

[ August 05, 2002: Message edited by: not a theist ]</p>

Shake

What? You've got pictures?! Let's see!

Bree

Funny, I was just about to post the same thing.

I also would like to know where you are getting your information, ansarthemystic. Are you drawing your own conclusions based on things you're reading, or are you quoting someone else?

ansarthemystic

Sorry, please, no pictures!Just kidding!

To answer your questions, I do draw my conclusions from what I have read, but plenty of others, scholars included, agree with my conclusions, and I can quote them where necessary.

peace and blessings

Bree

Okay - curiosity killed the cat.

This situation is "where necessary" - I'd like to see some sources, please.

You may also want to check out <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=47" target="_blank">Rants, Raves, Preaching, Etc.</a> - it's a great place for letting off steam, and there is some Christian activity over there.

[ August 06, 2002: Message edited by: Bree ]</p>

ansarthemystic

Some sources:

1. Roberts and J. Donaldson, The ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1951) Vol. VIII, pp. 355, 493-496.
2. Laura and Lonsdale Ragg, The Gospel of Barnabas (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1907) Introductions, p. lxxiv. Greek and Latin quotations are from

<a href="http://www.arabicbible.com/islam/barnabas/preface.htm" target="_blank">http://www.arabicbible.com/islam/barnabas/preface.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.bendigo.latrobe.edu.au/sae/arts/barnabas/Barnearly.html" target="_blank">http://www.bendigo.latrobe.edu.au/sae/arts/barnabas/Barnearly.html</a>

Dr. Ghulam Jilani Barq writes:

In the light of the Christian rejection (of the Gospel of Barnabas as a genuine Gospel) the contention that this work is genuine can be validated only when a copy of it that antedates the mission of the Prophet has been discovered and brought to light - which thus far has not been possible. (Al-Furqan, Lucknow, August, 1975, prophet,. 48).\

<a href="http://www.arabicbible.com/islam/barnabas/preface.htm" target="_blank">http://www.arabicbible.com/islam/barnabas/preface.htm</a>

In the circles of Muslim polemical writers the anti-Pauline trend in "Barnabas" has revived the claim that Paul perverted the original message of Jesus and Hellenized it by preaching that Jesus was the Son of God. This theme we find already in the works of the Hazm (d. 1064 A.D.), al-Qarafi (d. 1285 A.D.) and Abu Talib (d. 1321 A.D.). These claims, no doubt, originated in Jewish circles and were introduced into Islamic thought with other Jewish material, namely the so-called Israi-liyyat. Modern Muslim thinkers reject these Israiliyyat, considering them to be anti-Islamic. It follows that the insinuations about a Pauline conspiracy against original Christianity should also be rejected along with these other Israiliyyat!
Furthermore:

Nineteenth century Christian "liberalism" has revived this presumed antithesis between the original and simple gospel of Jesus and Paul's speculative Hellenistic theology. This school of thought, however, has completely disappeared, because it was the result of prejudiced and superficial reading of the New Testament sources. The prejudice consisted in explaining the New Testament in purely Hellenistic terms and in forgetting about its Hebrew and Aramaic heritage. Even Jewish theologians agree with this point of view.

1. A.M. Hunter, Interpreting The New Testament (London, S.C.M. Press, 1951) Chapter VI, "St. Paul in the Twentieth Century".
2. Hans-Joachim Schoeps, Jewish Christianity Factional Disputes in the Early Church (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969), from a Jewish perspective.
3. W.D. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism (London S.P.C.K., 1970).
4. H.N. Ridderbos, Paul and Jesus (Philadelphia: Reformed and Presbyterian Publ., 1958).
Prof. E.R.. Hambye in Delhi who wrote in the May 1975 issue of Islam and the Modern Age:

………….a spurious publication of this kind cannot indeed contribute towards a genuine dialogue with Islam…….Pseudo-Barnabas falls in the same category as the mythical, though time and again written about Jesus' grave in Kashmir.

peace and blessings