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
Placid
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 01 November 2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 231
Quote Placid Replybullet Posted: 10 December 2012 at 8:35am
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

IP IP Logged
Abu Loren
Male Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 June 2012
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 729
Quote Abu Loren Replybullet Posted: 11 December 2012 at 2:11am
Originally posted by Placid


Question: --- What are the references to these extra verses?
These have already been shown.


You said: --- Nearly all of the Prophets were called sons of God, this label was not exclusive to Isa (Alayhi Salaam).

Response: --- I have not found that, so which Prophets are you referring to?
However, Gabriel revealed to Mary that ‘Jesus would be CALLED the Son of God.’ Luke 1:35.
Prophet Ezekiel was called 'son of man'. The angels were called 'sons of God'

Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.

Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?  
Can you see why Jesus (pbuh) was called the 'son of God'? As he had no human father people therefore gave him the title 'son of God'. With reference to what Angel Gabriel said to Mary mother of Jesus we cannot determine because we can't really trust what is real what has been added later by the trinitarians.


--- I had said once before that I would reveal something to you about Jesus being a ‘Servant of God’ that has never been mentioned, so you may be the first to understand it. --- I will give the verses referring to Jesus, and not take time to explain unless you want to ask about them.--- I will start in the OT with Isaiah 42:
1 “Behold! My Servant whom I uphold,
My Elect One in whom My soul delights!
I have put My Spirit upon Him;
He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles.
--- This is the chapter on the Messiah who came to Redeemed others, Isaiah 53:
11 By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
For He shall bear their iniquities.
12 Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors.

--- In the Gospel of Luke, the angel Gabriel said to Mary in Luke 1:
31 “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.
31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall CALL His name Jesus.
32 He will be great, and will be CALLED the Son of the Highest;
35 “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be CALLED the Son of God.

Now notice this: --- Jesus was CALLED the Son of God, and the Son of Man, while He was on earth for 33 years, but after His ascension in Acts 1, the Spiritual body returned, to sit 'on the right hand of God,' Surah 3:55.

--- And here, Peter, under the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit again refers to Jesus as the 'Servant of God,' in Acts 3:
13 The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified His Servant Jesus, whom you delivered up and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let Him go.
25 You are sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed.’
26 To you first, God, having raised up His Servant Jesus, sent Him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from your iniquities.”

--- Now, also two verses from the Quran, where Jesus said in Surah 3:
50 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.'"
--- (If you weren’t so afraid of these verses you would realize that Jesus is saying, “God is My Lord and I am a Servant to Him.”) --- Then you would use this to convince Christians from the Quran that Jesus did not say He was God, but that He was the ‘Servant of God.’)
--- Then there is this verse in Surah 4:
172 The Messiah will never scorn to be a slave (Servant) unto Allah, nor will the favored angels.

--- (So that should help you understand what the Scriptures say, should it not?)



Placid

 
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'.
 
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.
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: 11 December 2012 at 8:44am
To quote Abu Loren:

Jesus (Alayhi Salaam) taught the disciples what he was commissioned to do and many if not all of his disciples wrote down the message he was conveying into scrolls. In early Christianity these were in circulation and were used by the Christian churches as guidance. Then when the Roman Empire got tired of feeding the Christians to the lions in the Colosseum they decided to embace Christianity and then Emperor Constantine commisioned the Council of Nicea to canonise the gospels. To appease the pagan Romans they then decided to merge the pagan religion of Rome and Christianity. What you have today was chosen and all the rest were either destroyed or hidden somewhere in antiquity.

Except that the Gospels were already canonised in the 2nd century.  In around AD 170, for example, Irenaeus argued for Four Gospels only.  It is known that none of the Gnostic Gospels were written yet as the Diatessaron, a harmony of the Four Gospels was written up by a Gnostic who did not have any Gnostic Gospels to work with, as they did not exist yet and the earliest Gnostic Gospel, the Gospel of Thomas, is a Syriac work which depends on a Syriac translation of the Greek Diatessaron.  Only the Four Gospels deal with Second Temple Judaism in the Roman period.  The Muratorian Canon from the 2nd century lists only the Four Gospels as the Injeel specifically.  The codices, books, already had all four Gospels copied in one volume.  You must be naive enough to think that the likes of Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus are the oldest copies of the New Testament books.  Wrong.  We've got sufficient material pre-dating the 4th century, the Chester Beatty Papyri stored in Dublin Castle and on public display come from the 2nd and 3rd centuries.  As for the claim that the religions of Rome and Christianity were merged, you need to look at what Jesus says about the Greatest Commandment, and what Paul in Romans 1 and Corinthians 8 says about paganism.  Romans 1 is the most hair-raising and ruthless condemnation of idolatry you will find anywhere.

PS.  You haven't read the decrees of the Council of Nicaea.  How often do I have to explain to people that the contents of the books of the New Testament were NEVER discussed at Nicaea at all?  I have a full copy of the documents from the Council of Nicaea in my digs and I can assure you this topic was never discussed nor ruled upon.  Arius accepted the same canon as the Trinitarians did.  (PPS- it was Arius who was the polytheist, more strictly a Henotheist, the Trinitarians were the monotheists at Nicaea.) 


Edited by Salaam_Erin - 11 December 2012 at 8:47am
IP IP Logged
Placid
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 01 November 2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 231
Quote Placid Replybullet Posted: 11 December 2012 at 12:39pm
Hi Abu,

Quote from page 3: Like Adam (Alayhi Salaam) Prophet Isa (Alayhi Salaam) was the only other human being 'made' without a human father. Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala 'made' them both with a single command "Be'.

Response: --- Yes the verse that says this is in Surah 3:
59 The similitude of Jesus before God is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.

In the beginning God created Adam by breathing into his nostrils the breath of Life ‘and man became a living being.’
--- Adam was created complete and perfect, but he had freedom of choice, which led him in disobedience to God.

The angel Gabriel came to Mary to reveal God's plan in Surah 19:
19 The angel said, `I am only a messenger of thy Lord, that I may give thee glad tidings of a righteous son.'

Jesus was again conceived by the breath of God as it says in Surah 21:
91 And (remember) her who guarded her chastity: We breathed into her of Our spirit, and We made her and her son a sign for all peoples.


IP IP Logged
Abu Loren
Male Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 June 2012
Location: United Arab Emirates
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 729
Quote Abu Loren Replybullet Posted: 12 December 2012 at 4:08am
Originally posted by Salaam_Erin

  In around AD 170, for example, Irenaeus argued for Four Gospels only. 
Who the hell is Iranaeus to decide?
 
  The Muratorian Canon from the 2nd century lists only the Four Gospels as the Injeel specifically. 
 
The four gospels are not the Injil.
 
The codices, books, already had all four Gospels copied in one volume.  You must be naive enough to think that the likes of Codex Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Alexandrinus are the oldest copies of the New Testament books.  Wrong.  We've got sufficient material pre-dating the 4th century, the Chester Beatty Papyri stored in Dublin Castle and on public display come from the 2nd and 3rd centuries.  As for the claim that the religions of Rome and Christianity were merged, you need to look at what Jesus says about the Greatest Commandment, and what Paul in Romans 1 and Corinthians 8 says about paganism.  Romans 1 is the most hair-raising and ruthless condemnation of idolatry you will find anywhere.
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.


PS.  You haven't read the decrees of the Council of Nicaea.  How often do I have to explain to people that the contents of the books of the New Testament were NEVER discussed at Nicaea at all?  I have a full copy of the documents from the Council of Nicaea in my digs and I can assure you this topic was never discussed nor ruled upon.  Arius accepted the same canon as the Trinitarians did.  (PPS- it was Arius who was the polytheist, more strictly a Henotheist, the Trinitarians were the monotheists at Nicaea.) 
 
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.
 
The Lost Gospels
 
Is the Original New Testament Lost?
 
How the Bible Got Changed.
 
 
 


Edited by Abu Loren - 12 December 2012 at 4:09am
IP IP Logged
Placid
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 01 November 2012
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 231
Quote Placid Replybullet Posted: 13 December 2012 at 11:48am
Hi Abu,

Quote: (You said): --- Nearly all of the Prophets were called sons of God, this label was not exclusive to Isa (Alayhi Salaam).
My Response: --- I have not found that, so which Prophets are you referring to?
However, Gabriel revealed to Mary that ‘Jesus would be CALLED the Son of God.’ Luke 1:35.
You replied: --- Prophet Ezekiel was called 'son of man'. The angels were called 'sons of God'
Job 2:1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.
Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?   

Response: --- These angels were of a previous creation which is not relevant, --- so, rather than ‘Nearly all the Prophets being called sons of God,’ --- I think you have to admit that NONE of the Prophets were called “sons of God.”
--- And only Adam, whom God ‘breathed ‘into, after he was created, --- and Jesus, who was born of the Virgin Mary, --- when God ‘breathed’ the Life into her body, --- were called “sons of God.”


Quote: Can you see why Jesus (pbuh) was called the 'son of God'? As he had no human father people therefore gave him the title 'son of God'. With reference to what Angel Gabriel said to Mary mother of Jesus, we cannot determine.

Response: --- Gabriel said in Luke 1: 35, “The Holy Spirit shall come upon you and the power of the Highest will overshadow you, therefore, that Holy one to be born will be CALLED the Son of God.
--- So it was God (not people) that gave Jesus the title, ‘son of God.’

It is recorded in Luke 1, --- and Surahs 3, and 19, the same, --- and it was the same Gabriel and the same Mary, --- and Gabriel ‘confirmed’ it to be true in Surah 3:3, did he not?

Quote: because we can't really trust what is real what has been added later by the trinitarians.

Response: --- We have given evidence that the Scriptures could not have been changed and the only way you could support your prejudice against the trinitsrians would be to find some Scripture from before, --- out of the Canon of Scripture, --- and show the changes from then till now.


Placid

IP IP Logged
Experiential
 
Guest Group
Guest Group


Joined: 23 November 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 311
Quote Experiential Replybullet Posted: 13 December 2012 at 3:46pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

Originally posted by Experiential

Ancient Quaran Discovered in Sunaa Yemen 1972.

 

Before you start criticizing the New Testament for it validity and reliability, check this out.

In 1972 a large number of ancient Quranic manuscripts, dating from first century of Hijra were discovered in the Great Mosque of Sana’a (Yemen), which significantly differs from the present standard one. Carbon dating system confirmed that these Qurans are not forged. Moreover, these Qurans were discovered by Muslims, not infidels.

 

Carbon-dating puts the origin of some of the parchments to 645–690 CE, while calligraphic dating has pointed to their origin in 710–715 AD. Some of the parchment pages seemed to date back to the seventh and eighth centuries, i.e. Islam’s first two centuries, perhaps the oldest Quran in existence.

 

It shattered the orthodox Muslim belief that the Quran, as it has reached us today, is “the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God”. It means the Quran has been distorted, perverted, revised, modified and corrected, and textual alterations had taken place over the years purely by Human hands.

The sacred aura surrounding this Holy Scripture of Islam, which remained intact for some 14 centuries is gone with this astonishing discovery and the ‘core belief’ of 1.4b Muslims that the Quran is the eternal, unaltered word of God is now clearly visible as a great hoax, a downright falsehood.

Not only this, the Quranic claim that nobody can alter the words of God is also a fake.

 

As if it is not enough, many manuscripts showed the sign of palimpsests, i.e., versions very clearly written over even earlier washed off versions. The underwriting of palimpsest is, of course, often difficult to read visually, but modern tools, such as ultraviolet photography, can highlight them. It suggests that the Sana’a manuscripts are not only variants to the present version of the Quran, but the Sana’a manuscripts themselves were variants of earlier version, re-written on the same paper. It means, Allah’s claim that original text is preserved in heaven on golden tablets (Q 56: 77–78; 85:21–22), which none can touch except angels is also a fairy-tale.


Experiential, you make a lot of vague claims without providing any evidence.  What "distortions" are you referring to in the San'aa manuscripts?  How were they "variants of earlier version [sic], re-written on the same paper"?  Perhaps if you did some actual research yourself, instead of cherry-picking from an article you read on a random, anti-Muslim website, you could have provided us with more details?  Wink


For starters, perhaps you can provide specific examples from the manuscripts which differ from the current "version" of the Quran?  Perhaps "Salam Erin" can help you, since he thinks that we should all pay attention to your claims.  I await your response.

Hello Islamispeace

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

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

In terms of the San'aa manuscripts-

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.”

 

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.

 

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”.

 

 

 

 

 

IP IP Logged
Experiential
 
Guest Group
Guest Group


Joined: 23 November 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 311
Quote Experiential Replybullet Posted: 13 December 2012 at 4:00pm
Originally posted by islamispeace

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

Experiential, your claims regarding the New Testament also seem to reflect poor research on your part.  You have simply repeated the standard claims of Christian apologetics with no scholarly evidence.  Please consider the following:

Originally posted by Experiential

There are thousands of copies and fragments of the New Testament that we have today most of which pre date Mohammad. So obviously this would have been the same Injil Mohamad had access to in 600 AD.

The New Testament is the most validated of all ancient writings. More ancient copies exist than any other ancient writing, for example the Roman history of Julius Caesar, and others. Plus these copies cover a huge and wide geographic area that prevents them from being gathered together and falsified.

There are more than 24,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament. These manuscript copies are very ancient and they are available for inspection now.

There are also some 86,000 quotations from the early church fathers and several thousand Lectionaries (church-service books containing Scripture quotations used in the early centuries of Christianity). As a result the New Testament has an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting its reliability.


This is a common Christian argument.  "The NT has over 24,000 manuscripts!", they exclaim with great enthusiasm.  It sounds impressive until you consider the fact that the majority of these manuscripts are from medieval times, nor are there any originals.  According to Bart Ehrman:


"Not only do we not have the originals, we don't have the first copies of the originals." (Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why", p. 10)


In addition, 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:


"...there are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament." (Ibid.)


Originally posted by Experiential

Who are you to say the Gospels should begin with the words "The Gospel According To Jesus Christ....". As far as I’m concerned they have more credibility because they are not trying to announce any thing or prove any thing except the recording of history. And you can assume all you like but the facts speak for themselves. History and the Quaran both confirm the New Testament we have today as the Injil Mohammad had.


Actually, given the ancients' proclivity for forging documents in other people's names, even if the Gospels began with the words "The Gospel According to Jesus Christ", it would not be definitive proof that the document was written by or on behalf of Jesus (pbuh).  In fact, as Ehrman notes, there were documents circulating which claimed to have been written by Jesus (Forged: Writing in the Name of God - Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are, p. 8).  But I agree with you that "the facts speak for themselves". 


And here are the facts: It was common place for ancient writers to write important documents in the names of famous people.  This phenomenon was known to many ancient observers. Ehrman explains this phenomenon as follows:


"Ancient authors who talked about this practice of writing a book in someone else's name said that it was both lying and deceitful and that it was not an acceptable practice." (Forged: Writing in the Name of God - Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are, p. 9)


He also notes:


"Many early Christian writings are 'pseudonymous,' going under a 'false name'.  The more common word for this kind of writing is 'forgery'..." (Ibid.)


Originally posted by Experiential

Take a look at your Quran. What was Uthman afraid of when he burnt the first copies of the Quran?

Because of the variations in the way the Qur'an was being memorized and recited after Muhammad's death this caused problems. Uthman and a team of others did a certain amount of editing to produce a standard text of the Qur'an.

Then Uthman ordered that all other Qur'ans be burnt and his version be made the only standard version for the Muslim world. Oral and written tradition now had to conform to Uthman's standard version.

The Bible has never had a wholesale burning to standardize its text in the way that the Qur'an was by Uthman.

So much for the Quran being the infallible divine word of God.


This is another common Christian argument.  But it is, as usual, full of generalizations and very little in terms of facts.  I will deal with this issue in a separate post, inshaAllah.


Originally posted by Experiential

In regards to the Dead Sea scrolls you need to do your research better. You are confusing the Old Testament Dead Sea scrolls found in 1946 in Israel with the Gnostic books found in Nag Hamadi Egypt in 1945.

The Dead Sea scrolls were all Jewish (not New Testament) manuscripts that actually confirm the Old Testament Torah we have in the Bible today. There were no New Testament writings among them. They were not your lost Injil.


I agree with you here, partially.  The Dead Sea Scrolls were definitely all Jewish documents and no New Testament manuscripts were among them.  However, your claim that the Dead Sea Scrolls "actually confirm the Old Testament Torah we have in the Bible today" is not entirely accurate.


Here are some facts:


1.  Even though the Dead Sea Scrolls, as noted by scholar Geza Vermes, are generally believed to have been written between 200 BCE and 70 CE (The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 13), that would still put them a few centuries after the actual books of the Tanakh were written.  For example, the book of Isaiah is thought to have been written in the 8th century BCE (Ehrman, "Forged: Writing in the Name of God, p. 127), which would mean that the copy of Isaiah found in the Dead Sea Scrolls was written around 600 years later.  That would be like a copy of the Quran being written in the 13th century CE.  No one could rationally argue that such a copy would prove that the document in question has been faithfully preserved in all times.  There is a gap of hundreds of years which is not accounted for.


2.  The Dead Sea Scrolls contain not only the "canonized" books of the Tanakh, with the exception of Esther (Vermes, p. 11), but also apocryphal books.  Vermes notes:


"A good many further compositions pertaining to this class [the Pseudoepigrapha] have also come to light, such as fictional accounts relating among others to Joseph, Amram, Moses, Joshua or Jeremiah, as well as apocryphal psalms..." (Ibid.)


3.  Vermes also notes that in the Psalms Scroll from Cave II were "seven apocryphal poems, including Chapter LI of the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sira, not annexed to, but interspersed among, the canonical hymns" (The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 16).  What this meant, explains Vermes, is:


"...that at Qumran the concept 'Bible' was still hazy, and the 'canon' open-ended, which would account for the remarkable freedom in the treatment of the text of the scripture by a community who life was nevertheless wholly centered on the Bible." (The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls, p. 17)


Given these facts, it is absurd to claim that the Dead Sea Scrolls "actually confirm the Old Testament Torah we have in the Bible today."  What they actually show is that the ancient Jews did not have a canon and were actually pretty liberal in their handling of the texts.


Originally posted by Experiential

The Nag Hamadi books you are getting confused with were Gnostic “christian” writings with strong pagan influences particularly from Egypt, but also Persia, Rome, and Greece.

They were written much later than the eye witness accounts of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John and in different languages .eg. Egyptian Coptic

Christianity has the Jewish religion as its foundation and these Pagan and Gnostic texts do not line up with Jewish traditions. And as they were written later and not in the earlier languages they lack authority.


This is largely true.  But the Gnostic books are no different from the canonized books of the New Testament.  They share the same trait since they all claimed to be written by or in the names of Jesus or his disciples.  Therefore, like the canonized books of the New Testament are simply Christian "forgeries", the Gnostic books of the Nag Hammadi library are what Ehrman calls "Gnostic forgeries" (Forged: Writing in the Name of God - Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are, p. 212).


Originally posted by Experiential

The gospels have more credibility than your Sunna. The earliest copies of the Gospels date from the same generation of followers who knew Jesus.

Unlike your Sunna which had been passed down mostly orally for more than a hundred years after Muhammad's death in AD 632. Unlike Christian history – those early Muslim believers would be gone.


These are simply more inaccurate statements on your part, without any corroborating evidence.  First, you made the bizarre claim that the "earliest copies of the Gospels date from the same generation of followers who knew Jesus".  Care to name any?  I know of perhaps just one; a fragment of the Gospel of John known as P52, which is dated to around 125-150 CE.  The rest of the "copies" were written at much later dates. 

Second, you made the ridiculous claim that the Sunnah "...had been passed down orally for more than a hundred years after Muhammad's death..."  Had you done your research, you would have known that the early Muslims actually put the Sunnah to paper in the first century of the Islamic calendar.  The earliest known compilation is known as "The Sahifa of Hammam bin Munabbih", which is dated to the mid-first century of the Islamic calendar.  Saifullah and Damiel noted regarding this compilation:

"We can see that of the 138 narrations in the Sahifa, 98 of them are faithfully witnessed in the later collections of al-Bukhari and Muslim, both through narrations of Abu Hurrairah and witnessing narrations from other Companions." 

Other first century compilations include "The Musannaf of Abd al-Razzaq al-San'ani" and "The Muwatta of Malik ibn Anas", among others (Ibid).  Therefore, your claim that the Sunnah was passed down orally for 100 years is incorrect.

Originally posted by Experiential

Add this to the fact that Mohamad and the Quaran were written 600 years later than the eye witness accounts of the gospels of Jesus, plus now we add extra hundred years. 
Added to the fact that Caliph Uthman ibn Affan as the first to urge Muslims to write the Qur'an in a fixed form, and to record the hadith with no sources surviving directly from this period and that we are dependent on what later writers tell us about this period, doesn’t do much to add historical credibility or reliability for Islams writings. 
And then Uthman's labors were cut short by his assassination. and then of course there are the Shia and Sunni differences in terms of what is acceptable with the hadith. Not a good look for Islam.  
The hadith comes in last regarding credibility of truth and historical reliability.


As shown from the above, it is only "not a good look for Islam" if you make blanket statements with absolutely no evidence at all and which are actually completely at odds with the established facts.  As you said, the "facts speak for themselves".  Open your eyes and your mind and don't let polemical bias interfere with your search for the truth. 

And Allah knows best.

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.

 

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. 

 

Bloomburg goes on to say –

 

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.

 

 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.

 

 

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. 

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

 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. 

 

 

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