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: Where is the Injil? Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 11 Next >>
Author Message
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2255
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 13 December 2012 at 8:10pm
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by Experiential

Hello Islamispeace

How are you. Its David here. Do you remember me? I hope and pray life goes well for you.


Hey David!  How are things?  What's with the new username?  


Originally posted by Experiential

Abu Loren in starting this thread made a lot of vague claims with no evidence.


Well, then tell that to brother Abu Loren.  What are telling me for?


Originally posted by Experiential

Puin, after extensively studying these manuscripts, came to the conclusion that the text is actually an evolving text rather than simply the word of God as revealed in its entirety to Muhammad (Warraq, 2002, p. 109). He wrote:

“So many Muslims have this belief that everything between the two covers of the Quran is just God’s unaltered word. They like to quote the textual work that shows that the Bible has a history and did not fall straight out of the sky, but until now the Quran has been out of discussion. The only way to break through this wall is to prove that the Quran has a history too. The Sana’a’s fragments will help us to do this.”


Still copying from a third party source?  Have you actually done research on this topic? 


According to Scott MacMillan, in his article "San'aa: City of the Book" published in the journal "History Today":


"Those hoping for an Islamic Da Vinci Code are likely to be disappointed. On Puin's own analysis the restored fragments contain no major aberrations and certainly no indelible human fingerprints that prove the Koran has profane origins. Nor is it true, as has been reported, that Puin has been barred from returning to Yemen." [1]


Originally posted by Experiential

Puin even concluded (cited Taher, 2000) that “It is not one single work that has survived unchanged through the centuries. It may include stories that were written before the prophet Mohammed began his ministry and which have subsequently been rewritten”.

Any more than that I cant be bothered. The internet has much to say about the Sanaa manuscripts. Check it out.


The internet is full of many pseudo-scholars.  Those interested in the facts would do more than just a simple internet search.


What you probably do not know is that Dr. Puin published a letter in a Yemeni newspaper in which he clarified his position.  In the letter, he stated:


"The important thing, thank God, is that these Yemeni Quranic fragments do not differ from those found in museums and libraries elsewhere, with the exception of details that do not touch the Quran itself, but are rather differences in the way words are spelled.  This phenomenon is well-known..." (As cited by M.M al-Azami, "The History of the Qur'anic Text from Revelation to Compilation: A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments", p. 12).


He also wrote in the same letter:


"The remnants [of these old Mushafs[ go back, scientifically assured, to the first century after Hijra!  Because of the existence of these manuscripts in San'a....[we have] the only monumental proof of the completion of the Quran in the first century of Hijra and not, as so many non-Muslim scholars assert, from the early third century of Hijra!" (Ibid., p. 314)


So, as you can see, Puin did not say anything about the Quran having alternate versions or meanings or anything of the sort. 


By the way, you can find detailed information on some of the the San'aa manuscripts on the internet!  Did you know that, since you say that the internet "has much to say about the Sanaa manuscripts"?


Before I give you the website where you can study the manuscripts yourself, I want to remind you that you did not answer my question to you.  You conveniently ignored my question:


For starters, perhaps you can provide specific examples from the manuscripts which differ from the current "version" of the Quran?


Since you made a claim about the San'aa manuscripts, I assume you have actually studied them and are aware of differences in the manuscripts from the Quran we have today.  Do you?  Please answer the question.  I will even help you in your quest by giving you a link to a website that actually has pictures of some of the manuscripts and detailed information on their contents:


http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/ 


One of the most important of the San'aa manuscripts is "Codex San'aa I", which had been dated to the mid-first century of Hijra.  Here is a link:


http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/soth.html


I don't think you have done your homework, David.  You are only deceiving yourself by relying on poor research just because it is what you want to hear.  In these matters, evidence is paramount. 


Originally posted by Experiential

Muslims challenging assumptions on biblical legitimacy! Islam has more trouble with legitimacy due to being the “Divine infallible unalterable word written on tablets in heaven”. The bible does not have this problem due to realistically being seen as the “inspired word”.


How can an "inspired word" have all the problems that the Bible has?  Are you really being "realistic".  I don't think so. 


You are right about one thing.  The beliefs regarding "biblical legitimacy" are certainly based on assumptions.  Assumptions are not the same as facts.  Would you like to discuss this in more detail? 

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
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2255
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 13 December 2012 at 9:10pm
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by Experiential

Its rich that you have to quote liberal agnostics like Bart Ehrtman ?. Christianity has  been able to accommodate agnosticism and liberal Christian thought for centuries unlike Islam. In Islamic society writers like Bart Erhtman would have been executed under Muslim aposty laws by now.


LOL I expected this sort of response.  This is the typical Christian response.  What does Ehrman's agnosticism have to do with his credentials?  Do you think that attacking his beliefs serves as an effective refutation of his claims?  I think it is obvious that you didn't even bother to read my response of just glanced over it.  I know this because you essentially repeated the same arguments which I responded to.  Case in point:

Originally posted by Experiential

In “The Historical Reliability of the Gospels” by Craig L. Blomberg he states -

 

“More so than with any other literary work of antiquity, we can have enormous confidence in reconstructing what the original texts of the Gospels most likely said.  While none of the autographs remains, the sheer volume of manuscripts (from tiny fragments to complete New Testaments)-5,000 in ancient Greek alone-far outstrips what we have for any other Jewish, Greek or Roman literature, where historians often consider themselves fortunate to have manuscripts numbering in double figures.”

The art and science of textual criticism enables scholars to date, classify, compare and contrast these documents where they differ and determine, with 97 to 99 percent accuracy, what the originals most probably contained. 

 

I already dealt with this matter!  Blomberg has simply repeated the same tired argument about multiple manuscripts somehow being "proof" that the New Testament is a trust-worthy document.  His proof?  That there are 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the NT.  But what he neglects to mention, as do all Christians, is that the vast majority of these manuscripts are from medieval times, no where near the time of Jesus or the disciples.  Even Bloomberg admits that "none of the autographs remain"!

Originally posted by Experiential

With the oldest known fragment of any of the Gospels, a few verses from John 18 dating to around A.D. 125, we are within one generation of that document's original composition.  For most other ancient works, at least several centuries elapse between the originals and the oldest existing copies.  None of this makes anything in the Gospels true, but it does mean we know what their writers claimed, something which we are often not at all sure of about other ancient writers.


Here, Blomberg commits another common Christian fallacy.  He tries to establish that P52 (the manuscript he is referring to) has been dated to "around A.D. 125".  Yet, no scholar of paleography would assign a specific year to an ancient manuscript.  More often, scholars give a range of dates.  In the case of P52, that range is 125-150 CE.  As Brent Nongbri noted in his article "The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel", published in the 2005 edition of the journal "Harvard Theological Review":

"...any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for [P52] must include dates in the later second and early third centuries. Thus, [P52] cannot be used as evidence to silence other debates about the existence (or non-existence) of the Gospel of John in the first half of the second century. Only a papyrus containing an explicit date or one found in a clear archaeological stratigraphic context could do the work scholars want [[P52] to do. (52) As it stands now, the papyrological evidence should take a second place to other forms of evidence in addressing debates about the dating of the Fourth Gospel." [2] 

Therefore, Blomberg's appeal to P52 as proof of the New Testament's trustworthiness is patently absurd.

Originally posted by Experiential

Conservative scholars typically date Matthew, Mark and Luke to the 60s and John to the 90s; liberal scholars tend to favor a date for Mark in the 70s, Matthew and Luke in the 80s and John in the 90s.  But either way, we are still talking about first-century testimony. Again, compare these last two points with the typical situation for other ancient histories and biographies.  The detailed life of Alexander the Great, however, which most historians believe can be reconstructed with a fair amount of accuracy, depends on Arrian and Plutarch's late first and early second-century biographies of a man who died in 323 B.C.


But this "first-century testimony" is non-existent!  Just because they were written in the 1st century does not mean they were not altered later on.  Therefore, in the absence of 1st-century manuscripts, the Christian claim that the New Testament is reliable is a leap of faith, not evidence.  Moreover, the extant manuscripts shows unequivocally that the manuscripts have been altered.  It is absurd to claim to otherwise.  So much for an "inspired" text.

Originally posted by Experiential

Regarding early Christian witness he says-

 

 But were the first two generations of Christians (ca. A.D. 30-100) even interested in preserving historical information?  This has often been doubted, primarily for two reasons.  First, some argue that the perception of the possibility of Jesus' quick return to Earth to bring an end to this age as we know it would have precluded any interest in functioning as historians.  Who bothers to record history, even of that believed to be sacred, if they think the world might end at any time?  Well, Jews, for one, at least since the eighth century B.C!  Their prophets had been promising that the "Day of the Lord" was at hand for centuries at yet God's people also recognized that a day with the Lord was as a thousand years (Psalm. 90:4), so the ordinary course of human events continued. 



What does this have to do with proving that the New Testament is reliable?  Confused

Also, the historical evidence suggests that some Jews were actually awaiting the arrival of two or even three Messiahs, and not one Messiah who would suffer and die for our sins!  The Dead Sea Scrolls illustrate this fact quite clearly.  As Geza Vermes notes:

"In some other Scrolls, by contrast, the theme of Messianism is more prominent.  Complex and sui generis, it envisages sometimes one messianic figure, royal, Davidic, triumphant..., again and again two, and once possible even three Messiahs.  The lay King-Messiah...was to usher in...'the Kingdom of his people' and 'bring death to the ungodly' and, defeat '[the kings of the] nations'...The recently groundlessly advanced theory that 'the Prince of the Congregation, Branch of David' of 4Q285 is a suffering and executed Messiah is contradicted both by the immediate context and the broader exegetical framework of Isaiah...As befits a priestly sect, however, the Priest-Messiah comes first in the order of precedence; he is also called the 'Messiah of Aaron'... [...]

The third figure, 'the Prophet', is mentioned directly though briefly only once: we are told that his arrival was expected together with that of the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel..." ("The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, p. 86).


Originally posted by Experiential

Regarding oral testimony he states-

 

  Even just thirty years after historical events, memories can grow dim and distorted.  But first-century Judaism was an oral culture, steeped in the educational practice of memorization.  Some rabbis had the entire Hebrew Scriptures (the Christian Old Testament) committed to memory.  Memorizing and preserving intact the amount of information contained in one Gospel would not have been hard for someone raised in this kind of culture who valued the memories of Jesus' life and teaching as sacred.


“In terms of the hard saying of Jesus” Bloomburg states

 

Another pair of arguments pushes the case even further.  The so-called "hard sayings" of Jesus suggest that the Gospel writers felt considerable constraint on what they could or could not include.  Even though Luke's version of Jesus' command to hate father and mother (Luke 14:26) can be explained by its parallel in Matthew (Matt. 10:37), it would have been far easier for Luke simply to omit it altogether and avoid the apparent contradiction with the Mosaic command to honor one's parents if he had felt free to do so.  The same thing can be said of Jesus' claim not to know the day or hour of his return (Mark 13:32).  Numerous embarrassments in the Gospels could have been avoided if their writers had anywhere close to the freedom to tamper with the tradition in the ways that the Jesus Seminar and like-minded writers have alleged they had.


These are just assumptions.  In the absence of first-century manuscripts, Blomberg is just blowing hot air.  Surely, you can do better.

Originally posted by Experiential

Regarding other non Christian sources he states-

 

 A dozen or so non-Christian writers or texts confirm a remarkable number of details in the Gospels about Jesus' life-that he was a Jew living in the first third of the first century, born out of wedlock, a self-styled teacher who became very popular, selected certain men as his inner core of disciples, disregarded Jewish dietary laws and ate with the despised, enraged certain Jewish leaders, even though believed to be the Messiah by others, was crucified by Pontius Pilate but believed to have been raised from the dead by some of his followers who began a fledgling religion that never died out.  Some might argue that this does not seem like a lot of detail but in a world in which almost all historical and biographical writing focused on kings, emperors, military generals, people in institutional positions of religious power, famous philosophers whose "schools" had long outlived them, and, more generally, the well-to-do and influential, it is remarkable that Jesus gets mentioned at all by first-through-third century non-Christian writers.  Before the legalization of Christianity in the fourth century, who would have expected this obscure, crucified rabbi to produce a following that would one day become the religion adopted by the greatest percentage of people on earth?


And who pray tell are these "dozen or so non-Christian writers or texts"?  Vague statements do not prove anything, except that you are blindly copying Blomberg's claims without having any idea if what he is claiming is even true.  Add this to your homework list.  Provide the names of these "non-Christian writers and texts" which allegedly confirm many Christians beliefs regarding Jesus (pbuh).  I think I already have an idea of what you, or should I say Blomberg, are talking about, but let's see what evidence you present.


Originally posted by Experiential

Archaeology confirms a whole raft of details susceptible to artifactual or epigraphic corroboration-the existence of the pools of Siloam and Bethesda in Jerusalem, the latter with five porticoes just as John 5:2 describes, Pontius Pilate as prefect of Judea, Roman crucifixion by driving nails through the ankle bones, fishing boats large enough to hold 13 people (like Jesus and his 12 disciples), the tomb of Caiaphas, the probable ossuary (bone-box) of James, brother of Jesus, and so on.  And all of these details in the Gospels were once doubted before the archaeological confirmation came forth.


This is another Christian fallacy.  They think that just because certain historical details such as Pilate being the prefect of Judea somehow proves that the Gospels are historically reliable and that everything they said about Jesus is true!  So, likewise, we can assume that since archaeological evidence suggests that the city of Troy once existed, then we can accept Homer's "Iliad" as factual history, including all the claims about the gods intervening during the war!  Obviously, you would reject such childish logic, but for some reason, you accept similar childish logic when it involves the Gospels.


Originally posted by Experiential

Finally, other Christian testimony confirms a whole host of details in the Gospels.  Second-century Christian writers refer back to and even quote a considerable portion of the Gospel accounts with approval.


And many of these were proven to be later forgeries!  Moreover, second-century "testimony" does not prove anything about a man who lived in the first-century and documents which purport to summarize his life and teachings are also all from the second century, several decades after he lived. 

 



Edited by islamispeace - 13 December 2012 at 9:17pm
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
Placid
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 01 November 2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 231
Quote Placid Replybullet Posted: 14 December 2012 at 11:42am
Hi Abu,

Quote: All of the above point to the Islamic understanding of what a servant of God is as all of the Prophets of God (pbut) called themselves the servant of God.
Surah 3:55 in no way says that Jesus (pbuh) is 'sitting at the right hand of God to judge'.

Response: --- Sorry, I said that Jesus was caught up to sit at the right hand of God because that is what the Scripture says in a number of places, and I identify the truths of the Bible and the Quran together.

--- You are right, it doesn’t say those words in Surah 3:55. --- Nor does it say there that Jesus is the Judge, but rather it says that God will judge:
3:55 Behold! God said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.
--- This says here that God will draw all to Him, and He, God, will judge between them.

Quote: I agree with your final point that all Prophets of God (pbuht) are all servants or slaves of God including Jesus (pbuh). This proves the Islamically accepted version.

Response: Jesus is called the Messiah some 8 times in the Quran and He was the Redeemer of Mankind, --- Remember, The Word (Logos) came from heaven and indwelt the human body of Jesus.

While you may not want to believe this, the evidence is given in this verse in Surah 3:
45 Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honor in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to God;

And the translator Hilali Khan interprets it this way:
45 (Remember) when the angels said: "O Maryam (Mary)! Verily, Allah gives you the glad tidings of a Word ["Be!" - and he was! i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus) the son of Maryam (Mary)] from Him, his name will be the Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), the son of Maryam (Mary), held in honor in this world and in the Hereafter, and will be one of those who are near to Allah
--- Does this not identify Jesus with the Word, to show that Jesus was more than just a Servant?

However, here is what it says of this One that came to earth to indwell the body of Jesus, in Philippians 2:
7 But He made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,
10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,
11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Now notice what it says in 3:45 --- “Jesus was “Of those nearest to God.”
--- How nearer can you get than sitting on His Right Hand?
So this is the position of Jesus, and this is why it says in 3:55 --- “I will make those who follow thee (Jesus) superior to those who reject faith.”

So He was not just a human Servant of God, but it says in Philippians 2:
7 “But He made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant.”


Placid

IP IP Logged
Abu Loren
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 June 2012
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1164
Quote Abu Loren Replybullet Posted: 15 December 2012 at 2:08am
Originally posted by Placid


Response: Jesus is called the Messiah some 8 times in the Quran and He was the Redeemer of Mankind, --- Remember, The Word (Logos) came from heaven and indwelt the human body of Jesus.

While you may not want to believe this, the evidence is given in this verse in Surah 3:
45 Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honor in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to God;
 
I'm still mystified as to why people like you jump from Messiah to God instantly. Messiah means 'the anointed one' as in ancient Israel all the kings after David (pbuh) were anointed with oil which was poured on top of their heads. I also accept Jesus (pbuh) as the Redeemer as he came to redeem the Children of Israel from themselves. So why do you straight away jump from Messiah to god or son of god?
 
Read Surah 3:45 very carefully. All it says is that Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala said "Be" and Jesus (pbuh) came into being miraculously. He (Jesus pbuh) will be held in honour in this world and in the next because he was the Messiah. A very special person sent by God Almighty Himself. All those who are nearest to God are the Prophets (pbut) and the believers. So where exactly does god or the son of god come into this equation?
 

And the translator Hilali Khan interprets it this way:
45 (Remember) when the angels said: "O Maryam (Mary)! Verily, Allah gives you the glad tidings of a Word ["Be!" - and he was! i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus) the son of Maryam (Mary)] from Him, his name will be the Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), the son of Maryam (Mary), held in honor in this world and in the Hereafter, and will be one of those who are near to Allah
--- Does this not identify Jesus with the Word, to show that Jesus was more than just a Servant?
 
No, this does not identify Jesus (pbuh) with the Word. It simply means that God Almighty simply said "Be" and Jesus was born. Indeed Jesus (pbuh) was a servant and the Messiah. Fully human. NOT BEGTOOTEN BY GOD.
 
 
However, here is what it says of this One that came to earth to indwell the body of Jesus, in Philippians 2:
 
 
I'm sorry but I don't take Paul seriously.

Now notice what it says in 3:45 --- “Jesus was “Of those nearest to God.”
--- How nearer can you get than sitting on His Right Hand?
So this is the position of Jesus, and this is why it says in 3:55 --- “I will make those who follow thee (Jesus) superior to those who reject faith.”

So He was not just a human Servant of God, but it says in Philippians 2:
7 “But He made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant.”


Placid


 
Sorry I don't buy it. In fact what you've said is nonsensical. By the way, do you have problems understanding simple English like the rest of Christendom?
IP IP Logged
honeto
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 March 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2397
Quote honeto Replybullet Posted: 15 December 2012 at 12:59pm
Originally posted by Placid

Hi Honeto,

These verses don’t say that the Scriptures were changed, they just say that the people put them behind them and weren’t obedient to God.
Quote: --- 3:187 (Y. Ali) And remember Allah took a covenant from the people of the Book, to make it known and clear to mankind, and not to hide it; but they threw it away behind their backs, and purchased with it some miserable gain! And vile was the bargain they made!
Response: --- The various covenants that God made with the Children of Israel when He said, “I will be your God, and you will be My people,“ --- are still written in the Scriptures for anybody to read, --- The Jews rejected God, and God rejected them, --- and brought in the New Covenant.

Quote: --- Al Maidah (5):12 God did aforetime take a Covenant from the Children of Israel......(13) their hearts grew hard. They changed the words from their places and forgot a good part of the messsage that was sent them..

Response: --- In their sermons and their writings, they changed the words, but only to influence others to believe as they did. --- They didn’t gather up the hundreds of manuscripts and thousands of copies already printed and change each one of them. But rather they did like this footnote says in Mr Pickthall’s translation in Surah 2:
58 And when We said: Go into this township and eat freely of that which is therein, and enter the gate prostrate, and say: "Repentance."* --- We will forgive you your sins and will increase (reward) for the right-doers.
--- The footnote on “Repentance”* says, “According to a tradition of the Prophet, - Hittatun – is a word implying submission to God and ‘repentance.’ --- The evil-doers changed it for a word of ‘rebellion’ --- i.e. they were disobedient.”
--- And again in Surah 2:
104 O ye who believe, say not (unto the Prophet): "Listen to us" but say "Look upon us,"* --- and be ye listeners. For disbelievers is a painful doom.
--- The footnote * says: “The first word which the Muslims used to call the Prophet’s attention respectfully, Ra’ina, the Jews would change into an insult by a slight mispronunciation.

Quote: --- 14 From those who call themselves Christians we did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them.........soon will God show them what it is they have done.

Response: --- For those who CALL themselves Christians, --- they no doubt forgot a lot so that is why they were ‘so-called’ Christians. --- Do not many terrorist today, CALL themselves Muslims, --- but are they ‘Surrendered’ and submissive to God?
---The ‘so called’ Christians didn’t change anything written in the Gospels, any more than the ‘so called’ Muslims have changed anything written in the original Quran? --- (Even though they are abrogating some of it in some versions, --- are they not?)

Quote: --- 15. O people of the Book (Jews and Christians) there hath come to you our Messenger, revealing to you that you used to hide in the book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary)."
--- (What became unnecessary for both Christians and Muslims was the Jewish laws, which the Jews didn’t keep themselves.)
--- There hath come to you from God a new light and a perspicuous Book.
16 Wherewith God guides all who seek His good pleasure, to ways of peace and safety, and leads them out of darkness by His will, Unto the light-guide them to a path that is straight

Response: --- Right on. The light (revelation) was given to Muhammad in Surah 42:
52 And thus have We inspired in thee (Muhammad) a Spirit of Our command. Thou knewest not what the Scripture was, nor what the Faith. But We have made it (the revelation) a light whereby We guide whom We will of Our bondmen. And lo! thou verily dost guide unto a right path,

--- The Holy Spirit of God’s command inspired in Muhammad the knowledge of the former Scriptures, (the same way that God gave the Torah and Gospel [Injil] to Jesus, through His intellect), --- This gave Muhammad the Faith to be God’s messenger to his own people, --- And the message led to a ‘right path.’

Which is what it says of Jesus in Surah 3:
48 "And God will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel,
49 "And (appoint him) an apostle to the Children of Israel, (with this message): "'I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by God's leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by God's leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe;
50 (Then Jesus said) '(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear God, and obey me.
51 "It is God Who is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him. This is a Way that is straight."

--- So there you have it, --- the ‘right path,’ following Muhammad's life of Faith and obedience to God, being enlightened by God’s Holy Spirit
--- Or accepting Jesus as the Savior and Servant by Faith, then loving and worshiping God, which is the Way that is straight.
--- (This is why, when it says the same in the Quran as it says in the Gospel about the 'Way that is straight,' --- There is really no reason to criticize Christians for what they believe, is there?)


Placid



Placid,
these verses are clearer than your refusal and excuses.
The funny thing is that now you and those like you who often try to cover the truth with your lengthy and repetitive statements insisting that what you are saying is somehow more valuable than the facts and truth.
Now you would like to move words of the Quran from their right places so you can achieve your goal of fooling others, by covering up the truth like those before who did that with OT and NT and in a result it contradicts on all issues even very basic ones that it teaches. Issues like God, Jesus and Salvation. The Bible now contradicts about all these three. For that we ask, where is really the Injil, the one that God sent to Jesus, the one he went around preaching. I believe if it was not corrupted, we will still using it as pure word of God. But the fact is that it is no longer with us. But word of God is with us, the pure word of God in the form of the Quran.
Hasan
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"
IP IP Logged
Placid
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 01 November 2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 231
Quote Placid Replybullet Posted: 17 December 2012 at 5:06pm
Hi Hasan,

As I've said before, God gave the Injil to Jesus through His intellect, the same as God revealed the Surahs to Muhammad.

There never was a book called the Injil, or the Gospel, but it was the Message of the Gospel, which means 'Good News'

Notice this verse in Surah 3:
48 "And God will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel,
48 Shakir: And He will teach him the Book and the wisdom and the Taurat and the Injeel.

Jesus said, "All that the Father has given Me I have given to you (the disciples)."

The best way to find out all that is recorded that Jesus said to the disciples and Apostles is to get a Red Letter Edition where all of the words of Jesus are in red. The Message of the injil is there or it isn't anywhere.


This too is what the angel Gabriel confirmed.


IP IP Logged
Salaam_Erin
Male Christian
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 30 October 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 41
Quote Salaam_Erin Replybullet Posted: 18 December 2012 at 10:32am

Who the hell is Iranaeus to decide?

It's interesting that a Gnostic like Tatian in putting together his harmonisation, the Diatessaron, accepted the Four Gospels.  Irenaeus just so happens to be the disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna who was a disciple of the Apostle John who was a disciple of Jesus.  (Funny how Muslims seem to believe in chains of narration only when it suits them.)

The four gospels are not the Injil.

Since Jesus said that the Messenger coming after Him will remind us of EVERYTHING that Jesus said, and the Qur'an says NOBODY can alter God's Word, it is Muslims who have a major problem in this area as you have no authentic Injeel to give us, especially when the Qur'an says that the Injeel was intact in the 7th century.

With all of these fragments lying around who knows what is real and what is fake? As for the religion of Christianity and Roman Pagasnism merging, look at the hard facts.... there are a lot of paganism 'in-built' in Christianity.

This hyper-scepticism ignores textual cricisim and the fact that the 'fragments' are a lot less fragmentary than you think.  You need to check out the tables at the back of Kur and Barbara Aland's book on the Text of the New Testament.

I don't have to be at the Council of Nicea to understand how Christianity became corrupted with the Trinitarian doctrine. Again look at the facts and hear what the scholars in Christianity are saying.

One: These scholars aren't real Christians.  Two: Scholars, include Bart Ehrman, tell lies.  His book the Orthodox Corruption of Scripture was rejected by a majority of scholars including Atheists.  He often ignores other reasons why certain textual errors occur.  Muslims who use Ehrman are extremely unwise to use him, for he damages Islam.  He thinks Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet.  He believes Jesus died on the Cross.  Yet Muslims think his writings disprove the Crucifixion.  Please play closer attention to what Ehrman is saying. 

Three: You are ignoring what the decrees from the Council of Nicaea actually say.  Get A New Eusebius and read the original Nicaean documentation.  Stop relying on bogus claims from a 19th century seance!

I expected this sort of response.  This is the typical Christian response.  What does Ehrman's agnosticism have to do with his credentials?  Do you think that attacking his beliefs serves as an effective refutation of his claims?  I think it is obvious that you didn't even bother to read my response of just glanced over it.  I know this because you essentially repeated the same arguments which I responded to.  Case in point:

When you read Ehrman, he clearly has an agenda.  But if Muslims take what he has to say to their logical conclusion, you would have to abandon Islam too.  Why use a scholar who employs arguments which damage Islam? 

I already dealt with this matter!  Blomberg has simply repeated the same tired argument about multiple manuscripts somehow being "proof" that the New Testament is a trust-worthy document.  His proof?  That there are 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the NT.  But what he neglects to mention, as do all Christians, is that the vast majority of these manuscripts are from medieval times, no where near the time of Jesus or the disciples.  Even Bloomberg admits that "none of the autographs remain"!

None of the autographs of ANY ancient work including the Qur'an exist either.  And remember, the Hadiths indicate that the preservation of the Qur'an failed at the autograph stage, hence why Abu Bakr then Uthman commissioned Zaid twice, and why Caliph Umar complained from the pulpit about a lost Qur'anic passage which is still not included.  The 5700 manuscripts are from the first 1000 years.  This is extraordinary in ancient manuscripts, as Caesar's earliest copies are from 1000 years after his time.  Compared to everything else which is zero, the first 1000 years of the New Testament is extraordinarily rich.  The earliest manuscripts of the first four centuries of course are going to be more important than the later ones, especially as around 900 there was an explosion of copying of Byzantine manuscripts on the orders of the Byzantine Emperors.  Take note that the eclectic New Testaments (UBS4, NA27) use mostly MSS from the first 5 centuries.  There is no cover-up going on here at all. 


Here, Blomberg commits another common Christian fallacy.  He tries to establish that P52 (the manuscript he is referring to) has been dated to "around A.D. 125".  Yet, no scholar of paleography would assign a specific year to an ancient manuscript.  More often, scholars give a range of dates.  In the case of P52, that range is 125-150 CE.  As Brent Nongbri noted in his article "The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel", published in the 2005 edition of the journal "Harvard Theological Review":

That's why Blomberg says 'ABOUT AD 125'.  Again, you are reading cover-ups where there arent' any, and indeed Blomberg fully expects people to know this.  Kurt and Barbara Aland, less conservative than Blomberg, actually date the fragment to AD 110. 

What really happens is that scholars pin different dates then haggle through academic papers to get a particular date range, usually 30 years or so.  The same process will happen with this new fragment of Mark dated from the 1st century due to be published next year.  This is completely normal.  Big deal.


But this "first-century testimony" is non-existent!  Just because they were written in the 1st century does not mean they were not altered later on.  Therefore, in the absence of 1st-century manuscripts, the Christian claim that the New Testament is reliable is a leap of faith, not evidence.  Moreover, the extant manuscripts shows unequivocally that the manuscripts have been altered.  It is absurd to claim to otherwise.  So much for an "inspired" text.

If so, then all faith in history, including your Qur'an and Hadith, has no basis.  Knowledge has no basis.  The problem is that you have no evidence of such altering and it would take a huge conspiracy Empire-wide given how diverse the geography of the Christian manuscripts are.  Considering that these diverse manuscripts pre-date any Imperial intervention, it should be obvious to anyone that no such conspiracy occurred, and that it was impossible for a hiding, persecuted, scattered Church to have the resources or a single authority to make this possible.  The early papyri evidence well pre-dating the 4th century shows this to be the case. 


Also, the historical evidence suggests that some Jews were actually awaiting the arrival of two or even three Messiahs, and not one Messiah who would suffer and die for our sins!  The Dead Sea Scrolls illustrate this fact quite clearly.  As Geza Vermes notes:

This is a red herring, as both Christianity and Islam only believe in One Messiah.  Jesus is Al-Masih in your own Qur'an so don't contradict your own religion if you wish to be consistent with the rules.  To refer to the sectarian writings of a maverick movement within Judaism, Essenism, over a belief about the Messiah which is different to both Christianity and Islam is a complete red herring. 

 

And many of these were proven to be later forgeries!  Moreover, second-century "testimony" does not prove anything about a man who lived in the first-century and documents which purport to summarize his life and teachings are also all from the second century, several decades after he lived. 


I could say the same thing about the Hadith, except in your case it is three centuries, and far from needing a chain of narration of about 100 narrators, we only need a chain of two or three or indeed none at all.  ;o) 



 








IP IP Logged
honeto
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 March 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2397
Quote honeto Replybullet Posted: 18 December 2012 at 3:33pm
Placid,
and the Quran means recital. Not any, but what the prophet (pbuh) was made to recite, the revelation from God.
What Jesus was teaching or preaching during his ministry was the Injeel, or as said Gospel (the good news) that God revealed to him.
Do not forget that I was answering to the question that where in Quran God says that Injeel or Torah was altered.
In my post I did mention those verses from the Quran that clearly state the alterations to what we now collectively call the Bible.
Of course we believe that Torah, Injeel and other books mentioned in the Quran were from God. And that there message was altered.
Just look what they did to God. God was always one of one, never a trinity according to the OT belief. Look what they made of Jesus. No where is mentioned in the OT that Messiah was going to be God. Nowhere Jesus himself claimed "I am God". To the contrary we find verses that show he has a God, whom he served, praised and admitted to be greater than him.
Hasan
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"
IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 11 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