Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Mrs. J

Jesus Did Not Foretell The Coming Of The Prophet Muhammad

Recommended Posts

This is a good post, I think that Jesues may have known, he said many and did many great things and parables(miracles). I think this could be evidence that Jeesues knew perhaps of many great things that God had may have told him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
I agree that the Bible should have nothing to do with confirming the prophet's prophet hood and that is why at the end I wrote that a true believer knows, they don't need 'confirmation'. Many people do like to claim that Jesus said Muhammad pbuh would come after him as the 'peryklitos' (or Ahmad in Arabic) and use the NT verses out of context. I never claimed he was a false prophet my intention was to put these verses into context.

 

I am well aware of these extra-Biblical gospels and other writings. I have watched that programme a few times.

 

Are you sure?

 

- Peter: scholars and palaeographers believe that the gospel of Peter is pseudepigraphical (bearing the name of a person who did not write it). It even speaks of the resurrection of Jesus and a talking cross which appeared from the tomb.

- Judas: Claims that Jesus asked Judas (the man who some claim was crucified and not Jesus) betray him.

- Mary Magdalene: This gospel was used by Gnostics whose beliefs might resemble ‘New Age’ beliefs of some very ‘liberal’ forms of Sufism, such as what is taught by Inayat Khan. This does not conform at all with Islamic beliefs and you might consider what is in this gospel shirk.

- Philip: contains the sayings of Jesus and is also in line with the Gnostics.

- Thomas: also contains the sayings of Jesus (many of which are in the New Test.) and is also in line with the Gnostics.

- Barnabas: A medieval Islamist forgery which I’ve previously written about it on this post. Barnabas was actually one of the early ‘church fathers’. Epistle and Acts of Barnabas are also considered to be pseudepigraphical and they conform to mainstream Christian beliefs.

- Bathelomew: Claims Jesus died and was resurrected.

- James: (Son of Joseph/Jesus’ brother) This protoevangelum by the brother of Jesus tells the story of the nativity, i.e. his birth.

- Gospel of Nicodemus (Acts of Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea): Asserts that Jesus was crucified, buried and resurrected.

- Secret gospel of Mark: letter attributed to Clement of Alexandria addressed to Theodore.

 

Are you still so sure? ? ?

You have the right to believe what the Quran says, this is what faith is.

 

The Torah and the other Books of the Old Testament as they are available to us now match up with the Dead Sea Scroll versions (which date back to the second century BC) of all of these books, however in some cases such as Psalms, what we have is shorther than what is in the scrolls.

 

Samanta,

I'm a little confused, could you clarify the following points:

1) You listed a fairly long list of scriptures & brief description why you reject them-this is your position right? That they are to be rejected?

2) This is also a little confusing, what do you mean by:

The 'Gospel' is not one my friend. There are four in the Bible; that is why they are not identical word for word because they are the accounts of four individuals.

 

Sounds like you don’t have much confidence in them, yet when I showed you that Mark 16:9-20 was an addition and alteration, you were quite adamant that the verses were authentic, could you clearly state your position with regard to the four gospels, and which version of the Bible do you subscribe to..thks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Samanta,

I'm a little confused, could you clarify the following points:

1) You listed a fairly long list of scriptures & brief description why you reject them-this is your position right? That they are to be rejected?

2) This is also a little confusing, what do you mean by:

The 'Gospel' is not one my friend. There are four in the Bible; that is why they are not identical word for word because they are the accounts of four individuals.

 

Sounds like you don’t have much confidence in them, yet when I showed you that Mark 16:9-20 was an addition and alteration, you were quite adamant that the verses were authentic, could you clearly state your position with regard to the four gospels, and which version of the Bible do you subscribe to..thks

 

1) White Curtains of the Wind said he believed some of them were in line with Islamic beliefs (while many of them are Gnostic, in line with the New Testament and confirm the crucifixion and resurrection) so I wanted to give him a description of these texts so he can make his decision based on fact rather than what he’s heard.

I am open-minded about them. Some of them are in line with Jesus' message and some of the sayings are so profound that only someone with a revelation could say and they are in keeping with his style of speech and the use of parables. There are even ‘gnostic’ elements in the New Testament gospels.

The four Gospels which are in the Bible were selected by The Council of Nicea, a Roman lead council with 12 heads of various churches in early Christianity. They had their own motives but I don’t think it is by coincidence that these gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. It’s only by God’s will.

 

2) I did not say that I do not have confidence in the Biblical gospels. We can rely on the earliest manuscripts, and as I said before, I am well aware (as many others are) that Mark 16:9-20 is not in the oldest manuscripts. I am comforted by the fact that the details are not the same because it proves that four different accounts were recorded. I would be suspicious if they all sounded the same. If you and I walk into an ice-cream shop or hear a conversation, we don't always remember the same details because we are individuals. The core of the gospels are the same, but the author may have not included some details if they thought they were not that important - for example, Mark does not mention that Jesus' mother and Salome (King Herod’s stepdaughter and niece) had accompanied Mary Magdalene to Jesus’ tomb because he was only interested in what she told him she saw.

 

I did not say the verse is authentic or that the Bible hasn't been 'molested' (that was someone else), clearly you misunderstood me. I said that I agree that it is likely a later addition because it is not in the earliest manuscripts. I also said that when you look at the content (holding snakes without fear, healing the sick) it is not out of the fold of Jesus’ teachings. He taught his disciples and believers to heal the sick, he himself defied mathematics and physics when he fed thousands with a few loaves and a few fishes, and he is the one who taught Peter how to walk on water with him. One of his teachings is ‘’mind over matter’’ you could say.

 

3) I read the New International Version, however other authors have translated the Old and New Testaments from Aramaic to English as well as independent institutions that translate them, along with the lost gospels. The NIV and other translations include notes for instance if an idiom was used or if a word has more than one meaning, etc. Although, I am learning Aramaic and I will take up Greek so I can read the copies of the originals directly in the language they were recorded in. Many have the misperception that Christians are unable to read the Bible in its original language – I’m here to tell you that they can.

 

Back to the topic:

 

If the Bible is so corrupt then do not use it to claim that Muhammad’s (pbuh) prophet-hood was foretold therein even in the Old Testament. Don’t criticise the Bible if you would object to any criticism of the Quran. Have you read it, or do you pick out verses in isolation? Furthermore, if it as corrupt as you think it is, why does the Quran tell you:

 

O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His Apostle, and the scripture which He hath sent to His Apostle and the scripture which He sent to those before (him). Any who denieth Allah, His Angels, His Books, His Apostles, and the Day of Judgement, hath gone far, far astray (4:136 AYA).

 

I believe that if it were truly corrupt as you think, it would state that Mary is the ‘Queen of Heaven’ or ‘Mother of God’ as Catholics believe or condone the presence of statues in Catholic churches, give authority to the pope and even the trinity (which is not in the Bible).

 

Back to Mr. Deedat, I do not care whether he referred to the gospel of Barnabas alone or not, the fact is that you consider him an ‘expert’ on these texts. Shk. Deedat is a theologian – a religious scholar – he is not a palaeographer who can analyse a text, its grammar and writing style, parchment or paper and ink to determine whether it is authentic or not. He ignored criticism of this text just to push it and that was a very bad call. Even Muslims in South Africa and Muslim Scholars have criticised him for his ant-Christian, anti-Jewish, and anti-Hindu writings and videos. If you have no problem with this, don’t complain when someone does the same with Islam or call is Islamophobia. In France his books are banned because they incite hatred including racism. Do you remember what I said about him using religion to deal with the damage caused by living under racism? He was interested in confrontation and feeling superior and not debate (in my view).

 

[at]Redeem and Lux:

 

No offense, but there is a separate post in which you can discuss the crucifixion in detail.

 

[at]Redeeem

 

thing that's been clear all of this time is that people who do not speak Arabic, who have not read the Qur'an, will pick up an English translation and, failing to make sense of it, conclude that it's the fault of the scripture and not their inability.

 

You are free to bring up these so-called "questionable" verses and I will be glad to address each one. But I ask that you be sincere to yourself, and only do so if you are willing to learn.

 

In my opinion, there are some questionable verses and Hadiths. That is my own oppinion. I have never stated that the Quran is completely false as some have said regarding the Bible.

 

I do not just read it and guess, I check for the various interpretations and there is a scholar of Islam I know who I can ask. Furthermore, I can read a bit of Arabic and am familiar with some words although I am not fluent. The English Quran I refer to is very detailed and breaks things down. Please don't be hypersensitive or presumptuous.

 

I spoke of the lost verses that Aisha is reported to have mentioned. And, again, it is my own personal opinion that neither the Quran nor Bible are perfect. That's my view; I am not trying to offend anyone. If we cannot express our views about the Quran honestly then we should not question the Bible either because others take offense to it as well. Muslims here are very hypersensitive to criticism whereas in my country I can ask openly and express my opinion. I will compile a short list and e-mail you. Thanks for the offer. :sl:

 

If God Almighty, is able to ''make people think'' Jesus was crucified because he is able to do all things, what makes you think that he in unable to raise a man from the dead? Jesus and others have done this. Furthermore, why would God lay down the foundations for the crucifixion and the resurrection in the Old Testament only to half-fulfill his own promise? Did He only take Moses and his people half-way out of Egypt? Please respond to this in the Crucifixion and Islam post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Samanta,

I'm a little confused, could you clarify the following points:

1) You listed a fairly long list of scriptures & brief description why you reject them-this is your position right? That they are to be rejected?

2) This is also a little confusing, what do you mean by:

The 'Gospel' is not one my friend. There are four in the Bible; that is why they are not identical word for word because they are the accounts of four individuals.

 

Sounds like you don’t have much confidence in them, yet when I showed you that Mark 16:9-20 was an addition and alteration, you were quite adamant that the verses were authentic, could you clearly state your position with regard to the four gospels, and which version of the Bible do you subscribe to..thks

 

1) White Curtains of the Wind said he believed some of them were in line with Islamic beliefs (while many of them are Gnostic, in line with the New Testament and confirm the crucifixion and resurrection) so I wanted to give him a description of these texts so he can make his decision based on fact rather than what he’s heard.

I am open-minded about them. Some of them are in line with Jesus' message and some of the sayings are so profound that only someone with a revelation could say and they are in keeping with his style of speech and the use of parables. There are even ‘gnostic’ elements in the New Testament gospels.

The four Gospels which are in the Bible were selected by The Council of Nicea, a Roman lead council with 12 heads of various churches in early Christianity. They had their own motives but I don’t think it is by coincidence that these gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered. It’s only by God’s will.

 

2) I did not say that I do not have confidence in the Biblical gospels. We can rely on the earliest manuscripts, and as I said before, I am well aware (as many others are) that Mark 16:9-20 is not in the oldest manuscripts. I am comforted by the fact that the details are not the same because it proves that four different accounts were recorded. I would be suspicious if they all sounded the same. If you and I walk into an ice-cream shop or hear a conversation, we don't always remember the same details because we are individuals. The core of the gospels are the same, but the author may have not included some details if they thought they were not that important - for example, Mark does not mention that Jesus' mother and Salome (King Herod’s stepdaughter and niece) had accompanied Mary Magdalene to Jesus’ tomb because he was only interested in what she told him she saw.

 

I did not say the verse is authentic or that the Bible hasn't been 'molested' (that was someone else), clearly you misunderstood me. I said that I agree that it is likely a later addition because it is not in the earliest manuscripts. I also said that when you look at the content (holding snakes without fear, healing the sick) it is not out of the fold of Jesus’ teachings. He taught his disciples and believers to heal the sick, he himself defied mathematics and physics when he fed thousands with a few loaves and a few fishes, and he is the one who taught Peter how to walk on water with him. One of his teachings is ‘’mind over matter’’ you could say.

 

3) I read the New International Version, however other authors have translated the Old and New Testaments from Aramaic to English as well as independent institutions that translate them, along with the lost gospels. The NIV and other translations include notes for instance if an idiom was used or if a word has more than one meaning, etc. Although, I am learning Aramaic and I will take up Greek so I can read the copies of the originals directly in the language they were recorded in. Many have the misperception that Christians are unable to read the Bible in its original language – I’m here to tell you that they can.

 

Back to the topic:

 

If the Bible is so corrupt then do not use it to claim that Muhammad’s (pbuh) prophet-hood was foretold therein even in the Old Testament. Don’t criticise the Bible if you would object to any criticism of the Quran. Have you read it, or do you pick out verses in isolation? Furthermore, if it as corrupt as you think it is, why does the Quran tell you:

 

O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His Apostle, and the scripture which He hath sent to His Apostle and the scripture which He sent to those before (him). Any who denieth Allah, His Angels, His Books, His Apostles, and the Day of Judgement, hath gone far, far astray (4:136 AYA).

 

I believe that if it were truly corrupt as you think, it would state that Mary is the ‘Queen of Heaven’ or ‘Mother of God’ as Catholics believe or condone the presence of statues in Catholic churches, give authority to the pope and even the trinity (which is not in the Bible).

 

Back to Mr. Deedat, I do not care whether he referred to the gospel of Barnabas alone or not, the fact is that you consider him an ‘expert’ on these texts. Shk. Deedat is a theologian – a religious scholar – he is not a palaeographer who can analyse a text, its grammar and writing style, parchment or paper and ink to determine whether it is authentic or not. He ignored criticism of this text just to push it and that was a very bad call. Even Muslims in South Africa and Muslim Scholars have criticised him for his ant-Christian, anti-Jewish, and anti-Hindu writings and videos. If you have no problem with this, don’t complain when someone does the same with Islam or call is Islamophobia. In France his books are banned because they incite hatred including racism. Do you remember what I said about him using religion to deal with the damage caused by living under racism? He was interested in confrontation and feeling superior and not debate (in my view).

 

[at]Redeem and Lux:

 

No offense, but there is a separate post in which you can discuss the crucifixion in detail.

 

[at]Redeeem

 

thing that's been clear all of this time is that people who do not speak Arabic, who have not read the Qur'an, will pick up an English translation and, failing to make sense of it, conclude that it's the fault of the scripture and not their inability.

 

You are free to bring up these so-called "questionable" verses and I will be glad to address each one. But I ask that you be sincere to yourself, and only do so if you are willing to learn.

 

In my opinion, there are some questionable verses and Hadiths. That is my own oppinion. I have never stated that the Quran is completely false as some have said regarding the Bible.

 

I do not just read it and guess, I check for the various interpretations and there is a scholar of Islam I know who I can ask. Furthermore, I can read a bit of Arabic and am familiar with some words although I am not fluent. The English Quran I refer to is very detailed and breaks things down. Please don't be hypersensitive or presumptuous.

 

I spoke of the lost verses that Aisha is reported to have mentioned. And, again, it is my own personal opinion that neither the Quran nor Bible are perfect. That's my view; I am not trying to offend anyone. If we cannot openly express our views or questions about the Quran honestly then we should not question the Bible either because others take offense to it as well. Muslims here are very hypersensitive to criticism whereas in my country I can ask openly and express my opinion. I will compile a short list and e-mail you. Thanks for the offer. :sl:

 

If God Almighty, is able to ''make people think'' Jesus was crucified because he is able to do all things, what makes you think that he in unable to raise a man from the dead? Jesus and others have done this. Furthermore, why would God lay down the foundations for the crucifixion and the resurrection in the Old Testament only to half-fulfill his own promise? Did He only take Moses and his people half-way out of Egypt? Please respond to this in the Crucifixion and Islam post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Samanta, there are several things that I found rather 'disturbing' about your post:

1) White Curtains of the Wind said he believed some of them were in line with Islamic beliefs (while many of them are Gnostic, in line with the New Testament and confirm the crucifixion and resurrection)

That is not entirely true since there are writings (from the excluded scriptures) that do not support crucifixion and resurrection. Now what is your stand as far as contradiction goes, what criterion would you use to establish the real facts?

You have said that the 4 gospels were written by 4 unknown individuals, in fact the church basically confirms this, nothing is known about them, no surname, their history is unknown, who they really are etc.i.e what is known is merely speculations..What or who gave them precedents over the writings and accounts of disciples or own brother of Jesus pbuh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lux, according to the Bible NT , all the disciples left except Peter, is this correct?

 

Well, Lux is not here, so let me answer my own question, Matthew 26 tells the story of the day Jesuspbuh was arrested,

 

All the disciples fled:

56 But this has all taken place that the writings of the prophets might be fulfilled.†Then all the disciples deserted him and fled.

except Peter:

74 Then he began to call down curses, and he swore to them, “I don’t know the man!â€

Immediately a rooster crowed. 75 Then Peter remembered the word Jesus had spoken: “Before the rooster crows, you will disown me three times.†And he went outside and wept bitterly.

 

Rahimi,

 

The disciples ran away as Jesus was being arrested they did not desert him for good. Some were there at the crucifixion. Peter disowned him but he was re-instated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is not entirely true since there are writings (from the excluded scriptures) that do not support crucifixion and resurrection. Now what is your stand as far as contradiction goes, what criterion would you use to establish the real facts?

You have said that the 4 gospels were written by 4 unknown individuals, in fact the church basically confirms this, nothing is known about them, no surname, their history is unknown, who they really are etc.i.e what is known is merely speculations..What or who gave them precedents over the writings and accounts of disciples or own brother of Jesus pbuh?

 

I have not contradicted myself, you have twisted my words. There are many writings which assert crucifixion and resurrection. Some of these extra-biblical writings some only include Jesus’ sayings it doesn’t mean that they confirm or deny the resurrection, however most do for example, in one, Jesus answers the questions of his disciples after his resurrection before his ascension. The one that doesn't is the Barnabas forgery. Please review the list again.

 

Not everyone wrote a gospel about Jesus’ teachings and life. Jesus brother James wrote a protoevangelum/gospel about the nativity (Jesus' birth and early days) which is already covered in the 4 biblical gospels. In the New Testament you will find letters by Jesus’ brothers James and Jude, disciples John and Peter, and Luke and Paul wrote about the early church.

 

The authors of the gospels in the Bible are John, Mark, Luke and John. They date back to as early as 55 AD to 80 AD (during their lifetimes and at least two decades after Jesus' death and resurrection).

 

Matthew – son of Alpheus, was a tax collector for the Romans from Capernaum. As a tax collector, Matthew was literate and wrote his own gospel in Hebrew/Aramaic and early historian has noted this. Died in Ethiopia, remains are in Italy.

 

Luke – was from Antioch and was a physician. He died in 84 AD unmarried and without children. Remains are in Italy.

 

Mark – Martyred in 68 AD, from Cyrene, North Africa. Founded the Church in Alexandria which is now the Coptic Church. Remains are in Alexandria.

 

John – Son of Zebedee, was a fisherman from Galilee. He was a disciple of John the Baptist and then followed Jesus. Lived until 94 (100 AD) and is the only apostle who was not martyred. Tomb is in Epheus, Turkey where he died.

 

We don’t have long, detailed biographies because they are not the protagonists, Jesus is.

 

You haven’t read a Bible or even flipped through the pages, have you?

Edited by samantha-g

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that the Bible should have nothing to do with confirming the prophet's prophet hood and that is why at the end I wrote that a true believer knows, they don't need 'confirmation'. Many people do like to claim that Jesus said Muhammad pbuh would come after him as the 'peryklitos' (or Ahmad in Arabic) and use the NT verses out of context. I never claimed he was a false prophet my intention was to put these verses into context.

 

I am well aware of these extra-Biblical gospels and other writings. I have watched that programme a few times.

 

Are you sure?

 

- Peter: scholars and palaeographers believe that the gospel of Peter is pseudepigraphical (bearing the name of a person who did not write it). It even speaks of the resurrection of Jesus and a talking cross which appeared from the tomb.

- Judas: Claims that Jesus asked Judas (the man who some claim was crucified and not Jesus) betray him.

- Mary Magdalene: This gospel was used by Gnostics whose beliefs might resemble ‘New Age’ beliefs of some very ‘liberal’ forms of Sufism, such as what is taught by Inayat Khan. This does not conform at all with Islamic beliefs and you might consider what is in this gospel shirk.

- Philip: contains the sayings of Jesus and is also in line with the Gnostics.

- Thomas: also contains the sayings of Jesus (many of which are in the New Test.) and is also in line with the Gnostics.

- Barnabas: A medieval Islamist forgery which I’ve previously written about it on this post. Barnabas was actually one of the early ‘church fathers’. Epistle and Acts of Barnabas are also considered to be pseudepigraphical and they conform to mainstream Christian beliefs.

- Bathelomew: Claims Jesus died and was resurrected.

- James: (Son of Joseph/Jesus’ brother) This protoevangelum by the brother of Jesus tells the story of the nativity, i.e. his birth.

- Gospel of Nicodemus (Acts of Pilate, the Roman governor of Judea): Asserts that Jesus was crucified, buried and resurrected.

- Secret gospel of Mark: letter attributed to Clement of Alexandria addressed to Theodore.

 

Are you still so sure? ? ?

You have the right to believe what the Quran says, this is what faith is.

 

The Torah and the other Books of the Old Testament as they are available to us now match up with the Dead Sea Scroll versions (which date back to the second century BC) of all of these books, however in some cases such as Psalms, what we have is shorther than what is in the scrolls.

 

The 'Gospel' is not one my friend. There are four in the Bible; that is why they are not identical word for word because they are the accounts of four individuals.

 

 

 

So you believe the Bible has been edited because the Quran says that. The Quran also says that Jesus is the Messiah (Al Masih) but you do not believe it. Interesting...

So you have come to your conclusion after studing Jewish scripture which you said is "corrupt", and the New Testament accounts of Jesus' life which you also said are "corrupt". If they are "corrupt" sources in your view, why did you refer to them in order to make this statement?

First Century writers have referred to Jesus including Josephus and Mara Bar-Serapion. There are also the above extra-Biblical writings.

The Talmud (Jewish writing) asserts that Jesus was a false massiah.

I have read them (other gospels). They usually contradict both orthodox Christianity and Islamic theology but nonetheless they have things which support Islam as we believe that those too have been changed. But because they contradict Islam it is not logical to conclude that a Muslim wrote them. And yes I am aware of the dead sea scrolls. I am not sure what to believe considering the Jewish Bible but I know that the Christian Bible has been changed, that isn't a matter of faith there is much proof for that.

I believe the Bible has been changed because 1) History tells us that and the Qur'an tells us that.

I never said that Jesus (as) was not the Messiah. I said he does not fulfill Jewish prophecy. What I meant was that the Jesus (as) of the Christian Bible does not fulfill what the Prophets of the Jewish Bible said the Messiah would be like. I have no idea if the Torah or Psalms were changed.

Also all extra-Biblical writings of Jesus (as) have been refuted. They do not refer to him. Isn't it odd that for someone who did so many miracles and claimed to be God got so little attention? Amongst non Christians and other people who do not believe in Jesus (as) there is a huge majority which do not believe he ever existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also in addition to that, many many Christians now believe that the Bible was not written (or at least not entirely) but the people who said they did. Even Jews mostly believe that the Torah and the Psalms were not written by Moses (as) or David (as) in their entirety. And many Christians are very skeptical that the disciples of Jesus (as) went on to write the entire Gospels.

Edited by White Curtains of the Wind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, I believe if you are going to assert the Bible as the word of God then what is the right belief? Half of the Anglican clergy believe that it is not necessary to see Jesus (as) as God or even believe in the Trinity. Early Christians usually downplayed the crucifixion as something not that important or did not mention it at all! You can say that some things are metaphorical in the Bible and others are literal, but then what is what? Is the death of Jesus (as) literal or metaphorical? We don't know what to take as literal or what to take as metaphors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more thing lol

Just because something is the earliest does not make it the most reliable. Lets say that we have an original manuscript of the Gospels. Copies were made, then another set of those copies. We have one of the last copies. But then a hundred years later we recover the first copy and a new copy is made of that one. Surely the new copy is more reliable than that which was made of the copies' copy? Which is exactly what a lot of people are putting forth. It is just illogical to base your faith on something that is uncertain. The way I see it, the Torah and the rest of the Jewish Bible and the Qur'an have more evidence for it than the Bible.

Edited by White Curtains of the Wind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One more thing lol

Just because something is the earliest does not make it the most reliable. Lets say that we have an original manuscript of the Gospels. Copies were made, then another set of those copies. We have one of the last copies. But then a hundred years later we recover the first copy and a new copy is made of that one. Surely the new copy is more reliable than that which was made of the copies' copy? Which is exactly what a lot of people are putting forth. It is just illogical to base your faith on something that is uncertain. The way I see it, the Torah and the rest of the Jewish Bible and the Qur'an have more evidence for it than the Bible.

 

I don't think you know what you are talking about because the Hebrew Bible contains many corruptions.

 

Textual criticism, logic, archeological finds and theology is how one discerns the fabrications from the truth.

 

Is the death of Jesus (as) literal or metaphorical? We don't know what to take as literal or what to take as metaphors.

It is literal. I don't want to say anything further about these two questions because you may find my comments insulting.

 

Also in addition to that, many many Christians now believe that the Bible was not written (or at least not entirely) but the people who said they did. Even Jews mostly believe that the Torah and the Psalms were not written by Moses (as) or David (as) in their entirety. And many Christians are very skeptical that the disciples of Jesus (as) went on to write the entire Gospels.

 

So? Many textual critics question whether everything which is in the Quran was truly divinely inspired or was from Muhammad's mouth. Let me give you an example:

 

The Quran says:

 

This is part of the tidings of the things unseen, which We reveal unto thee (O Apostle!) by inspiration: Thou wast not with them when they cast lots with arrows, as to which of them should be charged with the care of Mary: Nor wast thou with them when they disputed (the point).

Sura 3:44

 

This is nothing new. This account is also present in New Testament Apocrypha (writings which are excluded from the Bible) in the Protoevangilum of James/Infancy Gospel of James [thought to be James the step-brother of Jesus] and the History of Joseph the Carpenter. Both of these texts could not have been copied from the Quran since they pre-date the Quran; the Protoevangilum of James dates back to around 150 AD, and the History of Joseph the Carpenter to the fifth century.

 

I have read them (other gospels). They usually contradict both orthodox Christianity and Islamic theology but nonetheless they have things which support Islam as we believe that those too have been changed. But because they contradict Islam it is not logical to conclude that a Muslim wrote them. And yes I am aware of the dead sea scrolls. I am not sure what to believe considering the Jewish Bible but I know that the Christian Bible has been changed, that isn't a matter of faith there is much proof for that.

I believe the Bible has been changed because 1) History tells us that and the Qur'an tells us that.

I never said that Jesus (as) was not the Messiah. I said he does not fulfill Jewish prophecy. What I meant was that the Jesus (as) of the Christian Bible does not fulfill what the Prophets of the Jewish Bible said the Messiah would be like. I have no idea if the Torah or Psalms were changed.

Also all extra-Biblical writings of Jesus (as) have been refuted. They do not refer to him.

 

The only one which is believed to have been written by a Muslim is the gospel of Barnabas which is a forgery. I said this before while I was interacting with Rahimi.

 

Not all of them contradict what is in the New Testament gospels or Christian doctrine in whole or in part. An example is the Infancy gospel of James which advances the Catholic ideology that Mary remained a virgin. Have you have studied all the New Testament Apocrypha (non-canonical writings) in detail? The ones I named are but a few.

 

The concept of Messiah stems from the Jewish tradition, so by saying that you do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah in Jewish terms you deny his Messianic nature. What the Jews think the Messiah is and what God intended the Messiah to be are different things.

 

Isn't it odd that for someone who did so many miracles and claimed to be God got so little attention? Amongst non Christians and other people who do not believe in Jesus (as) there is a huge majority which do not believe he ever existed.

Part of the writings of Josphus on Jesus are in question, not that there is actual proof that Christian scribes altered it. The part which is not in question is the reference to James, the Brother of Jesus and Josephus mentions Jesus by name.

 

Most historians agree that even with the lack of historicity that Jesus did in fact exist and was crucified, although (not surprisingly) some are sceptical about the resurrection.

 

Jesus is mentioned in the Jewish Talmud and they say they killed him. They spend a lot of time to insult him so if he did not exist then they would say that Christians believe in a man who never existed.

 

Jesus was a Jew living in Judea which is hardly of interest to Roman and Greek writers. Even the references to Christians in early times are only in passing because it was at that time a small sect. There were many preachers who came before Jesus and people who claimed to be the Messiah so of course people reacted with apprehension to the idea of Jesus being the Messiah. Many Jews were illiterate so it is not surprising that there are no 'diary entries' from the time of Jesus about him. Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD so it is possible that some evidence was destroyed and also Jerusalem has been invaded and rebuilt many times.

 

Why are you interested in what other people think when the Quran says he existed?

 

I think you dislike Christianity or Jesus which is why you question his existance or his Messianic nature even though the Quran asserts that he was the Messiah.

 

Muhammad is not the Paraclete and Christians had no motive to change it and the early texts still say 'Paraclete'. It did not become 'Paraclete' only after the advent of Islam. It is only him if you take verses in the NT out of context, twist their Greek pronounciation and come up with a conspiracy theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you question the existance of Jesus or the reliability of the Gospels then you also discredit Islam and your own argument.

 

If the gospels are corrupt then maybe the verse about the Paraclete is a fake yet Muslims claim it applies to Muhammad. If Jesus never existed then maybe the Quran is just full of folk tales and myths.

 

Come on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let us look at the verses where the Paraclete is mentioned:

“And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counsellor to be with you forever – The Spirit of Truth.†John 14:16-17

“But the Counsellor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name (The Christ), will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.†John 14:26

“When the Counsellor comes, whom I will send from the Father, the Spirit of Truth, who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me.†John 15:26

“But I tell you the truth: It is good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Counsellor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you.†John 16:7

I'm kinda bummed out 'cause you missed my favorite verse

(but perhaps I'll feel better after a bowl of ice cream) ...

 

“And I will pray (to) the Father, and He will give you another Helper,

that He may abide with you forever -- the Spirit of truth …

… you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be IN you.

I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you (as the Holy Spirit).

… And We (God) will come to him (the believer) and make Our home with him.

… But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name,

He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things

that I said to you.†(John 14:16--26)

The Greek word here for "another" is "allos" meaning "another of the same kind".

The Holy Spirit is "the same kind" of "being" as Jesus ... mmmmmm, shocking, what sayest thou!

 

Not to be out-done or criticized by people who don't know what they're talking about,

good old Paul who was not only intellectually-brilliant, but trained by God in the desert for 17 years,

talks (in many verses) about the Holy Spirit being IN born-again Christians.

 

But, I'm here to learn about Islam.

Is there anything similar to these things in the Quran? I need to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[at]White Curtains

To me, I believe if you are going to assert the Bible as the word of God then what is the right belief? Half of the Anglican clergy believe that it is not necessary to see Jesus (as) as God or even believe in the Trinity. Early Christians usually downplayed the crucifixion as something not that important or did not mention it at all! You can say that some things are metaphorical in the Bible and others are literal, but then what is what? Is the death of Jesus (as) literal or metaphorical? We don't know what to take as literal or what to take as metaphors.

 

The same issue arises in Islam. What is right belief when you have orthodox Suni, Shia, liberals, Sufis, etc etc etc. The existence of diverse opinion does not mean the truth is unobtainable. Using reason with the aid of grace it's possible to determine the truth amongst the false.

 

You mention some examples to give credence to your suggestion that truth (right belief) can't be known in Christianity. One of them is an unreferenced statistic to some 50% of Anglican clergy not accepting the Trinity. My question to you is, how does their rejection undermine the doctrine? The Trinity has a solid foundation in Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and early Christianity. Without this vital doctrine we can't explain the New Testament. We can't explain how, for example Christ bore Divine attributes and yet was still distinguished from God the Father. He either was a lesser deity, which is akin to what Arius proposed, or God really is more than one Hypostasis. The Arian position suggests polytheism, which is flatly contradicts monotheism, while the latter preserves it. So despite a certain segment of Anglican clergy rejecting it (I'm taking your statistic for granted) it still remains as true now as it was two thousand years ago and as it always will be.

 

Next you mention Early Christians downplayed the crucifixion. Before we even address the historical accuracy of this statement, we have consider its truth on face value. The idea that the Messiah would be killed was completely foriegn to the Jews. In fact, if a claimant to the Messiah was killed, that was a sign he wasn't really the Messiah! Now since Christians believed Jesus was the Messiah, and that He was in fact executed via crucifixion, the cross would be very hard to down play! If any of Jesus' Apostles approached a Jew to tell them about Jesus, there would have to be considerable explanation on how that could be so! So already on face value, the statement that the crucifixion was down played is already untenable. But we can also suspect it historically. The New Testament documents were written between 50 - 100 AD, and thus within the living memory of Jesus Christ. Whether you believe it inspired or not, those documents are what the early Christians believed in. What they reveal, is a very keen focus on the crucifixion. If we look outside of the canon, we have numerous early texts about written by Christians that also have this focus (e.g. First letter of Clement, letters of Ignatius, etc.) So who knows what this poster is referring to when they make such a claim.

 

The truth is apparent and accessible. One only need to take it!

Edited by LUX IN TENEBRIS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also in addition to that, many many Christians now believe that the Bible was not written (or at least not entirely) but the people who said they did. Even Jews mostly believe that the Torah and the Psalms were not written by Moses (as) or David (as) in their entirety. And many Christians are very skeptical that the disciples of Jesus (as) went on to write the entire Gospels.

 

Such Christians and Jews are equivalent to the Liberals in your own deen, who reject and reinterpret much of the Quran and Sunnah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[at] White Curtains

Just because something is the earliest does not make it the most reliable. Lets say that we have an original manuscript of the Gospels. Copies were made, then another set of those copies. We have one of the last copies. But then a hundred years later we recover the first copy and a new copy is made of that one. Surely the new copy is more reliable than that which was made of the copies' copy? Which is exactly what a lot of people are putting forth. It is just illogical to base your faith on something that is uncertain. The way I see it, the Torah and the rest of the Jewish Bible and the Qur'an have more evidence for it than the Bible.

 

You've attacked a point that Christians have not proposed, other than perhaps those who are attached to the KJV. However you bring up the point that it's illogical to have faith in something uncertain. I'm not familiar with your background, but in the Western World few things can be proposed as "certain." Most things fall under the category of hypothesis, and if a hypothesis has a lot of supporting evidence, we call it a theory. Now the foundation for this certainty is rooted in the natural sciences, i.e. a methological study of the natural world. In the contemporary West, only science can produce the "certainty" that it has defined. Thus, there is no room for faith. My question to you is, what is the basis of your faith? The Quran? Let me tell you some things you may not be aware. The Quran contains narrations that are *only* found in legends circulating among Christians *centuries* later. The famous narration of the child Jesus turning clay birds into living ones was a legend circulating among Arab and Syric peoples. There is even an Arabic pseudo-gospel dated to around the 5th century containing these legends. Now, the fact that your Kitab proposes legends such as these to be factual, is one reason I have no certainty in your kitab. Furthermore, its rather ironic that you attack the New Testament, which has an integrity that far suprasses the legends contained in the Qur'an.

 

I don't believe the Quran is a 100% preserved, but even if I did, there are many reasons to deem it unreliable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[at] White Curtains

You've attacked a point that Christians have not proposed, other than perhaps those who are attached to the KJV. However you bring up the point that it's illogical to have faith in something uncertain. I'm not familiar with your background, but in the Western World few things can be proposed as "certain." Most things fall under the category of hypothesis, and if a hypothesis has a lot of supporting evidence, we call it a theory. Now the foundation for this certainty is rooted in the natural sciences, i.e. a methological study of the natural world. In the contemporary West, only science can produce the "certainty" that it has defined. Thus, there is no room for faith.

 

As a scientist we have faith in what we are doing and faith that the study will produce a result. There is pleanty of room for faith

 

 

My question to you is, what is the basis of your faith? The Quran

 

The Quran and the study of the earth and the life example of the Prophet Muhammad

 

 

Let me tell you some things you may not be aware. The Quran contains narrations that are *only* found in legends circulating among Christians *centuries* later. The famous narration of the child Jesus turning clay birds into living ones was a legend circulating among Arab and Syric peoples. There is even an Arabic pseudo-gospel dated to around the 5th century containing these legends. Now, the fact that your Kitab proposes legends such as these to be factual, is one reason I have no certainty in your kitab.

 

 

The Quran applies to alot of spheres of knowedge, now especially when looking at subjects like Jesus and birds and the clay, these are not just legends but they are stories taught to the reader to teach you more about life and to bring you closer to being the best human being that you can be. Now to take the story as literal then you run the risk of missing the whole point behind the story. Is it factual...yes especially when you put it in its correct context. Alot of the problem with the Bible is the misreading and misunderstanding of the Bible. Your basing your certainty of of wrong reading into a scriptual topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few points connected to the excellent posts above:

 

1) Believing in the Triune God for salvation truly is debatable, but ...

I must lean towards YES because of Jesus many affirmations, and especially:

“If you do not believe that I AM, you will die in your sins.†(John 8:24).

(The original Greek manuscripts do not have any “he†after “I AMâ€,

and there are 5 other similar verses where He says He is “I AMâ€.)

 

2) Many people claim to be Christian who are not Christian at all.

Some sitting in the pews only believe in the gospel intellectually,

while others are actually "born again (from above)" with the Holy Spirit inside.

 

3) The crucifixion is only important to fulfil OT prophecy.

The important point is that Jesus (a human without any sin) was killed and

shed His blood as a blood-sacrifice atonement for the sins of the human race.

This appeased God’s insistance on continuing on with His OT blood covenant.

 

4) It makes no difference who exactly wrote what, who’s name is attached to what, etc.

This is all legalistic nonsense, which God just laughs at.

Here’s what’s important:

-- God reveals info to anyone of His choosing (we’ll call him Jack).

-- God tells Jack to have this info written down.

The only important thing is that God has succeeded

in getting His precious words written down, and distributed.

Now, who actually believes this spiritual Truth from God is a whole other discussion.

 

5) Adding to the above point, God made sure that …

He did not fail to have preserved what He wanted to have preserved.

To me, this is the ultimate in common sense. Hello!

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


×