Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  Old ForumOld Forum  Twitter  Facebook
Advertisement:
         

Interfaith Dialogue
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Interfaith Dialogue
Message Icon Topic: Holy Qur'an and Jesus' Trinity Post Reply Post New Topic
Page  of 5 Next >>
Author Message
Jack Catholic
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 24 March 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 369
Quote Jack Catholic Replybullet Topic: Holy Qur'an and Jesus' Trinity
    Posted: 02 September 2010 at 10:15pm
Can someone please show me where, in the Holy Qur'an, Muhammad clearly condemns the orriginal Christian belief in the Holy Trinity as given in the Holy Bible from the mouth of Jesus himself?
 
Matthew 28:19
" Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,"
 
Notice in the quoted passage the word, "name," a singular word referring to Allah, yet followed by three names:  1)  "Father,"  2) "Son,"  and 3) "Holy Spirit."  Since the beginning of the Christian faith, the Apostles and those whom they instructed have understood this to mean one God...in three persons.  This has never been understood by Catholics or Orthodox Christians to referr to three seperate gods, but rather one and only one God. 
 
What verses can be quoted from the Holy Qur'an to refer directly and clearly (without having to be interpreted) to this understanding of Allah?
 
Thanks for sharing from your wonderful faith,
 
Jack Catholic


Edited by Jack Catholic - 02 September 2010 at 10:16pm
IP IP Logged
Mansoor_ali
Male  Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 September 2008
Location: Pakistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 584
Quote Mansoor_ali Replybullet Posted: 05 September 2010 at 8:49pm
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Can someone please show me where, in the Holy Qur'an, Muhammad clearly condemns the orriginal Christian belief in the Holy Trinity as given in the Holy Bible from the mouth of Jesus himself?


 Quran says in Surah 4:171

 O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger from Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His Messengers. Say not "Three": desist: It will be better for you: For Allah is One God: Glory be to Him: (Far Exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.

 
No Mary, no Jesus, no Holy Spirit, no Hindu trinity (Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva), and no lies!  All forms of trinity or any plurality of GOD Almighty are false and lies!
 
Originally posted by Jack Catholic



Matthew 28:19
" Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,"
 
Notice in the quoted passage the word, "name," a singular word referring to Allah, yet followed by three names:  1)  "Father,"  2) "Son,"  and 3) "Holy Spirit."  Since the beginning of the Christian faith, the Apostles and those whom they instructed have understood this to mean one God...in three persons.  This has never been understood by Catholics or Orthodox Christians to referr to three seperate gods, but rather one and only one God. 
 
What verses can be quoted from the Holy Qur'an to refer directly and clearly (without having to be interpreted) to this understanding of Allah?
 
Thanks for sharing from your wonderful faith,
 
Jack Catholic


 Matthew 28:19"... baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit..." This passage is a forgery.

 

“All but the most conservative of scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command (Matt. 28:19) was inserted later” (Tom Harper, For Christ’s Sake, p. 84)

"The historical riddle is not solved by Matthew 28:19, since, according to a wide scholarly consensus, it is not an authentic saying of Jesus, not even an elaboration of a Jesus-saying on baptism" (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 1, 1992, page 585).

"It has been customary to trace the institution of the practice (of baptism) to the words of Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19. But the authenticity of this passage has been challenged on historical as well as on textual grounds. It must be acknowledged that the formula of the threefold name, which is here enjoined, does not appear to have been employed by the primitive Church, which, so far as our information goes, baptized 'in' or 'into the name of Jesus' (or 'Jesus Christ' or Lord Jesus': Acts 2:38, 8:16, 10:48, 19:5, 1 Cor. 1:13, 15) (The Dictionary of the Bible, 1947, page 83).

Matthew 28:19, "the Church of the first days did not observe this world-wide command, even if they knew it. The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. In place of the words "baptizing... Spirit" we should probably read simply "into my name," i.e. (turn the nations) to Christianity, "in my name," i.e. (teach the nations) in my spirit" (Peake's Commentary on the Bible, 1929, page 723).

"It cannot be directly proved that Jesus instituted baptism, for Matthew 28:19 is not a saying of the Lord. The reason for this assertion are: (1) It is only a later stage of the tradition that represents the risen Christ as delivering speeches and giving commandments. Paul knows nothing of it. (2) The Trinitarian formula is foreign to the mouth of Jesus and has not the authority of the Apostolic age which it must have had if it had descended from Jesus himself. On the other hand, Paul knows of no other way of receiving the Gentiles into the Christian communities than by baptism, and it is highly probable that in the time of Paul all Jewish Christians were also baptized. We may perhaps assume that the practice of baptism was continued in consequence of Jesus' recognition of John the Baptist and his baptism, even after John himself had been removed. According to John 4:2, Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples under his superintendence. It is possible only with the help of tradition to trace back to Jesus a "Sacrament of Baptism," or an obligation to it ex necessitate salutis, through it is credible that tradition is correct here. Baptism in the Apostolic age was in the name of the Lord Jesus (1 Cor. 1:13; Acts 19:5). We cannot make out when the formula in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit emerged" (History of Dogma, Vol. 1, Adolph Harnack, 1958, page 79).

"The very account which tells us that at the last, after his resurrection, he commissioned his apostles to go and baptize among all nations (Mt 28:19) betrayed itself by speaking in the Trinitarian language of the next century, and compels us to see in it the ecclesiastical editor, and not the evangelist, much less the founder himself. No historical trace appears of this baptismal formula earlier that the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" (ch. 7:1,3 The Oldest Church Manuel, ed. Philip Schaff, 1887), and the first Apology of Justin (Apol. i. 61.) about the middle of the second century: and more than a century later, Cyprian found it necessary to insist upon the use of it instead of the older phrase baptized "into Christ Jesus," or into the "name of the Lord Jesus." (Gal. 3:27; Acts 19:5; 10:48. Cyprian Ep. 73, 16-18, has to convert those who still use the shorter form.) Paul alone, of the apostles, was baptized, ere he was "filled with the Holy Ghost;" and he certainly was baptized simply "into Christ Jesus." (Rom. 6:3) Yet the tri-personal form, unhistorical as it is, is actually insisted on as essential by almost every Church in Christendom, and, if you have not had it pronounced over you, the ecclesiastical authorities cast you out as a heathen man, and will accord to you neither Christian recognition in your life, nor Christian burial in your death. It is a rule which would condemn as invalid every recorded baptism performed by an apostle; for if the book of Acts may be trusted, the invariable usage was baptism "in the name of Christ Jesus," (Acts 2:38) and not "in the name of the father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." And doubtless the author (Luke) is as good a witness for the usage of his own time (about 115 A.D.) as for that of the period whereof he treats" (The Seat of Authority in Religion, James Martineau, 1905, page 568).

"It is clear, therefore, that of the MSS which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesarea in Palestine, some at least preserved the original reading, in which there was no mention either of Baptism or of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It had been conjectured by Dr. Davidson, Dr. Martineau, by the present Dean of Westminister, and by Prof. Harnack (to mention but a few names out of many), that here the received text, could not contain the very words of Jesus? This long before any one except Dr. Burgon, who kept the discovery to himself, had noticed the Eusebian form of the reading." "It is satisfactory to notice that Dr. Eberhard Nestle, in his new edition of the New Testament in Latin and Greek, furnishes the Eusebian reading in his critical apparatus, and that Dr. Sanday seems to lean to its acceptance" (History of New Testament Criticism, Conybeare, 1910, pages, 98-102, 111-112).

"Feine (PER3, XIX, 396 f) and Kattenbusch (Sch-Herz, I, 435 f. argue that the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19 is spurious. No record of the use of the Trinitarian formula can be discovered in the Acts or the epistles of the apostles" (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, James Orr, 1946, page 398).

Footnote to Matthew 28:19, It may be that this formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the liturgical usage established later in the primitive community. It will be remembered that the Acts speak of baptizing "in the name of Jesus", Acts 1:5 +. But whatever the variation on formula the underlying reality remains the same" (The Jerusalem Bible, 1966, Page 64).

Critical scholarship, on the whole, rejects the traditional attribution of the tripartite baptismal formula to Jesus and regards it as of later origin. Undoubtedly then the baptismal formula originally consisted of one part and it gradually developed into its tripartite form (The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Vol. 1, Harry Austryn Wolfson, 1964, pg 143). (online Source) 

There is no indication that “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” is one essence, Matthew is not speaking of trinity.

 

 Visit:Matthew 28:19 by biblicalunitarian


IP IP Logged
honeto
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 March 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2444
Quote honeto Replybullet Posted: 07 September 2010 at 9:55pm
Jack,
I find great discrepancies between the 27 and 28 chapters of Matthew. For example in 28:8So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him".
People would worship him only if he was God. And God would say so, right?
But when we go back to the 27th chapter we see that there was no such claim, rather a different claim, far different than 28:9.
Let us see:
27:11Meanwhile Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?"
      "Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied.
If you notice here only thing Jesus is claiming is to be the 'king of Jews'. Jews had many kings, I have never heard of Jews had many Gods?
 
Here is another verse: 37 "Above his head they placed the written charge against him: THIS IS JESUS, THE KING OF THE JEWS." See nomention of God or anything like that.
43He trusts in God. Let God rescue him now if he wants him, for he said, 'I am the Son of God.' "
 
So again, all of these verses from the 27 chapter give a complete opposite picture, when it comes to be worshipping Jesus in the 28 chapter.
Very interesting, something to ponder on Jack?
 
Hasan
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"
IP IP Logged
Jack Catholic
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 24 March 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 369
Quote Jack Catholic Replybullet Posted: 17 September 2010 at 11:43pm
Dear Mansoor_ali,
 
Thanks for sharing this.  I have not heard any of it before.  I'll research it out myself.
 
Thanks again,
 
Salaam Alaekum,
 
Jack Catholic
IP IP Logged
Jack Catholic
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 24 March 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 369
Quote Jack Catholic Replybullet Posted: 17 September 2010 at 11:51pm
Dear Hasan,
 
I have never thought about any difference between chapters 27 and 28 for the following reasons.  First of all, the Jews wanted to kill Jesus precisley because he claimed to be God (Allah).  To do such a thing was considered blasphemy, a crime punishable by stoning to death according to Mosaic Law.  The problem with carying out Mosaic Law was that the Romans would not allow any killing by any people or authority other than the representatives of the government of Rome.  That is why the questioning with Pontious pilate was regarding Jesus as a Political figure.  That was really all that Rome was concerned with.  Rome couldn't have cared less about some people's religion, so Jesus claiming to be a god would only cause the Romans to laugh, but not get Jesus put to death.  The Jewish leaders told the Romans that Jesus wanted to be king and that this put the political authority of Rome in jeopardy.  But Pontious Pilate did not find in Jesus any reason for Rome to be concerned.  So is the topic of chapter 27.
 
In Chapter 28 of Matthew, we have now Jewish followers of Jesus, and these people recognized value in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and Jesus' claim to be Allah meant something to them.  That is why they worshipped him.  There really is no discrepancy between these two chapters when you realize their contexts.  I hope you understand what I am trying to say to you.  Praise be to Allah,
 
Salaam Alaekum,
 
Jack Catholic 
IP IP Logged
Jack Catholic
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 24 March 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 369
Quote Jack Catholic Replybullet Posted: 18 September 2010 at 7:47am

Dear Mansoor_Ali,

I read all of your quotations regarding Matthew 28:19.  Are you aware that every single one of them is written by Protestant Christians?  There are over 3000 different Protestant Christian denominations out there in the world today, most of them no more than 100 years old, the oldest being no older than 500 years old, but all of them trying to prove that the Orthodox Catholic Churches are wrong.  The issue here is:  Only if the Orthodox Catholic Churches are wrong can the Protestant Christian Churches justify their existence.  So the branch of Protestantism that agrees with your claim that Matthew 28:19 was inserted later is called Unitarianism, and their main source of evidence comes from a misunderstanding of multiple passages on being baptized into Jesus mentioned in the Holy Bible.  Their interpretation of these passages, being misunderstood, pit them against Matthew 28:19 as contradiction.  The result is a need to either blame the Catholic Church for some alteration of the Holy Bible, or some other weird explanation.  But as always, understood the way that the Apostles meant them, we find that there really is no contradiction, and that history verifies the Holy Bible and the Catholic Church.  Read this quote from a Catholic source on the web. 

From Catholic Answers Library (www.catholicanswers.com)

 The parallelism of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is not unique to Matthew’s Gospel, but appears elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., 2 Cor. 13:14, Heb. 9:14), as well as in the writings of the earliest Christians, who clearly understood them in the sense that we do today—that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three divine persons who are one divine being (God).

From another Catholic source called the Didache: 

"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

About the Didache, it is a book that was never included in the Holy Bible because it did not fit with the purpose of assembling the books of the New Testament of the Holy Bible. But it does show historically that the Catholic Churches did baptize, “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” during the lifetime of the Apostles.  You can see that the Didache was written around 70 AD.  Jesus died around 35 AD, and St. Paul and St. Peter died around 52 AD.  Most of the Apostles were still alive during 70 AD, and even St. Thomas the Apostle establishing the Catholic Church in India had that community baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  Historically speaking, all those quotes you presented are wrong, I’m sorry to say.

About Baptizing in the name of Jesus verses baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, there is no contradiction or opposing sides for an Orthodox Catholic.  Baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is simply the wording used to baptize.  But being baptized into the name of Jesus has a whole different meaning all together.  To understand it, we must first recognize the imagery of the Christian New Testament.  The New Testament speaks of the people of God (a “body” of believers) as a body (group) of believers belonging to Jesus the Christ, or, in the exact wording of the New Testament, the “Body of Christ,” with Jesus as its “head.”  So when we see the words:  being baptized into the name of Jesus, what we are seeing is a phrase that tells us that when we are baptized, we belong to the body of believers who in turn belong to Jesus Christ:  called being baptized INTO Christ.  So you see, the two terms are not in contradiction to one another, but are references to two separate aspects of the same thing:  one is the wording used when we are baptized, and the other is what happens to us when we are baptized.  No contradiction, and no need to speculate or imagine that maybe one of the phrases was added at a later date.

I hope this helps you to understand Catholic teaching better.

Incidentally, I did mention Matthew 28:19 as evidence of the Holy Trinity and what it is because it is concise, but there is plenty more evidence in the Holy Bible of its existence and explaining what it is and what it is not.  It certainly is not three separate gods associated with one another, but rather is one God in three separate persons.  I know that the Holy Qur’an deals with the first of these two understandings, and in this the Catholic Church agrees with the Holy Qur’an.  What I want to know is if the Holy Qur’an deals with the second understanding of the Holy Trinity, which is what the Catholic Church (since the lifetime of Jesus) has taught.  Let me know…

Salaam Alaekum,

 

Jack Catholic

IP IP Logged
honeto
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 March 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2444
Quote honeto Replybullet Posted: 18 September 2010 at 9:02pm
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Dear Hasan,
 
I have never thought about any difference between chapters 27 and 28 for the following reasons.  First of all, the Jews wanted to kill Jesus precisley because he claimed to be God (Allah).  To do such a thing was considered blasphemy, a crime punishable by stoning to death according to Mosaic Law.  The problem with carying out Mosaic Law was that the Romans would not allow any killing by any people or authority other than the representatives of the government of Rome.  That is why the questioning with Pontious pilate was regarding Jesus as a Political figure.  That was really all that Rome was concerned with.  Rome couldn't have cared less about some people's religion, so Jesus claiming to be a god would only cause the Romans to laugh, but not get Jesus put to death.  The Jewish leaders told the Romans that Jesus wanted to be king and that this put the political authority of Rome in jeopardy.  But Pontious Pilate did not find in Jesus any reason for Rome to be concerned.  So is the topic of chapter 27.
 
In Chapter 28 of Matthew, we have now Jewish followers of Jesus, and these people recognized value in the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and Jesus' claim to be Allah meant something to them.  That is why they worshipped him.  There really is no discrepancy between these two chapters when you realize their contexts.  I hope you understand what I am trying to say to you.  Praise be to Allah,
 
Salaam Alaekum,
 
Jack Catholic 
Dear Jack,
I do see discrepancy when I see one verse shows that Jesus was worshipping and calling someone God. Then one verse says that Jesus was worshipped, which is only for God. And another verse mentions that Jesus is son of God, when God does not have children, no son or daughter, no mother and no father.
When you just examine that with logic only, and you know those three ideas come from the same book, it becomes very clear that they are certainly not in agreement with each other. At least that's how I see them.
Hasan
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"
IP IP Logged
Mansoor_ali
Male  Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 September 2008
Location: Pakistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 584
Quote Mansoor_ali Replybullet Posted: 19 September 2010 at 5:03pm
Originally posted by Jack Catholic


From another Catholic source called the Didache: 

"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

About the Didache, it is a book that was never included in the Holy Bible because it did not fit with the purpose of assembling the books of the New Testament of the Holy Bible. But it does show historically that the Catholic Churches did baptize, “in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” during the lifetime of the Apostles.  You can see that the Didache was written around 70 AD.  Jesus died around 35 AD, and St. Paul and St. Peter died around 52 AD.  Most of the Apostles were still alive during 70 AD, and even St. Thomas the Apostle establishing the Catholic Church in India had that community baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  Historically speaking, all those quotes you presented are wrong, I’m sorry to say.

 I am quoting response in the words of brother Abdullah Smith.

The Didache never equates the “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit”; they are distinguished by three separate dips, which denote three separate Persons.

 But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head, into
"the name of Father, and of Son, and of Holy Spirit." (Didache 7:1)

The “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” are not equal because the candidate is dipped three times, and not once, it should be once if they are equal, but they are not.

The Trinitarian Baptismal is clearly absent from the New Testament.(Acts 2:38,Acts 10:48,Acts 19:5,Acts 22:16,Romans 6:3,Galatians 3:27,James 2:7)

The Father and Holy Spirit are absent from the above texts, so the Baptismal formula is doubtful and erroneous.  The Trinitarian Baptism was not established until the 4th century.

"The New Testament knows only baptism in the name of Jesus... which still occurs even in the second and third centuries" (Schaff-herzog Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge, Volume 1, page 435--1966 edition)

"The formula used was 'in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ' or some synonymous phrase; there is no evidence for the use of the triune name." (James Hastings, Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, Volume 2, page 384 --1958 edition)

The trinitarian formula and triune immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning, nor did they always go together." (The Encyclopaedia Britannica  Volume 3, page 365 --1910 edition)

"We gather from Acts 19:4, that John had merely baptized in the name of the coming Messiah, without identifying him with Jesus of Nazareth. The apostolic age supplied this , and the normal use during it seems to have been 'into Christ identification Jesus',or 'in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ' or ' of the Lord Jesus Christ.'" (The Encyclopaedia Britannica, ibid, p. 368)

"Moreover, there is no mention in the New Testament of any one being baptized into the name of the Trinity." (James Hastings, A Dictionary of the Bible, Volume 1, page 241--1906 edition)

"With the early disciples generally baptism was ‘in the name of Jesus Christ.'" (Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, page 87--1957 edition)

"In the name of Jesus Christ or of the Lord Jesus. The former expression is used in Acts 2:38 and 10:48. The latter is used in Acts 8:16 and 19:5. See also Acts 22:16... From these passages, and from Paul's words in the 1st Corinthians 1:13 ('Was Paul crucified for you, or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?), it is natural to conclude that baptism was administered in the earliest times 'in the name of Jesus Christ', or that 'of the Lord Jesus.' This view is confirmed by the fact that the earliest forms of the baptismal confession appear to have been single--not triple, as was the later creed." (Encyclopaedia Biblica, Volume 1, page 473--1899 edition)

Just because the Didache applies the formula “Father, Son and Holy Ghost” does not make them equal.

Since Matthew 28:19 is a forgery, Didache 7:1 must be a forgery as well.

In fact, the Didache must be rejected because it follows Matthew 28:19.

This Church manual of primitive Christianity, or some section of it, also bears a longer title. "The Teaching of the Lord, through the Twelve Apostles, to the Gentiles", which gives us a clue to its nature. It may be a work conceived against the background of Mt. 28:18-20, [1]

The verse 1 John 5:7 states the “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one”, but the Didache never dares to mention this.

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (a forgery)

In contrast, the Didache never equates the “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” because he was not speaking of trinity.

Regarding Matthew 28:19, the author Akbarally Meherally states:

Often this particular verse is quoted to support the Nicene Creed of Trinity. It is argued that Jesus himself had said to baptize all the nations in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and thus the doctrine of Trinity stands endorsed by the Scripture and the Christ.

Of course, the ceremony of Baptism does mention the three names and in the same sequence and order as the Trinity, but the most important factor is the status. Where does it say that the three identities are co-equal? It could very well be a sequence for religious hierarchy in faith. In the political arena there could be similar sequence of command, for example; An Emperor, his Minister and his Military Commander. But, the Emperor and his appointee – the Minister, are not equal. The Minister, by the virtue of being so opted, has a better status than the rest of the subjects. He can be considered as a chosen citizen and be so honoured. But, the Emperor would not condone his subjects if they were to call or glorify the chosen citizen as Emperor. (Understanding the Bible through Koranic Messages, p. 52)

The Didache does not mention the trinity, it refers to “Father, Son, and Holy Ghost” in the sequence of religious hierarchy.

Jesus did not return during the lifetime of his people. The widespread anticipation ended with sheer disappointment.

At first, the Christian community expected an imminent return of Christ. We are told that during the first century AD, the Christian community looked forward to the imminent return of Christ in glory and the establishment of the Kingdom. This hope carried on in the second century. When the second coming failed to occur, the church organized itself as a permanent institution under the leadership of its bishops. (Misha’al Ibn Abdullah Al-Kadhi, What did Jesus Really Say?)

Second Thessalonians was forged in Paul’s name shortly after his death or during the late stages of his imprisonment in Rome. Scholars believe it was written to offset the disappointment and unrest then rising in the Christian community resulting from the unfulfilled promise of an imminent second coming (2 Thes. 2:1-8).(Eddy, Patricia G., Who Tampered With the Bible?, p. 184)

FACTS ABOUT THE DIDACHE:


Jesus is called thy Servant of God, so the Didache denies the godhood of Jesus:

We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name which You didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You modest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Thou, Master almighty, didst create all things for Thy name's sake; You gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; (1)

The Didache was not mentioned until the late 2nd century, so it must be rejected.

The author is anonymous:


Scholars suggest that the Didache reflects a backward church in a remote situation, Syria and Palestine being the most favoured with Egypt also as a possible source. It reflects a situation in which an undisclosed number of scattered rural Christian communities are given advice on a wide variety of practical subjects by an unknown author who uses the pseudonyms of the Twelve Apostles. This may suggest that no Christian leader had sufficient authority to issue these directives under his own name.

The original text is lost:


This work became known for the first time in the Constantinople Manuscripts discovered by Archbishop Bryennios in 1875 and published 1883. It has been dated at 1056 CE. and is kept in Jerusalem.

It was then possible to go back and see that the Didache in Greek was actually to be found (in a somewhat revised form) in Book VII of the 4th century Egyptian Constitutions. In addition there are fragments in Greek (Oxyrhynchus Papyrus 1782), Coptic, and Ethiopic, and a complete Gregorian version. For the 'Two Ways' section there is (besides the witness of Barnabas 18-20) a Latin version (the Doctrina) the 4th century Apostolic Church Order, and three other manuals of the 4th century or later.

We cannot be sure that the 1056 MS represents the 'original' Didache or even what 'original' means in this context. As with the NT we are dealing with textual variants, but "with a developing tradition, and our various witnesses to the Didache merely afford us glimpses of this tradition at various stages." (online Source)

The Didache never mentions the Gospels, and is totally silent on Jesus’ life.





IP IP Logged
Page  of 5 Next >>
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.

Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com

Advertisement:



Sponsored by:
Islamicity Membership Program:
IslamiCity Donation Program  http://www.islamicity.com/Donate
IslamiCity Arabic eLearning http://www.islamiCity.com/ArabAcademy
Complete Domain & Hosting Solutions www.icDomain.com
Home for Muslim Tunes www.icTunes.com
Islamic Video Collections www.islamiTV.com
IslamiCity Marriage Site www.icMarriage.com