What did ITV's 'Muslim Jesus' leave out?

By Anthony Royle
Even though the ITV programme did stress the differences between the Christian Jesus and the so-called 'Muslim Jesus' I cannot help feel that they did no portray the whole picture of the character of Isa and the whole picture of the person of Jesus.
I begin with the fact that Jesus' name was never Isa and I refuse to call Isa, Jesus, and Jesus, Isa.. Dr Mark Durie tells us in his article 'Isa the 'Muslim Jesus', “Jesus’ mother tongue was Aramaic. In his own lifetime he was called Yeshua in Aramaic, and Jesu in Greek. This is like calling the same person John when speaking English and Jean when speaking French: Jesu, pronounced "Yesoo", is the Greek form of Aramaic Yeshua. (The final -s in Jesu-s is a Greek grammatical ending.) Yeshua is itself a form of Hebrew Yehoshua’, which means ‘the Lord is salvation’. However Yehoshua’ is normally given in English as Joshua. So Joshua and Jesus are variants of the same name. It is interesting that Jesus' name Yehoshua’ contains within it the proper Hebrew name for God, the first syllable Yeh- being short for YHWH ‘the LORD’.Yeshua of Nazareth was never called ‘Isa, the name the Qur’an gives to him. Arab-speaking Christians refer to Jesus as Yasou’ (from Yeshua) not ‘Isa.”
Not only does the Quran get Jesus' name wrong but other too including Abraham. Dr Durie tells us “Abraham ‘Father of many’ (cf Genesis 17:5) might have been better represented as something like Aburahim ‘father of mercy’ instead of Ibrahim, which has no meaning in Arabic at all.”
During the documentary we also are introduced to Miriam the mother of Isa. One thing we did not learn from the programme is the absurd claim the Qur'an makes. The Qur'an calls her the sister of Aaron and Moses and states that the mother and Isa and the Miriam of the Exodus are the same woman. They lived more than a thousand year apart. I'm not surprised they left that bit out. However, Miriam isn't the only person the Qur'an ages. Haman the minister of Ahasuerus in Media and Persia is also a minister of Pharaoh in Egypt a thousand years earlier.
We also learned that the Qur'ans stories of Isa are based of folk-tales, however, I don't believe this was stressed enough as it does provide us with the origin's of the character of Isa. Isa talking from the cradle came from the pseudo-gospel 'The Arab Infancy Gospel', Jesus turning the birds into clay came from the 'Infancy gospel of Thomas' and Miriam going into the care of Zachariah came from 'Protevangelium of James'. All these writings were written in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries obviously not by eye-witnesses or based on historical facts. Not only was Isa's life plagiarised but stories like Ibrahim destroying idols were taken from Jewish Midrash Rabbah. So as you can see the Qur'an could have been written by Dan Brown.
One of the main differences between Jesus and Isa, which was pointed out, is the crucifixion. However, once again the programme did not give the full picture of Christ's crucifixion and why Isa could never die for our sins. The whole argument came to their word against ours. But if I was making a documentary on their differences I would of explored this area further as it is a fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam, did Jesus die on the cross?
Let's look at it from two angles. First of all we would have to reject the foretelling of Christ's crucifixion. We would have to reject the Torah and the prophets. Psalm 22 gives such an accurate account of Jesus' crucifixion. Verse 16 says they will pierce his hands and feet and not a bone would be broken in verse 17. They would gamble for His clothes in verse 18 and even the words Jesus cries out on the cross 'my God, my God, why have you forsaken me' is given account in verse 1. Isaiah 53 also gives a detail account as verse 12 tells us he will be crucified with criminals. Isaiah was written around 750 years before Christ and the Psalms around 1020 BC. Muslims might try and convince you that those text's have been tampered with, however, the earliest Old Testament manuscripts we have pre-date Jesus including the most famous Septuagint which was a Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures written around 250 BC.
Secondly, to a world that rejects the Torah and prophets anyway, history confirms the Christian claim that Jesus was crucified. This was mentioned by one Christian on the programme but was given enough information to make it a valid point. Dr Durie, in his article 'Isa, the Muslim Jesus', gives us references of non-Christian historical sources which verify that Jesus was crucified.
'Tacitus (AD 55-120), a renowned historical of ancient Rome, wrote in the latter half of the first century that ‘Christus ... was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also.’ (Annals 15: 44).
Thallus, a secular historian writing perhaps around AD 52 refers to the death of Jesus in a discussion of the darkness over the land after his death. The original is lost, but Thallus’ arguments — explaining what happened as a solar eclipse — are referred to by Julius Africanus in the early 3rd century.
The Babylonian Talmud refers to the crucifixion (calling it a hanging) of Jesus the Nazarene on the eve of the Passover. In the Talmud Jesus is also called the illegitimate son of Mary.
The Jewish historian Josephus describes Jesus’ crucifixion under Pilate in his Antiquities, written about AD 93/94. Josephus also refers to James the brother of Jesus and his execution during the time of Ananus (or Annas) the high priest.'
As Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 'the cross is a stumbling block to those who perish'. Islam cannot understand that God would send His son to die on a cross for us. To them it is foolishness. Because we believe that Jesus' blood had to be shed for our sins that we have a bloodthirsty religion. This is hypocrisy of Islam who slaughter many all over the world and are told to kill the Christian and the Jew (Surah 9:29). God doesn't demand anyone's blood except Jesus'.
The next major point I thought the programme didn't do any justice was the Muslim issue with the doctrine of the Trinity. There was no time given for a Christian response. First of all the Muslim's think we believe in three god's- God, Jesus and Mary. This statement is faulty on many levels. We believe in one God as the scriptures tell us that God is one and we don't worship Mary, she is not part of the Godhead and is a sinner in need of a Saviour as she confesses in the gospel of Luke.
We believe that God exists in the distinct and co-equal persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but they share a fully divine essence. Yet, the three persons are distinct. The Father is neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit; the Son is neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit; and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son. The co-equal and distinct persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are not three Gods because they share the same essence in complete unity. The nearest comparison is human beings. We are made in the image and likeness of God (Imago Dei)- three is one. We are body, soul and spirit. Each are distinct but are all part of us.
Muslims attack Christians for being polytheistic? Ask them where Allah came from? He was the chief god in the Kaabah, the pagan temple Muhammed purged that had more than 300 idols in it. Allah was the god of the crescent moon, which Islam has kept as its symbol. Allah isn't the generic term for God in Arabic. As Dave Hunt points out we should use 'Ilah'. The Muslims confess that there is no Ilah but Al-Ilah.
Allah isn't God, Isa isn't Jesus and Ibrahim isn't Abraham. Isa the Muslim Jesus? No, just a plagiarism of an apocryphal character. Jesus is historical, his life was recorded from inspiration of the Holy Spirit in Matthew Mark Luke and John and Jesus is God the Son.