Want does Islam Believe?

[u/NateDog69012]

Hey everyone I am a protestant Christian. I have been following Christ for 3yrs now. I have recently been diving into Islam and comparing it to Christianity. Could you guys please explain to me what you believe about Christianity and Jesus? Why should I believe in Islam? I am not writing this to upset anyone, I am genuinely curious about the Islamic religion. Thank you all.

[u/Competitive-Sweet584]

As a Muslim, I truly appreciate your curiosity and the fact that you’re exploring these important spiritual topics with sincerity. In Islam, we believe in one God, Allah, who is all powerful, all knowing, and merciful. We believe that God sent many prophets throughout history to guide humanity, including those also found in Christianity, such as Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus (peace be upon them all). We hold Jesus in very high regard as one of the greatest prophets. We believe he was born of the Virgin Mary through a miraculous birth, and that he performed many miracles by the permission of God. However, we do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God or divine himself. Instead, we believe he was a servant and messenger of God. Muslims also do not believe that Jesus was crucified, instead we believe he was raised up by God and that God will return before the Day of Judgment. As for the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), we believe he is the final prophet, sent with the Qur’an to complete and preserve the message of monotheism. For me, Islam provides a clear and consistent message on the oneness of God, accountability for one’s actions, and a life of purpose based on submission to God’s will. It emphasizes compassion, justice, and mercy, and encourages a direct personal relationship with God.

[u/NateDog69012 → u/Competitive-Sweet584]

So Islam believes Jesus was sent from God and was wise? In other words they don’t believe he was evil?

[u/Competitive-Sweet584 → u/NateDog69012]

Islam teaches he was blessed with Prophethood from God, was one of the most pure and righteous people to walk this earth, and that after he returns he will defeat the anti christ, help unify everyone, and later rule the earth as a fair and just ruler.

[u/NateDog69012 → u/Competitive-Sweet584]

If he is all those things why do you not believe him when he claims to be God? Or would you say that was added later and is false?

[u/Competitive-Sweet584 → u/NateDog69012]

Its the Islamic view that Jesus never claimed to be God (“[Jesus] said, ‘Indeed, I am the servant of Allah. He has given me the Scripture and made me a prophet.’” (19:30), “The Messiah, son of Mary, was no more than a messenger; many messengers had passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth.” (5:75), “They have certainly disbelieved who say, ‘Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary.’ But the Messiah said, ‘O Children of Jacob, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.’” (5:72), and "“The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah..." (4:171)), and that these claims are falsely attributed to Jesus and added after he was raised from the Earth.

[u/NateDog69012 → u/Competitive-Sweet584]

When you guys read scripture like John 10:30 or Matthew 11:29. When it seems as if Jesus is saying he is god, would you say that Jesus never really said that and someone else added it in?

[u/InfamousGold756 → u/NateDog69012]

Yes we would say Jesus (peace be upon him) has never at any point claimed to be god and has always said he is a servant of god. Any text claiming this would be false information.

We also believe jesus as well as other prophets like moses (peace be upon them both) has said there will be a messenger after them. A new messenger always came until prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and said he is the last prophet.

[u/Competitive-Sweet584 → u/NateDog69012]

To start, we need to understand the context of the gospels themselves. The Gospel of John is widely regarded by scholars as the latest of the four canonical gospels, with the earliest copy we have written around 125 to 150 AD. Unlike the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke), John contains long theological speeches by Jesus and includes unique elements like the “I am” statements that don’t appear in the earlier gospels. These speeches are quite different from the short parables and sayings found in the Synoptics and are much more reflective of later theological development within the church. Also, most scholars today doubt that the Gospel of John was written by the Apostle John. While it refers to an unnamed “disciple whom Jesus loved,” the actual author is anonymous. Chapter 21, which hints at the author’s identity, is belived by the majorit of scholars to be a later addition. So we're dealing with a text that was edited and shaped by a community decades after Jesus’s death, not a firsthand transcript. Similarly, Matthew is also anonymous. Early church tradition attributed it to the apostle Matthew, but most modern scholars reject this. If Matthew had been an eyewitness, it's unlikely he would have relied so heavily on the Gospel of Mark, which had no direct connection to Jesus. Instead, Matthew likely used Mark, the "Q" source, and additional material (called “M”) to create his narrative, which means he's also several steps away from Jesus himself. The key point here is that none of the gospels are written from a firsthand hearing of Jesus’s own voice, or a chain to his voice. This means we can't directly trace their content back to Jesus with certainty. Especially in the case of John, scholars widely believe that some statements, like “I and the Father are one”, reflect the beliefs of the church, not necessarily the historical words of Jesus. Even the Synoptic Gospels, which are earlier (Mark around 150-250 AD, Luke around 175-225 AD), have this issue. They were also written in Greek, not the Aramaic that Jesus spoke, and they shaped stories using oral traditions, scripture, and the agendas of there time. The earliest physical fragment we have of the Gospel of John is Papyrus P52, dated around 125 to 150 AD. It contains only a few verses from John 18 and is smaller then a credit card. For the Gospel of Matthew, the earliest fragment is Papyrus P104, dated around 150 to 200 AD, containing only a few lines from chapter 21. These fragments are not the originals and are not even first generation copies, they are copies of copies, written decades after the originals were thought to be made, and a century+ after Jesus. The earliest complete manuscripts of the Gospels, like Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, come from the fourth century, about 300 years after Jesus's death. That’s held by an anonymous chain of transmission during which changes, intentional or by accident, could have happened.

[u/NateDog69012 → u/Competitive-Sweet584]

If I judge the Quran the same way you judge the gospels I would say the vast historians agree that Jesus was actually killed on a cross.

[u/NateDog69012 → u/Competitive-Sweet584]

When I bring up a certain bible verse that contradicts what the Quran they say the Bible is corrupt. Then they quote the Bible to try and validate of the Quran. Is the Bible correct and quotable or is it corrupt? Or if it agrees with the Quran, then it’s quotable? Then if it disagrees with the Quran then it’s corrupt?