Is Jesus of Gospels a fiction, Jesus of Quran the reality?

[paarsurrey1]

Is Jesus of Gospels a fiction, Jesus of Quran the reality?

Regards

[Jagella]

Is Jesus of Gospels a fiction, Jesus of Quran the reality?

Regards

I'm not familiar with the Jesus of the Quran, but the gospel Jesus has an even chance of being fictional.

[paarsurrey1]

Is Jesus of Gospels a fiction, Jesus of Quran the reality?

Regards

I'm not familiar with the Jesus of the Quran, but the gospel Jesus has an even chance of being fictional.

Quran is not a voluminous book, it is about the size of four gospels bound in one book. It is not all about Jesus, only a portion of it. For Jesus in Quran one may like to read following chapters of Quran to have a fair idea of Jesus in Quran:

Holy Quran : Chapter 19: Maryam
https://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/s ... .php?ch=19

Holy Quran : Chapter 3: Aal-e-`Imran
https://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/s ... r.php?ch=3

Holy Quran : Chapter 5: Al-Ma'idah
https://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/s ... r.php?ch=5

Regards

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 5 by marco]

It is fairly certain that Jesus of the Quran is a fiction. The Arabic setting of Mary lying under a palm tree, then shaking the tree to get something to eat, giving birth to a boy who is immediately articulate is just plain silly, albeit amusing. Where are the camels?

The dignified, if fabricated NT account of Jesus in a humble setting is better on the ears.

Well, the birth narratives in Luke and Matthew may be less fanciful than what the Quran says, but they're still very fanciful. Magical stars leading astrologers to the baby Jesus doesn't sound very historical to me not to mention those angels singing in the night sky to shepherds. These tall tales permeate the New Testament. How anybody can take any of it to be historical is a question I have trouble answering.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 8 by Goose]

Very little history for Jesus? We have four ancient biographies all written within the first century. I could make a fairly strong case two of them were authored by eyewitnesses and the other two were written by people who knew eyewitnesses. That alone is a significant amount of history by comparison to a number of other ancient figures. Then there are the numerous remaining NT letters from Paul et al. We could further add to the mix letters from Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp not long after the close of the NT. Granted the biographical details of Jesus in these letters are limited but nonetheless represent evidence for Jesus. Then there’s the words from Josephus and Tacitus. All in all we have a rich historical record for Jesus. So why on earth you’d claim we have “very little history� for Jesus is quite beyond me.

What you're saying here might sound impressive at first blush, but upon closer examination it doesn't stand up. Paul openly admits that his "knowledge" of Jesus comes from revelations and not eyewitnesses or solid evidence. The four gospels suffer from the following problems as historical evidence:

• The Gospels don't name their sources, discuss those sources' merits, or explain why those sources are relied upon.
• The Gospels do not discuss their methods, the possibility of incorrect information, or the existence of non-polemical alternative accounts.
• They express no amazement at anything they report.
• They do not explain why they change what their sources say.
• The authors do not identify themselves or why they are qualified to relate the accounts they do.

So good try, but the historical view of Jesus is rapidly going out of fashion.

[marco]

(Mary) giving birth to a boy who is immediately articulate

One did not provide the verses in the context as requested, so I provide them here again:

Paarsurrey, I responded to your post with the appropriate verses. You amended your post 40 minutes AFTER I responded, and it would be miraculous had my response anticipated your amendments.

Be that as it may, your problem is with the adverb "immediately". You think, because I used it, the word should appear in the Quran. I was summarising the account of the birth of Jesus. Baby Jesus has been brought in his cradle and he speaks like an orator. It's the absurdity of this that I am commenting on, rather than whether immediately means a few minutes after or an hour after. It is incredible that you swallow the story of a new-born baby and concentrate on an adverb of time.

Here is baby Jesus in full Quranic flow:

"'I am the servant of Allah. He has given me the Gospel and ordained me a prophet. His blessing is upon me wherever I go, and He has commanded me to be steadfast in prayer and to give alms to the poor as long as I shall live. He has exhorted me to honour my mother and has purged me of vanity and wickedness. I was blessed on the day I was born, and blessed I shall be on the day of my death; and may peace be upon me on the day when I shall be raised to life.'

Your OP requires us to say which is more likely to be fictional: the baby of Bethlehem or one born under a palm tree, able to express his purpose with eloquence. The quote in blue gives a strong case for the Quranic Jesus being the fictional one. I find it rather amusing.

If you are still worrying about the word immediately, just take it as meaning "while he was still in his cradle", a phrase backed up by the Quran.

[marco]

Well, the birth narratives in Luke and Matthew may be less fanciful than what the Quran says, but they're still very fanciful. Magical stars leading astrologers to the baby Jesus doesn't sound very historical to me not to mention those angels singing in the night sky to shepherds. These tall tales permeate the New Testament. How anybody can take any of it to be historical is a question I have trouble answering.

That is fine; the background music in Bethlehem and the embroidery still leave us with a baby born into poverty. The implied richness, ethereally beyond, is perhaps a poetic way of expressing thoughts on the identity of the child. The Quranic account gives details of location, which is fair enough, firmly placing Jesus in an Arabic setting, which Muhammad was wise enough to do. But having Jesus, as a baby, talk eloquently, is clumsily intrusive and indicative of fiction which cannot be regarded as background music.

The OP asks us to choose which is more likely to be a fiction. The one in the Quran paints an absurd Jesus.

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 16 by marco]

That is fine; the background music in Bethlehem and the embroidery still leave us with a baby born into poverty. The implied richness, ethereally beyond, is perhaps a poetic way of expressing thoughts on the identity of the child.

I can historicize The Three Little Pigs the same way:

That is fine; the talking wolf and the pigs' house still leave us with three little pigs menaced by a hungry wolf. The implied wolf's exhaling so powerfully he can blow a house down, is perhaps a poetic way of expressing thoughts on the identity of the wolf and the pigs.

Not only that, but Three-Little-Pigs scholars have become skeptical that the wolf ever said: "I'll huff, and I'll puff, and I'll blow your house down!" Some of these scholars believe those words were placed into the mouth of the Big Bad Wolf by the followers of the Three Little Pigs to make the pigs look good and the wolf look bad.

These same scholars argue that there must be some historical truth to this story. The followers of the three little pigs would be way too embarrassed to make up a story of those pigs cowering in their house as they are menaced by the wolf. The story of their hiding from the wolf must be historical; there just was no house but a sty.

Now, although the vast majority of Three Little Pigs scholars assure us there was a big, bad wolf and three little pigs, some fringe crackpots are trying to say there never was a big, bad wolf nor three little pigs! These amateurs hold no positions at any accredited universities and rely on outdated sources to deny the historicity of the pigs and the wolf. These pig-and-wolf deniers have an agenda against belief in talking wolves and pigs living in their own houses. This prejudice has caused them to deny even the very historical reality of the wolf and the pigs. This pig-and-wolf denial is in the same league as holocaust denial and creationism. No serious pig-and-wolf scholar accepts their theory.

The OP asks us to choose which is more likely to be a fiction. The one in the Quran paints an absurd Jesus.

There are many "absurdities" about Jesus' birth and almost every other story about him in the New Testament. Getting back to his birth story; the time of year, the year, and the place of his birth are all historically questionable. For example, Herod, mentioned in Matthew 2:1 died in 4 BCE. However, Luke 2:2 says Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius in 6CE. These times cannot be reconciled. Either Luke or Matthew made up the time in which Jesus was born. I think they both made up their stories.

[JP Cusick]

I can historicize The Three Little Pigs the same way:

Not only that, but Three-Little-Pigs scholars have become skeptical that the wolf ever said: "I'll huff, and I'll puff, and I'll blow your house down!" Some of these scholars believe those words were placed into the mouth of the Big Bad Wolf by the followers of the Three Little Pigs to make the pigs look good and the wolf look bad.

These same scholars argue that there must be some historical truth to this story. The followers of the three little pigs would be way too embarrassed to make up a story of those pigs cowering in their house as they are menaced by the wolf. The story of their hiding from the wolf must be historical; there just was no house but a sty.

Now, although the vast majority of Three Little Pigs scholars assure us there was a big, bad wolf and three little pigs, some fringe crackpots are trying to say there never was a big, bad wolf nor three little pigs! These amateurs hold no positions at any accredited universities and rely on outdated sources to deny the historicity of the pigs and the wolf. These pig-and-wolf deniers have an agenda against belief in talking wolves and pigs living in their own houses. This prejudice has caused them to deny even the very historical reality of the wolf and the pigs. This pig-and-wolf denial is in the same league as holocaust denial and creationism. No serious pig-and-wolf scholar accepts their theory.

This analogy with "the 3 pigs and wolf" is really clever and well done.

I am not agreeing with that analogy - but it deserves my praise for being so clever.

There are many "absurdities" about Jesus' birth and almost every other story about him in the New Testament. Getting back to his birth story; the time of year, the year, and the place of his birth are all historically questionable. For example, Herod, mentioned in Matthew 2:1 died in 4 BCE. However, Luke 2:2 says Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius in 6CE. These times cannot be reconciled. Either Luke or Matthew made up the time in which Jesus was born. I think they both made up their stories.

There is a truth about the two (2) birth stories given in Matthew and the different version given in Luke, which is that the 2 stories are not part of the original writings.

According to scholars ( and I agree) we can clearly see the beginning of the synoptic Gospels aligning at Mark 1:2 and Matthew 3:1 and Luke 3:2, because that is where the synoptic problem begins = with John the Baptist.

The 2 birth stories given in Matthew and Luke are not a part of the synoptic problem, because the writing is significantly different from the text of both Matthew and of Luke, and the birth story in Matthew is given from the view of Joseph (but written in the third person narrative) while the Luke birth story is given from the female view of Mary and her cousin Elizabeth, so the two (2) birth stories have a different and unique origin which is unknown. There are clues and interesting hints in both birth stories but that is not for this discussion here.

The 2 birth stories are just seen as non professional and amateur accounts and they were not necessarily trying to be historically perfect, and it is believed that the 2 stories were one (1) attached to Matthew and the other to Luke independent of each other.

There is no reason to expect the elderly Joseph or the elderly Elizabeth to tell their story to a scribe writing and then get all the details correct and perfectly, and the Joseph version in Matthew has indications that it was an oral tradition long before being written into a document, while the Luke birth story is far more sophisticated writing.

[marco]

I can historicize The Three Little Pigs the same way

You may say you can but you didn't. You created a mess of words with no meaning that can be sensibly extracted. I have the same view as you about the Christmas story, but you don't assist your cause by presenting nonsense as parody.

On the other hand, if one is willing to discuss seriously and thoughtfully, there is a meaning to be extracted from angel choirs, gifts and shepherds. One need not take the account as factual as with Adam in his orchard.

Getting back to his birth story; the time of year, the year, and the place of his birth are all historically questionable. For example, Herod, mentioned in Matthew 2:1 died in 4 BCE. However, Luke 2:2 says Jesus was born during the census of Quirinius in 6CE. These times cannot be reconciled. Either Luke or Matthew made up the time in which Jesus was born. I think they both made up their stories.

Anyone who has spent half and hour on this topic is familiar with the statements you present as if they are shocking revelations. At least we are examining events from history here and separating fact from fiction. There is no absurdity - there may be contradiction. The Quranic account of the articulate baby Jesus is just absurd, with no excuse that it's background music.

My preference is for the Bethlehem tale. It does not mean I believe it. I will assume that your excursion into lupine-porcine tales was just an indication that you failed to understand completely what point was being made about the Christmas story. Perhaps you had already penned your reply before you finished reading. It's easy to do. Go well.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 4 by JP Cusick]

JP Cusick:
it is really just the people of Christianity who misunderstand the true Gospel of Jesus in the New Testament.

paarsurrey1:
I just want elaboration on, what is true Gospel of Jesus in the NT, please.
I mostly agree with the points mentioned by one in one's post.

What is this Gospel of Jesus? Does one mean the advent of Muhammad/Ahmad*- the corrective messenger/prophet of God Allah YHVH, please?

*Paraclete- the Spirit of Truth

Regards