Well, yeah. But this is discusing a historical episode.
One thing that must always be remembered about Islam, is that its personages, while still obviously having legendary attributes and experiences, are considerably more “historical” than most of those in to OT and NT, such as (say) Jesus. In his own lifetime, Mohammed was a considerable military and civic leader. As a historical figure, there is no reason to understand him only through the eyes of his co-religionists - and his relationship with other religions during his lifetime is a perfect example of why.
It appears to be the case that Mohammed hoped to recruit extensively for his new faith from among the Jewish tribes of Medina - who were a power in that city. This hope obviously failed. The reasons why it failed have been bedeviling Muslim-Jewish relations (and more generally muslim-non muslim relations) ever since - according to the Muslim accounts, in which of course the Prophet is in the right, it is because of the “treason” of the Jewish tribes; together with their mockery and humiliation of Muslims in general and the Prophet in particular, this totally justified their treatment at Muslim hands - i.e., massacre, expulsion or enslavement. According to the (perhaps more historic) account, it is because Jews have no-where been disposed to join new religions, and the Prophet made a deliberate power-play to exterminate possible rivals.
The reason this obscure episode is significant, is that the doings of Mohammed in Medina have formed a pattern for acceptable Muslim behaviour ever since: how this episode is interpreted forms a part of the religious/political basis for the interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims.
I, as an enlightened Christian, Doper, and seeker of knowledge, have tried to learn as much as I can about the world around me, including what others believe, since I have not experienced their religion. Over the years I felt I’ve pretty much nailed down what Muslims do and do not believe about Jesus, and the answers in this thread (especially from the Muslims themselves (or is it just Angua?)) are spot on, but this was the first I heard that the Muslims believe in the Virgin Birth.
Knowing what I know about what the Muslims believe in with regards to Jesus, I’m not surprised, but I’m wondering what exactly they believe in that regard. Christians believe the Virgin Birth is how Jesus got his divinity: as a man and a woman is needed to make a baby, the woman was human and the man was God himself. Therefore Mary could claim to be a virgin as she had not had sex with a human male. (Although, every time I think of the Virgin Birth I really have to wonder how much more painful giving birth was for her if her hymen was still intact (and no doctors present). Yikes!) I assume that Islam also believes that it takes a man and a woman to make a baby (that’s pretty much a universal belief right there ), like Christians they believe the woman was Mary. But, if they too believe she has not had sex with a human man (making it a “Virgin Birth”), how did Mary become pregnant in Islamic theology? (to spell it out, since I don’t think it has been explicitly stated in the thread yet, Islam does not believe that God can have a Son, such a thought is blasphemy). If Jesus isn’t God’s Son, then who’s son is he?
The story in the Qur’an is not that different from the story in Matthew. An angel (Gabriel) appears to Mary and tells her she will conceive a son. Mary asks how this is possible since “no man has touched me,” and the angel says God has ordained it as a sign. Then she gets pregnant.
Mary’s. He has no father at all. He was a special creation of God. In Islam, the comparison is made to Adam and Eve who were simply created by God, and had no parents, but were not divine and were not any kind of literal children of God.
Wasn’t there a lot about how Jesus would be a descendant of King David? As far as I recall, Mary was not known to be a descentant of David. I believe the book of Matthew traces the line from David to Joseph.
But if Joseph wasn’t Jesus’ father then that lineage is irrelevant and Jesus isn’t a descendant of David.
/Not Christian. Not a bible scholar. I’m probably missing something simple…
You are correct. It’s a legit contradiction, at least in terms of Jewish tradition. Christian apologists generally try to defend it by saying that Luke traces Jesus’ descendancy through Mary (which it doesn’t, and matrilineal descendancy doesn’t count for Jewish royal bloodlines anyway) or that Jesus somehow adopted the birthright through Joseph (which is not actually possible in Jewish law).
It’s a legitimate problem without a good solution, but then Jesus didn’t fulfill any of the other expectations for the Jewish Messiah either.
I guess it’s probably easiest just to say that Jewish and Christian conceptions of the Messiah are very different regarding qualifications and expectations.
I think it’s also because we have a sui generis situation here. I mean, when you’ve got a person with just one blood parent (and that one is not the one from which genealogies are usually traced), you’re kind of working in unknown territory here.
You are missing the point. Mohammed invented a new Jesus, who is a prophet and not a nutcase.
The Christian Jesus, claiming to be God incarnate, is blaspheming according to Islam (Qur’an 5:17). This is not an issue of minor theological nuance. Mohammed’s is a totally different, non-divine, reinvented Jesus, and he’s different in such a fundamentally profound way that the Christian Jesus nust be either a liar or psychotic*.
In the same way, Christian theology considers that either Mohammed is lying about his revelations from God, or is a psychotic who believed his revelations.
This is why it’s so disingenous to pretend that “Muslims believe in Jesus.” Not the Christian Jesus, they don’t.
*Psychotic because he is unable to separate reality from delusions about being the Son of God incarnate. In layman’s terms, a nutcase.
Perhaps you could translate–or at least explain–Qur’an 5:17 to us if we are talking about the same God. Or is it the case you don’t think it’s a fundamental tenet of Christianity that Jesus is God incarnate?
The verse where the Koran (and by Muslim tradition, God) says that no, Jesus was the son of a woman, a highly exalted Prophet, but not divine, and anyone saying so is blasphemous? In Islamic belief, the whole “son of God” thing is a mis-transmission through the ages (man is not perfect after all) and the Koran was an attempt to put things right. Nonetheless, Christians are still seen as People of the Book in Islam, and not people who followed some nutjob. But that’s just my interpretation, and I’m no religious scholar or anything like that.
Or, more accurately, “a translation of what the Koran says”, unless Stoid reads classical Arabic.
It’s not the actual, holy Koran if it is translated, at least according to believers. All the copies of the Koran here in Indonesia, intended for non-Arabic speaking faithful, have the original Arabic on one side with an Indonesian translation on the facing page.
Why yes, that would be the verse (Qur’an 5:17)!
The verse where Mohammed, “putting things right,” says that to call Jesus divine is blasphemy. Every new inventor of religion tries to “put things right,” don’t they? And in this case, what Mohammed and Islam “put right” is the demotion of the Christian Jesus (God Incarnate, to Christians)–back to a Regular Prophet. Blasphemy, to Christians, as it turns out.
Which is why Muslims do not believe in the Christian Jesus. They believe in their own Jesus, who is an entirely different, and entirely human, Jesus.
I feel like you are finally catching on to the difference between marketing (“We all believe in the same God”) and fact (“They are totally different Gods”).
May I suggest a little more religious scholarship before you post a reply to a factual question about what religious scholarship holds as a core tenet?
:rolleyes: So, I’m to ignore all the other verses in the Koran where Christians and Jews are said to be the People of the Book, and where the God of Islam is identified as the God of Abraham, Moses and Jesus?
There was nothing new about this perception of Jesus. Mohammed didn’t “invent” it.
Muslims believe the Christian Jesus is the same as theirs, only that Christian believers were given false information about him. They don’t believe there is another “Christian Jesus” who was a liar or a psychotic, they believe Jesus’ followers distorted him themselves. If I believe Elvis was an avatar of Shiva and you don’t, that doesn’t mean we’re talking about different Elvises. just different perceptions of the same Elvis.
By that standard then the Jehova’s Witnesses don’t “believe in Jesus” either.
I got it that there may be an actual historical person with varying assertions about him. That historical Jesus, and the debate around who is correct with respect to that is not the debate here, and to pretend otherwise is silly.
Christendom–however you want to define it–came up with the notion that Jesus was God Incarnate as a central tenet for Christianity. That Christian Jesus was Divine. He was part of the Trinity. That’s the “Christian Jesus” that has stood at the center of Christianity since the Nicene creed, at least. To pretend otherwise is highly disingenuous, and to pretend that a belief in some other non-divine iteration of the historical Jesus is a belief in the Jesus of Christianity is wrong because Divinity is not some sort of theological fine point. We are talking about totally different Elvises. One is a human being. One is God. Naming the both “Elvis” doesn’t mean it’s the same belief with simply a minor variation.
You are correct that the Jesus of the Jehovah’s Witnesess is not the same Jesus as the Jesus for the vast bulk of Christianity. For the same reason as the Muslims, it would be linguistic fraud for Jehovah’s Witnesses to say “We also believe in Jesus” and leave unsaid the fundamental differences.
Perhaps a better wording is “We have a Jesus in our theology.”
), like Christians they believe the woman was Mary. But, if they too believe she has not had sex with a human man (making it a “Virgin Birth”), how did Mary become pregnant in Islamic theology? (to spell it out, since I don’t think it has been explicitly stated in the thread yet, Islam does not believe that God can have a Son, such a thought is blasphemy). If Jesus isn’t God’s Son, then who’s son is he?