||It's not the Muslim's job to find some novel twist on the meaning. It's merely his job to remind an individual that if you are sure about what it says ask yourself again: Did you have that in your mind before or did you really discover it?
What the Gospels Mean to Muslims
- Religious Interfaith - Article Ref: MI1210-5318
Number of comments: 4
By: Gary Miller
Mission Islam* -
I certainly think that there's a sense that you are right. Because there
are scriptures that say God is not satisfied with the sacrifice of
bulls, and the blood of bulls, and so the Messiah answers back,
"that a body you have prepared for me."
DR MILLER: Now you see, that is precisely, I shouldn't have even made it
sound like an unkind comment when I was saying it. Sometimes, the
suggestion is made that errors in the Bible do not relate to major
doctrine, and that's precisely the one I was thinking of that does.
Because if you read in Hebrews the passage which says that a body was
prepared for me, look up the Psalm that it's quoting from, I thinks it's
the 40th Psalm, IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT A BODY. It says God made
an ear for me. Which relates to an old miscopying of a Greek translation
of the Hebrew scriptures by whoever wrote Hebrews when he mistook two
words that ran together that meant "God dubbed me an ear" to
God prepared me a body. This major doctrine has been built upon what was
a mistranslation by somebody centuries ago.
QUESTIONER4: Well, it's just a matter of pointing and the Septuagint
took it, ah, a Greek translation of the Hebrew scripture. Of course,
took it as body, and so that's what the writer of the Hebrew put down,
and he took his quote straight out of Septuagint, as you say, a wrong
translation of the Hebrew scriptures. I realize that is controversial,
maybe I shouldn't have even tried to use it...
DR MILLER: Yes, and I don't mean to embarrass you, I appreciate your
input and I want to give everybody else a chance as well. I don't want
to get into a harangue, anybody else?
QUESTIONER5: This is regarding your God-man dilemma. I was wondering why
you chose to exclude any discussion of the physical resurrection of
Jesus? That is one of the main bases of showing divinity.
DR MILLER: Why is the resurrection the basis of divinity? I hope I am
raised up some day, what will that make me? Divine? Whether or not Jesus
was raised up from the dead is another issue, but if I grant you that he
was, what does that have to do with him being divine?
QUESTIONER5: It was a physical resurrection.
DR MILLER: I hope if I am raised up, that I look better than I do. I
hope that it is a physical resurrection. I don't really see what that
has to do with divinity. It's a case of show and tell, Jesus is divine:
look he is raised up. It is not relevant to divinity.
QUESTIONER5: No body ever died and three days later came back to life.
DR MILLER: I know, suppose I told you no body or suppose I tell you many
people. What does it prove? As a matter of fact, the documents that are
passed down to us from the Roman empire of 2000 years ago report that
this idea of that someone was killed and raised up again was a rather
common notion. There're lots of people making the same claim. There was
a Mespheles who had already drawn popularity in an area of the
Mediterranean 200 years before the time of Jesus, and it was said of
various people. In fact I'll bet you that you read in the next twelve
months in the National Enquirer that somebody was raised from the dead.
Reports of it were coming out all the time and these people didn't think
that makes somebody divine.
How many people did Jesus supposedly raise from the dead? I've always
wondered myself what it was like at the second funeral of Lazarus. A man
that was dead then alive again then one day he must have died again. I'd
have very mixed feelings as a relative going to bury him again. His
actual resurrection doesn't establish the divinity of Jesus. And Elijah
raised an individual from the dead according to 2nd Kings. The
resurrection itself is all very interesting but it's virtually like
anything you can point to, how do you demonstrate an Infinite God by
pointing to some finite thing?
There's nothing a human being can EVER point to, that thing that proves
the Infinite God. It establishes some power or ability beyond mortal men
but to exhibit a thing that a man can look at with his eyes, and say
that proves the Infinite Ability of God - It technically can not be done
because of THE definition of the God they're trying to prove. Some
Christian theologians have experimented with the idea that God is
FINITE, not infinite. That's very interesting, that solves a lot these
problems, I guess.
QUESTIONER6: Okay, now, some Christians claim that Jesus is God but
Jesus never said that in the Bible that "I am God and worship
me." On the other hand I would like to ask with so many
interpretations of what Jesus said is that because nobody wrote it down
when he said it? Or is it because it is written so after a long, long
DR MILLER: Well, maybe a little of both, I don't know. There is not a
whole lot that is reported that he said anyway. There was one
newspaperman in my city, Toronto, he said if you took all the words of
Jesus you could print them on the front page of a newspaper. There are
not that many words to go on that have been handed down. That was a
point that I touched on, there, which I was trying to explain to Muslims
sometimes, take it easy.
When I travel around it very often happens that someone meets me at the
airport. Somebody I never met before, and he picks up the bag and we
head out for the car and before we get to the car, before we're out of
the parking lot, he says, "Does it say somewhere in the Bible that
Jesus said he was God?"
The answer is, well, yes and no. It depends upon whether you are looking
for precise words or are you looking to find out what did he mean when
he said this thing? The Muslim has fallen into what is really an unfair
kind of reply. The Christian says look here Jesus says I am THE Son of
God. The Muslim says, "Ah, it must be a lie, somebody wrote that
there!" When he, Jesus, may have well have said that but now let's
see who was he talking to and what were they talking about when he said
that. And who says that "son" should have a capital
"S" there and so on. Those are ideas of some of the people who
have reproduced these things.
The episode, in particular, that I mentioned where the Jews said we are
sons of God his reply was no you are sons of the devil, I am a son of
God. When they said son of God they didn't mean some kind of claim to
divinity and when he said you are sons of the devil he didn't literally
mean your grandmother slept with the devil, I don't think. But why is it
that he MUST literally mean when he says, "I am the son of God,
only when I say son of God, I mean SON of God, I mean capital 'S',
Son!" Maybe he did or maybe he didn't. It is unfair to insist that
what he meant was this thing and not something like what the Jews meant
when they were having this discussion.
As to whether or not people worshipped him, that is another one of these
things that, it is a trick of language, that the Quran accuses some
people of doing. Worship used to mean in English, what was WORTHY,
worthyship. In Canada we still call the mayor of a city, Your Worship.
It doesn't mean I think he's God. It's just how you talk. It used to be
in English, that if you stood up when someone came into the room they'd
say you worshipped him.
It says in the Bible that a man came to Jesus one day and he worshipped
him. If you look literally in the Greek the word there literally means,
"he blew him a kiss." Now people have done that to me, I don't
like it, but I didn't think they were worshipping me like I was God.
(Audience laughter.) It's just what was said. What I'm getting at here
is that, I believe it's the 2nd Chapter of Daniel, it says that
Nebuchadnezzar came to Daniel and he worshipped him, in the King James
Bible. You point to that and say doesn't worship here sound more just
kind of like a salute? Or he nodded his head toward him or shook his
hand or something like that. So in most Modern English translations they
changed that to something else. But THEY HAVE LEFT ALONE A VERSE THAT
SAYS A MAN CAME TO JESUS AND HE WORSHIPPED HIM.
Today, at least in many English speaking countries, worship has a
different flavor than it had long ago. Today it seems to carry a lot of
baggage that it didn't used to have. As I say, it still doesn't in many
British areas, you won't find that argument cited by a Canadian
generally will not point to the place where a man worshipped Jesus.
That's kind of silly. Even a little town of 500 people we call the
mayor, Your Worship. It's just a way of talking.
QUESTIONER4: May I do it again just for the sake of what the Christian
scriptures say. It's your day and I'm not meaning to take it away.
You've done a good job too. But can I do it with Thomas and read that
situation out here?
DR MILLER: I can probably quote it for you without reading it, if you're
talking about "My Lord and my God..."
DR MILLER: See that's the same kind of.... I think everybody knows the
QUESTIONER4: It's how Jesus responded that I'm interested in.
DR MILLER: What? How did he respond? Like this, you got it, Thomas,
right on the nose?
QUESTIONER4: "Then Jesus said to Thomas reach here your finger and
look at my hand." He's asking him to put his finger into the hole
with his hands. "And put it into my side and don't be faithless but
believing. And Thomas answered and said to him, 'My Lord and my
God'." Jesus' response is "Thomas because you have seen me you
have believed. Blessed are they that have not seen and yet have
believed." So Jesus, I think, is backing up what Thomas says. He
has him put his hand in the hole in his side and when Thomas calls him
my Lord and my God, he blesses Thomas for having seen and believed. He
doesn't say far be it from God that He should have a son.
DR MILLER: Well, the point is there are at least three ways that I know
of that Thomas' words can be taken. I don't use it as a matter of course
but it has happened to me that I've been surprised and I've said,
"My God!" The man in front of me says yes, isn't it terrible,
such and such a thing is true. He didn't say, no, what do you mean; I'm
not God. It may have been an expletive.
He, Thomas, may have said, "My Lord, My God." What Jesus was
then talking about was you Thomas didn't think I was raised up. Now
you've seen and you believe I'm raised up, so congratulations. Other
people won't get to see the evidence but they will believe. It's not
necessarily an endorsement of some theological statement by Thomas.
In any case, even if Thomas was addressing him, "My Lord, My
God," that has precedent in Scripture. The Muslim may not like it
but the precedent is there of other people who were addressed as God
without being God. When Moses spoke to the angel in the burning bush he
called the angel, God. Stephen explains later that it wasn't actually
God that was God's angel. When God Sends an angel and you speak to him
you might call him God.
Moses was told, "I'm sending you as god to Pharaoh and your brother
Aaron will be your prophet." In fact the word "as" is
added in Italics in most English translations, it is not there in the
Hebrew. God says I am sending you to Pharaoh, you will be god, as far as
Pharaoh is concerned. This and other cases, the precedent is there for a
human being or some other being to be addressed as God without being
God. Paul talked about Satan as being the god of the world, so there is
a question of god as capital "G" or small "g".
There are various ways of looking at it but I'm not arguing that your
understanding is wrong, so much as trying to point out the case in not
closed by that. Other things are possible. It is ambiguous. In a session
like this it may sound like I'm trying to tell some people that they are
wrong. My intention is more to say if you think you have proved
something think again. Find something unambiguous or all-inclusive then
wrap it up. If you can do that, then I will say, "Yes, you are
For now, what passes as proof is largely what is called SYNTHETIC
reasoning. That is not a criticism. Synthetic reasoning is when you take
a lot of things and you form what seems to be a sensible conclusion. IT
IS NOT AN INEVITABLE CONCLUSION. That is analytic reasoning. Synthetic
reasoning is when you say it is cloudy, the wind is blowing and the
weatherman said rain - It's gonna rain. That's synthetic reasoning. You
have not proved it's going to rain.
Analytic reasoning is where you have said A and B makes C, there is no
other possibility. That's analytic reasoning.
These types of things are sold, in my opinion, as synthetic reasoning
I've never seen it sold any other way. It is very coherent but it is not
an inevitable conclusion that one arrives at, OTHER CONCLUSIONS ARE
POSSIBLE BASED UPON THE SAME INPUT.
I want to give someone a turn who has not spoken; did I ask you before?
(Miller addressing audience)
QUESTIONER7: Sir, we've talked about the Christian scriptures and their
view of themselves, could you very quickly explain the Quran's view of
itself in relationship to Christian scripture? What validity does it
give for its own superiority, if it claims that?
DR MILLER: Yes, to start with, it's not so much a superior kind of a
scripture, if that's what you mean. That is largely a Muslim
misrepresentation, which is an over enthusiastic patriotism.
The Quran does not claim superiority in the usual sense that people are
talking about because the Bible and the Quran are different kinds of
books. The Quran reads approximately like most of the so-called Minor
Prophets and some of the pronouncements of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and
Ezekiel. It is not like most of the Bible, which are stories. That is,
the book of Jonah begins by saying the Word of the Lord came to Jonah,
the son of Amittai, saying, quote, what you are about to read came from
God, through Jonah.
Whereas the book of Luke begins by saying, in effect, what you are about
to read is what I have gathered and put together because it seemed like
a good idea, saying, "It seemed the appropriate thing to do"
to gather the evidence and write this story. He doesn't say, what you
are about to read are words God has handed to me and I'm now putting
down on paper for you.
Those are two different kinds of things. The Quran is like the former.
That is why it is really rather short, it is about 80% the size of the
New Testament. It is pronouncements: if you read "I" it is God
speaking, if you read "you" it is you, it is God talking to
whoever is reading this. So they are different kinds of books, largely.
What it says of previous scriptures for one thing is that it says of
itself that it confirms the truthfulness of WHAT IS IN previous
scriptures. That is certain things that have fallen into debate, people
were arguing about certain things, and if they were really important
things the Quran touches on them. To say, it was correctly reported in
that scripture on this matter that it really happened like that.
It confirms the truthfulness of previous scriptures, and this verse also
in the 5th chapter, also says of itself that it is, and the Arabic word
is MUHAYMIN, which maybe best translated by the words, quality control.
It is kind of a test against other scriptures. That is, if somebody
brings something and says this is scripture and it says such and such,
it may well be the Quran says that specifically is NOT so, and the
evidence is in that place, go and look. It is acting as quality control
in that regard.
But, of course, it does not go step by step all the way through the
Bible, the Hindu Gupta, and various other scriptures and say chapter 1
is correct, there one mistake in chapter 2, 3 in chapter 4 and so on. It
doesn't do that. It just talks about certain issues and the advice
traditionally given to the Muslim right from the beginning was that if,
for example, the Christian comes and he says such and such is true and
it says so in my book, and you don't have a reason to agree with him -
then give him the benefit of the doubt. He might be right; he might be
wrong but don't insist he's wrong. Leave him with it unless you evidence
to the contrary.
And so it is, a lot of what Muslims commonly talk about are really
things they may have picked up from the Christian or the Jew. Often to
their detriment, I'm afraid, they pick up some of the fairytales and
carry them over as well. That's the key, it is confirming the
truthfulness of key issues and it's also setting the record straight on
certain other things that people have misrepresented. A great deal else
it does not comment on because it doesn't really matter.
QUESTIONER7: It's a man-made instrument to confirm or not confirm
another supposedly man-made instrument?
DR MILLER: Oh, no, it doesn't say of itself it is a man-made instrument.
As I said, it's the Speech of God's commandments. When you read it, it
says, "I" as God, and "you" the reader. It's a
pronouncement like as I said some of the 18 of the 66 books of the bible
are like that, they don't just tell the story of so and so, but they
say, God told Hosea this, quote. It's of that nature.
QUESTIONER7: The point I'm trying to make is that its validity is based
on the fact that in part that it says it has a right to confirm or not
confirm other books of scripture.
DR MILLER: Well, as to its validity, there are various approaches to
that. But the one that is easiest to explain is that the Book by its
physical existence, the paper and ink, demands an explanation of where
did it come from? What it repeats many times is that if somebody says
the origin of this Book is such and such, then ask him or her so and so
to see if they still thinks that's true. In another place, If they think
this Book came from such and such, remind them of this. So a person is
confronted with the Book and has to come up with an explanation of where
did it come from, and the person pursuing that comes to the conclusion
that that is not so easily answered. All of the usual ideas have
probably already been discussed in the Book itself with an explanation
of why that can't be so. You'd better come up with another reason. It's
when you run out of options it becomes a proof by exhaustion. It comes
down to either this man was deceived or was himself a deceiver, if you
are going to explain all of the facts you need BOTH of those assumptions
and the point is they eliminate each other. You cannot at one time think
you are a prophet and lie to people about it. You cannot have it both
ways. You can be neither a liar nor deceived; you might be one or the
other, but you can't be both. You're left with still this paper and ink,
unexplained - what is its origin?
That's one way of looking at how does it establish that it deserves
There's also the influence that it has had. It has accomplished certain
things that's why historians of science, language, and philosophy will
still point to the Quran that's the reason why the Arabs were suddenly
civilized after 10,000 years of NO preparation for civilization.
Something in that book is a stimulus. I hesitate to mention that, I
suppose, because Islam is not an Arabic sort of thing, don't get that
idea. 80% of Muslims don't speak Arabic, anyway. The point is that it
had a sudden impact. That needs an explanation, it calls for some kind
QUESTIONER8: Is there a difference between the word "gospel"
and the word "bible" as it contributes to the scriptures?
DR MILLER: Oh, yes, that's a point maybe I should have dealt with. He's
asking about words like bible, and gospel. The Quran when it talks about
gospel it means Injeel, in Arabic, Injeel, which is related to the
Greek, evangel, which is translated "gospel." A long time ago,
it might have been better translated as "Good News." Injeel
was a message it wasn't a book some place. It was in the 2nd century
that the collections of the accounts of the life of Jesus got the
When technically any Christian that makes that distinction to say well
these are the four gospels but the gospel of Jesus is a message. It is
not these four books. These four books have the gospel in them
somewhere. So the Quran is talking about what was it Jesus said not what
are those four injeels.
As to bible, that is just an English nickname. It just means library; it
is a collection of writings. In other languages, they sometimes don't
call it that, the Germans call it "Helige Geschrift," holy
writings. The "Bible" is just a convenient name. The Quran
talks about people who use books, or use the book, or book people but it
doesn't say people that use THAT book, the Revised Standard of 1881.
People who are in the habit of using a book to support their position
are people of the book without spelling out bible or the gospel
according to Matthew.
Islam - Gary Miller, Ph.D. Mathematics, Kansas
Pages : 1
The opinions expressed herein, through this article or comments, contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of
IslamiCity. These are offered as a means for IslamiCity to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
The IslamiCity site may occasionally contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. IslamiCity is making such material available in its effort to advance understanding of humanitarian, education, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, and such (and all) material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use any copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.