Jump to content
Islamic Forum
LUX IN TENEBRIS

Jesus' Resurrection & Islam

Recommended Posts

You get zero points.

Funny! Since when this a competition?

 

Like I said, Islamic scholarship has had one position and it doesn't matter what ignorant Muslims think. There are "Muslims" (they aren't Muslims, they are disbelievers) that believe that Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be upon him) was not the Last Prophet and they believe in other "Prophets" (read false prophets and deceivers) after him, that doesn't mean that there are "many theories" about the Finality of Prophethood in Islam, i.e. Islamic scholarship/tradition. If you can't understand this, then so be it. Do you know from where the theories that Jesus (peace be upon him) was an apparition or a corpse when he was "crucified" come? From the same people who claim to be Muslims and believe in Prophets after Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be upon him? It is no wonder you think there are many theories in Islam when you get your information from heretics that are actually out of the fold Islam and ignorants.

To be more precise, I make a distinction between the view of the scholars and the actual verse. The verse does not say that someone took his place; this is rather the interpretation of this verse by scholars. But I understand the role of scholars in Islam.

I actually heard one theory on Gawaher.

 

That sect and my post have nothing to do with this discussion and I have already responded to Redeem’s overreaction and since you have followed her, I suggest you read my response: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=734311&st=0&gopid=1229751&"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic...id=1229751&[/url]

 

The translation is the King James Version, it is outdated, yes. However, it doesn't really matter in this context. Do you know why I bolded that part? Because it says that the Word (which was with God in the beggining and actually also was God according verse 1, didn't you see that I had bolded it) became flesh. In other words, God became human. This is the Trinity belief. Pure blashphemy that is sternly condemned by the Qur'an and the Prophet (peace and blessings of God be upon him). You just ignore what suits you, it seems.

 

As for your talk "unique son", it is all in vain.

Duh. Of course I noticed. Did you skim over the sentence where I said I would get to the other points later? Do you not read what I write? Are you serious?

I do not have the luxury of time nor the desire to be on Gawaher day and night and debate with you (no offense).

 

I only ignore that which I believe is false like:

Mary is the ‘queen of heaven’

Satan laughs if I yawn and say “Ha†at the same time

Intercession through saints and angels

God is three in one

or that I need a male guardian.

 

None of this is true to me.

 

Back to John:

God cannot fit into one human being or a throne for that matter that is why Jesus Christ [the Anointed One] was not the totality of God within his body. God also said we cannot see His face (Exodus 33:20). He is formless and omnipresent and great. Our eyes cannot perceive Him.

 

The Word is Memra in Hebrew meaning commandment, speech, appointment or Word; also miltha in Aramaic, (or ‘Om’ in Far Eastern traditions). The Son of God may be called "the Word," because he is the medium by which God promulgates His will and issues His commandments. It is also used to describe a messenger or angel or an ‘apparition’ or ‘expression’ of God such as the burning bush or even a vision or dream. The Word = Jesus as Kalimatullah. Memra/miltha is also God’s commandment fulfilled, i.e. the Word made flesh.

 

“The word became human [flesh] and made his home [dwelt] among us. He was full of unfailing love and faithfulness [grace and truth]. And we have seen his glory, the glory of the Father’s one and only [unique] son.†John 1:14 (New Living Translation)

 

(I have already explained that “one and only,†and “only begotten†are originally 'unique'. It is not in vain because unique and begotten do not have the same meanings and therefore change the understanding of the verse. The accuracy of the translation is important. If you cannot recognise that then I don’t see the point in further debating with you.)

 

This describes Jesus as the miltha – God’s message and messenger and his word fulfilled [made flesh]. We are all the word in a way because we are all God’s word fulfilled. Just as He said, “Let there be light,†and there was light, so did He say, “Let there be Jesus,†“Let there be Younesâ€. Jesus can also be considered His miltha being made flesh instead of a burning bush kind of like the Islamic view of Jesus being a messenger and a spirit from God. This has been misinterpreted as “God incarnateâ€. We know that God cannot fit in one person and we know that Jesus claimed to be the son of God, but he did not claim to be GOD almighty which is why he did not tell anyone to worship Him or pray to Him (in fact he said he was not an intercessor in John 16:26). And, when he prayed, he prayed to the Father.

 

However, there is no question that Christians (majority) believe that Jesus is the begotten Son of the Father, they believe him to be the eternally begotten Son. There is absolutely no question about it. Morever, everybody who accepts the NT believes that Jesus is at least in some form God's Son (I don't care whether you mean it figuratively or in any other). This is denounced by the Qur'an in absolute terms.

Just because most people believe something does not have any bearing as to whether or not it is true. Agree?

 

Yes, he is God’s son but we are all his children, and I am aware that you object to this view based on the Quran. Jesus did call God Father, and if it’s so wrong, why does He answer our prayers? Answer that. I don’t believe the Quran in this regard (and one of the reasons I don’t believe it is the infallible word of God). And also, God revealed His message through many prophets in the OT over many centuries and not once did he admonish His people for calling Him “Father†and say we were blaspheming. There are many instances when God has ‘admonished’ his people but this never came up. In fact, au contraire:

 

“How gladly would I treat you like sons and give you a desirable land, the most beautiful inheritance of any nation. I thought you would call me Father and not turn away from following me.†Jeremiah 3:19 (NIV)

 

I will proclaim the decree of the Lord: He said to me, “You are my Son; today I have become you Father.†Psalm 2:7 (NIV)

 

“Now then, my sons, listen to me; blessed are those who keep my ways.†Proverb 8:32 (NIV)

 

I know you will respond with your favourite answer, which is that the Bible is corrupt, no? So then if this was added and was not actually from God, why does He respond to our prayers when we call Him 'Father'??

 

I am God’s child. He loves me and I love Him and trust in Him. He is faithful to me and always keeps His promises. This is my God. Like it or not! This is an incontrovertible truth because it is true, (not just because of the scripture )and the Quran can’t touch it. If the Quran were right in this regard then God would not respond when I call Him my Father. “Zero points†as you would say.

 

I'm getting to you. It's late in my part of the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Rahimi,

 

to answer your previous remark about confusion about the cross or tree:

 

None that I've heard of. The person on that Islamic website misunderstood the Gnostic apocalypse of Peter. In the vision, Peter sees Christ on a tree laughing while Jesus is being killed.

 

The only similarity between tree and cross is that the cross was made from a tree (obvisously) and also:

"The Greek and Latin words corresponding to "crucifixion" applied to many different forms of painful execution, from impaling on a stake to affixing to a tree, to an upright pole (a crux simplex) or to a combination of an upright (in Latin, stipes) and a crossbeam (in Latin, patibulum)." Wikipedia

 

The verse that got eaten was the verse of stoning which is no longer apart of the recited Qur'an and the written Qur'an (which are the same thing).

 

I am aware, however is the Quran still perfect and complete if bits were lost? I know there is a verse in Quran which says it is perfet and complete, but we knoe that some verses got lost, so what is the consensus among Muslims and the scholars in this regard?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way to go and take my words way out of context. This what I wrote:

 

"The fact is the Church didn't preserve the Hebrew Bible because they preserved a translation thus their effort is automatically disqualified. It's like answering a question in an exam in Greek when you are asked to answer in Hebrew. You get zero points."

 

Anybody who reads what I said in context understands what I said. The expression "you get zero points" is tied to the two preceeding sentences. I'll decipher it for you. What I meant is that the Christian preservation of the Hebrew Bible is analogous to somebody answering an exam question in Greek when they are asked to answer in Hebrew, therefore, the person gets zero points, i.e. the Church failed in their efforts because they didn't preserve the Hebrew Bible in Hebrew. The pronoun "you" can be used in a general manner.

 

I know you will respond with your favourite answer, which is that the Bible is corrupt, no? So then if this was added and was not actually from God, why does He respond to our prayers when we call Him 'Father'??

 

Yes, the Bible is corrupt, like the Qur'an says the Jews and Christians came up with those false ideas that are strictly condemned in the Qur'an.

 

You asking me why does God answer your prayers if you call Him "Father" is neither here nor there. Why do idolaters, polytheists, Pagans, Satanists and other heretics get their prayers answered? The fact of the matter is God fulfills everybody's prayers, whether they are actually calling unto Him, or not, or calling unto Him by false names, or associating partners with Him, because it is only He who can answer prayers.

 

However, if you truly want to know what your status is in the eyes of God is, you want to make another prayer. The Christians in the Prophet Muhammad's time (peace and blessings of God be upon him) also used to love to argue with him persisting in their disbelief and this is what God said:

 

If any one disputes in this matter with thee, now after (full) knowledge Hath come to thee, say: "Come! let us gather together,- our sons and your sons, our women and your women, ourselves and yourselves: Then let us earnestly pray, and invoke the curse of Allah on those who lie!" (3:61)

 

So if you are truly confident and adamant in your beliefs, this is what you want to do. Invoke a curse on the lying party. You shouldn't be too unfamiliar with this. Elijah (peace be upon him) also had a similar encounter with the false prophets of Baal in the Bible.

 

I am aware, however is the Quran still perfect and complete if bits were lost? I know there is a verse in Quran which says it is perfet and complete, but we knoe that some verses got lost, so what is the consensus among Muslims and the scholars in this regard?

 

This was already answered in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Younes,

 

Preservation of the Hebrew Bible

 

The fact is the Church didn't preserve the Hebrew Bible because they preserved a translation thus their effort is automatically disqualified. It's like answering a question in an exam in Greek when you are asked to answer in Hebrew. You get zero points. There are 2000 differences between the Masoretic Torah (which is in Hebrew) and the Septuagint (which is the Greek translation that the Church preserved), and that's just the Torah, not including the rest of the Hebrew Bible's books.

 

The Hebrew canon was not defined until the end of the first century after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. Greek was the lingua franca of the eastern Mediterranean basin since reign of Alexander the Great which is why the Septuagint was developed in Greek in 300 BC by Jews. (This is also why there are some Greek texts in the Dead Sea Scrolls.) When the Hebrew canon was defined, it was decided that it would be recorded in Hebrew and the Koine Greek would be discontinued. Meanwhile, Christians maintained the Septuagint in Greek, although Messianic Jews A.K.A. Jewish/Hebrew Christians have referred to the Hebrew OT. Protestant Bibles also refer to the Hebrew OT texts. Zero points?

 

Majority of Christians spoke Greek and the Syriac dialects (Aramaic) initially. The Bible may not have been preserved in Hebrew and read in Hebrew by Christians because they thought it unnecessary since many Christians did not speak Hebrew. This is insignificant today – Protestant Bibles are translated from the Hebrew.

 

Chain of transmission & textual preservation

Christians preserved the OT Septuagint without altering it. The differences between the Septuagint and Hebrew Bible are linguistic and not theological furthermore, the two thousand differences may be due to the fact that the Septuagint and Old Testament contain more books than the Hebrew Bible. Why would they alter the NT? Controversies during early Christianity were recorded by historians including those involving non-canonical gospels; they would have also mentioned alterations to the NT text had they taken place.

 

The Peshitta, the Aramaic/Syriac Bible consists of OT from Hebrew and NT is transcribed from the original Aramaic texts. The Peshitta is used mostly by the various Eastern Churches which have sprung from the first Eastern Church founded by the apostles Thomas, Thaddeus and Batholomew. Peter, the chief of the apostles added his blessing to the Church of the East at the time of his visit to the see at Babylon, in the earliest days of the church when stating, "The elect church which is in Babylon, salutes you; and Mark, my son†(1 Peter 5:13). The NT of the Peshitta has been transcribed over the centuries from the original gospels which came with the founding apostles.

 

“In Semitic tradition, a biblical manuscript is not allowed to decay to the extent that it begins to fall apart. If a manuscript reaches that point, they are copied immediately, and then buried or burned, so that the fragments do not fall on the floor and become trampled on. It's not a "throwing away" of originals. Much like a funeral service for a deceased relative, the burning or burial is performed in a respectful manner. All of this is done out of respect for the material contained therein. The Greek-based Christian community has no such tradition, hence the multitudes of fragments which are older than the oldest extant (and complete) manuscript of the Peshitta.†- Paul Younan

 

The Peshitta also features grammar and text which is clearly ancient. The oldest surviving Peshitta Bible dates back to 464 AD but is compiled using the ancient Aramaic. It’s sort of like comparing Old English with Modern English, there are no two-ways about it.

 

The Church of Alexandria, now known as the Orthodox Coptic Church of Alexandria, was founded by the apostle Matthew. They also preserved the gospels in the Coptic text and it does not vary from the Aramaic or Koine Greek in meaning.

 

Palaeographers date the gospels back to between 55 and 90 AD. Each of the four gospels have been dated palaeographically within the lifetime of the author. The uniformity of the Greek and Aramaic manuscripts and fragments which have been found is also of importance. Furthermore, if Jesus’ message had been changed and if the resurrection had not taken place, we would have seen this in the discovered texts.

 

Even so, we know you won’t believe it and you will respond with your favourite response which is that the Bible is “corrupt,†and that Jesus Christ’s message was “changedâ€.

 

Moreover, there are other problems with the Dead Scrolls that really are not worth getting into in this discussion. I'll just tell you one thing. Just because you have scrolls from the second century BC, it doesn't prove that a 13th century BC document - the Torah - was faithfully and perfectly preserved throughout the centuries. Keep this in mind.

I never said it was 13th Century BC document, and I agree that it was not perfectly preserved throughout history. I’ve said this before.

When I mention the Dead Sea Scrolls it is only to assert that Christians have not altered the Old Testament.

 

Extra-canonical manuscripts precisely don't matter because they were not preserved, that's why they have been discovered after being lost for hundreds of years.

I was also referring to manuscripts and fragments of the NT gospels which have also been found. I should have been clearer. Christianity is only second to Buddhism in the immense amount of fragments and manuscripts of scripture which have been discovered. Again, those that mention the crucifixion and resurrection say that Jesus was crucified and resurrected on the third day.

 

But to be frank, saying that the Church didn't corrupt the NT (and OT) is a simple, baseless arguement. It is a fact that the Christian scribes were very loose when it came to Scripture. You know this since you know about omissions, additions and "corrections". But this is not really what I am saying. I am not saying that the Church corrupted the text. It really isn't. What I am saying is that the Church wrote the NT. The Gospels were written by Christian communities which formed the Church.

 

Churches were formed by Jesus’ apostles as previously mentioned, and they did author their gospels and they have been preserved.

 

If you are somehow trying to imply that they fabricated the gospels then I would ask you what would motivate them to change Jesus’ message and put their lives in danger for ‘blasphemy’? Many of them [church fathers, disciples and believers] were martyred and persecuted in the years following Jesus’ ascension by the way, so if they made it up, would they not recant their ‘lies’ to save their lives? Seriously? There is not adequate motive for them to have done this.

 

Scribes of the ancient manuscripts were not loose and palaeographers agree which is why the texts discovered are consistent in their content and ancient language and grammar. The earliest Catholic Bibles following Rome’s adoption of Christianity contain omissions, misinterpretations and impositions of their doctrine and the addition of one verse illicitly, so those scribes and the interpreters were “looseâ€. If you’ve got a gripe with the Catholic Bible then take it to a Catholic. Protestant Bibles today are not translated from these Catholic texts and these Catholic Bibles have nothing to do with the Peshitta either. Moreover, the manuscripts and the Catholic Bible are not the same. The manuscripts were first recorded and then transcribed and read in churches from East to West for centuries prior to the creation of the two oldest Catholic Bible versions, Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaitius.

 

The scribes were not loose hence there is continuity of ancient language. The Greek manuscripts are completely in ancient Koine Greek and the Aramaic Peshitta in ancient grammar and in the dialect common in Jerusalem. Palaeographers have asserted this. If the text had been changed throughout the centuries it would be blatantly obvious, sort of like reading a modern English word or phrase in a document which is claimed to have been written in Old English or even one which was written a century ago.

 

The lack of integrity of the NT is your argument, I have only been responding to it. The argument that the NT is corrupt is a baseless and predictable argument. You base your argument that Jesus was not crucified based on the verse in the Quran and the ‘’lack of integrity†of early Christians and the gospels. We get it.

 

Other issues you raised

 

Trinitarianism:

 

The first believers in the First Century AD were not Trinitarians. The trinity grew steadily during the second century and climaxed when the Roman lead council made it official.

 

Jesus as Lord:

 

Although it was believed he was the Son of God, Jesus was not deified and worshipped in the first century by the first believers. In the NT manuscripts, Jesus is addressed as “lord,†meaning owner, master or lord. This is evident in Greek and Aramaic and even in modern translations as distinction is made by the capitalisation: Lord is a lord; LORD is God.

 

“The LORD said to my Lord†Psalm 110:1 (NIV) is a clear example. Some claim this verse is evidence of the trinity in the OT, but once the distinction is made, it is clearly not.

 

It was not uncommon for a highly esteemed person or religious teacher to be addressed as “lordâ€. David was also addressed as “Lord†in the OT (see 2 Sam 11:11, 13:32). Jesus was not referred to as LORD God, YHWH or Theos (God in Greek).

 

Further evidence of why people should read the Bible in Aramaic and not the interpretations available to western Christians which include many interpolations and misinterpretations and are totally removed from the Aramaic linguistic culture.

 

Way to go and take my words way out of context. This what I wrote:

 

"The fact is the Church didn't preserve the Hebrew Bible because they preserved a translation thus their effort is automatically disqualified. It's like answering a question in an exam in Greek when you are asked to answer in Hebrew. You get zero points."

 

Whether I quoted it in isolation or within the context, it seems as if this is a competition for you and I am amused by that. That's all I was commenting on in my previous reply. And no, you don’t win because the point you raised is irrelevant as the translation they preserved was a Jewish one and Bibles today are based on the Hebrew Bible.

 

I am really not interested in your preaching. "Invoking a curse," whether it is from God or anyone else sounds wrong on so many levels. You think you can spook me into becoming a Muslim?

 

You clearly do not understand the message of the Gospels or the spiritual significance of the resurrection. We can get into it and go on for years about the Bible but we know the Quran is no.1 for you and that’s cool, you are a Muslim.

 

I am retiring from this religious intercourse with you regarding the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, because it is clear that you do not know the NT or what you are talking about when you refer to it and you're also a bit rude, Younes. And again, you can not “definitely†tell me that you know the NT when you have only read passages from faulty and outdated translations. I’ll be happy to answer any further questions you may have regarding the NT so feel to drop me an e-mail.

 

Your view is the mainstream Islamic view based on the Quran which is that the Bible is corrupt and the message of Jesus was changed by his followers and the crucifixion and resurrection did not take place, and you are unwilling to accept any evidence (theological or textual or logical) to the contrary. Now that this has been established, are we done?

 

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whether I quoted it in isolation or within the context, it seems as if this is a competition for you and I am amused by that. That's all I was commenting on in my previous reply. And no, you don’t win because the point you raised is irrelevant as the translation they preserved was a Jewish one and Bibles today are based on the Hebrew Bible.

 

Samantha, the things that you have said are just recycled things that I have heard before from Christians and they are irrelevant. No this is not a competition to me, there is no prize to be won.

 

I'll just reiterate. Just because you have read about history, it doesn't mean that you understand history. What we are in interested in is where is the unbroken chain of tranmission for the Hebrew Bible. The Jews claim claim to have one, why don't you? Can you tell me where is the Christians' unbroken line of transmission starting from Moses, peace be upon, continuing until the present day? Obviously, you can't because there is none.

 

But I'll show you passages that the Jews changed in the Torah according to their own sources:

 

Commentary on Gen. 18:22

 

The two men turned62 and headed63 toward Sodom, but Abraham was still standing before the Lord.

 

64tc An ancient Hebrew scribal tradition reads “but the Lord remained standing before Abraham.” This reading is problematic because the phrase “standing before” typically indicates intercession, but the Lord would certainly not be interceding before Abraham.

 

Commentary on Num. 11:15

 

But if you are going to deal37 with me like this, then kill me immediately.38 If I have found favor in your sight then do not let me see my trouble.”39

 

39tn Or “my own ruin” (NIV). The word “trouble” here probably refers to the stress and difficulty of caring for a complaining group of people. The suffix on the noun would be objective, perhaps stressing the indirect object of the noun – trouble for me. The expression “on my trouble” (בְּרָעָתִי, bÿra’ati) is one of the so-called tiqqune sopherim, or “emendations of the scribes.” According to this tradition the original reading in v. 15 was [to look] “on your evil” (בְּרָעָתֶךָ, bÿra’atekha), meaning “the calamity that you bring about” for israel. However, since such an expression could be mistakenly thought to attribute evil to the Lord, the ancient scribes changed it to the reading found in the MT.

 

Commentary on Num. 12:12

 

Do not let her be like a baby born dead, whose flesh is half-consumed when it comes out of its23 mother’s womb!”

 

23tc The words “its mother” and “its flesh” are among the so-called tiqqune sopherim, or “emendations of the scribes.” According to this tradition the text originally had here “our mother” and “our flesh,” but the ancient scribes changed these pronouns from the first person to the third person. Apparently they were concerned that the image of Moses’ mother giving birth to a baby with physical defects of the sort described here was somehow inappropriate, given the stature and importance of Moses.

 

Taken from (you are not allowed to post links yet)"http://######/netbible/index.htm"]http://######/netbible/index.htm[/url]

 

Here we have three passages from the Torah that have been altered by the Jews, and these alterations are found in all manuscripts and all translations. They are also in the Septuagint.

 

There are other passages in the Hebrew Bible that have been changed but I'll just focus on the ones mentioned in the Torah. The other corruptions are 1 Sam. 3:13, 2 Sam. 16:12, 1 Kgs. 12:16, 2 Chr. 10:16, Job 7:20, Job 32:3, Ps. 106:20, Jer. 2:11, Lam. 3:20, Ezk. 8:17, Hosea 4:7, Hab. 1:12, Zech. 2:8, Mal. 1:13.

 

Okay, let's look at the significance of these changes. They were all done for theological reasons. Two were done because the original readings were offensive, or potentially inapproriate, towards God and one was found inappropriate regarding Moses, peace be upon him, who is viewed by the Jews as the greatest Prophet of all time. These changes are nothing but corruptions. To give you an analogy from an Islamic perspective, it is like me trying to change a verse in the Qur'an where it says that God created Adam, peace be upon him, with His Hands because I find the expression "with His Hands" inappropriate in regards to God. Ask any Muslim what they would think if I changed the Qur'an from the original "He created Adam with His Hands" to "He created Adam in a special manner". They would think it is a corruption, severe tampering of the text. The same applies to these corruptions that were made by the Jews (and they are found both in the Masoretic text and the Septuagint and all the translations of the Bible).

 

I think you put it the best when you said something along these lines, "If they left things out, what guarantees that they didn't add things?". Ironically, you said this in regards to the Quran's compilation, the story of Jesus' crucifixion, peace be upon him, and the Companions, may God be pleased with them. Now I will ask you a similar question, "If they were willing to corrupt the original text in certain passages because they found them theologically inapproapriate and offensive, what guarantees that they didn't do it in respect to other passages, or even the whole text? Since they were willing to corrupt the text by changing it, what guarantee do we have they didn't corrupt it by adding to it, or substracting from it for theological reasons?". Please answer me this. My question is based on your standards. I think that the question you posed in regards to the compilation of the Qur'an and the Companions, may God be pleased with them, was a fair question, therefore, I find this to be a fair question, too.

 

Do you know to whom these changes are ascribed to? The men of the Great Assembly. Have you ever heard of them? If you haven't, well, then you don't know much about the historical transmission of the Torah and the rest of the Hebrew Bible. They are the ones who decided what the Hebrew Bible's canon should include.

 

For more information about tikkun soferim you can read the following link:

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetsylvaniachristian(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=230&Itemid=161"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetsylvaniachristian(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php...&Itemid=161[/url]

 

And you can also read Marc B. Shapiro's: "Maimonides' Thirteen Principles: The

Last Word in Jewish Theology?". Shapiro's work doesn't deal with the tikkun soferim but it discusses them at one point. You can donwload his work online. I think I got it from his wikipedia page. I have it on my computer and I can upload it. The work lists many Jewish sources that mention the tikkun soferim. As a matter of fact, I'll just copy it here.

 

"Rabbinic sources speak of tikkun soferim, i.e. textual changes introduced

by the scribes, some of which concern the Torah.134 According to the

Tanhuma 135 and Yalkut ha-Makhirt, l36 it was the anshei kenesset hagedolah

who changed certain words in the Torah. The Masoretic work

Okhlah ve-Okhlah137 and R. Joshua Lisser138 credit Ezra with the textual

changes. The 'Arukh,139 Rashi,140 R. David Kimhi,l41 Yemenite Masorah,

142 and Shemot Rabbah as explained by the standard Midrashic commentary

Matanot Kehunah 143 (which is actually the clear meaning of the text), are

also explicit that the biblical text was changed by the Soferim. Although

lacking in our texts, there are some versions of Shemot Rabbah 13:2 which

also contain this explanation"

 

 

PS: Like I told Lux in the beggining of this thread, the main problems still stand. Christians don't have an unbroken chain of transmission starting from Moses, peace be upon him, continuing until this day and the same goes for the Gospels and Apostolic Succession.

 

From now on, we don't have anything to discuss anymore. It has become clear to me that you are a person who cherry-picks what she wants and who is oblivious to context - while context is everything. Since the first post of yours that I read, you have demonstrated the same traits. You ignore context and don't look at the evidence as a whole. You asked me in a PM to comment on your reply to a post of mine in the thread about Crusaders. I didn't answer then but I will answer now. In that thread you said, " War is not necessary for someone who trusts in God. Note that Moses was not a warlord, God created the environment which enabled the Jews to leave Egypt by making life difficult for the Pharoah...It’s about having faith, this is also why I disagree with the raids, conquests and wars which the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) lead and the Caliphs after him, for if they just trusted in God, God would have given Mecca to him without any bloodshed."

 

Obviously, this is ridiculous when you take into consideration that the children of israel were punished by God and made to wander in the desert for forty years BECAUSE they refused to go to war and conquer the Holy land and furthermore the conquests lead by Joshua, peace be upon him, were numerous. So you disagree with Muhammad's, peace and blessings of be upon him, conquest of Mecca and think that if they had just trusted God, they would have gotten Mecca without any bloodshed? Well, why were the children of israel commanded by God and Moses, peace be upon him, to go fight and conquer if war is not necessary for someone who trusts in God? Do you disagree with God's and Moses', peace be upon him, command to go to war? Do you disagee with Moses's, peace be upon him, wars? Do you disagree with Joshua's, peace be upon him, conquests?

 

My answer is that you still are the same type of person. You just cherry-pick what you want to believe and to make your points, ignore context and don't look at the evidence as a whole. That's why we can't discuss anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enlarged my previous post, i.e. I edited and added things to it, so you might want to re-read it after this post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Younes,

 

I did not even read all the commentaries nor have I read your response in full. Why not? Because you are indulging in a classic avoidance tactic. Instead of closing this discussion by touching on the points about the integrity of the NT gospels, you are going on about something else.

 

PS: Like I told Lux in the beggining of this thread, the main problems still stand. Christians don't have an unbroken chain of transmission starting from Moses, peace be upon him, continuing until this day and the same goes for the Gospels and Apostolic Succession.

 

I'll just reiterate. Just because you have read about history, it doesn't mean that you understand history. What we are in interested in is where is the unbroken chain of tranmission for the Hebrew Bible. The Jews claim claim to have one, why don't you? Can you tell me where is the Christians' unbroken line of transmission starting from Moses, peace be upon, continuing until the present day? Obviously, you can't because there is none.

I cannot tell you about the unbroken line of transmission which Christians have from the time of Moses for the Hebrew Bible because Christianity did not exist then and Christianity is an off-shoot sect which “deviated†from Judaism. HELLO? Christians first adopted the Jewish Septuagint and now Protestants refer to the Hebrew scripture.

 

Regarding the NT gospels, why have you completely ignored the info I gave you regarding the preservation of the NT by the various churches? Have you ignored the paleographic analyses and archeological discoveries? And yes, it is unbroken chain since it has gone on since the dawn of Christendom in 1st Century and palaeographic analyses prove this and date the gospels within the decades following Jesus’ ascension. If you think the expert paleographers are wrong, then tell them.

 

Samantha, the things that you have said are just recycled things that I have heard before from Christians and they are irrelevant. No this is not a competition to me, there is no prize to be won.

I have enlightened you about things which you were unaware of like Jesus being the only begotten, Jesus as Lord, the outdated translations you have been referring to, so how is that “recycledâ€? If the preservation of the NT is irrelevant to you then why do you keep asking about it if you ignore the truth? And yes, this is clearly a competition for you. If it weren’t you would not be going on about “zero pointsâ€.

 

From now on, we don't have anything to discuss anymore. It has become clear to me that you are a person who cherry-picks what she wants and who is oblivious to context - while context is everything.

The preservation of the NT and Septuagint and Hebrew Bibles are separate issues because the Septuagint and Hebrew Bible originated from the Jews. The NT was recorded from the beginning, not centuries later. You are the one who is cherry picking issues from the Jewish preservation of scripture as if it has any bearing upon the Christian preservation of the NT manuscripts. The crucifixion and resurrection is not told in the OT, but in the NT. This post is about the crucifixion and resurrection.

 

The same applies to these corruptions that were made by the Jews (and they are found both in the Masoretic text and the Septuagint and all the translations of the Bible).

 

I think you put it the best when you said something along these lines, "If they left things out, what guarantees that they didn't add things?". Ironically, you said this in regards to the Quran's compilation, the story of Jesus' crucifixion, peace be upon him, and the Companions, may God be pleased with them. Now I will ask you a similar question, "If they were willing to corrupt the original text in certain passages because they found them theologically inapproapriate and offensive, what guarantees that they didn't do it in respect to other passages, or even the whole text? Since they were willing to corrupt the text by changing it, what guarantee do we have they didn't corrupt it by adding to it, or substracting from it for theological reasons?". Please answer me this. My question is based on your standards. I think that the question you posed in regards to the compilation of the Qur'an and the Companions, may God be pleased with them, was a fair question, therefore, I find this to be a fair question, too.

The question you are posing makes no sense. Why do I say this? Because, Brother Younes, the preservation of the Septuagint and Masoretic texts by Jews has nothing to do with the preservation of the NT gospels by Christians.

I am aware of the Great Assembly, however Christians did not participate. Christianity had already deviated from Judaism. I think they would've invited Christians but they were too busy persecuting them. Whatever changes Jews have made to the scriptures have nothing to do with Christians nor the preservation of the NT gospels. The standards were not the same, again, palaeographic evidence.

Christians adopted the Septuagint as they found it from Jews. Then later, Protestants referred to the Hebrew Bible manuscripts as they found them from Jews and adopted them as the OT. What the Jews did is for them to answer. It has no bearing on the NT gospels. You are “cherry-picking†because it is irrelevant to preservation of the gospels wherein the Crucifixion and Resurrection is conveyed. You are diverting.

 

Younes, those who left things out of the Bible were Catholics in the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinatius which came in the fourth/fifth centuries. There is a difference between the first Catholic Bibles and the manuscripts of the gospels which are dated back to the first century. Protestant Bibles do not refer to Catholic translations as manuscripts. Furthermore, the manuscripts were preserved in various languages by various churches not just the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholics added an illicit verse and imposed their doctrine in their translations not to the manuscripts (the “original texts†you refer to). There was no abrogation in the manuscripts but in the Catholic Bible translation. This is why I can still refer to transcripts of the manuscripts (in Aramaic or Greek) and see that they still do not say Jesus was the only begotten – that is in the translation and interpretation. It is only in the translation of the manuscripts where these unacceptable practices occur. You have confused Bible versions and translations with the manuscripts/transcripts when the latter came first (hand have been preserved) and are what we use to point out corruptions in the former. Bible versions throughout history and even today say many things, yet the transcripts have remained the same. "Heaven and earth will disappear, but my words will never disappear." (Saying of Jesus).

 

They did not destroy the manuscripts when they put together the first Bibles. This is why we see differences between the translations and the texts themselves. The only gospels and writings which were destroyed were those considered heretical texts which have been discovered in the past couple of centuries which had initially been preserved until they were banned and ordered to be destroyed.

 

Rahimi brought up the differences in the accounts as to what Mary Magdalene saw at Jesus’ tomb (men or angels, one angel or two) and if she was alone or if Jesus’ mother and Salome (King Herod’s daughter) were with her (and I have answered this). Now, of course the Christian community has had to explain these variations for two millennia, yet they remain in the text. They remain four separate accounts by four individuals. The church could have changed this to silence the critics but they did not. They also could have added verses which endorse the trinity (so that it is clear, not assumed) or the veneration of Jesus’ mother and the sanction for presence of idols in some churches. Yet none of this is there. Even this verse which points a finger at the Roman Catholic Church is still there:

 

"And don't call another man 'Father', for your only Father is God in heaven." Matthew 23:9

 

If they had done all of this, Protestantism and Nontrinitarianism would not exists, because we would be unable to debunk some of these un-Biblical practices by referring to the NT as I can do today. This is also why experts have endorsed the preservation of the NT. The churches did not alter the manuscripts, they found other ways to teach and endorse their beliefs like Catholics do by teaching congregants that they are unqualified to understand the Bible and give them Cathecisms [Catholic doctrine books] to read.

 

No, I do not agree with replacing, deliberately mistranslating, embellishing or interposing false doctrine upon scripture for any reason.

 

 

-The fact is that Jesus was not deified or made part of a trinity in the first century as he is now and was not referred to as “Lord†in a liturgical sense. If you cannot accept this historical fact then it is clear that you cannot understand history.

Preservation of the Septuagint and Hebrew scripture are separate from the preservation of the NT gospels.

-You have not acknowledged expert endorsements of the preservation of the NT by paleographers who have also dated them back within the lifetimes of the apostles in the first century. Instead you are going on about the Hebrew Bible.

-The disciples and apostles of Jesus had no motive to die for a “lieâ€.

-You seem to think that the 2nd century church fathers wrote the gospels or (right?), when in fact they did not (which is why the gospels date back to the first century AD), nor did they establish Christianity. Jesus’ apostles did that in the first century AD from the Alexandria to Babylon and to Greece. The Apostolic Fathers came after the Apostles of Jesus - they are not one and the same generation. The Apostolic Fathers are not the Apostles/companions of Jesus who are mentioned in the NT.

Not all of the early Church fathers (from second century and after) believed in the trinity. It has always been a debated issue.

-You have not read the Gospels in full and what you have read has been from outdated translations and so you don’t understand Jesus’ teachings, nor do you see the significance of the resurrection as a testament to and fulfillment of his teachings and prophesies. The crucifixion is not just about salvation and atonement, it has a greater more profound meaning which you would understand from reading the Gospels.

-Because you are a Muslim and revere the Holy Quran above all else, you are unwilling to accept any evidence (logical, textual, theological) which supports the integrity of the NT gospels and the accounts therein of the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus. And that’s cool.

-You avoid the issues and indulge in diversion tactics.

-You are rude. Argue all you want, but it is not necessary for you to be condescending.

 

These are the reasons why debating this topic further with you is a futile exercise.

 

I will answer your questions about Muhammad (pbuh), Moses and the Crusaders under the Crusaders post.

 

Peace be with you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am aware of the Great Assembly, however Christians did not participate. Christianity had already deviated from Judaism. I think they would've invited Christians but they were too busy persecuting them.

 

It has become clear that Samantha is just an ignorant poser. She obviously doesn't know anything about the men of the Great Assembly. The men of the Great Assembly predated Christianity by three centuries, so do you know how utterly igorant it sounds when you say that Christians didn't participate and Christianity had already deviated from Judaism?!

 

Here's a Jewish article on the men of the Great Assembly, not that I agree with the article but it obviously shows that Samantha doesn't have a clue what she is talking about:

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetsimpletoremember(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/articles/a/the_great_assembly/"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetsimpletoremember(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/articles/a...great_assembly/[/url]

 

I wasn't going to reply but when somebody is so obviously just pretending to know something when they are totally ignorant, you can't help but to expose their lies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It has become clear that Samantha is just an ignorant poser. She obviously doesn't know anything about the men of the Great Assembly. The men of the Great Assembly predated Christianity by three centuries, so do you know how utterly igorant it sounds when you say that Christians didn't participate and Christianity had already deviated from Judaism?!
Younes,

 

The Men lived over t centuries (of course several generations of delegates) and it ended in 70 AD. The fact still remains that Christians were not involved in what the Men of the Great Assembly did prior to the advent of Christianity, during the early years of Christianity and until it convened in 70 AD. Christianity was already in existance when it convened (and the years prior) and I focused specifically on the closing date bacause Christians were already around then and did not participate because they had already deviated.

Perhaps your article is not accurate and I will not bother to read it because I know what I read in my sources (plural).

 

Wikipedia says:

"They lived in a period of about two centuries ending 70 CE."

 

Perhaps you got your BC/CE mixed up.

 

You have displayed your ignorance concerning many Christian and Biblical issues on this site, yet not once have I made it my mission to call you ignorant nor have I turned this this discussion into some sort of expose. I have also maintained respect for you and have not been condescending toward you. It is evident that this is a competition for you.

 

The Great Assembly has nothing to do with the preservation of the NT gospels and by extension, this topic.

 

Again, you have deviated from the facts which I have presented to you. Avoidance?

Edited by samantha-g

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Younes,

 

Please refer to this post for your answers regarding the Crusaders, Moses, Muhammad thing: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=734615"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=734615[/url]

I am busy with another post which will explain one of the comments I made in the reply (you will understand what I mean once you read the thing).

 

The forum is displaying a bit funny, but I remember I said the Great Assemby 'convened' when I meant to say that it 'concluded' in 70 A.D. when the last of the men of the great assembly died (I forgot the name), although development continued after 70 A.D. which is the year the Temple was destroyed. The destruction of the Temple resulted in an urgency to record the Oral Torah - I can't find the comment, but I may have mistakingly referred to this as the Canon in general and not specifically as oral tradition. However, I was not wrong in saying that Christians had already split from Judaism by the end of the era of the men of the Great Assembly in 70 A.D. because this is several decades afer the death resurrection and ascension of Jesus.

 

You asked why Christians do not have an unbroken chain of transmission in terms of preservation of the Bible from the time of Moses and I responded that this is impossible since Christians were not around from the time of Moses and hat Christianity is an 'off-shoot' of Judaism, thus Christians simply maintained their reverence of Hebrew Scripture. You thought this was a sensible question to ask, so I will put it to you: Since Islam claims it is an Abrahamic faith and the Quran commands believers to revere the prophets which came before and the Books of the Bible, where is the Islamic preservation of the Bible from the time of Moses, unbroken chain of transmission and all?

 

 

Sam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When I said that no one believes that Jesus is literally God’s son, I mean that no one believes that God had sexual relations with Mary. If this were the case, the term ‘immaculate conception’ would not apply. It is clear that Mary did not become pregnant my natural means but rather by a miracle.

 

 

the immaculate conception is the doctrine that mary was without original sin, it does not refer to the incarnation of jesus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a simple question, why don't scholars in the West utilize the Quran as a source when writing about Jesus?

 

I'll give you a hint, it's not because they're Christian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salaam,

 

Today is the Christian Feast of the Nativity, I wish all of you a warm and happy holiday season. I want to bring up something that I don't see addressed among Christians and Muslims in dialogue, and that is the Resurrection of Christ. It seems in our dialogue a lot of emphasis is placed on the crucifixion, since that is what the Quran explicitly rejects, but there is rarely if ever dialogue on the resurrection.

 

The resurrection is at the very core of Christian belief, and it has been there since the Apostles and the first followers of Jesus. Even St Paul admits that when he passes on the reality of Jesus resurrection, he is only passing on what he himself received, and so the resurrection predates St Paul. He even quotes there being some 500 witnesses of the resurrected Christ alive in his time. Even liberal scholars are recognizing that the Apostles and followers of Christ were convinced that they saw and interacted with the Resurrected Christ, and that some phenomena must have accounted for this conviction. On top of this, we also have the fact that no body of Jesus was ever produced and that His tomb is empty.

 

My question is how do the reported interactions of the sahaba with the Resurrected Christ, and the empty tomb, fit in the Islamic position of the non-crucifixion of Jesus? Did Allah raise the body of the person who substituted Jesus on the cross? Did Allah have Jesus momentarily return to earth prior to his final assent to heaven? etc

 

What do you guys think?

wa salaam,

Lux

 

When the bible was canonized there was much debate about whether to deify Jesus. Many things were "edited" in and out of the new testament over the centuries. Many popular stories you read about what "Jesus" said or did, didn't exist in many of early Christian writings. For example the story about "Ye without sin cast the first stone." was introduced centuries later and essentially made up when it went into the King James version. The people who "wrote" the gospels of the new testament did so a century after Jesus supposedly died. There was also much debate about whether early Christians even believed that Jesus was an actual "God". Romans reported that the "Kristens" (Christians) were in fact persecuted primarily because of their customs involving cannibalizing the dead and orgies. It was insinuated that Jesus was likely taken from his tomb and cannibalized. Some of the early Christians believed this was a way to live forever and is likely the root of why many Protestant and Catholic churches symbolically "cannibalize" Christ still today. In the Methodist church you are not considered a true Christian until you participate in this ritual.

 

The Romans who canonized Christianity for a political tool decided that they would spread the religion more successfully if Jesus was "deified" and hence the "trinity" concept was constructed. In fact "Christ" was not Jesus's name. "Christ" was a title used by ancient sun worshipers. They essentially appended sun worshipping onto the Torah. They changed the holy day to "Sun Day" and forced Jews to work on the Saturday" which was the original sabbath. We still uphold that custom.

 

I am an Atheist, not a Muslim so don't blame them for my comments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what is always interesting to me, is not when people are ignorant of things, but when they "know" things that are demostratably false. As someone, with an agenda, must have placed those ideas in their mind. While all of your post is hilarious nonesense, i deign to note this:

 

 

For example the story about "Ye without sin cast the first stone." was introduced centuries later and essentially made up when it went into the King James version

 

the king james version was made in 1611. There are extant versions of the vulgate from the fifth century and earlier which contain that story. people still possess those copies, today. There are records and oblique refrences to it earlier.

 

Does a person with strong arguements, or weak arguements lie about their opponents?

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


×