Jesus a Muslim??

Aside from the stunning anachronism in the "very qualified" claim that "Jesus was a Muslim" and the traction Muslim apologists may gain from the phrase (noting the above link to an ostensibly Muslim website), the hinges seem to be (1) whether the record of Jesus' teaching about social justice and the teachings about "social justice" in the Quran (and perhaps Hadith) can be reconciled and (2) whether Jesus' life and works can be characterized as one of "social justice" ... or if "social justice" reduces the life and work of Jesus to one of its parts.

As to the first "hinge," one suspects Shedinger has done some a service in highlighting similarities between calls for social justice between Jesus and Muslims, yet at the same time, one also suspects the author has been selective in the use of evidence in order to advance a personal agenda about social justice. At least there lies a danger in the book's evident approach.

As to the latter hinge (although admittedly I have not read the book), probably Jesus in the book is removed somewhat from the messianic "baggage" of sacred history, notably from Jesus as the unique Son and Lamb of G-d. If all one sees in Jesus is a teacher of social justice, one may not have been fully aware of the source of authority for social justice, nor felt the sting of personal guilt at one's own offenses against that authority, nor sought refuge in that authority against just divine wrath ... ironically in context, unlike Martin Luther.

From Robert F. Shedinger's introductory pages to Was Jesus a Muslim? (on Amazon):

"[R]eligious ... experiences whereby a person feels that he or she is connected to or in the presence of a dimension of reality transcending the physical world of time and space" (p. 6).

"I believed that specific religions ... are human attempts to respond to this religious experience in culturally relevant ways" (p. 6).

"We need a global movement of solidarity to emerge between Muslim and Christian, a movement with promise to promote a just world order" (p. 12).

"Despite areas of scriptural overlap ... Jesus stands more as a point of contradiction than commonality between the two traditions" (p. 13).

"Would [Jesus] find more sympathy with his Muslim or with his Christian portrayal? Christians generally will reply that the historical Jesus would find the Christian portrayal of him--the risen Christ sent to earth in the form of God's unique Son to redeem the sins of humanity--as the one most consistent with his historical identity. But I question this." (p. 12).

Naturally the above quotes do not entirely do justice to the book, but I think they are suggestive (despite the odd grammar and misrepresentations of the last citation) and seem to confirm somewhat my earlier suspicions (above).

visionary said:

I think the author needs to meet and talk with a Messianic.. to see the Jewishness of Yeshua.

Click to expand...

Agreed ... and the "messianic-ness" of the Jew Yeshua, though from what I have seen (see my quotes above), I suspect the author is not interested in letting certain historical facts or Scripture records get in the way of his agenda.

I doubt the (former) head professor of the Christian religion is wholly unaware of the evidence for the Jewishness (or "messianic-ness") of Yeshua. Yeshua is useful to the author to the point he can be made to serve his agenda.

God had not given the "second generation" Israelites, a generation that had witnessed the great works of G-d in Egypt, a "heart to understand or eyes to see or ears to hear" to the very day of which Deuteronomy 29:4 speaks. Perhaps something like that is going on here--perhaps in greater manner. This is not to say the Israelites understood nothing about the G-d of their fathers, I think, nor that Schedinger's agenda is wholly misguided. It is to suggest at least in the latter case that the cross hairs have meandered from center.

The 'Isa( muslim Jesus) of the quran is NOT the Y'shua/Jesus of the Bible. Muhammed & later islamic quran writers had a totally garbled understanding of the Bible. Firstly they call Jesus 'Isa a name which is entomologically incorrect. 'Isa is a corruption of the Greek Ieousus ( Jesus) & is actually closer to the name Esau. Arabic Christians ( except former muslims) dont call Jesus 'Isa , they call Him Yasuo' a name closer to Y'shua. The quran claims Jesus was not crucified, but appeared to be. This is found not in the bible but in the heretical gnostic gospels.

Any claim that Jesus was anything other than the Jewish Messiah as the Bible tells us is totally false!

sur said:

College Professor: 'Jesus Was a Muslim' - Religion - Fox Nation

=

=

WAS JESUS A MUSLIM? By ROBERT F. SHEDINGER - YouTube

Click to expand...

visionary said:

Interesting that the author is a Jew.

My thoughts is why should anyone try to make this type of connection.

Click to expand...

Perhaps just trying to stir the pot a bit between Judaism and Islam?

...

In the doctrine of Islam, from Adam nearly all famous people in Bible were Muslim, certainly including Yeshua, and in the end all religions will go back to Islam.

And in Judaism, Christianity and Islam are also two reasonable ways for Gentiles to know God. (<<Mishnah Torah-&#8211;Kings and Wars>>11:4) .So I guess the professor thought Yeshua and Mohammed had some similar Characters.

This law() was also a foundation to build a Chinese Judaism & Christianity relationship web group, in which the law() was written. And the group was administered by J&C&MJ.
http://www.douban.com/group/299205/?ref=1&_r=1731764765505779486

Yusuphhai said:

In the doctrine of Islam, from Adam nearly all famous people in Bible were Muslim, certainly including Yeshua, and in the end all religions will go back to Islam.

And in Judaism, Christianity and Islam are also two reasonable ways for Gentiles to know God. (<<Mishnah Torah-–Kings and Wars>>11:4) .So I guess to the professor Yeshua and Mohammed had some similar Characters.

This law() was also a foundation to build a Chinese Judaism & Christianity relationship web group, in which the law() was written. And the group was administered by J&C&MJ.
http://www.douban.com/group/299205/?ref=1&_r=1731764765505779486

Click to expand...

Islam came last as a religion.
Genesis 27:36 Esau said, "Isn't he rightly named Jacob? He has deceived me these two times: He took my birthright, and now he's taken my blessing!"

[ Note: Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for some stew.]

Then he asked, "Haven't you reserved any blessing for me?"
37 Isaac answered Esau, "I have made him lord over you and have made all his relatives his servants, and I have sustained him with grain and new wine. So what can I possibly do for you, my son?"

38 Esau said to his father, "Do you have only one blessing, my father? Bless me too, my father!" Then Esau wept aloud.

39 His father Isaac answered him,
"Your dwelling will be
away from the earth's richness,
away from the dew of heaven above.

40 You will live by the sword
and you will serve your brother.
But when you grow restless,
you will throw his yoke
from off your neck."

Jacob Flees to Laban
41 Esau held a grudge against Jacob because of the blessing his father had given him. He said to himself, "The days of mourning for my father are near; then I will kill my brother Jacob."

In Islamic opinion Islam did not begin from Mohammed period but from Adam. Adam was born a Muslim and so were his descendents. &#8220;Muslim&#8221; was generally not converted to but born to.
So we can understand why a &#8220;born Muslim&#8221; is prohibited to convert to non-Mohammed route. Mohammed was regarded as the way of Muslim.

Yusuphhai said:

In Islamic opinion Islam did not begin from Mohammed period but from Adam. Adam was born a Muslim and so were his descendents. “Muslim” was generally not converted to but born to.
So we can understand why a “born Muslim” is prohibited to convert to non-Mohammed route. Mohammed was regarded as the way of Muslim.

Click to expand...

Any way, the Islamic faith did not exist until the day of Mohammad.

GuardianShua said:

Islam came last as a religion.
Genesis 27:36 Esau said, "Isn't he rightly named Jacob? He has deceived me these two times: He took my birthright, and now he's taken my blessing!"

[ Note: Esau sold his birthright to Jacob for some stew.]

Then he asked, "Haven't you reserved any blessing for me?"
37 Isaac answered Esau, "I have made him lord over you and have made all his relatives his servants, and I have sustained him with grain and new wine. So what can I possibly do for you, my son?" .
"

Click to expand...

Definately agree that Islam wasn't developed till Muhammad himself came on the scene.

Nonetheless, that scripture which you brought up doesn't really address the issue, IMHO---as the descendants of Esau aren't the same as Muslims, nor was it the case that Esau was really cursed---even when he sold his birthright.

For many read the text of scripture assuming that all of Esau must be hated by the Lord without qualification and claim that anyone of Esau is cursed...yet the scriptures note where even Esau learned to grow in his relationship with the Lord and his brother, whom he forgave for stealing his birthright/blessing and served humbly when they reconciled----and many of Esau's descendants also were used of the Lord. Moreover, Easu was not cursed fully as many assume and (as said earlier) one of the Sons of Esau (Caleb) was blessed, as were many others..more discussed in, here and here.


Edomites, interestingly enough, had a Covenant with the Lord that he honored. Some of this I've been realizing more and more after studying the Book of Genesis and seeing the line of Easu in action. For Issac's attempt to bless Esau in Genesis 27:1-45 was subverted by Rebekah, who favored Jacob and helped him recieve the blessing of the firstborn.....though that event only builds on the earlier incident where Esau sold his birthright to Jacob (Genesis 25:29-34) alongside confirming the earlier incident where the divine statement was made in Genesis 25:23 that the older will serve the younger.
The blessing Issac gave to Easu in Genesis 27:39-40 may seem like a curse at first glance...but in many ways, it seems to be a blessing that is meant to be like a "counter-measure" toward his brother. It was much like a Consolation prize of sorts (i.e. an award given to those who do not win an event but are deserving of recognition). For although Jacob was given authority over his older twin brother, Isaac indicates/pronounces that Esau will eventually free himself from his brother's control....and later, Esau's descendants settle outside the Promised Land, to the east of the Jordan River, eventually taking control of Seir, which is later named "Edom"..as seen in Genesis 36:1-42 (I Chronicles 1:51-54), with the geneology of Easu. His sons and grandsons produced 14 chiefs, and a number of kings emerged from among Esau's descendants.

According to Genesis 27:39-40, Esau was given a blessing by his father (empowered through the Lord) that would ensure his survival. Essentially, according to the blessing, Esau would have no success tilling the ground or growing vineyards and so implies that he would likely live in the dessert areas of the land. On Esau and his descendants, the blessing of "living by his sword" is often seen as a negative---but in many ways, it was a positive since it was a warrior's blessing. He would truly live/have life by means of the sword...and his descendants may or may not prosper from the land, but they would not starve, as they would have the power to either hunt or take game from others.

As another said best:
As seen in Deuteronomy 2:1-1-8, the nation of Edom--descended from Esau (Genesis 25:30, Genesis 32:3, Genesis 36:1)---were people whom the Lord warned Israel not to provoke due to the blood relationships through Esau. And the Lord told the Israelites directly that certain land was given strictly to Edom due to the covenant/kind of relationship they had with the Lord ( Genesis 36:8-10, )

Numbers 20:14-21 also gives more in-depth information....concerning how the the Edomite/Israelite relations often were one of tension, if not bitter hostility, as seen in how the Edomites denied passage through their land to Israel. At that time, apparently, they were afaid that the Israelities--known to be a great horde of people--would either attack them or devour their crops (Deuteronomy 2:4-5, Deuteronomy 2:3-5 / Deuteronomy 2 ) and thus they did not trust Israel's word.

And yet despite that, the Israelites were commanded not to attack/hate the Edomites:
Nothing further is recorded of the Edomites in the Tanakh until their defeat by King Saul of Israel in the late 11th century BC ( 1 Samuel 14:46-48 ). 1 Samuel 21:6-8 mentions Doeg the Edomite , later seen in I Samuel 22:9-22....the man who betrayed David and killed the priests of Nob and committed an act that Saul's Israelite servants refused to do. David later spoke sharply against it in Psalm 52 when condeming Doeg for thinking of himself as a great hero in the deed he committed.

Forty years later King David and his general Joab defeated the Edomites in the "valley of salt", (probably near the Dead Sea) in 2 Samuel 8:12-14 and I Chronicles 18:12. It was at that time that an Edomite prince named Hadad escaped and fled to Egypt, and after David's death returned and tried to start a rebellion (I Kings 11:14-22), but failed and went to Syria. From that time Edom remained a vassal of Israel. David placed over the Edomites Israelite governors or prefects, and this form of government seems to have continued under Solomon. When Israel divided into two kingdoms Edom became a dependency of the Kingdom of Judah. I Kings 22:47 is a great place to go for further information on the issue. In the time of Jehoshaphat (c. 914 BC) the Tanakh mentions a king of Edom ( II Kings 3:7-9 ), who was probably an Israelite appointed by the King of Judah. It also states that the inhabitants of Mount Seir invaded Judea in conjunction with Ammon and Moab, and that the invaders turned against one another and were all destroyed. Edom revolted against Jehoram and elected a king of its own. Amaziah attacked and defeated the Edomites, seizing Selah, but the Israelites never subdued Edom completely. 2 Kings 8:20-22 and 2 Kings 16:5-7 is also a place where one can go for further information. As it turns out, the Edomites aided the enemies of Israel in conquering them in the time they were in rebellion ( 2 Chronicles 28:16-18 , Psalm 137:6-8 )---and the prophets spoke out against Edom ( Isaiah 21:10-12, Isaiah 34:8-10 , Jeremiah 49:16-18 , Ezekiel 25:11-13 , Ezekiel 35:14-15, Ezekiel 36:4-6 , Joel 3:18-20, Amos 1:10-12, Amos 2:1-3, Obadiah 1:7-9, Malachi 1:1-5 )

But in the Lord's disciplining of Edom, it doesn't seem to say that all Edomites were forever wiped out. The viewpoint noted by many is that they became the Idumeans, who later were absorbed into much of the other cultures. According to Josephus (Antiquities XIII, 9, 1), the Hasmonean John Hyrcanus (Hyrcanus I) "conquered in Idumea the cities of Adora [Adoraim] and Marisa [Maresha] and subjected all the Idumeans [Edomites]. He allowed them to stay in the land, however, if they were willing to introduce circumcision and live by the other Jewish laws. In truth, out of love for their homeland they accepted circumcision with the other Jewish customs and were henceforth likewise Jewish."

This account has lately been qualified by Peter Richardson, pp. 54-62, following Aryeh Kasher, pp. 46-78: the Edomites already performed circumcision on their own, but indeed the cities of Adora and Marisa had become so thoroughly hellenized that their citizens had given up the practice. Josephus's account applies to these cities only. There are indications in Strabo and Ptolemy that Idumea was peacefully annexed by Hyrcanus. Many Idumeans (already circumcised) accepted Judaism voluntarily (partly, perhaps, in response to the missionary fervor of the Hasmonean revivalists), while others kept their old religion without leaving. Among the converts was a man who would be Herod's paternal grandfather. The descendants of the converts were caught, it would seem, between two identities. Josephus reports on Costobar, Herod's brother in law (the name is constructed with that of Cos, the chief Edomite God). Descended from priests of Cos, he hoped to lead his fellow Idumeans to independence from the Jews and Jewish customs. On the other hand, Josephus also reports on Idumeans who gave strong support to their fellow Jews in the first revolt against Rome. ...more here.

As it concerns other descendants of Edom/Easu were blessed, it can be problematic for one to make sweeping statements as if everything of Esau was automatically a bad thing. For a good read, one can investigate The Edomites: their history as gathered from the Holy Scriptures ...

Just as it was the case that the Lord blessed others who were of Edom (as opposed to some of the more racist commentary by many saying all Edomites were "cursed"/hated), the Lord also showed Himself as being concerned for Ishmael.... whom many continually assume was "cursed"/not blessed of the Lord despite the fact that the Lord gave Isaac the Blessing of a Covenant while He gave Ishmael the Promise of a Blessing (one mirroring what Jacob had, from 12 nations just like 12 tribes of Israel to being prosperous and the Lord being with him..more discussed here and here ). Many from the line of Ishmael were used of the Lord to protect His people/Messiah throughout the OT/NT--with some interesting examples being Amasa (who as an Ishmaelite/married into David's family ( 2 Samuel 17:24-26/2 Samuel 19:12-14 /1 Kings 2:4-6/1 Kings 2:31-33 /1 Chronicles 2:16-18 ), Jaziz the Hagrite (who took care of David's flocks, per 1 Chronicles 27:30-32 ) and Obil the Ishmaelite (who stewared the Camels of David, 1 Chronicles 27:29-31 ) as quick examples (while other Jewish believers named their children "Ishmael", per 2 Chronicles 19:10-11 /2 Chronicles 23:1-3 /Ezra 10:21-23 ).....and with the sons of Ishmael/Isaac oday, they're still being united today in the Lord

Yusuphhai said:

In the doctrine of Islam, from Adam nearly all famous people in Bible were Muslim, certainly including Yeshua, and in the end all religions will go back to Islam.

And in Judaism, Christianity and Islam are also two reasonable ways for Gentiles to know God. (<<Mishnah Torah-&#8211;Kings and Wars>>11:4) .So I guess the professor thought Yeshua and Mohammed had some similar Characters.

This law() was also a foundation to build a Chinese Judaism & Christianity relationship web group, in which the law() was written. And the group was administered by J&C&MJ.
http://www.douban.com/group/299205/?ref=1&_r=1731764765505779486

Click to expand...

In the ultimate sense, Yeshua was a Jew who followed the way of God's Law/Torah---even though he often identified with other groups/related to them, as he did frequently with Samaritans (be it in talking to them or in referencing them as examples of whom the Lord favored)...and the same with Gentiles. For His focus was humanity being redeemed.

Concerning the claim that all people from Adam to Christ were Muslim, there are etymological dynamics at play. ..similar to situations where others debate on whether or not Christ was a "Christian" due to his lifestyle. There was one apolegetist who tackled the issue, he noted that Jesus never used the word "Christian". For that matter, neither did Paul. Peter did once, telling others they might be insulted for the name of Christ in I Peter 4:14-16.....and the term "Christian" appears one other time in the scriptures when referenced in Acts 11:26 that the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch (though that was originally used in a deragatory way). But it was never as if they focused on the term alone. It was about the Kingdom of God being promoted, wherever one was at in that spectrum.

That said, technically the name "Muslim" simply means someone who has submitted their will to God---and if going by the strict definition of the word/concept, it can be said that Christ was a Muslim. For He submitted to the Father like no other....and all others who chose to live a life of obediance/submission to God also were "Muslim" in that sense..including the dynamic of loving justice, as was the early claim by the Jewish professor suggesting the idea. However, if the term "Muslim" is used to describe all things done by Muslims in the name of the Quran or what Mohommad did throughout his life that are disconnected from what God commanded/made clear in the Tanak and in Christ, then obviously Christ was not Muslim....just as he didn't become Samaritan in all facets simply by identifying with the Samaritan Woman at the well in John 4 when noting where she was on point and showing how the Lord redeemed others from that background.

Easy G (G²);61691484 said:

Definately agree that Islam wasn't developed till Muhammad himself came on the scene.

Nonetheless, that scripture which you brought up doesn't really address the issue, IMHO---as the descendants of Esau aren't the same as Muslims, nor was it the case that Esau was really cursed---even when he sold his birthright.

Click to expand...

My goof, I should have said Ishmael. Ill have to correct that today. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

I think the Prophet Muhammad was a trade merchant.