"Salvation" and "Enlightenment"

  • Thread starter CobblersApprentice
  • Start date

muhammad_isa

Save Our Souls
Messages
3,319
Reaction score
703
Points
108
Location
Worcester UK
..This is my understanding of why he was executed - the Romans took a dim view of him riding into the city claiming kingship, challenging their puppet regimes in the region, and being followed by a partially armed retinue. You and everyone else are entitled to your own understanding, of course. There are many good and valid and interesting ways to understand the texts.

The Qur'an states that it only appeared that Jesus was crucified.
That doesn't necessarily mean that he wasn't strung on the cross .. it could mean that he didn't die on it.
The Romans weren't concerned about Jesus, but the Jews were. They plotted to kill him, just as Muhammad's tribe plotted to kill him.
 

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,655
Reaction score
2,766
Points
108
That's what I said .. you think that the Qura'n is not a Divine Revelation .. you think it's the same as the Bible i.e. A collection of scrolls by different authors.
Nope. I believe the Bible is Revelation.

You are confusing what people claim, and what Almighty God claims in the Qur'an..
Er, I rather think you are reading what one person believes and what you believe as being substantially different. It's not.

I believe the Bible is Revelation because God says so.
You believe the Qur'an is Revelation because God says so.
See ... ?

No it isn't! How do you know that it has not been corrupted over time?
Science and scholarship has really disproved those who claim it has been. The comparison of the various texts in existence, the writings of the Church Fathers who quote extensively from Scripture, the Qmran finds ... in all this evidence, there is nothing that indicates a significant difference in the text, let alone signs of corruption ...

Now, you may say that the same could be said about the Qur'an, but it cannot
Actually, the idea that the Qur'an was edited by one person and the authorised version produced is not at all accurate and discreetly overlooks a number of issues regarding the source material. There is a huge amount of scholarship that challenges the given narrative of its origin (see wiki, for example).

In short, there is ample reason and evidence to doubt the Qur'an. I'm not saying it's fake, I'm not saying it's not Revelation, I'm simply saying in my belief, on evidence, that:
A) The Qur'an is not free of error, nor was its formation as clean and simple as Moslem PR would have us believe. That's not to say it's corrupted, but simply that the idea that it is preserved free of error (as Inerrant Christians assert of the Bible) is somewhat a romantic and rose-tinted view.

B) With regard to Christianity, two further points:
B1) The narrative stories of Jesus were spurious and dismissed by early authorities. Remember that Mary, His mother, was at the heart of the church (Luke got his narrative stories directly from her). These fictional narratives did not emerge until centuries later, and had no provenance.
B2) The Christians in the Prophet's (pbuh) world were Docetists, and the Docetists believed that it was not Christ, but another, who was crucified in His place. Again, science and scholarship has dismissed this error, but apparently the Prophet (pbuh) received this information from Docetic sources, which his followers assumed to be from the Angel.

There is evidence of material in the Qur'an that has pre-Islamic Christian origins. The selection and upbringing of Mary parallels much of the Protovangelium of James, with the miracle of the palm tree and the stream of water being found in the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew. In Pseudo-Matthew, the flight to Egypt is narrated similarly to how it is found in Islamic lore, and the infancy tales in the Protoevangelium of James and The Infancy Story of Thomas.

Regarding the Qur'an:
According to the Tradition, the Prophet recited perfectly what the archangel Gabriel revealed to him and this was memorised by his companions.

Muslims are taught that text today corresponds exactly to that spoken by the Prophet between 610–632.

Early Arabic script transcribed 28 consonants, of which only 6 can be readily distinguished, the remaining 22 can only be determined by context. It was only with the introduction of Arabic diacritics centuries later, that the authorised version of the text was issued.

The precise way to read the verses of the sacred text were not fixed even in the day of the Prophet. Two men disputing a verse asked a third to mediate, and he came up with a third reading. To resolve the question, the three went to Muhammad.
He asked first man to read out the verse, and announced it was correct.
He made the same response when the second alternative reading was delivered.
When he heard the third version, he pronounced it correct.
Noting their perplexity, Muhammad then told him, "Pray to God for protection from the accursed Satan."

So there is no 'authorised' reading of the text.

In Muir's The Life of Mahomet the author was researching the 9th century Imam Al-Bukhari:
"Reliance upon oral traditions, at a time when they were transmitted by memory alone, and every day produced new divisions among the professors of Islam, opened up a wide field for fabrication and distortion. There was nothing easier, when required to defend any religious or political system, than to appeal to an oral tradition of the Prophet. The nature of these so-called traditions, and the manner in which the name of Muhammad was abused to support all possible lies and absurdities, may be gathered most clearly from the fact that Al-Bukhari who travelled from land to land to gather from the learned the traditions they had received, came to conclusion, after many years sifting, that out of 600,000 traditions, ascertained by him to be then current, only 4000 were authentic!" (my emphasis)

According to contemporary sources, there was no single compiled book by the time of Muhammad's death.

I can't view your profile, but I assume that you are a Christian.
Worse than that ... Catholic!

I believe what Jesus is reported to have said as being the truth eg. the synoptic gospels
I was raised a Christian, and am very thankful for my education
So way I, and frankly am appalled by general Christian education. I embarked on years of the study of comparative religion, and later did a degree in Catholic theology.

I have no axe to grind with Islam, and I'm not saying the Qur'an is not revealed ... just not all of it ... my primary interest is in the human struggle towards God, and I see the Bible as a story of emergence along that path.

As a metaphysician I dispute 'successive revelation' — Truth is Eternal and One, and no amount of contemporary language will make it more accessible. It is the role of theologians to 'unpack' the message and bring it to life, as it were.
 

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,655
Reaction score
2,766
Points
108
... and secondly, you would have us believe that they tried to kill/crucify Jesus because they thought he was not Holy? Ha :) Pontius Pilate thought he was .. and so did Herod along with John the Baptist
Er, no ... I don't know where you got that idea from ... the reasoning of the crucifixion is quite clear, it was political.
 

Thomas

Administrator
Admin
Messages
12,655
Reaction score
2,766
Points
108
Most Christians claim that the OT is superseded .. that is a huge topic that needs its own thread.
Yes ... but not 'most Christians' ... from what I am told, most Christians in the US pay more attention to the OT than the NT!

The Romans did NOT think that He was a threat to them .. Jesus was a peacefiul person, and not stirring up rebellion.
I'm sorry, but this is factually wrong.

The Roman occupation of Jerusalem was a 'poisoned chalice', the Jews were the most dangerous and difficult people in the Empire, which was why they alone were allowed to perform their own religious rituals and not observe the Roman state religion. Any Jewish disturbance was a threat to Roman rule. The Sanhedrin wanted Jesus out of the way because they feared a popular uprising and a subsequent Roman response ... Pilate wanted nothing to do with it because he didn't want to create a populist martyr ... he was 'obliged' by the Sanhedrin to act because they threatened to appeal to Rome that their procurator was not being sufficiently robust in his dealings with criminals ...
 

steveb1

Member
Messages
21
Reaction score
4
Points
3
How would others here distinguish between "Salvation" and "Enlightenment"? If at all.

Thank you

In my Jodo Shinshu/Shin Buddhist faith, both go together, the idea being that Amitabha Buddha's merit and grace confer salvation (not from sin but from avidya or ignorance) and on our birth in the Pure Land, will vivify our hitherto dormant Buddha Nature and we ourselves will become Enlightened ones: Buddhas.
 
Top