The first verse revealed to Muhammad according to Islamic scholars is Surah 96.

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 2:13pm:


If you read the Meccan verses, they actually aren't the ravings of a desert warmonger. The messages about 'doing righteous deeds, feeding the poor, being modest with material things'; these are messages that Jesus taught and he was a just a Palestinian carpenter.

True, the Meccan verses are very prophetic and do condemn the disbelievers to the Fire; but this leaves the punishment up to God, and not up to people. Punishment by God is also a concept in Judaism and Christianity. Second, in the early traditions of Islam, disbelief was almost always associated with bad deeds; the two were intertwined. The idea that you could be Atheist never occurred to anyone at the time.

The idea that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant is not necessarily a part of all religions; but most. The reason this is, is due to the authority and power. If you can convince people that this Book is perfect, then you claim to have a monopoly  on the truth. Christianity was like that hundreds of years ago. People believed that the Bible was the literal word of God, or the sayings of Jesus; but during the last two hundred or so years, people have read the Bible in context, and many now know that the Gospels and Epistles were written after Jesus' ministry. Many Christians would acknowledge the Bible as 'divinely inspired' as opposed to 'inerrant'. The Jews have another Torah, known as the Oral Torah, which they believed was passed down from God to Moses on Mt Sinai and wasn't recorded in the Tanakh.

Ultimately, in the modern world, we now view religion differently. Yes, there are certain rituals and beliefs that define certain religions. My person interpretation of the Quran is that it emphasizes submission to God, which the other Abrahamic religions don't preach as much (Judaism focuses on the Land of Israel). That's what Islam means: "submission". A Muslim is someone who submits to God.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 5:10pm:


I'm not sure what you mean. The New Testament is mainly a series of documents talking about Jesus' actions, sayings and the added claim that he is divine.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 6:09pm:


Ok, so this is my point of view, and I hope it answers your question.

I believe that very early on, the followers of Jesus interpreted his ministry in a very Jewish manner: i.e. Jesus was the descendant of King David and was the prophesized Jewish Messiah who would rule Israel. Obviously, this went smashingly (sarcasm...). Fast-forward to a couple of decades and Saul has a revelation on the road to Damascus where Jesus appeared to him and asked: "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?"

Paul then wrote his letters. It's important to understand that Paul's 'experience' on the road to Damascus was what drove the current theology of Christianity. Because Jesus appeared to Paul, in Paul's mind, Jesus had been resurrected as a 'Spirit' and that's why Jesus had appeared to him. Paul wrote the 7 letters first, then the Gospel of Mark came as the earliest and so on. All of the Gospels use Paul's theology to describe Jesus's actions and sayings.

Therefore, in my mind there was a struggle between those who had a Jewish interpretation of Jesus (i.e. as is more reflected in the Epistle of James) and those who had followed Paul's teachings. When the church had established the canon, they had probably attempted to reconcile these two teachings by including the Jewish origins, as well as the distinct Christian teachings as propagated by Paul.

The idea of the 'Son of God' is actually a Pauline teaching, the divine being and the human as one; and the Holy Spirit representing the link between the two. The Gnostics could've been inspired by Paul, and further developed the theology of Gnosticism. If you read some of the other Gospels, they're quite weird and 'out there', although the Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Judas are quite interesting.

It was Paul who established (or at least cemented) the theology of Christ being the Son of God, i.e. divine in nature.

I'm not saying that I believe that Jesus was divine, I don't; I have my own views. I'm saying that the central tenets of early church was that Jesus was both divine and human in form.

Personally, I don't like Paul. I think he corrupted Christianity with his theology, although I agree his intentions were good. I believe that Jesus that was wholly human, and that's what made him incredible.

Brian Ross wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 5:10pm:

Because they are not as eyewateringly stupid as you.

Aussie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 6:45pm:

You too are a Doctor of Divinity caliber thinker.

Aussie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 6:45pm:


With credit to Paul, his intentions were good.

Frank wrote on Mar 12^th, 2017 at 7:12pm:


Ok, so great. You and I agree on this interpretation of Christianity. You're smarter than I gave you credit for.