The struggle to replace the Bible

cloudyday2 · Jun 4, 2015

Maybe this is a bit off-topic, but here goes. I have also heard that Islam evolved by criticizing and redefining some early sect of Christianity.

Can we use the instances in the Quran that seem to borrow from Christian writings to determine which Christian writings?
Can we look at how Islam defines itself relative to Christian theology to determine what that Christian theology was?

I read somewhere that perhaps this Christianity included the Virgin Mary into a 4-part trinity (quadrinity?)

smaneck · Jun 4, 2015

cloudyday2 said:
Maybe this is a bit off-topic, but here goes. I have also heard that Islam evolved by criticizing and redefining some early sect of Christianity.

I wouldn't say it 'evolved' from that. Muhammad really didn't have that much contact with Christians, however it does appear that at least some of those he did have contact with had pretty heretical ideas which the Qur'an criticizes.

Can we use the instances in the Quran that seem to borrow from Christian writings to determine which Christian writings?

Not really because Muhammad himself was illiterate and wouldn't have read those texts. We'd pretty much have to figure out what oral traditions he might have been familiar with.

I read somewhere that perhaps this Christianity included the Virgin Mary into a 4-part trinity (quadrinity?)

A little confusion here. There wasn't a 4-part trinity, but the notion of the trinity to which Muhammad seems to have been exposed consisted of Father, Son and the Virgin Mary! Of course, the Qur'an vigorously condemns this notion.

We do know there was a heretical sect that followed this notion but we know very little about it, as the Church Fathers allude to it only briefly.

cloudyday2 · Jun 4, 2015

smaneck said:
A little confusion here. There wasn't a 4-part trinity, but the notion of the trinity to which Muhammad seems to have been exposed consisted of Father, Son and the Virgin Mary! Of course, the Qur'an vigorously condemns this notion.

We do know there was a heretical sect that followed this notion but we know very little about it, as the Church Fathers allude to it only briefly.

Thanks, that's interesting. I have read descriptions of some of the non-canonical writings describing the childhood of the Virgin Mary. In one of the stories, the Temple is devoid of the shekinah, but the high priest brings the Virgin Mary into the temple as though he believed the shekinah to dwell in her body. So maybe the Virgin Mary was considered the physical manifestation of the Temple or the Holy Spirit. I have also heard the womb of the Virgin Mary described as the physical world.

Let's see, there was also a miraculous birth for the Virgin Mary in some of those writings. And of course there is the idea that the modern Catholic idea that the Virgin Mary did not inherit the original sin from the Garden of Eden, so that this sin would not be inherited by Jesus. I don't know the details of the Marian beliefs, but they are interesting.

LoAmmi · Jun 4, 2015

cloudyday2 said:
Thanks, that's interesting. I have read descriptions of some of the non-canonical writings describing the childhood of the Virgin Mary. In one of the stories, the Temple is devoid of the shekinah, but the high priest brings the Virgin Mary into the temple as though he believed the shekinah to dwell in her body. So maybe the Virgin Mary was considered the physical manifestation of the Temple or the Holy Spirit. I have also heard the womb of the Virgin Mary described as the physical world.

Written by people who had no clue how the Temple worked, obviously. Or much about Judaism's beliefs.

cloudyday2 · Jun 4, 2015

LoAmmi said:
Written by people who had no clue how the Temple worked, obviously. Or much about Judaism's beliefs.

Well, in fairness to them, I'm sure I have badly garbled the stories.

LoAmmi · Jun 4, 2015

cloudyday2 said:
Well, in fairness to them, I'm sure I have badly garbled the stories.

I've seen Catholics have a tradition that Mary served in the Temple as some kind of Temple virgin. The problem?

Women didn't go into the Temple past a specific gate for modesty purposes and there were no Temple virgins in Judaism.

Supreme · Jun 4, 2015

LoAmmi said:
I've seen Catholics have a tradition that Mary served in the Temple as some kind of Temple virgin. The problem?

Women didn't go into the Temple past a specific gate for modesty purposes and there were no Temple virgins in Judaism.

Reminds me a little bit of the vestal virgins they had in Roman temples.

LoAmmi · Jun 4, 2015

Supreme said:
Reminds me a little bit of the vestal virgins they had in Roman temples.

I'm pretty sure that's where they got it from. I imagine some writer long ago just assumed that the Jewish Temple had the same thing the Roman ones did. So a tradition is born, it gets embedded, and then eventually we have people telling us what was in our Temple as if we forgot.

smaneck · Jun 4, 2015

cloudyday2 said:
And of course there is the idea that the modern Catholic idea that the Virgin Mary did not inherit the original sin from the Garden of Eden, so that this sin would not be inherited by Jesus.

While the belief in the Immaculate Conception (Mary being conceived without sin) doesn't become an official part of Church dogma until the middle of the 19th century, it goes back much further.

ViaCrucis · Jun 4, 2015

Supreme said:
Reminds me a little bit of the vestal virgins they had in Roman temples.

LoAmmi said:
I'm pretty sure that's where they got it from. I imagine some writer long ago just assumed that the Jewish Temple had the same thing the Roman ones did. So a tradition is born, it gets embedded, and then eventually we have people telling us what was in our Temple as if we forgot.

The tradition (legend is a better term) comes from a second century text known as the Protoevangelium of James (sometimes also called the Infancy Gospel of James). Considering there hadn't been a Temple in Jerusalem for many years, the writer probably did assume some sort of similarity between how the Jewish temple operated and how the more familiar Roman temples operated.

As far as I know very little is taken too seriously from the text, it's an early attestation to what eventually became known in Christian tradition as the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, it presents Mary's parents names as Joachim and Anna; also presenting Joseph as a widower and the siblings of Jesus as children of Joseph from a previous marriage.

All these things have been preserved within Christian tradition; though I'd imagine that most serious Catholic and Orthodox scholars wouldn't take too many of the details too seriously; as the text was and is known as little more than as a work of pious fiction. The same genre as as the Infancy Gospel of Thomas which presents fabulous accounts such as Jesus speaking as an infant declaring Himself the Son of God to His mother, making clay doves and bringing them to life on the Sabbath, shoving a child off a roof and, after killing the child, bringing the child back to life, etc. Some of these stories eventually were incorporated into the Qu'ran, but were never exactly taken seriously by Christians.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis · Jun 4, 2015

smaneck said:
While the belief in the Immaculate Conception (Mary being conceived without sin) doesn't become an official part of Church dogma until the middle of the 19th century, it goes back much further.

It likely began as a pious opinion and evolved to become doctrine and then officially dogma in the 19th century. If I recall correctly one of the major reasons for the 1st Vatican Council had to do with the controversy surrounding the papal ex cathedra declaration on the Immaculate Conception of Mary; which led to conciliarists to say that the Pope had no authority to pronounce such things without the consent of the whole Church via ecumenical council--at Vatican I Papal Infallibility (when speaking ex cathedra) was made dogma and resulted in the schism between Rome and what are now known as the Old Catholic (Ultrajectine) Churches.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis · Jun 4, 2015

cloudyday2 said:
I read somewhere that perhaps this Christianity included the Virgin Mary into a 4-part trinity (quadrinity?)

It's said that there was an obscure heretical sect way back when, known as the Collyridians, they regarded the Virgin Mary to be divine, and worshiped her as a goddess; in that sense they held to a kind of quadrinity. Little is known about them however.

Though it is possible that Collyridian (or similar) ideas may have been professed among some Christians in Arabia and may be why the Qu'ran presents the Christian Trinity as consisting of Father, Son, and Mary. Or it may have been a result of a misunderstanding of Christian beliefs on the Trinity, confusing the high honor Christians gave to Mary. There were a high number of Nestorians in the area; it's possible that they criticized their Council of Ephesus-accepting brethren (who called Mary Theotokos, God-bearer and mother of God) of worshiping Mary as divine (not unlike how some modern Protestants do out of a misunderstanding as to what is meant by Theotokos). Though these are all just speculation really.

-CryptoLutheran

Masihi · Jun 5, 2015

ViaCrucis said:
It's said that there was an obscure heretical sect way back when, known as the Collyridians, they regarded the Virgin Mary to be divine, and worshiped her as a goddess; in that sense they held to a kind of quadrinity. Little is known about them however.

Though it is possible that Collyridian (or similar) ideas may have been professed among some Christians in Arabia and may be why the Qu'ran presents the Christian Trinity as consisting of Father, Son, and Mary. Or it may have been a result of a misunderstanding of Christian beliefs on the Trinity, confusing the high honor Christians gave to Mary. There were a high number of Nestorians in the area; it's possible that they criticized their Council of Ephesus-accepting brethren (who called Mary Theotokos, God-bearer and mother of God) of worshiping Mary as divine (not unlike how some modern Protestants do out of a misunderstanding as to what is meant by Theotokos). Though these are all just speculation really.

-CryptoLutheran

This would fall under another category, 7) Pre-islamic, non-Biblical material that ended up in the quran

Masihi · Jun 5, 2015

cloudyday2 said:
Maybe this is a bit off-topic, but here goes. I have also heard that Islam evolved by criticizing and redefining some early sect of Christianity.

Can we use the instances in the Quran that seem to borrow from Christian writings to determine which Christian writings?
Can we look at how Islam defines itself relative to Christian theology to determine what that Christian theology was?

I read somewhere that perhaps this Christianity included the Virgin Mary into a 4-part trinity (quadrinity?)

7) pre-islamic, non-biblical material that ended up in the quran.
I know of a few instances of christian writings.
However pre-existent Jewish writings that found their way into the quran are more obvious to find. Early Jewish sages (rabbi or teachers) wrote volumes of expository material to describe in various styles and manners the stories of the Bible. These are known throughout the jewish world as fictional stories. Some are written in fairytale fashion and read to children on occasion. The volume of material is known as the Jerusalem Talmud. There is a Babylonian Talmud. These are further divided into Midrash and Mishnah and Targum. Here is the account of Solomon found in the Targum of Sheni, on Esther.
This fairytale written by a Jewish rabbi, somehow fell into muhammad's hands and found its way, with a few revisions, into sura 27:16-44.
In the quran version, 'allah' is elevated 7 times even though god is never mentioned in the original story. We see the initiation of several beliefs, 1) that of jinn or genies, 2) solomon speaking with birds, 3) solomon's castle was made of glass. In the quran version, 'allah' wants muslims to believe that 1-3 were true events but we know that the original story was a fictional fairytale.

Masihi · Jun 5, 2015

Historically, Solomon was very wise and "He described trees, from the cedar in Lebanon to the hyssop growing out of the wall. He also taught about animals, birds, reptiles, and fish." BIBLE, 1 Kings 4.33
In summary, Solomon TAUGHT the people about animals, birds, reptiles, fish and plants.
Solomon DID NOT SPEAK with animals, birds, reptiles, fish or plants

Targum of Esther is in the Jerusalem Talmud, tractrate sopherim XIII.6, dating late 300AD. (short version)
"""Solomon gave orders 'I will send King and armies against you (of) Genii beasts of the land the birds of the air.' Just then the Red-[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] bird, enjoying itself, could not be found; King Solomon said that they should seize it and bring it by force, and indeed he sought to kill it. But just then, the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] appeared in the pre sence of the King and said, 'I had seen the whole world (and) know the city and kingdom of Sheba which is not subject to you, My Lord King. They are ruled by a woman called the Queen of Sheba. Then I found the fortified city in the Eastlands (Sheba) and around it are stones of gold and silver in the streets.' By chance the Queen of Sheba was out in the morning worshipping the sea, the scribes prepared a letter, which was placed under the bird's wing, and away it flew, and (it) reached the Fort of Sheba. Seeing the letter under its wing Sheba opened it and read it. 'King Solomon sends to you his Salaams. Now if it please you to come and ask after my welfare, I will set you high above all. But if it please you not, I will send kings and armies against you.' The Queen of Sheba heard it, she tore her garments, and sending for her Nobles asked their advice. They knew not Solomon, but advised her to send vessels by the sea, full of beautiful ornaments and gems...also to send a letter to him. When at last she came, Solomon sent a messenger to meet her...Solomon, hearing she had come, arose and sat down in the palace of glass. When the Queen of Sheba saw it, she thought the glass floor was water, and so in crossing over lifted up her garments. When Solomon seeing the hair about her legs, (He) cried out to her..."""

Masihi · Jun 5, 2015

Solomon Castle

Masihi
May 25, 2015

Targum Esther

Masihi
May 25, 2015

smaneck · Jun 5, 2015

Masihi said:
7
This fairytale written by a Jewish rabbi, somehow fell into muhammad's hands

Nonsense. Muhammad was illiterate. He couldn't read the midrash. These stories, along with bringing life to clay birds, and Jesus defending his mother's honor as a babe in arms were common knowledge among the Arabs. The Qur'an uses them to make a point in the present. Their historicity is really irrelevant. The story of Solomon and the Jinn, for instance, has deep mystical meaning if only you could perceive.

Masihi · Jun 5, 2015

smaneck said:
Nonsense. Muhammad was illiterate. He couldn't read the midrash. These stories, along with bringing life to clay birds, and Jesus defending his mother's honor as a babe in arms were common knowledge among the Arabs. The Qur'an uses them to make a point in the present. Their historicity is really irrelevant. The story of Solomon and the Jinn, for instance, has deep mystical meaning if only you could perceive.

no body buys that "illiterate" nonsense.
This is NOT about clay birds.

smaneck · Jun 5, 2015

Masihi said:
no body buys that "illiterate" nonsense.
This is NOT about clay birds.

Scholars do because they know that no such texts existed in Arabic at the time. In fact the Qur'an is the very first book written in that language.

The truth is, this whole discussion is for the birds.

LoAmmi · Jun 5, 2015

Masihi said:
no body buys that "illiterate" nonsense.

Even if he was literate, I have a lot of doubts he would have been literate in Aramaic, the language the Talmud was written in. He also would have had to been able to fill in the gaps intentionally left by the rabbis to make it difficult for people to steal our Talmud.

The struggle to replace the Bible

Generic Theist

Baha'i

Generic Theist

Dispassionate

Generic Theist

Dispassionate

British

Dispassionate

Baha'i

Confessional Lutheran

Confessional Lutheran

Confessional Lutheran

love based faith is truer than fear based faith

love based faith is truer than fear based faith

love based faith is truer than fear based faith

love based faith is truer than fear based faith

Baha'i

love based faith is truer than fear based faith

Baha'i

Dispassionate

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency