Islam/Muslim Discussion Thread ٢

[Free Rhenish States]

No. All Christianity. Jesus came with Islam, Islam of Jesus. Islam of Jesus got extinct 2 centuries after Jesus´s (pbuh) death. Same goes for Judaism. Neither Judaism nor Christianity ever had anything to do with us.

Which event extinguished the Islam of Jesus?

Paul´s Trinitarian Christianity became dominant and suppressed the others.

[Herskerstad]

Which event extinguished the Islam of Jesus?

Paul´s Trinitarian Christianity became dominant and suppressed the others.

Paul's Christianity had been pretty dominant ever since he meet with Peter and was affirmed by the disciples themselves.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Modern Christianity.

No. All Christianity. Jesus came with Islam, Islam of Jesus. Islam of Jesus got extinct 2 centuries after Jesus´s (pbuh) death. Same goes for Judaism. Neither Judaism nor Christianity ever had anything to do with us.

Point made.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

Paul´s Trinitarian Christianity became dominant and suppressed the others.

Paul's Christianity had been pretty dominant ever since he meet with Peter and was affirmed by the disciples themselves.

According to a historical record largely collated by Pauline Christians writing much later. We really don't know much about early Christianity in terms of contemporary documents.

[Aelex]

No. All Christianity. Jesus came with Islam, Islam of Jesus. Islam of Jesus got extinct 2 centuries after Jesus´s (pbuh) death. Same goes for Judaism. Neither Judaism nor Christianity ever had anything to do with us.

And yet, once more, all the historical and archaeological proofs point toward no such a thing as an "Islam of Jesus" ever existing.
But I do agree with your second point. Islam has indeed literally nothing to do with Judaism nor Christianity. It's good to see that Muslims themselves can accept that.

[Herskerstad]

Paul's Christianity had been pretty dominant ever since he meet with Peter and was affirmed by the disciples themselves.

According to a historical record largely collated by Pauline Christians writing much later. We really don't know much about early Christianity in terms of contemporary documents.

You do have the likes of the Didache which is rather definitive. The likes of Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr, not to mention the canon gospels themselves, followed by sources outside of the Christian realm about them such as Cornelius Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, suppression by Domitian, Nero, ect. We do know about the early splits ever since the Judaizers and onwards and it's not like any of those really conforms with Islam either.

[Bogdanov Vishniac]

You do have the likes of the Didache which is rather definitive.The likes of Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr, not to mention the canon gospels themselves,

Definitive in the sense that it probably does represent a tradition dating back to the first century. What I'm saying is that its existence doesn't preclude the existence of other traditions (particularly oral ones) that did not survive as part of a transmission of documents by later Nicene/Chalcedonian/Pauline historians and writers. I mean, the fact that the Didache itself was edited and compiled by a later writer out of earlier works supports this possibility.

followed by sources outside of the Christian realm about them such as Cornelius Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, suppression by Domitian, Nero, ect.

Roman sources are pretty uniformly uninterested in Christianity. I wouldn't exactly call works that, for example, tell us Jesus's name was 'Chrestus' hugely informative.

We do know about the early splits ever since the Judaizers and onwards and it's not like any of those really conforms with Islam either.

Well I don't think FRS is suggesting that Jesus professed Islam as we know it in its fully-formed state. Rather I think they're saying that Jesus professed a much more 'monotheistic' creed (in the old Abrahamic sense) and may not have claimed to be the son of God, and that Paul and others rewrote the narrative along trinitarian lines after Jesus' death.

[Herskerstad]

Definitive in the sense that it probably does represent a tradition dating back to the first century. What I'm saying is that its existence doesn't preclude the existence of other traditions (particularly oral ones) that did not survive as part of a transmission of documents by later Nicene/Chalcedonian/Pauline historians and writers. I mean, the fact that the Didache itself was edited and compiled by a later writer out of earlier works supports this possibility.

I did not say the Didache precipitated earlier documents and in fairness I have no conclusive dating myself as to the Didache controversy, being early third century at the very latest and mid-late at the earliest which most who work on it seem to indicate, but acknowledge the controversy. but it matters little as mentioned we already have the gospels themselves and their dating is quite accurate within the early texts, and it would be a mistake to say Paul's books are the only ones which grant the notions of son of God, ect, and again the charge against him is hard to make given that we know he was affirmed by the disciples themselves. It would be equally hard to say that an Islam of Jesus existed 2 centuries after his death with no traceable evidence of such given that quite the proliferation, some not to be reunited for quite some time had already occured, and even harder to make the same argument for say, an Islam of Moses or any of the prophets really. And there are not exactly a lack of offshoots to choose from.

Roman sources are pretty uniformly uninterested in Christianity. I wouldn't exactly call works that, for example, tell us Jesus's name was 'Chrestus' hugely informative.

Transliterations are themselves not really indicative of inaccuracies nor is such documents, based on such by individual authors, to be discredited. And do you ascribe all Roman sources as uninformed? The likes of Josephus? We get plenty of quite vital information from non-Christian sources even among the hostile parts.

Well I don't think FRS is suggesting that Jesus professed Islam as we know it in its fully-formed state. Rather I think they're saying that Jesus professed a much more 'monotheistic' creed (in the old Abrahamic sense) and may not have claimed to be the son of God, and that Paul and others rewrote the narrative along trinitarian lines after Jesus' death.

Problem with that is that is that all the writings we have are post Jesus so that argument kind of falls on itself, and that the writer, who lived with the diciples themselves, must have had them, their disciples and families to conspire with him in order to get away with it. Short of evident proof we can't really accept such a conspiracy.

[Yaramaqui]

לק״י

Modern Christianity.

No. All Christianity. Jesus came with Islam, Islam of Jesus. Islam of Jesus got extinct 2 centuries after Jesus´s (pbuh) death. Same goes for Judaism. Neither Judaism nor Christianity ever had anything to do with us.

Even if you consider Christianity and Judaism distortions of Islam, they still have a lot to do with each other historically, theologically, and so on.

[Free Rhenish States]

Paul´s Trinitarian Christianity became dominant and suppressed the others.

Paul's Christianity had been pretty dominant ever since he meet with Peter and was affirmed by the disciples themselves.

Yeah, but there were still people who considered Jesus a mere human and Prophet two centuries after his death

No. All Christianity. Jesus came with Islam, Islam of Jesus. Islam of Jesus got extinct 2 centuries after Jesus´s (pbuh) death. Same goes for Judaism. Neither Judaism nor Christianity ever had anything to do with us.

And yet, once more, all the historical and archaeological proofs point toward no such a thing as an "Islam of Jesus" ever existing.

Do you wonder why? Because it existed in the first century, if there is no Bible earlier than from the 4th century, then how can they prove something like that?
Nohow. And this goes both way, you don't have a proof that it existed, but you don't have a proof that it didn't exist, either. We Muslims have the Quran and believe it existed, regardless.

But I do agree with your second point. Islam has indeed literally nothing to do with Judaism nor Christianity. It's good to see that Muslims themselves can accept that.

Aelex, that's a perfect bait, if you think of it. If you admit it, then the train of thought leads us to thinkming that since Muhammad (saw) didn't write the Quran (as you accept we don't have anything to do with it, so he had nothing ripped off), then it is in fact a God's writing. Haha.

Well I don't think FRS is suggesting that Jesus professed Islam as we know it in its fully-formed state. Rather I think they're saying that Jesus professed a much more 'monotheistic' creed (in the old Abrahamic sense) and may not have claimed to be the son of God, and that Paul and others rewrote the narrative along trinitarian lines after Jesus' death.

For the record, this is perfectly true. With Jesus and Moses', the law (Sharia) was different, but the faith always remained the same. That's why it is Islam.

לק״י

No. All Christianity. Jesus came with Islam, Islam of Jesus. Islam of Jesus got extinct 2 centuries after Jesus´s (pbuh) death. Same goes for Judaism. Neither Judaism nor Christianity ever had anything to do with us.

Even if you consider Christianity and Judaism distortions of Islam, they still have a lot to do with each other historically, theologically, and so on.

Of course, they were derived from us.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

What's this about Christianity deriving from something?

[Free Rhenish States]

What's this about Christianity deriving from something?

The polytheistic Christianity derived from Islam of Jesus, which was in fact monotheistic.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

What's this about Christianity deriving from something?

The polytheistic Christianity derived from Islam of Jesus, which was in fact monotheistic.

Islam Of Jesus?

[Free Rhenish States]

The polytheistic Christianity derived from Islam of Jesus, which was in fact monotheistic.

Islam Of Jesus?

I have to go, just read everything we posted before.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Islam Of Jesus?

I have to go, just read everything we posted before.

Why do you call it Islam Of Jesus.

[Alsheb]

The Gospels were written by humans. The Gospel to Jesus wasn't, therefore, the Gospels couldn't be mentioned here as Allah would never mention a human-written book(s) as a holy writing, it is simply not from Allah.

Leaving the rest aside as I don't want to insert myself in this ongoing argument, there never was such a thing as a "Gospel of Jesus" (as I assume the "to" is a typo) and the very idea that there was a falsification of the early christians text is laughable at best.

The Gospel of Jesus is that what he preached and said. Which does not correspond completely to the Bible as we know it now.

[Alsheb]

Paul´s Trinitarian Christianity became dominant and suppressed the others.

Paul's Christianity had been pretty dominant ever since he meet with Peter and was affirmed by the disciples themselves.

For a good part of the first centuries AD, the Arian interpretation was the most widely followed one. So no, Paul's form of Christianity had not been the dominant one from the get go.

[Alsheb]

No. All Christianity. Jesus came with Islam, Islam of Jesus. Islam of Jesus got extinct 2 centuries after Jesus´s (pbuh) death. Same goes for Judaism. Neither Judaism nor Christianity ever had anything to do with us.

And yet, once more, all the historical and archaeological proofs point toward no such a thing as an "Islam of Jesus" ever existing.
But I do agree with your second point. Islam has indeed literally nothing to do with Judaism nor Christianity. It's good to see that Muslims themselves can accept that.

Not with Judaism and Christianity as exists now, is what Rhenish is saying. Islam has everything to do with the original message of the Hebrews and the Disciples of Christ. But the recipients of these revelations unfortunately drifted off from the path that was set out for them, hence the develoment of "Judaism" and "Christianity" as seperate entities and religions.

[Alsheb]

I have to go, just read everything we posted before.

Why do you call it Islam Of Jesus.

I suppose we scould write islam without a capital letter in this meaning, to avoid confusion.
The islam of Jesus means Jesus' surrender unto the will of God, his preaching of God's message and the fact that he was a Prophet of God bearing the message of islam (submission to God's will).

What Muslims believe is that prophets like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad were preaching the essentially same message and were all Prophets of God, but their islam, their message of divine revelation, got distorted and turned into seperate religions such as Christianity. Hence the necessity of Muhammad as the Seal of Prophets to write down literally the recitations that God gave him, to ensure that at least humanity has a strictly written down literal source that cannot simply be distorted.

[Free Rhenish States]

Thank you, Alsheb.

Why do you call it Islam Of Jesus.

I suppose we scould write islam without a capital letter in this meaning, to avoid confusion.
The islam of Jesus means Jesus' surrender unto the will of God, his preaching of God's message and the fact that he was a Prophet of God bearing the message of islam (submission to God's will).

What Muslims believe is that prophets like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad were preaching the essentially same message and were all Prophets of God, but their islam, their message of divine revelation, got distorted and turned into seperate religions such as Christianity. Hence the necessity of Muhammad as the Seal of Prophets to write down literally the recitations that God gave him, to ensure that at least humanity has a strictly written down literal source that cannot simply be distorted.

David too, we recognize the book of David (Zabur), after all.

[Alsheb]

Thank you, Alsheb.

I suppose we scould write islam without a capital letter in this meaning, to avoid confusion.
The islam of Jesus means Jesus' surrender unto the will of God, his preaching of God's message and the fact that he was a Prophet of God bearing the message of islam (submission to God's will).

What Muslims believe is that prophets like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad were preaching the essentially same message and were all Prophets of God, but their islam, their message of divine revelation, got distorted and turned into seperate religions such as Christianity. Hence the necessity of Muhammad as the Seal of Prophets to write down literally the recitations that God gave him, to ensure that at least humanity has a strictly written down literal source that cannot simply be distorted.

David too, we recognize the book of David (Zabur), after all.

True. I don't claim having an exhaustive list. There have likely been hundreds of prophets after all.

[Free Rhenish States]

Thank you, Alsheb.


David too, we recognize the book of David (Zabur), after all.

True. I don't claim having an exhaustive list. There have likely been hundreds of prophets after all.

As far as I know, there have been more than +120,000 prophets existing in the whole history of mankind. I don't have the hadith for it, but I read it on a Muslim forum I trust very much.

[Alsheb]

True. I don't claim having an exhaustive list. There have likely been hundreds of prophets after all.

As far as I know, there have been more than +120,000 prophets existing in the whole history of mankind. I don't have the hadith for it, but I read it on a Muslim forum I trust very much.

What we know for sure is that Prophets have been sent to every race on the planet in the centuries before Muhammad's life. Every nation of Earth has received God's Word throughout time, making the count of Prophets probably run into the thousands.
Which also contradicts the Hebrew claim of being the uniquely chosen 'People of God'.

[Free Rhenish States]

As far as I know, there have been more than +120,000 prophets existing in the whole history of mankind. I don't have the hadith for it, but I read it on a Muslim forum I trust very much.

What we know for sure is that Prophets have been sent to every race on the planet in the centuries before Muhammad's life. Every nation of Earth has received God's Word throughout time, making the count of Prophets probably run into the thousands.
Which also contradicts the Hebrew claim of being the uniquely chosen 'People of God'.

Indeed.
This alone proves that our religion is strikingly different from Christianity and Judaism alike.

[Aelex]

Do you wonder why? Because it existed in the first century, if there is no Bible earlier than from the 4th century, then how can they prove something like that?
Nohow. And this goes both way, you don't have a proof that it existed, but you don't have a proof that it didn't exist, either. We Muslims have the Quran and believe it existed, regardless.

Now, I hope you know that while there was no Bible (as in the compiled Gospels and the Old Testament), it's an historical fact that said Gospels were all individually written from the 1st to the 2nd century so I really fail to see how that's proving anything there.
And while I have no problem with the Devil's proof in general, this particular use seems very dubious to me. If you have no further proof of the existence of a Gospel than a claim in a book that was written six century later by a source of another religion living far away and without access to any documentation on the subject while it was never mentionned even once in all the others direct christians sources neither before nor after that said claim was made, then I hope that you see no problems with me dismissing this claim of a Gospel of Jesus existing as baseless.

Aelex, that's a perfect bait, if you think of it. If you admit it, then the train of thought leads us to thinkming that since Muhammad (saw) didn't write the Quran (as you accept we don't have anything to do with it, so he had nothing ripped off), then it is in fact a God's writing. Haha.

If we accept that Islam has nothing to do with Christianity and Judaism, that don't lead us at all to think that Mahomet didn't wrote the Coran (I really don't see where this non-sequitur come from) and even less to think that God might have had anything to do with writing it.

Rather, if we follow this train of thought, that lead us to think that since Islam has no link with God's revealed religions that are Christianity and Judaism and in fact is completely contradictory of them despite reclaiming itself as being their "successor", then Mahomet was a false prophet, Allah is not God and Islam is an heresy at best and a sect at worst.