HISTORY OF SEX
ROMAN EMPIRE
Ancient Rome was nearly identical to Ancient Greece.
It was a patrilineal society where the men owned
the property, including the women. Men depicted
themselves naked in artwork, while wifes and mothers
were clothed, robed, and veiled. Prostitutes were
depicted naked.
Roman Mythology
Roman mythology is also nearly identical
to Greek mythology with different names
for each god and goddess, but the same
traits and stories for those deities.
Juno = Hera
Venus = Aphrodite
Mutunus Tutunus
We know from the writings of monks in monasteries that they found a rather unique temple in Velia. This temple's god had no
face, nor body, but was represented in the form of a penis and called "Mutunus Tutunus." Phalluses were erected all over this
temple and sometimes the penis statues would be crowned with flowers. It was said that on the wedding day, the bride was
supposed to sit on the image of the Mutunus Tutunus.
Roman Marriage
Sometimes on the wedding night, the husband would not sleep with his new bride but arranged to sleep with another woman.
The Roman state wanted fertility among mothers. Widows were not allowed to remarry. Husbands went out of their way to keep
their own wives locked up like slaves. They deprived their wives of a life outside the home. It was forbidden for wives to
possess money. The legal age for marriage in Ancient Rome for a woman was age 12, whether she had reached puberty or not.
Virginity upon marriage was valued. Roman men were allowed to engage in adultery, but their wives were not. Female sexuality
was entirely defined in their patriarchical value: sex with wives for legitimate children and procreation of a man's children
and prostitutes, concubines and slaves for a man's sexual leisure, rape for power over any woman.
Venus in the Place of Aphrodite
The Romans did have a Venu Victrix or a Venus of Battle. It was a common practice for a half naked girl with her breasts
showing to ride on a horse proceeding the battle. This idea dates back to Ancient Mesopotamia and the Goddess Ishtar.
Venus was also the restorer of life and was said to be able to bring back the dead. Eros, the god of love (Cupid) was
generally depicted at her armside.
Prostitution
We know that like the Greeks, Roman men frequently engaged in prostitution. From writings describing the living conditions of
Roman brothels, we know that they were extremely unsanitary and many prostitutes died living in the brothels because of their
unsanitary conditions. Roman men were also allowed to beat and rape prostitutes who didn't perform the services they wanted
for the prices that they wanted.
Monday, October 15, 2007
"Marriage more shameful than adultery":
(NOTE: THE FOOTNOTE LINKS ARE NOT ACTIVE. THE ORIGINAL ONLINE DOCUMENT IS RATHER LARGE SO I DIVIDED IT INTO MORE MANAGEBLE PARTS FOR EASIER SCROLLING.UNFORTUNATELY THIS BROKE THE LINKS TO THE NOTES. IF ANYONE KNOWS HOW TO REPAIR THEM PLEASE LET ME KNOW.) Anticus
Phoenix 47 (1993) 2. pp125-154
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introductory Note
"Marriage more shameful than adultery": slave-mistress relationships, "mixed marriages," and late Roman law.
JUDITH EVANS-GRUBBS
A CONTROVERSIA of the elder Seneca posits the following rhetorical situation: a tyrant encouraged slaves to rape their mistresses and cohabit with them in marriage. One slave refused to violate his master's daughter. After the tyrant was overthrown her father, as a reward to the respectful slave, freed him and married him to the daughter whose honor he had saved. The girl's brothers then accuse their father of insanity for having made such a disgraceful marriage for their sister.
The controversia's rhetoricians vie with each other in hurling abuse at the freedman for marrying his former mistress and invent fanciful description of the sordid nature of the union: "Marriage more shameful than any adultery (matrimonium omni adulterio turpius )!" exclaims one. Even those taking the father's side against his sons can only offer feeble justifications of a father's right to choose his daughter's husband; both sides agree that the slave's motives in saving his mistress were purely self-serving and in no way deserving of marriage with the child of a man who was not merely freeborn (ingenuus), but "born to respectable parents" (honestis parentibus natus ).[1]
Roman society had never favored the idea of a free woman having a sexual relationship with a slave, and the insinuation that they consort with slaves or low-born males is a favorite slur of Roman satirists against supposedly respectable women.[2] To the elder Seneca and his upper-class audience, even legitimate marriage between a freedman and his former master's daughter was abhorrent, for it threatened the proper hierarchy of male over female and brought disgrace upon the woman and her family.
In the eyes of the educated male élite who made and interpreted the law, legitimate Roman marriage was a union between social equals, an alliance not only of two people but of their families, intended to produce children whose legitimacy and status were not in question and who could fittingly succeed to their parents' property and role in the social order.[3] And although classical Roman marriage ideology tended not to stress the ideal of wifely submissiveness found elsewhere in the Mediterranean, it did disapprove of unions in which the wife had significantly more wealth or higher rank than her husband, since the male was the acknowledged head of the household (paterfamilias) and his superior authority had to be unquestioned.[4]
This article will examine the evidence for monogamous unions between free women and slave men in imperial Roman society, with particular attention to the relationship of a woman with her own slave or former slave. This evidence is found mainly in the Roman legal sources, especially later imperial legislation in the Codes of Justinian and Theodosius. The Roman legal attitude toward unions between free women and slave men was always unfavorable, and in the late Empire imperial attempts to regulate or repress such relationships increase. In the fourth century Constantine enacted a number of laws against marriages between partners of different social status (including unions between men of high social standing and lowborn women as well as between free women and slaves), and his legislation remained largely in force until Justinian's overhaul of Roman law in the sixth century. In discussing this legislation and its social context, I hope to contribute to our understanding of the marital practices and mores of the imperial period and to the use of Roman legal sources for the social history of antiquity.
I FREE-SLAVE UNIONS IN CLASSICAL ROMAN LAW
Roman law had never recognized monogamous sexual relationships between slaves, or between free people and slaves. Rather, such unions were termed contubernia and had none of the legal consequences of iustum matrimonium (legitimate marriage).[5] Unions between free men and slave women, though without legal validity, were not penalized. A man who wanted to marry his slavewoman could free her and become both her husband and her patron, and Latin funerary inscriptions provide many examples of such patron-liberta marriages.[6] Indeed, although the lex Aelia Sentia of Augustus normally denied full legal validity to manumissions in which the slave was less than thirty years old or the owner younger than twenty, an exception was made in the case of a man who wished to free his slavewoman for the sake of marriage (matrimonii causa).[7]
The legal encouragement of marriage between free men and former slaves was not, however, extended to the highest ranks of Roman society: under the Augustan lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus, senators and their descendants to the third generation could not contract iustum matrimonium with freedpeople.[8] But although a man of senatorial status could not legally marry a freedwoman, he could live with her as his concubine; this sort of concubinatus was a perfectly respectable (though extra-legal) relationship.[9]
The Augustan rule against marriage between senatorial men and former slaves applied also to the female children and grandchildren of senators; and in the mid-second century Marcus Aurelius decreed that such unions were not only not iusta matrimonia, but had no legal validity whatsoever.[10] And Roman society did not condone concubinatus between a woman of senatorial rank and her former slave as it did between a senatorial man and his liberta, not only because of the traditional double standard which allowed men greater sexual freedom than women, but also because of Roman disapproval of unions in which the wife had a higher social status than her husband.[11]
Roman legal and social attitudes were also stricter in regard to monogamous relationships between a free woman outside the senatorial order and a man of servile birth. A free woman who lived in contubernium with someone else's slave fell under the provisions of the senatusconsultum Claudianum of 52 A.D., and became the slave of her partner's owner if the owner had not agreed to the union, or his freedwoman if he had agreed. Children of the union might also be slaves even when the mother remained free, although normally children of unions not recognized by Roman law took their mother's status.[12]
The s.c. Claudianum, which had been framed by Claudius' freedman Pallas, originally appears to have been directed primarily toward the marital arrangements of the imperial household. Because of the high prestige and unusual opportunities for advancement available to members of the emperor's slave familia, contubernium with an imperial slave was an attractive option for some freeborn women (who might themselves be the daughters of imperial freedmen), despite the fact that this could not become a legitimate marriage until the slave was freed. The s.c. Claudianum thus ensured that imperial slaves would have children also of servile status who would remain in the imperial household.[13] Hadrian modified the law somewhat, so that if the mother remained free, she had free children, but it appears that such unions generally resulted in slave children, at least where slaves of the imperial household were concerned.
The s.c. Claudianum remained in force throughout antiquity until its final repeal by Justinian and was the subject of detailed discussion in the post-classical handbook known as the Sententiae Pauli and in a number of fourth- and fifth-century laws preserved in the Theodosian Code. But it was directed against women who cohabited with someone else's slave. There seems to have been no general law against the contubernium of a free woman with her own slave until the fourth century, although, given the very incomplete state of preservation of ancient legal sources, such a law may once have existed.
However, disapproval of unions between freeborn women and men who had formerly been their slaves can certainly be found in earlier imperial legislation. Manumission of a male slave by his mistress matrimonii causa had never been considered seemly, and freeborn women did not enjoy the dispensation from the age requirements of the lex Aelia Sentia that had been allowed to men who wished to marry their freedwomen.[14] Indeed, legal experts of the early third century debated whether a woman should actually be prohibited from marrying her own freedman. According to the third-century jurist Marcian, "There are those who think that even women can manumit for the sake of marriage, but only if, by chance, her own fellow slave (conservus) had been left to her as a legacy for this purpose" -- that is, if the woman had herself been a slave and her patron had bequeathed to her the man who had been her contubernalis in slavery. But if a woman had been her patron's wife, she should not later marry one of her fellow freedmen, according to Papinian, secretary a libellis under Septimius Severus.[15]
On the other hand, Ulpian, Papinian's immediate successor as secretary a libellis, wrote: "If a patrona is so lowborn (ignobilis) that even marriage with her own freedman is respectable for her, it ought not to be prohibited by the office of the judge investigating this."[16] Ulpian's tolerant attitude does not seem to have been shared by all of his contemporaries. The mention of a judicial investigation implies that the existence of such a marriage might be brought to the attention of the authorities, on the assumption that it was illegal and that the participants should be punished. Ulpian may have been thinking of this rescript sent by Septimius Severus in reply to the petition of a certain Valeria:
libertum, qui patronam seu patroni filiam vel coniugem vel neptem vel proneptem uxorem ducere ausus est, apud competentem iudicem accusare poteris moribus temporum meorum congruentem sententiam daturum, quae huiusmodi coniunctiones odiosas esse merito duxerunt.
You will be able to lay charges against a freedman who dared to marry his patroness, or the daughter, wife, granddaughter, or great-granddaughter of his patron, with the appropriate judge, who will give a sentence in accordance with the mores of my reign, which have rightly considered unions of this sort odious.[17]
It is not clear what Valeria's interest in the situation was, but as a woman she could only have initiated legal action in cases which directly concerned her or her immediate family.[18] Perhaps some female relative, oblivious to the social stigma attached to marriage with a legal inferior, had married her freedman or that of her father or deceased husband. Valeria had then written to the Emperor to learn whether such a union was really legal and, if not, whether the former slave could be punished for his audacity. Similarly, a woman called Hygia consulted the emperor Philip about a freedman who had arranged the marriage of his patron's daughter to his own illegitimate son, also of slave birth. The presumptuous freedman was the legal guardian of his deceased patron's child, and marriage of a pupilla to her tutor or his son was in any case illegal under Roman law. Philip assured Hygia that such a union was forbidden.[19] The girl in question must have been a relative of Hygia, perhaps her daughter. The Sententiae Pauli, dating from the late third or early fourth century, report that the penalty for marriage between a freedman and his patroness (or the wife or daughter of his patron) was condemnation to the mines or to opus publicum, state-imposed hard labor.[20]
II UNIONS BETWEEN FREEBORN WOMEN AND FREEDMEN: EPIGRAPHICAL AND LITERARY EVIDENCE
The legal texts cited above imply that marriage between a woman and her freedman or the freedman of her husband or father did sometimes occur, and that some people found it objectionable. Valeria and Hygia were writing to the emperor about specific cases in which they were in some way involved. There is in fact inscriptional evidence for marriage between patrona and libertus in imperial Rome, though it is much less abundant than the evidence for unions between patron and freedwoman.[21] The commemoration of his patroness wife by the grateful freedman Tiberius Claudius Hermes provides an example:
Tiberius Claudius Hermes. I placed in the burial place of her relatives Claudia Ilias, the daughter of Tiberius, the best patroness [who was] at the same time my most faithful wife, with whom I lived for twenty-two years, one month [and] two days, without any envy (aemulatio) by the indulgence of her whose kindness, faith, and opinion I obtained for myself for as long as I shall live. You, best [and] most holy mistress (domina), I would ask the gods that some one of my people make my departure such [as I made yours]. She lived forty-seven years, one month and two days.[22]
The identification of Claudia Ilias by her father's nomen indicates that she was freeborn, but her father was probably a freedman of one of the Julio-Claudian emperors. She was already twenty-five years old when she married Hermes; since that would be a rather late age for first marriage for a Roman woman, she may have been a widow or divorcée who had more freedom to choose her second mate than a teenage girl would have had.[23] Hermes was probably at least thirty years old when she freed him, since although a freedwoman could legally free her former conservus for marriage before he turned thirty, an ingenua could not.[24]
However, most patrona-libertus unions were cases where the woman, freed first, had been able to buy her contubernalis out of slavery or had been left him as a legacy by her former master.[25] Epigraphical evidence indicates that free women who married someone else's slave, and therefore were subject to the provisions of the s.c. Claudianum, were generally of slave birth themselves or were the children of former slaves.[26] The exception is women who married imperial slaves or freedmen, the majority of whom appear to have been ingenuae (although they would have undergone a diminution of status to libertae or servae Caesaris if their husbands were still slaves).[27] But in this case, the prestige and power that members of the familia Caesaris often possessed would have compensated for the husbands' servile status, and the women, though freeborn, are not likely to have been of equestrian or senatorial status.
However, two Christian works of the early third century may refer to the possibility of relationships between slaves and women of higher rank. The Refutation of all Heresies (also known as the Philosophumena), now generally attributed to the Christian writer Hippolytus, describes an ecclesiastical decision made by Callistus, bishop of Rome from 217 to 222. Callistus, who was himself of servile birth, had declared that Christian women of high social status who did not wish to lose their rank but could not find suitable Christian husbands among men of their own class could "marry" those beneath them, either slaves or free men, provided that these unions were life-long and monogamous.[28]
Callistus' sanction of such unions had no effect on the Roman legal attitude toward slave-free relationships, nor indeed can it be considered "canon law" of the type later promulgated by church authorities.[29] It merely gave a Christian woman who wished to live with a low-born man the comfort of knowing that their relationship was considered a marriage in the eyes of the bishop of Rome. Callistus' decision was, however, strongly condemned by Hippolytus, who claimed that it had resulted in an increase in abortions by high-ranking women who did not wish to bear offspring to their low-born partners.
Since Hippolytus (our only source for this so-called "decree of Callistus") had himself been an unsuccessful candidate for bishop of Rome and hated Callistus, his testimony is open to suspicion. But Hippolytus' contemporary, the African Christian writer Tertullian (who considered Callistus overly lenient on other moral issues), also recommended that Christian women marry beneath themselves if they could not find partners of their own rank within the church. Tertullian's second treatise Ad uxorem was inspired by the occurrence of "mixed marriages" between socially conscious Christian women and non-Christian men, marriages allegedly caused by a scarcity of Christian men of wealth and high status. To discourage Christian women from what he considered dangerous and unholy unions, Tertullian pointed to the example of aristocratic and wealthy pagan women:
Many women, noble in birth and fortunate in wealth, join themselves indiscriminately to ignoble and humble men, who have been chosen for pleasure or castrated for lust. Some women bring themselves freely even to their own slaves, in contempt of everyone's opinion, as long as they have men from whom they fear no impediment to their freedom.
He concluded that Christian women should therefore certainly not be ashamed to marry poor men, especially since "to the poor belongs the kingdom of heaven."[30]
Tertullian's description of unions between upper-class pagan women and low-born men would seem to refer to promiscuous relationships of the sort attacked by Roman satirical writers. But the reference to the avoidance of any "impediment to their freedom" by women who cohabit with their own slaves or freedmen may refer to the senatusconsultum Claudianum (cited by Tertullian earlier in the same passage),[31] under which free women who lived with someone else's slave became the slave or freedwoman of their partner's owner. Such relationships were generally quasi-marital rather than simply cases of sexual exploitation of slaves by upper-class owners. The tendentious and often enigmatic character of Tertullian's writing makes interpretation of this passage difficult.
Hippolytus and Tertullian both seem to be talking primarily about women of senatorial status who would lose their rank if they married anyone outside the senatorial class, according to a rule by which married women took the status of their husband rather than of their father.[32] Marie-Thérèse Raepsaet-Charlier attributes this rule to Marcus Aurelius, and suggests that the appearance in the second century of new titles for the senatorial order (such as the the term clarissima femina for a senatorial woman) was prompted by an increasing social mobility and a rise in the number of marriages between those of different social status in the second century, including unions between members of the senatorial aristocracy and freedpeople.[33] Inscriptions of the late second and third centuries do indicate that some women of senatorial status (including several Christian women) were marrying men of lower rank, that is, equestrians.[34] However, the only clearly attested example of a marriage between a woman of senatorial status and a freedman is found in the Historia Augusta, where Lucius Verus is said to have given the widow of a senator in marriage to one of his (Verus') freedmen. His colleague, Marcus Aurelius, objected to the union and refused to come to the wedding. Perhaps this incident (if true) prompted Marcus Aurelius' oratio denying all legal validity to such unions.[35]
A third-century Christian dedication to a certain Flavia Speranda, identified as "c.f." (the standard abbreviation for "clarissima femina"), has been thought to refer to a marriage between a woman of senatorial rank and a slave.[36] Flavia Speranda's husband Onesiforus apparently was not of senatorial rank, and does not identify himself by a nomen (the traditional indicator of free status) but only by a cognomen. However, this need not mean that he was a slave: the use of only one name on inscriptions becomes increasingly common in the later Empire, as does the omission of any mention of freed status by dedicants who were in fact former slaves.[37] The disappearance of traditional Roman indicators of status on late imperial inscriptions reflects a society in which free birth and possession of the Roman citizenship had less significance than in an earlier era, and suggests increasing confusion over legal status and its implications.
III "MIXED MARRIAGES" AND STATUS CONFUSION IN THE THIRD CENTURY
In 212, the Edict of Caracalla extended the Roman citizenship to virtually all free inhabitants of the Empire. Before that time, imperial subjects who were not Roman citizens would have had no reason to know about or observe the Roman legal rule that marriage between a free person and a slave was a legal impossibility, and so many provincials may have been content to live in such a relationship without bothering to manumit their partner. Egyptian papyri provide several cases of unions between free women and slave men, although the status of such relationships under native Egyptian law is unclear.[38] After 212, all these new citizens were subject to Roman laws, including the law of marriage, but they would not all know what the law was or how it differed from their native law and custom.[39]
Roman law tended to see status in terms of fixed either/or distinctions (slave or free, humilior or honestior), but in reality the lines were not so clearly drawn, and within the bounds of the Roman Empire there could be found a wide range of statuses often based in very ancient local custom. Even in Rome, imperial laws on slave-free unions (such as the s.c. Claudianum) " ... reveal that the social gulf between slave and free citizen is not necessarily wide."[40] By the beginning of the fourth century, social and legal distinctions between free and non-free had become increasingly blurred, as some humiliores became subject to much the same treatment and living conditions as slaves. It was not possible to draw neat distinctions and assign a simple status designation to all inhabitants of the Empire, to sum up their rights and duties in a single word whose implications would be clear to all.[41] Many third-century imperial rescripts are responses to inquiries about status and legal rights, and suggest that confusion over status was a not uncommon problem.[42] These questions often concerned the validity of unions between partners of different status and the legitimacy of children born from them.
One often-cited example is the rescript sent in 215 by Caracalla to a certain Hostilia:[43]
si ignorans statum Erotis ut liberum duxisti et dotem dedisti isque postea servus est iudicatus, dotem ex peculio recipies et si quid praeterea tibi debuisse eum apparuerit. filii autem tui, ut ex libera nati incerto tamen patre, spurii ingenui intelleguntur.
If, in ignorance of Eros' status, you married him as a free man and gave him a dowry, and he afterwards was judged a slave, you will get your dowry back out of his peculium along with anything else it will appear that he owed you. Moreover, your children are understood to be illegitimate [but] freeborn, as they were born from a free woman but uncertain father.
Apparently Hostilia had married a runaway slave, who had later been reclaimed by his owner and judged a slave in a suit de liberali causa. Hostilia had given Eros a dowry and they had had children together, so this must have been a union of some duration. Presumably it had ended as soon as Eros' true status became known, since otherwise Hostilia could have become the slave or freedwoman of her husband's master under the s.c. Claudianum.
Caracalla found Hostilia's claim that she was unaware of her husband's status perfectly plausible, and third-century jurists also discussed the possibility of free people marrying slaves in ignorance as though this were a not infrequent occurrence.[44] It was even considered possible that the slave himself would be unaware of his true status.[45]
MORE
Phoenix 47 (1993) 2. pp125-154
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introductory Note
"Marriage more shameful than adultery": slave-mistress relationships, "mixed marriages," and late Roman law.
JUDITH EVANS-GRUBBS
A CONTROVERSIA of the elder Seneca posits the following rhetorical situation: a tyrant encouraged slaves to rape their mistresses and cohabit with them in marriage. One slave refused to violate his master's daughter. After the tyrant was overthrown her father, as a reward to the respectful slave, freed him and married him to the daughter whose honor he had saved. The girl's brothers then accuse their father of insanity for having made such a disgraceful marriage for their sister.
The controversia's rhetoricians vie with each other in hurling abuse at the freedman for marrying his former mistress and invent fanciful description of the sordid nature of the union: "Marriage more shameful than any adultery (matrimonium omni adulterio turpius )!" exclaims one. Even those taking the father's side against his sons can only offer feeble justifications of a father's right to choose his daughter's husband; both sides agree that the slave's motives in saving his mistress were purely self-serving and in no way deserving of marriage with the child of a man who was not merely freeborn (ingenuus), but "born to respectable parents" (honestis parentibus natus ).[1]
Roman society had never favored the idea of a free woman having a sexual relationship with a slave, and the insinuation that they consort with slaves or low-born males is a favorite slur of Roman satirists against supposedly respectable women.[2] To the elder Seneca and his upper-class audience, even legitimate marriage between a freedman and his former master's daughter was abhorrent, for it threatened the proper hierarchy of male over female and brought disgrace upon the woman and her family.
In the eyes of the educated male élite who made and interpreted the law, legitimate Roman marriage was a union between social equals, an alliance not only of two people but of their families, intended to produce children whose legitimacy and status were not in question and who could fittingly succeed to their parents' property and role in the social order.[3] And although classical Roman marriage ideology tended not to stress the ideal of wifely submissiveness found elsewhere in the Mediterranean, it did disapprove of unions in which the wife had significantly more wealth or higher rank than her husband, since the male was the acknowledged head of the household (paterfamilias) and his superior authority had to be unquestioned.[4]
This article will examine the evidence for monogamous unions between free women and slave men in imperial Roman society, with particular attention to the relationship of a woman with her own slave or former slave. This evidence is found mainly in the Roman legal sources, especially later imperial legislation in the Codes of Justinian and Theodosius. The Roman legal attitude toward unions between free women and slave men was always unfavorable, and in the late Empire imperial attempts to regulate or repress such relationships increase. In the fourth century Constantine enacted a number of laws against marriages between partners of different social status (including unions between men of high social standing and lowborn women as well as between free women and slaves), and his legislation remained largely in force until Justinian's overhaul of Roman law in the sixth century. In discussing this legislation and its social context, I hope to contribute to our understanding of the marital practices and mores of the imperial period and to the use of Roman legal sources for the social history of antiquity.
I FREE-SLAVE UNIONS IN CLASSICAL ROMAN LAW
Roman law had never recognized monogamous sexual relationships between slaves, or between free people and slaves. Rather, such unions were termed contubernia and had none of the legal consequences of iustum matrimonium (legitimate marriage).[5] Unions between free men and slave women, though without legal validity, were not penalized. A man who wanted to marry his slavewoman could free her and become both her husband and her patron, and Latin funerary inscriptions provide many examples of such patron-liberta marriages.[6] Indeed, although the lex Aelia Sentia of Augustus normally denied full legal validity to manumissions in which the slave was less than thirty years old or the owner younger than twenty, an exception was made in the case of a man who wished to free his slavewoman for the sake of marriage (matrimonii causa).[7]
The legal encouragement of marriage between free men and former slaves was not, however, extended to the highest ranks of Roman society: under the Augustan lex Julia de maritandis ordinibus, senators and their descendants to the third generation could not contract iustum matrimonium with freedpeople.[8] But although a man of senatorial status could not legally marry a freedwoman, he could live with her as his concubine; this sort of concubinatus was a perfectly respectable (though extra-legal) relationship.[9]
The Augustan rule against marriage between senatorial men and former slaves applied also to the female children and grandchildren of senators; and in the mid-second century Marcus Aurelius decreed that such unions were not only not iusta matrimonia, but had no legal validity whatsoever.[10] And Roman society did not condone concubinatus between a woman of senatorial rank and her former slave as it did between a senatorial man and his liberta, not only because of the traditional double standard which allowed men greater sexual freedom than women, but also because of Roman disapproval of unions in which the wife had a higher social status than her husband.[11]
Roman legal and social attitudes were also stricter in regard to monogamous relationships between a free woman outside the senatorial order and a man of servile birth. A free woman who lived in contubernium with someone else's slave fell under the provisions of the senatusconsultum Claudianum of 52 A.D., and became the slave of her partner's owner if the owner had not agreed to the union, or his freedwoman if he had agreed. Children of the union might also be slaves even when the mother remained free, although normally children of unions not recognized by Roman law took their mother's status.[12]
The s.c. Claudianum, which had been framed by Claudius' freedman Pallas, originally appears to have been directed primarily toward the marital arrangements of the imperial household. Because of the high prestige and unusual opportunities for advancement available to members of the emperor's slave familia, contubernium with an imperial slave was an attractive option for some freeborn women (who might themselves be the daughters of imperial freedmen), despite the fact that this could not become a legitimate marriage until the slave was freed. The s.c. Claudianum thus ensured that imperial slaves would have children also of servile status who would remain in the imperial household.[13] Hadrian modified the law somewhat, so that if the mother remained free, she had free children, but it appears that such unions generally resulted in slave children, at least where slaves of the imperial household were concerned.
The s.c. Claudianum remained in force throughout antiquity until its final repeal by Justinian and was the subject of detailed discussion in the post-classical handbook known as the Sententiae Pauli and in a number of fourth- and fifth-century laws preserved in the Theodosian Code. But it was directed against women who cohabited with someone else's slave. There seems to have been no general law against the contubernium of a free woman with her own slave until the fourth century, although, given the very incomplete state of preservation of ancient legal sources, such a law may once have existed.
However, disapproval of unions between freeborn women and men who had formerly been their slaves can certainly be found in earlier imperial legislation. Manumission of a male slave by his mistress matrimonii causa had never been considered seemly, and freeborn women did not enjoy the dispensation from the age requirements of the lex Aelia Sentia that had been allowed to men who wished to marry their freedwomen.[14] Indeed, legal experts of the early third century debated whether a woman should actually be prohibited from marrying her own freedman. According to the third-century jurist Marcian, "There are those who think that even women can manumit for the sake of marriage, but only if, by chance, her own fellow slave (conservus) had been left to her as a legacy for this purpose" -- that is, if the woman had herself been a slave and her patron had bequeathed to her the man who had been her contubernalis in slavery. But if a woman had been her patron's wife, she should not later marry one of her fellow freedmen, according to Papinian, secretary a libellis under Septimius Severus.[15]
On the other hand, Ulpian, Papinian's immediate successor as secretary a libellis, wrote: "If a patrona is so lowborn (ignobilis) that even marriage with her own freedman is respectable for her, it ought not to be prohibited by the office of the judge investigating this."[16] Ulpian's tolerant attitude does not seem to have been shared by all of his contemporaries. The mention of a judicial investigation implies that the existence of such a marriage might be brought to the attention of the authorities, on the assumption that it was illegal and that the participants should be punished. Ulpian may have been thinking of this rescript sent by Septimius Severus in reply to the petition of a certain Valeria:
libertum, qui patronam seu patroni filiam vel coniugem vel neptem vel proneptem uxorem ducere ausus est, apud competentem iudicem accusare poteris moribus temporum meorum congruentem sententiam daturum, quae huiusmodi coniunctiones odiosas esse merito duxerunt.
You will be able to lay charges against a freedman who dared to marry his patroness, or the daughter, wife, granddaughter, or great-granddaughter of his patron, with the appropriate judge, who will give a sentence in accordance with the mores of my reign, which have rightly considered unions of this sort odious.[17]
It is not clear what Valeria's interest in the situation was, but as a woman she could only have initiated legal action in cases which directly concerned her or her immediate family.[18] Perhaps some female relative, oblivious to the social stigma attached to marriage with a legal inferior, had married her freedman or that of her father or deceased husband. Valeria had then written to the Emperor to learn whether such a union was really legal and, if not, whether the former slave could be punished for his audacity. Similarly, a woman called Hygia consulted the emperor Philip about a freedman who had arranged the marriage of his patron's daughter to his own illegitimate son, also of slave birth. The presumptuous freedman was the legal guardian of his deceased patron's child, and marriage of a pupilla to her tutor or his son was in any case illegal under Roman law. Philip assured Hygia that such a union was forbidden.[19] The girl in question must have been a relative of Hygia, perhaps her daughter. The Sententiae Pauli, dating from the late third or early fourth century, report that the penalty for marriage between a freedman and his patroness (or the wife or daughter of his patron) was condemnation to the mines or to opus publicum, state-imposed hard labor.[20]
II UNIONS BETWEEN FREEBORN WOMEN AND FREEDMEN: EPIGRAPHICAL AND LITERARY EVIDENCE
The legal texts cited above imply that marriage between a woman and her freedman or the freedman of her husband or father did sometimes occur, and that some people found it objectionable. Valeria and Hygia were writing to the emperor about specific cases in which they were in some way involved. There is in fact inscriptional evidence for marriage between patrona and libertus in imperial Rome, though it is much less abundant than the evidence for unions between patron and freedwoman.[21] The commemoration of his patroness wife by the grateful freedman Tiberius Claudius Hermes provides an example:
Tiberius Claudius Hermes. I placed in the burial place of her relatives Claudia Ilias, the daughter of Tiberius, the best patroness [who was] at the same time my most faithful wife, with whom I lived for twenty-two years, one month [and] two days, without any envy (aemulatio) by the indulgence of her whose kindness, faith, and opinion I obtained for myself for as long as I shall live. You, best [and] most holy mistress (domina), I would ask the gods that some one of my people make my departure such [as I made yours]. She lived forty-seven years, one month and two days.[22]
The identification of Claudia Ilias by her father's nomen indicates that she was freeborn, but her father was probably a freedman of one of the Julio-Claudian emperors. She was already twenty-five years old when she married Hermes; since that would be a rather late age for first marriage for a Roman woman, she may have been a widow or divorcée who had more freedom to choose her second mate than a teenage girl would have had.[23] Hermes was probably at least thirty years old when she freed him, since although a freedwoman could legally free her former conservus for marriage before he turned thirty, an ingenua could not.[24]
However, most patrona-libertus unions were cases where the woman, freed first, had been able to buy her contubernalis out of slavery or had been left him as a legacy by her former master.[25] Epigraphical evidence indicates that free women who married someone else's slave, and therefore were subject to the provisions of the s.c. Claudianum, were generally of slave birth themselves or were the children of former slaves.[26] The exception is women who married imperial slaves or freedmen, the majority of whom appear to have been ingenuae (although they would have undergone a diminution of status to libertae or servae Caesaris if their husbands were still slaves).[27] But in this case, the prestige and power that members of the familia Caesaris often possessed would have compensated for the husbands' servile status, and the women, though freeborn, are not likely to have been of equestrian or senatorial status.
However, two Christian works of the early third century may refer to the possibility of relationships between slaves and women of higher rank. The Refutation of all Heresies (also known as the Philosophumena), now generally attributed to the Christian writer Hippolytus, describes an ecclesiastical decision made by Callistus, bishop of Rome from 217 to 222. Callistus, who was himself of servile birth, had declared that Christian women of high social status who did not wish to lose their rank but could not find suitable Christian husbands among men of their own class could "marry" those beneath them, either slaves or free men, provided that these unions were life-long and monogamous.[28]
Callistus' sanction of such unions had no effect on the Roman legal attitude toward slave-free relationships, nor indeed can it be considered "canon law" of the type later promulgated by church authorities.[29] It merely gave a Christian woman who wished to live with a low-born man the comfort of knowing that their relationship was considered a marriage in the eyes of the bishop of Rome. Callistus' decision was, however, strongly condemned by Hippolytus, who claimed that it had resulted in an increase in abortions by high-ranking women who did not wish to bear offspring to their low-born partners.
Since Hippolytus (our only source for this so-called "decree of Callistus") had himself been an unsuccessful candidate for bishop of Rome and hated Callistus, his testimony is open to suspicion. But Hippolytus' contemporary, the African Christian writer Tertullian (who considered Callistus overly lenient on other moral issues), also recommended that Christian women marry beneath themselves if they could not find partners of their own rank within the church. Tertullian's second treatise Ad uxorem was inspired by the occurrence of "mixed marriages" between socially conscious Christian women and non-Christian men, marriages allegedly caused by a scarcity of Christian men of wealth and high status. To discourage Christian women from what he considered dangerous and unholy unions, Tertullian pointed to the example of aristocratic and wealthy pagan women:
Many women, noble in birth and fortunate in wealth, join themselves indiscriminately to ignoble and humble men, who have been chosen for pleasure or castrated for lust. Some women bring themselves freely even to their own slaves, in contempt of everyone's opinion, as long as they have men from whom they fear no impediment to their freedom.
He concluded that Christian women should therefore certainly not be ashamed to marry poor men, especially since "to the poor belongs the kingdom of heaven."[30]
Tertullian's description of unions between upper-class pagan women and low-born men would seem to refer to promiscuous relationships of the sort attacked by Roman satirical writers. But the reference to the avoidance of any "impediment to their freedom" by women who cohabit with their own slaves or freedmen may refer to the senatusconsultum Claudianum (cited by Tertullian earlier in the same passage),[31] under which free women who lived with someone else's slave became the slave or freedwoman of their partner's owner. Such relationships were generally quasi-marital rather than simply cases of sexual exploitation of slaves by upper-class owners. The tendentious and often enigmatic character of Tertullian's writing makes interpretation of this passage difficult.
Hippolytus and Tertullian both seem to be talking primarily about women of senatorial status who would lose their rank if they married anyone outside the senatorial class, according to a rule by which married women took the status of their husband rather than of their father.[32] Marie-Thérèse Raepsaet-Charlier attributes this rule to Marcus Aurelius, and suggests that the appearance in the second century of new titles for the senatorial order (such as the the term clarissima femina for a senatorial woman) was prompted by an increasing social mobility and a rise in the number of marriages between those of different social status in the second century, including unions between members of the senatorial aristocracy and freedpeople.[33] Inscriptions of the late second and third centuries do indicate that some women of senatorial status (including several Christian women) were marrying men of lower rank, that is, equestrians.[34] However, the only clearly attested example of a marriage between a woman of senatorial status and a freedman is found in the Historia Augusta, where Lucius Verus is said to have given the widow of a senator in marriage to one of his (Verus') freedmen. His colleague, Marcus Aurelius, objected to the union and refused to come to the wedding. Perhaps this incident (if true) prompted Marcus Aurelius' oratio denying all legal validity to such unions.[35]
A third-century Christian dedication to a certain Flavia Speranda, identified as "c.f." (the standard abbreviation for "clarissima femina"), has been thought to refer to a marriage between a woman of senatorial rank and a slave.[36] Flavia Speranda's husband Onesiforus apparently was not of senatorial rank, and does not identify himself by a nomen (the traditional indicator of free status) but only by a cognomen. However, this need not mean that he was a slave: the use of only one name on inscriptions becomes increasingly common in the later Empire, as does the omission of any mention of freed status by dedicants who were in fact former slaves.[37] The disappearance of traditional Roman indicators of status on late imperial inscriptions reflects a society in which free birth and possession of the Roman citizenship had less significance than in an earlier era, and suggests increasing confusion over legal status and its implications.
III "MIXED MARRIAGES" AND STATUS CONFUSION IN THE THIRD CENTURY
In 212, the Edict of Caracalla extended the Roman citizenship to virtually all free inhabitants of the Empire. Before that time, imperial subjects who were not Roman citizens would have had no reason to know about or observe the Roman legal rule that marriage between a free person and a slave was a legal impossibility, and so many provincials may have been content to live in such a relationship without bothering to manumit their partner. Egyptian papyri provide several cases of unions between free women and slave men, although the status of such relationships under native Egyptian law is unclear.[38] After 212, all these new citizens were subject to Roman laws, including the law of marriage, but they would not all know what the law was or how it differed from their native law and custom.[39]
Roman law tended to see status in terms of fixed either/or distinctions (slave or free, humilior or honestior), but in reality the lines were not so clearly drawn, and within the bounds of the Roman Empire there could be found a wide range of statuses often based in very ancient local custom. Even in Rome, imperial laws on slave-free unions (such as the s.c. Claudianum) " ... reveal that the social gulf between slave and free citizen is not necessarily wide."[40] By the beginning of the fourth century, social and legal distinctions between free and non-free had become increasingly blurred, as some humiliores became subject to much the same treatment and living conditions as slaves. It was not possible to draw neat distinctions and assign a simple status designation to all inhabitants of the Empire, to sum up their rights and duties in a single word whose implications would be clear to all.[41] Many third-century imperial rescripts are responses to inquiries about status and legal rights, and suggest that confusion over status was a not uncommon problem.[42] These questions often concerned the validity of unions between partners of different status and the legitimacy of children born from them.
One often-cited example is the rescript sent in 215 by Caracalla to a certain Hostilia:[43]
si ignorans statum Erotis ut liberum duxisti et dotem dedisti isque postea servus est iudicatus, dotem ex peculio recipies et si quid praeterea tibi debuisse eum apparuerit. filii autem tui, ut ex libera nati incerto tamen patre, spurii ingenui intelleguntur.
If, in ignorance of Eros' status, you married him as a free man and gave him a dowry, and he afterwards was judged a slave, you will get your dowry back out of his peculium along with anything else it will appear that he owed you. Moreover, your children are understood to be illegitimate [but] freeborn, as they were born from a free woman but uncertain father.
Apparently Hostilia had married a runaway slave, who had later been reclaimed by his owner and judged a slave in a suit de liberali causa. Hostilia had given Eros a dowry and they had had children together, so this must have been a union of some duration. Presumably it had ended as soon as Eros' true status became known, since otherwise Hostilia could have become the slave or freedwoman of her husband's master under the s.c. Claudianum.
Caracalla found Hostilia's claim that she was unaware of her husband's status perfectly plausible, and third-century jurists also discussed the possibility of free people marrying slaves in ignorance as though this were a not infrequent occurrence.[44] It was even considered possible that the slave himself would be unaware of his true status.[45]
MORE
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Prophet Jesus in the Quran
Prophet Jesus in the Quran
The Islamic and Christian views of Jesus: a comparison
The person of Jesus or Isa in Arabic (peace be upon him) is of great significance in both Islam and Christianity. However, there are differences in terms of beliefs about the nature and life occurrences of this noble Messenger.
Source of information about Jesus in Islam
Most of the Islamic information about Jesus is actually found in the Quran.
The Quran was revealed by God to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), and memorized and written down in his lifetime. Today, anyone who calls him or herself a Muslim believes in the complete authenticity of the Quran as the original revealed guidance from God.
Source of information about Jesus in Christianity
Christians take their information about Jesus from the Bible, which includes the Old and New Testaments.
These contain four biblical narratives covering the life and death of Jesus. They have been written, according to tradition, respectively by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They are placed at the beginning of the New Testament and comprise close to half of it.
Encyclopedia Britannica notes that none of the sources of his life and work can be traced to Jesus himself; he did not leave a single known written word. Also, there are no contemporary accounts written of his life and death. What can be established about the historical Jesus depends almost without exception on Christian traditions, especially on the material used in the composition of the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, which reflect the outlook of the later church and its faith in Jesus.
Below are the views of Islam and Christianity based on primary source texts and core beliefs.
ISLAM
1. Do Muslims believe he was a Messenger of One God? YES
Belief in all of the Prophets and Messengers of God is a fundamental article of faith in Islam. Thus, believing in Prophets Adam, Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon them) is a requirement for anyone who calls him or herself a Muslim. A person claiming to be a Muslim who, for instance, denies the Messengership of Jesus, is not considered a Muslim.
The Quran says in reference to the status of Jesus as a Messenger:
"The Messiah (Jesus), son of Mary, was no more than a Messenger before whom many Messengers have passed away; and his mother adhered wholly to truthfulness, and they both ate food (as other mortals do). See how We make Our signs clear to them; and see where they are turning away!" (Quran 5:75).
2. Do Muslims believe he was born of a Virgin Mother? YES
Like Christians, Muslims believe Mary, Maria in Spanish, or Maryam as she is called in Arabic, was a chaste, virgin woman, who miraculously gave birth to Jesus.
"Relate in the Book the story of Mary, when she withdrew from her family, to a place in the East. She screened herself from them; then We sent to her Our spirit (angel Gabriel) and he appeared before her as a man in all respects. She said: I seek refuge from you in God Most Gracious (come not near) if you do fear God. He said: Nay, I am only a Messenger from your Lord, to announce to you the gift of a pure son. She said: How shall I have a son, when no man has ever touched me, and I am not unchaste? He said: So it will be, your Lord says: ‘That is easy for Me; and We wish to appoint him as a sign unto men and a Mercy from Us': It was a matter so decreed" (Quran 19:16-21).
3. Do Muslims believe Jesus had a miraculous birth? YES
The Quran says:
"She (Mary) said: ‘O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man has touched me.' He (God) said: ‘So (it will be) for God creates what He wills. When He has decreed something, He says to it only: ‘Be!'- and it is" (3:47).
It should also be noted about his birth that:
"Verily, the likeness of Jesus in God's Sight is the likeness of Adam. He (God) created him from dust, then (He) said to him: ‘Be!'-and he was" (Quran 3:59).
4. Do Muslims believe Jesus spoke in the cradle? YES
"Then she (Mary) pointed to him. They said: ‘How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?' He (Jesus) said: ‘Verily! I am a slave of God, He has given me the Scripture and made me a Prophet; " (19:29-30).
5. Do Muslims believe he performed miracles? YES
Muslims, like Christians believe Jesus performed miracles. But these were performed by the will and permission of God, Who has power and control over all things.
"Then will God say: ‘O Jesus the son of Mary! recount My favor to you and to your mother. Behold! I strengthened you with the Holy Spirit (the angel Gabriel) so that you did speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught you the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel. And behold: you make out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and you breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by My leave, and you heal those born blind, and the lepers by My leave. And behold! you bring forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I did restrain the children of Israel from (violence to you) when you did show them the Clear Signs, and the unbelievers among them said: ‘This is nothing but evident magic' (5:110).
6. Do Muslims believe in the Trinity? NO
Muslims believe in the Absolute Oneness of God, Who is a Supreme Being free of human limitations, needs and wants. He has no partners in His Divinity. He is the Creator of everything and is completely separate from His creation.
God says in the Quran regarding the Trinity:
"People of the Book (Jews and Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, and attribute to God nothing except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only a Messenger of God, and His command that He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and in His Messengers, and do not say: ‘God is a Trinity.' Give up this assertion; it would be better for you. God is indeed just One God. Far be it from His glory that He should have a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth. God is sufficient for a guardian" (Quran 4:171).
7. Do Muslims believe that Jesus was the son of God? NO
"Say: "God is Unique! God, the Source [of everything]. He has not fathered anyone nor was He fathered, and there is nothing comparable to Him!" (Quran 112:1-4).
The Quran also states:
"Such was Jesus, the son of Mary; it is a statement of truth, about which they vainly dispute. It is not befitting to the majesty of God, that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter, He only says to it, ‘Be' and it is" (Quran 19:34-35).
8. Do Muslims believe Jesus was killed on the cross then resurrected? NO
"“They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but they thought they did.” (Quran 4:156) “God lifted him up to His presence. God is Almighty, All-Wise” (Quran 4:157) .
CHRISTIANITY
1. Do Christians believe Jesus was a human being and Messenger of God? YES & NO
With the exception of Unitarian Christians, who like all the early followers of Jesus, still do not believe in the Trinity, most Christians now believe in the Divinity of Jesus, which is connected to the belief in Trinity. They say he is the second member of the Triune God, the Son of the first part of the Triune God, and at the same time "fully" God in every respect.
2. Do Christians believe he was born of a Virgin Mother? YES
A chaste and pious human woman who gave birth to Jesus Christ, the second member of the Trinity, the Son of God, and at the same time "fully" God Almighty in every respect.
Christians believe however, that while she was a virgin, she was married to a man named Joseph (Bible: Matthew:1:18). According to Matthew 1:25, Joseph "kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus".
3. Do Christians believe he had a miraculous birth? YES
"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows. When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit" (Bible: Matthew 1:18)
4. Do Christians believe he performed miracles? YES
"And now, Lord, look upon their threats, and grant to thy servants to speak thy word with all boldness, while thou stretches out thy hand to heal, and sign and wonders are performed through the name of thy holy servant Jesus (Bible: Acts 4:30).
Christians believe that Jesus performed these miracles because he was the Son of God as well as the incarnation of God.
5. Do Christians believe in the Trinity? YES
With the exception of the Unitarian Christians, who do not believe in the Divinity of Christ, the Trinity, according to the Catholic encyclopedia, is the term used for the central doctrine of the Christian religion. The belief is that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three Persons or beings are distinct from each another, while being similar in character: uncreated and omnipotent.
The First Vatican Council has explained the meaning to be attributed to the term mystery in theology. It lays down that a mystery is a truth which we are not merely incapable of discovering apart from Divine Revelation, but which, even when revealed, remains "hidden by the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness" (Const., "De fide. cath.", iv). The First Vatican Council further defined that the Christian Faith contains mysteries strictly so called (can. 4). All theologians admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is of the number of these. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that of all revealed truths, this is the most impenetrable to reason.
6. Do Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God? YES
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him (Bible: John 3:16).
However, it is interesting to note that the term "son of God" is used in other parts of the Bible to refer to Adam (Bible: Luke 3:38), Israel (Bible: Exodus 4:22) and David (Bible: Psalms 2:7) as well. The creatures of God are usually referred to in the Bible as children of God.
The role of Paul of Tarsus in shaping this belief and the belief in Trinity
The notion of Jesus as son of God is something that was established under the influence of Paul of Tarsus (originally named Saul), who had been an enemy of Jesus, but later changed course and joined the disciples after the departure of Jesus.
Later, however, he initiated a number of changes into early Christian teachings, in contradiction, for instance, to disciples like Barnabas, who believed in the Oneness of God and who had actually lived and met with Jesus.
Paul is considered by a number of Christian scholars to be the father of Christianity due to his additions of the following ideas:
that Jesus is the son of God,
the concept of Atonement,
the renunciation of the Law of the Torah.
Paul did these things in hopes of winning over the Gentiles (non-Jewish people). His letters are another of the primary sources of information on Jesus according to the Christian tradition.
The original followers of Prophet Jesus opposed these blatant misrepresentations of the message of Jesus. They struggled to reject the notion of the Divinity of Jesus for close to 200 years.
One person who was an original follower of Jesus was Barnabas. He was a Jew born in Cyrus and a successful preacher of the teachings of Jesus. Because of his closeness to Jesus, he was an important member of the small group of disciples in Jerusalem who had had gathered together following the disappearance of Jesus.
The question of Jesus's nature, origin and relationship with God was not raised amongst Barnabas and the small group of disciples. Jesus was considered a man miraculously endowed by God. Nothing in the words of Jesus or the events in his life led them to modify this view.
The Gospel of Barnabas was accepted as a Canonical Gospel in the Churches of Alexandria till 325 CE Iranaeus (130-200) wrote in support of pure monotheism and opposed Paul for injecting into Christianity doctrines of the pagan Roman religion and Platonic philosophy. He quoted extensively from the Gospel of Barnabas in support of his views. This indicates that the Gospel of Barnabas was in circulation in the first and second centuries of Christianity.
In 325 (CE), a council of Christian leaders met at Nicaea and made Paul's beliefs officially part of Christian doctrine. It also ordered that all original Gospels in Hebrew script which contradicted Paul's beliefs should be destroyed. An edict was issued that anyone in possession of these Gospels would be put to death.
The Gospel of Barnabas has miraculously survived though.
7. Do Christians believe he was killed on the cross? YES
This is a core Christian belief and it relates to the concept of atonement. According to this belief, Jesus died to save mankind from sin. However, this is not stated explicitly in the four gospels which form the primary source texts of Christianity. It is found, however, in Romans 6:8,9.
Christians believe Jesus was spat on, cut, humiliated, kicked, striped and finally hung up on the cross to endure a slow and painful death.
According, to Christian belief, the original sin of Adam and Eve of eating from the forbidden tree was so great that God could not forgive it by simply willing it, rather it was necessary to erase it with the blood of a sinless, innocent Jesus.
Resurrection
The four Gospels and the Epistles of St. Paul are the main sources of Christianity which discuss the Resurrection of Jesus after his crucifixion. According to St. Matthew, Jesus appeared to the holy women, and again on a mountain in Galilee. Mark's Gospel tells a different story: Jesus was seen by Mary Magdalene, by the two disciples at Emmaus, and the Eleven before his Ascension into heaven.
Luke's Gospel says Jesus walked with the disciples to Emmaus, appeared to Peter and to the assembled disciples in Jerusalem. In John's Gospel, Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene, to the ten Apostles on Easter Sunday, to the Eleven a week later, and to seven disciples at the Sea of Tiberias.
Another account of the resurrection by St. Paul is found in Bible: Corinthians 15: 3-8.
According to Christian belief, Resurrection is a manifestation of God's justice, Who exalted Christ to a life of glory, as Christ had humbled himself unto death (Phil., 2: 8-9). This event also completes the mystery of Christian salvation and redemption. The death of Jesus frees believers from sin, and with his resurrection, he restores to them the most important privileges lost by sin (Bible: Romans 4:25).
More importantly, the belief in the resurrection of Jesus indicates Christian acknowledgment of Christ as the immortal God, the cause of believers' own resurrection (Bible: I Corinthians 4: 21; Phil., 3:20-21), as well as the model and the support of a new life of grace (Bible: Romans 4: 4-6; 9-11).
http://www.quraaniclessons.com/Jesus_in_the_Quran.asp
http://www.islamnewsroom.com/content/view/51/52/
http://www.yukletube.com/Tags--yusuf--46.html
http://www.zaytuna.org/articleDetails.asp?articleID=116
http://www.islamtomorrow.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfEIGw8NtNA
http://www.studyworld.com/newsite/ReportEssay/Science/Social%5CMoral_Decline_and_its_Effect_On_the_Collapse_of_Nations_-3462102.htm
The Islamic and Christian views of Jesus: a comparison
The person of Jesus or Isa in Arabic (peace be upon him) is of great significance in both Islam and Christianity. However, there are differences in terms of beliefs about the nature and life occurrences of this noble Messenger.
Source of information about Jesus in Islam
Most of the Islamic information about Jesus is actually found in the Quran.
The Quran was revealed by God to Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him), and memorized and written down in his lifetime. Today, anyone who calls him or herself a Muslim believes in the complete authenticity of the Quran as the original revealed guidance from God.
Source of information about Jesus in Christianity
Christians take their information about Jesus from the Bible, which includes the Old and New Testaments.
These contain four biblical narratives covering the life and death of Jesus. They have been written, according to tradition, respectively by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They are placed at the beginning of the New Testament and comprise close to half of it.
Encyclopedia Britannica notes that none of the sources of his life and work can be traced to Jesus himself; he did not leave a single known written word. Also, there are no contemporary accounts written of his life and death. What can be established about the historical Jesus depends almost without exception on Christian traditions, especially on the material used in the composition of the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, which reflect the outlook of the later church and its faith in Jesus.
Below are the views of Islam and Christianity based on primary source texts and core beliefs.
ISLAM
1. Do Muslims believe he was a Messenger of One God? YES
Belief in all of the Prophets and Messengers of God is a fundamental article of faith in Islam. Thus, believing in Prophets Adam, Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon them) is a requirement for anyone who calls him or herself a Muslim. A person claiming to be a Muslim who, for instance, denies the Messengership of Jesus, is not considered a Muslim.
The Quran says in reference to the status of Jesus as a Messenger:
"The Messiah (Jesus), son of Mary, was no more than a Messenger before whom many Messengers have passed away; and his mother adhered wholly to truthfulness, and they both ate food (as other mortals do). See how We make Our signs clear to them; and see where they are turning away!" (Quran 5:75).
2. Do Muslims believe he was born of a Virgin Mother? YES
Like Christians, Muslims believe Mary, Maria in Spanish, or Maryam as she is called in Arabic, was a chaste, virgin woman, who miraculously gave birth to Jesus.
"Relate in the Book the story of Mary, when she withdrew from her family, to a place in the East. She screened herself from them; then We sent to her Our spirit (angel Gabriel) and he appeared before her as a man in all respects. She said: I seek refuge from you in God Most Gracious (come not near) if you do fear God. He said: Nay, I am only a Messenger from your Lord, to announce to you the gift of a pure son. She said: How shall I have a son, when no man has ever touched me, and I am not unchaste? He said: So it will be, your Lord says: ‘That is easy for Me; and We wish to appoint him as a sign unto men and a Mercy from Us': It was a matter so decreed" (Quran 19:16-21).
3. Do Muslims believe Jesus had a miraculous birth? YES
The Quran says:
"She (Mary) said: ‘O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man has touched me.' He (God) said: ‘So (it will be) for God creates what He wills. When He has decreed something, He says to it only: ‘Be!'- and it is" (3:47).
It should also be noted about his birth that:
"Verily, the likeness of Jesus in God's Sight is the likeness of Adam. He (God) created him from dust, then (He) said to him: ‘Be!'-and he was" (Quran 3:59).
4. Do Muslims believe Jesus spoke in the cradle? YES
"Then she (Mary) pointed to him. They said: ‘How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?' He (Jesus) said: ‘Verily! I am a slave of God, He has given me the Scripture and made me a Prophet; " (19:29-30).
5. Do Muslims believe he performed miracles? YES
Muslims, like Christians believe Jesus performed miracles. But these were performed by the will and permission of God, Who has power and control over all things.
"Then will God say: ‘O Jesus the son of Mary! recount My favor to you and to your mother. Behold! I strengthened you with the Holy Spirit (the angel Gabriel) so that you did speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught you the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel. And behold: you make out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and you breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by My leave, and you heal those born blind, and the lepers by My leave. And behold! you bring forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I did restrain the children of Israel from (violence to you) when you did show them the Clear Signs, and the unbelievers among them said: ‘This is nothing but evident magic' (5:110).
6. Do Muslims believe in the Trinity? NO
Muslims believe in the Absolute Oneness of God, Who is a Supreme Being free of human limitations, needs and wants. He has no partners in His Divinity. He is the Creator of everything and is completely separate from His creation.
God says in the Quran regarding the Trinity:
"People of the Book (Jews and Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, and attribute to God nothing except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only a Messenger of God, and His command that He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and in His Messengers, and do not say: ‘God is a Trinity.' Give up this assertion; it would be better for you. God is indeed just One God. Far be it from His glory that He should have a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth. God is sufficient for a guardian" (Quran 4:171).
7. Do Muslims believe that Jesus was the son of God? NO
"Say: "God is Unique! God, the Source [of everything]. He has not fathered anyone nor was He fathered, and there is nothing comparable to Him!" (Quran 112:1-4).
The Quran also states:
"Such was Jesus, the son of Mary; it is a statement of truth, about which they vainly dispute. It is not befitting to the majesty of God, that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter, He only says to it, ‘Be' and it is" (Quran 19:34-35).
8. Do Muslims believe Jesus was killed on the cross then resurrected? NO
"“They did not kill him, nor did they crucify him, but they thought they did.” (Quran 4:156) “God lifted him up to His presence. God is Almighty, All-Wise” (Quran 4:157) .
CHRISTIANITY
1. Do Christians believe Jesus was a human being and Messenger of God? YES & NO
With the exception of Unitarian Christians, who like all the early followers of Jesus, still do not believe in the Trinity, most Christians now believe in the Divinity of Jesus, which is connected to the belief in Trinity. They say he is the second member of the Triune God, the Son of the first part of the Triune God, and at the same time "fully" God in every respect.
2. Do Christians believe he was born of a Virgin Mother? YES
A chaste and pious human woman who gave birth to Jesus Christ, the second member of the Trinity, the Son of God, and at the same time "fully" God Almighty in every respect.
Christians believe however, that while she was a virgin, she was married to a man named Joseph (Bible: Matthew:1:18). According to Matthew 1:25, Joseph "kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus".
3. Do Christians believe he had a miraculous birth? YES
"Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows. When His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit" (Bible: Matthew 1:18)
4. Do Christians believe he performed miracles? YES
"And now, Lord, look upon their threats, and grant to thy servants to speak thy word with all boldness, while thou stretches out thy hand to heal, and sign and wonders are performed through the name of thy holy servant Jesus (Bible: Acts 4:30).
Christians believe that Jesus performed these miracles because he was the Son of God as well as the incarnation of God.
5. Do Christians believe in the Trinity? YES
With the exception of the Unitarian Christians, who do not believe in the Divinity of Christ, the Trinity, according to the Catholic encyclopedia, is the term used for the central doctrine of the Christian religion. The belief is that in the unity of the Godhead there are Three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three Persons or beings are distinct from each another, while being similar in character: uncreated and omnipotent.
The First Vatican Council has explained the meaning to be attributed to the term mystery in theology. It lays down that a mystery is a truth which we are not merely incapable of discovering apart from Divine Revelation, but which, even when revealed, remains "hidden by the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness" (Const., "De fide. cath.", iv). The First Vatican Council further defined that the Christian Faith contains mysteries strictly so called (can. 4). All theologians admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is of the number of these. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that of all revealed truths, this is the most impenetrable to reason.
6. Do Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God? YES
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him (Bible: John 3:16).
However, it is interesting to note that the term "son of God" is used in other parts of the Bible to refer to Adam (Bible: Luke 3:38), Israel (Bible: Exodus 4:22) and David (Bible: Psalms 2:7) as well. The creatures of God are usually referred to in the Bible as children of God.
The role of Paul of Tarsus in shaping this belief and the belief in Trinity
The notion of Jesus as son of God is something that was established under the influence of Paul of Tarsus (originally named Saul), who had been an enemy of Jesus, but later changed course and joined the disciples after the departure of Jesus.
Later, however, he initiated a number of changes into early Christian teachings, in contradiction, for instance, to disciples like Barnabas, who believed in the Oneness of God and who had actually lived and met with Jesus.
Paul is considered by a number of Christian scholars to be the father of Christianity due to his additions of the following ideas:
that Jesus is the son of God,
the concept of Atonement,
the renunciation of the Law of the Torah.
Paul did these things in hopes of winning over the Gentiles (non-Jewish people). His letters are another of the primary sources of information on Jesus according to the Christian tradition.
The original followers of Prophet Jesus opposed these blatant misrepresentations of the message of Jesus. They struggled to reject the notion of the Divinity of Jesus for close to 200 years.
One person who was an original follower of Jesus was Barnabas. He was a Jew born in Cyrus and a successful preacher of the teachings of Jesus. Because of his closeness to Jesus, he was an important member of the small group of disciples in Jerusalem who had had gathered together following the disappearance of Jesus.
The question of Jesus's nature, origin and relationship with God was not raised amongst Barnabas and the small group of disciples. Jesus was considered a man miraculously endowed by God. Nothing in the words of Jesus or the events in his life led them to modify this view.
The Gospel of Barnabas was accepted as a Canonical Gospel in the Churches of Alexandria till 325 CE Iranaeus (130-200) wrote in support of pure monotheism and opposed Paul for injecting into Christianity doctrines of the pagan Roman religion and Platonic philosophy. He quoted extensively from the Gospel of Barnabas in support of his views. This indicates that the Gospel of Barnabas was in circulation in the first and second centuries of Christianity.
In 325 (CE), a council of Christian leaders met at Nicaea and made Paul's beliefs officially part of Christian doctrine. It also ordered that all original Gospels in Hebrew script which contradicted Paul's beliefs should be destroyed. An edict was issued that anyone in possession of these Gospels would be put to death.
The Gospel of Barnabas has miraculously survived though.
7. Do Christians believe he was killed on the cross? YES
This is a core Christian belief and it relates to the concept of atonement. According to this belief, Jesus died to save mankind from sin. However, this is not stated explicitly in the four gospels which form the primary source texts of Christianity. It is found, however, in Romans 6:8,9.
Christians believe Jesus was spat on, cut, humiliated, kicked, striped and finally hung up on the cross to endure a slow and painful death.
According, to Christian belief, the original sin of Adam and Eve of eating from the forbidden tree was so great that God could not forgive it by simply willing it, rather it was necessary to erase it with the blood of a sinless, innocent Jesus.
Resurrection
The four Gospels and the Epistles of St. Paul are the main sources of Christianity which discuss the Resurrection of Jesus after his crucifixion. According to St. Matthew, Jesus appeared to the holy women, and again on a mountain in Galilee. Mark's Gospel tells a different story: Jesus was seen by Mary Magdalene, by the two disciples at Emmaus, and the Eleven before his Ascension into heaven.
Luke's Gospel says Jesus walked with the disciples to Emmaus, appeared to Peter and to the assembled disciples in Jerusalem. In John's Gospel, Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene, to the ten Apostles on Easter Sunday, to the Eleven a week later, and to seven disciples at the Sea of Tiberias.
Another account of the resurrection by St. Paul is found in Bible: Corinthians 15: 3-8.
According to Christian belief, Resurrection is a manifestation of God's justice, Who exalted Christ to a life of glory, as Christ had humbled himself unto death (Phil., 2: 8-9). This event also completes the mystery of Christian salvation and redemption. The death of Jesus frees believers from sin, and with his resurrection, he restores to them the most important privileges lost by sin (Bible: Romans 4:25).
More importantly, the belief in the resurrection of Jesus indicates Christian acknowledgment of Christ as the immortal God, the cause of believers' own resurrection (Bible: I Corinthians 4: 21; Phil., 3:20-21), as well as the model and the support of a new life of grace (Bible: Romans 4: 4-6; 9-11).
http://www.quraaniclessons.com/Jesus_in_the_Quran.asp
http://www.islamnewsroom.com/content/view/51/52/
http://www.yukletube.com/Tags--yusuf--46.html
http://www.zaytuna.org/articleDetails.asp?articleID=116
http://www.islamtomorrow.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfEIGw8NtNA
http://www.studyworld.com/newsite/ReportEssay/Science/Social%5CMoral_Decline_and_its_Effect_On_the_Collapse_of_Nations_-3462102.htm
WHO was Jesus?
WHO was Jesus?
By Yahiya Emerick
There are many questions which come to mind when the name Jesus is mentioned. Some people say he was a prophet, others call him a god, while others say he was a very wise man. But whatever your idea is, one thing remains certain: he was not your ordinary man. So if there is something special about him, why all the confusion? Just who was Jesus anyway?
His Origins
Jesus lived about 2,000 years ago in ancient Palestine during the height of the Roman Empire. He was not conceived in the usual way, but was implanted in the womb of a young woman named Mary. God simply commanded "Be" and he was. In this sense, he was "a word" of God and a special sign for humanity. In fact, he was the last in a long line of religious guides sent to the Jewish people.
Mary, The Blessed
Mary was a righteous woman. Her mother dedicated her to God's service even before she was born. As a child, she lived a life marked by health and goodness which others pointed to in admiration. She was raised by the wise Zacharias who instilled in her a beautiful sense of faith in God. When she had become a young woman, Mary sought to purify herself further before her Lord. Knowing that the hustle of life in the towns was distracting, she withdrew from her people to a sanctuary in the East. There she could meditate in seclusion and peace. Suddenly, on a day that seemed no different from the rest, an angel of God visited her, disguised in the likeness of a human. Afraid of so strange a sight, Mary prayed for protection, but the strange being reassured her and declared that he was a messenger from the Lord to announce the glad-tidings of a faultless son. Mary, astounded, asked how this was possible seeing that no man ever touched her. But the angel replied, "Your Lord says, It is easy for Me …".
But when she felt the little child within her, she fled her sanctuary out of fear of what her family would do or say when they heard the news. Mary, however, was not to face hardship. When in her despair she cried out to God for oblivion, a voice soothed her and she found shade and a cool spring. Under a date-palm in the warmth of late summer, she made her dwelling and there bore the child unlike any other in human history.
Shortly thereafter, Mary returned to her community carrying the child who was to be called Messiah, Jesus, and son of Mary. When her people saw her with the baby in her arms they couldn't believe their eyes, let alone accept her word. They refused to believe when she told of an angel who came and told her she was chosen above all other women to carry this burden. They accused her of infidelity and implied that she ruined the family name. Mary, being overwhelmed, simply motioned towards the child meekly.
The Miracles
Now the child was the product of a miracle and consequently, miraculous things began to happen. In defense of his mother and of the truth, the infant Jesus spoke saying, "I am a servant of God. He has given me Scripture and has made me a Prophet. He has blessed me wherever I may be and has made prayer and charity my duty as long as I live." This put the detractors to rest.
Throughout his youth, Jesus remained dutiful to his mother and developed quickly in intelligence, wisdom, and piety He dumfounded the learned and was greatly admired by those around him who appreciated his talents. He claimed to be a sign of God and a Messenger to the Israelites.
His people had strayed from the spirit of truth and placed their trust in legalism, thereby burying their sense of mercy beneath dusty scrolls and rituals. Finally, when he came of age, Jesus began to travel and preach throughout the land of Palestine about a return to the truth of the old revelations and a rejection of all that man had added. In his task he was supported by the spirit of truth, the angel Gabriel.
The Gospel, His Message
He taught that love and mercy overcome hate and anger and that only a true and sincere faith in the Creator and obedience to His will can bring a person salvation in this life as well as in the next. To reinforce his message which was called "Injeel" (Good News) God granted him the performance of miracles. He healed the sick, enheartened the distressed and revived the dead. All these things he did with the permission of God, never taking credit for them himself.
He led a simple and pious life. Soon he attracted an inner-circle of devoted followers who listened to his teachings with fervor and humility. These disciples, among them Peter, Barnabas, and John helped him carry the message of Divine Love to the people. They helped him in his mission.
A Test of Wills
But no righteous man of God is without trial and tribulation. As the message of Jesus began to gain wider acceptance, a small clique of hypocrites and evil men began to plot against him. They were the priests and leaders of the Jews whose position and wealth depended upon their place as the sole interpreters of religion to the masses. They pursued him and his followers and eventually captured him. Though they abused him, he never renounced his faith in the one God. So in their anger they plotted to crucify him on a Roman cross. But Jesus slipped from their grip at the last moment, and all the while they thought they had succeeded. They were sure they killed him but God answered Jesus' prayer and saved him from their schemes. Confusion overtook the mob and they might have killed the man who betrayed Jesus instead. In any case, Jesus escaped from their grasp. Then God removed Jesus from this world into another dimension, to a place with Him, not to return until a later time.
With their teacher gone, the devoted followers of Jesus tried to maintain the purity and simplicity of his teachings. But they were, soon besieged and overtaken by a flood of Roman and Greek influences which eventually so buried and distorted the message of Jesus that only a little of its truth now remains. Strange doctrines of Jesus being a man-god, of God dying, of saint worship and of God being made up of different parts came into vogue and were accepted by many of those who took the name "Christians" centuries after Jesus.
Conclusion
The only records that have come down to us concerning Jesus are some sketchy biographical material, poorly researched and compiled, which can in no way be representative of the full and accurate Message of Jesus, the Son of Mary. The time of the final and incorruptible Message was not yet at hand. It would be left to the last prophet of God, Muhammad, to clarify the truth from man's additions and deletions.
Jesus taught the same eternal message taught by all the Messengers of God. From Adam, on through Noah, Abraham, Moses and ending with the mission of God's last Guidepost to humanity, Muhammad, whose coming was foretold by Jesus himself.
Every nation and every people, from the Aztecs to the Greeks, have received a Prophet or a Messenger from God. Jesus was the last of a series of Messengers sent to the Israelites, but they consistently strayed from the path of surrender to God. Each of the many Messengers spoke a different language and followed varied customs. Yet the core faith taught by each was the same: surrender your imperfect and fickle will to the perfect will of the Power that is greater than you. You will then find the peace and freedom that only the Creator of humanity can provide. Then you must do what is right and good to your fellow creatures. This way of life is called Islam (surrender to God and find peace).
http://www.whyislam.org/jesus.htm
By Yahiya Emerick
There are many questions which come to mind when the name Jesus is mentioned. Some people say he was a prophet, others call him a god, while others say he was a very wise man. But whatever your idea is, one thing remains certain: he was not your ordinary man. So if there is something special about him, why all the confusion? Just who was Jesus anyway?
His Origins
Jesus lived about 2,000 years ago in ancient Palestine during the height of the Roman Empire. He was not conceived in the usual way, but was implanted in the womb of a young woman named Mary. God simply commanded "Be" and he was. In this sense, he was "a word" of God and a special sign for humanity. In fact, he was the last in a long line of religious guides sent to the Jewish people.
Mary, The Blessed
Mary was a righteous woman. Her mother dedicated her to God's service even before she was born. As a child, she lived a life marked by health and goodness which others pointed to in admiration. She was raised by the wise Zacharias who instilled in her a beautiful sense of faith in God. When she had become a young woman, Mary sought to purify herself further before her Lord. Knowing that the hustle of life in the towns was distracting, she withdrew from her people to a sanctuary in the East. There she could meditate in seclusion and peace. Suddenly, on a day that seemed no different from the rest, an angel of God visited her, disguised in the likeness of a human. Afraid of so strange a sight, Mary prayed for protection, but the strange being reassured her and declared that he was a messenger from the Lord to announce the glad-tidings of a faultless son. Mary, astounded, asked how this was possible seeing that no man ever touched her. But the angel replied, "Your Lord says, It is easy for Me …".
But when she felt the little child within her, she fled her sanctuary out of fear of what her family would do or say when they heard the news. Mary, however, was not to face hardship. When in her despair she cried out to God for oblivion, a voice soothed her and she found shade and a cool spring. Under a date-palm in the warmth of late summer, she made her dwelling and there bore the child unlike any other in human history.
Shortly thereafter, Mary returned to her community carrying the child who was to be called Messiah, Jesus, and son of Mary. When her people saw her with the baby in her arms they couldn't believe their eyes, let alone accept her word. They refused to believe when she told of an angel who came and told her she was chosen above all other women to carry this burden. They accused her of infidelity and implied that she ruined the family name. Mary, being overwhelmed, simply motioned towards the child meekly.
The Miracles
Now the child was the product of a miracle and consequently, miraculous things began to happen. In defense of his mother and of the truth, the infant Jesus spoke saying, "I am a servant of God. He has given me Scripture and has made me a Prophet. He has blessed me wherever I may be and has made prayer and charity my duty as long as I live." This put the detractors to rest.
Throughout his youth, Jesus remained dutiful to his mother and developed quickly in intelligence, wisdom, and piety He dumfounded the learned and was greatly admired by those around him who appreciated his talents. He claimed to be a sign of God and a Messenger to the Israelites.
His people had strayed from the spirit of truth and placed their trust in legalism, thereby burying their sense of mercy beneath dusty scrolls and rituals. Finally, when he came of age, Jesus began to travel and preach throughout the land of Palestine about a return to the truth of the old revelations and a rejection of all that man had added. In his task he was supported by the spirit of truth, the angel Gabriel.
The Gospel, His Message
He taught that love and mercy overcome hate and anger and that only a true and sincere faith in the Creator and obedience to His will can bring a person salvation in this life as well as in the next. To reinforce his message which was called "Injeel" (Good News) God granted him the performance of miracles. He healed the sick, enheartened the distressed and revived the dead. All these things he did with the permission of God, never taking credit for them himself.
He led a simple and pious life. Soon he attracted an inner-circle of devoted followers who listened to his teachings with fervor and humility. These disciples, among them Peter, Barnabas, and John helped him carry the message of Divine Love to the people. They helped him in his mission.
A Test of Wills
But no righteous man of God is without trial and tribulation. As the message of Jesus began to gain wider acceptance, a small clique of hypocrites and evil men began to plot against him. They were the priests and leaders of the Jews whose position and wealth depended upon their place as the sole interpreters of religion to the masses. They pursued him and his followers and eventually captured him. Though they abused him, he never renounced his faith in the one God. So in their anger they plotted to crucify him on a Roman cross. But Jesus slipped from their grip at the last moment, and all the while they thought they had succeeded. They were sure they killed him but God answered Jesus' prayer and saved him from their schemes. Confusion overtook the mob and they might have killed the man who betrayed Jesus instead. In any case, Jesus escaped from their grasp. Then God removed Jesus from this world into another dimension, to a place with Him, not to return until a later time.
With their teacher gone, the devoted followers of Jesus tried to maintain the purity and simplicity of his teachings. But they were, soon besieged and overtaken by a flood of Roman and Greek influences which eventually so buried and distorted the message of Jesus that only a little of its truth now remains. Strange doctrines of Jesus being a man-god, of God dying, of saint worship and of God being made up of different parts came into vogue and were accepted by many of those who took the name "Christians" centuries after Jesus.
Conclusion
The only records that have come down to us concerning Jesus are some sketchy biographical material, poorly researched and compiled, which can in no way be representative of the full and accurate Message of Jesus, the Son of Mary. The time of the final and incorruptible Message was not yet at hand. It would be left to the last prophet of God, Muhammad, to clarify the truth from man's additions and deletions.
Jesus taught the same eternal message taught by all the Messengers of God. From Adam, on through Noah, Abraham, Moses and ending with the mission of God's last Guidepost to humanity, Muhammad, whose coming was foretold by Jesus himself.
Every nation and every people, from the Aztecs to the Greeks, have received a Prophet or a Messenger from God. Jesus was the last of a series of Messengers sent to the Israelites, but they consistently strayed from the path of surrender to God. Each of the many Messengers spoke a different language and followed varied customs. Yet the core faith taught by each was the same: surrender your imperfect and fickle will to the perfect will of the Power that is greater than you. You will then find the peace and freedom that only the Creator of humanity can provide. Then you must do what is right and good to your fellow creatures. This way of life is called Islam (surrender to God and find peace).
http://www.whyislam.org/jesus.htm
Jesus and The Virgin Mary in Islam
Jesus and The Virgin Mary in Islam
By Juan Galvan
Many people may be surprised that Muslims love Mary, the mother of Jesus. In the Quran, no woman is given more attention than Mary. Mary receives the most attention of any woman mentioned in the Quran even though all the Prophets with the exception of Adam had mothers. Of the Quran's 114 chapters, she is among the eight people who have a chapter named after them. The nineteenth chapter of the Quran is named after her, Mariam. Mariam means Mary in Arabic. The third chapter in the Quran is named after her father, Imran. Chapters Mariam and Imran are among the most beautiful chapters in the Quran. Mary (peace be upon her) is the only woman specifically named in the Quran. An authentic Haddith states that the Prophet said, "The superiority of 'Aisha to other ladies is like the superiority of Tharid (i.e. meat and bread dish) to other meals. Many men reached the level of perfection, but no woman reached such a level except Mary, the daughter of Imran and Asia, the wife of Pharaoh." (Bukhari 4.643). Indeed, both Mary and Pharoah's wife are an example (Quran 66:11-12). The Virgin Mary plays a very significant role in Islam. She is an example and a sign for all people.
In the Quran, Mary's story begins while she is still in her mother's womb. The mother of Mary, said: "O my Lord! I do dedicate into Thee what is in my womb for Thy special service: So accept this of me: For Thou hearest and knowest all things." (Quran 3:35).
She wanted the baby in her womb to serve only the Creator. When Mary was delivered, she said: "O my Lord! Behold! I am delivered of a female child!" (Quran 3:36). She had expected her baby to be a male child who would grow up to be a scholar or religious leader. However, God had a better plan. God is the best of planners. Quran 3:36 continues "…and God knew best what she brought forth- 'And no wise is the male like the female. I have named her Mariam, and I commend her and her offspring to Thy protection from Satan, the Rejected.'" Mariam literally means "maidservant of God."
In Quran 3:37, God states that He accepted Mary as her mother had asked. He made Mary grow in purity and beauty. She was assigned to the care of a priest named Zacharias. This is interesting considering few women were given this opportunity.
"Every time that he entered (her) chamber to see her, he found her supplied with sustenance. He said: 'O Mary! Whence (comes) this to you?' She said: 'From God. for God provides sustenance to whom He pleases without measure.'" (Quran 3:37). Upon hearing Mary's answer, "There did Zakariya pray to his Lord, saying: 'O my Lord! Grant unto me from Thee a progeny that is pure: for Thou art He that heareth prayer!'" (Quran 3:38).
Although his wife was barren and he was very old, God blesses Zacharias and his wife Elizabeth with John. John is known as "John the Baptist" in the Bible. Zacharias was skeptical after the angels announced John's birth. The response to his skepticism was "Doth God accomplish what He willeth" (Quran 3:40). John would become a noble and chaste Prophet as the angels had stated (Quran 3:39).
The Quran discusses Mary's miraculous conception as well. "Relate in the Book (the story of) Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East. She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her Our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects." (Quran 19:16-17). After seeing the angel, she said: "I seek refuge from thee to (God) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear God." (Quran 19:18). The angel Gabriel responded: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a pure son." (Quran 19:19). Her next response is expected. She asked: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?" (Quran 19:20). The Angel Gabriel said: "So (it will be): thy Lord saith, 'That is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us.' It is a matter (so) decreed." (Quran 19:21). Mary then becomes pregnant.
Jesus is a Prophet and a Messenger. A Messenger is a Prophet who is given revelation from God. Whereas the Torah was revealed to Moses, the Gospel was revealed to Jesus. Messengers are a mercy, guidance, and sign from God. "And God will teach him (Jesus) the Book and Wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel, and (appoint him) as a messenger to the Children of Israel, (with this message):
'I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by God's leave. And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I bring the dead into life, by God's leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe. (I have come to you) to attest the Torah which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (before) forbidden to you. I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear God, and obey me. It is God Who is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him. This is a Way that is straight.'" (Quran 3:48-51).
God appointed messengers to help us answer questions such as: What happens after I die? What's right and wrong? Does a supernatural world exist? What's the purpose of my creation? Jesus was calling people to the worship of only God. Only by God's leave was Jesus able to perform miracles.
"When Jesus found unbelief on their (the disciples) part he said: 'Who will be my helpers to (the work of) God?" Said the disciples: "We are God's helpers: We believe in God, and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims.'" (Quran 3:52).
After conceiving Jesus, Mary went away with the baby to a distant place (Quran 19:22). "And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm-tree. She cried (in her anguish): 'Ah! would that I had died before this! would that I had been a thing forgotten!'" (Quran 19:23). "But (a voice) cried to her from beneath the (palm-tree): 'Grieve not! for thy Lord hath provided a rivulet beneath thee; And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree: It will let fall fresh ripe dates upon thee. So eat and drink and cool (thine) eye. And if thou dost see any man, say, 'I have vowed a fast to (God) Most Gracious, and this day will I enter into no talk with any human being.'" (Quran 19:24-26).
Joseph, the magi, and manger are not mentioned in the Quran. God was Mary's only Provider. Muslims do not accept the virgin birth of Jesus as evidence of Jesus' divinity. "The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: 'Be.' And he was." (Quran 3:59). Adam's creation was even more miraculous because he was born without father and mother. When she brings the baby to her people, they said: "O Mary! truly a strange thing has thou brought! O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!" (Quran 19:27-8). Mary then points to the baby. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?" (Quran 19:29). Then a miracle occurs that is not mentioned in the Bible. In defense of his mother, Jesus said: "I am indeed a servant of God. He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet; And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live; (He hath made me) kind to my mother, and not overbearing or unblest; So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)!" (Quran 19:30-33).
The virgin birth of Jesus was a sign. "And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples." (Quran 21:91). All previous Prophets confirmed the oneness of God, Tawheed. Whereas the Holy Trinity is the fundamental concept of God in Christianity, Tawheed is the fundamental concept of God in Islam. God exists independent of religion. Muslims do not believe in the concept of Holy Trinity (Quran 5:73). God is not Jesus (Quran 5:72). On the Day of Judgment, when Jesus is asked if he had called people to worship him and his mother as two gods, Jesus will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden." (Quran 5:116).
People should not worship any of God's creation, including Jesus and Mary. We must not assign any of God's creation His divine attributes and characteristics. "He is God the Creator, the Maker, the Shaper. To Him belong the Names Most Beautiful. All that is in the heavens and the earth magnifies Him; He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise." (Qur'an 59:24).
Although God can do all things, He only does things that are consistent with His fundamental nature. Begetting a son is not consistent with God's magnificent nature (Quran 19:92, Quran 19:35). Consistent with His fundamental nature is forgiveness. Although Adam and Eve could no longer live in the Paradise, God forgave Adam and Eve for their sin after they sincerely repented (Quran 2:35-37). We are responsible for our own deeds and will not be punished for the deeds of another person (Quran 53:38-42). Therefore, Muslims reject the doctrine of original sin. Although Adam and Eve were punished, God would still be merciful by sending Guidance to mankind. "We said: 'Get down all of you from this place (the Paradise), then whenever there comes to you Guidance from Me, and whoever follows My Guidance, there shall be no fear on them, nor shall they grieve.'" (Quran 2:38).
When people hear the term Islam, they naturally tend to think of the organized religion of Islam which started in the 7th century CE with prophet Mohammed. However, in Arabic the word Islam comes from the root "salema" which means peace, purity, submission, and obedience. In the religious sense, Islam means peace and purity achieved by submitting to the will of God and obedience to His law. Muslims are those who submit. Muslims believe that all those who submitted to the will of God in line with divine revelation received before the advent of formal Islam with prophet Mohammed, were themselves also Muslim. So coming from this understanding, Muslims believe that we are part of one continuing faith community with Jesus and Mary. Mary, Jesus, and the disciples were all "Muslims" because they submitted to God.
"Behold! the angels said: 'O Mary! God hath chosen thee and purified thee - chosen thee above the women of all nations. O Mary! worship thy Lord devoutly: Prostrate thyself, and bow down (in prayer) with those who bow down.'" (Quran 3:42-43).
Another Prophet with a message similar to Jesus' would later be born in Arabia in the sixth century. He also called people to the worship of only God. Although unable to read and write, Muhammad (peace be upon him) would recite beautiful verses of the Quran as they were revealed to him. The Quran is a beautiful miracle, a sign, a mercy, a warner, and a guidance for all people. Muhammad is the last Prophet from a line of Prophets that included Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus (peace be upon them). All Prophets were models for righteous living. Muhammad's sunnah, his sayings, example, and traditions, is also considered revelation. His sunnah is expressed in various books of Haddith.
"Indeed in the Messenger of God you have a good example to follow for him who hopes for (the Meeting with) God and the Last Day, and remembers God much." (Quran 33:21).
God created all people to worship Him and to live life based on His teachings and guidance. "And hold fast, all together, by the Rope which God (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude God's favor on you; for ye were enemies and He joined your hearts in love, so that by His Grace, ye became brethren; and ye were on the brink of the pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus doth God make His Signs clear to you that ye may be guided." (Quran 3:103).
"If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to God), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost." (Quran 3:85).
We accomplish this by bearing witness to God's oneness and accepting His final revelation in our daily lives. "O ye who believe! Fear God as He should be feared, and die not except in a state of Islam." (Quran 3:102).
There is none worthy of worship but God, and Muhammad is His messenger.
End Note: While writing about the Virgin Mary, I wanted to avoid as much confusion as possible among non-Muslims. My article was written with a non-Muslim audience in mind. Consequently, I used English terms and figures familiar to Christians rather than those in Arabic. For example, "Isa" means Jesus in Arabic, and "Yahya" means John in Arabic. I also avoided using terms of respectability commonly used among Muslims such as SWT, PBUH, SAWS, RA, and AS. I apologize if I have offended anyone.
==================
Some Teachings of the Jewish Talmud
Insults Against Blessed Mary
Sanhedrin 106a . Says Jesus' mother was a whore: "She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters." Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b of the Soncino edition, it is stated that in the "uncensored" text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, "Miriam the hairdresser," had sex with many men.
These beliefs include the teaching that Jesus was born a bastard and his mother, Mary, was a harlot (Mishna Yebamoth 4,13); that Jesus practiced black arts of magic (Sanhedrin 1076), and that Jesus is now suffering eternal punishment in a boiling vat of filthy excrement (Mishna Sanhedrin X, 2). These references come from the English translation of the Talmud known as The Soncino Talmud.
http://www.islamfortoday.com/galvan03.htm
By Juan Galvan
Many people may be surprised that Muslims love Mary, the mother of Jesus. In the Quran, no woman is given more attention than Mary. Mary receives the most attention of any woman mentioned in the Quran even though all the Prophets with the exception of Adam had mothers. Of the Quran's 114 chapters, she is among the eight people who have a chapter named after them. The nineteenth chapter of the Quran is named after her, Mariam. Mariam means Mary in Arabic. The third chapter in the Quran is named after her father, Imran. Chapters Mariam and Imran are among the most beautiful chapters in the Quran. Mary (peace be upon her) is the only woman specifically named in the Quran. An authentic Haddith states that the Prophet said, "The superiority of 'Aisha to other ladies is like the superiority of Tharid (i.e. meat and bread dish) to other meals. Many men reached the level of perfection, but no woman reached such a level except Mary, the daughter of Imran and Asia, the wife of Pharaoh." (Bukhari 4.643). Indeed, both Mary and Pharoah's wife are an example (Quran 66:11-12). The Virgin Mary plays a very significant role in Islam. She is an example and a sign for all people.
In the Quran, Mary's story begins while she is still in her mother's womb. The mother of Mary, said: "O my Lord! I do dedicate into Thee what is in my womb for Thy special service: So accept this of me: For Thou hearest and knowest all things." (Quran 3:35).
She wanted the baby in her womb to serve only the Creator. When Mary was delivered, she said: "O my Lord! Behold! I am delivered of a female child!" (Quran 3:36). She had expected her baby to be a male child who would grow up to be a scholar or religious leader. However, God had a better plan. God is the best of planners. Quran 3:36 continues "…and God knew best what she brought forth- 'And no wise is the male like the female. I have named her Mariam, and I commend her and her offspring to Thy protection from Satan, the Rejected.'" Mariam literally means "maidservant of God."
In Quran 3:37, God states that He accepted Mary as her mother had asked. He made Mary grow in purity and beauty. She was assigned to the care of a priest named Zacharias. This is interesting considering few women were given this opportunity.
"Every time that he entered (her) chamber to see her, he found her supplied with sustenance. He said: 'O Mary! Whence (comes) this to you?' She said: 'From God. for God provides sustenance to whom He pleases without measure.'" (Quran 3:37). Upon hearing Mary's answer, "There did Zakariya pray to his Lord, saying: 'O my Lord! Grant unto me from Thee a progeny that is pure: for Thou art He that heareth prayer!'" (Quran 3:38).
Although his wife was barren and he was very old, God blesses Zacharias and his wife Elizabeth with John. John is known as "John the Baptist" in the Bible. Zacharias was skeptical after the angels announced John's birth. The response to his skepticism was "Doth God accomplish what He willeth" (Quran 3:40). John would become a noble and chaste Prophet as the angels had stated (Quran 3:39).
The Quran discusses Mary's miraculous conception as well. "Relate in the Book (the story of) Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East. She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her Our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects." (Quran 19:16-17). After seeing the angel, she said: "I seek refuge from thee to (God) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear God." (Quran 19:18). The angel Gabriel responded: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a pure son." (Quran 19:19). Her next response is expected. She asked: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?" (Quran 19:20). The Angel Gabriel said: "So (it will be): thy Lord saith, 'That is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us.' It is a matter (so) decreed." (Quran 19:21). Mary then becomes pregnant.
Jesus is a Prophet and a Messenger. A Messenger is a Prophet who is given revelation from God. Whereas the Torah was revealed to Moses, the Gospel was revealed to Jesus. Messengers are a mercy, guidance, and sign from God. "And God will teach him (Jesus) the Book and Wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel, and (appoint him) as a messenger to the Children of Israel, (with this message):
'I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by God's leave. And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I bring the dead into life, by God's leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe. (I have come to you) to attest the Torah which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (before) forbidden to you. I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear God, and obey me. It is God Who is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him. This is a Way that is straight.'" (Quran 3:48-51).
God appointed messengers to help us answer questions such as: What happens after I die? What's right and wrong? Does a supernatural world exist? What's the purpose of my creation? Jesus was calling people to the worship of only God. Only by God's leave was Jesus able to perform miracles.
"When Jesus found unbelief on their (the disciples) part he said: 'Who will be my helpers to (the work of) God?" Said the disciples: "We are God's helpers: We believe in God, and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims.'" (Quran 3:52).
After conceiving Jesus, Mary went away with the baby to a distant place (Quran 19:22). "And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm-tree. She cried (in her anguish): 'Ah! would that I had died before this! would that I had been a thing forgotten!'" (Quran 19:23). "But (a voice) cried to her from beneath the (palm-tree): 'Grieve not! for thy Lord hath provided a rivulet beneath thee; And shake towards thyself the trunk of the palm-tree: It will let fall fresh ripe dates upon thee. So eat and drink and cool (thine) eye. And if thou dost see any man, say, 'I have vowed a fast to (God) Most Gracious, and this day will I enter into no talk with any human being.'" (Quran 19:24-26).
Joseph, the magi, and manger are not mentioned in the Quran. God was Mary's only Provider. Muslims do not accept the virgin birth of Jesus as evidence of Jesus' divinity. "The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: 'Be.' And he was." (Quran 3:59). Adam's creation was even more miraculous because he was born without father and mother. When she brings the baby to her people, they said: "O Mary! truly a strange thing has thou brought! O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!" (Quran 19:27-8). Mary then points to the baby. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?" (Quran 19:29). Then a miracle occurs that is not mentioned in the Bible. In defense of his mother, Jesus said: "I am indeed a servant of God. He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet; And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live; (He hath made me) kind to my mother, and not overbearing or unblest; So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)!" (Quran 19:30-33).
The virgin birth of Jesus was a sign. "And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples." (Quran 21:91). All previous Prophets confirmed the oneness of God, Tawheed. Whereas the Holy Trinity is the fundamental concept of God in Christianity, Tawheed is the fundamental concept of God in Islam. God exists independent of religion. Muslims do not believe in the concept of Holy Trinity (Quran 5:73). God is not Jesus (Quran 5:72). On the Day of Judgment, when Jesus is asked if he had called people to worship him and his mother as two gods, Jesus will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, Thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden." (Quran 5:116).
People should not worship any of God's creation, including Jesus and Mary. We must not assign any of God's creation His divine attributes and characteristics. "He is God the Creator, the Maker, the Shaper. To Him belong the Names Most Beautiful. All that is in the heavens and the earth magnifies Him; He is the All-Mighty, the All-Wise." (Qur'an 59:24).
Although God can do all things, He only does things that are consistent with His fundamental nature. Begetting a son is not consistent with God's magnificent nature (Quran 19:92, Quran 19:35). Consistent with His fundamental nature is forgiveness. Although Adam and Eve could no longer live in the Paradise, God forgave Adam and Eve for their sin after they sincerely repented (Quran 2:35-37). We are responsible for our own deeds and will not be punished for the deeds of another person (Quran 53:38-42). Therefore, Muslims reject the doctrine of original sin. Although Adam and Eve were punished, God would still be merciful by sending Guidance to mankind. "We said: 'Get down all of you from this place (the Paradise), then whenever there comes to you Guidance from Me, and whoever follows My Guidance, there shall be no fear on them, nor shall they grieve.'" (Quran 2:38).
When people hear the term Islam, they naturally tend to think of the organized religion of Islam which started in the 7th century CE with prophet Mohammed. However, in Arabic the word Islam comes from the root "salema" which means peace, purity, submission, and obedience. In the religious sense, Islam means peace and purity achieved by submitting to the will of God and obedience to His law. Muslims are those who submit. Muslims believe that all those who submitted to the will of God in line with divine revelation received before the advent of formal Islam with prophet Mohammed, were themselves also Muslim. So coming from this understanding, Muslims believe that we are part of one continuing faith community with Jesus and Mary. Mary, Jesus, and the disciples were all "Muslims" because they submitted to God.
"Behold! the angels said: 'O Mary! God hath chosen thee and purified thee - chosen thee above the women of all nations. O Mary! worship thy Lord devoutly: Prostrate thyself, and bow down (in prayer) with those who bow down.'" (Quran 3:42-43).
Another Prophet with a message similar to Jesus' would later be born in Arabia in the sixth century. He also called people to the worship of only God. Although unable to read and write, Muhammad (peace be upon him) would recite beautiful verses of the Quran as they were revealed to him. The Quran is a beautiful miracle, a sign, a mercy, a warner, and a guidance for all people. Muhammad is the last Prophet from a line of Prophets that included Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Jesus (peace be upon them). All Prophets were models for righteous living. Muhammad's sunnah, his sayings, example, and traditions, is also considered revelation. His sunnah is expressed in various books of Haddith.
"Indeed in the Messenger of God you have a good example to follow for him who hopes for (the Meeting with) God and the Last Day, and remembers God much." (Quran 33:21).
God created all people to worship Him and to live life based on His teachings and guidance. "And hold fast, all together, by the Rope which God (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude God's favor on you; for ye were enemies and He joined your hearts in love, so that by His Grace, ye became brethren; and ye were on the brink of the pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus doth God make His Signs clear to you that ye may be guided." (Quran 3:103).
"If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to God), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost." (Quran 3:85).
We accomplish this by bearing witness to God's oneness and accepting His final revelation in our daily lives. "O ye who believe! Fear God as He should be feared, and die not except in a state of Islam." (Quran 3:102).
There is none worthy of worship but God, and Muhammad is His messenger.
End Note: While writing about the Virgin Mary, I wanted to avoid as much confusion as possible among non-Muslims. My article was written with a non-Muslim audience in mind. Consequently, I used English terms and figures familiar to Christians rather than those in Arabic. For example, "Isa" means Jesus in Arabic, and "Yahya" means John in Arabic. I also avoided using terms of respectability commonly used among Muslims such as SWT, PBUH, SAWS, RA, and AS. I apologize if I have offended anyone.
==================
Some Teachings of the Jewish Talmud
Insults Against Blessed Mary
Sanhedrin 106a . Says Jesus' mother was a whore: "She who was the descendant of princes and governors played the harlot with carpenters." Also in footnote #2 to Shabbath 104b of the Soncino edition, it is stated that in the "uncensored" text of the Talmud it is written that Jesus mother, "Miriam the hairdresser," had sex with many men.
These beliefs include the teaching that Jesus was born a bastard and his mother, Mary, was a harlot (Mishna Yebamoth 4,13); that Jesus practiced black arts of magic (Sanhedrin 1076), and that Jesus is now suffering eternal punishment in a boiling vat of filthy excrement (Mishna Sanhedrin X, 2). These references come from the English translation of the Talmud known as The Soncino Talmud.
http://www.islamfortoday.com/galvan03.htm
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
US nun surrenders on charge of stealing $300,000
US nun surrenders on charge of stealing $300,000
AP
OMAHA, Nebraska (AP) - A 71-year-old nun who co-wrote a popular marriage-preparation programme was arrested on charges of improperly spending more than US$300,000 (euro239,445) on casinos, gifts and air travel.
Sister Barbara Markey, who was fired in January as director of the Omaha Archdiocese's family life office, turned herself in Wednesday and was released on her own recognisance.
According to the arrest warrant, an audit found that Markey spent US$307,545 (euro245,466) for her own use or without documentation. Some of the money was spent on cash advances, casinos, gifts and airfare, the audit said.
Defense attorney John Stevens Berry Sr said the case stems from a disagreement about ownership and funding priorities related to the FOCCUS marriage preparation programme, which Markey helped develop. The programme is widely used in the Roman Catholic Church.
Markey was charged with theft by deception, a felony punishable by a maximum of 20 years in prison and a US$25,000 (euro19,953) fine.
AP
OMAHA, Nebraska (AP) - A 71-year-old nun who co-wrote a popular marriage-preparation programme was arrested on charges of improperly spending more than US$300,000 (euro239,445) on casinos, gifts and air travel.
Sister Barbara Markey, who was fired in January as director of the Omaha Archdiocese's family life office, turned herself in Wednesday and was released on her own recognisance.
According to the arrest warrant, an audit found that Markey spent US$307,545 (euro245,466) for her own use or without documentation. Some of the money was spent on cash advances, casinos, gifts and airfare, the audit said.
Defense attorney John Stevens Berry Sr said the case stems from a disagreement about ownership and funding priorities related to the FOCCUS marriage preparation programme, which Markey helped develop. The programme is widely used in the Roman Catholic Church.
Markey was charged with theft by deception, a felony punishable by a maximum of 20 years in prison and a US$25,000 (euro19,953) fine.
Priest Gets Life for Abuses in Argentina
Priest Gets Life for Abuses in Argentina
LA PLATA, Argentina (AP) — The first Roman Catholic priest to be charged for crimes committed during Argentina's dictatorship was convicted and sentenced to life in prison Tuesday.
Former police chaplain Christian von Wernich was convicted on all counts after being accused of being a "co-participant" with police in seven homicides, 31 torture cases and 42 kidnappings during the 1976-83 military rule that critics say the church did little to oppose.
Fireworks exploded outside a federal courthouse, and the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, a human rights group still seeking sons and daughters who disappeared during the dictatorship, cheered in a packed courtroom after Judge Carlos Rozanski announced the conviction and prison sentence.
LA PLATA, Argentina (AP) — The first Roman Catholic priest to be charged for crimes committed during Argentina's dictatorship was convicted and sentenced to life in prison Tuesday.
Former police chaplain Christian von Wernich was convicted on all counts after being accused of being a "co-participant" with police in seven homicides, 31 torture cases and 42 kidnappings during the 1976-83 military rule that critics say the church did little to oppose.
Fireworks exploded outside a federal courthouse, and the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo, a human rights group still seeking sons and daughters who disappeared during the dictatorship, cheered in a packed courtroom after Judge Carlos Rozanski announced the conviction and prison sentence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
