Islam steals the concept of the Logos and incorporates it in a ham-fisted manner using the announcement of the birth of Jesus by the angels

The following is the text of a post on Paul Williams Blogging Theology website:

Jesus is called the “Word of God” in Q 3:45, 64; 19:35.

It is noteworthy that no other Gospel refers to Jesus as “the Word;” it is an intertextuality that exists between and the Qur’an and the Gospel of John only. In Q 3:64, after a long section about Jesus (Q 3:42-63), the Qur’an says: “O People of the Bible! Let us come to a common word ( ڪَلِمَةٍ۬ سَوَآءِۭ) between us and you – that we worship none but God…” While all of the commentators I have seen interpret “common word” here to be a common teaching or an agreed-upon doctrine of sorts, which I agree with, it would not be out of the question to suggest that “word” here is actually a reference of Jesus, as he is called by this title at the beginning of the section (v. 45), and thus the section has come full circle.

Therefore “a common word” is a “common Christology,” a teaching about Jesus Christ. In Q 19:35 we read: “That is Jesus the son of Mary; (I speak) the statement of truth about which they are disputing” (with “the statement of truth” [قول الحق] as a direct object in the accusative suggesting that the verb “I speak” is understood (مفهوم) but apocopated (محذوف) according to al-Qurtubi. In other words, the aforementioned descriptions about Jesus are true statements that the Prophet Muhammad has uttered.

However al-Qurtubi also notes that “the statement of truth” may also be read in the nominative. If this is the case, then “the statement of truth” or rather “the word of the Truth (God)” is a nominal substitute for Jesus – Jesus is the Logos of God about which they (Christian denominations) are in dispute concerning. Christ is the economical manifestation of an exalted pre-eternal and impersonal Decree (أمر) of God who speaks the words (كلمات) of God and is thus the created expressed speech (كلام لفظي), just as the expressions (لفظ) of the Qur’an are the economical manifestations of Divine Pre-Eternal Speech (كلام نفسي وقديم).

From an article by Ali Ataie

What do these islamic texts actually say:

[3.45] When the angels said: O Marium, surely Allah gives you good news with a Word from Him (of one) whose name is the ‘. Messiah, Isa son of Marium, worthy of regard in this world and the hereafter and of those who are made near (to Allah).

[3.64] Say: O followers of the Book! come to an equitable proposition between us and you that we shall not serve any but Allah and (that) we shall not associate aught with Him, and (that) some of us shall not take others for lords besides Allah; but if they turn back, then say: Bear witness that we are Muslims.

[19.35] It beseems not Allah that He should take to Himself a ! son, glory to be Him; when He has decreed a matter He only says to it “Be,” and it is.

Muslims themselves are still disputing and discussing what this Word actually is over 1400 years after the event described took place and this is claimed to be the content of the message that the angels gave to Mary announcing the birth of Jesus!

The concept of the Logos in the bible is introduced and explained in the first chapter of the gospel of John in an orderly and rational manner as opposed to the Quran where it is artificially inserted in to the text and totally out-of-place. The angels never spoke these words to Mary the mother of Jesus. Nor would she have understood them as they are completely void of any context and historically out of sequence.

The writer of the Quran was obviously out of his depth and had no understanding of what the concept of the Logos is in Christianity. His words are total nonsense but possess a semblance of coherence. No wonder that Muslims still have no clear concept of what Allah is saying in this passage.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Islam steals the concept of the Logos and incorporates it in a ham-fisted manner using the announcement of the birth of Jesus by the angels

  1. θ says:

    In Islam, Judaism, the Unitarianism the Word means just the sayings of God or His inherent speech attribution that correlates to the creative generation out of the nothingness. Only in the Trinitarianism the Word could somewhat mean the preexistent person.
    In Qur’an, everything including Jesus is made by one word of Allah “Be” (Arabic: Kun).
    In the Gospel of John, it is plainly said in John 1:13, wherein John specifically uses the word “were” for the elects, instead of “was” for Jesus only.
    Jn 1
    12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

    John – a scribe who wrote the preexistence of Jesus (Jn 17:5, Jn 6:42, Rev 1:17 about the dead, the first, the last) – gets inspired to write one of the foremost verses in Christology, i.e. John 1:13 on the universal preexistence of all the elects “who were born, nor of blood”. Other verse on other preexistence is Rev 11:4 for two future saints.
    Jn 1:13
    Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
    Rev 11:4
    These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.

    The Trinitarians just tampered John 1:13 with their crafty substitution tricks. They change the word “were” (for the elects) with “was” in order to limit the pre-existence for Jesus alone. It was Valentinius (circa 100 – 160 AD) the early Christian who uses John 1:13 to teach the belief in the pre-existence of the elects along with Jesus’. Valentinians degrade the divinity of Jesus into the same mortal status of the elects. Certainly the Trinitarians were not happy with this, hence he and his group were condemned by the Trinitarians as heretics.
    Nevertheless, despite a condemnation of the Trinitarian clerics, the correct passage of John 1:13 continues to prevail thru the hands of the scribes. As result, the theology of preexistence of the elects remains intact within the Gospel of John. Hence, Jesus is not unique on preexistence.

  2. madmanna says:

    “In Islam, Judaism, the Unitarianism the Word means just the sayings of God or His inherent speech attribution that correlates to the creative generation out of the nothingness.”

    How does Mary know which of the two?

  3. θ says:

    “madmanna says: How does Mary know which of the two?”

    In Q.3, v.45 Gabriel uses the word “Asmu-hu” that refers to the name of individual for whom the title “Kalima” (Word of God) is given.
    Knowable Jews like Mary know better that the title is given to certain creations alongside their real names. For example, the title “Spirit of God” is given to one particular angel named Gabriel amid the fact that other heavenly angels are also one hundred percent spirits of God by nature as well, no less or more.

  4. madmanna says:

    “In Q.3, v.45 Gabriel uses the word “Asmu-hu” that refers to the name of individual for whom the title “Kalima” (Word of God) is given.”

    What language is that?

  5. θ says:

    The reputation of John’s Gospel in the Biblical academics is quite unique. Hostory-oriented scholars do not accept the validity of this Gospel. Nevertheless, there are several reasons why Moslems can’t reject the Gospel of John:
    (i) It is the only Gospel that promises the coming of Prophet Muhammad, known in Arabic as Munahhemana and “that Prophet”.
    Christians are supposed to believe in Qur’an if they truly believe in what John wrote about Jesus in his Gospel.

    (ii) It is the only Gospel that confirms the origin of the souls in preexistence from God’s will that was born in Jn 1:13, as well as similar origin of Jesus from the Word that was becoming (preceding) the flesh in Jn 1:14.
    In Islam, when Allah wills someone to exist, He just says “Be” and it immediately becomes. It means in process the Word preceded someone’s existence. Idea of preexistence of Jesus and of the men’s souls does not pose some kind of troubles for Moslems.

    (iii) It is the only Gospel that has similar “spiritual genre” with Qur’an’s: the vision (not historical one). The secret of substitution of Jesus in Qur’an is revealed thru a vision rather than eyewitnesses. The prophesy of Munahhemana is given thru the vision.

    (iv) It is the only Gospel that literally has a stronger Binitarian theology (John 1:1, John 10:30, John 20:28, John 3:16, John 14:6) that effectively ruins the Trinitarian belief, since the Binitarian argument just serves as a self-defeat and creedal problem for the Trinity.
    Moreover, it contains the controversial Oneness heresy (John 14:10). Moreover the John’s Gospel suffers a greater extend of textual variants, and nobody can be certain which ones the original or genuine writings are. Certainly the Christians reject the heretical texts written by this Gospel.
    Again, the Gospel of John support the belief of Moslems in a unique way by showing how this Gospel was not protected but corrupted so badly by the fallible scribes.

  6. θ says:

    History-oriented scholars divide four Christs in the New Testament:
    (i) Historical Jesus whose title is Christ.

    (ii) Unhistorical Jesus. In Mt 28:15 Matthew is inspired to say something unhistorical, too dubious, spurious, even controversial involving Jews that they spread a conspiracy story that disciples stole the body of Jesus “until this day”. There’s no historical evidence whatsoever for this baseless accusation, not even in Jewish hearsay and writings.
    Mt 28
    11 Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.12 And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,13 Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.

    (iii) Jesus of idle tales, after the resurrection. The first impression of disciples when hearing the news of Mary Magdalene is being dismissive. They just mock her of telling the idle tales. Moreover, the first expression of disciples when seeing the appearance of Jesus’ resurrection is being afraid, that is presuming him as a ghost.

    (iv) Jesus of vision, as the voice from the sky conversing in the Hebrew language. The first perception of Saul when hearing a strange voice on the road of Damascus is the voice talks in Hebrew rather than Aramaic.

  7. θ says:

    Addendum.
    (iv) Jesus of vision, as the voice from the sky conversing in the Hebrew language (to Paul) and as the man who tells his secret Christology to certain individual (to John).
    The first perception of Saul when hearing a strange voice on the road of Damascus is the voice talks in Hebrew rather than Aramaic.
    The first impression given by John when telling the story of Jesus in his Gospel is that he intends to seriously differ or correct three previous Synoptic Gospels, such as:
    – In the synoptic (Mk 1:16), Jesus first meets Simon and Andrew casting a net into the Sea of Galilee, whereas Jn 1:37 two disciples followed Jesus, then in 1:40 Andrew initiated to approach Jesus firstly.
    – None of three Synoptic Gospels has anyone in the parallel scenes that could be directly understood as the Beloved Disciple. In Jn 11:36 the Beloved one of Christ is Lasarus, and then the title “Beloved Disciple” is used six times after John 11.
    – In Lk 24:12, Peter alone runs to the tomb, but in Jn 20:1-10 Mary Magdalene runs to tell the Beloved Disciple and Peter and the two men rush to the empty tomb, even Beloved Disciple is the first to reach the empty tomb.
    – On the peak of the Passion scene, three Synoptic Gospels do not mention anyone of his twelve disciples having witnessed the crucifixion, whereas in Jn 19:26-27 Jesus tells Mary, “Woman, here is your son”, and to the Beloved Disciple he says, “Here is your mother.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s