Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Orthodox

Jesus Can't Be The Last Messenger...

Recommended Posts

Quote:

 

Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him) couldn't have been the final Messenger of God, since the people throughout history have differed about him. Some have claimed that he was 'god', others have said that he was a part of God, others have said that he was a liar, while the Muslims believe he is the slave and Messenger of God.

 

 

The people differ on who he is, even today. Some even doubt his existence. So without a doubt, a final Messenger is needed to confirm who Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him) is. Even christians cannot agree on who Jesus is, so how can they prove that they are upon the truth? This is why they have so many different denominations and sects, without any clear distinctive proof from any group to prove that Jesus is who they say he is.

 

 

 

By Allah sending a final Messenger, He cleared the doubts of the many people in the world. That Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him) is a miracle of God, He created him without a father, the same way Allah created Adam without a mother or father, Jesus was born miraculously without a father. He was the slave of Allah who was born from within a woman, he lived his daily life - ate his food and went to the bathroom, he was given miracles since he was a true Messenger of God, like the previous Messengers'. He's the man on which many among mankind have differed, and Allah confirmed the truth - through His final Messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Salam

 

'Eesa bin Maryam was the last messenger and prophet sent to the children of Israa'eel, but the people did not follow him so they got crushed by the rock of Islam the counterstone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him) couldn't have been the final Messenger of God, since the people throughout history have differed about him. Some have claimed that he was 'god', others have said that he was a part of God, others have said that he was a liar, while the Muslims believe he is the slave and Messenger of God.

 

Maybe Allah should send another messenger to clarify what happened to Jesus since Muslims can't agree! Some say he wasnt crucified, some say an apostle was made to look like him and crucified instead, some say judas was crucified, others say Jesus was crucified but survived... ugh! what confusion! :sl:

 

The fact is Christians have universally believed since the earliest times that Jesus is a Divine person. The evidence for this is staggering, whether you believe it as true is another story, and so just because there have been frindge elements that have rejected the truth, it does not mean that the truth was ever corrupted to the extent that another messenger would be necessary. On the contrary, Jesus promised his followers that they would be guided and preserved in truth by God the Spirit, and that Jesus himself would be with them till the end of time. So who are Christians to believe? Jesus backed up his promises with miracles that stunned onlookers, I think I'm going to side with him.

 

The people differ on who he is, even today. Some even doubt his existence. So without a doubt, a final Messenger is needed to confirm who Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him) is. Even christians cannot agree on who Jesus is, so how can they prove that they are upon the truth? This is why they have so many different denominations and sects, without any clear distinctive proof from any group to prove that Jesus is who they say he is.

 

Some people differ on who Muhammad was, and some even claim Muhammad didn't exist! I suppose with this logic it means we need another messenger to confirm this for us! Unfortunately there will always be differences of opinion, but we have to weigh the value of these opinions. Take the existence of Jesus for example. Forget what an internet atheist might say, consider what scholars say. How many scholars reject that Jesus existed? There was maybe one scholar in Germany that suggested he may not have existed, but he was rejected by other scholars and has since curbed his views. Lets consider the crucifixion as another example, what do you make of the fact that their is virtual consensus that Jesus was executed via crucifixion? How many scholars would support the Islamic view, as presented by the likes of Ibn Kathir, that suggest Jesus was never crucified... but that instead one of his followers was magically made to look like him so that he could be crucified instead!

By Allah sending a final Messenger, He cleared the doubts of the many people in the world.

 

Its not necessary, Christians have consistently believed Jesus is a Divine Person, and this belief was confirmed and proclaimed in the Ecumenical Councils (note that the word ecumenical means the whole Church). The fact is Muhammad taught something RADICALLY different,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe Allah should send another messenger to clarify what happened to Jesus since Muslims can't agree! Some say he wasnt crucified, some say an apostle was made to look like him and crucified instead, some say judas was crucified, others say Jesus was crucified but survived... ugh! what confusion!

 

What Muslims do you listen to? SCHOLARS and the book of Allah clearly states he was not crucifed. What's so confusing about this? Can you please explain what is confusing about this?

 

Trust me, I was researching Christianity in past, a little, tell me what fundamentals has your religion agreed on! Our religion has no differences in fundamentals, at least. Sorry to say, yours does.

 

The fact is Christians have universally believed since the earliest times that Jesus is a Divine person.
SubHanAllah, clear shirk. Which Jesus please tell me? You believe one was a God and another human. Are you refering to the human one only? Are you saying someone else has power, divinity, controls the universe, etc.. besides Allah? That someone else pocesses the power of Allah?

Bring forth your proof.

 

The fact is Christians have universally believed since the earliest times that Jesus is a Divine person. The evidence for this is staggering, whether you believe it as true is another story, and so just because there have been frindge elements that have rejected the truth, it does not mean that the truth was ever corrupted to the extent that another messenger would be necessary. On the contrary, Jesus promised his followers that they would be guided and preserved in truth by God the Spirit, and that Jesus himself would be with them till the end of time. So who are Christians to believe? Jesus backed up his promises with miracles that stunned onlookers, I think I'm going to side with him.

 

Oh My God, you live in disney land.

 

Some people differ on who Muhammad was, and some even claim Muhammad didn't exist!
Really! Would you like evidence? Because we do have and you braught up what you do not have and we do!

 

Its not necessary, Christians have consistently believed Jesus is a Divine Person, and this belief was confirmed and proclaimed in the Ecumenical Councils (note that the word ecumenical means the whole Church). The fact is Muhammad taught something RADICALLY different,
From where has this church developed its believs? And when? Edited by Orthodox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What Muslims do you listen to? SCHOLARS and the book of Allah clearly states he was not crucifed. What's so confusing about this? Can you please explain what is confusing about this?

 

Provide the names of Scholars who dont believe he was crucified/executed.

 

Provide me a scholar that supports the view that an apostle was magically made to look like Jesus, so that they can be crucified in his place.

 

Trust me, I was researching Christianity in past, a little, tell me what fundamentals has your religion agreed on! Our religion has no differences in fundamentals, at least. Sorry to say, yours does.

 

Youre religion has no difference in fundamentals? Tell me ukhti, is the Quran the UNCREATED word of Allah? If you follow Ashari aqeedah, you will answer one way, if you're a Shia, you'll answer another way... but I suppose you'll say this isn't a fundamental aspect of religion?

 

As for agreement among Christians it is extraordinary. I suppose its hard for you to see because you're focusing on the protestant denominations and those that sprout from them... I suggest focusing on the ancient churches, those with an apostolic origin, e.g. Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Ethiopian, Syro-Malabar, etc, etc etc. You will find these Christians believe virtually the same thing except its described in their own particular way.

SubHanAllah, clear shirk. Which Jesus please tell me? You believe one was a God and another human. Are you refering to the human one only? Are you saying someone else has power, divinity, controls the universe, etc.. besides Allah? That someone else pocesses the power of Allah?

 

Slow down ukhti, before you can reject Christianity you first have to understand it, and you clearly dont understand it. Jesus is one Divine PERSON with two NATURES.

 

God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit are one in being... they are separate entities, thus your comment whether someone controls the world "beside Allah" is nonsensical from a Christian view.

 

Bring forth your proof.

 

Why? Are you going to accept my proof or reject it outright?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh My God, you live in disney land.

 

Am I?

 

I can provide you quotes from early Christian leaders, living within 20-100 years of Jesus lifetime, in separate parts of the world, all saying the same thing... i.e. that Jesus was crucified.

 

Now I understand that in your deen the beliefs of the Salaf carry some weight, does this also apply to the Salaf of Christianity??

Really! Would you like evidence? Because we do have and you braught up what you do not have and we do!

 

What we know of Muhammad was recorded *centuries* after he lived. What we know of Jesus was recorded *decades* after he lived.

 

What does this tell you?

 

From where has this church developed its believs? And when?

 

From where: Jesus Christ

 

When: 33 AD

 

 

Wa salaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now we can talk [smile]. Do not be so assured of everything you read online.

 

Provide the names of Scholars who dont believe he was crucified/executed.

 

In Islam, there is something called ijma'. This is what every scholar of the past has agreed on. All scholars of the past agreed that Isa, a.s, was not crucified because Allah clearly says it. These new opinions are unorthodox "odd" views rejected by scholars.

 

Provide me a scholar that supports the view that an apostle was magically made to look like Jesus, so that they can be crucified in his place.
We agreed he was not crucified. Why argue that? It has nothing to do with our way of life. Yes I can list a plenty of scholars who were of that view. Ibn Jerir for example. There were probably a bunch. And he was not magically crucified [the young friend of Isa, a.s]. He was mistakenly thought to be Isa, a.s, because he looked like him and he chose to be sacrifised for Isa, so they do not kill Isa, a.s.

 

Youre religion has no difference in fundamentals? Tell me ukhti, is the Quran the UNCREATED word of Allah? If you follow Ashari aqeedah, you will answer one way, if you're a Shia, you'll answer another way... but I suppose you'll say this isn't a fundamental aspect of religion?
Do we got a murtad here? All classical scholars agreed the Qur'an is uncreated speech og Allah and no fool would argue that! Dear, we do not follow sects and aqeedas labeled by any people. We follow the sahaba, the 3 best generations. Not these who were refuted by them :sl:

 

but I suppose you'll say this isn't a fundamental aspect of religion?

Because they oppose text and have no evidence. It is very logical. They give meanings to clear words. The literal is obviously fundamental.

 

 

As for agreement among Christians it is extraordinary. I suppose its hard for you to see because you're focusing on the protestant denominations and those that sprout from them... I suggest focusing on the ancient churches, those with an apostolic origin, e.g. Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Ethiopian, Syro-Malabar, etc, etc etc. You will find these Christians believe virtually the same thing except its described in their own particular way.
Oh my God! How can you see that as evidence? Please tell me! Where is the chain going back to Isa, a.s.? What you listed are believs based on what?! not tomention th epagan innovation Christians teach today! They will tell you they innovated some so pagans become more welcomed into Chriti..

 

Slow down ukhti, before you can reject Christianity you first have to understand it, and you clearly dont understand it. Jesus is one Divine PERSON with two NATURES.
Are you trying to convince me God is half human? We both know that's what your way of life teaches.

 

 

God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit are one in being
Separete of alltogether?

 

Aha:

 

God the Father, God the Son, and God the Spirit are one in being... they are separate entities
3 separate beings?!

 

thus your comment whether someone controls the world "beside Allah" is nonsensical from a Christian view.
Now which one of these created the world? Who deserves to be worshipped?

 

Why? Are you going to accept my proof or reject it outright?
Conjecture is nothing compare to proof.

 

And Allah knoweth that which ye keep hidden and that which ye proclaim. (19) Those unto whom they cry beside Allah created naught, but are themselves created. (20) (They are) dead, not living. And they know not when they will be raised. (21) Your God is One God. But as for those who believe not in the Hereafter their hearts refuse to know, for they are proud. (22) Assuredly Allah knoweth that which they keep hidden and that which they proclaim. Lo! He loveth not the proud. (23) And when it is said unto them: What hath your Lord revealed? they say: (Mere) fables of the men of old, (24) That they may bear their burdens undiminished on the Day of Resurrection, with somewhat of the burdens of those whom they mislead without knowledge. Ah! evil is that which they bear! (25) Those before them plotted, so Allah struck at the foundations of their building, and then the roof fell down upon them from above them, and the doom came on them whence they knew not; (26) Then on the Day of Resurrection He will disgrace them and will say: Where are My partners, for whose sake ye opposed (My Guidance)? Those who have been given knowledge will say: Disgrace this day and evil are upon the disbelievers, (27) Whom the angels cause to die while they are wronging themselves. Then will they make full submission (saying): We used not to do any wrong. Nay! Surely Allah is Knower of what ye used to do. (28) So enter the gates of hell, to dwell therein for ever. Woeful indeed will be the lodging of the arrogant. (29) And it is said unto those who ward off (evil): What hath your Lord revealed? They say: Good. For those who do good in this world there is a good (reward) and the home of the Hereafter will be better. Pleasant indeed will be the home of those who ward off (evil) - (30) Gardens of Eden which they enter, underneath which rivers flow, wherein they have what they will. Thus Allah repayeth those who ward off (evil), (31) Those whom the angels cause to die (when they are) good. They say: Peace be unto you! Enter the Garden because of what ye used to do. (32) Await they aught say that the angels should come unto them or thy Lord's command should come to pass? Even so did those before them. Allah wronged them not, but they did wrong themselves, (33) So that the evil of what they did smote them, and that which they used to mock surrounded them. (34) And the idolaters say: Had Allah willed, we had not worshipped aught beside Him, we and our fathers, nor had we forbidden aught without (command from) Him. Even so did those before them. Are the messengers charged with aught save plain conveyance (of the message)? (35) And verily We have raised in every nation a messenger, (proclaiming): Serve Allah and shun false gods. Then some of them (there were) whom Allah guided, and some of them (there were) upon whom error had just hold. Do but travel in the land and see the nature of the consequence for the deniers! (36) Even if thou (O Muhammad) desirest their right guidance, still Allah assuredly will not guide him who misleadeth. Such have no helpers. (37) And they swear by Allah their most binding oaths (that) Allah will not raise up him who dieth. Nay, but it is a promise (binding) upon Him in truth, but most of mankind know not, (38) That he may explain unto them that wherein they differ, and that those who disbelieved may know that they were liars. (39) And Our word unto a thing, when We intend it, is only that We say unto it: Be! and it is. (40) And those who became fugitives for the cause of Allah after they had been oppressed, We verily shall give them goodly lodging in the world, and surely the reward of the Hereafter is greater, if they but knew; (41) Such as are steadfast and put their trust in Allah. (42) And We sent not (as Our messengers) before thee other than men whom We inspired - Ask the followers of the Remembrance if ye know not! - (43) With clear proofs and writings; and We have revealed unto thee the Remembrance that thou mayst explain to mankind that which hath been revealed for them, and that haply they may reflect. (44) Are they who plan ill-deeds then secure that Allah will not cause the earth to swallow them, or that the doom will not come on them whence they know not? (45) Or that He will not seize them in their going to and fro so that there be no escape for them? (46) Or that He will not seize them with a gradual wasting? Lo! thy Lord is indeed Full of Pity, Merciful. (47) Have they not observed all things that Allah hath created, how their shadows incline to the right and to the left, making prostration unto Allah, and they are lowly? (48) And unto Allah maketh prostration whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth of living creatures, and the angels (also) and they are not proud. (49) They fear their Lord above them, and do what they are bidden. (50) Allah hath said: Choose not two Gods. There is only One God. So of Me, Me only, be in awe. (51) Unto Him belongeth whatsoever is in the heavens and the earth, and religion is His for ever. Will ye then fear any other than Allah? (52) And whatever of comfort ye enjoy, it is from Allah. Then, when misfortune reacheth you, unto Him ye cry for help. (53) And afterward, when He hath rid you of the misfortune, behold! a set of you attribute partners to their Lord, (54) So as to deny that which We have given them. Then enjoy life (while ye may), for ye will come to know. (55) And they assign a portion of that which We have given them unto what they know not. By Allah! but ye will indeed be asked concerning (all) that ye used to invent. (56) And they assign unto Allah daughters - Be He glorified! - and unto themselves what they desire; (57) When if one of them receiveth tidings of the birth of a female, his face remaineth darkened, and he is wroth in, wardly. (58) He hideth himself from the folk because of the evil of that whereof he hath had tidings, (asking himself): Shall he keep it in contempt, or bury it beneath the dust. Verily evil is their judgment. (59) For those who believe not in the Hereafter is an evil similitude, and Allah's is the Sublime Similitude. He is the Mighty, the Wise. (60) If Allah were to take mankind to task for their wrong-doing, he would not leave hereon a living creature, but He reprieveth them to an appointed term, and when their term cometh they cannot put (it) off an hour nor (yet) advance (it). (61) And they assign unto Allah that which they (themselves) dislike, and their tongues expound the lie that the better portion will be theirs. Assuredly theirs will be the Fire, and they will be abandoned. (62) By Allah, We verily sent messengers unto the nations before thee, but the devil made their deeds fairseeming unto them. So he is their patron this day, and theirs will be a painful doom. (63) And We have revealed the Scripture unto thee only that thou mayst explain unto them that wherein they differ, and (as) a guidance and a mercy for a people who believe. (64) Allah sendeth down water from the sky and therewith reviveth the earth after her death. Lo! herein is indeed a portent for a folk who hear. (65) And lo! in the cattle there is a lesson for you. We give you to drink of that which is in their bellies, from betwixt the refuse and the blood, pure milk palatable to the drinkers. (66) And of the fruits of the date-palm, and grapes, whence ye derive strong drink and (also) good nourishment. Lo! therein is indeed a portent for people who have sense. (67) And thy Lord inspired the bee, saying: Choose thou habitations in the hills and in the trees and in that which they thatch; (68) Then eat of all fruits, and follow the ways of thy Lord, made smooth (for thee). There cometh forth from their bellies a drink divers of hues, wherein is healing for mankind. Lo! herein is indeed a portent for people who reflect. (69) And Allah createth you, then causeth you to die, and among you is he who is brought back to the most abject stage of life, so that he knoweth nothing after (having had) knowledge. Lo! Allah is Knower, Powerful. (70) And Allah hath favoured some of you above others in provision. Now those who are more favoured will by no means hand over their provision to those (slaves) whom their right hands possess, so that they may be equal with them in respect thereof. Is it then the grace of Allah that they deny? (71) And Allah hath given you wives of your own kind, and hath given you, from your wives, sons and grandsons, and hath made provision of good things for you. Is it then in vanity that they believe and in the grace of Allah that they disbelieve? (72) And they worship beside Allah that which owneth no provision whatsoever for them from the heavens or the earth, nor have they (whom they worship) any power. (73) So coin not similitudes for Allah. Lo! Allah knoweth; ye know not. (74) Allah coineth a similitude: (on the one hand) a (mere) chattel slave, who hath control of nothing, and (on the other hand) one on whom we have bestowed a fair provision from Us, and he spendeth thereof secretly and openly. Are they equal? Praise be to Allah! But most of them know not. (75) And Allah coineth a similitude: Two men, one of them dumb, having control of nothing, and he is a burden on his owner; whithersoever he directeth him to go, he bringeth no good. Is he equal with one who enjoineth justice and followeth a straight path (of conduct)? (76) And unto Allah belongeth the Unseen of the heavens and the earth, and the matter of the Hour (of Doom) is but as a twinkling of the eye, or it is nearer still. Lo! Allah is Able to do all things. (77) And Allah brought you forth from the wombs of your mothers knowing nothing, and gave you hearing and sight and hearts that haply ye might give thanks. (78) Have they not seen the birds obedient in mid-air? None holdeth them save Allah. Lo! herein, verily, are portents for a people who believe. (79) And Allah hath given you in your houses an abode, and hath given you (also), of the hides of cattle, tent-houses which ye find light (to carry) on the day of migration and on the day of pitching camp; and of their wool and their fur and their hair, caparison and comfort for a while. (80) And Allah hath given you, of that which He hath created, shelter from the sun; and hath given you places of refuge in the mountains, and hath given you coats to ward off the heat from you, and coats (of armour) to save you from your own foolhardiness. Thus doth He perfect His favour unto you, in order that ye may surrender (unto Him). (81) Then, if they turn away, thy duty (O Muhammad) is but plain conveyance (of the message). (82) They know the favour of Allah and then deny it. Most of them are ingrates. (83) And (bethink you of) the day when we raise up of every nation a witness, then there is no leave for disbelievers, nor are they allowed to make amends. (84) And when those who did wrong behold the doom, it will not be made light for them, nor will they be reprieved. (85) And when those who ascribed partners to Allah behold those partners of theirs, they will say: Our Lord! these are our partners unto whom we used to cry instead of Thee. But they will fling to them the saying: Lo! ye verily are liars! (86) And they proffer unto Allah submission on that day, and all that they used to invent hath failed them. (87) For those who disbelieve and debar (men) from the way of Allah, We add doom to doom because they wrought corruption, (88) And (bethink you of) the day when We raise in every nation a witness against them of their own folk, and We bring thee (Muhammad) as a witness against these. And We reveal the Scripture unto thee as an exposition of all things, and a guidance and a mercy and good tidings for those who have surrendered (to Allah). (89) Lo! Allah enjoineth justice and kindness, and giving to kinsfolk, and forbiddeth lewdness and abomination and wickedness. He exhorteth you in order that ye may take heed. (90) Fulfil the covenant of Allah when ye have covenanted, and break not your oaths after the asseveration of them, and after ye have made Allah surety over you. Lo! Allah knoweth what ye do. (91) And be not like unto her who unravelleth the thread, after she hath made it strong, to thin filaments, making your oaths a deceit between you because of a nation being more numerous than (another) nation. Allah only trieth you thereby, and He verily will explain to you on the Day of Resurrection that wherein ye differed. (92) Had Allah willed He could have made you (all) one nation, but He sendeth whom He will astray and guideth whom He will, and ye will indeed be asked of what ye used to do. (93) Make not your oaths a deceit between you, lest a foot should slip after being firmly planted and ye should taste evil forasmuch as ye debarred (men) from the way of Allah, and yours should be an awful doom. (94) And purchase not a small gain at the price of Allah's covenant. Lo! that which Allah hath is better for you, if ye did but know. (95) That which ye have wasteth away, and that which Allah hath remaineth. And verily We shall pay those who are steadfast a recompense in proportion to the best of what they used to do. (96) Whosoever doeth right, whether male or female, and is a believer, him verily we shall quicken with good life, and We shall pay them a recompense in proportion to the best of what they used to do. (97) And when thou recitest the Qur'an, seek refuge in Allah from Satan the outcast. (98) Lo! he hath no power over those who believe and put trust in their Lord. (99) His power is only over those who make a friend of him, and those who ascribe partners unto Him (Allah). (100) And when We put a revelation in place of (another) revelation, - and Allah knoweth best what He revealeth - they say: Lo! thou art but inventing. Most of them know not. (101) Say: The holy Spirit hath revealed it from thy Lord with truth, that it may confirm (the faith of) those who believe, and as guidance and good tidings for those who have surrendered (to Allah). (102) And We know well that they say: Only a man teacheth him. The speech of him at whom they falsely hint is outlandish, and this is clear Arabic speech. (103) Lo! those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, Allah guideth them not and theirs will be a painful doom. (104) Only they invent falsehood who believe not Allah's revelations, and (only) they are the liars. (105) Whoso disbelieveth in Allah after his belief - save him who is forced thereto and whose heart is still content with the Faith - but whoso findeth ease in disbelief: On them is wrath from Allah. Theirs will be an awful doom. (106) That is because they have chosen the life of the world rather than the Hereafter, and because Allah guideth not the disbelieving folk. (107) Such are they whose hearts and ears and eyes Allah hath sealed. And such are the heedless. (108) Assuredly in the Hereafter they are the losers. (109) Then lo! thy Lord - for those who became fugitives after they had been persecuted, and then fought and were steadfast - lo! thy Lord afterward is (for them) indeed Forgiving, Merciful. (110) On the Day when every soul will come pleading for itself, and every soul will be repaid what it did, and they will not be wronged. (111) Allah coineth a similitude: a township that dwelt secure and well content, its provision coming to it in abundance from every side, but it disbelieved in Allah's favours, so Allah made it experience the garb of dearth and fear because of what they used to do. (112) And verily there had come unto them a messenger from among them, but they had denied him, and so the torment seized them while they were wrong-doers. (113) So eat of the lawful and good food which Allah hath provided for you, and thank the bounty of your Lord if it is Him ye serve. (114) He hath forbidden for you only carrion and blood and swineflesh and that which hath been immolated in the name of any other than Allah; but he who is driven thereto, neither craving nor transgressing, lo! then Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. (115) And speak not, concerning that which your own tongues qualify (as clean or unclean), the falsehood: "This is lawful, and this is forbidden," so that ye invent a lie against Allah. Lo! those who invent a lie against Allah will not succeed. (116) A brief enjoyment (will be theirs); and theirs a painful doom. (117) And unto those who are Jews We have forbidden that which We have already related unto thee. And We wronged them not, but they were wont to wrong themselves. (118) Then lo! thy Lord - for those who do evil in ignorance and afterward repent and amend - lo! (for them) thy Lord is afterward indeed Forgiving, Merciful. (119) Lo! Abraham was a people obedient to Allah, by nature upright, and he was not of the idolaters; (120) Thankful for His bounties; He chose him and He guided him unto a straight path. (121) And We gave him good in the world, and in the Hereafter he is among the righteous. (122) And afterward We inspired thee (Muhammad, saying): Follow the religion of Abraham, as one by nature upright. He was not of the idolaters. (123) The Sabbath was appointed only for those who differed concerning it, and lo! thy Lord will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection concerning that wherein they used to differ. (124) Call unto the way of thy Lord with wisdom and fair exhortation, and reason with them in the better way. Lo! thy Lord is Best Aware of him who strayeth from His way, and He is best aware of those who go aright. (125) If ye punish, then punish with the like of that wherewith ye were afflicted. But if ye endure patiently, verily it is better for the patient. (126) Endure thou patiently (O Muhammad). Thine endurance is only by (the help of) Allah. Grieve not for them, and be not in distress because of that which they devise. (127) Lo! Allah is with those who keep their duty unto Him and those who are doers of good. (128)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can provide you quotes from early Christian leaders, living within 20-100 years of Jesus lifetime, in separate parts of the world, all saying the same thing... i.e. that Jesus was crucified.
Lol..some Christiand believed the Jews. Please list us the Catholics who are way more Orthodox to Christians. Don't you remember they believed he was not crucified?

 

What we know of Muhammad was recorded *centuries* after he lived. What we know of Jesus was recorded *decades* after he lived.

 

What does this tell you?

Alah doesn't forget. He knows the best. O, recorded, lol. Really? Yo uhave nothing recorede. Dead sea scrolls you have ..oo not even them

 

From where: Jesus Christ
Nope. A lie. You got something from 300 years after his death. From people like Paul whom his friends distrusted.

 

When: 33 AD

 

Smile. Expose yourself.

Edited by Orthodox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll get back tomorrow inshAllah. After I offer my Salat to Allah. Bow down to Him who created me. And in the morning I praise Him. All praise be to Allah. He is in no need of you. You are in need of Him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In Islam, there is something called ijma'. This is what every scholar of the past has agreed on. All scholars of the past agreed that Isa, a.s, was not crucified because Allah clearly says it. These new opinions are unorthodox "odd" views rejected by scholars.

 

Ahhh,,,, you're thinking of MUSLIM scholars, i.e. ulema, but that's not what I'm referring to. I'm refering to your religious scholars that base their views solely off the Quran, I'm referring to scholars who actually follow a historical critical method of analysis... I'm asking you to find such a scholar that believes Jesus wasn't crucified... (good luck with that)

 

He was mistakenly thought to be Isa, a.s, because he looked like him and he chose to be sacrifised for Isa, so they do not kill Isa, a.s.

 

You've introduced another version of the story! Ibn Kathir says this person was miraculously made to look like "Isa" by Allah! So why is there so much confusion among Muslims over what happened? I thought you guys are supposed to be correcting us Christians :sl:

 

Personally, the whole story is too fantastic, too vague, and too confusing. Why would Allah protect Jesus but have another apostle suffer for him? Why would those Apostles then lie and claim Jesus was crucified? The whole story doesnt make any sense (in my opinion of course :sl: )

Do we got a murtad here? All classical scholars agreed the Qur'an is uncreated speech og Allah and no fool would argue that! Dear, we do not follow sects and aqeedas labeled by any people. We follow the sahaba, the 3 best generations. Not these who were refuted by them

 

Thats your opinion, not everyone believes what you believe, and they too would believe they follow truth. The point is, using your logic it would mean we need another messenger to clarify, since there is a difference of opinion!

Oh my God! How can you see that as evidence? Please tell me! Where is the chain going back to Isa, a.s.? What you listed are believs based on what?! not tomention th epagan innovation Christians teach today! They will tell you they innovated some so pagans become more welcomed into Chriti..

 

You want isnad? Clement of Rome wrote a letter to the Corinthians in 96 AD, He was the third leader of the Church in Rome after the Apostle Peter. His name is even mentioned in the Bible!

 

Ignatius of Antioch was martyred around 110 AD at the age of 50, and therefore he lived in a time when apostles like John were still alive. He wrote seven letters prior to getting executed.

 

St Ireneus, Bishop of Lyons, learned from St Polycarp, who learned from St John the Apostle in Asia Minor. This bishop was known for many writings.

 

 

I could go on... The point is, the evidence shows that the earliest Christians believed Jesus was crucified. I encourage you to read the writings of the early Christians, including the holy men I mention above. You will find that all of them accepted the crucifixion of Christ as a reaity, and all of them can be counted as the Salaf of Christianity.

 

 

Now its your turn ukhti, where is your daleel?

 

 

Are you trying to convince me God is half human? We both know that's what your way of life teaches.

 

No, that's not what I'm trying to convince you, and no, Christianity does not teach God is half human... sigh... you clearly know VERY LITTLE about Christianity

 

Separete of alltogether?

 

It was a typo... meant **aren't** separate... unfortunately I don't have an edit feature so I can't fix it. So it should be They aren't separate beings, but one being.

 

Now which one of these created the world? Who deserves to be worshipped?

 

All Three to both questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lol..some Christiand believed the Jews. Please list us the Catholics who are way more Orthodox to Christians. Don't you remember they believed he was not crucified?

 

So the early Christians decided to listen to the Jews who wanted Jesus dead instead of the Apostles? Umm, ok... that doesnt make sense!

 

Wheres the evidence for Christians who believe Jesus was elevated to heaven while some poor disciple had to be crucified in his place?

 

Not sure what your Catholic comment is about, maybe you can clarify.

 

Alah doesn't forget. He knows the best. O, recorded, lol. Really? Yo uhave nothing recorede. Dead sea scrolls you have ..oo not even them

 

We have records ukhti, you may not like them since they run at odds with what you believe "Allah revealed'... but they exist non the less

 

Nope. A lie. You got something from 300 years after his death. From people like Paul whom his friends distrusted.

 

Sigh... I see this is gonna require me providing a lot of education, hopefully you're up to the task!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I could refute you really bad. You would cry for days. Actually, if I get serious, taking your replies seriously, your guesswork, I would contact a scholar, paste this to him, or start a thread on another place, asking them to refute you BECAUSE THEY HAVE EVIDENCE AGAINST YOU. Your contradictsions are appearant. You are not worth of my time. Do not call me a sister. I am not your sister.

 

Your mind is blocked. Whatever I say to you, you go back affirming something unvalid. People like you are a disgrace to humanity. You deserve nothing but death. Your women go around naked, you eat unlawful, you associate others to Allah, claiming they are gods, not to mention how many of your kind pray to saints.. Go ahead, pray to a naked statue on a cross and call others to that!

 

 

NEVER AGAIN CALL ME TO WORSHIP OTHERS BESIDES Allah!

 

follow a historical critical method of analysis

 

What a nonsense! Do you want me to link you how historical Hercules or whomever it was his story, how similar was it to Isa's, as.? Do you want me to show you the bones of animals and compare them to human.... CAN THIS BE TRACED BACK? NO! THEREFORE, THERER IS NO PROOF IT ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE!

 

I'm asking you to find such a scholar that believes Jesus wasn't crucified... (good luck with that)
I do not believe in luck kaffir! I believe in Allah's will. So, can you prove Jesus wasn't crucified? There is no proof. The only reliable proof historians use in all fiels is the chain of narations. Undesrstand? The rest is hogwash.

 

You've introduced another version of the story! Ibn Kathir says this person was miraculously made to look like "Isa" by Allah! So why is there so much confusion among Muslims over what happened? I thought you guys are supposed to be correcting us Christians
When an ignorant person starts educationg Muslims, this is the era we live in I guess... Read my previous post. And quote Ibn Kathir. What is so confusing about Jesus, ppbuh, NOT being crucified. Do you know how many ppl were crucified at that time? You Christians have been trying to correct yourselves for a long time now. It's going nowhere... You're a complete maniac going around "Jesus was crucified>" If you only knew the enemies want him crucified only. Weren't the Jews who wanted him dead? Yeah, you side with them. :sl: So... he died for your sinns. are you accountable for your sinns?

 

We have records ukhti, you may not like them since they run at odds with what you believe "Allah revealed'... but they exist non the less
Uh... you have issues. Because your Christians will tell you the opposite. You have records... what do you mean?! what do you mean?! do you call dead sea scrolls the best records you got?

 

Sigh... I see this is gonna require me providing a lot of education, hopefully you're up to the task
You think you can educate someone by something you have not got. Just admit it. I know it would be kufr from your side to admit your Bible is not perfect. But it is the truth. NOT ALL OF IT IS BY GOD AND YOU WOULD LIE AT GOD SAYING EVERYTHING IN IT IS FROM GOD. 2. PLEASE TEL ME WHICH ONE OF YOUR SCHOLARS CLAIM YOU HAVE CHAIN OF NARRATIONS BACK TO THE BIBLE.

 

Now its your turn ukhti, where is your daleel?
wITH PEOPLE WHO ARE PERSERVING Islam TILL NOW. fOR EXAMPLE, CHIAN OF HADEETHS [bUKHARI AND MUSLIM] 100% ACCURATE AND HEALTHY. ND THESE ARE HADEETHS. IMAGINE HOW STRICTLY THE QUR'AN WAS PERSERVED.

 

 

 

PLEASE, YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE. YOU DON'T EVEN FOLLOW THE LAWS OF THE BIBLE. WHO IS CLOSER TO THE BIBLE, HUH? ESPECIALLY THE STONING OF CERTAIN CRIMES. :sl:

Edited by Orthodox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I deserve death... LOL... great post ukhti! your emotional writing lacking any daleel was totally convincing... :sl:

 

And btw, I know deep down you enjoy the liberties of a contemporary Western society, I mean I dont see many Muslims moving back to countries that bear some Shariah law :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I deserve death... LOL... great post ukhti! your emotional writing lacking any daleel was totally convincing... :sl:

 

And btw, I know deep down you enjoy the liberties of a contemporary Western society, I mean I dont see many Muslims moving back to countries that bear some Shariah law :sl:

 

I am leaving right after school.. and I am a teenager.. Guess what? Don't you know many of us are not Arabs or Middle Esterners, huh? I can't wait to leave this place. You can't look without seeing something my eyes shouldn't. I am not emotional at all. I can be very kind to you. I chose to respond to you that way so you realize the importance I guard for my faith. The distance between your believs and mine. You daleed. What are you doing? OPEN YOUR EYES. What daleed have you said? Very insenciere. Of course, what have I expected from that ^

 

And how hypocritical. Are you criticizing your laws?

Edited by Orthodox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The naivette of a teenager... maybe you should ask your parents why they came here in the first place :sl:

 

As for daleel, we have it. Even non-Christian scholars and historians recognize the historical value of the NT. The reason is they are our earliest sources, written by eye witnesses or those who learned from eye witnesses. They believed the teachings of Jesus were necessary for their salvation so they were motivated to record things properly, and not radically alter the substance of his teaching.

 

Now you mention isnad... the fact is isnad is recorded in our tradition. St Papias, an early Christian who knew many eye witnesses of Jesus, and even the Apostle John, said Mark based his Gospel off the sayings of the Apostle Peter. Matthew on the other hand is recognized as being an Apostle of Christ, who first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and then had it translated to Greek. John wrote his Gospel somewhere in the late 90s. And Luke, although he wasn't an Apostle, he was a disciple of the Apostles.

 

So yes, we have isnad... but lets say we didnt have this information, does that mean the NT is useless? The answer is no. Why? First of the NT was written at so early a date, it was well within the realm of the Apostolic age, i.e. when the Apostles and numerous eye witnesses of Jesus were still alive. We know that the Jews practiced memorizing sacred sayings just like Muslims do today, it was called halakha. The first Christians were Jews and they likely memorized the sayings, teachings, and parables of Jesus word for word. And so given that reliable information was available it would be easy for a person to gather information on Jesus' saying, and had these writings substantially diverted from Jesus' teaching, they would have been rejected by the Christian Salaf (as happened to some later writings composed by heretics.) And as mentioned before, the authors who took pains to compile Jesus sayings and write about his life trully believed their salvation depended on Jesus. They would be extremely concerned in finding out what He taught, just as you are concerned with finding out what Muhammad really taught, and so why would they radically depart from his teaching?

 

For this, and many other reasons that a trained Scholar could explain far better... the Bible is recognized as reliable and trustworthy. It's why even an atheist scholar will use the NT as a source for their book on Jesus. The only reason you reject this evidence, is because of an aya mentioned in the Quran which you believe is inspired. To me, the existence of that aya is one of many proofs that Muhammad was not a rasul, and I'll add the qualifier that this is just my opinion :sl:

 

 

Wa salaam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't read all your nonsense

 

 

The naivette of a teenager... maybe you should ask your parents why they came here in the first place
Because the Christians butchered my people in Bosnia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for daleel, we have it. Even non-Christian scholars and historians recognize the historical value of the NT. The reason is they are our earliest sources, written by eye witnesses or those who learned from eye witnesses. They believed the teachings of Jesus were necessary for their salvation so they were motivated to record things properly, and not radically alter the substance of his teaching.

 

This is not really true. There is a consensus among secular scholars that the Gospels were not written by eye witnesses nor by people who learned from eye witnesses. According to secular scholarship, the authorships of the Gospels are anynomous. The prevelant thought in secular scholarship is that the NT/Gospels are works of faith with little historical value.

 

Now you mention isnad... the fact is isnad is recorded in our tradition. St Papias, an early Christian who knew many eye witnesses of Jesus, and even the Apostle John, said Mark based his Gospel off the sayings of the Apostle Peter. Matthew on the other hand is recognized as being an Apostle of Christ, who first wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and then had it translated to Greek. John wrote his Gospel somewhere in the late 90s. And Luke, although he wasn't an Apostle, he was a disciple of the Apostles.

 

One thing I've always wondered about is who translated the Gospel of Matthew from Hebrew to Greek according to Christian tradition. Where is the unbroken Isnad for this book, either the Hebrew or Greek? Why wasn't the Hebrew preserved?

 

So yes, we have isnad... but lets say we didnt have this information, does that mean the NT is useless? The answer is no. Why? First of the NT was written at so early a date, it was well within the realm of the Apostolic age, i.e. when the Apostles and numerous eye witnesses of Jesus were still alive. We know that the Jews practiced memorizing sacred sayings just like Muslims do today, it was called halakha. The first Christians were Jews and they likely memorized the sayings, teachings, and parables of Jesus word for word. And so given that reliable information was available it would be easy for a person to gather information on Jesus' saying, and had these writings substantially diverted from Jesus' teaching, they would have been rejected by the Christian Salaf (as happened to some later writings composed by heretics.) And as mentioned before, the authors who took pains to compile Jesus sayings and write about his life trully believed their salvation depended on Jesus. They would be extremely concerned in finding out what He taught, just as you are concerned with finding out what Muhammad really taught, and so why would they radically depart from his teaching?

 

It is interesting that you bring up Jews because I have question for you. All Christians agree that the Torah is the Word of God and that Jesus (peace be upon him) was a Rabbi who knew the Torah. Thus it would be logical to assume that the Christians would be able to trace the Torah back to Jesus (peace be upon him) through an Isnad, right? So what I want to know is how did the early Christians preserve the Torah? The Jews think that the Torah is the verbatim Word of God and they think that even if one letter is missing the Torah scroll is invalid. This concept is probably alluded to in one of the Gospels where Jesus is quoted as saying that no letter nor a stroke of a pen shall dissapear from the Torah, I assume he means the Hebrew one. Why didn't the early Church preserve the Torah in Hebrew, the original language of its revelation, instead they used a translation - and a translation can hardly be called the verbatim Word of God.

 

I think it is pointless to ask rhetorical questions like why would they radically depart from his teaching - they are quite meaningles because everybody uses them whether they are right or wrong or lying. I think what happened with the Christians is equivalent to what happened with the Children of israel: they saw great miracles and they were thought not to worship anyone besides God nor to make any statues - in the Bible it says that God told them this directly when He gave the Ten Commandments and that all israel heard it - and yet after a short while they set up the golden calf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is not really true. There is a consensus among secular scholars that the Gospels were not written by eye witnesses nor by people who learned from eye witnesses.

 

There is no such consensus among scholars, and a lot of it rests on speculation built on speculation. Even if we go by the dates offered by most secular scholars, that the Gospels were written some time around 70 AD, we're still dealing within a time frame where eye witnesses of Jesus were still alive (Consider that the youngest of Jesus' Apostles, John, is said to have died around 98AD!) Why is it difficult to believe that someone like Mark could have learned the life of Jesus from the Apostle Peter, and then recorded it on paper? This is precisely how the early Christian St Papias records Mark's gospel was composed, and he was someone who knew the Apostle John!

 

According to secular scholarship, the authorships of the Gospels are anynomous.

 

The reason is these texts are not written like modern novels, with the title and and author on the front page, but as mentioned before, the same names have been associated with the same gospels since the earliest of times.

 

The prevelant thought in secular scholarship is that the NT/Gospels are works of faith with little historical value.

 

This is simply not true. The Gospels contain a printed record of the sayings and teachings of Jesus that his followers memorized verbatim. If what you say is true, textual critical methods like form criticism would have no basis!

 

One thing I've always wondered about is who translated the Gospel of Matthew from Hebrew to Greek according to Christian tradition.

 

It would have been the Apostle Matthew himself, since being a tax collector he would have been versed in Aramaic, Latin, and Greek.

 

Where is the unbroken Isnad for this book, either the Hebrew or Greek? Why wasn't the Hebrew preserved?

 

What do you mean by an isnad for the book? I can understand an isnad for an oral saying, even though I dont see this as being the most appropriate way to determine the authenticity of a saying, but why for a book? The existence of the book serves as its own evidence, no?

 

As for why the Hebrew wasnt preserved, it goes into why it was translated to Greek in the first place, the obvious reason being that Greek was the universal language of the Empire at the time.

 

It is interesting that you bring up Jews because I have question for you. All Christians agree that the Torah is the Word of God and that Jesus (peace be upon him) was a Rabbi who knew the Torah. Thus it would be logical to assume that the Christians would be able to trace the Torah back to Jesus (peace be upon him) through an Isnad, right? So what I want to know is how did the early Christians preserve the Torah?

 

Keep in mind there is a different between an oral saying and a written text. The Torah existed in written form, in the form of a scroll. The physical scroll would have been passed down, so how would an isnad relate?

 

As for how we preserved the Torah, it was the same way everything else was preserved, via copying the text.

 

I think it is pointless to ask rhetorical questions like why would they radically depart from his teaching - they are quite meaningles because everybody uses them whether they are right or wrong or lying. I think what happened with the Christians is equivalent to what happened with the Children of israel: they saw great miracles and they were thought not to worship anyone besides God nor to make any statues - in the Bible it says that God told them this directly when He gave the Ten Commandments and that all israel heard it - and yet after a short while they set up the golden calf.

 

Its not uncommon for those who made a habit of a certain lifestyle to revert to that lifestyle, i.e. a recent monotheists revertin to pagan practices, as what happened with those israelites. However keep in mind that 1st century Jews were staunch monotheists, Tawheed was well ingrained, so its rather amazing that a portion of them would firmly believe that a man, Jesus of Nazareth, was a God-man. Likewise, although some Jews recognized a general resurrection at the the end of time, the idea of a particular person resurrecting in their own time was unheard of, so yet again, its rather amazing that this same portion of Jews recognized that the God-man had risen back to life in their own time.

 

The points I always focus on are the crucifixion and resurrection. There is no doubt that the early Christians firmly believed as a matter of fact that Jesus was crucified, and they believed that he resurrected. How did they reach such unanimity unless that is precisely what happened?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why is it difficult to believe that someone like Mark could have learned the life of Jesus from the Apostle Peter, and then recorded it on paper? This is precisely how the early Christian St Papias records Mark's gospel was composed, and he was someone who knew the Apostle John!

 

I'll let your Christians answer you:

John Drane, a prominent evangelical conservative scholar and former student of F. F. Bruce (and I. H. Marshall), had this to say about the authorship of the gospel of Matthew:

 

 

 

Though some leading scholars continue to believe that the apostle Matthew was the author, it is worth pointing out that, as with all the other gospels, knowing the exact identity of the author is not going to be crucial for understanding it. The book itself is anonymous, and makes no claim at all about its author. We can be fairly certain that it would be a man, but whether he was associated with the apostle Matthew, and at what stage or in what way is impossible to say with certainty. (John Drane, Introducing the New Testament, 2001, First Fortress Press Edition, p. 207)

 

 

 

Ya Allah! How do we know what we have today is what he actually recordeed centuries back?

 

According to the conservative scholar Michael Green:

 

 

 

We do not know who wrote the Gospel [of Matthew]. Like all the others, it is anonymous...

 

 

 

... [second-century writers] do tell us who wrote them, and they may or may not have been right. In the case of Matthew, it is not at all easy to know whether they were right, because there is a major contradiction in the evidence. The external evidence points uniformly in one direction, the internal in another. (The Message of Matthew: The Kingdom of Heaven, 2001, Inter-Varsity Press, p. 19)

 

From my observation, you are trying to convince us these people of the past were ignorant of isnad and for that reason you do not have it?????

 

I can understand an isnad for an oral saying, even though I dont see this as being the most appropriate way to determine the authenticity of a saying,
Then why do so many of your scholars reject certain books? Because there is no isnad and etc...

 

Observe this paragraph:

 

conservative scholar Colin G. Kruse argues for the apostle John being the author of the 'original form of the Fourth Gospel' (p. 30). He writes:

 

 

 

To recognize the apostle John as the author of the Fourth Gospel does not mean that the Gospel in the form we have it today came entirely from his hand. The epilogue contains the testimony of others to the truthfulness of what the beloved disciple wrote (21:24), a testimony that appears to have been added by others after the apostle John died. (The Gospel According to John: An Introduction and Commentary, 2003, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, p. 28)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll let your Christians answer you:

John Drane, a prominent evangelical conservative scholar and former student of F. F. Bruce (and I. H. Marshall), had this to say about the authorship of the gospel of Matthew:

 

As mentioned already the Evangelists did not follow contemporary book making guidelines. Theire works dont have a title and author page, and so they are anonymous. But suppose they did have a title and clearly indicated the author, would that change your beliefs? No, you would go on to say that was forged as well! What we do have, and we know this goes back to the Christian salaf, is that same names have been attached to the same Gospels.

 

Then why do so many of your scholars reject certain books? Because there is no isnad and etc...

 

Saying a book is textually anonymous is not the same as rejecting them.

 

And tell me what the value of isnad is if a person can simply invent an immaculate chain of narrators?

 

Ya Allah! How do we know what we have today is what he actually recordeed centuries back?

 

Alhumdullah, we are dealing with a written kitab, and therefore older copies can be compared to newer ones. With an oral transmission like that of the Quran, you can't make such a comparison and therefore you cant reach any certainty.

 

a testimony that appears to have been added by others after the apostle John died.

 

The key word is "appears" but suppose this was true... so the disciples of John added more of the Apostle's testimony to the Gospel, so what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Non of your books are the same mate , the versions of the Bible differ , why do the Catholics have more books than the protestants eh ? :sl: the Apocrypha ring a bell ?

 

Whats so difficult to comprehend Lux ? there is probably 3% of the word of God left in the Bible and maybe thats an over estimate , the rest are words of historians and third persons claiming to be inspired by casper the friendly ghost :sl: .

 

Christianity is not the religion of Jesus Christ its a religion made up between St. Paul and the Council of Nicea :no: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no such consensus among scholars, and a lot of it rests on speculation built on speculation.

 

Look, I just told you what the consensus is among secular historians: it is that the Gospels are works of faith, written by anynomous men, not by eye witnesses. Such is the consensus that exists among secular scholars. The information regarding this is very easily accessible.

 

It would have been the Apostle Matthew himself, since being a tax collector he would have been versed in Aramaic, Latin, and Greek.

What do you mean by an isnad for the book? I can understand an isnad for an oral saying, even though I dont see this as being the most appropriate way to determine the authenticity of a saying, but why for a book? The existence of the book serves as its own evidence, no?

 

"It would have been the Apostle Matthew himself", "he would have been versed in Aramaic, Latin and Greek", well is there proof for such claims? From what I can gather from reading the "Lives of Illustrious men", there is not even an oral tradition to support these claims of yours. You are just conjecturing.

 

Well, in Islamic scholarship we have a Isnads for books and this is the only way to assure that the book has been passed from teacher to teacher in an interrupted line. The Qur'an has an Isnad and so does every approved scholarly work in Islam. I might add that the Jews also claim an Isnad for the Torah (I mean the book, not the Oral Torah), therefore, it wouldn't be unfair to demand the same from Christians. If you thought that an Isnad was only for an oral saying, then you really haven't understood Isnad very well. No, the existence of a book doesn't serve as its own evidence.

 

As for why the Hebrew wasnt preserved, it goes into why it was translated to Greek in the first place, the obvious reason being that Greek was the universal language of the Empire at the time.

 

I think there was no such Gospel that was originally in Hebrew, otherwise it would have been also preserved.

 

Keep in mind there is a different between an oral saying and a written text. The Torah existed in written form, in the form of a scroll. The physical scroll would have been passed down, so how would an isnad relate?

 

The Isnad is a link to the past, a proof that the book was taught in an uninterrupted manner, passing from teacher to teacher until the present day. If such an Isnad does not exist, the link to the past is severed and the book is not considered acceptable.

 

As for how we preserved the Torah, it was the same way everything else was preserved, via copying the text.

 

You cannot claim to have preserved the verbatim Torah of Moses (peace be upon him), unless you claim that he wrote it in Greek. I think that the early Church was really inept at Hebrew seeing that Hebrew Bible wasn't preserved in Hebrew and that the supposed original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was lost.

 

The points I always focus on are the crucifixion and resurrection. There is no doubt that the early Christians firmly believed as a matter of fact that Jesus was crucified, and they believed that he resurrected. How did they reach such unanimity unless that is precisely what happened?

 

How did they reach such an unanimity. It's simple - force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look, I just told you what the consensus is among secular historians: it is that the Gospels are works of faith, written by anynomous men, not by eye witnesses. Such is the consensus that exists among secular scholars. The information regarding this is very easily accessible.

 

Dr Richard Baukham, a senior scholars at Cambridge, says the opposite! See his book, Jesus and the eye-witnesses: The Gospels as eye-witness testimony.

 

See how easy it was to prove there is no consensus! :sl:

 

I can name more scholar if you like... James Dunn, NT Wright, Stephen Neil, etc

 

"It would have been the Apostle Matthew himself", "he would have been versed in Aramaic, Latin and Greek", well is there proof for such claims? From what I can gather from reading the "Lives of Illustrious men", there is not even an oral tradition to support these claims of yours. You are just conjecturing.

 

The source for this goes back to St Papias, here are two quotes, the first reveals how he gathered information, and the second what he says about the Gospels:

 

"I will not hesitate to add also for you to my interpretations what I formerly learned with care from the Presbyters and have carefully stored in memory, giving assurance of its truth. For I did not take pleasure as the many do in those who speak much, but in those who teach what is true, nor in those who relate foreign precepts, but in those who relate the precepts which were given by the Lord to the faith and came down from the Truth itself. And also if any follower of the Presbyters happened to come, I would inquire for the sayings of the Presbyters, what Andrew said, or what Peter said, or what Philip or what Thomas or James or what John or Matthew or any other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which other of the Lord's disciples, and for the things which Aristion and the Presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I considered that I should not get so much advantage from matter in books as from the voice which yet lives and remains.

 

Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements. Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could.[using large font size is not allowed]

 

I think there was no such Gospel that was originally in Hebrew, otherwise it would have been also preserved.

 

Not necessarily, such a Gospel would only have been used by Hebrew speaking Christians, and even then, it doesn't gaurantee it would survive to our time, since the natural elements and peresecutions would have restricted its growth.

 

The Isnad is a link to the past, a proof that the book was taught in an uninterrupted manner, passing from teacher to teacher until the present day. If such an Isnad does not exist, the link to the past is severed and the book is not considered acceptable.

 

Isnad is not an absolute gaurantee of assurance, it's ultimately hearsay, and so a person can untintentionally attribute a saying to a particular person and then attach an immaculate isnad to it, making it appear legitimate.

 

Now Christians do have a detailed isnad, but not of what you would expect. We have a detailed isnad for Apostolic succession, i.e. the Bishops that succeeded the Apostles. This isnad was used to combat early gnostic heresies, which claimed a secret knowledge from the apostles. The importance is that it does show a connnection to the past. Christ promised He would be with His church till the end of time, and that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide and protect her, so we know the Church that is built on the Apostles is free from error, and this is by Divine protection.

 

You cannot claim to have preserved the verbatim Torah of Moses (peace be upon him), unless you claim that he wrote it in Greek. I think that the early Church was really inept at Hebrew seeing that Hebrew Bible wasn't preserved in Hebrew and that the supposed original Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was lost.

 

Sounds like you're referring to the septuagaint, which is a Jewish translation of the OT into Greek. Seems like you're confusing the existence of this translation with the original?

 

The sayings of Jesus were memorized verbatim, they were then translated into the common language of the Empire which is Greek, and then they were recorded. These records, both oral and written, were used to teach, and so its natural that Greek speaking Christians would utilize them.

 

How did they reach such an unanimity. It's simple - force.

 

Bring your daleel, otherwise recant your statement.

 

You would have first demonstrate that such division existed among the early Christians over whether Jesus was crucified or ascended to heaven, and another disciple took his place. Then you would have to demonstrate how these early Christians, living under Roman rule and eventual persecution, were capable for forcing the universal community to believe as they believe.

 

You will obviously not be unable to prove either of these and not because any evidence of division was suppressed, it wasn't, there was some division among the early Christians but it wasnt over the crucifixion or resurrection, it was over to what extent must converts follow Jewish law. There is unaninmous agreement that Jesus was crucified and resurrected, this not forced unanimity, but a genuine consense based off an experienced event.

 

So yea, bring your daleel if you be truthful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Non of your books are the same mate , the versions of the Bible differ ,

 

There is no substantial difference between texts, they all say the same thing. Jesus was the Son of God, crucified under Pontius Pilate, and three days later He rose again. So you can quibble over an insignificant variant, whether the Centurion spoke with Christ or whether it was his servant, but you're missing the point... what we know with certainty, even that contradicts the Quran.

 

why do the Catholics have more books than the protestants eh ? the Apocrypha ring a bell ?

 

Youre talking about the Canon of Scripture related to the OT. It's a moot point, all Christians believe in the crucifixion and resurrection, this is ijma akhi, going back to the Apostles themselves.

 

Whats so difficult to comprehend Lux ? there is probably 3% of the word of God left in the Bible and maybe thats an over estimate , the rest are words of historians and third persons claiming to be inspired by casper the friendly ghost .

 

Try 99%

 

What is certain is that Jesus was crucified and that his followers believed he rose again. There is no doubt here, and this proves the aya in the Quran wrong, and therefore the entire Quran is rendered man made.

 

Christianity is not the religion of Jesus Christ its a religion made up between St. Paul and the Council of Nicea

 

St Paul himself admits that he is only conveying what he LEARNED, therefore it predates him.

 

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.[using large font size is not allowed]

1 Corinthians 15

 

 

So yes Akhi, face the facts, the Quran is in error, you have no objective evidence to prove that the Quran is right. You can't explain the ijma among the Apostles and disciples that Jesus was crucified and rose again. You can't explain the fact that the Old Testament prophets prophesized the death of the Messiah, and even the manor of his death, the crucifixion! See Isaiah 53 and Psalm 22, read it yourself akhi.

 

If Muhammad only knew what disaster to his claims would be brought by him saying Jesus wasn't crucified!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr Richard Baukham, a senior scholars at Cambridge, says the opposite! See his book, Jesus and the eye-witnesses: The Gospels as eye-witness testimony.

 

See how easy it was to prove there is no consensus! :sl:

 

I can name more scholar if you like... James Dunn, NT Wright, Stephen Neil, etc

 

Well, when I say that there is a consensus I don't mean that every single scholar holds the same excact view - don't take things out of context. It's like me saying that there is a consensus among secular historians that the stories of Moses (peace be upon him) and the israelites are nothing but folk-tales. Yes, there might be some secular historians who believe Moses (peace be upon him) existed and he travalled with the children of israel in the desert but it is widely acknowledged in secular circles that they are folk-tales. The same applies to the Gospels. Sure there might some who think that the Gospels are not simply works of faith and that highly accurate testimonies related through eyewitnesses but at large this is not the case.

 

Your quote from Papias doesn't say that Matthew translated his Gospel nor that he knew Greek. It says that each one - and I would like to know who excactly each one is - took from him and interpreted, i.e. translated, as best as they could. It doesn't say Matthew translated.

 

Isnad is not an absolute gaurantee of assurance, it's ultimately hearsay, and so a person can untintentionally attribute a saying to a particular person and then attach an immaculate isnad to it, making it appear legitimate.

 

This is a legitimate concern when it comes to scrutinizing an Isnad. However, this is a weak, or rather, pathetic excuse for not having an Isnad. Just because something can be forged, it doesn't mean that the concept is not good and it shouldn't be used.

 

Now Christians do have a detailed isnad, but not of what you would expect. We have a detailed isnad for Apostolic succession, i.e. the Bishops that succeeded the Apostles. This isnad was used to combat early gnostic heresies, which claimed a secret knowledge from the apostles. The importance is that it does show a connnection to the past. Christ promised He would be with His church till the end of time, and that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide and protect her, so we know the Church that is built on the Apostles is free from error, and this is by Divine protection.

 

Yes, I know of the claim of Apostolic succession and such a thing would be considered a form of Isnad or Ijazah but not necessarily. I've looked at the claim of Apostolic succession and it is confused matter. For example, when it comes to the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, there is discrepancies among early Christian historians such as Jerome, Tertuallian and Irenaeus regarding who was succeeded by whom - casting doubt on the whole list.

 

But you definately don't have an Isnad for the Gospels, not even for Paul's letter, nor for any book in the Hebrew Bible nor the New Testament.

 

Sounds like you're referring to the septuagaint, which is a Jewish translation of the OT into Greek. Seems like you're confusing the existence of this translation with the original?

 

I am not confusing anything. I know that the Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible and it is this translation that the early Church used. They didn't use the Hebrew Torah. This poses a significant problem from my perspective because the Christians cannot lay claim to have preserved the original Torah, the verbatim Word of God regarding which Jesus (peace be upon) is quoted as saying that no letter - I assume Hebrew letter, not Greek letter - shall dissapear from. My question is, why didn't the Church preserve the verbatim Torah of Moses (verbatim meaning that by default it cannot be translation).

 

Bring your daleel, otherwise recant your statement.

 

Look up the Ebionites. They disagreed with the early Christians regarding Jesus' (peace be upon him) divinity and not just concerning whether to keep the Torah laws or not. Obviously, they got labeled heretics and when the Trinitarians came to power, they wiped them out. It is clear that the early Christian beliefs were not uniform, otherwise nobody would have been labeled a heretic. The winners write history.

 

I am not really interested in discussing this because the first matter that should be discussed is the Torah before Christianity can even be given a second thought. Jesus (peace be upon him) is quoted as saying that no letter shall dissapear from the Torah and I assume this means the Hebrew letters. Can you show that no letter has dissapeared from the Torah of Moses which was revealed to him in Hebrew? If you cannot prove that the Torah has been preserved in Hebrew, Christianity has no ground to stand on - well, at least the Christianity that you profess. It might be a different case if you followed Marcion's Christianity and believed that the Hebrew Bible is evil etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×