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
Experiential
 
Guest Group
Guest Group


Joined: 23 November 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 311
Quote Experiential Replybullet Posted: 03 January 2013 at 11:08am
Originally posted by islamispeace

In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by Experiential

The new user name? ‘Experiential” reminds me my position is based on relationship with The Most High God. That the OT and NT principles I defend are more than just a cerebral or intellectual thing but rather something experienced first hand and daily.

From looking at some of your other posts I notice you still use sarcasm and subtle abuse as a strategy. I expect your posts to conform to the cordial tone the moderators expect.


LOL And I notice that you, like many of your brethren, are extremely thin-skinned!  Let's see if you practice what you preach (not using sarcasm and "subtle abuse"). 


Originally posted by Experiential

In regards to Dr Puin and the Sanaa manuscripts. You are confusing inspired with infallible and / or inerrant. The Bible is inspired by God but written by man. Of course it is not inerrant.


Thank you for admitting that the Bible is not inerrant. 


However, you contradict yourself by stating that even though the Bible "is inspired by God but written by man" it is still not "inerrant".  What would be the purpose of "inspiration" if the "inspired" text is still full of errors? 


Also, what does "inspiration" have to do with whether the text has been preserved or not?  Isn't that the central issue here?  The evidence suggests that the Bible, the so-called "inspired" word, has been altered.  So far, not one Christian on this forum has offered any evidence to the contrary.


Originally posted by Experiential

Correct me if I’m wrong but Muslims believe the Quran to be the literal,  inerrant, divine, perfectly preserved, and infallible word. If this is the case then the issue of mans influence on the Quran compared to the Bible is more a problem for you than me. The problematic facts remain. Mans influence is obvious and this divine position just doesn’t hold to modern skeptical criticism from people such as Dr Puin or Christoph Luxemberg (a pseudonym of course due to his fear of being murdered by some Islamofascist Jihadist.) The Quran, like the sun, sinks into a muddy pond.


Do I detect a little "sarcasm and subtle abuse"?  Wink


Did you even read my response to you?  Puin found no evidence of alteration.  Yet you still continue to gnaw at that old bone.  Please do share the examples of "mans [sic] influence" on the Quran.  I have been asking you to provide these examples, yet so far you have ignored my requests.  I wonder why...


For a Christian who admits that his own Bible is not the "literal, inerrant, divine, perfectly preserved, and infallible word" (how do the other Christians on this forum feel about this assessment, I wonder!) while criticizing the Muslim belief in the Quran's infallibility is certainly ironic.  For sure, we believe the Quran is the perfectly preserved word of God.  If you disagree, then please (for God's sake!) provide the evidence I have been asking you for, instead of making vague claims!


Originally posted by Experiential

Regarding Ehrman. The point still stands. The Muslim lack of scholarly ability is obvious. Why is Muslim scholarship so weak you have to rely on Western traditions?

It displays the Muslim lack of freedom of thought and speech. Free thinkers in Islam don’t tend to avoid a fatwa for long.


What on earth does this have to do with the topic?  LOL


Either try to refute what Ehrman has said or admit that you cannot.  Pontificating on unrelated topics such as the experiences of "free thinkers" is a desperate red herring.


Originally posted by Experiential

Ehrman when asked if he has considered undertaking a critical assessment of the Quran is quoted as saying something to the effect that he values his life too much to do that. What does that tell you?
  


What does this have to do with Ehrman's views on the New Testament?  Why are you so afraid to deal with his views?  Why do you so desperately want to change the topic? 


By the way, Ehrman has admitted that he does not know Arabic, so any attempt by him to comment on the Quran or Islam would be futile.  He even admits that when he needed to translate a 13th century Arabic copy of a work of the 3rd-century Neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry, he asked a colleague to translate for him!


"I doubt if any of the New Testament scholars who refer to this statement of Porphyry's has actually read it, since it is, after all, in Arabic, and most New Testament scholars don't read Arabic.  I don't either.  But I have a colleague who does, Carl Ernst, an expert in medieval Islam." (Forged: Writing in the Name of God - Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are, p. 130)


Originally posted by Experiential

This thread is titled “Where is the Injil?” Ehrman believes in the crucifixion of Jesus (unlike the Muslim view) and in the appendix to “Misquoting Jesus” Ehrman states “Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament”. Obviously Ehrman would agree that the Injil Mohammad had is essentially the same as the New Testament.


Either you are deliberately altering what Ehrman actually said or you are just repeating what you heard from someone else.  He was answering a question referring to Bruce Metzger's assertion that the textual variants do not challenge "any essential Christian beliefs...".  Here is what he actually said:


"What he [Metzger] means by that (I think) is that even if one or two passages that are used to argue for a belief have a different textual reading, there are still other passages that could be used to argue for the same belief.  For the most part, I think that's true.


But I was looking at the question from a different angle.  My question is not about traditional Christian beliefs, but about how to interpret passages from the Bible.  And my point is that if you change what the words say, then you change what the passage means.  Most textual variants...have no bearing at all on what a passage means.  But there are other textual variants...that are crucial to the meaning of a passage.  And the theology of entire books of the New Testament are sometimes affected by the meaning of individual passages." (Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, pp. 252-253)


Nice to know that you can be counted on to give the full facts (sarcasm fully intented!).


It needs to be pointed again out that you have yet to offer a reasonable response Ehrman's claims about the New Testament.  What are you afraid of?


Originally posted by Experiential

Your reply about the validity of the New Testament and the number of manuscript copies is the usual Muslim polemic. The NT reliability is radial not linear. Its not a simplistic linear, telephone tag type of transmission but radial, like spokes of a wheel. And not just one wheel but many, all of which validate one another. The wide geographical spread of the texts combined with the sheer number validate the reconstructed text. Currently we have more than 120 manuscripts from the first 300 years. While this may sound small it is significant, and the number is constantly growing. Seventy new manuscripts have been found in the last 10 years by The Centre for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts alone consisting of 1800 pages of text.


And your response is the usual Christian polemic, replete with special pleading.  There are no 1st-century manuscripts, so the appeal to "120 manuscripts from the first 300 years" is deceptive at best.  The rest, as I said, are from medieval times, and they are simply copies of copies.  So, if the earliest copy was defective and it was this copy that the subsequent manuscripts were based on, then all of the manuscripts are defective by default.  The only way to prove that they are not defective would be compare them either to the originals or to copies that were produced within a reasonable amount of time from the originals.  Christianity has neither.


Originally posted by Experiential

Dating manuscript P52 ? I’ll see your paleography expert and raise you one ! The point remains. For most other ancient works, a far longer period of time elapses between the originals and the oldest existing copies.
  


Huh?  Confused


The point, which you failed to respond to, is that P52 (which is a very small fragment) is not dated to the year 125, as Blomberg deceptively claimed.  the usual date range is 125-150, but as Nongbri has stated, even a later date can be considered.  Your response to this was...nothing except the same tired appeal to "other ancient works". 


Originally posted by Experiential

You said “Moreover, the extant manuscripts show unequivocally that the manuscripts have been altered (from 1st Century manuscripts)”. The first Century NT testimony exists. It’s the validity that you are questioning. Daniel Wallace has estimated that there is only 2 percent minor changes (2 percent quantity of syntax, 5-6 percent meaning, but with no doctrinally significant changes) from the earliest 120 manuscripts to those from the Middle Ages.
  


What?  "First Century NT testimony exists"?  That's a new one to me!  Can you name such "testimony" from the 1st century? 


Originally posted by Experiential

Anyway you are missing the point. Compare this with the typical situation for other ancient histories and biographies. The detailed life of Alexander the Great, for instance 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. So the history of Alexander the Great is a leap of faith too? As are Greco / Roman concepts of democracy, medical ethics and mathematics?


This argument is fallacious since scholars do not accept all the "details" of the ancient documents, such as the "Iliad" or sources on the life of Alexander the Great.  For examples, scholar may agree on the central topic of the "Iliad", the Trojan War.  They may agree that this war actually happened.  But, they would not accept the claims of divine intervention in the war, would they?  If you have ever read the Iliad, you would know that it speaks of various gods being involved in the war, such as Apollo and Aphrodite.  These stories are not considered to be historically accurate.  You would be hard-pressed to find a scholar who actually believes that the Iliad is historically accurate.  The same can be said about Alexander the Great.  Scholars would agree that he defeated Darius at the Battle of Gaugamela, but they would not accept some of the other "details" of his life, such as Plutarch's claim that he was descended from Hercules:


"It is agreed on by all hands, that on the father's side, Alexander descended from Hercules by Caranus, and from Aeacus by Neoptolemus on the mother's side." [1]


Originally posted by Experiential

Regarding Bloomburgs comment on the oral traditions and the so-called "hard sayings" of Jesus, you say he is blowing hot air due to having no First Century manuscripts. In the light of hermeneutical criticism Bloomburg is far more qualified than you. Besides this is special pleading. There are no original copies of your Quran.


Talk about "special pleading".  LOL


Regarding the Quran, there are numerous 1st-century manuscripts.  In addition, the Quran was memorized by thousands of people.  Your Bible has neither advantage!  Sorry to disappoint you.


Originally posted by Experiential

You wanted names of these "non-Christian writers and texts" which confirm many Christian beliefs. Cornelius Tacticus 115 AD, the 1st century Jewish historian Josephus, Thallus 52 AD, the Jewish Talmud, Pliny the Younger, Mara Bar Sepion, Celsus, Gaius Seutonis Tranquillis, Lucian.

In terms of the Second Century Church leaders quoting from earlier Gospel manuscripts you avoided the point. Their testimony validates the earlier texts. Polycarp, Clement and Ignatius are examples. From the 27 NT books they quote from 25.

 The Ijil Mohamd had was the same.


I had a feeling you would refer to these non-Christian writers by copying the claims of Josh McDowell.  Most other lay Christians refer to them as well, without bothering to actually do the research.


I will not waste time refuting your claims about each author, so I will refer you to a good refutation of this silly Christian polemic.  Read Louay Fatoohi's "The Mystery of the Crucifixion", specifically pages 69-86.  Fatoohi refutes the appeal to each author.  

Hello Islamispeace

 

You said I contradicted myself by stating that the Bible is inspired by God but not "inerrant". There is no contradiction here. Inspired and inerrant are not mutually exclusive. It is the words that are inspired, not the ink. The written text is a vestige of the oral word. From the standpoint of traditional Christian theology you will be hard pressed to find any theologian expounded the doctrine of scripture such that it is necessary for any human to know 100% of the text of the NT for the doctrine of scripture to function.

You asked how do the other Christians on this forum feel about this assessment? I presume they would take the orthodox position based on 2 Timothy 3.16All Scripture [is] given by inspiration of God”.

 

You said that the Quran was memorized by thousands of people, unlike the bible.  You’re wrong actually. Consider that the early church didn’t even have a Bible as we know it today. All they would have had was the Tanakh (OT) and maybe a gospel or two and one or a few letters from Peter or Paul etc. Yet this was the formative time of the Church. It was primarily the oral traditions through recitation, teachings, liturgy and songs and hymns that were directed by the Spirit of God (Joel 2.28 and Acts 2) that carried the inspiration.

The written text eventually caught up with these oral traditions. Text written by man but inspired by God. Unlike the untenable Muslim idea of the Koran as “The Word of God made Text”. Those who seek mathematical and / or grammatical certainty in matters of the any type of scripture just don’t make sense. Hence part of the reason I don’t believe the Koran as the word of God. Its clumsiness is exacerbated by the fact that most Muslims don’t even read or speak Arabic. All of this is what in part destines Islam to remain a medieval, desert, religion.

 

You claim that regarding the Quran, there are numerous 1st-century manuscripts. Which Quaran manuscripts exist that are pre Uthman ?

 

You said Puin found no evidence of alteration and you wanted examples of mans influence on the Quran. 

You are missing my point in quoting Puin by saying there is no evidence of alterations. Its not the evidence of alteration I’m talking about (although doubts exist), rather it’s the idea of divine transmission. The Koran as the Word of God made text !  A common claim made of the Qur'an is that it is the uncreated and eternal Word of God inimitable. It has come directly to us from Allah and Tablets in Heaven to Gabriel through Muhammad to humanity with no human intervention or editing. Unaltered, not tampered with in any way, since the time of its revelation.

What the Yemeni Korans seemed to suggest, according to Puin was a man made evolving text rather than simply the Word of God as revealed in its entirety to Muhammad.

Quoting Puin again he speaks with disdain about the traditional willingness, on the part of Muslim scholars to accept the conventional understanding of the Koran. "The Koran claims for itself that it is 'mubeen,' or 'clear,'" he says. "But if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn't make sense. Many Muslims—and Orientalists—will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible.”

 

Consider too that Uthmans recession appeared to have political motives as much as grammatical and that Christoph Luxembergs work on the The Syro - Aramaic Reading of the Koran and of the influence of the infancy gospels on the Koran question the Korans uniqueness and the orthodox Muslim absolute literalist position on scripture.

 

Regarding Ehrman and Metzger. Your quote of Ehrman in the context of his discussion with Metzger does not refute my earlier quote of Ehrman. All you supplied was a statement that there are certain NT books that have their theology sometimes affected, which in itself is disputable. This still does not contradict Ehrmans quote –

“The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.”

 

Lets summarize Ehrman. In your repeating of Ehrman you have quoted him to say "Not only do we not have the originals, we don't have the first copies of the originals. That the majority of these manuscripts are fragments, and not complete or even partially complete manuscripts, and there are numerous differences between them. In fact, the number of differences is quite large, as Ehrman notes:

You said “Moreover, the extant manuscripts show unequivocally that the manuscripts have been altered (from 1st Century manuscripts)”, and that "...there are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament."

 

In summary you are using the Ehrman argument about textual variants to question the reliability of the current NT text. I already refuted this when I quoted Daniel Wallace in saying there are only 2 percent insignificant and minor changes from the earliest 120 manuscripts to those from the Middle Ages.  The reconstructed text is reliable.

What I take from having read Erhman is the reinforcement of my conviction that there is nothing new in what he has to say and the ‘variances ’ he discusses have been debated in Christian scholarly circles for centuries attesting to the integrity and transparency of Christian scholars.

 
You said “the only way to prove that they are not defective would be compare them either to the originals or to copies that were produced within a reasonable amount of time from the originals and that Christianity has neither.” This is special pleading as you don’t have your original Koran manuscripts since Uthman.

Also you have not refuted my point that the NT is a reliable reconstructed text with minimal variance and its validity based on a multiple number of diffuse and separate sources all of which validate each other in a radial manner, not linear. You make the common mistake of assuming the transmission of sources is of a simplistic linear pattern. This radial pool of sources is further supported by a number of texts that is constantly growing. Seventy new manuscripts have been found in the last 10 years by The Centre for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts alone consisting of 1800 pages of text.

 

Also you haven’t responded to my point that early Church leaders quoted extensively from the scriptures as evidenced in Lectionaries (church-service books containing Scripture quotations used in the early centuries of Christianity).

 

You state there are no 1st-century manuscripts, so the appeal to "120 manuscripts from the first 300 years" is deceptive at best. Again this is special pleading. You do not have your original Koran manuscripts since Uthman. What proof do you have that your oral tradition of the Koran is accurately transmitted to Mohammad ?

 

You asked what First Century NT testimony exists? The whole NT is First Century eye witness testimony. Your issue is with its transmission.

 

Your dismissal of my argument of classical historical figures such as Alexander the Great, due to scholars not accepting all the "details" of the ancient documents, such as the "Iliad" and the Trojan War is lacking. NT scholars such as Dr Craig Keener specialize in studying and comparing ancient classical works such as poems, legends, epics, biographies and histories with the NT. They compare genre, literary style, language, sources, and can clearly identify between historical validity.

Regarding the Book of Acts for an example, Keener states the majority of NT scholars both Christian and non Christian cite this as a history or biography not a poem, legend or epic, and further more it is supported by extra biblical sources. The Gospels and the Book of Acts are ancient historiography and / or biographies based on eye witness testimony.

Transmission and text reconstruction as mentioned for the NT has far more reliability than ancient biographies in terms of time frames and historiography.

 

You said in regards to ancient non Christian writers verifying Christian belief that most other lay Christians refer to them as well, without bothering to actually do the research. Perhaps you can refute it then if you’ve done the research. Why don’t you quote Fatoohi if its significant? The argument of ancient non Christian writers verifying Christian belief is a common argument because it’s a significant argument.

The Ijil Mohamd had access to was the same as the NT.

 

IP IP Logged
Webber
 
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 09 December 2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 128
Quote Webber Replybullet Posted: 03 January 2013 at 3:24pm
The Injil is mentioned nine times in the Quran and in each case is not described as a physical book. The Injil was the revelation given to Jesus as expressed through the NT. Muhammad never condemned Constantine's work in building the Bible, nor did he point out any corruption. The Quran says it was sent to confirm what came before it, Muslims won't let it.
I'm a Gentile.
Numb. 6:24-26
IP IP Logged
Abu Loren
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 June 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1064
Quote Abu Loren Replybullet Posted: 04 January 2013 at 11:42am
Originally posted by Webber

The Injil is mentioned nine times in the Quran and in each case is not described as a physical book. The Injil was the revelation given to Jesus as expressed through the NT. Muhammad never condemned Constantine's work in building the Bible, nor did he point out any corruption. The Quran says it was sent to confirm what came before it, Muslims won't let it.
 

First of all when the Holy Qur'an says that it was sent down to confirm the scriptures that were sent before namely the Torah and the Injil this doesn't mean that it is confirming what is now called the Bible. It only confirms that the Torah was given to Prophet Musa (Alayhi Salaam) and the Injil to Masih Isa (Alayhi Salaam). In between the revelation and the writing down of these a lot has happened such as additions and deletions.

 

Sahih International

 

He has sent down upon you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming what was before it. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel. 3:3

Christians also mistakenly believe that Prophet Muhammad (SalAllahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) had access to or used verses from the Bible. They just cannot find it in their hearts to accept that Prophet Muhammad (SalAllahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) was illiterate. Allah Subhana Wa Ta’ala called Prophet Muhammad (SalAllahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) the ‘unlettered prophet’.

With regard to the revelations that these prophets of God had, they didn’t just receive their books miraculously from heaven, it just didn’t fall into their lap. What happened to all these prophets was that at first they received a revelation from the Angel Jibril (Alayhi Salaam) then the prophets had scribes write what they recived into a book form. All of these revelations were given orally and then the prophets would recite and the scribes would write down what they were reciting. Prophets Musa, Isa and Muhammad (peace be upon them all) never wrote down anything.

Consider the following verse about Isa (Alayhi Salaam).

Sahih International

 

And He will teach him writing and wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel 3:48

Allah Subhana Wa Ta’ala would teach Isa (Alayhi Salaam) everything. This begs the question why would God teach him everything when Christians claim that Isa (Alayhi Salaam) was god incarnated?

Just like the Qur’an confirm what was sent down before it Isa (Alayhi Salaam) confirmed what was sent down before him, namely the Torah.

Sahih International

 

And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous. 5:46

Christians would love to deny that Isa (Alayhi Salaam) was given anything or even taught these things by God through the Holy Spirit Jibril (Alayhi Salaam).

The following verse clearly states what happened to the Christians after the ascension of Isa (Alayhi Salaam).

Sahih International

 

Then We sent following their footsteps Our messengers and followed [them] with Jesus, the son of Mary, and gave him the Gospel. And We placed in the hearts of those who followed him compassion and mercy and monasticism, which they innovated; We did not prescribe it for them except [that they did so] seeking the approval of Allah . But they did not observe it with due observance. So We gave the ones who believed among them their reward, but many of them are defiantly disobedient. 57:27

Only a very tiny minority of Christians were the true followers of Isa (Alayhi Salaam) then Christianity changed for the worse when men wrote their heretical Trinity Doctrine and only selected a few books that aligned with their new thinking, completely different to what Isa (Alayhi Salaam) taught.

However, all is not lost. Allah Subhana Wa Ta’ala gives the Christians (and Jews) a chance at salvation. I pray that those Christians and Jews who are reading this will consider the following verse and put away their prejudices and submit wholly to the Lord of Worlds Allah Subhana Wa Ta’ala.

 

Sahih International

 

Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who have believed in him, honored him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him - it is those who will be the successful. 7:157

 

IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1884
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 04 January 2013 at 8:28pm
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by Experiential

You said I contradicted myself by stating that the Bible is inspired by God but not "inerrant". There is no contradiction here. Inspired and inerrant are not mutually exclusive. It is the words that are inspired, not the ink. The written text is a vestige of the oral word. From the standpoint of traditional Christian theology you will be hard pressed to find any theologian expounded the doctrine of scripture such that it is necessary for any human to know 100% of the text of the NT for the doctrine of scripture to function.

You asked how do the other Christians on this forum feel about this assessment? I presume they would take the orthodox position based on 2 Timothy 3.16All Scripture [is] given by inspiration of God”.


The above assessment you have given, that "inspiration" pertains to "the words" and not "the ink" makes no sense.  What would be the purpose of "inspiring" the "words" yet leaving open the possibility of errors in the "ink?  That's like traveling half-way to your destination and then turning around and going home.  Furthermore, according to the "Catholic Encyclopedia", the concept of "inspiration" includes the author's "hand":


"The influence of the Holy Ghost had to extend also to all the executive faculties of the sacred writer — to his memory, his imagination, and even to the hand with which he formed the letters. Whether this influence proceed immediately from the action of the Inspirer or be a simple assistance, and, again, whether this assistance be positive or merely negative, in any case everyone admits that its object is to remove all error from the inspired text. Those who hold that even the words are inspired believe that it also forms an integral part of the grace of inspiration itself. However that may be, there is no denying that the inspiration extends, in one way or another, and as far as needful, to all those who have really cooperated in the composition of the sacred test, especially to the secretaries, if the inspired person had any." [1]  


Originally posted by Experiential

You said that the Quran was memorized by thousands of people, unlike the bible.  You’re wrong actually. Consider that the early church didn’t even have a Bible as we know it today. All they would have had was the Tanakh (OT) and maybe a gospel or two and one or a few letters from Peter or Paul etc. Yet this was the formative time of the Church. It was primarily the oral traditions through recitation, teachings, liturgy and songs and hymns that were directed by the Spirit of God (Joel 2.28 and Acts 2) that carried the inspiration.

The written text eventually caught up with these oral traditions.


Oral tradition does not mean that Christians "memorized" the Bible.  It just means that stories were told and were then passed around.  That certainly explains why there were so many stories floating around.  These stories eventually gave rise to the many gospels and epistles that were written, both canonical and apocryphal.

Originally posted by Experiential

Text written by man but inspired by God. Unlike the untenable Muslim idea of the Koran as “The Word of God made Text”. Those who seek mathematical and / or grammatical certainty in matters of the any type of scripture just don’t make sense. Hence part of the reason I don’t believe the Koran as the word of God. Its clumsiness is exacerbated by the fact that most Muslims don’t even read or speak Arabic. All of this is what in part destines Islam to remain a medieval, desert, religion.


That's funny because I don't think most Christians can read Hebrew and Greek! 

Originally posted by Experiential

You claim that regarding the Quran, there are numerous 1st-century manuscripts. Which Quaran manuscripts exist that are pre Uthman ?


Special pleading...Who are you to ask for "pre-Uthmanic" manuscripts, when you can't produce even one 1st century New Testament manuscript at all?! 

As I said, there are numerous 1st century manuscripts of the Quran.  The Quran was also memorized by thousands of people.  The Bible has neither of these advantages.  Yet, you would like us to accept the latter over the former!  That would downright foolish.

Originally posted by Experiential

You said Puin found no evidence of alteration and you wanted examples of mans influence on the Quran. 

You are missing my point in quoting Puin by saying there is no evidence of alterations. Its not the evidence of alteration I’m talking about (although doubts exist), rather it’s the idea of divine transmission. The Koran as the Word of God made text !  A common claim made of the Qur'an is that it is the uncreated and eternal Word of God inimitable. It has come directly to us from Allah and Tablets in Heaven to Gabriel through Muhammad to humanity with no human intervention or editing. Unaltered, not tampered with in any way, since the time of its revelation.

What the Yemeni Korans seemed to suggest, according to Puin was a man made evolving text rather than simply the Word of God as revealed in its entirety to Muhammad.

Quoting Puin again he speaks with disdain about the traditional willingness, on the part of Muslim scholars to accept the conventional understanding of the Koran. "The Koran claims for itself that it is 'mubeen,' or 'clear,'" he says. "But if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn't make sense. Many Muslims—and Orientalists—will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible.”


Perhaps if Puin had actually read the Quran, he would have realized that the Quran states that some of its verses are purposefully cryptic and that only those who lack faith will dwell on those verses while completely ignoring the verses which are clear.  Moreover, he even admits that both Muslim and "Orientalist" (meaning non-Muslim) scholars would deny that the Quran is "incomprehensible", so what's his point? 


Just because it is "incomprehensible" to Puin does not mean it is actually "incomprehensible".  Also, one has to wonder how being "incomprehensible" is evidence of and "evolving" text.


Originally posted by Experiential

Consider too that Uthmans recession appeared to have political motives as much as grammatical and that Christoph Luxembergs work on the The Syro - Aramaic Reading of the Koran and of the influence of the infancy gospels on the Koran question the Korans uniqueness and the orthodox Muslim absolute literalist position on scripture.


These vague claims show that you are just repeating baseless allegations without fully understanding the situation.  What "political motives" are you talking about?  What "grammatical" issues are you referring to?  What "influence" of the infancy gospels are you referring to?  The "plagiarism" accusation is certainly a favorite of Christians to level against the Quran but they tend to ignore the simple fact that there is no evidence that Muhammad (pbuh) had enough access to these texts that he could have had a detailed knowledge of them and thus reproduce them somehow in the Quranic narrative. 


Originally posted by Experiential

Regarding Ehrman and Metzger. Your quote of Ehrman in the context of his discussion with Metzger does not refute my earlier quote of Ehrman. All you supplied was a statement that there are certain NT books that have their theology sometimes affected, which in itself is disputable. This still does not contradict Ehrmans quote –

“The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.”


Again, you are misquoting what he was actually saying.  That's certainly ironic because the name of the book is "Misquoting Jesus".  What he was saying is that:

"...even if one or two passages that are used to argue for a belief have a different textual reading, there are still other passages that could be used to argue for the same belief."


I think it is also funny how you try to non-chalantly dismiss the theological problems that come with the textual variants!  The very fact that some textual variants are serious enough to put the theology of an entire book into question is a pretty big deal.  How can a supposedly "inspired" book have such serious theological problems? 


Originally posted by Experiential

In summary you are using the Ehrman argument about textual variants to question the reliability of the current NT text. I already refuted this when I quoted Daniel Wallace in saying there are only 2 percent insignificant and minor changes from the earliest 120 manuscripts to those from the Middle Ages.  The reconstructed text is reliable.

What I take from having read Erhman is the reinforcement of my conviction that there is nothing new in what he has to say and the ‘variances ’ he discusses have been debated in Christian scholarly circles for centuries attesting to the integrity and transparency of Christian scholars.


There are still a few problems with this argument:


1.  The absence of documentation from the time of Jesus or even his disciples makes authenticating the text impossible,


2.  The "reconstructed text" is based on later manuscripts,


3.  Many of the books and epistles were probably later forgeries.  See Ehrman's "Forged: Writing in the Name of God - Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Why We Think They Are" for examples.


4.  Even early Christian writers were aware of the changes that were being made to the text.  For example, Origen noted:


"The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please." [As cited by Ehrman, p.52].


Given these points, the claim that the Bible is "inspired" or even textually "reliable" can only be made on a leap of faith.


Originally posted by Experiential

You said “the only way to prove that they are not defective would be compare them either to the originals or to copies that were produced within a reasonable amount of time from the originals and that Christianity has neither.” This is special pleading as you don’t have your original Koran manuscripts since Uthman.


We have the proof of 1400 years of memorization.  We also have the evidence in the fact that there exist no significant textual variants the likes of which we see in the Biblical manuscripts.  And of course, we have the simple fact of 1st manuscripts, many of which were written in the lifetimes of the Sahabah.  The Bible has none of these to back it up.  


Originally posted by Experiential

Also you have not refuted my point that the NT is a reliable reconstructed text with minimal variance and its validity based on a multiple number of diffuse and separate sources all of which validate each other in a radial manner, not linear. You make the common mistake of assuming the transmission of sources is of a simplistic linear pattern. This radial pool of sources is further supported by a number of texts that is constantly growing. Seventy new manuscripts have been found in the last 10 years by The Centre for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts alone consisting of 1800 pages of text.


And when were these "1800 pages of text" written?  Please do tell. 


Oh and wouldn't a "simplistic linear pattern" of transmission be the best route to take?  Even if there is a "radial manner" (whatever that means), you have yet to prove that this "radial manner" of transmission is based on a sound chain.


Originally posted by Experiential

Also you haven’t responded to my point that early Church leaders quoted extensively from the scriptures as evidenced in Lectionaries (church-service books containing Scripture quotations used in the early centuries of Christianity).


These were all later figures, not earlier than the early 2nd century. This is no different than having only 2nd century manuscripts as the absolute earliest "witnesses".  There is nothing from the 1st century to validate any of the New Testament books.  In fact, it took until the late 2nd century for Christians just to finally agree on how many canonical gospels there were. Up to that point, there was no clear-cut canon.  


Originally posted by Experiential

You state there are no 1st-century manuscripts, so the appeal to "120 manuscripts from the first 300 years" is deceptive at best. Again this is special pleading. You do not have your original Koran manuscripts since Uthman. What proof do you have that your oral tradition of the Koran is accurately transmitted to Mohammad ?


We have 1st century manuscripts, which you don't have for your Bible.  Who are you to complain about the Quran?  We even have an inscription that contains Surah 112 (Al-Ikhlas) from the year 650 CE, which puts it right around the time of Uthman's rule [2]


The very fact that Muslims have been reciting the same Quran for the past 1400 years, with no variation or disagreement, is proof that the Quran has remained as it was when it was revealed.


On the other hand, your Bible has had revisions and was in such a state that it required a "reconstructing"  of the text.  What sort of an "inspired" text would have been in such a shape?


Originally posted by Experiential

You asked what First Century NT testimony exists? The whole NT is First Century eye witness testimony. Your issue is with its transmission.


Well, of course it is, because in the absence of documentation, "transmission" is not enough.


Originally posted by Experiential

Your dismissal of my argument of classical historical figures such as Alexander the Great, due to scholars not accepting all the "details" of the ancient documents, such as the "Iliad" and the Trojan War is lacking. NT scholars such as Dr Craig Keener specialize in studying and comparing ancient classical works such as poems, legends, epics, biographies and histories with the NT. They compare genre, literary style, language, sources, and can clearly identify between historical validity.


This is another vague claim.  What do you mean they "can clearly identify between historical validity"?  How so? 


As I said, no one seriously believes all the stories mentioned in books like the Iliad.  Therefore, to compare them to the NT is a bizarre argument.  In fact, most scholars would treat the NT the same way as the Iliad.  They would see it as mix of historical and mythical elements.  


Originally posted by Experiential

Regarding the Book of Acts for an example, Keener states the majority of NT scholars both Christian and non Christian cite this as a history or biography not a poem, legend or epic, and further more it is supported by extra biblical sources. The Gospels and the Book of Acts are ancient historiography and / or biographies based on eye witness testimony.

Transmission and text reconstruction as mentioned for the NT has far more reliability than ancient biographies in terms of time frames and historiography.


There are many scholars who would beg to differ.  The Gospels may have been written to appear "historical", but that does not mean that it is historically "accurate".  Scholars have identified historical errors in the Gospels.  Take the example of Luke's census.  As Gier notes:


"There is no record of Caesar Augustus' decree that "all the world should be enrolled" (Lk. 2:1).  The Romans kept extremely detailed records of such events.  Not only is Luke's census not in these records, it goes against all that we know of Roman economic history.  Roman documents show that taxation was done by the various governors at the provincial level." [3]


Originally posted by Experiential

You said in regards to ancient non Christian writers verifying Christian belief that most other lay Christians refer to them as well, without bothering to actually do the research. Perhaps you can refute it then if you’ve done the research. Why don’t you quote Fatoohi if its significant? The argument of ancient non Christian writers verifying Christian belief is a common argument because it’s a significant argument.
  


I simply do not have the time to go through each and every single person you mentioned.  Christians do this a lot.  They give lists and then expect a response.  You haven't given any quotations from the Christian scholars you have named, so why do you expect me to provide quotes for each supposed "testimony"?  I gave you the page numbers.  You can read them yourself, if you are really interested in the facts.

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: 05 January 2013 at 11:41am
Originally posted by Webber



The Injil is mentioned nine times in the Quran and in each case is not described as a physical book. The Injil was the revelation given to Jesus as expressed through the NT. Muhammad never condemned Constantine's work in building the Bible, nor did he point out any corruption. The Quran says it was sent to ccnfirm what came before it, Muslims won't let it.


Weber,
lack of understanding does not equate to things being not there. I wonder what would you get from words like "people of the book" which Quran addresses many times for those who lived before and received God's guidance.
About the Christians and Jews the prophet (pbuh) spoke only what he was given by God, not of his own person. And what God told him of them was simple: That the books God gave before like Torah and Injeel were true word of God for their specified time. They served their purpose fo the people they were sent. When they were ineffective because of the way they were being used, i.e. the parts favored the authorities were highlighted and elaborated with words that were not there before while others that did not favor it were covered up, hidden and eventually removed.
Every followers of the Quran believes what it tells us. Quran tells us that indeed prophets like Moses, David and Jesus (pbut)were all from God, and that they all brought the same word of God that God completed with the Final messenger to mankind, prophet Mohammed (pbuh).
Hasan   
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"
IP IP Logged
Webber
 
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 09 December 2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 128
Quote Webber Replybullet Posted: 05 January 2013 at 1:28pm
Hi Abu,
Just my thoughts on your post.

First of all when the Holy Qur'an says that it was sent down to confirm the scriptures that were sent before namely the Torah and the Injil this doesn't mean that it is confirming what is now called the Bible. It only confirms that the Torah was given to Prophet Musa (Alayhi Salaam) and the Injil to Masih Isa (Alayhi Salaam). In between the revelation and the writing down of these a lot has happened such as additions and deletions.

From Quran to hadith. It always amazes me how black and white the Quran is written, yet there is always something written elsewhere that brings in the shades of grey.

 

He has sent down upon you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming what was before it. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel. 3:3

Let’s not get too far apart on our understanding here. My first statement was that I don’t believe “Injil” meant NT in its entirety. If that was the case, the NT would be a totally different format, probably looking more like the Quran. It wasn’t written that way and it’s too late to change it. The sermon on the mount was Injil, the parables had meanings that related to the Injil, miracles were products of Injil. Jesus, like all Prophets had it revealed into His heart, not into his hands.  

Christians also mistakenly believe that Prophet Muhammad (SalAllahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) had access to or used verses from the Bible. They just cannot find it in their hearts to accept that Prophet Muhammad (SalAllahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) was illiterate. Allah Subhana Wa Ta’ala called Prophet Muhammad (SalAllahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) the ‘unlettered prophet’.

Muhammad had relatives who were Christian. When they got together what would the topic of discussion be? All Christians have Bibles. 300 years after its compilation the Bible was pretty wide spread. To reach the Medina/Mecca area in time for Muhammad to be exposed to it, it would have to travel at the break neck speed of about 8 klms per day. Caravans were no doubt quicker than that.

Illiterate people with a thirst for God, will sit and, listen. They don’t read, they don’t write, we can’t ask them to. Never said Muhammad copied a thing, but I’m sure he had to have some background on what Gabriel was telling him or he’d be utterly confused. Information overload has blown all our minds at one time or another. None the less, Gabriel would have known exactly what had been corrupted and how could he relay the words of God who says “confirming” if the real word was “corrupted”? 

With regard to the revelations that these prophets of God had, they didn’t just receive their books miraculously from heaven, it just didn’t fall into their lap. What happened to all these prophets was that at first they received a revelation from the Angel Jibril (Alayhi Salaam) then the prophets had scribes write what they recived into a book form. All of these revelations were given orally and then the prophets would recite and the scribes would write down what they were reciting. Prophets Musa, Isa and Muhammad (peace be upon them all) never wrote down anything.

That is the method we are all used to hearing, and probably true due to the logistics of it all, although Gabriel was only one of the Archangels and there isn’t much mention of what they all did. Gabriel more prominent than the rest was noted by Daniel as “The man Gabriel”, the Jews translated that as the man of linen. Then again he’s mentioned in the NT as being present at the conception of Jesus, and ministering to Muhammad. This is not to say he was the only active angel. I tend to think God has an angelic army of more than one. I’m not totally up on the full understanding of the Holy Spirit either, but by all accounts He’s not one angel either.

Consider the following verse about Isa (Alayhi Salaam). Sahih International

And He will teach him writing and wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel 3:48

Allah Subhana Wa Ta’ala would teach Isa (Alayhi Salaam) everything. This begs the question why would God teach him everything when Christians claim that Isa (Alayhi Salaam) was god incarnated?

Sorry, I’m not up on all the Subhana Wa Ta’ala and Alayhi Salaam meanings. I’m pretty sure the first would mean something like; The one and only, and really sure the second does not mean son of… ;)

Other than that I’m good with the verse. We know Jesus was the narrator, many would write, some of it we’d get to see in the Gospels, some of it we didn’t. I wouldn’t have wanted Constantine’s job either.

I tend to believe Jesus had a direct link to God in a way we may never understand but “incarnate” is not it. If you read the NT, and I will always suggest you do, (for the guidance and light Jesus taught) you will see that (almost) every reference Jesus makes to God, whether He call Him Father or not, Jesus says “who is in Heaven”. Not sure anyone should need more explanation than that.

Just like the Qur’an confirm what was sent down before it Isa (Alayhi Salaam) confirmed what was sent down before him, namely the Torah. Sahih International

And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous. 5:46

Definitely.  Although Jesus didn’t go into details about who was king at a given time, what he did, and how much that mattered. He was more interested in removing the extras that the Scribes and Pharisees had added.  Let’s not forget that cities were much better established, water works in place, etc. which could lead to statements like; “we have paper now so you can stop counting rocks and leaves.” In other words, technology, (also not a biblical word, but…) vs tradition will always change rules, and some laws. The laws Jesus upheld were the real laws. Who cares how many laws people made for their own advantage.

 

Christians would love to deny that Isa (Alayhi Salaam) was given anything or even taught these things by God through the Holy Spirit Jibril (Alayhi Salaam).

Not at all. One mention of Jesus being taught by Gabriel in the Bible and every Christian would believe it. You will never get a Christian to agree that the Holy Spirit is only one angel tho. You would have to read on into the book of Acts to see what the Holy Spirit did which one angel could not.

 

The following verse clearly states what happened to the Christians after the ascension of Isa (Alayhi Salaam).

Sahih International

Then We sent following their footsteps Our messengers and followed [them] with Jesus, the son of Mary, and gave him the Gospel. And We placed in the hearts of those who followed him compassion and mercy and monasticism, which they innovated; We did not prescribe it for them except [that they did so] seeking the approval of Allah . But they did not observe it with due observance. So We gave the ones who believed among them their reward, but many of them are defiantly disobedient. 57:27

Only a very tiny minority of Christians were the true followers of Isa (Alayhi Salaam) then Christianity changed for the worse when men wrote their heretical Trinity Doctrine and only selected a few books that aligned with their new thinking, completely different to what Isa (Alayhi Salaam) taught.

Not completely different. If any corruption happened during the compilation of the Bible many would have opposed it. If it was coerced in any way you would have Jesus saying “I am God” somewhere. “I and my Father are one” doesn’t really do it.  

Shortly after that the Nicene creed was put together.  That’s where your “But many of them…” comes into play.

 

However, all is not lost. Allah Subhana Wa Ta’ala gives the Christians (and Jews) a chance at salvation. I pray that those Christians and Jews who are reading this will consider the following verse and put away their prejudices and submit wholly to the Lord of Worlds Allah Subhana Wa Ta’ala.

Sahih International

Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who have believed in him, honored him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him - it is those who will be the successful. 7:157

All is definitely not lost, however; Those of the OT cannot be saved by the words of Muhammad save they be the words of their Prophet as well, same with Jesus. Jesus actually spelled things out well enough Christians shouldn’t need to go looking for more. It would be good if they dropped some of the dogma but most have been taught the same way Muslims are. Don’t question some things. Ask your Imam how that goes.  

As you can see, I’m not totally opposing your views, but as all religious leaders and followers are, we tend to dig in our heels a little deeper over matters that can’t be fully explained. I get the feeling that when we get to Heaven we’ll be looking at each other going “huh?” as we realize that Heaven is a totally different dimension than we were ever allowed to imagine.  I don’t see multiple heavens coming up for each religion so we will have to put up with each other.  I’m okay with that.

I'm a Gentile.
Numb. 6:24-26
IP IP Logged
Abu Loren
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 June 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1064
Quote Abu Loren Replybullet Posted: 06 January 2013 at 1:54am
Originally posted by Webber

Hi Abu,
Just my thoughts on your post.

First of all when the Holy Qur'an says that it was sent down to confirm the scriptures that were sent before namely the Torah and the Injil this doesn't mean that it is confirming what is now called the Bible. It only confirms that the Torah was given to Prophet Musa (Alayhi Salaam) and the Injil to Masih Isa (Alayhi Salaam). In between the revelation and the writing down of these a lot has happened such as additions and deletions.

From Quran to hadith. It always amazes me how black and white the Quran is written, yet there is always something written elsewhere that brings in the shades of grey.

 

He has sent down upon you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming what was before it. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel. 3:3

Let’s not get too far apart on our understanding here. My first statement was that I don’t believe “Injil” meant NT in its entirety. If that was the case, the NT would be a totally different format, probably looking more like the Quran. It wasn’t written that way and it’s too late to change it. The sermon on the mount was Injil, the parables had meanings that related to the Injil, miracles were products of Injil. Jesus, like all Prophets had it revealed into His heart, not into his hands.  

Christians also mistakenly believe that Prophet Muhammad (SalAllahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) had access to or used verses from the Bible. They just cannot find it in their hearts to accept that Prophet Muhammad (SalAllahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) was illiterate. Allah Subhana Wa Ta’ala called Prophet Muhammad (SalAllahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) the ‘unlettered prophet’.

Muhammad had relatives who were Christian. When they got together what would the topic of discussion be? All Christians have Bibles. 300 years after its compilation the Bible was pretty wide spread. To reach the Medina/Mecca area in time for Muhammad to be exposed to it, it would have to travel at the break neck speed of about 8 klms per day. Caravans were no doubt quicker than that.

Illiterate people with a thirst for God, will sit and, listen. They don’t read, they don’t write, we can’t ask them to. Never said Muhammad copied a thing, but I’m sure he had to have some background on what Gabriel was telling him or he’d be utterly confused. Information overload has blown all our minds at one time or another. None the less, Gabriel would have known exactly what had been corrupted and how could he relay the words of God who says “confirming” if the real word was “corrupted”? 

With regard to the revelations that these prophets of God had, they didn’t just receive their books miraculously from heaven, it just didn’t fall into their lap. What happened to all these prophets was that at first they received a revelation from the Angel Jibril (Alayhi Salaam) then the prophets had scribes write what they recived into a book form. All of these revelations were given orally and then the prophets would recite and the scribes would write down what they were reciting. Prophets Musa, Isa and Muhammad (peace be upon them all) never wrote down anything.

That is the method we are all used to hearing, and probably true due to the logistics of it all, although Gabriel was only one of the Archangels and there isn’t much mention of what they all did. Gabriel more prominent than the rest was noted by Daniel as “The man Gabriel”, the Jews translated that as the man of linen. Then again he’s mentioned in the NT as being present at the conception of Jesus, and ministering to Muhammad. This is not to say he was the only active angel. I tend to think God has an angelic army of more than one. I’m not totally up on the full understanding of the Holy Spirit either, but by all accounts He’s not one angel either.

Consider the following verse about Isa (Alayhi Salaam). Sahih International

And He will teach him writing and wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel 3:48

Allah Subhana Wa Ta’ala would teach Isa (Alayhi Salaam) everything. This begs the question why would God teach him everything when Christians claim that Isa (Alayhi Salaam) was god incarnated?

Sorry, I’m not up on all the Subhana Wa Ta’ala and Alayhi Salaam meanings. I’m pretty sure the first would mean something like; The one and only, and really sure the second does not mean son of… ;)

Other than that I’m good with the verse. We know Jesus was the narrator, many would write, some of it we’d get to see in the Gospels, some of it we didn’t. I wouldn’t have wanted Constantine’s job either.

I tend to believe Jesus had a direct link to God in a way we may never understand but “incarnate” is not it. If you read the NT, and I will always suggest you do, (for the guidance and light Jesus taught) you will see that (almost) every reference Jesus makes to God, whether He call Him Father or not, Jesus says “who is in Heaven”. Not sure anyone should need more explanation than that.

Just like the Qur’an confirm what was sent down before it Isa (Alayhi Salaam) confirmed what was sent down before him, namely the Torah. Sahih International

And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous. 5:46

Definitely.  Although Jesus didn’t go into details about who was king at a given time, what he did, and how much that mattered. He was more interested in removing the extras that the Scribes and Pharisees had added.  Let’s not forget that cities were much better established, water works in place, etc. which could lead to statements like; “we have paper now so you can stop counting rocks and leaves.” In other words, technology, (also not a biblical word, but…) vs tradition will always change rules, and some laws. The laws Jesus upheld were the real laws. Who cares how many laws people made for their own advantage.

 

Christians would love to deny that Isa (Alayhi Salaam) was given anything or even taught these things by God through the Holy Spirit Jibril (Alayhi Salaam).

Not at all. One mention of Jesus being taught by Gabriel in the Bible and every Christian would believe it. You will never get a Christian to agree that the Holy Spirit is only one angel tho. You would have to read on into the book of Acts to see what the Holy Spirit did which one angel could not.

 

The following verse clearly states what happened to the Christians after the ascension of Isa (Alayhi Salaam).

Sahih International

Then We sent following their footsteps Our messengers and followed [them] with Jesus, the son of Mary, and gave him the Gospel. And We placed in the hearts of those who followed him compassion and mercy and monasticism, which they innovated; We did not prescribe it for them except [that they did so] seeking the approval of Allah . But they did not observe it with due observance. So We gave the ones who believed among them their reward, but many of them are defiantly disobedient. 57:27

Only a very tiny minority of Christians were the true followers of Isa (Alayhi Salaam) then Christianity changed for the worse when men wrote their heretical Trinity Doctrine and only selected a few books that aligned with their new thinking, completely different to what Isa (Alayhi Salaam) taught.

Not completely different. If any corruption happened during the compilation of the Bible many would have opposed it. If it was coerced in any way you would have Jesus saying “I am God” somewhere. “I and my Father are one” doesn’t really do it.  

Shortly after that the Nicene creed was put together.  That’s where your “But many of them…” comes into play.

 

However, all is not lost. Allah Subhana Wa Ta’ala gives the Christians (and Jews) a chance at salvation. I pray that those Christians and Jews who are reading this will consider the following verse and put away their prejudices and submit wholly to the Lord of Worlds Allah Subhana Wa Ta’ala.

Sahih International

Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who have believed in him, honored him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him - it is those who will be the successful. 7:157

All is definitely not lost, however; Those of the OT cannot be saved by the words of Muhammad save they be the words of their Prophet as well, same with Jesus. Jesus actually spelled things out well enough Christians shouldn’t need to go looking for more. It would be good if they dropped some of the dogma but most have been taught the same way Muslims are. Don’t question some things. Ask your Imam how that goes.  

As you can see, I’m not totally opposing your views, but as all religious leaders and followers are, we tend to dig in our heels a little deeper over matters that can’t be fully explained. I get the feeling that when we get to Heaven we’ll be looking at each other going “huh?” as we realize that Heaven is a totally different dimension than we were ever allowed to imagine.  I don’t see multiple heavens coming up for each religion so we will have to put up with each other.  I’m okay with that.

 
Wow! So you are a 'different' Christian? I wonder how many differences there are in Christianity? :P
IP IP Logged
Webber
 
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 09 December 2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 128
Quote Webber Replybullet Posted: 07 January 2013 at 8:18am
Wow! So you are a 'different' Christian? I wonder how many differences there are in Christianity? :P
 
Lol, just a couple.
In the same way Shia and Sunni have the same Quran, Christians all use the same Bible. How they interpret is what makes the differences. Of course Catholic and Protestant are the main differences, but even under the label of one or the other are more differences. Enough to keep some out of Heaven I wouldn't know.
 
One interesting difference is baptism. There's the sprinkle or total immersion. There's those who have a tank in their church and those that don't. Some prefer going to a river. In each case they have their reasons. Some do symbolic cerimonies, and others believe if you don't do things exactly as they were done centuries ago it won't work.
 
I'm not up on all the differences between denominations because they just don't matter to me as much as my own studies.
 
I don't think you'll find many that would believe Muslims will be in Heaven, but I expect to, as well as Jews and those, regardless of their religion who have earnestly sought out God. Not talking idolatry of course.
 
Yeah, I guess that makes me different.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I'm a Gentile.
Numb. 6:24-26
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