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: God’s written instructions for life. Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 40 Next >>
Author Message
honeto
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 March 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2397
Quote honeto Replybullet Posted: 21 July 2011 at 5:30pm
Hi Kish,
I think you are being too judgmental without fully understanding the answers. 
I will try my take on some of the issues you seem to have.
Let me say this first, as this is an Islamic forum you will hear answers from Islamic perspective. And since Islam teaches us to follow logic, common sense, thoughtfulness and truth in our practices, things should make sense to every man of faith regarless of their way of belief as long as it is based on same basic principals.
To your first point in your post above I would say this:
God has sent his guidance for mankind since Adam. Different times different guides God sent with his word of guidance. That is why we see many names of prophets in scriptures.
Through the Quran, I learn that for each time or era there was a prophet to guide people. Those people would be judged according to the critarian or guide sent for their time.
According to that understanding, for example, Prophet David (pbuh) was sent to guide people of his time and until the next prophet would be sent. Those who would beleive in him to be God's prophet would be the true beleivers, those who would not would be the disbelievers, and once he has given the prophethood and a book, the previous prophet and book do not apply no more. Same way when God sent Jesus (pbuh) as a prophet to guide people the previous prophet's era had ended. So those who believed in him as God's guide and in his message as God's word became true beleivers, those who did not became disbeleivers regardless of what they call themselves. On the same note when God sent Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) and sent through him the Quran, those who believed in him as a prophet and word of God sent through him as "word of God" became true beleivers and those who rejected him as such and rejected God's word sent through him became as disbeleivers regardless of what they call themselves.
So answering your first two lines, Quran does not say the way you are saying. Quran says that Torah, Gospel and other previous scriptures were sent by God, each for a time. And only after people left what God sent, whether by altering it, forgetting it or modifying it to fit their way, He being the Merciful, sent us (humanity) again his guidance in the form of a new and pure word of guidance from Him. Once we received a new and pure word of God, it is the one according to which we will be judged, even if we do not beleive in it. We will not be judged by an older scripture as the Quran is the last one sent for all of us that live or born after its arrival, and we will be judged by its standards.
We do acknowledge, beleive and love all of the propehts and what they broughts as word of God, because God has told us to do so as part of our beleif in His word. The Quran, as the pure word of God is complete for a beleiver to live this life sucessfully as well as to work toward the next, a desireable hereafter "the Salvation".  
 
On  the issue of Gospel being sent to fulfill the Law, do you think these things mantioned in the OT really could be ever fulfilled or that this was part of the fulfillment what Jesus meant, I will just quote a few of these OT quotes, there are many others like them:

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)

You should not let a sorceress live. (Exodus 22:17 NAB)

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death. (Leviticus 20:27 NAB)

If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

A priest's daughter who loses her honor by committing fornication and thereby dishonors her father also, shall be burned to death. (Leviticus 21:9 NAB)

Or do you think that these are not God's words?

Let us see before we go any further so we benefit from this talk and not get cofused with dealing with too many issues at a time!
Hasan


Edited by honeto - 21 July 2011 at 5:43pm
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"
IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1941
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 21 July 2011 at 7:57pm
Originally posted by Kish

So, what you are saying according to the Quran the writings of the Holy Bible are written in falsehood although there are some truths to them (According to the Quran)? That is really odd because neither Jesus nor his Apostles ever mentioned errors or falsehoods in the previous Holy writings only in some of their beliefs and later teachings, a big, big difference.

Again, you are basing your view of what "Jesus mentioned" on the assumption that the Gospel accounts about what Jesus "said" are accurate.  You have presented no proof for that. 

The Quran states that God sent the Torah and Gospel.  These were true revelations, with no falsehood.  Falsehood was added to them by people over the course of centuries.  Hence, this necessitated the sending of another revelation, this one being the final one. 


Originally posted by Kish

I can, if you’re basing it on the Quran written centuries later after the completion of the Gospel. Honestly, which sounds odder to you decades or centuries?

The difference is that you do not yet know which book to follow.  Wasn't that the whole reason you opened this thread?  So, the question is why do you assume the Gospels are accurate? 

To answer your question, the Quran is not a biography about Jesus (pbuh).  The Gospels, on the other hand, claimed to be accounts of Jesus' ministry based on eye-witness testimony.  So, if anything, it is the Gospels which need to prove their authority on this matter.  If it cannot be proven, then we can safely move the Gospels aside. 

Originally posted by Kish

Besides, Muhammad died before the completion of the Quran.
  

Incorrect.  It was finished before Muhammad's death.  It was only compiled into book form after his death.  There is a difference.  

Originally posted by Kish

Well, just as Muslims believe the Quran were inspired so do Christians the Gospel and Jews the Torah, so let’s not beat a dead horse on this post but deal with logic please. The unique difference I would say is that Muhammad specifically mentions the Torah, Psalms and Gospel not the other way around.

OK, let's "deal with logic".  Are you saying you are a Jew or a Christian?  How could that be if you opened this thread to determine where you could find "God's instructions for life".  So, logically speaking, how can you be certain that the Torah or the Gospels are "inspired"?

The point I was making was that the scriptures, according to the Islamic view, were not "inspired".  Inspiration means that people wrote the words under divine guidance.  The Islamic view is that God literally dictated His word to mankind through His prophets and messengers. 

Originally posted by Kish

Wouldn’t you say that puts the Quran in a very questionable and awkward position, especially considering the verses from the Quran itself regarding the previous scriptures?
     

Why?  Actually, since the Quran maintains (regardless of your opinions) that the Torah and the Gospel have been altered and historical evidence exists to support this, I think the Quran is in a very strong position.  As an example of the evidence, consider that scholars largely agree that the modern version of the Torah was written by multiple authors.  This theory is called the "Documentary Hypothesis".   

Originally posted by Kish

First - Matthew 5:17 “Do not think I (Jesus) came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I came, not to destroy, but to fulfill; (No error, no falsehoods and no need to destroy it)

Second – Luke 4:43 Jesus said: “To other cities I must declare the good news of the kingdom of God, because for this I was sent forth.”

Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines “Gospel” as “the message concerning Christ, the kingdom of God, and salvation.”

Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words says that in the Christian Greek Scriptures (the “New Testament”), the Gospel “denotes the good tidings of the Kingdom of God and of salvation through Christ, to be received by faith, on the basis of His expiatory death.”

Yet, we also find in another Gospel, the following:

"2 At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. 3 The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group 4 and said to Jesus, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. 5 In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?” 6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

   But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. 7 When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground." (John 8:2-8)

I use this passage for two reasons.  First, it contradicts the passage from Matthew that you presented which seems to say that Jesus (pbuh) did not abolish the Law of Moses (the Christians would disagree with you but that is not important here).  In this passage from John, Jesus refuses to stone the adulteress as the Law of Moses required.  This would indicate that Jesus was abolishing the Law.  Second, I present this passage as evidence of the Gospels' corruption.  This passage, known as the Pericope de Adultera, is considered spurious and most scholars believe it was not part of the original copy of John's Gospel.  According to Bart Ehrman:


"Despite its popularity, the account is found in only one passage of the New Testament, in John 7:53-8:12, and it appears not to have been original even there" (Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, p. 63).

Originally posted by Kish

Some of their beliefs yes, but the Holy writings of the Torah, Psalms and Gospel, no; it all depended on what Jewish set you spoke with regarding their belief. Plus, if you’re comparing Judaism and Christianity to the Quran it would appear to be blasphemous, their teachings are much different from Islam, it’s like night and day. That would totally be understandable, logically speaking.

I disagree.  If anything, the Torah and Quran are more similar than the Torah and the Gospels.  The Torah and Quran deny the teachings of original sin, blood sacrifice for salvation, and the incarnation of God in human form.  It is for this reason that Jews are forbidden to enter churches, according to the rulings of most rabbis.  However, Jews are allowed to enter mosques [1].  The reason given is the theological similarities between Judaism and Islam.  So, logically speaking, it seems that comparing Christianity and Judaism is a better example of comparing "night and day".

Originally posted by Kish

Again, you’re expecting the Quran to uphold these books when it appears from what you’re explaining that they diametrically oppose each other because of their teaching of Jesus being God son or a god himself. Why would the previous scriptures of long ago all of a sudden be changed because of this one much later book the Quran?

Who says they were changed because of the Quran?  I don't fully understand your question. 

Originally posted by Kish

As you already mentioned the Old Testament upholds the New Testament and the New Testament the Old, why would it be concerned with upholding anything else other than what it was meant to do?

I never said this.  I said the Gospel writers believed the two were in agreement.  I didn't say I agreed with them.  Furthermore, you pointed out yourself previously how the matter of the afterlife first appears in the Gospels and not the Torah.  This would be a glaring difference, would it not?  So, how can you maintain that the "Old Testament upholds the New Testament" and vice-versa?  The Jews would definitely disagree with you here.  The fact is that the NT flat-out contradicts the OT is several areas.  The most important and glaring difference is in regards to God and whether He has a son who is really Himself.  The OT denies that God is a trinity, while the NT tries hard to say that God is a trinity. Of course, the latter is really up to interpretation and whether you actually believe the trinitarian verses are authentic or not.  Many, if not all, of them are not authentic.  There are many other examples of contradictions between the OT and the NT.  In light of these, I have a hard time accepting that the two uphold each other.

Originally posted by Kish

You’re mixing apples (Bible) with oranges (Quran) you will always tell them apart!
     

Except that the "apples" actually have some grapes in them (NT), so we can actually tell all three apart, although upon comparison, the apples are more similar to the oranges, but the grapes are not.  Even so, it can be said (without any intention of being offensive) that the apples and the grapes are a little rotten (corrupted).  Again, I don't say this to be offensive to anyone.  I am just using your analogy in light of the facts I presented above.

Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

IP IP Logged
Kish
 
Guest Group
Guest Group
Avatar

Joined: 07 July 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 237
Quote Kish Replybullet Posted: 22 July 2011 at 12:38pm

Originally posted by honeto

We will not be judged by an older scripture as the Quran is the last one sent for all of us that live or born after its arrival, and we will be judged by its standards.

The Holy Scriptures would disagree, as you would agree that the oneness of God establishes itself within the Torah first, Psalms second, Gospel third and the Quran fourth if you will. What you are misunderstanding is that God’s principles NEVER change but his LAWS could. Life’s key principles, of course, are spiritual.

Isaiah 40:8 “The green grass has dried up, the blossom has withered; but as for the word of our God, it will last to time indefinite.”

Divine principles do not become outdated or pass away. The inspired words of the prophet Isaiah proves true.

Originally posted by honeto

 The Quran, as the pure word of God is complete for a beleiver to live this life sucessfully as well as to work toward the next, a desireable hereafter "the Salvation".

Which I respect, however Christians alike view the Gospel as pure but see Jesus as their only salvation, which becomes a major issue not because of what the Quran says about Jesus but what it failed to say about Jesus.

1 John 4:14, 15 In addition, we ourselves have beheld and are bearing witness that the Father has sent forth his Son as Savior of the world. 15 Whoever makes the confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God remains in union with such one and he in union with God.  

Acts 5:31 God exalted this one as Chief Agent and Savior to his right hand, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.  

This is the whole point of the Gospel (Good News) which the Quran acknowledges but rejects this fundamental truth.

Originally posted by honeto

On  the issue of Gospel being sent to fulfill the Law, do you think these things mantioned in the OT really could be ever fulfilled or that this was part of the fulfillment what Jesus meant, I will just quote a few of these OT quotes, there are many others like them:

First you must understand the purpose of the Law and why it was giving ONLY to the Nation of Israel, do you know why? Second question which you posed, did Israel fulfill the law perfectly’? Nonetheless, Jesus fulfilled the law perfectly; the Gospel was only the forum that was used to get it out there to the people after Jesus, Muhammad and millions of others who would benefit from its message.

Would you say Muhammad benefited from his message, most Muslims would agree that he did, why else would it be mentioned over and over again in the Quran.  

If most if not all Muslims would agree, how did salvation move away from Jesus and his followers to Muhammad and his followers?  

Matthew 1:21 She (Mary) will give birth to a son, and you must call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins

Acts 4:12 Furthermore, there is no salvation in anyone else, for there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.

Again, Divine principles do not become outdated or pass away and salvation is a divine principle.

Do you believe that God’s written instruction for life (Salvation) can be in both the Holy Scriptures and the Quran? From the points that were made in the scriptures above Christians would say no, and rightly so.

My question to Hasan is, did salvation come to all mankind after Jesus or after Muhammad?

Kish



Edited by Kish - 22 July 2011 at 12:43pm
IP IP Logged
Kish
 
Guest Group
Guest Group
Avatar

Joined: 07 July 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 237
Quote Kish Replybullet Posted: 22 July 2011 at 7:44pm

Originally posted by islamispeace

Again, you are basing your view of what "Jesus mentioned" on the assumption that the Gospel accounts about what Jesus "said" are accurate.  You have presented no proof for that. 
 

Actually, using deductive reasoning I’m basing it on the Gospel and the Quran, two revered books of faith as my premise. Why would either holy book speak inaccurately of Jesus unless there is a motive, which is what the word assumption implies?    

Luke 1:1-3 Whereas many have undertaken to compile a statement of the facts that are given full credence among us, 2 just as those who from [the] beginning became eyewitnesses and attendants of the message delivered these to us, 3 I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them in logical order to you, most excellent The·ophi·lus, 4 that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally

Acts 1:3 To these also by many positive proofs he showed himself alive after he had suffered, being seen by them throughout forty days and telling the things about the kingdom of God.

(S) 4:162 But those among them who are well-grounded in knowledge, and the believers, believe in what hath been revealed to thee and what was revealed before thee:

Without beating a dead horse, based on what I’ve shown on this thread using both holy books the Gospel is an accurate account of Jesus.

If there’s foul play then why would the Quran say the Gospel is a book of “guidance and light” logically can it be both? If cannot be both, why would the Quran contradict itself and the Gospel? On the other hand the teaching of Jesus and salvation is consistent within the Gospel.

The difference is that you do not yet know which book to follow.

Originally posted by islamispeace

The difference is that you do not yet know which book to follow.

For argument sake if I’m wrong whatever book I follow, that doesn’t make you right, logic is logic just as truth is truth based on arguments and statements. Right now what I’m getting is illogical reasoning based on your explanation of the Quran and what it has to say about the Gospel, it is inconsistent with itself and the Gospel in which it acknowledges.  My premise based on the Gospel being accurate is not an assumption but a fact based on the evidence of both the Bible and the Quran. What you have presented as your defense is the very book that denies its facts, doesn’t that defy logic?  

And on top of that, you sincerely feel that the Gospel which was completed around the end of the first century/beginning of the second century and was accepted as a collection by the middle of the second century has to prove itself when the Quran itself was not even a whisper? We are talking about 1,000 years later when the Quran was completed? But, yet the Gospel has to prove its authority on the matter, what’s wrong with that logic?

In any case in the 19th century, critics began to promote the view that none of the Gospels were written before the middle of the second century C.E. and as you said “were moved to the side”

However, discovery of the Diatessaron and commentaries on it in Arabic, Armenian, Greek, and Latin led Bible scholar Sir Frederic Kenyon to write: “These discoveries finally disposed of any doubt as to what the Diatessaron was, and proved that by about A.D. 170 the four canonical Gospels held an undisputed pre-eminence over all other narratives of our Saviour’s life.”

Professor F. F. Bruce observes: “One of the strong points in the original apostolic preaching is the confident appeal to the knowledge of the hearers; they not only said, ‘We are witnesses of these things,’ but also, ‘As you yourselves also know’ (Acts 2:22).”

On that note it’s Muslims and not Quran that has to disprove the authenticity of the Gospel for just these four reasons alone.

(1)    What eyewitnesses had seen and herd

(2)    What the Quran itself has confirmed about the Gospel

(3)    The completion of the Gospel and its acceptance

(4)    What discoveries themselves have shown about the Gospel

Originally posted by islamispeace

The point I was making was that the scriptures, according to the Islamic view, were not "inspired"

Point taken

Originally posted by islamispeace

As an example of the evidence, consider that scholars largely agree that the modern version of the Torah was written by multiple authors.  This theory is called the "Documentary Hypothesis".

Not for nothing but if I’m going to discuss theories I’d rather talk about evolution that also is not scientifically accurate, which I’m sure you would agree.

Regarding the “Law” you failed to realize that Jesus did fulfill the law by keeping it perfectly therefore the law was no longer binding. It was not until after Jesus’ death that the Law covenant was taken away (nailed above his head).

Colossians 2:13 Furthermore, though YOU were dead in YOUR trespasses and in the uncircumcised state of YOUR flesh, [God] made YOU alive together with him. He kindly forgave us all our trespasses 14 and blotted out the handwritten document against us, which consisted of decrees and which was in opposition to us; and He has taken it out of the way by nailing it to the torture stake.

Whether you agree or not, everything as you can see is very, very well documented! Christians are under a new law, “the law of the Christ.” (Galatians 6:2) The former Law covenant given through Moses to Israel came to an end when Jesus’ death fulfilled it as the scripture (Colossians) denotes above.

As far as the spurious or uncanonical written you quoted, they are just that, uncanonical. Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent (1546). Catholic writers refer to these books as deuterocanonical, meaning “of the second (or later) canon,” as distinguished from protocanonical. However, the Catholic Church, following Augustine’s lead, included such additional writings in the canon of sacred books determined by the Council of Carthage in 397 C.E.

Originally posted by islamispeace

 I said the Gospel writers believed the two were in agreement.  I didn't say I agreed with them.

Whether you or I agree (Which I do BTW) or not that is beside the point, they were accepted as canon. There is nothing anyone can do about it, 20 Centuries later. As far as the trinity, you will never even find that word in the NT so there goes another theory up in smoke.

Originally posted by islamispeace

 Even so, it can be said (without any intention of being offensive) that the apples and the grapes are a little rotten (corrupted)

I have no qualms in disagreeing with you here except adding the oranges as well.

According to the Gospel this was bound to happen as prophesied by Jesus.

Matthew 13: 16-20 “Be on the watch for the false prophets that come to YOU in sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. 16 By their fruits YOU will recognize them. Never do people gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, do they? 17 Likewise every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit; 18 a good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, neither can a rotten tree produce fine fruit. 19 Every tree not producing fine fruit gets cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Really, then, by their fruits YOU will recognize those [men].  

So, I pose the same question to you as I pose to Hasan, did salvation come after Jesus or after Muhammad?



Edited by Kish - 22 July 2011 at 7:50pm
IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1941
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 24 July 2011 at 11:36am
Originally posted by Kish

Without beating a dead horse, based on what I’ve shown on this thread using both holy books the Gospel is an accurate account of Jesus.

If there’s foul play then why would the Quran say the Gospel is a book of “guidance and light” logically can it be both? If cannot be both, why would the Quran contradict itself and the Gospel? On the other hand the teaching of Jesus and salvation is consistent within the Gospel.

The difference is that you do not yet know which book to follow.


You can only conclude this if you ignore all the facts.  The Quran very clearly spells it out that the previous scriptures are not in pristine condition.  Ignoring this fact and clinging to other verses by themselves will obviously lead to confusion, which is what you here. 

As I have said several times now, when the Quran speaks positively of the Torah and Gospel, it is referring to the original revelations, not the edited versions.  Once you understand this, you will how see misguided your question is. 

Originally posted by Kish

For argument sake if I’m wrong whatever book I follow, that doesn’t make you right, logic is logic just as truth is truth based on arguments and statements. Right now what I’m getting is illogical reasoning based on your explanation of the Quran and what it has to say about the Gospel, it is inconsistent with itself and the Gospel in which it acknowledges.  My premise based on the Gospel being accurate is not an assumption but a fact based on the evidence of both the Bible and the Quran. What you have presented as your defense is the very book that denies its facts, doesn’t that defy logic?

I am giving you the Islamic perspective, because I am a Muslim.  You asked the question where you could find God's written instructions.  Obviously, as a Muslim, I believe you can find them in the Quran and the Hadiths.  I also said that if you want to learn about other perspectives, you should go ask experts on those perspectives.  For example, I said that if you want to get the Jewish perspective on the afterlife, you should ask a Jewish scholar.  But, I have also given you the proofs of why I believe the Quran is right.     

Your view on "logic" is a tad skewed.  First of all, using the Bible to prove the Bible's accuracy is a circular argument.  That is not logical.  Second, as I have shown multiple times, the Quran does not say that the Torah and the Gospel that we have today are authoritative.  It routinely criticizes the beliefs of the Jews and Christians which can be found in their scriptures.  How then can one maintain that the Quran upholds the two?  You will also notice that the Quran refers to the "Gospel" (in the singular) and not "Gospels" (in the plural).  No where does it say the "Gospel according to Matthew/Mark/Luke/John" is "guidance and light".  And no where does it refer to the other books of the New Testament, such as the letters of Paul and the Book of Revelation. 

Originally posted by Kish

And on top of that, you sincerely feel that the Gospel which was completed around the end of the first century/beginning of the second century and was accepted as a collection by the middle of the second century has to prove itself when the Quran itself was not even a whisper? We are talking about 1,000 years later when the Quran was completed? But, yet the Gospel has to prove its authority on the matter, what’s wrong with that logic?
  

1000 years later?  What are you talking about?  The Quran was completed in 632 CE, within the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).  The Gospels were not fully accepted until at least 150 CE, more than 120 years after Jesus (pbuh).  Given these facts, of course I feel that the Gospels have more to prove than the Quran.  Furthermore, the Gospels present a Jesus who is both human and divine.  This is a new and extraordinary concept and one which requires extraordinary evidence. 

Originally posted by Kish

However, discovery of the Diatessaron and commentaries on it in Arabic, Armenian, Greek, and Latin led Bible scholar Sir Frederic Kenyon to write: “These discoveries finally disposed of any doubt as to what the Diatessaron was, and proved that by about A.D. 170 the four canonical Gospels held an undisputed pre-eminence over all other narratives of our Saviour’s life.”
  

What does this prove about the authenticity of the Gospels?  I never disputed that the Gospels became accepted by the mid-2nd century.  The question is why did it take so long?  You also ignore the fact that the Diatessaron, as late as it was, was an edited version of the Gospels, all rolled into one.  It has additions and omissions which differ from the Gospels.  How this proves the Gospels to be accurate, historical accounts of Jesus is beyond me.  

Originally posted by Kish

On that note it’s Muslims and not Quran that has to disprove the authenticity of the Gospel for just these four reasons alone.

(1)    What eyewitnesses had seen and herd

(2)    What the Quran itself has confirmed about the Gospel

(3)    The completion of the Gospel and its acceptance

(4)    What discoveries themselves have shown about the Gospel

First, I have already provided some evidence to prove the corruption of the Gospels.  Second, I have already refuted #2 several times.  Third, #1, #3 and #4 are non-sequiturs which you have yet to prove.  Which eye-witnesses are you referring to?  Of the 4 Gospels, only two were purportedly written by alleged eye-witnesses and of those, it is believed by scholars that the Gospel of Matthew used Mark as its template.  John's Gospel is so different that scholars like Geza Vermes tend to disregard it completely (see "The Authentic Gospel of Jesus").  When was the Gospel(s) actually completed?  What "discoveries" (besides the historically late Diatesseron) are you referring to? 

Originally posted by Kish

Not for nothing but if I’m going to discuss theories I’d rather talk about evolution that also is not scientifically accurate, which I’m sure you would agree.

Now you are resorting to special pleading.  The Documentary Hypothesis is just as good a theory as saying that the Torah and Gospels are accurate and free of any editing.

Originally posted by Kish

Regarding the “Law” you failed to realize that Jesus did fulfill the law by keeping it perfectly therefore the law was no longer binding. It was not until after Jesus’ death that the Law covenant was taken away (nailed above his head).
  

How did he "fulfill" the Law?  If anything, the Gospels say that he broke the Law on many occasions and so did his disciples.  The Pericope de Adultera, if it actually happened, would be proof that he did not fulfill the Law.  Of course, since scholars believe the Pericope is unreliable, it probably did not happen and so we have a Gospel which recounts an unreliable story which also happens to contradict the other Gospels' claim that Jesus fulfilled the Law.  Furthermore, we have here yet another example of how the Gospels contradict the Old Testament, since the Book of Isaiah says that the covenant was to be kept forever:

""As for me, this is my covenant with them," says the LORD. "My Spirit, who is on you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will not depart from your mouth, or from the mouths of your children, or from the mouths of their descendants from this time on and forever," says the LORD." (Isaiah 59:21)

Originally posted by Kish

Whether you agree or not, everything as you can see is very, very well documented! Christians are under a new law, “the law of the Christ.” (Galatians 6:2) The former Law covenant given through Moses to Israel came to an end when Jesus’ death fulfilled it as the scripture (Colossians) denotes above.

Well documented or not, this contradicts the Old Testament, as shown above.

Originally posted by Kish

As far as the spurious or uncanonical written you quoted, they are just that, uncanonical. Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent (1546). Catholic writers refer to these books as deuterocanonical, meaning “of the second (or later) canon,” as distinguished from protocanonical. However, the Catholic Church, following Augustine’s lead, included such additional writings in the canon of sacred books determined by the Council of Carthage in 397 C.E.
 

I never referred to the apocryphal books.  I referred to a popular passage from the Gospel of John which historical evidence suggests was not in the original Gospel but was added later.  If this is not proof of corruption, then I don't know what is. 

Originally posted by Kish

Whether you or I agree (Which I do BTW) or not that is beside the point, they were accepted as canon. There is nothing anyone can do about it, 20 Centuries later. As far as the trinity, you will never even find that word in the NT so there goes another theory up in smoke.

Yes, they were accepted by 2nd century Christians who were not alive when Jesus preached.  That does not prove their authenticity. 

As far as the trinity is concerned, you are correct that it is not found in the New Testament.  But, the same Christians who you say accepted the Gospels as accurate also accepted the trinity as the true teaching.  Why do you take their word for it when it comes to the Gospels' accuracy but not for their acceptance of the trinity?  For sure, the trinity was invented by the Church fathers, but it was done to harmonize the seemingly blasphemous verses from the Gospels which showed Jesus as a god.  Obviously, they could not say that there were multiple gods, so they invented the concept of triunity to harmonize the verses and declare themselves to be monotheists. 

Originally posted by Kish

I have no qualms in disagreeing with you here except adding the oranges as well.

Except that you have not shown any evidence of the rotting of the "oranges".  Just saying so does not make it so.

Originally posted by Kish

So, I pose the same question to you as I pose to Hasan, did salvation come after Jesus or after Muhammad?

Brother Hasan has already answered your question.  Jesus (pbuh) was sent only to the Jews.  If they believed in him, they would be saved.  Those who took him as a god were disbelievers and will not be saved.  Muhammad (pbuh) was sent to all mankind, and so everyone must believe in him and his message in order to be saved.  Belief in all the prophets is a requirement for salvation, but the Quran supersedes the previous revelations.       

Before I close, I noticed you had nothing to say about the points I raised concerning the differences between the Old Testament and the New Testament.  These differences categorically refute the claim that the two uphold each other. 


Edited by islamispeace - 24 July 2011 at 11:40am
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

IP IP Logged
honeto
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 March 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2397
Quote honeto Replybullet Posted: 25 July 2011 at 5:36pm
Originally posted by Kish

Originally posted by honeto

We will not be judged by an older scripture as the Quran is the last one sent for all of us that live or born after its arrival, and we will be judged by its standards.

The Holy Scriptures would disagree, as you would agree that the oneness of God establishes itself within the Torah first, Psalms second, Gospel third and the Quran fourth if you will. What you are misunderstanding is that God’s principles NEVER change but his LAWS could. Life’s key principles, of course, are spiritual.

Isaiah 40:8 “The green grass has dried up, the blossom has withered; but as for the word of our God, it will last to time indefinite.”

Divine principles do not become outdated or pass away. The inspired words of the prophet Isaiah proves true.

Originally posted by honeto

 The Quran, as the pure word of God is complete for a beleiver to live this life sucessfully as well as to work toward the next, a desireable hereafter "the Salvation".

Which I respect, however Christians alike view the Gospel as pure but see Jesus as their only salvation, which becomes a major issue not because of what the Quran says about Jesus but what it failed to say about Jesus.

1 John 4:14, 15 In addition, we ourselves have beheld and are bearing witness that the Father has sent forth his Son as Savior of the world. 15 Whoever makes the confession that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, God remains in union with such one and he in union with God.  

Acts 5:31 God exalted this one as Chief Agent and Savior to his right hand, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.  

This is the whole point of the Gospel (Good News) which the Quran acknowledges but rejects this fundamental truth.

Originally posted by honeto

On  the issue of Gospel being sent to fulfill the Law, do you think these things mantioned in the OT really could be ever fulfilled or that this was part of the fulfillment what Jesus meant, I will just quote a few of these OT quotes, there are many others like them:

First you must understand the purpose of the Law and why it was giving ONLY to the Nation of Israel, do you know why? Second question which you posed, did Israel fulfill the law perfectly’? Nonetheless, Jesus fulfilled the law perfectly; the Gospel was only the forum that was used to get it out there to the people after Jesus, Muhammad and millions of others who would benefit from its message.

Would you say Muhammad benefited from his message, most Muslims would agree that he did, why else would it be mentioned over and over again in the Quran.  

If most if not all Muslims would agree, how did salvation move away from Jesus and his followers to Muhammad and his followers?  

Matthew 1:21 She (Mary) will give birth to a son, and you must call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins

Acts 4:12 Furthermore, there is no salvation in anyone else, for there is not another name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must get saved.

Again, Divine principles do not become outdated or pass away and salvation is a divine principle.

Do you believe that God’s written instruction for life (Salvation) can be in both the Holy Scriptures and the Quran? From the points that were made in the scriptures above Christians would say no, and rightly so.

My question to Hasan is, did salvation come to all mankind after Jesus or after Muhammad?

Kish

 Kish,
I never said God's principles change. I will add, nor does Hid Godhood. Unlike the Christian Trinity which never existed or mentioned in any previous scriptures or Hindu, Greek, Roman multiple gods, God has always been One and Only.
What I said and say again is that previous scriptures are no longer in their " pure word of God" status. The only reason God sent His pure word and a warner, a prophet again and agian was due to fact that people would due to their disbelief would deny and alter God's word to fit their purpose. As there also are people who stand up for the truth, the ones who seek God's guidence, God blesses them with His pure word. If you read my line that you quoted, it clearly speaks to what I mean. There is no other why there were so many prophets sent in various times to various people.
 
The answer to your question is in my above explaination. If I had lived in the time of Jesus (pbuh) and after him until God sent prophet Mohammed (pbuh) I would have salvation through following what God revealed through Jesus (pbuh). After God sent His Final Testament to Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) and since I live in time following him, to achieve salvation I must follow what  God revealed for mine, your and all that will come yet, till the end.
 
I understand that there are good instructions of benefit in many books from before, but have human element of imperfection in them, thus may take us wrong way without knowing. And for that very purpose, the All knowing has blessed us with a pure word from Himself for our guidance.
 
Hasan
 
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"
IP IP Logged
honeto
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 March 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2397
Quote honeto Replybullet Posted: 25 July 2011 at 5:46pm
Jack, I mean, Larry, I mean Kish,
you wrote: "... On the other hand the teaching of Jesus and salvation is consistent within the Gospel"
Is this suppose to be a joke, or are you serious about this, are you? please let me know so I can open my notes on the two most contraditory issues of the Bible, "Jesus and Salvation" that you claim to be without contradiction in the Bible. Please don't take offence, I am serious, I just want to know if you are?
Thanks,
Hasan
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"
IP IP Logged
Kish
 
Guest Group
Guest Group
Avatar

Joined: 07 July 2011
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 237
Quote Kish Replybullet Posted: 26 July 2011 at 10:04am

Originally posted by islamispeace

   As I have said several times now, when the Quran speaks positively of the Torah and Gospel, it is referring to the original revelations, not the edited versions.  Once you understand this, you will how see misguided your question is. 

If what you say has any truth to it and this is not just an assumption because of what you believe as a Muslim, serious implication are now put on the Quran and Islam as well.

1st Where are the so-called “original” or copies of the original Gospel that you speak of to show its corruption, at a Museum?  

2nd What are you comparing the Gospel account to too show up these corruptions? 

3nd Why did not Jesus say the Torah and the Gospel was corrupted as Muhammad says it is?

4th Why would Prophet Muhammad frequently include and recognize these instructions for life from the Gospel and refer to them as the word of God in the Quran?

5th If they were corrupted before Muhammad, what date and by whom, at least twelve other verses say that the Quran was written for the purpose of confirming these books?

Therefore let the followers of the Gospel judge in accordance with what Allah has revealed therein. Evil-doers are those that do not base their judgments on Allah’s revelations.” (S) 5:46, 47.

Judge in accordance, how could you if the Gospel Muhammad had been corrupted?

6th If they were corrupted after you should be able to show the verses of the alleged corruption, and compare them to what as you say to the “pristine” or “uncorrupted” version”?

7th What would prevent this ‘final’ revelation from getting corrupted or edited since it happened before as you say, maybe it could happen again, again and again although God previously promised that it wouldn’t?

So many implications as you can readily see!

However, Isaiah 40:8. “The green grass has dried up, the blossom has withered; but as for the word of our God, it will last to time indefinite.”

I’ll wait to see your uncorrupted version and if you’re unable to provide that which you likely are, it is only because the Quran that came centuries later disagrees with the Bible, which of course is why you disagree. That is quite understandable since the Quran does not teach Salvation through Jesus.

But don’t expect the Gospel and the Torah to confirm and conform to a book that was completed several hundred years later which is what it sounds like you’re doing.

Example; as you say your Quran…….

Originally posted by islamispeace

   routinely criticizes the beliefs of the Jews and Christians which can be found in their scriptures.

 I would expect so since Islam does not accept Jesus as the ransom sacrifice of the son of God but the Jews who converted over to Christianity did because of what the Mosaic Law in the Torah prepared them for, which was the Great Sacrifice of the Lamb (Sheep) of God, Jesus. If you were aware of the use of the word lamb (Sheep) in the Torah “Old Testament” and what those sacrifices represented you would know why Jesus is referred to as the sacrificial Lamb (Sheep) of God in the Gospel “New Testament.” 

John 1:29 See, the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world!”

Isa. 53:7 “He was being brought just like a lamb to the slaughtering.”

Originally posted by islamispeace

   Furthermore, the Gospels present a Jesus who is both human and divine. 

And the Quran does not.

Originally posted by islamispeace

    This is a new and extraordinary concept and one which requires extraordinary evidence. 

Like the virgin birth of Mary? That was certainly a new and extraordinary concept and the Quran acknowledges and also agrees!

God caused Christ to die, raised him to life, and then lifted him up to Him. (S) 3:55, 19:33, NJD

God rendered him to be in honor in this world and forever after and in the company of those nearest to God. (S) 3:45.  

Is it not true that Jesus died as a human before he was resurrected to heaven? It said in the Quran that Jesus died. Perhaps it requires more faith on your part.

Originally posted by islamispeace

   First, I have already provided some evidence to prove the corruption of the Gospels.

No, you only showed how one can interpret or misinterpret a scripture. In order to prove corruption you have to show texts of what was said originally in the scriptures which you cannot. You only showed what the Church fathers wrote afterward but the Church fathers did not write the Gospel.

(Genesis 40:8) “Do not interpretations belong to God?” (Not to the church fathers and scholars who are not inspired)

Originally posted by islamispeace

Second, I have already refuted #2 several times. 

 Yea, so the Quran did not mean what it said about the Gospel being a book of guidance and light.

Originally posted by islamispeace

Third, #1, #3 and #4 are non-sequiturs which you have yet to prove.  Which eye-witnesses are you referring to? 

Acts 2:41 Therefore those who embraced his word heartily were baptized, and on that day about three thousand souls were added

Acts 5:28 “We positively ordered YOU not to keep teaching upon the basis of this name, and yet, look! YOU have filled Jerusalem with YOUR teaching, and YOU are determined to bring the blood of this man upon us.

Acts 6:7 Consequently the word of God went on growing, and the number of the disciples kept multiplying in Jerusalem very much; and a great crowd of priests began to be obedient to the faith.

Originally posted by kish

Luke 1:1-3 Whereas many have undertaken to compile a statement of the facts that are given full credence among us, 2 just as those who from [the] beginning became eyewitnesses and attendants of the message delivered these to us, 3 I resolved also, because I have traced all things from the start with accuracy, to write them in logical order to you, most excellent The·ophi·lus, 4 that you may know fully the certainty of the things that you have been taught orally

Acts 1:3 To these also by many positive proofs he showed himself alive after he had suffered, being seen by them throughout forty days and telling the things about the kingdom of God.

(S) 4:162 But those among them who are well-grounded in knowledge, and the believers, believe in what hath been revealed to thee and what was revealed before thee:

Again, eyewitnesses have been established and If you don’t believe in the eye-witnesses of the Gospel believe at least in what (S) 4:162 and what was revealed before Muhammad, but as you say “it was edited” although you or anyone else can present any texts that can verify your assumptions and accusations.

Originally posted by islamispeace

    How did he "fulfill" the Law?  If anything, the Gospels say that he broke the Law on many occasions and so did his disciples.

The Quran disregards how Jesus perfectly fulfilled the Law, the Gospel tells us as I’ve mentioned already. Also, you fail to realize that Isaiah prophetically pictures Jesus, read Isaiah chapter 6 Jesus is a holy seed bringing the Kingdom of God (Isaiah 53:10 & 8:18) another topic! So this is very much in harmony with the Old Testament and a contradiction to the Quran.

Originally posted by islamispeace

    I never referred to the apocryphal books.  I referred to a popular passage from the Gospel of John which historical evidence suggests was not in the original Gospel but was added later.  If this is not proof of corruption, then I don't know what is. 

Whether YOU refer to them as apocryphal is irrelevant, the Catholic writers do as I quoted from them and which deuterocanonical means. But as you yourself said, they were not of the original which I agree; they were added as I also agree. But if that is corruption, on who’s part God, the Gospel or imperfect men? Imperfect men! You put too much trust in scholars; put trust in God’s Holy word NOT scholars and critics I believe this is seriously confusing you and Hasan greatly understanding not only 'pure true Christianity' but the Quran! 

At that time the Hebrew Scripture canon had already been fixed and did not include any apocryphal books according to the first-century Jewish historian Josephus “There are not with us myriads of books, discordant and discrepant, but only two and twenty [the equivalent of the thirty-nine books of the Hebrew Scriptures according to modern division], comprising the history of all time, which are justly accredited.” - Against Apion, Book I, par. 8 (according to the translation in The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 1, p. 163)

Originally posted by islamispeace

Yes, they were accepted by 2nd century Christians who were not alive when Jesus preached.  That does not prove their authenticity. 
 

 Not true, they were accepted by first century Christians and Jesus immediate followers (Jews then later non-Jews) then they came in by the 1000’s in the beginning of the 1st Century (33 C.E.) by eye=witnesses as I mentioned right after his death, what great faith, they were not afraid to die for their belief in the Christ to gain salvation! (Read Acts chapter 1, 2 if you like.) Then many more in the 2nd Century believed; all this took place shortly after Jesus death, the Quran does not even come close to the amount of eye-witnesses when it comes to Muhammad and what he accomplished within his life time on the earth and even after, does that prove its authenticity? Islam was divided after Muhammad’s death and people were  assassinated or murdered within.

As Philip Hitti states: “The caliphate is therefore the oldest problem Islam had to face. It is still a living issue. . . . In the words of Muslim historian al-Shahrastāni [1086-1153]: ‘Never was there an Islamic issue which brought about more bloodshed than the caliphate (imāmah).’”

Translator Muhammad Pickthall writes: “All the surahs of the Qur’an had been recorded in writing before the Prophet’s death, and many Muslims had committed the whole Qur’an to memory. But the written surahs were dispersed among the people; and when, in a battle . . . a large number of those who knew the whole Qur’an by heart were killed, a collection of the whole Qur’an was made and put in writing.”

What a double standard you have presented to me about authenticity when only a collection of the Quran was put in writing after the fact.

Originally posted by islamispeace

But, the same Christians who you say accepted the Gospels as accurate also accepted the trinity as the true teaching.  Why do you take their word for it when it comes to the Gospels' accuracy but not for their acceptance of the trinity?
 

That’s an individual choice right, but the Trinity is not a original Christian teaching it started in ancient Babylon first, not Jerusalem.

The Trinity concept stems from ancient Babylon, where the sun-god Shamash, the moon god Sin, and the star god Ishtar (Same star used in Islam) were worshipped as a triad. Egypt followed the same pattern, worshipping Osiris, Isis, and Horus. Assyria’s chief god, Asshur, is portrayed as having three heads. Following the same pattern, images are to be found in Catholic churches depicting God as having three heads.

Besides, I take the word of the “Gospel Writers” Matthew, Mark, Luke and John not additional writings like Tobit, Judith, Wisdom (of Solomon), Ecclesiasticus (not Ecclesiastes), Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, supplements to Esther, and three additions to Daniel: The Song of the Three Holy Children, Susanna and the Elders, and The Destruction of Bel and the Dragon.

Remember, Churchmen or fathers only wrote about Christianity in the late 1st and early 2nd centuries. Some of them were Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Hermas, and Papias. If the apostles taught the Trinity doctrine, then yes those Apostolic Fathers should have taught it too but no evidence support the Apostles taught that theory. Whether other writers later on consciously or unconsciously feel into what Jesus prophesied about, the “weed and the wheat class” that’s a whole other story.

Originally posted by islamispeace

For sure, the trinity was invented by the Church fathers, but it was done to harmonize the seemingly blasphemous verses from the Gospels which showed Jesus as a god. 
 

Which one(s)? “seemingly?” However, the early Christians and Apostolic fathers did not accept that concept at all I believe.

One of the earliest non-Biblical statements of Christian faith is found in a book of 16 short chapters known as The Didache, or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Some historians date it before or about the year 100 C.E. Its author is unknown.2

The Didache deals with things people would need to know to become Christians. In its 7th chapter, it prescribes baptism “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” the same words Jesus used at Matthew 28:19.3 But it says nothing about the three being equal in eternity, power, position, and wisdom which is what the Trinity theory teaches.

Clement of Rome, thought to have been a “bishop” in that city, is another early source of writings on Christianity. It is believed that he died about 100 C.E. In the material said to have been written by him, he makes no mention of a Trinity, either directly or indirectly. In the First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, he states:

“Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied.”

“The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ has done so from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ.”

Ignatius, a bishop of Antioch, lived from about the middle of the first century C.E. to early in the second century. Assuming that all the writings attributed to him were authentic, in none of them is there an equality of Father, Son, and holy spirit.

Ignatius calls Almighty God “the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son,” showing the distinction between God and His Son.9 He speaks of “God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.”10 And he declares: “There is one God, the Almighty, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son.”11

9. The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Volume I, page 52.

10. Ibid., page 58.

11. Ibid., page 62.

Thus, in those late-first-century and early-second-century writings of the Apostolic Fathers, there is no support for Christendom’s Trinity. They spoke of God, Jesus, and the holy spirit just as the Bible does. Look, for example, at Acts 7:55, 56:

Originally posted by kish

So, I pose the same question to you as I pose to Hasan,
did salvation come after Jesus or after Muhammad?

You said

Originally posted by islamispeace

 Brother Hasan has already answered your question.  Jesus (pbuh) was sent only to the Jews.  If they believed in him, they would be saved.

That answer is only partly right, some Jews (Above) not all  believed and were saved (Those who accepted Christ) and they did not have any concept of the trinity in there teachings and nether do "True Christians" (Like myself), besides Jesus was sent to the world of mankind, first to the Jews because of the covenant with Abraham. But, they failed to honor that covenant, so then sent to non-Jews in 36 C.E. which is mentioned here in Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius, the first uncircumcised Gentile convert.

 Kish



Edited by Kish - 26 July 2011 at 10:30am
IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 40 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