Islam Are Allah and God of the Bible the same Person?

[Muslim-UK]

Doctor Luke said:
Christ’s Birth Announced to Mary
26 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!” [fn3]
29 But when she saw him, [fn4] she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. 30 Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name JESUS. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. 33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”
Chap 2
Christ Born of Mary
(Matt. 1:18–25 )
1 And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. 2 This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. 3 So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city.
4 Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, 5 to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, [fn1] who was with child. 6So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. 7 And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.
Glory in the Highest
8 Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night. 9 And behold, [fn2] an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were greatly afraid. 10Then the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. 11 For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. 12 And this will be the sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger.”
13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying:
14 “Glory to God in the highest,
And on earth peace, goodwill toward men!” [fn3]
15 So it was, when the angels had gone away from them into heaven, that the shepherds said to one another, “Let us now go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has come to pass, which the Lord has made known to us.” 16 And they came with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the Babe lying in a manger. 17 Now when they had seen Him, they made widely [fn4] known the saying which was told them concerning this Child. 18 And all those who heard it marveled at those things which were told them by the shepherds. 19 But Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart. 20 Then the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told them.
Circumcision of Jesus
21 And when eight days were completed for the circumcision of the Child, [fn5]His name was called JESUS, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb.
Jesus Presented in the Temple
22 Now when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male who opens the womb shall be called holy to the LORD” ), [fn6] 24 and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, “A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.” [fn7]
Simeon Sees God’s Salvation
25 And behold, there was a man in Jerusalem whose name was Simeon, and this man was just and devout, waiting for the Consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. 26 And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. 27 So he came by the Spirit into the temple. And when the parents brought in the Child Jesus, to do for Him according to the custom of the law, 28 he took Him up in his arms and blessed God and said:
29 “Lord, now You are letting Your servant depart in peace,
According to Your word;
30 For my eyes have seen Your salvation
31 Which You have prepared before the face of all peoples,
32 A light to bring revelation to the Gentiles,
And the glory of Your people Israel.”
33 And Joseph and His mother [fn8] marveled at those things which were spoken of Him. 34 Then Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary His mother, “Behold, this Child is destined for the fall and rising of many in Israel, and for a sign which will be spoken against 35 (yes, a sword will pierce through your own soul also), that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.”
Anna Bears Witness to the Redeemer
36 Now there was one, Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was of a great age, and had lived with a husband seven years from her virginity; 37 and this woman was a widow of about eighty-four years, [fn9]who did not depart from the temple, but served God with fastings and prayers night and day. 38 And coming in that instant she gave thanks to the Lord, [fn10] and spoke of Him to all those who looked for redemption in Jerusalem.
The Family Returns to Nazareth
39 So when they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee, to their own city, Nazareth. 40 And the Child grew and became strong in spirit, [fn11] filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him.
The Boy Jesus Amazes the Scholars
41 His parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover.42 And when He was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast. 43 When they had finished the days, as they returned, the Boy Jesus lingered behind in Jerusalem. And Joseph and His mother [fn12] did not know it;44but supposing Him to have been in the company, they went a day’s journey, and sought Him among their relatives and acquaintances. 45 So when they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking Him. 46 Now so it was that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. 47 And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers. 48 So when they saw Him, they were amazed; and His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You done this to us? Look, Your father and I have sought You anxiously.”
49 And He said to them, “Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?” 50 But they did not understand the statement which He spoke to them.
Jesus Advances in Wisdom and Favor
51 Then He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them, but His mother kept all these things in her heart. 52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.

Salam, Thanks for the response, so basically you know very little about Jesus pbuh, who he played with, where he was schooled, who his brothers and sisters were. What problems he faced as a child, what his pastimes were, where he liked to go and play, who is favourite Aunt and Uncle was, who his cousins were. This boy who according to your beliefs, was 100% God walked on Earth, and you know very little about his childhood, his teen years, or his twenties. Even the account given by non eyewitness Luke contradicts the infancy narrative found in non eyewitness Matthew's account.

Why then can you claim he did not speak from the cradle, make clay birds, and blew life into them? It seems perfectly plausible to me, especially given the information is also recorded in the Qur'an, which is GOD's Word. I'm sure you would agree, GOD knows what the first words spoken by Jesus pbuh were.

If Muhammad pbuh heard these accounts from Romans as you point out, then why is there no mention of this from the hundreds and thousands of accounts we have of him, the vast majority 95% being hostile accounts. Furthermore if these infancy gospels were so widespread and known about, then why have Christians mocked Muslims prior to the discovery of the Nag Hamadi Library in 1945 as reporting accounts that did not exist anywhere else.

I see no records of early Christians, (8th & 9th Century) engaged in dialogue with Muslims ever bringing up the issue of clay birds or Jesus pbuh speaking from the cradle, why is this when they are happy to challenge the concept of Tawheed, (Oneness of GOD found in the Qur'an) and issues about Jesus' alleged Divinity.

 

[dzheremi]

Just a guess here, but based on what we know about the history of the canon, Christians probably did not bring up the material found in the Infancy Gospels in debate with Muslims in the 8th and 9th centuries because by that point the it could not have had a chance to be a part of any Christian canon for maybe five centuries, having not made it into the canon in the 4th century, not even in the Syriac churches despite the fact that the Arabic version is assumed to be based on an earlier Syriac archetype. See Elliot (Ed.) The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation (Oxford, 1993; p. 100 and following).

 

[Muslim-UK]

See Elliot (Ed.) The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation (Oxford, 1993; p. 100 and following).

I read page 100 and saw the author is making assumptions as you likely would have noticed:

"Like the Armenian Infancy Gospel, the Arabic is likely to go back to a Syrian archetype which could be of the fifth-sixth century." and further on we read, "The Arabic text on which Sike's translation of 1697 was based has since been lost."

I also had a look at Catholic Father Sidney H. Griffith’s The Bible in Arabic and he too employs a lot of guesswork. Interestingly Father Griffith doesn't think there were Arabic manuscripts around at the time of Muhammad pbuh. A reviewer of his work, D. Morgan Davis who is a Assistant Research Fellow at Brigham Young University writes:

"Based on the evidence, the Gospels were probably the first canonical texts to receive Arabic translation, and the translations likely happened at monasteries in Syria/Palestine and in the Judean Desert as early as the late seventh/early eighth centuries. There is admittedly much surmise here, and Griffith’s suggestions can certainly be challenged, but only on the basis of further guesswork; his treatment of the evidence, including extant manuscripts (none of them primary), is careful and thorough." http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/studies/6/davis-review_griffith.pdf

Do you happen to know when the Quran's infancy narrative is first brought up against the Muslims as being based on Apocryphal writings?

 

[dzheremi]

I read page 100 and saw the author is making assumptions as you likely would have noticed:

"Like the Armenian Infancy Gospel, the Arabic is likely to go back to a Syrian archetype which could be of the fifth-sixth century." and further on we read, "The Arabic text on which Sike's translation of 1697 was based has since been lost."

Yes, and that's why I worded my own post that way ("...is assumed to be based on..."), since it is not good to approach the text as though we have manuscript evidence that we do not have. That said, there is nothing wrong with the source or the way it is written.

I also had a look at Catholic Father Sidney H. Griffith’s The Bible in Arabic and he too employs a lot of guesswork.

Yes, there too due to the lack of available manuscript evidence.

Interestingly Father Griffith doesn't think there were Arabic manuscripts around at the time of Muhammad pbuh.

I don't think there were either. Did any of my posts give you that impression, or did you somehow pick that up from somewhere? Because I thought I had argued for translations being done for use in church worship (as Prof. Griffith does), rather than to be stored as manuscripts to be referred to in other contexts as well. That came a bit later, and was generally connected to monasteries. If I recall correctly from Griffith's book and the much earlier Woodbrooke Studies (collections of Arabic, Syriac, and Garshuni Christian manuscripts, translated into English, edited by Alphonse Mingana in the 1920s), the earliest Arabic Christian documents we currently have are not Biblical in nature at all, but apologies such as The Apology of Timothy I and On the Triune Nature of God, both from the eighth century.

A reviewer of his work, D. Morgan Davis who is a Assistant Research Fellow at Brigham Young University writes:

"Based on the evidence, the Gospels were probably the first canonical texts to receive Arabic translation, and the translations likely happened at monasteries in Syria/Palestine and in the Judean Desert as early as the late seventh/early eighth centuries. There is admittedly much surmise here, and Griffith’s suggestions can certainly be challenged, but only on the basis of further guesswork; his treatment of the evidence, including extant manuscripts (none of them primary), is careful and thorough." http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/studies/6/davis-review_griffith.pdf

Again, I don't really understand why you are making a big deal out of any of this. I don't recall anyone claiming that we have primary source manuscripts in Arabic from before Islam was created (I certainly didn't claim that, but maybe someone else did and I missed it), so all of the things you've underlined above are exactly as we'd expect them to be.

Do you happen to know when the Quran's infancy narrative is first brought up against the Muslims as being based on Apocryphal writings?

No, I do not.

 

[John 1720]

Salam, Thanks for the response, so basically you know very little about Jesus pbuh, who he played with, where he was schooled, who his brothers and sisters were. What problems he faced as a child, what his pastimes were, where he liked to go and play, who is favourite Aunt and Uncle was, who his cousins were. This boy who according to your beliefs, was 100% God walked on Earth, and you know very little about his childhood, his teen years, or his twenties. Even the account given by non eyewitness Luke contradicts the infancy narrative found in non eyewitness Matthew's account.

It was not yet Jesus' time to bring forth the Gospel starting in Israel. That would be the year of the Lord prophesied by Isaiah. The Synoptic Gospel do primarily cover that year but also His baptism. What they don't have is Isa (Jesus) baptismal ministry downstream from John the Baptist, nor Jesus' and His baptizing disciples who attended the Jewish feast days with Him. The missing 2 year period is covered in the Gospel of John.

But getting back to the Gospel of Luke who summarized His childhood primarily in 2 chapters as a prelude, the main part of the thread is the Gospel that was propagated during the year of the Lord. Luke's childhood summary also had eyewitnesses Luke could interview. This included James, the brother of Jesus and head of the Jerusalem church, his younger brother Jude, Mary the mother of Jesus. So Luke could draw from multiple sources such as Jesus' whole family, as well as the apostles. Luke then was well equipped to write a biography if he so determined but He did not for the Gospel of saving grace for every ethnicity was is primary goal. Instead Luke chose to summarize a few events that showed Jesus was the Messiah who would bring the Gospel to Israel and all ethnic peoples. He brought truth and grace which ultimately restored the broken relation between man and God and the Gospel writers focus in on that and give us eyewitness accounts of Isa's ministry that illustrate just how He did that. Things like who Jesus' playmates were is unimportant and are tangential to the main thread of the literary corpus of the Gospel as well as the letters of Christ's apostles. However, I will say that you do make some false assumptions that we don't know His relatives from these works. We, in fact, can derive that - it just takes a slight amount of detective work to establish that from the Gospels. Again, that is unimportant to the main thrust of the Gospels and supporting works of the Holy New Testament.
As far as the early years go I see that as driven by human interest and not a godly pursuit of understanding how God saved fallen humanity through the work of the cross. God also proved to us by the verifiable resurrection of Christ, after fulfilling the sign of Jonah by overcoming the grave and death. The will of God, whom Christ 100% obeyed, must be done in God's time (the Father). Christ stated He had come to do the Father's Will in 100% obedience to Him. He preexisted with the Father as the Holy Word of God. Even though He was born of Mary, and hence became flesh, He was also born of the Holy Spirit of God, not as some physical act but a spiritual act, as the Word made flesh. Now God (Allah in Arabic) had promised Christ as deliver all the way back to the fall of man when we, as the progeny of Adam, all became adulterated with the evil of Satan which has been the curse of all of man, even to our day. All we have to do is turn on the news to see that satan still holds sway over man's heart and soul. Who can deliver us from such calamity, debauchery, and degeneracy? Even though man was made in the image of God to emulate His ways and rule all of the created blessing God had made, we have become like a funhouse mirror distorting the image of God by obeying the lusts and lies of the devil. God could have given up on us and left us to our ways but He knew we would always fall short and get ourselves immersed in the sin and corruption inspired by the devil.

We are not able to save ourselves by our oun power and proclaim ourselves righteous. Such an endeavor is what we call self-righteousness. Not one of us is righteous before God for we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. But God (Allah) made a way for us that by the perfect love the Word manifested in Jesus (Isa) turned the disobedience of man (in Adam) to perfect obedience of fulfilling the Law of God (love) in Jesus. Isa (Jesus) was sinless the Holy seed who was promised by God all the way back at the moment mankind fell into its present despicable state.

So the LORD God said to the serpent:
"Because you have done this, you are cursed more than all cattle, and more than every beast of the field; on your belly you shall go, and you shall eat dust all the days of your life. And I will put enmity between you and the woman,and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel."

You may at first not see the saving Gospel here but notice God did not say seeds of the woman but "Seed", meaning one. Way back there was to be an antichrist and the Christ that would crush the head of the serpent - the head being the source of evil - for evil is first generated in our thoughts. What did it mean that satan would bruise the Messiah's heel?
Revelation coming from God would later tell us more about Him. There was the Abrahamic promise, the Law given to Moses with the promise of the Messiah, the prophets who testified about who He would be long before His virgin birth. One was David who in 1000 BC prophesized a prophesy of a suffering Messiah in Psalm 22:

The Suffering, Praise, and Posterity of the Messiah
To the Chief Musician. Set to “The Deer of the Dawn.” [fn1] A Psalm of David.
1 My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? Why are You so far from helping Me,
And from the words of My groaning?

• This was uttered by Jesus on the cross as He took on the punishment for our sins as the Lamb of God, the name given Him by the prophets, including John the Baptist (Ya-Ya)

12 Many bulls have surrounded Me; strong bulls of Bashan have encircled Me.
13 They gape at Me with their mouths, like a raging and roaring lion.

This represents the ridicule Jesus took at the cross and the utter rejection by His own people. As Spurgeon remarked, "The priests, elders, scribes, Pharisees, rulers, and captains bellowed round the cross like wild cattle, fed in the fat and solitary pastures of Bashan, full of strength and fury; they stamped and foamed around the innocent One, and longed to see Him gore to death with the Roman cruelty of crucifixion. A death which is aptly described below

14 I am poured out like water, and all My bones are out of joint; My heart is like wax; it has melted within Me. 15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and My tongue clings to My jaws; You have brought Me to the dust of death. 16 For dogs have surrounded Me;the congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me. They pierced My hands and My feet; 17 I can count all My bones. They look and stare at Me.18 They divide My garments among them, and for My clothing they cast lots.

Remember the prophecy God gave in speaking to the Serpent? That was the fulfillment and what was meant by the spirit of the antichrist bruising the heel of God's saving seed, the Messiah and Christ - who would cross the serpent's head and deliver mankind from the power of the beast within us.
This Bone Is The Only Skeletal Evidence For Crucifixion In The Ancient World

Out of time - but I'd be glad to discuss your questions when I have more time.
Peace be upon you and your family until then, Pat

.

 

[John 1720]

Do you happen to know when the Quran's infancy narrative is first brought up against the Muslims as being based on Apocryphal writings?

"Against" is a strong word. As you know we scrutinize our own texts. This is in order to ensure we have the best reproduction of the autographs that we can agree on, and we constantly hypothesize on whether Luke borrowed from Mark and Matthew and vice versa. Scrutiny, even from our detractors only serves to sharpen the iron of God's truth, especially relative to the inspired Scriptural body of His Sacred Texts. After all Christian Scripture has come through nearly 2000 years of copies, of copies and translations of translations. Understanding the body of Scriptural texts and tracing them to the original sources, as best we can, is just being a good steward of the Word of God. That said I am amazed of the accuracy of their transmission down through history.

With respect to your question, and like Dzheremi, I am not exactly sure either and would have to research it. I think, if memory serves me, it has reared up several times during the centuries. I'd have to fact check it first in order to give you an honest answer. The infancy stories sound very similar to the prior text of the apocryphal Thomas so I don't believe the claim to be a modern one.
I believe the basis for the suppositional historical claim to be the following event, which by my verifiable means of scratching the surface, appears to be factually empirical.

According to the Syriac literature a group of Christians from Najran came to Muhammad to inquire of his views concerning the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. During their discussion these Christians mentioned the stories of Jesus speaking in the cradle and fashioning clay birds to prove that Christ is God. (which of course does not prove the assertion). The first eighty verses of Q. 3 were then composed in direct response to the Christian claims:

So, according to Syriac tradition, the Christians from Najran and Mohammed engage in cross Islamic and Nestorian apologetics fairly early. Using the infancy gospel to convey deity was a bad idea but discussing the orthodox body of texts would have been a great exercise. The Syriac claim is they were instrumental in conveying some of their beliefs although after much debate they could not come to terms on the weightier beliefs. The claim is one of the agreed assertions were the infancy gospels. No doubt the Nestorians had the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas in their possession. The source is claimed to be Syriac tradition.
The early attestation to the so called 'gospel of Thomas' from a Christian comes from 'The Refutation of All Heresies a work authored by the Hippolytus of Rome at or about AD 222-235.

"Concerning this (nature) they (referring to the Naasseni, a Gnostic sect, which started around AD 130 or so) hand down an explicit passage, occurring in their Gospel according to Thomas, expressing themselves thus: (by putting these words into the mouth of Christ by means of extrapolation)

• "He who seeks me, will find, me in children from seven years old; for there concealed, I shall in the fourteenth age be made manifest."

This, however, is not (the teaching) of Christ, but of Hippocrates, who uses these words: "A child of seven years is half of a father." And so it is that these (heretics), placing the originative nature of the universe in causative seed, (and) having ascertained the (aphorism) of Hippocrates, that a child of seven years old is half of a father, say that in fourteen years, according to Thomas, he is manifested." - Hippolytus

That the Najran Nestorian Christians met with Mohammed is indisputable according to Islamic scholarship:
Prophet Muhammad's Treaty with Christians of Najran

A basic idea of who they were can be found below
Christian community of Najran - Wikipedia

As far as I can tell the Najran came from the far eastern reaches of the Nestorian Church
Church of the East - Wikipedia

But that may not have been Mohammed's first exposure. The Infancy Gospel was already in circulation.
Syriac Infancy Gospel - Wikipedia
the Arabic Infancy Gospel is one of the texts among the New Testament apocryphal writings concerning the infancy of Jesus. It may have been compiled as early as the sixth century, and was partly based on the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, and Protevangelium of James.
Regards, Pat

PS: I have often found it easier to speak with Muslims about (Allah) God the Father, as well as have meaningful and delightful discussions about Isa (Jesus), than with many Americans. Some are so caught up in other pursuits they have no time or inclination to pursue God. But I have found many Muslims, not all, who desire to discuss the blessings of God quite rationally. There are many points we can discuss where there is virtual agreement. We believe God has spoken through the ages prophetically through chosen messengers and prophets, We believe in the Abrahamic covenant and God's promises, we believe sins are the source of our destruction, that prayer is important, that God is just and also merciful, etc. We also disagree on much as well but Christians and Muslims having a dialog I consider to be a very good thing. I believe you to be a truth seeker and a person of peace. I commend you for your posts - at least the ones I have read thus far,
May God bless you and your family.
In Christ, Pat

 

[Muslim-UK]

With respect to your question, and like Dzheremi, I am not exactly sure either and would have to research it. I think, if memory serves me, it has reared up several times during the centuries. I'd have to fact check it first in order to give you an honest answer. The infancy stories sound very similar to the prior text of the apocryphal Thomas so I don't believe the claim to be a modern one.
I believe the basis for the suppositional historical claim to be the following event, which by my verifiable means of scratching the surface, appears to be factually empirical.

Salam Pat, having read everything you posted, the issue of Jesus, peace be upon him, speaking from the cradle and making clay birds can not be said to be fabrications invented by Gnostic sects. It is quite possible early Christians believed he did those things, but over time other less credible elements were added to his childhood accounts, which portrayed a 'unruly' child and thus were rejected by the later compilers of the Bible Canon. We know there was great persecution by the Catholic Church against those who didn't conform to their doctrine, understanding of who Jesus pbuh was and what he did in his life.

According to the Syriac literature a group of Christians from Najran came to Muhammad to inquire of his views concerning the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. During their discussion these Christians mentioned the stories of Jesus speaking in the cradle and fashioning clay birds to prove that Christ is God. (which of course does not prove the assertion). The first eighty verses of Q. 3 were then composed in direct response to the Christian claims:

Doesn't prove the assertion, but certainly lends credibility to the notion that some Christians viewed the childhood accounts to be authentic. Can you provide a link for this Syriac Source you mention as it would be interesting to read.

So, according to Syriac tradition, the Christians from Najran and Mohammed engage in cross Islamic and Nestorian apologetics fairly early. Using the infancy gospel to convey deity was a bad idea but discussing the orthodox body of texts would have been a great exercise. The Syriac claim is they were instrumental in conveying some of their beliefs although after much debate they could not come to terms on the weightier beliefs. The claim is one of the agreed assertions were the infancy gospels. No doubt the Nestorians had the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas in their possession. The source is claimed to be Syriac tradition.

Source is said to be 'Syriac tradition'. Sounds like hearsay

According to Islamic traditions, the Najran Christians turned up in fine clothing, gold and crosses adorning their necks. They explained their view on Jesus' divinity in the course of their meeting:

The Prophet: I invite you to the religion of monotheism and the worship of One Allah and submission to His commands. (Then he recited some verses of the Holy Qur'an before, them).

The representatives of Najran: If Islam means faith in the only Lord of the World we already believe in Him and act according to His Commands.

The Prophet: Islam carries a few signs and some of your actions show that you do not believe in Islam. How do you say that you worship One Allah when you worship the cross and do not abstain from the meat of the swine and believe that Allah has son?

Representatives: We believe him (i.e. 'Isa) to be God because he brought the dead to life, cured the sick, made a bird with clay and made it fly, and all these things show that he is God.

The Prophet: No. He is the servant of Allah and is His creature. Allah placed him in the womb of Mary. And all this power and strength was given to him by Allah.

One of the represenatatives: Yes! He is the son of God, because Mary gave him birth without marrying anyone, and it is, therefore, necessary that his father should be the very Lord of the World.

At this juncture the Archangel Jibreel came and advised the Prophet to tell them: "From this point of view the condition of 'Isa resembles that of Adam who was created by Allah with His unlimited power from clay without his having a father and a mother7 and if one's not having a father is the proof of one's being the son of Allah, Adam is all the more entitled to this position, because he had neither a father nor a mother".

The representatives: Your words do not satisfy us. The best way to resolve the issue is that we should engage in imprecation with each other at an appointed time and may curse the liar and pray to Allah that He may destroy the liar.

At this moment the Archangel Jibreel came and brought the verse pertaining to imprecation and conveyed to the Prophet the Divine command that he should engage in imprecation with those, who contended and disputed with him and both the parties should pray to Allah that He might deprive the liar of His blessings. The Holy Qur'an says,

If anyone disputes with you after the knowledge has come to you, say, 'Let each of us bring our children, our women, our people and ourselves to one place and pray to Allah to curse upon the liars among us'. (Surah Ale Imran, 3:62)

Both the parties agreed to settle the issue through imprecation and it was decided that all of them would be ready for it on the following day.

The early attestation to the so called 'gospel of Thomas' from a Christian comes from 'The Refutation of All Heresies a work authored by the Hippolytus of Rome at or about AD 222-235.

The Gospel of Thomas is a list of a hundred or so sayings of Jesus pbuh, and not the infancy Gospel of Thomas.

Syriac Infancy Gospel - Wikipedia

the Arabic Infancy Gospel is one of the texts among the New Testament apocryphal writings concerning the infancy of Jesus. It may have been compiled as early as the sixth century, and was partly based on the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, and Protevangelium of James.

Again 'may have' is just more guesswork on the part of the wiki article.

PS: I have often found it easier to speak with Muslims about (Allah) God the Father, as well as have meaningful and delightful discussions about Isa (Jesus), than with many Americans. Some are so caught up in other pursuits they have no time or inclination to pursue God. But I have found many Muslims, not all, who desire to discuss the blessings of God quite rationally. There are many points we can discuss where there is virtual agreement. We believe God has spoken through the ages prophetically through chosen messengers and prophets, We believe in the Abrahamic covenant and God's promises, we believe sins are the source of our destruction, that prayer is important, that God is just and also merciful, etc. We also disagree on much as well but Christians and Muslims having a dialog I consider to be a very good thing. I believe you to be a truth seeker and a person of peace. I commend you for your posts - at least the ones I have read thus far,
May God bless you and your family. In Christ, Pat

Pat I didn't join this forum to seek truth. I was researching a topic of discussion I was having elsewhere and noticed there was a section here asking Muslims for answers, so I joined to help my fellow Muslims out.

I ask Allah swt a question, and open his book for an answer. No matter what page I randomly open, my eyes fall on whatever verse it may be and my question is answered. Just 10 mins of listening to the Qur'an in Arabic is enough for the soul to reconnect with the Creator www.quranexplorer.com

As you've engaged with Muslims before, you'll know the only sincere advice I can give you is to worship GOD alone. You've already understood the importance of prayer and GOD being merciful, but must know the only sin he doesn't ever forgive is assigning partners unto him. He is beyond anything we can imagine, so to say he manifested as a man to understand us and die for us is misguidance from a people who peddled myths about men being divine.

 

[dzheremi]

A few points for discussion of your excellent post, if you don't mind, Pat:

With respect to your question, and like Dzheremi, I am not exactly sure either and would have to research it. I think, if memory serves me, it has reared up several times during the centuries. I'd have to fact check it first in order to give you an honest answer. The infancy stories sound very similar to the prior text of the apocryphal Thomas so I don't believe the claim to be a modern one.

The rejection of the infancy gospel is to be reasoned precisely from its likely inspiration/origin in the earlier Thomas, which is rejected on account of its blatant gnosticism, as it begins: "These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded." (source)

This runs directly afoul of the guidance given in the 39th festal letter (367 AD) of our father among the saints St. Athanasius the Apostolic, who in the same letter laid down the canon. In it, he says: "There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings. But such are the invention of heretics, who indeed write them whenever they wish, bestowing upon them their approval, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as if they were ancient writings, they find a means by which to lead astray the simple-minded." (source; emphasis added)

I point this out because our Muslim friend seems to have trouble with inference rather than...I don't know what would satisfy them...signed, notarized, and dated autographs, I guess? (Which it should be pointed out his own religion in no way possesses, either.) So we should look away from the possible relation between the Syriac or Arabic infancy gospels and the Qur'an, just for now, and focus instead on the ultimate point: that this is not accepted, and not for 'supposed' reasons that those of other religions may object to, but for sound reasons such as being against the fathers, as shown above, precisely because of the (over)reliance on what has already been soundly rejected.

I believe that many of the glaringly obvious similarities between various apocryphal writings such as these and the Qur'an -- just like the possible relations between earlier heretical sects like the Ebionites and the religion of Islam more broadly -- can be deal with in this way: We do not need to propose a 'straight line' of influence from one to the other (no matter how obvious the parallel may make it seem to us), because it is enough to notice that what this later group -- in this case, the Muslims -- have brought us as the word of God sounds in this or that passage or respect suspiciously similar to something else we've already rejected on solid grounds.

This is the phenomenon that you see with regard to the Christian versions of the Sergius Bahira legend, the monk who supposedly taught Muhammad about Christianity and in some versions recognized his 'prophethood', whose confessional identity changes sometimes according to who is retelling the legend, but is most often said to be Nestorian (as in John of Damascus' allusion to this story in his critique of Islam). The point is less about what his actual confessional identity was (i.e., Nestorian, Oriental Orthodox, or something else), and more that by tying him to whichever group the author is against, the point can be made, essentially, that Islam itself is nothing but a rehash of earlier, already-rejected heretical theologies/Christologies with a liberal dose of Muhammad's own "stupid and ridiculous things", as John of Damascus puts it at the above link.

All of this can be done, as you see, without reference to any particular apocryphal piece of writing, hence I would go as far as to say that it really does not matter when Christians may have noticed that this passage in the Arabic infancy gospel is akin to this passage in the Qur'an (albeit cleaned up/scrubbed of the Christological content in the infancy gospel and filled with substituted Islamic content in the Qur'anic recension; well, isn't that convenient).

That the Najran Nestorian Christians met with Mohammed is indisputable according to Islamic scholarship:
Prophet Muhammad's Treaty with Christians of Najran

As far as I can tell the Najran came from the far eastern reaches of the Nestorian Church
Church of the East - Wikipedia

There are some issues with this portion of the post, although they are not yours so much as the result of murkiness of available sources: if the Christians of Najran were Nestorians, they would not have followed the Byzantine rite as the author at the first link claims. There were Byzantine (worshiping) Arabs, but they were likely not found in Arabia proper by the time of Muhammad, as the tribes who would eventually (partially) convert to Byzantine Christianity, such as the Ghassanids, had left Arabia for the Levant in the third century, long before Muhammad was even born. And of course other famous Arab Christian tribes, such as the Lakhmids, likely followed other forms of Christianity due to their geographical location placing them within the sphere of influence (and eventually directly ruled by) the Persians, whose arch enemy at the time was the very same Byzantine Empire. This was the context in which the East Syrians within the Persian Empire held their Synod of Dadisho' in 424, by the way; it was held at al-Hira, the Lakhmid capital, and in it the East Syrian/Persian Church declared itself to be free of Western/Byzantine influence, probably as a political move to get the Sassanid leaders do stop arresting the Persian Church's bishops on suspicion of collusion with the Byzantines, since of course to the non-Christian Persian leaders, the two sides shared the same religion, so they must be natural cohorts in some type of treasonous naughtiness. All of this having happened over a century before Muhammad, it is extremely unlikely that there would've been any Nestorians following the Byzantine form of liturgy by his time, though the Church of the East did maintain some dioceses in Byzantine territory into the Middle Ages -- notably, at Alexandria, Damascus, Jerusalem, and on the island of Cyprus.

So while it's certainly possible that they were Nestorians and the author at the first link is just wrong in identifying them with the Byzantine rite (historical and present Islamic sources generally having no need or desire to distinguish between this type of Christian versus that type), it seems equally likely, given what we know about Christianity in Arabia at the time, that they could have been Oriental Orthodox, as the martyrdom of the Christians of Najran by the Jewish king of the time occurred in the context of the Axumite occupation of southern Arabia (525-570), and the Axumites themselves were Oriental Orthodox, as their Ethiopian and Eritrean descendants are today. Furthermore, the entire reason that anyone knows any specifics regarding the martyrdom of the Christians of Najran is thanks to the account of Simeon of Beth Arsham, who wrote of what he collected while in Yemen at the time in a letter to a bishop in Gabbula (modern Syria). Simeon of Beth Arsham (in Mesopotamia/present day Iraq) was definitely Oriental Orthodox and not Nestorian. One of his surviving letters (Vatican Syriac Manuscripts, fol. 27a), condemns the Nestorians in the following terms:

In the days of Babai the Catholicos, this Mari emerged (as) the teacher of the heresies of the followers of Paul of Samosata and Diodorus [of Tarsus] in Beth Aramaye. And Babai the Catholicos, the son of Hormizd who was the secretary of Zabercan the Marzban of Beth Aramaye, received the doctrine from him. Anyone who does not confess that Mary is Theotokos, let him be anathema! (source)

As I'm sure you already know, the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to call Mary 'Theotokos' is precisely that which divided the later-named 'Nestorians' from the rest of the Church, so no one of the Nestorian belief would write that last line, as they would be anathematizing themselves in the process. They furthermore would not anathematize as a heretic their own Catholicos Babai, who was patriarch of the Church of the East from 497 to 503.

So while it is not 100% clear the exact confessional identities of the Najran Christians at this time, we know that they had at least some Oriental Orthodox among them to witness it, as it was during a time when an Oriental Orthodox king ruled over the area, with troops stationed at Zafar (the capital at the time), and also others such as Simeon of Beth Arsham to record it. (Aside: It is interesting to note given the late date of the massacre -- 523 AD, so long after both the Chalcedonian schism and even subsequent attempts at reunion such via as the Henotikon of 482 -- that the martyrs of Najran ended up in various forms on the liturgical calendars of all the major churches: the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholic Melkite, and Roman Catholic all celebrate them. If I had to guess, I'd guess that this is likely due to the popularity of individual martyrs among them such as St. Aretas, whose Acts are preserved in Latin, Greek, Arabic, and Ge'ez, and hence are accessible to Roman, EO, Melkite, and OO alike.)

 

[FireDragon76]

Allah is the Arabic word for "God". Christians in that part of the world routinely used that word as well. It is not true that Allah is a "different God".

Christians and Muslims have different understandings of God. Christians are Trinitarian, and Muslims are not. That's a big difference. But that doesn't mean we worship two different gods.

 

[Muslim-UK]

Allah is the Arabic word for "God". Christians in that part of the world routinely used that word as well. It is not true that Allah is a "different God".

Christians and Muslims have different understandings of God. Christians are Trinitarian, and Muslims are not. That's a big difference. But that doesn't mean we worship two different gods.

Christians would either agree or disagree with you depending on how much they 'dislike' Islam.

 

[John 1720]

A few points for discussion of your excellent post, if you don't mind, Pat:

Hi Dzhermi,
There's a great deal of information here. I've had little to no exposure to much of your assertions so please give me some time to process what appears to be some very enlightening research on your part.
May the Lord bless you & your family, Pat

 

[dzheremi]

Christians would either agree or disagree with you depending on how much they 'dislike' Islam.

Balderdash, my friend. This is their own misunderstanding due to whatever degree they have come to see 'Allah' as Islam's proprietary God, which is absolutely a wrong view. In reality, beyond whatever measure it takes to correct such people, it matters not what Western Christians who are generally ignorant about Christian use of Arabic think about anything. They should educate themselves so as to not reject out of hand what their brothers and sisters in the Arabic-speaking lands do. Our beloved Palestine, the birthplace of Christ our Lord, is now one such land, and it is in the heart of every Christian to hold as sacred this place, as we have since long before Islam ever existed.

I will continue to pray to Allah (الآبِ والاِبن والروحِ القدسِ ألإله الواحِد), and if any Christian has a problem with it, I invite them to visit their local Coptic, Antiochian, Melkite, or Maronite Church, and they will see that there is nothing 'Islamic' about what is going on there. Islam is the explanation as to how most of these people became native Arabic speakers, but theologically it is a non-entity.

All of the above (Antiochian, Coptic, and Maronite, respectively) are Christians and are praising God using "Allah" in their hymns, as is right to do in Arabic. If any Christian or Muslim has a problem with that, then that is theirs to work through. The Christian should not have such a problem in the first place, while the Muslim may due to his theology, which is no one else's problem (since again, it is not shared by these others).

 

[John 1720]

Salam Pat, having read everything you posted, the issue of Jesus, peace be upon him, speaking from the cradle and making clay birds cannot be said to be fabrications invented by Gnostic sects. It is quite possible early Christians believed he did those things, but over time other less credible elements were added to his childhood accounts, which portrayed a 'unruly' child and thus were rejected by the later compilers of the Bible Canon. We know there was great persecution by the Catholic Church against those who didn't conform to their doctrine, understanding of who Jesus pbuh was and what he did in his life.

Doesn't prove the assertion, but certainly lends credibility to the notion that some Christians viewed the childhood accounts to be authentic. Can you provide a link for this Syriac Source you mention as it would be interesting to read.

Introduction

Salam my friend whom God has created, if I may have your permission to call you friend? I pray that you and your family would be blessed in God. Thank you for your post. I will try my best to answer and respond given the time available to me during this busy day.

The Gospels were not intended to be Biographical Accounts but rather revelation given through the The Person of Jesus Christ

As I stated before the Gospels were not authored to be biographical accounts of Jesus, from the age of infancy to the age of 34. Biographies were already a popular genre' that delighted the pagan world of the mid-2nd century, where as best we can infer was when the genesis of the infancy gospel of Thomas occurred. Even now we all like to sit around the firepit and tell stories. Many times stories and personal accounts can be embellished. Many times the motive is to aggrandize us or our knowledge so that our story resonates better to the culture of our audience. That of course is how we please men and not God; for He is a God of truth and in Him can be found no lie at all.

Man’s desire to embellish stories and original accounts

So I have no doubt, when introduced to the words and works of Christ, that some sought to know more. However, that is no excuse for fanciful embellishments of Jesus' life. Those enterprising persons, probably seeking their own fame among the populous, would, in essence, be making Jesus in their own image and according to their imaginations and which might sound great to men, like the false gods they had formerly served. I couldn't agree more with Wiki's summary of the Infancy Gospels:

Critical summation of the Infancy Gospels

The text describes the life of the child Jesus, with fanciful, and sometimes malevolent, supernatural events, comparable to the trickster nature of the god-child in many a Greek myth.

Spiritual Progeny and intergenerational Multiplication

The spiritual grandson of the apostle John, Irenaeus, fought against non-apostolic teachings that were being propagated during the mid to late 2nd century AD. This direct line is very important in maintaining intergenerational integrity.

Who exactly was Irenaeus that we should consider his witness?

Irenaeus - Wikipedia

Protecting the Faith once delivered by Christ and the Apostles

I agree with Irenaeus, in his attempt to protect the Cannon of Scripture, as was handed down by the apostles and Disciples of Christ. After all my moniker is John 17:20, which is the part of the prayer Jesus gave the night before He delivered mankind from their sins - that being a non-negotiable belief of Christianity. That excerpt is taken from Jesus' prayer to God, the Father, for Himself, for His disciples present, and for all who would believe in Him through their words - their words of course are contained in the apostolic canon of Scripture, which is how I myself became to believe; for the love of God is manifested in the Word of God."]I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word"


Why Christian believers put high value on Scriptural Integrity

You can see why Christians who believe this must put so much emphasis on the Scriptural cannon; that which is considered to be verifiable apostolic writing. I believe one should also be able to perceive why non canonical writings, which do not reflect the life and teachings of Christ need to be filtered out as well. This is why Irenaeus fought so hard to ensure the churches would receive the true message and not counterfeit ones. He is an inspiration church father to me, and I am grateful for such men as he.


How the elements of God’s message are attacked in an attempt to mutate that which God has given to man in order to restore their fallen state.

It should not surprise us that in a world of fallen men that errors and myths began to spread as the Gospel encountered all forms of the pagan culture that wanted to synthesize demonic belief systems, which they were culturally immersed in, with the Gospel. In a way what they sought was to have one foot in the kingdom of this world and one foot in the Kingdom of God. Jesus taught us differently, however. We are to reject the world's belief system - which is immersed in sin and at enmity with God.

Many of these cultures had been formerly enthralled by their pagan ways and pagan gods, being immersed in myths. Now Jesus told us to go into all the world and preach the Gospel to all people. That does take contextualization because the good news of salvation, whereby God made a way to deliver us from the fall, is for all men. How can a corrupt sinner make himself uncorrupt unless by the intervention of God? When we present the message to the nations, and Jesus specifically said to preach it to all peoples, we consider the message to be the seed of God that can flourish in any culture. Christianity in America and Europe can look very different than Christianity on the Asian, African, or Australian continent. It has diverse expression but at the same time a oneness as we all begin to fall in love with God our Father and our Lord Jesus. Our desire is to transmit the message, just like RNA transmits the exact message of DNA in order to create healthy cells.

What is Spiritual Cancer?

If something goes wrong with that transmission then cells will become unhealthy and even cancerous, which are destructive to the life of the body and our God given ability of cellular reproduction that He created in us. However I perceive culture as just differing parts of the same body. The brain, organs, eyes, appendages, etc. that God has fearfully and wonderfully made man to be all comprise the same body. God does not love just one part of the body He designed the human race to be but all parts that comprise it - every nation and people of the earth, for it was mankind that fell with Adam, whom our spiritual and physical DNA is derived from. It is also, one man, in the Christian worldview and belief system - the man Jesus Christ, that has delivered us from the fall back to God's original intent - for Genesis tells us we were made in the image of God.

How Each culture can be contextualized with the Gospel without changing the message, as compromising methods of Syncretism do

Jesus, Himself, presented words as well as performing miraculous deeds in ways His audience could understand (e.g. the great catch of fish and His analogy to make these humble fishermen 'fishers of men'. This was contextualizing the Father's Will and desire to save all men from their sins by spreading His message of hope, life and love that overcomes death and the grave. He made what He was saying meaningful in a context they could understand. Would He have said it differently if they were sheep herders, or brick layers? I believe the answer is yes, and so we do our best to contextualize the Gospel without changing its message however.

What man esteems as great is often not great in the sight of God but opposite to His Glorious Character. These Syncretists manufactured and considered it to be great to imagine or write down hearsay as to what Jesus' childhood may have been like. In doing so they created falsehoods which impugned the character of Jesus, who was sinless and holy.


The Gospels Compared to the later accounts in the Post Apostolic Age

However the Gospels was the revelation of Jesus, the Christ and promised Messiah, and their focus was on His person as it pertains to salvation. There is very early attestation to the four Gospels and attribution to apostolic authorship - all works being completed within the first century. Even though the last works were completed in and about AD 95, a full 65 years after the crucifixion, resurrection and Pentecost of our Lord, that in no way impugns the claim that the writings were delivered by eyewitnesses. Why can I make that statement?

The Era of Canonical of Scripture and its Importance

I made a previous analogy, somewhere on this forum that I don't understand liberal scholarship which claims these dates are too late for eye-witness testimony to be a possibility. On December 7th 2016 I watched and heard eye-witness testimony from veterans of Pearl Harbor give accounts on what that day was like when 75 years early the Japanese launch a surprise attack upon them. Much has gone by the boards and much has been forgotten by American citizens over 75 years. Yet for these men, who lost their friends and saw death on a scale many of us will never thankfully see, that attack is forever etched on their memories. Many veterans, including these men, will tell you that, 'for you that was a long time ago, but for us it is like it happened yesterday'. I myself, though only eleven years old, clearly remember every aspect of the day President Kennedy was murdered. I can also recount many other eventful days like they happened yesterday as well. Some samples of eventful times in my life that I can recite with great clarity would be: the day I was inducted into the military and some of the many tough days that lay ahead during my time of service, the day my brother was killed, the day I gave my life to God and promised to follow Christ on His mission of love and salvation for all peoples - whatever that might cost me, my marriage, my children's births, my grandchildren's births, many days where I saw the love of God at work, the days that my beloved parents passed on, and many more.


Likewise then I can say, without reservation, that I am convinced that apostles who walked with Jesus, from the Jordan or during the great prophesied "year of our Lord", or from His baptism in the Jordan, could personally write or recount to a translating disciple the events of those days.

MESSIANIC PROPHESY OF ISAIAH

“The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon Me, because the LORD has anointed Me to preach good tidings to the poor. He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all who mourn, to console those who mourn in Zion, to give them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness;that they may be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that He may be glorified.”

This is followed by the Words of Jesus at the beginning of His Galilean ministry, which was fulfilled in Jerusalem on Golgotha; verified 3 days later from a Garden tomb, and manifested in those who love and trust Him by His glorious ascension where He sits at the right hand of God.

Then Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit to Galilee, and news of Him went out through all the surrounding region

Rejected at Nazareth by his own people, especially for mentioning that the prophesy was for all, Gentiles (all other ethnicities), as well as Jews.

(Matt. 13:54–58; Mark 6:1–6 )

So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written:

• “The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, because He has anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor; He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed; to proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD.”

Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them:

“Today this Scripture is fulfilled within your hearing.”

So all bore witness to Him, and marveled at the gracious words which proceeded out of His mouth. And they said, “Is this not Joseph’s son?” He said to them, “You will surely say this proverb to Me, ‘Physician, heal yourself! Whatever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in Your country.’ 

Then He said, “Assuredly, I say to you, no prophet is accepted in his own country. But I tell you truly, many widows were in Israel in the days of Elijah, when the heaven was shut up three years and six months, and there was a great famine throughout all the land; but to none of them was Elijah sent except to Zarephath, in the region of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. And many lepers were in Israel in the time of Elisha the prophet, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian.”

So all those in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath, and rose up and thrust Him out of the city; and they led Him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw Him down over the cliff. Then passing through the midst of them, He went His way.

So I believe we have an exegetical choice here. We can either believe the Words of Jesus as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels or we can believe the Infancy Gospel of pseudo Thomas. They cannot both be correct. Orthodox Christians are going to believe the Gospel account alone because they have to be mutually exclusive. This is not only because the Infancy Gospel of Thomas came along much later in the 2nd century AD but because the two accounts cannot be harmonized in light of what they tell us about Jesus (Isa).

For if Jesus did those miracles as a child there would have been no surprise by His Nazarene clan and neighbors and they certainly wouldn't have been surprised at His articulate words and ability to read the Scriptures so eloquently.

That is why Irenaeus refutes the pseudo infancy gospel we are presented with. For reference these are his words:

The early Refutation of the Infancy Gospels by Irenaeus

Besides the misrepresentations they stated above, they adduce an unspeakable number of apocryphal and spurious writings, which they themselves have forged, to bewilder the minds of foolish men, and of such as are ignorant of the Scriptures of truth. Among other things, they bring forward that false and wicked story which relates that our Lord, when He was a boy learning His letters, on the teacher saying to Him, as is usual, "Pronounce Alpha," replied [as He was bid], "Alpha." But when, again, the teacher bade Him say, "Beta," the Lord replied, "Do thou first tell me what Alpha is, and then I will tell thee what Beta is." This they expound as meaning that He alone knew the Unknown, which He revealed under its type Alpha.

So Irenaeus, whose teacher was a disciple of a disciple of Christ, shows these pseudo scriptures to be the work of heretics, who used syncretic methods to adulterate gnostic belief systems within the Christian belief system. Cultural contextualization is a good thing because it keeps the truth of the message as articulated through the prophets, Christ, His apostles, and His disciples. Syncretism only serves to adulterate the truth by extending or deleting God's message to conform to pagan culture, thus creating a cancerous form of God's true message that can multiply and destroy the body - voiding it from its life giving reproduction.

The miracle of the loaves and fishes occurred as each one passed along the loaves and fishes Christ had blessed. Christians, if they are to do any good in reproducing God's transformative power to mankind, must persevere to keep to the original message as delivered to the apostles. I, being a Christian, of course embrace this as a truth.

Peace be upon you and your family
In Christ, Pat

 

[John 1720]

The rejection of the infancy gospel is to be reasoned precisely from its likely inspiration/origin in the earlier Thomas, which is rejected on account of its blatant gnosticism, as it begins: "These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded." (source)

This runs directly afoul of the guidance given in the 39th festal letter (367 AD) of our father among the saints St. Athanasius the Apostolic, who in the same letter laid down the canon. In it, he says: "There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings. But such are the invention of heretics, who indeed write them whenever they wish, bestowing upon them their approval, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as if they were ancient writings, they find a means by which to lead astray the simple-minded." (source; emphasis added)

Yes brother, I think we agree on this point and I didn't mean to imply that just because something is not included in the canon that it cannot be instructional. I'm a lover of much of the literature of the early church fathers especially as it relates to the Bible, as well as to the existing culture of the times in which they lived. I'm also aware of the letters of Clement was under consideration for inclusion into the canon.

His letter to Corinth is definitely earlier than scholarship is willing to attest to for it mentions the sacrifice in Jerusalem as still ongoing. It should be dated maybe AD 69.

I;m also aware that the earliest surviving complete NT codex, Sinaiticus, actually has the Shepherd/Hermas, the epistles of Clement, and Barnabas embedded in it. Again I believe the books for canon inclusion was a conservative decision and many books were esteemed high by a multitude of churches but books like the infancy gospels, the gospel of thomas, judas, etc are the reason for being so conservative. As Christians we need a firm foundation of Scripture from which to draw from. What we have is good enough for reference to other literature to see if it lines up with the apostles and early disciples of Christ.

However, that is not to say there aren't things to learn from other authors, just like we read many books by contemporary Christians today and those of more recent past. I'm always looking for the fruit in the lives of those who have run their race before me, as well as those still in the running. Believe the Lord teaches us to do so for He taught us by their fruits we shall know them.

By their fruits you shall know them.
You Will Know Them by Their Fruits
(Matt. 12:33; Luke 6:43–45 )
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

I've always maintained the fruit as God's harvest field; not just the inward fruit of Galatians 5: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. For who can say he loves if he cares not for those who have not heard about Him and emulate Jesus, our Great Shepherd, by being willing to leave the flock of 99 behind in order to find His one lost sheep? And how can we have joy if we are not about our Father's business like Jesus was? And how may we have peace unless we are fighting the good fight to bring His peace to all peoples of the earth? Nor can we be faithful if we are not faithfully engaged, directly or indirectly, to His Great Commission, which is God's love for all people. I take the "co" prefix to mean we are "on- mission" with Jesus. It is going to be a pleasing harvest, as John said. (non-canonical)

The predicted blessing, therefore, belongs unquestionably to the times of the kingdom, when the righteous shall bear rule upon their rising from the dead; when also the creation, having been renovated and set free, shall fructify with an abundance of all kinds of food, from the dew of heaven, and from the fertility of the earth: as the elders who saw John, the disciple of the Lord, related that they had heard from him how the Lord used to teach in regard to these times, and say: The days will come, in which vines shall grow, each having ten thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each true twig ten thousand shoots, and in each one of the shoots ten thousand clusters, and on every one of the clusters ten thousand grapes, and every grape when pressed will give five and twenty metretes of wine. And when any one of the saints shall lay hold of a cluster, another shall cry out, "I am a better cluster, take me; bless the Lord through me." In like manner [the Lord declared] that a grain of wheat would produce ten thousand ears, and that every ear should have ten thousand grains, and every grain would yield ten pounds (quinque bilibres) of clear, pure, fine flour; and that all other fruit-bearing trees, and seeds and grass, would produce in similar proportions (secundum congruentiam iis consequentem); and that all animals feeding [only] on the productions of the earth, should [in those days] become peaceful and harmonious among each other, and be in perfect subjection to man.

And these things are borne witness to in writing by Papias, the hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp, in his fourth book

The grounds for my rejection of the Infancy gospels is found in Irenaeus 'Against Heriesies' Book 5 but the mere reading of it is enough to convince me it is a work of fiction or here-say. A more thorough apology is found in my response to our Muslim-UK friend.

May the Lord Bless you and your family,
in Jesus Name - Amen
In Christ, Patrick

 

[John 1720]

nor is there any place a mention of secret writings. But such are the invention of heretics, who indeed write them whenever they wish, bestowing upon them their approval, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as if they were ancient writings, they find a means by which to lead astray the simple-minded." (source; emphasis added)
[/quote[
Yes I agree! My reference to the early writings of Irenaeus also confirm that as well - and they occurred much earlier (mid to later 2nd century AD. I praise God for those early saints who courageously kept Christ's Church on the straight and narrow and did not yield to populist compromises and sycretism.
In Christ, Pat

 

[John 1720]

There are some issues with this portion of the post, although they are not yours so much as the result of murkiness of available sources: if the Christians of Najran were Nestorians, they would not have followed the Byzantine rite as the author at the first link claims. There were Byzantine (worshiping) Arabs, but they were likely not found in Arabia proper by the time of Muhammad, as the tribes who would eventually (partially) convert to Byzantine Christianity, such as the Ghassanids, had left Arabia for the Levant in the third century, long before Muhammad was even born. And of course other famous Arab Christian tribes, such as the Lakhmids, likely followed other forms of Christianity due to their geographical location placing them within the sphere of influence (and eventually directly ruled by) the Persians, whose arch enemy at the time was the very same Byzantine Empire. This was the context in which the East Syrians within the Persian Empire held their Synod of Dadisho' in 424, by the way; it was held at al-Hira, the Lakhmid capital, and in it the East Syrian/Persian Church declared itself to be free of Western/Byzantine influence, probably as a political move to get the Sassanid leaders do stop arresting the Persian Church's bishops on suspicion of collusion with the Byzantines, since of course to the non-Christian Persian leaders, the two sides shared the same religion, so they must be natural cohorts in some type of treasonous naughtiness. All of this having happened over a century before Muhammad, it is extremely unlikely that there would've been any Nestorians following the Byzantine form of liturgy by his time, though the Church of the East did maintain some dioceses in Byzantine territory into the Middle Ages -- notably, at Alexandria, Damascus, Jerusalem, and on the island of Cyprus.

So while it's certainly possible that they were Nestorians and the author at the first link is just wrong in identifying them with the Byzantine rite (historical and present Islamic sources generally having no need or desire to distinguish between this type of Christian versus that type), it seems equally likely, given what we know about Christianity in Arabia at the time, that they could have been Oriental Orthodox, as the martyrdom of the Christians of Najran by the Jewish king of the time occurred in the context of the Axumite occupation of southern Arabia (525-570), and the Axumites themselves were Oriental Orthodox, as their Ethiopian and Eritrean descendants are today. Furthermore, the entire reason that anyone knows any specifics regarding the martyrdom of the Christians of Najran is thanks to the account of Simeon of Beth Arsham, who wrote of what he collected while in Yemen at the time in a letter to a bishop in Gabbula (modern Syria). Simeon of Beth Arsham (in Mesopotamia/present day Iraq) was definitely Oriental Orthodox and not Nestorian. One of his surviving letters (Vatican Syriac Manuscripts, fol. 27a), condemns the Nestorians in the following terms:

In the days of Babai the Catholicos, this Mari emerged (as) the teacher of the heresies of the followers of Paul of Samosata and Diodorus [of Tarsus] in Beth Aramaye. And Babai the Catholicos, the son of Hormizd who was the secretary of Zabercan the Marzban of Beth Aramaye, received the doctrine from him. Anyone who does not confess that Mary is Theotokos, let him be anathema! (source)

Yes Nestorians is only what my sources stated, although as you say sources sometimes may be quite murky. You have some great stuff here that I've never read before and are better acquainted with the hostory in that part of the world in that time-frame than I am. Do you have other sources I can evaluate? This era is often neglected and it is high time more light is shed upon it to make it generally known. It sounds like you are quite knowledgeable about other possibilities I have not previous heard of.
.In Christ, Pat

 

[dzheremi]

Hi Pat,

So that I can have a better idea of what to recommend, what specific aspects of the discussion are you looking for more information about?

 

[J Stone]

No, Jesus is the way. The way was taught to the 12 Apostles and left to Peter after he repented for denying Jesus. Jesus said "Take care of my lambs" lambs are sheep that have not engaged in sex and are still innocent. Nuns, priests, popes, bishops cardinals etc.. without sex. Take care of sheep was stated twice meaning those who participate in the mass and those outside of the mass meaning (all humans on earth).

Muslims claim allah wrote sacred writings after the bibles existence. Reality is the Quran is not devine. God revealed science from even the beginning in genesis thousands of years before Jesus life and death using observation and documentation to reveal truth to others, that is why Jesus recruitment of 12 Apostles took place along with 100s of thousands of people to witness.
Thier is no witness to anything written in the Quran in fact Jesus is mentioned more then Muhammad in the Quran. Also God reveals himself as love in the bible. And the Quran says that Allah is the same God as the god of Judah and Christians. Then contradicts by hating sinners. God is all love meaning self sacrifice not selfish and demanding. He gives us free will and loves us unconditionally its us who reject god not him who rejects us, sin makes us blind. You can clearly see writings with sin or selfishness. When writing by God is selfless. You can see writing involved with mans selfish desires even in the old testament of the Christian bible that's why the word become flesh.

 

[John 1720]

As I'm sure you already know, the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to call Mary 'Theotokos' is precisely that which divided the later-named 'Nestorians' from the rest of the Church, so no one of the Nestorian belief would write that last line, as they would be anathematizing themselves in the process. They furthermore would not anathematize as a heretic their own Catholicos Babai, who was patriarch of the Church of the East from 497 to 503.

So while it is not 100% clear the exact confessional identities of the Najran Christians at this time, we know that they had at least some Oriental Orthodox among them to witness it, as it was during a time when an Oriental Orthodox king ruled over the area, with troops stationed at Zafar (the capital at the time), and also others such as Simeon of Beth Arsham to record it. (Aside: It is interesting to note given the late date of the massacre -- 523 AD, so long after both the Chalcedonian schism and even subsequent attempts at reunion such via as the Henotikon of 482 -- that the martyrs of Najran ended up in various forms on the liturgical calendars of all the major churches: the Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholic Melkite, and Roman Catholic all celebrate them.
If I had to guess, I'd guess that this is likely due to the popularity of individual martyrs among them such as St. Aretas, whose Acts are preserved in Latin, Greek, Arabic, and Ge'ez, and hence are accessible to Roman, EO, Melkite, and OO alike.)

Thank you Dzheremi
I found your post and your points to be very solid, as well as full and good deductive reasoning all around!
I agree that attributing the meeting to Nestorians really doesn't make sense. I also agree there may be reason to look at a party of 7th century Oriental Orthodox being a better fit.
By the way great stuff!

Hi Pat,

So that I can have a better idea of what to recommend, what specific aspects of the discussion are you looking for more information about?

You seem to have some good historical period sources based on the above extractions. Any recommended reading, translated in English) would help.
Thank you
In Christ, Pat

 

[dzheremi]

Thank you Dzheremi
I found your post and your points to be very solid, as well as full and good deductive reasoning all around!
I agree that attributing the meeting to Nestorians really doesn't make sense. I also agree there may be reason to look at a party of 7th century Oriental Orthodox being a better fit.
By the way great stuff!

Well, I should emphasize here that they very well could have been Nestorians. There were both Orthodox and Nestorians in Arabia, and depending on which part of Arabia you want to look at (keeping in mind that Arabia is more than just Saudi Arabia, where Muhammad began his prophetic career), it is highly likely that there were more Nestorians in a given place than Orthodox. The Church of the East/Persian/Nestorian Church had a much larger geographical spread than the Oriental Orthodox did (at one point, probably larger than any Christian church has ever had), and some of its greatest saints come this general area, such as St. Isaac of Nineveh (also a saint for the OO and EO; born in what is today Qatar in the early 7th century).

I'm just saying that it is not clear from the available sources concerning the Christians of Najran in particular. For instance, it is said that the Axumites first invaded south Arabia/Yemen in response to reports of the Himyarite king's persecution of Christians there, which would seem to indicate some Oriental Orthodox affinity on the part of the Christians of the area -- that is, until we remember that the kingdom of Axum would've just been the nearest Christian kingdom in the neighborhood. Of course, in that light it would make sense to appeal to them in particular, rather than Christians in other regions.

Similarly, you can find in older sources (e.g. Jeffery's "Christianity in South Arabia", in Anglican Theological Review Vol. XXVII, No. 3, July, 1945, pp. 193-216) Simeon of Beth Arsham being introduced as "Bishop of the Persians", which would seem to make it sound to modern ears like these Christians would have been Nestorians, as the Nestorian Church was undoubtably the largest within the Sassanid Persian empire. However, we know from Simeon's other writings already presented that this was not his theological view nor confessional allegiance. Here it is important to note that the "land of the Persians" at this time would not have been limited to Persia/Iran proper, but would have also included Yemen and the east coast of Arabia, in addition to Al-Hira, the capital of the Arabs in Mesopotmia (marked as Al-Hirah in the map below, taken from Wiki; apparently known as Hirta d-Beth Nu'man in Syriac), where Simeon was actually based. So in reality what we have throughout the region -- in Arabia proper and places further east -- is Syriac/Assyrian/Syrian (these being three designations for Aramaic and/or Syriac-speaking Christians), Arab, and Persian populations under both Syriac Orthodox and Nestorian bishops, depending on the allegiance of particular people as they are found in a location (with many places being mixed, no doubt; the Orthodox Syrians and the Nestorian Syrians shared and continue to share a lot culturally, including language, though it is conventional to refer to the Orthodox as 'West Syrians' and the Nestorians as 'East Syrians'; as a matter of history, both communities had dioceses in the "others'" territories, with Syriac Orthodox in Iran and even Afghanistan, and Nestorians in Alexandria, Damascus, and Jerusalem, as already mentioned).

You seem to have some good historical period sources based on the above extractions. Any recommended reading, translated in English) would help.

Sure. I would recommend anything from the aforementioned (Arthur) Jeffery, who did a lot of important work on both early Arab Christianity and also early Islam. I only personally own his Foreign Vocabulary of the Qur'an, but he also wrote a few other works in a similar vein, in addition to many more journal articles such as the one already referenced (which contains a translation of Simeon of Beth Arsham's letter, in addition to a few other early sources on Christianity in pre-Islamic Arabia).

As far as primary sources are concerned, I would definitely recommend the Chronicle of (Ps.-)Dionysius of Tel Mahre, more accurately (and anonymously) known as the Chronicle of Zuqnin. It was at one time attributed to Dionysius of Tel Mahre (9th century Syriac Orthodox patriarch), but has since 1896 been recognized to have been written earlier, likely by a monk of the monastery of Zuqnin (in Mesopotamia, near what is today Diyarbakir, Turkey). It is written in four parts, covering up to 775 (the likely death of its author, assumed by many to be the stylite monk Joshua). I only have the third part (translated by Witakowski as part of Liverpool University's "Translated Texts for Historians" series), but it contains a version of the letter of Simeon of Beth Arsham as well as other interesting insights. Apparently the fourth part is the most historically important (and also probably the only 'original' -- the others being based to varying degrees on earlier sources such as the Chronicle of Eusebius and the History of John of Ephesus), being an account of the Arab Muslim conquest of the Levant and the daily life of Christians in the aftermath. This chronicle is interesting not only for what it contains, but also because the only surviving manuscript (Vat. 162) is the autograph, which, as you might guess, is pretty unusual for a work of this age.

Apparently the Iraqi scholar Amir Harrak, who has written much on early Syriac Christianity, has translated parts III and IV of the chronicle into English (covering the years 448 to 775), but I have not been able to find a copy of that book at a reasonable price. Witakowski's translation of part III alone seems to be more widely available, however. I purchased it for under $10 brand new on E-bay some time ago (it is rather short, at under 200 pages).

Another good work is Brock and Harvey Holy Women of the Syrian Orient (1987, though I know there are subsequent editions; it is widely available). Its fourth chapter covers the women martyrs of Najran, from both Simeon of Beth Arsham's letter and the Book of Himyarites. I know that the recently-reposed Palestinian scholar Irfan Shahid, who wrote a lot on the history of the Arab Christian tribes as they related to Byzantium (e.g., his three-volume work Byzantium and the Arabs in the Sixth Century, 1995-2010; earlier works on the same theme covering the fifth and fourth centuries are also surely worth looking into), also published on the martyrs of Najran, but I have not read his work on the topic.

For a more general historical study on the subject of Christianity in pre-Islamic Arabia, I can recommend Trimingham (1978) Christianity Among the Arabs in Pre-Islamic Times. Trimingham goes into the linguistic situation in Arabia before the rise of Islam, the character of Arabian Christianity and how that might explain why it was not able to withstand the onslaught of the Muslims as well in Arabia proper as it did elsewhere, and so on. It's quite good, but unfortunately a bit hard to find these days. A trip to the library is probably in order to track down a copy, as I am unaware of it having been reprinted or made available electronically at any point.

Since I mentioned the Synod of Dadisho' earlier, you can read about that in brief summary in Suha Rassam's Christianity in Iraq (2010; third edition 2016). Understandably, this one gets harder to read the closer it gets to the modern day, given the precarious state of Christianity in that country today, but it is nonetheless a very good historical overview the topic, and importantly (in my view, anyway), it is written by an Iraqi Christian (I believe she is Catholic, but she covers all the Christian sects in Iraq to at least some degree, and to the best of my recollection in a fair manner). That one is still available directly from the publisher, or even cheaper used on Amazon.

Hopefully these will be enough to get you started.