Wasn't Jesus a Muslim, please?

[paarsurrey1]

Wasn't Jesus a Muslim, please?

JP Cusick wrote Post 18*:

That Jesus obeyed the Father does not in any way take away His free will to choose otherwise.

I agree with one. When Jesus was chosen a prophet/messenger of One-True-God by Him, Jesus had already on his free-will became a "submitter to God" or a Muslim in this sense. Jesus expressed that he was one with God, on his free-will, never forced by God. Had Jesus not obeyed God's commandment, he would have suffered like Jonah, to Jonah he himself pegged. Right, please?

Regards

_________
*Post 18: "Did Christ have free will?"Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma

[JP Cusick]

[Replying to JP Cusick]
Jesus was from the region of Galilee, making him Judean. He worshiped the Jewish God at the Jewish Temple, taught from the Jewish scriptures in the Jewish Synagogues, based his ethics on Jewish teachings and for the most part kept the Jewish law.

I do not understand how you can claim he was not Judean or that he did not practice Judaism.

Again, if you want to say that Jesus was a muslim then you will need to use a lower case “m�. Capitalizing the word changes its meaning.

I did make it quite clear in my comment, but I am happy to try again.

And using upper or lower case "m" for Muslim is just cosmetic.

Galilee was a province to itself and rather far from Judea, see here MAP, and Jesus was called a "Nazarene" because Jesus came from Nazareth in the area of Galilee - not Judea.

Joseph and Mary had to travel to Jerusalem because of the Roman census in order for Jesus to be born in Jerusalem.

And the Jewish people at that time rejected Jesus as violating the Jewish religion, and specifically breaking the Jewish laws - Jesus kept God's laws yes but did not keep the Jewish laws, and it is not accurate to view the Old Testament as being the Jewish scriptures, because "Hebrew and Israel" do not mean Jewish as that is a wrong interpretation.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to JP Cusick]
Jesus was from the region of Galilee, making him Judean. He worshiped the Jewish God at the Jewish Temple, taught from the Jewish scriptures in the Jewish Synagogues, based his ethics on Jewish teachings and for the most part kept the Jewish law.

I do not understand how you can claim he was not Judean or that he did not practice Judaism.

Again, if you want to say that Jesus was a muslim then you will need to use a lower case “m�. Capitalizing the word changes its meaning.

I did make it quite clear in my comment, but I am happy to try again.

And using upper or lower case "m" for Muslim is just cosmetic.

Galilee was a province to itself and rather far from Judea, see here MAP, and Jesus was called a "Nazarene" because Jesus came from Nazareth in the area of Galilee - not Judea.

Joseph and Mary had to travel to Jerusalem because of the Roman census in order for Jesus to be born in Jerusalem.

And the Jewish people at that time rejected Jesus as violating the Jewish religion, and specifically breaking the Jewish laws - Jesus kept God's laws yes but did not keep the Jewish laws, and it is not accurate to view the Old Testament as being the Jewish scriptures, because "Hebrew and Israel" do not mean Jewish as that is a wrong interpretation.

I agree with friend JP Cusick here.

There was no upper case or lower case distinction in Jesus' times or Moses' times, it started centuries later. Even nowadays many languages don't use it.
Jesus was more a Muslim, in the use and sense of an upper case or a lower case, than he was a Jew or a Christian. Jesus neither belonged to the tribe of Judah, so, strictly speaking, he was not a Jew in that sense, he was neither a Christian, as this terms he never used, and it was started by Paul an enemy of Jesus, his character, and his teachings, please.

Regards

[bjs]

I did make it quite clear in my comment, but I am happy to try again.

And using upper or lower case "m" for Muslim is just cosmetic.

Galilee was a province to itself and rather far from Judea, see here MAP, and Jesus was called a "Nazarene" because Jesus came from Nazareth in the area of Galilee - not Judea.

Joseph and Mary had to travel to Jerusalem because of the Roman census in order for Jesus to be born in Jerusalem.

And the Jewish people at that time rejected Jesus as violating the Jewish religion, and specifically breaking the Jewish laws - Jesus kept God's laws yes but did not keep the Jewish laws, and it is not accurate to view the Old Testament as being the Jewish scriptures, because "Hebrew and Israel" do not mean Jewish as that is a wrong interpretation.

I understand the value of cosmetics, but in this case it makes the term inaccurate. A pretty falsehood is still a falsehood, and if we use an upper case “M� in “Muslim� then it is false to say that Jesus was a Muslim.

Jesus was from Nazareth in Galilee. Definitions are fluid, but Galilee is generally considered to be part of Judea at that time. However, the point is of little value sense Jews were spread throughout the known world at that time

While Jesus was ultimately rejected by the Jewish leadership at that time, this rejection was predicated on the idea that he was a Jew and could therefore be rejected from Judaism. Jesus did claim authority of the law and provided new interpretations on some of it, but for the most he did keep the Jewish laws and instructed others to do so. Jews often referred to Jesus as “Rabbi,� a specifically Jewish title.

While many Rabbis did expand on the law, the Old testament – what Jews call the Tanakh – was the center of the Jewish scripture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh

[bjs]

I agree with friend JP Cusick here.

There was no upper case or lower case distinction in Jesus' times or Moses' times, it started centuries later. Even nowadays many languages don't use it.
Jesus was more a Muslim, in the use and sense of an upper case or a lower case, than he was a Jew or a Christian. Jesus neither belonged to the tribe of Judah, so, strictly speaking, he was not a Jew in that sense, he was neither a Christian, as this terms he never used, and it was started by Paul an enemy of Jesus, his character, and his teachings, please.

Regards

We are not writing in Jesus’ time or Moses time. We are writing in modern English. If we capitalize the “M� in muslim then we then we are saying that Jesus was part of the religion Islam, which is false.

All the available sources from the time of Jesus life say that he was born in the tribe of Judah and he practiced the Jewish religion during his life. I think that you have will to provide some extremely strong evidence to show the sources from Jesus life time are false. On the surface it appears that any claim that he was not a Jew during his lifetime is a later fiction.

[JP Cusick]

Jesus was from Nazareth in Galilee. Definitions are fluid, but Galilee is generally considered to be part of Judea at that time.

You keep repeating that same claim but it will never become accurate or true.

The area of Galilee was never ever (never ever) a part of Judea and it was not under Jewish control.

Today the area of Galilee is controlled by the Jewish State only because they have stolen the land from the Palestinians.

And the first time the Jews are mentioned in the Bible then they are at war with Israel, see 2 Kings 16:5-7, so making claims is far different then speaking true.

Jesus was called the Nazarene because He was from Nazareth, and Jesus was rejected by the Jews because He did not preach the Jewish religion, and the Jews can claim the Old Testament as their own but the Hebrew Testament is not Jewish.

The word Muslim or muslim means a person who submits to God, and there is evidence that Jesus spoke in the Semitic language of Aramaic (similar to Hebrew) and so Jesus would have called God by the name of Allah - which is the Aramaic version of Elohim.

[paarsurrey1]

Jesus was from Nazareth in Galilee. Definitions are fluid, but Galilee is generally considered to be part of Judea at that time.

You keep repeating that same claim but it will never become accurate or true.

The area of Galilee was never ever (never ever) a part of Judea and it was not under Jewish control.

Today the area of Galilee is controlled by the Jewish State only because they have stolen the land from the Palestinians.

And the first time the Jews are mentioned in the Bible then they are at war with Israel, see 2 Kings 16:5-7, so making claims is far different then speaking true.

Jesus was called the Nazarene* because He was from Nazareth, and Jesus was rejected by the Jews because He did not preach the Jewish religion, and the Jews can claim the Old Testament as their own but the Hebrew Testament is not Jewish.

The word Muslim or muslim means a person who submits to God, and there is evidence that Jesus spoke in the Semitic language of Aramaic (similar to Hebrew) and so Jesus would have called God by the name of Allah - which is the Aramaic version of Elohim.

I agree with one here and like the post.

Jesus was called theNazarene*

It is one aspect of this that Quran names the truthful followers of Jesus as naṣr�ni- singlur , and naṣ�r�- plural:

AYAH al-Imran 3:67 - Quran
Turansliteration :Ma kana ibraheemu yahoodiyyan wala nasraniyyan walakin kana haneefan musliman wama kana mina almushrikeena

"Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian , but* he was one inclining toward truth, a Muslim [submitting to Allah]. And he was not of the polytheists."
http://corpus.quran.com/wordmorphology. ... n=(3:67:6)
* or naṣr�ni-yyan, the plural of which is naṣ�r�

Regards

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 16 by paarsurrey1]

Just to add to post 16 above:

I just stated that I and all Muslims sincerely believe. There was no intention to injure anybody's religious sentiments/feelings, please.

Regards

[bjs]

Jesus was from Nazareth in Galilee. Definitions are fluid, but Galilee is generally considered to be part of Judea at that time.

You keep repeating that same claim but it will never become accurate or true.

The area of Galilee was never ever (never ever) a part of Judea and it was not under Jewish control.

Nearly every reputable historian agrees that Galilee was under Jewish control for hundreds of years.

It is almost universally agreed that Galilee was part of Israel until the Assyrian invasion in the 8th century BC, and then the Hasmoneans gained control of it near the end of the 2nd century or beginning of the 1st century BC. Josephus described the boundaries of Jewish control of Galilee in the first century, and archaeology in the area has shown a distinctly Jewish lifestyle in Galilee at that time.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Galilee-region-Israel

http://www.encyclopedia.com/places/asia ... hy/galilee

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galilee

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... lilee.html

http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/vie ... 1-0043.xml

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ ... 180957515/

And the first time the Jews are mentioned in the Bible then they are at war with Israel, see 2 Kings 16:5-7, so making claims is far different then speaking true.

2 Kings 16:5-7 refers to the divided kingdom, when the northern kingdom of Judah was at war against the southern kingdom of Judah. Judaism in the modern sense of the word did not exist at that time. Modern Judaism came into existence during Babylonian exile in fifth century. Both the northern and southern kingdoms claimed to be followers of the God of Abraham, and the author of 1 & 2 Kings treats them equally as Israelites. The King James uses the word “Jews� where the Hebrew text says “men of Judah.�

Jesus was called the Nazarene because He was from Nazareth, and Jesus was rejected by the Jews because He did not preach the Jewish religion, and the Jews can claim the Old Testament as their own but the Hebrew Testament is not Jewish.

This flies in the face of all common sense and available evidence. What exactly makes the Hebrew Testament “not Jewish�?

The word Muslim or muslim means a person who submits to God, and there is evidence that Jesus spoke in the Semitic language of Aramaic (similar to Hebrew) and so Jesus would have called God by the name of Allah - which is the Aramaic version of Elohim.

The word “muslim� is a capitonym, which means capitalizing the first letter changes the meaning of the word. It is like “march� and “March.� The former means to walk in a military manner with a regular measured tread. The latter is the third month of the year.

In this instance, “muslim� means one who submits (to God), while “Muslim� means a member of the religion Islam. One could argue that Jesus was the former, but he was certainly not the latter.

[JP Cusick]

It is almost universally agreed that Galilee was part of Israel until the Assyrian invasion in the 8th century BC, ...

Josephus described the boundaries of Jewish control of Galilee in the first century, and archaeology in the area has shown a distinctly Jewish lifestyle in Galilee at that time.

I agree that Galilee was part of Israel, but it was not under Judean or Jewish control.

The words Israel and Jewish do not mean the same thing, and they are not the same people.

Again = the first time the Jews are mentioned in the Bible then they are at war with Israel, see 2 Kings 16:5-7.

So no - Israel is not Jewish.

I do know that the modern Jewish State claims to be "Israel" but they are not.

The King James uses the word “Jews� where the Hebrew text says “men of Judah.�

Yes, exactly.

Men of Judah against the people of Israel.

What exactly makes the Hebrew Testament “not Jewish�?

That is because "Hebrew" does not mean Jewish.

The name of "Hebrews" means something like "wanderers" and they appear in history centuries before there ever was a Judea or a Jewish people.

The claim that Abraham or Isaac or Jacob were Jewish is factually inaccurate and untrue.

Again - I do understand that many people look to the Jewish State as fulfilling the Prophesy of Israel, and it is just another wrong belief on top of many other wrong beliefs.

In this instance, “muslim� means one who submits (to God), while “Muslim� means a member of the religion Islam. One could argue that Jesus was the former, but he was certainly not the latter.

I really see this as just a matter of semantics and more importantly about one's own perspective and attitude.

For a person like myself who sees all of humanity as the children of God then I am open to including all people under the same God as my brethren and siblings.

I would agree with you to be accurate if I agreed to submit my view under the dictionary Gods, or the Gods of grammar and linguistics.

So yes you are correct in the very limited view of upper and lower case, but spiritually and religiously pertaining to the real God then your limits are restricting your view.

[bjs]

It is almost universally agreed that Galilee was part of Israel until the Assyrian invasion in the 8th century BC, ...

Josephus described the boundaries of Jewish control of Galilee in the first century, and archaeology in the area has shown a distinctly Jewish lifestyle in Galilee at that time.

I agree that Galilee was part of Israel, but it was not under Judean or Jewish control.

The words Israel and Jewish do not mean the same thing, and they are not the same people.

While the words Israel and Jewish do not mean the same thing, virtually every respected historian agrees that Galilee, along with the rest of Israel, was a Jewish nation in the first century. The people in Galilee at that time, including Jesus, were Jewish.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Galilee-region-Israel

http://www.encyclopedia.com/places/asia ... hy/galilee

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... lilee.html

http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/vie ... o-97801953...

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ ... 180957515/

Again = the first time the Jews are mentioned in the Bible then they are at war with Israel, see 2 Kings 16:5-7.

Again, 2 Kings 16:5-7 refers to the divided kingdom, when the northern kingdom of Judah was at war against the southern kingdom of Israel. Judaism in the modern sense of the word did not exist at that time. Neither side was “Jewish.� Both sides were Israelites.

What exactly makes the Hebrew Testament “not Jewish�?

That is because "Hebrew" does not mean Jewish.

The name of "Hebrews" means something like "wanderers" and they appear in history centuries before there ever was a Judea or a Jewish people.

The claim that Abraham or Isaac or Jacob were Jewish is factually inaccurate and untrue.

Again - I do understand that many people look to the Jewish State as fulfilling the Prophesy of Israel, and it is just another wrong belief on top of many other wrong beliefs.

It is true that “Hebrew� does not mean Jewish. This in no way affects that fact that Tanakh are the Jewish scriptures. They were written partially by Jews, collected together largely by Jew, and they were Jewish scriptures before there was Christianity or Islam.

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were not Jews. Nor were they Christians or Muslims. They served the living God before any of those religions existed.

The nation of Israel, or what prophesies people attach to it, have no bearing on this discussion and hold no interest for me.

As of yet we have no reason to doubt the well-founded fact that the Tanakh (or Old Testament) are the Jewish scriptures.

In this instance, “muslim� means one who submits (to God), while “Muslim� means a member of the religion Islam. One could argue that Jesus was the former, but he was certainly not the latter.

I really see this as just a matter of semantics and more importantly about one's own perspective and attitude.

For a person like myself who sees all of humanity as the children of God then I am open to including all people under the same God as my brethren and siblings.

I would agree with you to be accurate if I agreed to submit my view under the dictionary Gods, or the Gods of grammar and linguistics.

So yes you are correct in the very limited view of upper and lower case, but spiritually and religiously pertaining to the real God then your limits are restricting your view.

It is semantics, though it has nothing to do with one’s perspective. The opening post used the word muslim as “submitter to God� as a central part of the question. That itself is a semantic point, since it is only accurate to say that Jesus was musilm if we use the word in a way that is different than how most people use the word today.