How Jesus Christ (pbuh) Described The Glory Of Pro

[AbuMubarak]

www.studyislam.com


By: Dr. Ahmad Shafaat


We present here some traditions attributed to prophet Jesus (may peace be upon him), in which that great prophet talks about the Chief of all Prophets, Hazarat Muhammad (may God bless him ever more). The traditions are naturally in the form of prophecies, since the Prophet Jesus lived before the time of our Prophet Muhammad. But they have value not merely as prophecies: they also provide one of the most beautiful tributes to the glory of the Prophet of Islam ever written. The traditions are from a version of the Gospel of Barnabas compiled by a thirteenth century Italian on the basis of early Christian sources.


"Jesus said, Philip! God is a Good without which there is nothing good: God is a Being without which there is nothing that has existence; God is a Life without which there is nothing that lives. He has no equal. He had no beginning, nor will He have an end, but to everything has He given a beginning and to everything shall He give an end. He has no father nor mother; He has no sons, nor brethren nor companions."


Philip answered:


"Master, what sayest thou? It is surely written in Isaiah that God is our father: how, then, hath He no sons?"


Jesus answered:


"There are written by the prophets many parables, wherefore one ought not attend to the letter, but to the sense. For all the prophets, that are one hundred and forty-four thousand, have spoken ambiguously. But after me shall come the Splendor of all the prophets who shall shed light upon the ambiguities of all that the prophets have said, because he is the Messenger of God."


"Verily, I say unto you that every prophet when he is come has borne the mark of the mercy of God to one nation only. And so their words were not extended save to the people to which they were sent. But the Messenger of God, when he shall come, will be given as it were the seal of the hand of God, insomuch as he shall carry salvation and mercy to all the nations of the world that shall receive his doctrine. He shall come with power upon the ungodly, and shall destroy idolatry for, so promised God to Abraham, saying: "Behold, in thy seed I will bless all the tribes of the earth; and as thou hast broken in pieces the idols, O Abraham, even so shall thy seed do."


"I there fore say unto you, that the Messenger of God is a splendor that shall give gladness to nearly all that God has made, for he is adorned with the spirit of understanding and counsel, the spirit of wisdom and might, of fear and love, prudence and temperance; he is adorned with the spirit of charity and mercy, of justice and piety and gentleness and patience, which he has received from God three times more than He has given to all His creatures combined. Blessed will be the time when he shall come to the world! Believe me that I have seen him and have done him reverence, even as every prophet has seen him. And when I saw him my soul was filled with consolation, saying, O Admirable One! God be with thee, and may he make me worthy to untie thy shoe-latchet for obtaining this I shall be a great prophet and holy one of God."


"As for me, I am now come to the world to prepare the way for the Messenger of God, who shall bring salvation to the world. By the living God, in whose presence my soul stands, I am not the Savior whom all the tribes of the earth expect."


Then said the Priest:


"How shall the Savior be called, and what sign shall reveal his coming?"


Jesus answered:


"The name of the Savior shall be the Admirable One, for, God himself gave him the name when he had created his soul, and placed it in celestial splendor. God said, "Wait O Admirable One (=Muhammad), for thy sake I will create paradise, the world, and a great multitude of creatures, whereas I make thee a present, insomuch that whosoever shall curse the shall be cursed. When I send thee into the world, I shall send thee as My Messenger of Salvation, and thy world shall be true insomuch that heaven and earth shall fail but thy faith shall never fail. Admirable One is his blessed name."


Then the crowd lifted up their voices, saying:


"O God send Thy Messenger. O Admirable One come quickly for the salvation of the world."


Posted By:


Syeda Muneeba Masood

[ronniv93]

Hello AbuMubarak,


Can you tell me if the quotes you gave came from the alleged "gospel" of Barnabas?

[Muslimah]

why alleged??????

[ronniv93]

Hey Muslimah,


I say "alleged" before the word "Gospel", because it claims to be the "gospel" (good news) which it is not.


This document is false, forged. It is not an authentic book written by a person who really knew Jesus. It's unlikely that the author, whoever he is, even lived in the same geographic area and time of Jesus.

[umm Zachariah]

Hi Ronniv93,


Sorry for running into this thread, but something you wrote caught my attention.


''It is not an authentic book written by a person who really knew Jesus. It's unlikely that the author, whoever he is, even lived in the same geographic area and time of Jesus.'' This about the Gospel of Barnabas.


If I try to reflect on something, and then try to do it from your point of view, that you don't acknowledge this Gospel, but can I instead concentrate on the other Gospels that is used by Christianity today?


The New Testament Gospel of Mark, though considered by Church scholars to be the oldest of the Gospels is that it was not written by a disciple of Jesus. Biblical scholars concluded, based on the evidence contained in the Gospel, that Mark himself was not a disciple of Jesus. Furthermore, according to them, it is not even certain who Mark really was. The ancient Christian author, Eusebius (325 C.E.), reported that another ancient author, Papias (130 C.E.), was the first to attribute the Gospel to John Mark, a companion of Paul.


This according to 'The Five Gospels' and 'The New Encyclopaedia Britannica' vol. 14.


The same is the case with the other Gospels. Although Matthew, Luke and John are the names of disciples of Jesus, PHUB, the authors of the Gospels bearing their names were not those famous disciples, but other individuals who used the disciples’ names to give their accounts credibility. In fact, all the Gospels originally circulated anonymously. Authoritative names were later assigned to them by unknown figures in the early church.


This according to the 'The Five Gospels'.


So my question is - shall I from this draw the conclusion that these sources, and there are other similar to, most of them Christian, that they are not telling us the truth? Shall I assume that they they are lying?


Regards

[ronniv93]

The New Testament Gospel of Mark, though considered by Church scholars to be the oldest of the Gospels is that it was not written by a disciple of Jesus. Biblical scholars concluded, based on the evidence contained in the Gospel, that Mark himself was not a disciple of Jesus.

You made reference to the book "The Five Gospels". These are people claiming to be "Christian" scholars, yet they (for some reason) want to strip mostly everything away from the Bible in order to support their little theories. Those people are *not* Christian. I have not studied about these "schoalars" in-depth, but I know a little about them.


Let me make an analogy: Listening to them for the truth about the Bible and Christianity would be like me going to the "Progressive Muslims" to find out what the Quran says. Have you heard of the Progressive Muslims? They claim to be Muslim, yet interpret the Quran so liberally that they are almost unrecognizable as Muslims.


So, to answer your question, no, I do not accept the word of these people who have come around in modern day times seeking to destroy that which they do not understand.


The "gospel" of Barnabas was NEVER considered scripture and history tells us that the only copy that exists is in Latin and dates to the Middle Ages. I mean, the book makes reference to hosiery, of all things! I don't think Jewish people were wearing hosiery in Jesus' day. LOOL. But, people did in the Middle Ages in Europe.


So, that one is easy to prove false.


Now that you have brought the "Jesus Seminar" people back up, I will probably start looking into their claims more in-depth just so I know their strategy and what they teach.


Don't know about the Encyclopaedia either. I'll have to try to look that reference up and I'll get back to you.

[ronniv93]

Allow me to post just a little bit on why I don't accept the claims of this "Jesus Seminar":

*They reject miracle stories out-of-hand as fiction on the allegation that miracles aren't possible.

Tell me how any <b>Christian</b> can reject miracle stories? The Bible is full of them. It is something that is practically a given to believe in. How then can they be called Christian?


They have made this <b>assumption</b> that all miracle stories must have been created over time to embellish the story of Jesus. What gives them the authority

They presume the faith-motivated first Christians weren't interested in history, and willingly put words into Jesus' mouth to fulfill their own needs.  Under their brand of "criteria of dissimilarity" the only words they accept as authentic to Jesus and thus not borrowed, are those which differ from both the concerns of the early church and from the surrounding Judaistic culture.

Again, what kind of scholarship is this?


They even had some Jews and atheists as part of their list of "scholars". More than half of the so-called scholars are virtually unknowns in the field of Biblical and Christian scholarship, having only written a few papers as part of their educational requirements.


Now, I would never talk badly about Jews but if they are still "Jews", how would they know (or not know) what Jesus said? Many of them don't even accept that Jesus ever existed. But the Jesus Seminar people thought that they could be considered New Testament scholars??


I do question the group's credibility.


They wish to water-down the Gospel and are extremely liberal. I no more accept their word on something than I accept the "Progresive Muslim" teachings on Islam.

[umm Zachariah]

Hi Ronniv93,


I am not going to go any deeper into the different Christians interpretations of what is what, I only register the contracictions are there, and from many different sources. If the text would be intact these different interpretations would not appear, so I believe. But that is truly a Christian problem to deal with, if the truth is the goal.


I don't think you can compare this with the Qur'an since you will surely have a hard time finding a Muslim that do not say anything other than that the Qur'an is the true unaltered words of Allah, SWT. So there is a VERY big difference in approacing this subject. Like two different worlds.


Regards

[ronniv93]

But there are varying interpretations of the Quran just as there is for any other document. I'm a little confused by that statement. Even though a majority of Muslims today read from a standard text, there is yet variation....


Is it not Muhammad who predicted that the ummah would eventually divide into 73 different sects? Are there not sects today that differ with one another? They differ with one another on one or more points. I actually found the list of names on the internet yesterday.


I have never understood this argument, because there is not a faith system on earth that doesn't have people with differing views/opinions.


And as I said about this Jesus Seminar group, I wouldn't even classify most of them as Christian.


How, for instance, could a person claim to be a Muslim but then they also believe that Muhammad was not the last prophet? Wouldn't that be denying a very basic tenet/belief of Islam?


It's the same with these people who wrote this book.

[ronniv93]

I guess I need to add that I agree that for the most part, you won't find a Muslim saying that the Quran has been altered. But then, that is probably just below blasphemy in Islam.


Even when I've read the articles and documents that speak of the various manuscripts (and there are more than just 7 different variants and not just about pronunciation either), even then these same people will somehow deny that any substantial changes have taken place. Yet when I read their work, they clearly say that some wordings are different.


Maybe, since this keeps coming up I should just start a thread on the topic.


But, I just don't get this "7 readings" theory. If I pronounce a word a certain way because I live in the South and someone in the Northern U.S. pronounces the same word differently, that doesn't change the SPELLING of the word anyway.


And besides this, in the book I referred to "Ulum Al-Quran", that was written by a Muslim, he did not merely confine his discussion to different dialects, but actual different wordings, order of surahs, etc. He just tried to explain them away as not being a big deal. But even if one says that the differences are not a big deal, that still means that there are differences.


If there weren't, why would there have been a need to burn variant copies? Especially if they were revealed this way to Muhammad and he taught them in all these ways.... why burn the words that were believed to be from Allah?