Jump to content
Islamic Forum

Recommended Posts

When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. 15 And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”

17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. 18 For I tell you I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”

19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

In Luke chapter 22:14-20 we see what Christians know as the Eucharist. For those not overly familiar with the Bible this simply means these verses in which Jesus partook of the Passover with his disciples before his persecution and crucifixion.

 

Now when I was Muslim (which, admittedly, was briefly) I heard many people making this argument or that argument for Islam while claiming that for a large portion the Bible is not contrary to the Qur'an. In fact the well established Why Islam even uses Biblical verses for making reverts to Islam. So, my question is simply with all that in mind how does one explain this? Luke is one of the four gospel books which, of course, predates the writings of Paul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Luke chapter 22:14-20 we see what Christians know as the Eucharist. For those not overly familiar with the Bible this simply means these verses in which Jesus partook of the Passover with his disciples before his persecution and crucifixion.

 

Now when I was Muslim (which, admittedly, was briefly) I heard many people making this argument or that argument for Islam while claiming that for a large portion the Bible is not contrary to the Qur'an. In fact the well established Why Islam even uses Biblical verses for making reverts to Islam. So, my question is simply with all that in mind how does one explain this? Luke is one of the four gospel books which, of course, predates the writings of Paul.

 

is jesus God or just son of God according to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matthew 26:62-65 and the Eucharist is part of the reason I went back to Christianity. I cannot believe that Jesus was a liar. In searching to find myself I must first ask myself what I believe and the answer is God, first and foremost, then next of course is the revelation and promises that God gave to israel presented via the Old Testament because without these two basic premises I might as well go the way of some of my ancestors and worship nature, itself. After these I believe in the messiah Jesus a.k.a Immanuel (God with us). Now with that explained I ask simply how does one disregard the words of the Eucharist when it words that Jesus said?

 

If preferred I can show where the book of Luke has been used repeatedly by Muslims of various belief systems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Matthew 26:62-65 and the Eucharist is part of the reason I went back to Christianity. I cannot believe that Jesus was a liar. In searching to find myself I must first ask myself what I believe and the answer is God.

 

if he is God then explain to us this

 

God said in bible

 

Hosea 11:9 For I am God, and not man

 

Bible

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,

 

if God is not a man, and jesus is man, then jesus is not God, simple fact wink.gif

 

If jesus was God, what kind of God is this

 

God that does nor know stuff?

 

Mark 13:32 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

 

What kind of God is this who can do anything?

 

John 5:30 By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.

 

Jesus was a man acredited by God, not that he is God?

 

Acts 2:22 "Men of israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.

 

if jesus was God, what kind of God is jesus when he need to be acredited by another God

Jesus God have another God???? 2 Gods?

 

John 20:17 Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

 

and jesus himself said this

 

Mark 12:29 Jesus replied, "The most important commandment is this: 'Listen, O israel! The LORD our God is the one and only LORD.

 

What kind of God prays to another God?

 

Matthew 26:39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed

 

this is evidence from your own bible that jesus was not God

 

Bible

John 1:18 No one has ever seen God

 

but people have seen Jesus, that is why jesus is not God.

 

EXPLAIN TO US HOW JESUS CAN BE GOD WHEN BIBLE CONTRADICTS YOU AND JESUS HIMSELF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is all fine and dandy but as I recollect my original question was why would Jesus say that his body would be broken for us and his blood shed if it were not so? You are using a red herring. I would prefer to stick to the initial question instead of it being diverted. Also, if you want to grab my attention might I suggest not using arguments posted on the Why Islam website

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is all fine and dandy but as I recollect my original question was why would Jesus say that his body would be broken for us and his blood shed if it were not so? You are using a red herring. I would prefer to stick to the initial question instead of it being diverted. Also, if you want to grab my attention might I suggest not using arguments posted on the Why Islam website

 

this is not from why Islam website, it is from me, it is from you r own bible, check it for yourself, muslims dont make this up. this is fact from your own bible, wich contradicts your christian belief.

 

 

EXPLAIN TO THE PEOPLE HOW JESUS CAN BE GOD WHEN BIBLE VERSES SAY OTHERWISE AS YOU ALL CAN SEE ABOVE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, my question is simply with all that in mind how does one explain this? Luke is one of the four gospel books which, of course, predates the writings of Paul.

 

Firstly, you are wrong about the Gospel of Luke predating the writings of Paul. It is the actual opposite. The mainstream scholarly view is that the writings of Paul predate all of the Gospels. You can do a search on this.

 

The answer to your original questions is that the author(s) of the Gospels and Christians came up with these lies. Jesus (pbuh) is not a liar. However, those who reported about his life and sayings were not necessarily truthful. In other words, those words were falsely attributed to Jesus (pbuh).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From everything I have researched your statement on the Gospel of Luke appears to be misstated. For while some do make these claims they are either atheistic and out to simply disprove the Bible overall or Muslim and once again trying to disprove the Bible. This, of course, negates their testimony on the matter as their opinion is biased from the start. For those who are Biblical scholars and have spent the largest chunk of their life researching the Bible they have found the Book of Luke to be authentic and predating the writings of Paul as the author of Luke was also the author of Acts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From everything I have researched your statement on the Gospel of Luke appears to be misstated. For while some do make these claims they are either atheistic and out to simply disprove the Bible overall or Muslim and once again trying to disprove the Bible. This, of course, negates their testimony on the matter as their opinion is biased from the start. For those who are Biblical scholars and have spent the largest chunk of their life researching the Bible they have found the Book of Luke to be authentic and predating the writings of Paul as the author of Luke was also the author of Acts.

 

i'm sorry, i have some simple questions, i hope to consider it in the subject

 

who is LUKE? his origin? where did he live? work? how did he become a christian?

 

how did he know about these stories (was he a wittness or someone told him, who is that one)?

 

how did he know about the Paulian stories, (was he a wittness or someone told him, who is that one)? as you can notice the second half of the Acts is only about Paul, not any one of the 12 original apostales?

 

where are the stories of the 12 apostales that simulate some of PAul stories? why no one cared about it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From everything I have researched your statement on the Gospel of Luke appears to be misstated. For while some do make these claims they are either atheistic and out to simply disprove the Bible overall or Muslim and once again trying to disprove the Bible. This, of course, negates their testimony on the matter as their opinion is biased from the start. For those who are Biblical scholars and have spent the largest chunk of their life researching the Bible they have found the Book of Luke to be authentic and predating the writings of Paul as the author of Luke was also the author of Acts.

 

Well that's not the mainstream view, sorry to dissappoint. It is a widely acknowledged that the Pauline letters predate Luke. I mean, if you look at it from a historical point of view it makes sense. Christians claim that Luke was Paul's disciple. So if he was Paul's disciple, he would have most likely written his Gospel after Paul had begun his ministry. He certainly would not have written it before Paul began his ministry/writing letters.

 

If the testimony of those who have negative evidence against the Bible is rejected because they are atheist, Muslim or simply want to disprove the Bible, why should we accept the the testimony of those who support the Biblen when they are Christians and people who just want to prove the Bible and their opinion is biased from the start?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not an authority on the Bible or a Biblical scholar. If you wish to convince me of what you are saying why not present the evidence of it? You say it exist so clearly you have studied it, why not present it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[at] Younes .... because they have studied on the Bible most of their lives and are not just making accusations against it. Just as I would not try to disprove the Qur'an as a document through the Qur'an itself as I am not an authority on the Qur'an and have not spent a sufficient enough time studying it to make such claims. I know only a couple surahs which I learned for Salah, naturally and I am betting as you being Muslim you can already guess one.

 

To take the testimony seriously they must have some sort of education on the Bible, a way of proving that they are not some random nut job making claims against the Bible. Just like no Christian worth their salt takes that guy seriously who claims that Muslims worship a moon god because he is a quack with no real authority on anything of the nature that he is writing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people who disprove the Bible have also studied the Bible most of their lives, so you really don't have a case when you argue that the amount of time done studying makes the difference. In fact, even those are pro-Bible say that Pauline letters predate the Gospels. Saying that the Pauline letters predate Gospel is not anti-Bible. It is a completly neutral view. You can do a search on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You keep saying this but I fail to see anything posted here. When I make a claim I make it using references. You claim that the gospel of Luke is not written before the letters of Paul but you post no evidence to back up this statement. If you are making the claim why should I do the research? I am not the one making the claim. My research lead me to find nothing of the sort. I found nothing to make me disbelieve the book of Luke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You keep saying this but I fail to see anything posted here. When I make a claim I make it using references. You claim that the gospel of Luke is not written before the letters of Paul but you post no evidence to back up this statement. If you are making the claim why should I do the research? I am not the one making the claim. My research lead me to find nothing of the sort. I found nothing to make me disbelieve the book of Luke

 

I'm sorry but you are not totally honest here. You made a claim that Luke predates the Pauline letters but I don't see any reference for it. (Saying that scholars who have studied the Bible most of their lives is not a reference). So, in that light your post is a bit ironic. I told you to do a simple research because it is a widely acknowledge thing that the Pauline letters are the earliest documents of the NT (it is the mainstream view). It is an easy search to do on google. If the matter concerned something a bit more specific, more complex or hard to search, I wouldn't tell you to search for it, but since this so basic, simple and easy to search, that's what I am doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://earlychristianwritings.com/

 

going by this site you could be seen as accurate in this statement. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that you are correct in saying that the Pauline letters are older than the Gospel of Luke this hardly negates it as a reliable source. I fail to see how you connected d to f without any e

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did I say that the Gospel of Luke is not reliable source because the Pauline letters predate them? No. The Gospel of Luke is not a reliable source for other reasons. I didn't connect anything, you assumed that I was saying Luke is unreliable because Paul's letters predate it. I was simply correcting your statement that "Luke is one of the four gospel books which, of course, predates the writings of Paul" when in fact the Pauline letters predate all of the Gospels according to the mainstream view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that is fine... but that brings us back to the original point where Jesus said, "this is my body which is broken for you, this is my blood which is shed for you..." also known as the eucharist.

 

When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. 15 And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. 16 For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God.”

17 After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, “Take this and divide it among you. 18 For I tell you I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”

19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”

20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

 

To this you said:

 

 

The answer to your original questions is that the author(s) of the Gospels and Christians came up with these lies. Jesus (pbuh) is not a liar. However, those who reported about his life and sayings were not necessarily truthful. In other words, those words were falsely attributed to Jesus (pbuh).

So, my question now must be can you prove this? Is there any backing for this statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just realized that nobody welcomed Abdullahfath to the Forum; where are our manners?

SO, WELCOME, YOUNG CHRISTIAN!

You are obviously having a wonderful time debating with some of the young Muslims. That is what a forum like this is for, in my opinion. I'll stay out of the discussion, as I'm just an old atheist. However, I'll enjoy reading this thread. Many years ago, I was at a similar point in my own intellectual development. I remember staying up most of the night to talk about religion, usually while drinking beer. Have fun!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, my question now must be can you prove this? Is there any backing for this statement?

 

The way this works is that you have to prove that the men who transmitted the Gospel(s) were trustworthy, the transmission process was a succesfull one and the words quoted are that of Jesus (pbuh).

 

I have asked Christians plenty of times where is the chain of transmission for the Biblical books. A chain of transmission would be liked this: Jesus ---> X ------> Y-----> ....until we arrive to the present day. Muslims have such chains of transmission for the Qur'an and the Hadith. There are a lot of scholars who have a link to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). So far no Christian has come up with a chain of transmission for the Bible. Two Catholics suggested the chain of Apostolic Succession. We went over it and found it to contain inconsistencies. Which denomation do you follow by the way?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At present I am looking at going to Catholicism. Perhaps we should back up some though....

 

I left Islam because of the following:

a) I was terrified that I was following Satan (growing up in the Bible belt the concept of Hell is engrained into you)

b) the notion that a command was given to Muhammad and he questioned it not once but several times did not sit well with me

c) dismissal of the holy spirit makes little sense as no one dares to claim that the holy spirit was not in Elizabeth as she was pregnant with John the Baptist or even that it was not with Mary during her pregnancy but yet I have had many Muslims try and tell me that the holy spirit is the angel Gabriel.... bit hard to swallow

d) there is a verse in the Qur'an that says if a wife is disobedient to her husband the husband has the right to strike her

e) Eucharist (the words of Jesus as he said this is my body which is broken for you)

f) as I faced being homeless not once but twice not one of my so called brethren was there for me...(if that is the religion representative of God I pass)

g) the notion that the mother of Jesus would not have recognized her son during his beating or on the cross is beyond hard to swallow. Parents know their child...I knew my baby upon first glance at the nursery after she was born without the nurse saying a word before any name was on her bed

h) In the Old Testament God made a pact with israel that they would be the promised land, his land, his people but I am supposed to believe that God turned on his own promise and now israel is not the promised land? is not the holy land?

i) I was facing problems having grown up in the Bible belt (imagine if you were a Muslim who grew up in Mecca and suddenly found yourself believing that Christianity was the right way and yet you were still in Mecca) and had no one with which to speak to because everyone was either born Muslim or had not been an overly sincere Christian to begin with before becoming Muslim... [the problems in question are listed above]

 

Now that you know some of my history you know why I do not feel the need to prove the Bible anymore because I do not honestly feel like it has bee disproved to begin with. If the events can be verified the author is not needed to be known. Several historians use documents that were made in medieval Europe that did not have authors as it was common in the time period not to make oneself known.

 

And again if such a drastic change had occurred as is indicated the logical question to look at here is would not the original Christians have realized the change and had something to say but to the best of my knowledge there is no record of any such objection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Younes, the New Testament, especially the 4 Gospels, are the writings of men about the life and reported sayings of Jesus. As with much "knowledge" during the time period, they were passed along orally at first, except for the letters of Paul. While they contain what the early Christians said was revealed about God, or perhaps by God, the whole batch were not collected into one "book" until the cult of Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire after Constantine adopted it. By then, it was the Fourth Century. And, the New Testament only includes a portion (perhaps, according to some scholars about 35%) of the various writings available by then. Long ago, I came to believe that, though Jesus was almost certainly a real person, the New Testament was an expanded and very idealized creation of religious zealots, who took the story of a gentle Jewish street preacher who got himself in trouble for criticizing the power structure of his homeland, and suggesting that the God he believed in just wanted us all to care about our fellow humans. I see the core message of Islam as something very similar, though your religion, too, evolved very quickly into something very complex and ordered. Of course, that was because Mohammad was quite sure that was what Allah wanted! I am an atheist because I cannot imagine why any deity would ever care about all the trappings of religion. I think all the details, doctrines and rituals are man made, not divinely inspired. However, that being said, I enjoy reading what (and how) passionate young believers think. Just don't ever let your beliefs lead you to do something evil to your fellow humans. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You mean like chastising young children for feeling sympathy for a fellow student and showing said sympathy in a form they have known all their life (i.e. prayer) or having children under the age of fifteen arrested for it?

 

I do not mean to come off as mean but the modern attitude of most atheists irritates the piss out of me. Honestly I hear it constantly of how Christians or whoever is offending the nonbelievers by praying so they impose that which they want on the Christians and other religious people. The atheists in this country talk about fairness and freedom from religion while trying to force that which they want on those who do not believe as they do. Personally I would rather live in a Muslim country than in a country that is becoming increasingly hostile towards anyone who practices religion openly.

 

And I am truly sick of the atheistic attitude of how religion has brought so much heartache to the world when it was the scientific view point of natural selection and Darwinism that led Hitler (hands down one of the most evil human beings to ever live) to kill multitudes of people without care because it was for the good of humanity and by the way Hitler did not profess any religion.

 

Again I do not mean to come off as rude or mean but the whole these attitudes towards those who believe that I have seen growing over the years really just pisses me off

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

allow me to share in that, mr Padre5

 

Younes, the New Testament, especially the 4 Gospels, are the writings of men about the life and reported sayings of Jesus. As with much "knowledge" during the time period, they were passed along orally at first, except for the letters of Paul. While they contain what the early Christians said was revealed about God, or perhaps by God, the whole batch were not collected into one "book" until the cult of Christianity became the religion of the Roman Empire after Constantine adopted it. By then, it was the Fourth Century. And, the New Testament only includes a portion (perhaps, according to some scholars about 35%) of the various writings available by then. Long ago, I came to believe that, though Jesus was almost certainly a real person, the New Testament was an expanded and very idealized creation of religious zealots, who took the story of a gentle Jewish street preacher who got himself in trouble for criticizing the power structure of his homeland, and suggesting that the God he believed in just wanted us all to care about our fellow humans. I see the core message of Islam as something very similar, though your religion, too, evolved very quickly into something very complex and ordered. Of course, that was because Mohammad was quite sure that was what Allah wanted!

 

considering, yes both great prophets (Essa and Mohammad pbut) were good persons that they were care about their fellow humans, why not the god contacts them and reveal his helping message to them?

while the difference between both is, as i can see it, in the authentecity of the translation of the message to us. when we can't find but a play card peice dated 90-130 years after Essa (pbuh), while all the other collected big portions are happened to be after a big political event (questionable) 300 years after Essa, translation after translation, many different views of the god and the basic beliefs, western roman catholic, eastern roman orthodox, coptic orthodox, and many other small divisions.

the Quran is just tranmitted to us in a miraculous way, by memorizing, at the time of the prophet there were 100s of the memorizers that spread out to the vast land and taught the new moslems, you can find 10,000,000s of the quran memorizers all over the world that memorize the whole Quran cover to cover, every verse, word and letter with out the slightest difference although many of them are not Arabs.

 

I am an atheist because I cannot imagine why any deity would ever care about all the trappings of religion. I think all the details, doctrines and rituals are man made, not divinely inspired. However, that being said, I enjoy reading what (and how) passionate young believers think. Just don't ever let your beliefs lead you to do something evil to your fellow humans. :no:

 

i cant imagine as well, a good presedent of any country, or legeslation council, that don't care about legeslating the main rules to regulate the life their fellow citizens and spread out peace, justice and happiness in the constitution, and then the detailed life model, rights, obligations ....etc. in the complemenaty laws.

Allah did that for humanity since the time of Adam tell the time of the finall and eternal messege of Islam.

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


×