Print Page | Close Window

Where is the Injil?

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Discription: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24201
Printed Date: 28 November 2014 at 4:23am


Topic: Where is the Injil?
Posted By: Abu Loren
Subject: Where is the Injil?
Date Posted: 03 November 2012 at 8:05am
As'alaamu Alaikkum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuhu
Where is the Injil? It does not exist. The Gospels or the New Testament which the Christians use as their scripture is not the Injil that is mentioned by Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala in the holy Qur'an. What the Christians claim to be the Gospels are the work of unknown writers, and even these writings are copies of copies of copies of copies... The original manuscripts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are lost and to make matters worse noboby even knows who Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were. These Gospels begin with the words "The Gospel According To....". Surely, all Gospels should begin with the words "The Gospel According To Jesus Christ....".
It is safe to assume that the Injil is lost in time. It is also safe to assume that Jesus (pbuh) appointed scribes who were possibly some of the disciples to write down what he was saying.
In 1945 a local Egyptian farmer found the 'Dead Sea Scrolls' in the caves of Qumran which contained other Gospels all thrown into an earthen vessel and kept away from people in the cave. These Gospels also tell the story of Jesus (pbuh). However, they do not in any way portray Jesus (pbuh) as a son of god or god incarnated. Again one can assume these were discarded because these Gospels were dtrimental to the Trinity concept.
Christians today and throughout history have been blindly following a book which they do not know from where it came. Modern scholars all agree that the earliest copy of the Gospels date from the year 90AD. This is clearly sixty years after the alleged death and resurrection of Jesus (pubh).
Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala has clearly stated in the Holy Qur'an that a scripture known as the Injil was given to Jesus (pbuh). So where is the Injil?



Replies:
Posted By: Experiential
Date Posted: 11 November 2012 at 1:50am

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 
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.

 

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.

 
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.

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. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Posted By: Experiential
Date Posted: 11 November 2012 at 1:52am

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.

 

 



Posted By: Salaam_Erin
Date Posted: 15 November 2012 at 6:20am
Furthermore, the Gnostics actually believed this about Jesus:  They believed that God was this thing called the Pleroma, the Completeness.  Think of the Pleroma as a big living lump of cosmic plasticine.  Out of this pleroma popped emanations called Aeons.  These Aeons praised the Pleroma and came from the Pleroma and had a mystical relationship with it, having a divine spark in these Aeons.  These Aeons were gods, the Pleroma the Supreme God.  Think of them as little cosmic jelly babies.  However, the little black jelly baby, the janitor god, rebelled, and either did so by having sex with a female Aeon and so sinning, and creating an abortion which became the world (as Gnostics believed that spirit was good and matter evil), or by going to the toilet and doing a number 2, which became the world.  (Weird, I know!)  This little janitor god fell and became the God of the Old Testament and the Devil/ YHWH/Satan then tempted many of the Aeons into falling into sin too, and so they ended up wrapped up in physical bodies on Earth.  This evil janitor god then called the Jews to serve him in his evil, while he hypocritically judged the world harshly for its sin.  So, the Pleroma sent his uncorrupted number one Aeon, who only appeared to be human, as Jesus.  Jesus did not die on the Cross precisely because he was not real.  He told the people salvation lay within themselves, as they were gods.  They were given a special password to get past the Aeons in the sky to get back to the Pleroma.

This is the irony.  In Gnosticism Jesus is a god and not a man.  In Christianity Jesus is God and Man.  In Islam Jesus is a man and not God.  Both Gnosticism and Islam deny Jesus died on the Cross, for completely opposite reasons.  Everyone else knows that Jesus died on the Cross. 

The Gnostic writings were found by an Egyptian farmer in 1945 in Nag Hammadi.  The Dead Sea Scrolls were found in 1947 with further discoveries up to 1952 originally by a Palestinian Arab shepherd boy, and they contain many manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible and some Greek Septuagint Old Testament translation fragments, as well as the Qumran Community's own sectarian Jewish writings, commentaries and rule books. 

You would do well to pay close attention to what Experiential says.

I also issue out a challenge.  Since Muslims use John 14-16 to justify their belief that Jesus predicted Muhammad, they are therefore agreeing with us that these chapters are authentic.  Since this is so, I wish to turn your attention to John 14:26: "But the Counsellor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." 

Now if this is Muhammad, note that the Counsellor/Advocate/Comforter/Parakletos has the job of preserving the Injeel.  Therefore the Muslims should have the entire Injeel memorised.  Therefore I ask of you if there is a copy of the Injeel as recited by Muhammad in the Sacred Mosque in Mecca?  And if not, why not?

The authors are not anonymous.  I dealt with the issue of Mark, for example, in another thread in here.  I'll be more than happy to discuss with you the issue of the three other authors in later posts.  The Injeel IS in the Four Gospels, The Gospel is the Good News of Jesus, as proclaimed by Himself and by the four Gospel authors.  It is the same Injeel, being given by the Father to Jesus, and also is the Injeel, Good News, about Jesus.  The two are inseparable.  So when it says the Gospel according to so and so, it is still the Gospel according to Jesus.

    


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 16 November 2012 at 2:12am
Originally posted by Salaam_Erin


You would do well to pay close attention to what Experiential says.
We don't take him seriously because he is a fraud. He gets all of his information from anti-Islamic sites and post them here. To make matters worse we constantly discredit his claims by giving him valid proof but he keeps coming back.

If you read his rhetoric closely you will see that he says things like ' the Sanaa Qur'an was carbon dated to be more than 100 years after Hijra' this is utter nonsense because Uthman compiled the authentic Qur'an way before this. So obviously it was a copy that somebody tried to do then discarded.

I also issue out a challenge.  Since Muslims use John 14-16 to justify their belief that Jesus predicted Muhammad, they are therefore agreeing with us that these chapters are authentic.  Since this is so, I wish to turn your attention to John 14:26: "But the Counsellor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." 

 
I submit that there are genuine words of Jesus' (pbuh) in the New Testament. However, the majority of the NT is 'doctored' and added later by Trinitarians.


Now if this is Muhammad, note that the Counsellor/Advocate/Comforter/Parakletos has the job of preserving the Injeel.  Therefore the Muslims should have the entire Injeel memorised.  Therefore I ask of you if there is a copy of the Injeel as recited by Muhammad in the Sacred Mosque in Mecca?  And if not, why not?

 
No because he cannot preserve something that is tainted.



The authors are not anonymous.  I dealt with the issue of Mark, for example, in another thread in here.  I'll be more than happy to discuss with you the issue of the three other authors in later posts.  The Injeel IS in the Four Gospels, The Gospel is the Good News of Jesus, as proclaimed by Himself and by the four Gospel authors.  It is the same Injeel, being given by the Father to Jesus, and also is the Injeel, Good News, about Jesus.  The two are inseparable.  So when it says the Gospel according to so and so, it is still the Gospel according to Jesus.

    

Not interested in going over these over and over again, it's pointless. We will just go around in circles.


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 19 November 2012 at 5:58pm

Originally posted by Abu Loren

The Gospels or the New Testament which the Christians use as their scripture is not the Injil that is mentioned by Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala in the holy Qur'an.

But it is The Gospel mentioned by Jehovah (YHWH)Jesus God, by Jesus himself and his 12 Apostles which is all that really matters. The Quran is a book for Muslims. The Holy Scriptures is a book for MANKIND.

Originally posted by Abu Loren

What the Christians claim to be the Gospels are the work of unknown writers,...
 

Why is it that nobody disputed the Gospel as works of unknown writers, not even the enemies of Christians and the Quran until recently, what took so long guys, why now if such is true?

Originally posted by Abu Loren

The original manuscripts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are lost
 

How would you know unless Muslims show the world a different original Gospel from the Dead Sea Scroll we already have and that Muhammad himself and other ancient Muslims had in there possession for guidance? Do you have that in some museum like we have the Gospel in a museum?

Originally posted by Abu Loren

and to make matters worse noboby even knows who Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were.
 

They must be important; even you mentioned them by name although they are very well known even by non-Christians.  

Originally posted by Abu Loren

Surely, all Gospels should begin with the words "The Gospel According To Jesus Christ...."
 

That is where the Quran seriously falls short again and again, The Gospel was never sent to Jesus. But, how would Muhammad know, he could not read, he was illiterate.

Originally posted by Abu Loren

It is safe to assume that the Injil is lost in time. It is also safe to assume that Jesus (pbuh) appointed scribes who were possibly some of the disciples to write down what he was saying.
 

You know what happens when you ass-ume?

Originally posted by Abu Loren

In 1945 . . .
 

That must have been Jonny come lately, 1945? That’s the best you have?

Originally posted by Abu Loren

Modern scholars all agree
 

Again, modern scholars come lately. Why now? Why not then? You mean to tell me you can’t even find any documents during that time? Not even from critics? Of course not! Because The Gospel was the undisputed champion of the world! Even ancient Muslims at least knew that much that is why you cannot find even any ancient Muslims disputing it. I would be very careful if I were you in what you say against God’s word.  

Originally posted by Abu Loren

Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala has clearly stated in the Holy Qur'an that a scripture known as the Injil was given to Jesus (pbuh). So where is the Injil?
 

And there lies the problem as we have been saying since day one. The last of all the sacred writings want to change the original history of mankind. Is that is why Muhammad had to be violently strangled five times before he gave in and began to ‘recite’ and then forcibly say what was told him?

But remember this if anything; Muhammad and his Quran which came many, many, many centuries later are the only ones who talk against Jesus as the son of God, the OT and NT, the 12 Apostles and the Apostle Paul.

You do the math!



-------------


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 19 November 2012 at 11:38pm
Originally posted by Kish

Originally posted by Abu Loren

The Gospels or the New Testament which the Christians use as their scripture is not the Injil that is mentioned by Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala in the holy Qur'an.

But it is The Gospel mentioned by Jehovah (YHWH)Jesus God, by Jesus himself and his 12 Apostles which is all that really matters. The Quran is a book for Muslims. The Holy Scriptures is a book for MANKIND.

Originally posted by Abu Loren

What the Christians claim to be the Gospels are the work of unknown writers,...
 

Why is it that nobody disputed the Gospel as works of unknown writers, not even the enemies of Christians and the Quran until recently, what took so long guys, why now if such is true?

Originally posted by Abu Loren

The original manuscripts of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are lost
 

How would you know unless Muslims show the world a different original Gospel from the Dead Sea Scroll we already have and that Muhammad himself and other ancient Muslims had in there possession for guidance? Do you have that in some museum like we have the Gospel in a museum?

Originally posted by Abu Loren

and to make matters worse noboby even knows who Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were.
 

They must be important; even you mentioned them by name although they are very well known even by non-Christians.  

Originally posted by Abu Loren

Surely, all Gospels should begin with the words "The Gospel According To Jesus Christ...."
 

That is where the Quran seriously falls short again and again, The Gospel was never sent to Jesus. But, how would Muhammad know, he could not read, he was illiterate.

Originally posted by Abu Loren

It is safe to assume that the Injil is lost in time. It is also safe to assume that Jesus (pbuh) appointed scribes who were possibly some of the disciples to write down what he was saying.
 

You know what happens when you ass-ume?

Originally posted by Abu Loren

In 1945 . . .
 

That must have been Jonny come lately, 1945? That’s the best you have?

Originally posted by Abu Loren

Modern scholars all agree
 

Again, modern scholars come lately. Why now? Why not then? You mean to tell me you can’t even find any documents during that time? Not even from critics? Of course not! Because The Gospel was the undisputed champion of the world! Even ancient Muslims at least knew that much that is why you cannot find even any ancient Muslims disputing it. I would be very careful if I were you in what you say against God’s word.  

Originally posted by Abu Loren

Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala has clearly stated in the Holy Qur'an that a scripture known as the Injil was given to Jesus (pbuh). So where is the Injil?
 

And there lies the problem as we have been saying since day one. The last of all the sacred writings want to change the original history of mankind. Is that is why Muhammad had to be violently strangled five times before he gave in and began to ‘recite’ and then forcibly say what was told him?

But remember this if anything; Muhammad and his Quran which came many, many, many centuries later are the only ones who talk against Jesus as the son of God, the OT and NT, the 12 Apostles and the Apostle Paul.

You do the math!

 
I'm not going to debate with you because you have absolutely no understanding even of the Bible that you are defending.


Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 20 November 2012 at 5:02am
Hi Abu and others,

Quote: --- Allah Subhana Wa Ta'ala has clearly stated in the Holy Qur'an that a scripture known as the Injil was given to Jesus (pbuh). So where is the Injil?

Response: --- The verses about the Injil are in Surah 3:
47 She (Mary) said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: God createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!
48 "And God will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel (Injil),
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 '(I have come to you), to attest (confirm) 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.'"

--- (In the ten English translations that I refer to, seven use the word Gospel, --- one uses Injeel, --- one uses Injeel (Gospel), --- and one uses Evangel. --- All three words mean ‘Good News.’ --- But the Good News is the Message that was given to Jesus in v48. --- And it was given through His intellect and was never in book form.

Shakir: 48 And He will teach him the Book and the wisdom and the Taurat and the Injeel.
--- Since Jesus was given ‘knowledge and understanding’ through His intellect, there never was a book called the Injil.

Let’s make a comparison 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,

--- This indicates that Muhammad was ‘inspired’ by the Holy Spirit of God and given the ‘understanding’ of the former Scriptures, and the ‘Faith’ to believe them, (and it was like turning on a light, or ‘enlightening’ the mind). --- And he dedicated himself to God’s service, with that inner understanding?

--- Because Muhammad couldn’t read, this ‘understanding of the Scriptures,’ was given through his intellect, was it not?
And the revelations that were given from Gabriel, --- were they not also given through his intellect? --- And they were later written by human hands?

The Message of the Injeel, or Gospel is in the next verses.
49 Jesus would be an Apostle or Messenger to the Jews first, His Message would be healing the sick, raising the dead, --- He would be the Sign of the Prophet and Redeemer that would come to the Jews.
50 He would confirm the Law of Moses and fulfill it. --- And He said, “I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear God, and obey Me.”
51 --- And He would confirm His relationship to God in saying:
“It is God Who is My Lord and your Lord; then worship Him. This is a Way that is straight.”


Placid



Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 20 November 2012 at 10:56am
Originally posted by Abu Loren

I'm not going to debate with you because you have absolutely no understanding even of the Bible that you are defending.
 
In other words, you all of a sudden cannot come up with truthful answers to defend your lies on the TOPIC YOU started.
 
Bailing out again? Your topic just started Abu! Again, TRUTH prevails over falsehood 24x7.


-------------


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 21 November 2012 at 2:48am
Originally posted by Kish

Originally posted by Abu Loren

I'm not going to debate with you because you have absolutely no understanding even of the Bible that you are defending.
 
In other words, you all of a sudden cannot come up with truthful answers to defend your lies on the TOPIC YOU started.
 
Bailing out again? Your topic just started Abu! Again, TRUTH prevails over falsehood 24x7.
 
Not at all I prefer to debate with somebody who is a bit intelligent and who knows what they are talking about. :)


Posted By: Salaam_Erin
Date Posted: 24 November 2012 at 1:58pm
We don't take him seriously because he is a fraud. He gets all of his information from anti-Islamic sites and post them here. To make matters worse we constantly discredit his claims by giving him valid proof but he keeps coming back.

I cannot speak for or against Experiential on all he writes, but the post I was referring to had useful information in it.

I submit that there are genuine words of Jesus' (pbuh) in the New Testament. However, the majority of the NT is 'doctored' and added later by Trinitarians.

Alas, my textual critical information, supplied in the critical apparati of my Greek New Testaments, Metzger's Textual Commentary, and my books on the text by Philip Comfort reveal a very different story, that no such doctoring occurred. You need to supply me with hard data on this. Asserting this in the light of the New Testament's very well studied textual history needs hard evidence. I need manuscripts, readings, dates. Have Islamic doctors thoroughly collated New Testament manuscripts? I need the had data to supplement the thorough hard data I have right here at my fingertips. Remember how I was able to rattle off the list of manuscripts concerning Luke 22:20? I didn't get those from my head or from the back of a cereal packet. ;o)

No because he cannot preserve something that is tainted.

Then Muhammad cannot be the Paraklete of John 14-16. This passage therefore cannot be relied on to prove that Jesus predicted Ahmad. Jesus is clear in the passage and the verse is totally undisputed in the textual tradition- the Paraklete is to remind us of ALL that Jesus taught. That means the Paraklete's job is specifically about preserving the Injeel. If it is tainted, Muhammad cannot be the Paraklete. If he cannot preserve the Injeel, Muhammad cannot be the Paraklete. That's my whole point. You can't win whatever you try on this one. But if you accept John 14-16 as authentic and be consistent, Jesus will jointly send with the Father another Paraklete in place of Himself, having gone to the Father, and through this Paraklete Jesus and the Father will live in the disciples, as in the actual disciples Jesus taught in person in AD 33. This Paraklete was already with the disciples and would be in them. This Paraklete is invisible, and the world cannot know Him. He comes from Heaven, not Arabia. This Jesus explicitly teaches in very Trinitarian language, undisputed in the manuscripts. Therefore if you adopt the Christian viewpoint and that Acts 2 shows the fulfilment of this promise, and that the Paraklete is the Holy Spirit as in God Himself, then you will have no problem.

    Not interested in going over these over and over again, it's pointless. We will just go around in circles.

And there lies the nub of the problem. You aren't interested enough.


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 27 November 2012 at 4:42pm
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.



-------------
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)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 27 November 2012 at 7:21pm
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 http://www.kchanson.com/ancdocs/greek/johnpap.html - 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 http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/hadith.html - 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.


-------------
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)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 28 November 2012 at 4:08pm
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Experiential, you claimed:

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.


These blanket statements reflect a certain ignorance on your part.  Here are the facts.  The issue is summarized by Dr. Ahmad Al-Imam as follows:


"...the qurra' (reciters o the Qur'an) began to argue over how the Quran should be recited, for some of the Companions and the Successors, who had been sent to the newly conquered lands to teach the people, were reciting it in different ways.  In addition, the Companions were reciting the Quran in the seven acceptable styles." (Variant Readings of the Quran, p. 16)


Also, Dr. M.M Al-Azami explains that the use of different styles of recitation was an acceptable phenomenon since the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had taught his followers to recite the Quran in their respective dialects:


"...the Prophet, out of necessity, had taught them to recite the Quran in their own dialects, given the difficulty of having them abandon their native tongues so suddenly.  But the resultant differences in pronunciation now began producing breaches and conflict within the community." (The History of the Quranic Text from Revelation to Compilation: A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments, p. 87)


Now, you claim that Uthman and his committee did "a certain amount of editing".  Can you provide examples of this "editing"? 


Here is what actually happened.  Dr. Al-Azami states:


"Uthman concluded his deliberation and retrieved the Suhuf from Hafsa, arranging immediately for the scribing of duplicate copies."  (Ibid, p. 88)


Moreover, Al-Azami explains that after the final copy was completed, it was read to the Companions to ensure their unanimous approval:


"This definitive copy, once verified against the Suhuf, was 'read to the Companions in Uthman's presence.'  With the final recitation over, he dispatched duplicate copies for distribution throughout the many provinces of the Islamic nation." (Ibid., p. 93)


So, if there had been any "editing", the reading of the mushaf in front of the Companions would have led to major problems, yet the historical evidence shows that there was unanimous approval. 


As far as any differences between the Uthmanic mushaf and other mushafs, Dr. Al-Azami notes that when comparing the Uthmanic mushaf with that of the famous Mushaf of Madinah, we find that there were differences in twelve places (Ibid., p. 98).  A table of these differences is provided in the book, so any interested readers can consult it to study them.  What we need to note is, as Al-Azami states:


"...Uthman's personal copy is perfectly congruent with the present Mushaf circulating in our hands, while the Mushaf of Madinah contains minor deviations..." (Ibid., p. 98


However, these "deviations" are inconsequential and have no effect on the text, as Al-Azami states:


"Totalling a mere thirteen letters in 9000 lines, these variations are inconsequential to the meaning of each verse and bear no alteration to the semantics whatsoever." (Ibid., p. 99)


Finally, Al-Azami notes that many scholars compared the Uthmanic mushaf with other mushafs, and that the differences they found were also inconsequential:


"All differences in the Mushafs of Makkah, Madinah, Kufa, Basra, Syria and Uthman's master copy involve single letters...These variations amount to no more than forty characters scattered throughout six Mushafs." (Ibid., p. 99)


Based on these facts, it is clear that you don't know what you are talking about.  I await eagerly for you to provide examples of any "editing" on the part of Uthman and his committee. 


And Allah knows best.



-------------
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)



Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 29 November 2012 at 4:34am
Hi,

I see that you have progressed from the Injil, (which was the Message of the Gospel, and never in book form until it was recorded in the Gospels), --- to discussing the NT, and the Quran.

It is interesting how you say, "These are the facts" when you refer to the Quran, but you disagree with the revelations that Gavriel gave to, and through, Muhammad.

The 27 books of the NT were confirmed in 367 AD, and accepted by all the Churches in 393. Shortly there after, the scholar Jerome, finished translating the Latin Vulgate about 400.

Muhammad was called about 600 AD and the angel Gabriel, who spoke to both Zechariah and Mary in the Gospel of Luke, are recorded the same way in Surah 19 (which was revealed first), and repeated in Surah 3.

--- So, it is totally true and accurate in the Quran, but not true in the Gospel

However, it was Gabriel who said this in Surah 3:
3 It is He (God) Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus)

So if Gabriel 'confirmed' in 615 AD that the former Scriptures were true, --- then the simple deduction is that you don't believe the revelations of Gabriel, therefore, you don't really believe the Quran, where it 'verifies' the former Scriptures.

I believe the revelations that Gabriel gave to Muhammad, and were recorded by human hands, --- even if you do not.

Jesus said more than once, that all that God revealed to Him, He gave to the disciples. So all of the Message of the Injil was repeated by Jesus, and recorded bu human hands.

The easy way to read the whole Gospel/Injil, is to get a 'Red Letter Edition' where all the words of Jesus are in RED. --- Just read the red parts, and don't miss what is in the Book of Revelation.

--- Remeber again, that this was 'confirmed' as true bu Gabriel about 615 AD, when Surah 3 was revealed.
--- (And there have been no changes since then either.)


Placid



Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 29 November 2012 at 10:03am
Experimental,
You wrote in your first post:
"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."

I know of fragment, yes fragment only, but no intact copy that is like the only you and I have today.
Prophet Mohammed did not know to read, if you meant he did by "access".
Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 30 November 2012 at 1:24am
Originally posted by Placid

Hi,

I see that you have progressed from the Injil, (which was the Message of the Gospel, and never in book form until it was recorded in the Gospels), --- to discussing the NT, and the Quran.

It is interesting how you say, "These are the facts" when you refer to the Quran, but you disagree with the revelations that Gavriel gave to, and through, Muhammad.

The 27 books of the NT were confirmed in 367 AD, and accepted by all the Churches in 393. Shortly there after, the scholar Jerome, finished translating the Latin Vulgate about 400.

Muhammad was called about 600 AD and the angel Gabriel, who spoke to both Zechariah and Mary in the Gospel of Luke, are recorded the same way in Surah 19 (which was revealed first), and repeated in Surah 3.

--- So, it is totally true and accurate in the Quran, but not true in the Gospel

However, it was Gabriel who said this in Surah 3:
3 It is He (God) Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus)

So if Gabriel 'confirmed' in 615 AD that the former Scriptures were true, --- then the simple deduction is that you don't believe the revelations of Gabriel, therefore, you don't really believe the Quran, where it 'verifies' the former Scriptures.

I believe the revelations that Gabriel gave to Muhammad, and were recorded by human hands, --- even if you do not.

Jesus said more than once, that all that God revealed to Him, He gave to the disciples. So all of the Message of the Injil was repeated by Jesus, and recorded bu human hands.

The easy way to read the whole Gospel/Injil, is to get a 'Red Letter Edition' where all the words of Jesus are in RED. --- Just read the red parts, and don't miss what is in the Book of Revelation.

--- Remeber again, that this was 'confirmed' as true bu Gabriel about 615 AD, when Surah 3 was revealed.
--- (And there have been no changes since then either.)


Placid

 
Salaam Placid,
 
You seem to be confused. The Gospels which you have today is not the INJIL. Noboby knows where the Injil is.
 
This is my guess.
 
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.
 
So what you call the New Testament is not the INJIL that Jesus (Alayhi Salaam) left with his disciples.
 
A very important point to note is that the Holy Qur'an only confirms that the Injil was given to Jesus (Alayhi Salaam), it does not however confrim the New Testament as the INJIL.


Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 03 December 2012 at 4:42pm
Hi Abu,

(Concerning the Injil)
Quote: 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.

Response: --- That is correct, --- and the Scriptures were never changed, or Gabriel would not have ‘confirmed’ them in 600 AD, --- would he have?
--- While Constantine no doubt wrote his own commentary as he was as much a philosopher as a spiritual leader. --- He may have had influence over many and may have led them astray, but he couldn’t, and didn’t, change any Scriptures. (He would have had to gather the hundreds of thousands of copies, to make any changes. Constantine had no authority over the thousands of individual Churches, did he? He only had influence within the Roman Catholic Church, did he not?

It says this concerning Jesus in Surah 3:
45 Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! God giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to God;
46 "He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous."
47 She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: God createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!
48 "And God will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel,

As I said, there never was a book called ‘the injil,’ or ‘the Gospel,’ --- but God would teach Him through His intellect, --- and Jesus said He conveyed to the disciples, 'all that God had given Him.' --- Was it not the same way that Gabriel used, to convey knowledge to Muhammad, --- through his intellect?
--- The Gospel, or Injil, meaning ‘Good News’ was the Message, not a book, so, after the eye witnesses wrote it down, --- (with Matthew being the main writer, and writing first in Aramaic), --- the first four books are entitled, “The Gospel according to ---.”   
This is why I said, “If you want to read the Injil, --- read the words in Red, in the Red Letter Edition.” --- That is why it was prepared that way, so that you can see what Jesus said, separated from what others said.


Placid



Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 04 December 2012 at 4:41am
Originally posted by Placid

Hi Abu,

(Concerning the Injil)
Quote: 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.

Response: --- That is correct, --- and the Scriptures were never changed, or Gabriel would not have ‘confirmed’ them in 600 AD, --- would he have?
--- While Constantine no doubt wrote his own commentary as he was as much a philosopher as a spiritual leader. --- He may have had influence over many and may have led them astray, but he couldn’t, and didn’t, change any Scriptures. (He would have had to gather the hundreds of thousands of copies, to make any changes. Constantine had no authority over the thousands of individual Churches, did he? He only had influence within the Roman Catholic Church, did he not?
Angel Gabriel (Alahi Salaam) did confirm that the Injil is corrupted. "Allah has taken a son" is plastered all over the NT so that cannot be the Injil.



As I said, there never was a book called ‘the injil,’ or ‘the Gospel,’ --- but God would teach Him through His intellect, --- and Jesus said He conveyed to the disciples, 'all that God had given Him.' --- Was it not the same way that Gabriel used, to convey knowledge to Muhammad, --- through his intellect?
--- The Gospel, or Injil, meaning ‘Good News’ was the Message, not a book, so, after the eye witnesses wrote it down, --- (with Matthew being the main writer, and writing first in Aramaic), --- the first four books are entitled, “The Gospel according to ---.”   
This is why I said, “If you want to read the Injil, --- read the words in Red, in the Red Letter Edition.” --- That is why it was prepared that way, so that you can see what Jesus said, separated from what others said.


Placid

 
Where is the evidence that Matthew wrote his Gospel originally in Aramaic?


Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 06 December 2012 at 1:06pm
Hi Abu,

Quote: Angel Gabriel (Alahi Salaam) did confirm that the Injil is corrupted. "Allah has taken a son" is plastered all over the NT so that cannot be the Injil.

Response: --- Where did the angel Gabriel confirm that the njil is corrupted, after confirming that it was the truth?
Surah 3:3 It is He (God) Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, ‘confirming’ what went before it; and He (God) sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus)

And again in Surah 5:48 To thee We (God) sent the Scripture in truth, ‘confirming’ the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety:

The same angel Gabriel said in Luke 1:
34 Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”
35 And the angel answered and said to her, “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.

--- You have never quite understood that it was the angel Gabriel who said that Jesus would be CALLED the Son of God

Look at this also where the angel Gabriel said in Surah 19:
19 He said: "Nay, I am only an apostle from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son.
20 She said: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?"
21 He said: "So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us': It is a matter (so) decreed."
35 It is not befitting to (the majesty of) God that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.

--- While it was ‘out of the ordinary’ for God to bring into being one who was CALLED His Son, --- but God only had to say ”Be!” --- and it was


Placid



Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 06 December 2012 at 1:41pm
Second question,

Quote: Where is the evidence that Matthew wrote his Gospel originally in Aramaic

Response: --- There are various Church Fathers that have mentioned this, and while there are no copies or fragments of the Aramaic remaining, it is recorded that Matthew who, I believe was the designated ‘scribe’ or writer, first wrote, “The Sayings of Jesus,” which I believe would have been the “Sermon on the Mount,” --- Matthew 5, 6, and 7.
--- And then he wrote a Gospel in Aramaic, before the Gospel in Greek from Antioch in Syria.

Quote: Around 180 Irenaeus of Lyons wrote that
“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. --- End of quote.

Quote: Fifty years earlier Papias, bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor, wrote, "Matthew compiled the sayings [of the Lord] in the Aramaic la nguage, and everyone translated them as well as he could" --- End of quote.

Quote: Eusebius himself declared that "Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews, and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own Gospel to writing in his native tongue [Aramaic], so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote" --- End of quote.


Placid



Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 07 December 2012 at 4:39am
Originally posted by Placid


Response: --- Where did the angel Gabriel confirm that the njil is corrupted, after confirming that it was the truth?
Surah 3:3 It is He (God) Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, ‘confirming’ what went before it; and He (God) sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus)

And again in Surah 5:48 To thee We (God) sent the Scripture in truth, ‘confirming’ the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety:
These verses only confirm that the Torah and the Injil were given to Prophets Musa (Alayhi Salaam) and Isa (Alayhi Salaam). There are other verses which point to these being corrupted by the hands of men.


The same angel Gabriel said in Luke 1:
34 Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”
35 And the angel answered and said to her, “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.

--- You have never quite understood that it was the angel Gabriel who said that Jesus would be CALLED the Son of God
Nearly all of the Prophets were called son of God, this label was not exclusive to Isa (Alayhi Salaam).


Look at this also where the angel Gabriel said in Surah 19:
19 He said: "Nay, I am only an apostle from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son.
20 She said: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?"
21 He said: "So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us': It is a matter (so) decreed."
35 It is not befitting to (the majesty of) God that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.

--- While it was ‘out of the ordinary’ for God to bring into being one who was CALLED His Son, --- but God only had to say ”Be!” --- and it was


Placid

 
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'.
 
Son of God should not be taken literally.


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 07 December 2012 at 5:37pm
Originally posted by Placid

Hi Abu,

Quote: Angel Gabriel (Alahi Salaam) did confirm that the Injil is corrupted. "Allah has taken a son" is plastered all over the NT so that cannot be the Injil.

Response: --- Where did the angel Gabriel confirm that the njil is corrupted, after confirming that it was the truth?
Surah 3:3 It is He (God) Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, ‘confirming’ what went before it; and He (God) sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus)

And again in Surah 5:48 To thee We (God) sent the Scripture in truth, ‘confirming’ the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety:

The same angel Gabriel said in Luke 1:
34 Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”
35 And the angel answered and said to her, “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.

--- You have never quite understood that it was the angel Gabriel who said that Jesus would be CALLED the Son of God

Look at this also where the angel Gabriel said in Surah 19:
19 He said: "Nay, I am only an apostle from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son.
20 She said: "How shall I have a son, seeing that no man has touched me, and I am not unchaste?"
21 He said: "So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, 'that is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us': It is a matter (so) decreed."
35 It is not befitting to (the majesty of) God that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.

--- While it was ‘out of the ordinary’ for God to bring into being one who was CALLED His Son, --- but God only had to say ”Be!” --- and it was


Placid



Placid,
I hope these verses help you understand and answer your questions. As a mater of fact anyone, like myself, who has studied the Bible knows that it is altered that it is not consistent with itself, and that disqualifies it as a pure word of God.

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...........
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.
15. O people of the Book (Jews and Christians) there hath come to you our Messanger, revealing to you that you used to hide in the book, and passing over much (that is now unneccessary."
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 leadeth them out of darkness by His will, Unto the light-guideth them to a path that is straight.

Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 10 December 2012 at 5:59am
Hi Abu,

Quote: (I asked) --- Where did the angel Gabriel confirm that the Injil is corrupted, after confirming that it was the truth?
Surah 3:3 It is He (God) Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, ‘confirming’ what went before it; and He (God) sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus)
--- And again in Surah 5:48 To thee We (God) sent the Scripture in truth, ‘confirming’ the scripture that came before it, and “guarding it in safety.”

You said: ---These verses only confirm that the Torah and the Injil were given to Prophets Musa (Alayhi Salaam) and Isa (Alayhi Salaam). There are other verses which point to these being corrupted by the hands of men.

Question: --- What are the references to these extra verses?

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.


--- 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



Posted By: Placid
Date 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



Posted By: Abu Loren
Date 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.


Posted By: Salaam_Erin
Date 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.) 


Posted By: Placid
Date 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.




Posted By: Abu Loren
Date 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
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_9MfFewdTo&feature=g-wl&list=WL7BF75FB9B72EE67F - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_9MfFewdTo&feature=g-wl&list=WL7BF75FB9B72EE67F
 
Is the Original New Testament Lost?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg-dJA3SnTA&feature=g-wl&list=WL7BF75FB9B72EE67F - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kg-dJA3SnTA&feature=g-wl&list=WL7BF75FB9B72EE67F
 
How the Bible Got Changed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0zWbL8Uqfw&feature=g-wl&list=WL7BF75FB9B72EE67F - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0zWbL8Uqfw&feature=g-wl&list=WL7BF75FB9B72EE67F
 
 
 


Posted By: Placid
Date 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



Posted By: Experiential
Date 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”.

 

 

 

 

 



Posted By: Experiential
Date 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 http://www.kchanson.com/ancdocs/greek/johnpap.html - 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 http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/hadith.html - 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. 

 

 



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 13 December 2012 at 8:10pm
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by Experiential

Hello Islamispeace

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


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


Originally posted by Experiential

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


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


Originally posted by Experiential

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

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


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


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


"Those hoping for an Islamic Da Vinci Code are likely to be disappointed. On Puin's own analysis the restored fragments contain no major aberrations and certainly no indelible human fingerprints that prove the Koran has profane origins. Nor is it true, as has been reported, that Puin has been barred from returning to Yemen." http://web.ebscohost.com.libaccess.fdu.edu/ehost/detail?vid=5&hid=12&sid=7cf222d0-9a52-4703-8f57-23d5ff9caf5b%40sessionmgr10&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=aph&AN=60082529 - [1]


Originally posted by Experiential

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

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


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


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


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


He also wrote in the same letter:


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


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


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


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


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


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


http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/%20%20 - http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/ 


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


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


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


Originally posted by Experiential

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


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


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



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



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 13 December 2012 at 9:10pm
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by Experiential

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


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

Originally posted by Experiential

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

 

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

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

 

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

Originally posted by Experiential

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


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

"...any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for [P52] must include dates in the later second and early third centuries. Thus, [P52] cannot be used as evidence to silence other debates about the existence (or non-existence) of the Gospel of John in the first half of the second century. Only a papyrus containing an explicit date or one found in a clear archaeological stratigraphic context could do the work scholars want [[P52] to do. (52) As it stands now, the papyrological evidence should take a second place to other forms of evidence in addressing debates about the dating of the Fourth Gospel." http://go.galegroup.com.libaccess.fdu.edu/ps/retrieve.do?sgHitCountType=None&sort=DA-SORT&inPS=true&prodId=AONE&userGroupName=fairdulib&tabID=T002&searchId=R2&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&contentSegment=&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&currentPosition=2&contentSet=GALE|A134680667&&docId=GALE|A134680667&docType=GALE&role=&docLevel=FULLTEXT_WITH_GRAPHICS - [2]  

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

Originally posted by Experiential

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


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

Originally posted by Experiential

Regarding early Christian witness he says-

 

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



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

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

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

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


Originally posted by Experiential

Regarding oral testimony he states-

 

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


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

 

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


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

Originally posted by Experiential

Regarding other non Christian sources he states-

 

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


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


Originally posted by Experiential

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


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


Originally posted by Experiential

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


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

 



-------------
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)



Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 14 December 2012 at 11:42am
Hi Abu,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Placid



Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 15 December 2012 at 2:08am
Originally posted by Placid


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

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

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

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

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


Placid


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


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 15 December 2012 at 12:59pm
Originally posted by Placid

Hi Honeto,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Placid



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


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 17 December 2012 at 5:06pm
Hi Hasan,

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

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

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

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

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


This too is what the angel Gabriel confirmed.




Posted By: Salaam_Erin
Date Posted: 18 December 2012 at 10:32am

Who the hell is Iranaeus to decide?

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

The four gospels are not the Injil.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

 

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


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



 










Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 18 December 2012 at 3:33pm
Placid,
and the Quran means recital. Not any, but what the prophet (pbuh) was made to recite, the revelation from God.
What Jesus was teaching or preaching during his ministry was the Injeel, or as said Gospel (the good news) that God revealed to him.
Do not forget that I was answering to the question that where in Quran God says that Injeel or Torah was altered.
In my post I did mention those verses from the Quran that clearly state the alterations to what we now collectively call the Bible.
Of course we believe that Torah, Injeel and other books mentioned in the Quran were from God. And that there message was altered.
Just look what they did to God. God was always one of one, never a trinity according to the OT belief. Look what they made of Jesus. No where is mentioned in the OT that Messiah was going to be God. Nowhere Jesus himself claimed "I am God". To the contrary we find verses that show he has a God, whom he served, praised and admitted to be greater than him.
Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Experiential
Date Posted: 19 December 2012 at 2:14am
Originally posted by Salaam_Erin

Who the hell is Iranaeus to decide?

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

The four gospels are not the Injil.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

 

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


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

Well summarised Salam Erin. Special pleading and double standards abound . Its obvious the Ijil Mohamad had was the same as the NT.


Posted By: Experiential
Date Posted: 19 December 2012 at 2:26am

Hello Islamispeace

 
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.

 

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. 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.

 

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.

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?

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 
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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 19 December 2012 at 8:31am
Originally posted by Salaam_Erin

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

 
The chain of narration in the Hadiths are people who knew each other and the words passed down from father to son. You simply don't have a chain of narration. Iranaeus lived in Lyon far away from the hot bed of Christianity and could only know Christianity from hear say.
 

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

 
 
The gospels we ahve today were selected from a vast array of works. So we don't know what is authentic and what is false.

This hyper-scepticism ignores textual cricisim and the fact that the 'fragments' are a lot less fragmentary than you think.  You need to check out the tables at the back of Kur and Barbara Aland's book on the Text of the New Testament.
 
So is it possible for somebody to put all these 'bits' together and form the words of Jesus (pbuh)?

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

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

 
How conveneient.





Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 19 December 2012 at 11:05am
Hi Hasan,

Quote: In my post I did mention those verses from the Quran that clearly state the alterations to what we now collectively call the Bible.

Response: --- I thought I answered these verses a few posts above, where it says, "They threw it behind their backs." --- That didn't alter any Scriptures, just what they said about it, and the lies they might have told about it.

--- When I read in the Quran that The Angel Gabiel confirmed the Gospel, and that God preserves it in safety, I believe it.

When you say, "No, that refers to the original writings," ---(Of which you have never seen, so that you can say,--- "Here it says this, and now it says that.")


--- Have you not taken those portions of the Quran and thrown them behind your back?
Whereas, that doeesn't change the Quran, does it? --- It only proves that you don't want to believe it.

However, I was told "If you want to learn about Islam, read the Quran."
--- I read it and I believe it.

So show us a verse where the Quran says "The Scripture has been altered."






Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 5:06pm
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by Salaam Erin

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


Except that this "chain of narration" is entirely fictional and based on zero evidence.  Anybody can make up a chain of narration.  Authenticating it is an entirely different issue. 

Here is the supposed "chain of narration" you appealed to:

John - Polycarp - Irenaeus

The problem is that Polycarp being a disciple of John is based not on Polycarp's own testimony but that of Irenaeus!  We know this because in a surviving letter of Polycarp, he never refers to John as his teacher.  For example, in his letter to the "Phillipians", Polycarp does not even mention John by name, while specifically naming Paul:

"I exhort you all therefore to be obedient unto the word of righteousness and to practice all endurance, which also ye saw with your own eyes in the blessed Ignatius and Zosimus and Rufus, yea and in others also who came from among yourselves, as well as in Paul himself and the rest of the Apostles;" http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/polycarp-lightfoot.html - [1]

If John was an actual teacher of Polycarp, one would think that Polycarp would have mentioned it.  Yet, he did not. Therefore, there is a break in the chain.  Such a chain would have been rejected by scholars of Hadiths, yet Christian blindly accept it!
    
Originally posted by Salaam Erin

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


You should stick to quoting your Bible and leave the Quran to us Muslims.  The Quran makes it clear that Christians have strayed from Jesus' message.  Also, no where does it say that the Injil "was intact in the 7th century".  It refers to some of the authentic teachings which have survived in the corrupted texts we know today. 

Originally posted by Salaam Erin

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


Fragments are fragments.  Deal with it.  For example, P52 which we will discuss later, is not even a full page http://www.kchanson.com/ancdocs/greek/johnpap.html - [2] !  The point is that even the surviving manuscripts represent only a fraction of the entire text, nor do they agree with each other in many cases. 

Originally posted by Salaam Erin

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


If it is so easy to label Ehrman's works as "lies", then it should be equally easy to actually refute his claims.  Yet, so far, all you have done is to incessantly attack his character.  Talk about an agenda!  Can you do me a favor and identify some of these "lies"?

Additionally, Ehrman's personal beliefs are not the issue here.  We are interested in his expertise on New Testament textual criticism because he is an authority on that subject.  His authority is not on Islam or religion in general. 

Originally posted by Salaam Erin

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

Another typical Christian response!  You question the credibility of modern scholars when it suits your purpose, without actually refuting their assertions.   

Originally posted by Salaam Erin

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


Ehrman "has an agenda"?  And I suppose Christian authors don't? 

Ehrman is a scholar of early Christian history and New Testament textual criticism.  He has no expertise on Islam, nor does he speak Arabic.  His opinions on religion in general are his own.  I referred to his works because the issue is the New Testament, and that is what he is a scholar of.

So far, neither you nor Experiential have actually offered a valid response to Ehrman's assertions.  All you have done is attack his credentials.

Originally posted by Salaam Erin

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


As usual of Christian apologists, you change the subject to the Quran and make vague claims with no supporting evidence of supposed problems in the Quran's preservation.  The simple fact that you fail to realize is that unlike the Bible, the Quran has extant manuscripts from the 1st century of the Islamic calendar and the Quran has been memorized from its inception.

Then you essentially repeat the same claim about there being 5000 NT manuscripts, but did not add anything that changes the fact that the vast majority of these manuscripts are from medieval times!  These manuscripts are simply copies of copies.  Without the originals or even manuscripts that can reasonably be placed in the time of disciples, there is no way to verify if these 5000 copies are reliable or authentic.  Moreover, we know that early Christians forged many documents in the names of famous people, such as the disciples, so it is entirely possible that the gospels which bear the names of the disciples or their companions were simply early forgeries as well.  Of course, the canonical Gospels are anonymous and always have been.  Later Christians simply may have believed they were written by Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, without knowing if they were right or wrong. 

Originally posted by Salaam Erin

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

Saying "about AD 125" means it was written very close to that year.  If he was honest, he would have said the same thing the majority of scholars say, which is 125-150.  He was clearly trying to assign the earliest possible date.  The fact that the Alands date it earlier just proves my point even further.  It is virtually impossible to give an exact date to ancient manuscripts, yet Christians try to do just that.  Blomberg is an example.   

Also, Brent Nongbri has criticized the attempts by the Alands to assign an earlier date to P52.  According to Nongbri:

"He [Kurt Aland] has even come to speak of a "consensus" dating of the papyrus in the early part of the second century, transforming Roberts's "first half of the second century" to an overly specific "about 125": "Er wird im allgemeinen Konsens in die Zeit um 125 n. Chr. angesetzt" ("Der Text des Johannesevangeliums im 2. Jahrhundert," in Studien zum Text und zur Ethik des Neuen Testaments. Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag yon Heinrich Greeven [ed. W. Schrage; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1986] 1). He and Barbara Aland reassert this "consensus" in their standard handbook on textual criticism and (with absolutely no evidence) push the date still earlier..." [Ibid.]

Originally posted by Salaam Erin

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


It is a big deal.  It is a deliberate attempt at altering the facts for the purposes of advancing a certain point of view.  In other words, it is the result of an "agenda".  Funny how you criticize Ehrman for having an "agenda" but when Christians do it, it's not a "big deal". 

Originally posted by Salaam Erin

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


You speak out of ignorance.  Did you read my response to Experiential where I showed that there is 1st century testimony to the Islamic sources?  In addition, diverting the dilemma of the New Testament to other issues does not solve the dilemma of the New Testament.  You are simply trying to distract attention from the main issue.

Originally posted by Salaam Erin

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


You are quick to jump the gun and make silly statements.  If you had read my response to Experiential, you would have realized the context of my reference to the Dead Sea Scrolls and the beliefs of the Essenes. 

Moreover, don't tell me about my own religion.  Stick to your own.

Your entire response to the belief of the two Messiahs is a red herring in itself because it ignores the fact that a fellow Christian, Experiential, attempted to appeal to Jewish traditions to "authenticate" the Christian tradition.  I showed why that is a double-edged sword. 

Originally posted by Salaam Erin

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


Again, speaking out of ignorance and making unsubstantiated claims about other religions does not help your cause!  Wink

Also, just "saying" something about the Hadiths without proof is a desperate effort at best.  The Islamic tradition had a very complicated process of authenticating hadiths.  It recognized that there are forged hadiths, identified them clearly and refused to given them even a minute aura of authenticity.  In contrast, many Christians simply refuse to accept that early Christians forged entire books in the names of the disciples, in addition to making changes to other texts by adding, deleting or altering verses.  



-------------
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)



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 20 December 2012 at 9:05pm
islamispeace,
"The Quran makes it clear that Christians have strayed from Jesus' message."
and yet you say that the Qur'an promotes no prejudice...
The word prejudice (or foredeeming) is most often used to refer to preconceived, usually unfavorable, judgments toward people or a person because of gender, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race/ethnicity, language, nationality or other personal characteristics. It can also refer to unfounded beliefs and may include "any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence." Gordon Allport defined prejudice as a "feeling, favorable or unfavorable, toward a person or thing, prior to, or not based on, actual experience."
further:
Those who practice “institutionalized religion,” which focuses more on social and political aspects of religious events, are more likely to have an increase in prejudice. Those who practice “interiorized religion,” in which believers devote themselves to their beliefs, are most likely to have a decrease in prejudice.
Prejudice and discrimination are negative manifestations of integrative power. Instead of bringing or holding people together, prejudice and discrimination push them apart. Ironically, even prejudice and discrimination imply some sort of relationship, however. If there is no relationship people would be completely unaware of another person's or group's existence. When there is any relationship at all--even a negative one--there is some integration. (http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/problem/prejdisc.htm)

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

"the Quran has extant manuscripts from the 1st century of the Islamic calendar and the Quran has been memorized from its inception."
I find it amusing that people keep spouting this refrain without actually doing the research into the matter.
There were 7 different ways of reciting revealed to Muhammad...
Muhammad's followers could choose which to recite - so different people would hear different things, and they were different enough to cause fights among the followers.  This is why there was so much confusion when it came time to create 'the book'... the Qur'an.
There are also 3 different types of abrogation.

"Moreover, don't tell me about my own religion.  Stick to your own. "
this is laughable...
aren't you always trying to tell other people about their religion?  Have you studied your own?  Somehow I do not get the impression that you have.


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 21 December 2012 at 12:18pm
Aren't there many muslims who are astray?
Did the scriptures change?  or is it about interpretation?
As you can see just on these forums - there are many kinds of 'Christians',
just as there are many kinds of muslims. 
It's not possible to say that all people who call themselves muslim, or who profess belief in Muhammad, are those of "the path of those whom Thou hast favoured", any more than it is possible to say that all 'Christians' are astray, or that all Israelites have earned the wrath of God.


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 22 December 2012 at 3:23pm
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." http://www.idph.net/conteudos/ebooks/AlexanderTheGreat.pdf - [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.  



-------------
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)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 22 December 2012 at 8:46pm
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by Caringheart

"The Quran makes it clear that Christians have strayed from Jesus' message."
and yet you say that the Qur'an promotes no prejudice...
The word prejudice (or foredeeming) is most often used to refer to preconceived, usually unfavorable, judgments toward people or a person because of gender, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race/ethnicity, language, nationality or other personal characteristics. It can also refer to unfounded beliefs and may include "any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence." Gordon Allport defined prejudice as a "feeling, favorable or unfavorable, toward a person or thing, prior to, or not based on, actual experience."
further:
-Those who practice “institutionalized religion,” which focuses more on social and political aspects of religious events, are more likely to have an increase in prejudice. Those who practice “interiorized religion,” in which believers devote themselves to their beliefs, are most likely to have a decrease in prejudice.
Prejudice and discrimination are negative manifestations of integrative power. Instead of bringing or holding people together, prejudice and discrimination push them apart. Ironically, even prejudice and discrimination imply some sort of relationship, however. If there is no relationship people would be completely unaware of another person's or group's existence. When there is any relationship at all--even a negative one--there is some integration. (http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/problem/prejdisc.htm)


LOL Awww, look at you Caringheart!  Trying to use citations to prove your point, although the quotes you mentioned are not found in the link you gave. Confused

Also, one has to wonder how the belief that Christians have strayed from the message of Jesus (pbuh) is "prejudiced".  Christians believe that all non-Christians are wrong and destined for hell.  Ask any Christian here and see what answer you get.

Moreover, your continued accusations and finger-pointing of Muslims and Islam is ironic given your incessant stereotypes of Muslims.  Here is what the source you referred to above says about stereotyping:

"Stereotypes are essentially assumptions that are made about a person or group's character or attributes, based on a general image of what a particular group of people is like." http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/treatment/fixstereo.htm - [1]  

Awkward!!

By the way, I think the Quran answers your ridiculous claims of "prejudice":

"
Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just." (60:8)

I have already mentioned this verse in another thread.  Obviously, you don't read my responses carefully or you just have a very short memory. 

Originally posted by Caringheart

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


Because, as you missed my point, Ehrman's personal opinions about religion are not the issue.  His area of expertise is not religion, but New Testament textual criticism and early Christian history.  Christians, instead of trying to refute his arguments, either attack his credentials or try to persuade Muslims that referring to his work on NT textual criticism somehow makes it a requirement for Muslims to accept his opinions on religion in general.  Such as argument is a childish ruse, which is used in an attempt to forgo providing an actual response to the claims Ehrman makes about the New Testament.

Originally posted by Caringheart

I find it amusing that people keep spouting this refrain without actually doing the research into the matter.
 

LOL And I suppose you have done the research, right?  Umm, what are your sources again for this "research"?  Still not providing citations, like I asked? 

What I find amusing is that you think you know something that I don't!  I said that there are 1st-century manuscripts of the Quran.  Do you disagree?  Do you want me to provide examples?  Please tell me you want me to provide examples!  Pretty please!!

Originally posted by Caringheart

There were 7 different ways of reciting revealed to Muhammad..


Yes, that is true.  These 7 ways of recitation were based on different dialects.

Originally posted by Caringheart

Muhammad's followers could choose which to recite - so different people would hear different things, and they were different enough to cause fights among the followers.  This is why there was so much confusion when it came time to create 'the book'... the Qur'an.


Not quite, dear.  This is where your "research" is exposed as half-hearted, and biased.  I have already dealt with this matter in my response to Experiential.  Perhaps if you had read it, you would not be repeating the same ridiculous argument.  Read my response to Experiential from http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=24201&PID=170824#170824 - 11/28 .

I don't understand why you people try to pretend that you know so much about a topic that you are so clueless on.  Why humiliate yourself? 

Originally posted by Caringheart

There are also 3 different types of abrogation


And as Dr. Ahmad Ali al-Imam explains, only one of these types of abrogation are supported by the evidence.  According to Dr. al-Imam:

"...many reasons exist for objecting to both kinds of abrogation [while accepting 'naskh al-hukm wa baqa al-tilawah']:

1.  All of the examples given are inauthentic, contradictory, or isolated reports in many different versions.

2.  The examples differ from the Qur'an's style, as can be seen by comparing the ends of surahs 2 and 3 with dua al-qunut (usually recited during prayer).

3.  All usulis (usul al-fiqh scholars) agree that the Qur'an is substantiated only by successive reports, whereas the examples given are isolated reports." ("Variant Readings of the Qur'an: A Critical Study of Their Historical and Linguistic Origins", p. 36).


Therefore, only one type of abrogation is supported by the evidence and this is "
naskh al-hukm wa baqa al-tilawah" (abrogating the ruling and keeping its recitation).  This is well-known to Islamic scholars and it is nothing new.  It's hilarious and adorable how you think you know something that will blow us away!  LOL

What was that you said about "research"? 

Here is a little bed-time reading for you.  These are books you should read to educate yourself about the Quran's history and its preservation:

1.  " http://www.amazon.com/Variant-Readings-The-Quran-Historical/dp/1565644204/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1356237772&sr=8-1&keywords=variant+readings+of+the+quran - Variant Readings of the Quran " by Dr. Al-Imam.

2.  " http://www.amazon.com/History-Quranic-Text-Compilation-Comparative/dp/1872531652/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1356237794&sr=1-1&keywords=history+of+the+quranic+text - The History of the Quranic Text from Revelation to Compilation: A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments " by Dr. M.M. al-Azami.

Originally posted by Caringheart

this is laughable...
aren't you always trying to tell other people about their religion?  Have you studied your own?  Somehow I do not get the impression that you have.


No, what's "laughable" is that you people cannot respond to any criticism of your religion with reasoned responses but with finger-pointing and red herrings.  Moreover, I don't tell you about your religion on my own merit.  That is why I refer to scholarly sources.  Why do you think I refer to Christian commentaries when quoting from the New Testament?  Why do you think I refer to Jewish commentaries when quoting the Tanakh? 

Oh and for an ignoramus, who thinks she has got the drop on Muslims but who is actually clueless about Islam, to ask if I have studied my religion is the epitome of comedy!  I had a good laugh at that one! 


-------------
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)



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 23 December 2012 at 1:10pm
""Stereotypes are essentially assumptions that are made about a person or group's character or attributes, based on a general image of what a particular group of people is like." [1]  "
Right, precisely, glad you took the time to read at the source I provided.
You make my point.  My scriptures do not create assumptions about a group's character or attributes.  My scripture teaches to treat people as individuals.  I come to the forum seeking to get to know individuals because I make no assumptions about groups of people.

"Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just." (60:8)
Yes, if people live by this verse I have no problem with the quran.  The problem is that there are many verses that conflict with this one, and we must consider which comes first, which are abrogated.  This is the problem with the quran.
As I have been saying, it comes down to interpretation doesn't it, and what people choose to follow?

Salaam,
CH


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 23 December 2012 at 1:11pm
"I said that there are 1st-century manuscripts of the Quran.  Do you disagree?  Do you want me to provide examples?"
The point is, I want people to do their own research.

"I don't understand why you people try to pretend that you know so much about a topic that you are so clueless on. "
Why do you 'pretend' to know so much about the religion of others... the scriptures of others?
I don't pretend anything.  I state what I have read.  You are free to dispute.  Are you pretending, or stating what you have read?  This is called free exchange of ideas and learning.  Do you seek to learn more or do you already know it all?  I know that there is more than I can ever absorb just about my own beliefs and their origins, and their faults, let alone all there is to know about all the beliefs of others.  That is why we must each be free to choose our own.  This is why we must talk to each other and know each other, so that we may trust each other, and live in peace with all people.


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 23 December 2012 at 1:14pm
"It's hilarious and adorable how you think you know something that will blow us away! "
I think it is hilarious but not adorable, how you think I am trying to 'blow you[or anyone] away'.  Not doing any such thing, just stating facts... leaving it open for others to do research.
I am not claiming to have all knowledge of your religion.  I am learning about your religion.  I think the clearest evidence is in the fruits produced by the religion.  To where can you point me to see the good of Islam?

"Why do you think I refer to Christian commentaries when quoting from the New Testament?  Why do you think I refer to Jewish commentaries when quoting the Tanakh?"
Why do you think I [try] to refer to muslim sources when I share information?  These sources are never allowed on the forum.

Glad you had a good laugh, but it seems you spend a great deal of time on the scripture of others, not on your own.  When do you ever answer questions about your own?  That is if the questions are even allowed to be asked.


Just a note...
Do you think your condescending remarks help your arguments or make you more credible?
Your snide, cutting, remarks only appear as attempts to demoralize, rather than to promote discussion.

Salaam,
CH


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 23 December 2012 at 7:22pm
islamispeace,

I have some questions to ask... Would you be willing to start a new thread?
Since you say you know your scriptures perhaps you would be willing to enlighten me.

Salaam,
CH


Posted By: Kish
Date Posted: 23 December 2012 at 9:35pm

Originally posted by abu loren

Where is the Injil?

Surprisingly Muhammad and ancient Muhammadans had it right in their possession, without it the Quran would not have been completed! So, why is it modern day Muslims today do not know where is the Injil? Could it be they truly believe Ibn Khazem rather than the prophet’s Quran?

In plain English the QURAN tells you where! READ IT FOR YOURSELVES

A1. Mary (Maryam) 19:12, Middle Meccan in -7 AH.

God says, "`Oh Yahya! (John the Baptist) take hold of the Book with might': and We gave him wisdom as a child."

A2. The Family of `Imran (Ali `Imran) 3:48, 2-3 AH.

The Angel Gabriel is speaking to Mary about Jesus before Jesus' birth and says: "And he (God) will teach him the book and wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel"

A3. The Forbidding (Al-Tahrim) 66:12, 7 AH.

"and Mary (Jesus' mother)...believed in the words of her Lord and His Books"

A4. The Family of `Imran (Ali `Imran) 3:49-50, 2-3 AH.

Jesus says, "I have come to you...attesting to (the truth of) what is between my hands of the Torah, and to make lawful to you a part of that which is forbidden to you."

A5. The Battle Array (Al-Saff) 61:6, from 3 AH.

"And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: `Oh Children of Israel! I am the apostle of God to you, confirming that which IS between my hands from the Torah...'"

A6. The Table (Al-Ma'ida) 5:49, 10 AH.

"And in their footsteps (of Moses and the Jews) We sent Jesus the son of Mary, attesting to (the truth of) the Torah which was between his hands; and We gave him the Gospel - therein is guidance and light and attesting to (the truth of) the Torah which was between his hands: a guidance and an admonition to the righteous."

A7. 5:113.

"Then will God say, `O Jesus son of Mary! Recount my favor to you and to your mother when I strengthened you with the Holy Spirit, so that you spoke to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught you the Book and Wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel...

We can only conclude from this that the True Unchanged Torah was present in the first century when Jesus lived.

Since the Sura of The Forbidding (Al-Tahrim) from 7 AH quoted above [A3] says that Mary believed in "His (God's) Books" (kutubihi), this must refer to the Books which the other Prophets brought to the Jews, as well as the Torah of Moses.

LET ME SHOW YOU VERSES THAT TRUE CHRISTIANS WERE LIVING DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN JESUS AND MUHAMMAD

B1. The Table (Al-Ma'ida) 5:113-114, 10 AH.

"Then will God say, `O Jesus son of Mary! Recount my favor to you... Behold! I taught you the Book and Wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel...

"And behold! I inspired the disciples (al-hawariyun) to have faith in Me and My apostle (Jesus). They said (to Jesus), `We have faith and (you must) bear witness that we are Muslims (submitted ones)."

B2. The Family of `Imran (Ali `Imran) 3:52-53, 2-3 AH.

"When Jesus found unbelief on their part he said, `Who will be my helpers to (the work of) God?' The disciples said, `We are God's helpers. We believe in God and (you must) bear witness that we are Muslims (submitted ones). "`Our Lord we believe in what You have revealed and we follow the apostle (Jesus).'"

B3. The Battle Array (Al-Saff) 61:14, 3 AH.

"O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of God: as said Jesus the son of Mary to the disciples, `Who will be my helpers for God?' The Disciples said, `We are God's helpers!' Then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: but We gave power to those who believed against their enemies, and they became the ones that prevailed."

VERSES SHOWING THAT THE TORAH AND THE GOSPEL WERE TRUE AND UNCHANGED AT THE TIME OF MUHAMMAD.

C1. The City of Saba (Saba) 34:31, Early Meccan.

"And the unbelievers say, `We will not believe in this Qur'an, nor in that which IS between his (its) hands (the Torah and the Gospel)'..."

Note: The CAPITAL LETTERS show verbs which are in the present tense for Muhammad and his people. Italics have been used for phrases speaking of groups of Jews or Christians at the time of Muhammad spoken of as believers or unbelievers in order to emphasize that there were always some true believers who would not have changed their own scriptures.

C2. The Originator of Creation (Fatir) 35:31, Early Meccan.

"That which we have revealed to you of the Book is the truth, attesting to (the truth of) that which IS between his (its) hands (the Torah and Gospel)..."

C3. Jonah (Yunus) 10:37, Late Meccan.

"This Qur'an is not such as can be produced by other than God; but it is a verification of that (the Torah and Gospel) which IS between his (its) hands, and the explanation of the book, wherein there IS no doubt, from the Lord of the worlds."

C4. Joseph (Yusuf) 12:111, Late Meccan.

"...It (the Qur'an) is not a fabricated story, but a verification of that (the Torah and Gospel) which IS between his (its) hands, a detailed explanation, a guide and a mercy to the people who believe."

C5. The Cattle (Al-An`am) 6:154-157, Late Meccan.

"Then We gave Moses the Book complete as to whatever is excellent, and explaining all things in detail, and a guide and a mercy, that they might believe in the meeting with their Lord. And this (the Qur'an) is a Book which We have revealed, blessed: so follow it and be righteous, that you may receive mercy: lest you should say, `The Book was sent down to two peoples before us, and for our part, we remained unacquainted with all that they learned by assiduous study;' or lest you should say: `If the Book (Torah and Gospel) had only been sent down to us, we should have followed its guidance better than they.'"

C6. The Believer (Al-Mu'min) 40:69-70, Late Meccan.

"Do you (Muhammad) not see those who dispute concerning the signs of God? How are they turned away? Those who REJECT the Book, and that (book) with which We sent our apostles, they shall know when the collars shall be around their necks, and the chains, they shall be dragged along."

C7. Winding Sand Tracts (Al-Ahqaf) 46:12, Late Meccan.

"And before this was the Book of Moses as a guide and a mercy: and this Book is a verification (of it) in the Arabic tongue to warn those who transgress and as glad tidings to the righteous."

C8. 46:29-30.

"Behold, We turned towards you a company of Jinns listening to the Qur'an...When the (reading) was finished they returned to their people as warners. They said, `O our people! we have heard a Book revealed after Moses attesting to (the truth of) that which IS between his (its) hands (the Torah) - guiding to the truth and to a straight path.'"

C9. The Heifer (Al-Baqara) 2:91, 2 AH.

"When it is said to them, `Believe in what God has sent down,' they say, `We believe in what was sent down to us (the Torah)': yet they reject all besides, even if it be truth attesting to (the truth of) what IS WITH THEM (the Torah)..."

C10. Family of `Imran (Ali `Imran) 3:3, 2-3 AH.

"It is He (God) who sent down to thee the Book in truth, attesting to (the truth of) what IS between its (his) hands (the Bible), and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel before this as a guide to mankind."

C11. The Women (Al-Nisa') 4:162-163, 5-6 AH.

"But those of them (the Jews) that are grounded in knowledge, and the believers, BELIEVE in that which has been revealed to you (Muhammad) and in that which has been revealed before you... We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the prophets after him, and We sent inspiration to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, and to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and to David we gave the Psalms."

C12. Repentance (Al-Tauba) 9:111, 9 AH.

"God has bought from the believers their selves and their wealth, and for them is the garden (of Paradise) if they fight in the ways of God: and whether they kill or are killed, the promise of God IS true in the Torah and the Gospel and the Qur'an, and who is more faithful to his promise than God?"

C13. The Table (Al-Ma'ida) 5:51, 10 AH.

"To you (Muhammad) We revealed the book in truth, attesting to (the truth of) that which IS between his (its) hands from the scripture (the Torah and Gospel), and guarding it (wa muhaiminan `alaihi)..."

We find in these verses a strong testimony to the Torah and the Gospel as being true and present at the time of Muhammad.

In the Sura of Repentance, one of the last revelations given, it says, "The promise of God IS true in the Torah, the Gospel, and the Qur'an" [C12].

NOW THIS MIGHT SURPRISE YOU ALL -- HERE ARE VERSES WHERE MUHAMMAD ACTUALLY QUOTES OR APPEALS TO THE TORAH AND/OR THE GOSPEL.

D1. The Star (Najm) 53:33-38, Early Meccan.

"Do you (Muhammad) see the one who turns back? Gives a little, then hardens (his heart)? What has he knowledge of the unseen so that he can see? Nay, IS he not acquainted with what IS in the books of Moses and of Abraham who fulfilled his engagements? - namely that no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another."

D2. The Poets (Al-Shu`ara') 26:192-197, Middle Meccan.

"Verily this is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds. The Spirit of faith came down upon your heart with it that you might be one of the warners in the plain Arabic tongue. And truly it IS in the Scriptures (Zubur) of the former people. IS it not a sign to them that the learned of the Children of Israel RECOGNIZE it."

D3. Ta-Ha 20:133, Middle Meccan from -7 AH.

"They (the Meccans) say, `Why does he not bring us a sign from his Lord?' What! Has not a clear sign come to them in what IS in the former pages (al-suhuf al-aulla )?"

According to Baidawi's commentary on this verse - The "former pages" refers to "the Torah and the Gospel and all the divine books."

D4. The Prophets (Al-Anbiya') 21:7, Middle Meccan.

"And before thee (Muhammad), We sent no one, except men, to whom We granted revelation. ASK (plural) the people of the Scripture message, if you don't know."

D5. The Prophets (Al-Anbiya') 21:105, Middle Meccan.

"Before this We wrote in the Psalms, after the Message (given to Moses): `My servants, the righteous, shall inherit the earth.'"

This is a direct quotation from Psalm 37:29 which reads, "The righteous shall inherit the earth and dwell therein forever." When considered with the preceding quotation from the same Sura (21:7), it is clear that, according to the Qur'an, God is quoting from the Psalms as still present and true at the time of Muhammad.

D6. Gold Adornments (Al-Zukhruf) 43:44-45, Late Meccan.

"The (Qur'an) is indeed a message for you (Muhammad) and your people, (all of) you shall be brought to account, and ASK those of our apostles whom we sent before thee, `Did We appoint any deities other than the Most Merciful whom they should worship?'"

According to Baidawi, Jelaleddin, and Yusuf Ali, "ask those of our apostles whom we sent before thee" means enquire of their people - those learned in their writings and doctrines. Therefore those writings and doctrines were clearly available in Muhammad's time.

D7. Jonah (Yunus) 10:94, Late Meccan.

"If you (Muhammad) are in doubt regarding that which We have revealed to thee, ASK those who READ the book from before you..."

D8. The Bee (Al-Nahl) 16:43-44, Late Meccan.

"And We have not sent before you (Muhammad) other than men to whom we granted revelation. And (all of you) ASK the people of the (Scripture) Message if you don't know."

D9. The Children of Israel (Bani Isra'il) 17:101, Late Meccan from -1 AH.

"To Moses We gave nine clear signs. ASK (O Muhammad) the Children of Israel..."

Both the Jews and Christians "READ the book" [D15], and "STUDY it earnestly" [D17].

There are some righteous Jews [D14] who GUIDE with truth and JUDGE by it [D13], and among the Jews and Christians is a people on the right course [D24].

Meccans are told, "ASK the People of the Scripture message if you don't know" [D4,D8], and "ASK those of our Apostles whom we sent" - that is ask their people who are learned in their writings and doctrines [D6].

Muhammad is told, "ASK those who READ the Book from before you, if you are in doubt" [D7], and "ASK the Children of Israel" about the nine clear signs given to Moses [D9].

According to other passages God repeats commands from the Torah, warning the Jews to JUDGE by them [D22], and quotes from the Psalms of David [D5]. He appeals to worshiping as the likeness of Muslim believers which is to be found in the Torah, and alludes to growing seed in the Gospel of Jesus as the likeness of believers from the Gospel [D20].

Muhammad tells the Jews to bring the Torah that "it might JUDGE between them" [D16]. On another occasion he tells them, "BRING the Torah and READ it if you are men of truth" [D18].

God asks Muhammad why the Jews come to him for judgement when "they HAVE the Torah in which IS the command of God" [D21]; and the Christians are told to "JUDGE by what God has revealed in it (the Gospel)" [D23].

God speaks of "the Torah and the Gospel that IS WITH THEM" [D12]. And in the last Sura which came to Muhammad - the Sura of the Table (Al-Ma'ida) from 10 AH - both Jews and Christians are told "you are not (founded) on anything until you PERFORM the Torah and the Gospel, and what was revealed to you from your Lord" [D24].

One of the commentators, Ibn Ishaq, relates the following Hadith concerning this passage [D24]. He says:

"Rafi son of Haritha and Salam Ibn Mashkum and two others, came to Muhammad and said to him, `O Muhammad! do you not claim to be a follower of the religion of Abraham and of his faith, and do you not believe in that which we have of the Torah and do you not testify that it is truly from God.'

"He replied, `Yes, in truth, but you have invented new doctrines, and you deny that which is therein regarding which a covenant was taken from you; and you conceal what you have been commanded to show to mankind. Therefore, I separate myself from your new ideas.'

"They said, `And as for us, we hold by that which is in our hands, and we follow the truth and guidance; and we do not believe in you and we will not follow you.'

"Then the great and glorious God revealed, `Say, O People of the Book! You are not (founded) on anything until you perform the Torah and the Gospel and what was revealed to you from your Lord.'"

If this hadith is true then, by itself, it proves that Muhammad believed in the Torah available to the Jews in Medina in 10 AH. And, even if it is not a strong hadith, it is an important testimony to the fact that Muslims of the first and second century of the Hejira knew about a valid Torah and Gospel with them in Arabia.

With or without the above hadith, the 24 passages which we have looked at in this section and the 13 from the previous section, make a total of 37 quotations which testify to a true Torah and Gospel being available to the people of Mecca and Medina while Muhammad was alive.

Muslims may claim that the true Torah and true Gospel, which were present in Arabia, are different from those presently available. But where are they?!? Surely some Muslim would have preserved such important books in one of the many Muslim libraries found throughout the Islamic world, even if only to help the Jews and Christians obey the Quranic instruction to "perform the Torah and the Gospel". Moreover, we would then be able to compare them with the copies which have been preserved by the Jews and Christians.

In fact, this is not the case. No such ancient copies have been preserved by the Muslims. Over the whole world there is only one Torah, which IS WITH both Jews and Christians, and one book called the Gospel. which IS WITH the Christians.

Many of the great Muslim thinkers have, indeed, accepted the authenticity of the New Testament text. Listing the names of these men seems a fitting conclusion to this essay. Their testimony proves that Christian-Muslim dialogue need not for ever be stymied by the allegation introduced by Ibn-Khazem. Two great historians, Al-Mas'udi (died 956) and Ibn-Khaldun (died 1406), held the authenticity of the Gospel text. Four well-known theologians agreed with this: Ali at-Tabari (died 855), Qasim al-Khasani (died 860), 'Amr al-Ghakhiz (died 869) and, last but not least, the famous Al-Ghazzali (died 1111).14 Their view is shared by Abu Ali Husain Ibn Sina, who is known in the West as Avicenna (died 1037). Bukhari (died 870), who acquired a great name by his collection of early traditions, quoted the Qur'an itself (Sura 3:72,78) to prove that the text of the Bible was not falsified.15 Finally, Muhammad Abduh Sayyid Ahmad Khan, a religious and social reformer of modem times (died 1905), accepted the findings of modern science. He said:

As far as the text of the Bible is concerned. it has not been altered ... No attempt was made to present a diverging text as the authentic one.16

14. I. DI MATTEO, loc. cit (note 5), AT-TABARI and AL-GHAKHIZ claimed the translations were unfaithful at times; they did not doubt the authenticity of the Greek original. With regard at AL-GHAZZALI, see F. M. PAREJA, op. cit, p. 463.

15. G. PARRINDER, Jesus in the Qur'an, Faber and Faber, London 1965; Dutch translation, Ten Have, Baarn 1978, p. 124.

16. M. H. ANANIKIAN, `The Reforms and Religious Ideas of Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan'. The Moslem World 14 (1934) p. 61.

BOTTOM LINE, modern day Muslims don't have to believe me but at least follow the teachings of YOUR Quran!

 



-------------


Posted By: TG12345
Date Posted: 24 December 2012 at 7:41am
Originally posted by Caringheart

""Stereotypes are essentially assumptions that are made about a person or group's character or attributes, based on a general image of what a particular group of people is like." [1]  "
Right, precisely, glad you took the time to read at the source I provided.
You make my point.  My scriptures do not create assumptions about a group's character or attributes.  My scripture teaches to treat people as individuals.  I come to the forum seeking to get to know individuals because I make no assumptions about groups of people.

"Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just." (60:8)
Yes, if people live by this verse I have no problem with the quran.  The problem is that there are many verses that conflict with this one, and we must consider which comes first, which are abrogated.  This is the problem with the quran.
As I have been saying, it comes down to interpretation doesn't it, and what people choose to follow?

Salaam,
CH


Caringheart,

I am not a Muslim and I have to admit am too busy to get involved in this thread in great detail, but which verses conflict with 60:8?

The fighting verses in the Quran deal with fighting people who have first attacked Muslims, not those who haven't attacked them first. I have heard the claim that 60:8 is 'abrogated' by Christians in the past, but I've never seen anywhere in the Quran or hadith for that matter, where it is stated.

If you are going to make the claim that 60:8 was abrogated, you must show where Islam teaches this and what it is abrogated by.

Otherwise, it is a false accusation. Not trying to rude or anything and I believe you are well-meaning, but if you are going to make claims you need to be able to back them up with evidence. It makes your arguments more credible. Also, as Christians we are commanded to be truthful.

In Christ,

TG12345


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 24 December 2012 at 2:09pm
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by Caringheart

""Stereotypes are essentially assumptions that are made about a person or group's character or attributes, based on a general image of what a particular group of people is like." [1]  "
Right, precisely, glad you took the time to read at the source I provided.
You make my point.  My scriptures do not create assumptions about a group's character or attributes.  My scripture teaches to treat people as individuals.  I come to the forum seeking to get to know individuals because I make no assumptions about groups of people.

"Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just." (60:8)
Yes, if people live by this verse I have no problem with the quran.  The problem is that there are many verses that conflict with this one, and we must consider which comes first, which are abrogated.  This is the problem with the quran.
As I have been saying, it comes down to interpretation doesn't it, and what people choose to follow?

Salaam,
CH


You truly do have a short memory.  I already proved that the Bible says that all non-Christians are doomed to Hell.  I also proved that your Bible refers to non-Jews as "dogs".  Who are you to point your hypocritical finger at Islam?  Why don't you point the finger at yourself, for stereotyping against Muslims?  Hmmm?  A little introspection may show you the light! 

Your views on abrogation as just as confused as you are.  So, Sheik Caringheart, please tell us what verses are abrogated, since you have obviously done the...(cough)..."research"?  LOL

It is well-known that Surah al-Mumtahana (Surah 8) was revealed in Medina http://www.searchtruth.com/chapter_display.php?chapter=60&translator=2&mac= - [1] .  So, the insinuation that it was "abrogated" can already be shown to be inaccurate, and reflects your own ignorance of the Quran as well as of abrogation.  It also shows the kind of crowd you hang out with and the "sources" you use to "learn" about Islam.  It's no wonder then that you don't provide citations.

Read Dr. al-Imam's book if you are truly interested in the topic of abrogation.


-------------
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)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 24 December 2012 at 2:19pm
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by Caringheart

"I said that there are 1st-century manuscripts of the Quran.  Do you disagree?  Do you want me to provide examples?"
The point is, I want people to do their own research.


But the question is: Have you done the research?  The answer is pretty clear. 

So let me repeat: Do you disagree that there are 1st-century manuscripts of the Quran?  Do you want examples? 

Why do you 'pretend' to know so much about the religion of others... the scriptures of others?


When did I say that?  Why do you ignore what I actually wrote?  If I thought that I knew so much about Christianity, why would I refer to Christian commentaries on the New Testament?  Why would I used Jewish commentaries on the Tanakh?  In short, why would I provide...citations? 

You, on the other hand, make blanket statements and refuse to provide citations.  You pretend that you know so much about Islam and that we Muslims are ignorant.  And when you are exposed and refuted, you point fingers and say "well, why do you pretend to know so much about the religion of other..." and other blabbering nonsense. 

Originally posted by Caringheart

I don't pretend anything.  I state what I have read.  You are free to dispute.  Are you pretending, or stating what you have read?  This is called free exchange of ideas and learning.  Do you seek to learn more or do you already know it all?  I know that there is more than I can ever absorb just about my own beliefs and their origins, and their faults, let alone all there is to know about all the beliefs of others.  That is why we must each be free to choose our own.  This is why we must talk to each other and know each other, so that we may trust each other, and live in peace with all people.


And you refuse to reveal what you have "read".  You assume that what you have "read" must be true.  And then you come here and say stereotypical things and then have the gall to accuse Muslims of being "prejudiced"!  How hilarious!

In short, you are an ignorant bigot who "reads" like-minded bigoted sources on Islam and then claims that you have "researched" Islam.  Did you not admit to me in PM that you mostly "Google" everything on Islam?  How many authentic Islamic sources have you used to "learn" about Islam?  Here is you final chance.  List your "sources" on Islam.  Separate your personal claims from those you have read elsewhere.  I gave you this chance in my PM to you as well and you ignored it.  What a shock?  But will you ignore it in front of everyone else?  Only time will tell...


-------------
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)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 24 December 2012 at 2:31pm
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by Caringheart

I think it is hilarious but not adorable, how you think I am trying to 'blow you[or anyone] away'.  Not doing any such thing, just stating facts... leaving it open for others to do research.
I am not claiming to have all knowledge of your religion.  I am learning about your religion.  I think the clearest evidence is in the fruits produced by the religion.  To where can you point me to see the good of Islam?


You are such a liar.  You made a claim about the Quran's preservation.  I proved you wrong.  You did not offer a rebuttal and yet still insist that you were "just stating facts".  You should have said "just stating facts...as I see them..." 

Speaking of fruits, if you are the fruit of your religion, then I think I am going to switch to vegetables only! LOL

Why are you asking me to "point" you "to see the good of Islam"?  Why now?  I thought you "researched" Islam?  Confused

Originally posted by Caringheart

Why do you think I [try] to refer to muslim sources when I share information?  These sources are never allowed on the forum.


Oh please...Didn't I ask you to provide your sources in the PM?  What happened?  Where did you go? 

If the moderators are blocking your "sources", it must be for a good reason.  Perhaps you should ask them why.  Their explanation may prove what I have suspected about you from the beginning.

Originally posted by Caringheart

Glad you had a good laugh, but it seems you spend a great deal of time on the scripture of others, not on your own.  When do you ever answer questions about your own?  That is if the questions are even allowed to be asked.


Actually, psychic Caringheart, I spend most of my time reading the Quran.  I have read it many times through.  I also spend a lot of time studying the Bible and reading Christian and Jewish commentaries.  Also, unlike you, when I make a claim about the Bible, I back it up with citations.  You like to cut and paste a lot and don't provide citations. 

Originally posted by Caringheart


Just a note...
Do you think your condescending remarks help your arguments or make you more credible?
Your snide, cutting, remarks only appear as attempts to demoralize, rather than to promote discussion.


I could care less what you think!  I don't care if I am not "more credible" to you.  Sorry to disappoint you, but no one really cares what an ignorant bigot like you thinks, except of course, other ignorant bigots. 

Who in their right mind would want to have a "discussion" with a stereotyping ignoramus?  It's impossible!  It would be like a Jewish person having a "discussion" with a neo-Nazi!




-------------
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)



Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 24 December 2012 at 2:32pm
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

Originally posted by Caringheart

islamispeace,

I have some questions to ask... Would you be willing to start a new thread?
Since you say you know your scriptures perhaps you would be willing to enlighten me.

Salaam,
CH


Of course, my lady! 


-------------
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)



Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 24 December 2012 at 3:31pm
"If the moderators are blocking your "sources", it must be for a good reason.  Perhaps you should ask them why."

I will comment just to this one thing.  I have asked them and have never received an answer.

and this, islamispeace (?),
I will say that the only bigoted person with preconceived notions and a closed mind, that I see here(in our conversations), is you.
You are seeking only the answers that you want to hear... answers that will validate your skewed beliefs.
I am seeking answers that will dispel my concerns.

Salaam,
CH


Posted By: islamispeace
Date Posted: 24 December 2012 at 9:27pm
Originally posted by Caringheart

"If the moderators are blocking your "sources", it must be for a good reason.  Perhaps you should ask them why."

I will comment just to this one thing.  I have asked them and have never received an answer.

and this, islamispeace (?),
I will say that the only bigoted person with preconceived notions and a closed mind, that I see here(in our conversations), is you.
You are seeking only the answers that you want to hear... answers that will validate your skewed beliefs.
I am seeking answers that will dispel my concerns.

Salaam,
CH


Then send them to me by PM.  This isn't rocket science, Caringheart. 

A bigot calling me a bigot!  That's rich.  I am not the one who made stereotypical statements against a group of people and then claimed that I only want to "learn". 


-------------
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)



Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 28 December 2012 at 8:06pm
Originally posted by Placid

Hi Hasan,

Quote: In my post I did mention those verses from the Quran that clearly state the alterations to what we now collectively call the Bible.

Response: --- I thought I answered these verses a few posts above, where it says, "They threw it behind their backs." --- That didn't alter any Scriptures, just what they said about it, and the lies they might have told about it.

--- When I read in the Quran that The Angel Gabiel confirmed the Gospel, and that God preserves it in safety, I believe it.

When you say, "No, that refers to the original writings," ---(Of which you have never seen, so that you can say,--- "Here it says this, and now it says that.")


--- Have you not taken those portions of the Quran and thrown them behind your back?
Whereas, that doeesn't change the Quran, does it? --- It only proves that you don't want to believe it.

However, I was told "If you want to learn about Islam, read the Quran."
--- I read it and I believe it.

So show us a verse where the Quran says "The Scripture has been altered."






Placid,
are you kidding me, open those verses and don't forget to open your eyes.
"they change words from their right places" "they forgot a good portion of it"
"Our Apostle revealing to you much that ye used to hide in the Book"
One thing you cannot say it means is "unchanged". One thing is certain "change"

If you need definition of change:
"change [cheynj] Show IPA verb, changed, chang·ing, noun.
verb (used with object)
1.
to make the form, nature, content, future course, etc., of (something) different from what it is or from what it would be if left alone"

Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Placid
Date Posted: 29 December 2012 at 4:55am
Hi Hasan,

This is the response I posted on Page 5:
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 that guides 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?) --- End of former post.


Notice: --- The ones that 'threw the Scriptures behind their backs,' or the ones that 'forgot some of what they were taught' didn't change anything, did they? The Scripture they 'put behind their backs,' or 'forgot,' was still there for others to read and believe, was it not?

I can give you an example:
My wife and I belonged to the Gideons, who are the Businessmen's Organization that place Bibles in hotel and motel rooms where they are accepted.

This is on record with the Gideons that years ago a man was converted and gave this testimony. --- When he was a 'transient,' living on the street, he looked in the garbage for food, and in one can, or bin, he found a Bible, and on the front cover it read "Placed by the Gideons." --- In whatever state of mind he was in he thought, "If they placed it there for me, I better take it." --- He took it and read it, and believed it."

--- Various times the free Bibles are taken from hotels, and if they are read and believed, it is a benefit to the reader. --- If someone has a Bible and throws it away, or 'throws it behind his back,' it doesn't change it or destroy it, but it can be read by someone else.

There are some who read the Bible and only believe the parts that they like and they kind of 'throw the rest behind their back,' or 'forget' the parts they don't like. --- That's human nature, is it not?


Placid





Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 03 January 2013 at 2:30am
Originally posted by Placid




--- 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?) --- End of former post.


Notice: --- The ones that 'threw the Scriptures behind their backs,' or the ones that 'forgot some of what they were taught' didn't change anything, did they? The Scripture they 'put behind their backs,' or 'forgot,' was still there for others to read and believe, was it not?



 
Mr.Placid,
 
I think it's about time you took off your blinkers.
 
You are trying to reconcile Christianity with Islam when the two are far away from each other as the East is from the West. We have given you clear verses from the Holy Qur'an which states that the Torah AND the Injil are corrupted by human hands yet you want to ignore that and in your twisted mind you think the Holy Qur'an backs up the Bible. It does not. How can Christianity and Islam be similar when one teaches the trinity and the other is pure monotheism?
 
Now I will post a clear verse from the Holy Qur'an and if you have difficulties understanding it then I will further elaborate for you Insha'Allah.
 
Sahih International
 
O People of the Scripture, do not commit excess in your religion or say about Allah except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, was but a messenger of Allah and His word which He directed to Mary and a soul [created at a command] from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers. And do not say, "Three"; desist - it is better for you. Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son. To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth. And sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs. 4:171


Posted By: Experiential
Date 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." http://www.idph.net/conteudos/ebooks/AlexanderTheGreat.pdf - [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.

 



Posted By: Webber
Date 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


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date 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

 



Posted By: islamispeace
Date 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 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10174a.htm - memory , his http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07672a.htm - 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 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05525a.htm - 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 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm - person had any." http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08045a.htm - [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 http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Inscriptions/urwa.html - [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." http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/census.htm - [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)



Posted By: honeto
Date 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?"


Posted By: Webber
Date 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


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date 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


Posted By: Webber
Date 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


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 08 January 2013 at 2:45am
Originally posted by Webber

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.
  
 
 
There is a gigantic misconception id Christianity that one can seek God in any way that they like and they will be saved. This is just not true. God tells us clearly how He wants us to worship Him and how He wants us to live our lives that is pleasing to Him. Christians fundamentally ignore this and thinks that they will be saved anyhow.


Posted By: Webber
Date Posted: 09 January 2013 at 6:30am
There is a giant misconception that wearing a cross on a chain around ones neck will get you  into heaven, that's not what I meant. Christians are a scattered lot. The vast majority will wonder why they didn't make it.

-------------
I'm a Gentile.
Numb. 6:24-26


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 09 January 2013 at 1:42pm
Originally posted by Abu Loren

 
There is a gigantic misconception id Christianity that one can seek God in any way that they like and they will be saved. This is just not true. God tells us clearly how He wants us to worship Him and how He wants us to live our lives that is pleasing to Him. Christians fundamentally ignore this and thinks that they will be saved anyhow.
 
There are many who are 'astray', just as there are many who call themselves muslim who are astray... that's why it is only in God's power to judge. Heart
 
There are many different ways of practising the muslim faith as well.


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 09 January 2013 at 10:01pm
Originally posted by Webber

There is a giant misconception that wearing a cross on a chain around ones neck will get you  into heaven,
LOL  You said that right.  I get so irritated at those people who you know are not living their lives according to God's laws but wear a cross anyway.
Originally posted by Webber

that's not what I meant. Christians are a scattered lot. The vast majority will wonder why they didn't make it.
I couldn't agree more... or they will wake up fast during the tribulation period.


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 13 January 2013 at 1:57am
Originally posted by Caringheart

Originally posted by Abu Loren

 
There is a gigantic misconception id Christianity that one can seek God in any way that they like and they will be saved. This is just not true. God tells us clearly how He wants us to worship Him and how He wants us to live our lives that is pleasing to Him. Christians fundamentally ignore this and thinks that they will be saved anyhow.
 
There are many who are 'astray', just as there are many who call themselves muslim who are astray... that's why it is only in God's power to judge. Heart
 
There are many different ways of practising the muslim faith as well.
 
Are you kidding me? Are you for real? There are different ways of practising the Muslims faith?
 
Those Muslims who are practising the Muslim faith differently are called innovators and deviants. For your information there is only ONE way.


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 13 January 2013 at 12:58pm
Originally posted by Abu Loren

Originally posted by Caringheart

There are many who are 'astray', just as there are many who call themselves muslim who are astray... that's why it is only in God's power to judge. Heart
 
There are many different ways of practicing the muslim faith as well.
Are you kidding me? Are you for real? There are different ways of practicing the Muslims faith?
 
Those Muslims who are practising the Muslim faith differently are called innovators and deviants. For your information there is only ONE way.


Greetings Abu,

How is what you say different from what I say?

There are those muslims who are astray(although I am sure opinions would differ greatly as to which ones are astray and which are not... that is God's domain.  I am sure that each feels they are practicing in the right way.)
but anyway, those differing practices result from those interpretations, correct, and so someone must be astray?  You call them innovators or deviants.  Either way they are those who are known as muslims who are astray... so it's not correct to say that all muslims are 'the best of people's', any more than it is correct to say that all Jews have the wrath of God, or that all Christians are astray.  That was the point I think.  There are Christians and Jews who are astray, but not all of them, any more than all muslims are not astray.
You were addressing differing Christian practices.  I addressed differing muslim practices, by acknowledging that yes, there are those who are astray in their religions, in the ways of God, but there are also those who are not.

I tend to share Webbers view;
"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."
I believe in what the Bible says... God knows those who are His.

Salaam,
CH



Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 13 January 2013 at 1:10pm
Originally posted by Caringheart



Originally posted by Abu Loren

 
There is a gigantic misconception id Christianity that one can seek God in any way that they like and they will be saved. This is just not true. God tells us clearly how He wants us to worship Him and how He wants us to live our lives that is pleasing to Him. Christians fundamentally ignore this and thinks that they will be saved anyhow.
 
There are many who are 'astray', just as there are many who call themselves muslim who are astray... that's why it is only in God's power to judge. [IMG]smileys/smiley27.gif" align="absmiddle" alt="Heart" />
 
There are many different ways of practising the muslim faith as well.



Caringheart,
you are right, there are many ways people practice muslim faith just like many ways people practice any faith. But   we all know the truth. Unless we follow the way of the Quran and Sunnah of the prophet, we can deviate from true Islam. Allah has described such deviations leading one into the Hellfire.   
God's way or no way, simple as that. Otherwise we all will be in haven and not living in a state of trial here!
If we love the world, we will find anything that can comfort that thought, but if we believe we will show our face one day and give account, we will think twice.

Unless we believe and live by His book for our respective time and follow our respective prophet, God warns us of eternal loss. Simple as that, reality will wake us up if we close our eyes from it.
For our times, it's the Quran, and the teacher for our times is Prophet Mohammed (pbuh). They are sent for a purpose so were others before them with the same condition. A true believer do not carve up his/her own conditions with God toward being saved. God decides, not us and He has told us how in the book. So don't distort truth to fit your mind.
Hasan


-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 13 January 2013 at 1:33pm
Greetings Hasan,
You are subject to your Imams and their interpretations and I have heard many different things from many different Imams.  The peaceful ones I like.  The ones who recognize that we no longer live in the times of Muhammad and interpret his scriptures according to the history of his time... those that realize that the scriptures and teaching need to fit with todays society.

Salaam,
CH


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 16 January 2013 at 3:18pm
Originally posted by Caringheart

Greetings Hasan,You are subject to your Imams and their interpretations and I have heard many different things from many different Imams.  The peaceful ones I like.  The ones who recognize that we no longer live in the times of Muhammad and interpret his scriptures according to the history of his time... those that realize that the scriptures and teaching need to fit with todays society.Salaam,CH



Caringheart,
you can believe or not believe in anything, that is up to you. It does not affect anyone else but you. But since you chose to hang around the forum in order to learn Muslim perspective this is Muslim perspective:
The Quran is the final word of God, and to follow it and follow the sunnah of the prophet (pbuh) is the only way, and that is not according to my opinion, that is according to the Quran. At the end it does not matter what you like, or I like rather what Allah likes.
People have choices to accept the truth or reject it. And God always has warned us of consequences for choices we make. Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) has said that he is leaving with us two things, the Quran and his sunnah. Anyone following the two fully is on the right path, anyone who do not is far away.
Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 16 January 2013 at 4:28pm
I fear that it may be you who is led down a wrong path.


Posted By: Abu Loren
Date Posted: 19 January 2013 at 2:08am
Originally posted by Caringheart

I fear that it may be you who is led down a wrong path.
 
You are getting brave in your old age?


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 21 January 2013 at 3:10pm
Originally posted by Caringheart



I fear that it may be you who is led down a wrong path.





CArinheart,
if you make a claim but are unable to provide anything that can support it, then it is you that need to worry not me. After learning something if we don't remember and benefit from it, of what use is that learning? Think about it, don't put to waste all that learning, all that knowledge. I believe this kind of negligence will come to haunt you and those like you one day!
Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Experiential
Date Posted: 27 January 2013 at 8:13pm

Hello Islamispeace

Referring to your post dated 04 January

 

In terms of  the discussion regarding  “inspired word” as opposed to the “literal word” and  in your asking “What would be the purpose of "inspiring" the "words" yet leaving open the possibility of errors in the "ink?  You sound reminiscent of Ehrman. The text is a living interpretation of Gods truth and remains fluid enough to transcend culture, time and doctrinal discourse. Unlike your Koran straight jacket, the Christian text is the Word that lives and stirs us to a divine encounter and a response rather than a purely inscribed Word and verbum that is communicating only one static truth. That’s something you will never experience through your Koran trapped in an Arabic, grammatical prison.

 

Your quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia is just more Muslim text book stuff. That’s about all Muslims have. A text book religion. Its rich that a Muslim would try to instruct a Christian on the Holy Spirit when your idea of Gods Spirit led inspiration is to follow a cumbersome Fiqh, don a prayer robe and conduct ablutions all of which serve no purpose in spiritual cleansing or holiness and then parrot the Koran in a language that most of you don’t even understand.

In terms of the definition for “inspired” you provided from the Catholic Encyclopedia, I’ll stick to 2 Timothy 3.16 definition thanks. You say the Christian scriptures are like  traveling half-way to your destination and then turning around and going home. Im not sure what that’s supposed to mean ?

 
In regards to the Christian oral tradition you say that the oral tradition does not mean that Christians "memorized" the Bible and it just means that stories were told and then passed around. In you saying this you underestimate the traditions of the early Church in memorizing scripture through songs and hymns, dance, and the liturgy associated with baptism and communion and the oral teachings passed on down through the apostolic line.

 
In my criticism of most Muslims not speaking Arabic and your reply that most Christians cannot read Hebrew and Greek, again you are missing the point. While Hebrew and Greek are helpful and most Christian leaders are familiar with these languages, overall truth and meaning are not tied to archaic languages of antiquity, such as Muslims burdened and shackled with Classical Arabic.

 
In regards to First century manuscripts of the NT and of the Koran. Who are you to ask for even one 1st century New Testament manuscript when you can't produce a pre-Uthmanic manuscript at all except maybe the highly problematic and contentious Sanaa manuscript that sheds major doubt on the Koran?! 

Also you cannot prove that the memorizations of your reciters of the  Koran line up with the pre Uthman Koran.

 

Regarding Puin you said “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.”

Of course Puin read and reads the Koran. He reads and knows the Koran in Classical Arabic better than you and most of the Arabic world.

How convenient to use the “faith argument’ when you say “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.’ How can Muslims then claim the “Word of God” written in Arabic to be the literal “Word”?

 

You said “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.”

Its obvious The Koran is a book rooted in human history. Puin concluded the sheer number of variants found could not be dismissed as mere scribal errors since the so-called errors are repeated with the same word several times in several fragments. Thus, as Puin emphasizes, “it makes common philological sense (for Muslims) to look for a rationale. The recurrent deviations from the Standard Egyptian text must be taken seriously, and cannot be swept under the carpet, and attributed to scribal inadequacy.”

 

I’ll sick with Puins conclusion 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”.

Puin goes on to say- “My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants.”

 
Anyway evolving text or not. You again miss the point. It shatters the orthodox Muslim belief that the Quran, as it has reached us today, is “the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God”. That everything between its two covers is just God’s unaltered word.

 

Regarding Ehrman and your question as to how can a supposedly "inspired" book have such serious theological problems?  Ive already explained the difference between inspired and infallible. It's not as difficult to understand as you make out.

 

You claim I non-chalantly dismiss the theological problems that come with these textual variants and that put the whole theology of books in question. Many of the examples Ehrman gives are disputable and have been debated and disputed for decades or and even centuries.

As already  stated Ehrman admits no fundamentals tenets of Christianity have been challenged from his work and further to that Bruce .M .Metzger whom Ehrman dedicates “Misquoting Jesus” to and whom Ehrman refers to as “Doctor – Father” is quoted as stating the variations are minor and the significant variations do not over throw any doctrine of the church.

Metzger actually stated, “it ( critical NT study) has increased the basis of my personal faith to see the firmness with which these materials have come down to us with a multiplicity of copies”

The Case for the Real Jesus pg. 99

Lee Strobel

 

In Gordon D Fees review of The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture (Misquoting Jesus is a popularized version of in The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture) Critical review of Books in religion. (1995), he said “Unfortunately Ehrman too often turns mere possibility into probability and probability into certainty, where other equally viable reasons for (textual) corruption exist”

 

Another NT scholar, Daniel Wallace says “The fact is that scholars across the theological spectrum say that in all essentials – not in every particular, but in all essentials – our NT manuscripts go back to the originals. Ehrman is part of a very small minority of textual critics in what he’s saying.”

Lee Strobel- The Case for the Real Jesus pg. 72

 

Ehrman claims that the interpretation of whole NT books is at stake. Christian theologians have been discussing these issues long before Ehrman. Wallace analyses one of Ehmans claims for example looking at the Book of Hebrews, particularly around the description of the death of Jesus as outlined in Hebrews 2.9 and Ehrmans further link to Hebrews 5.7. Critically reviewing this example, Wallace summarizes Ehrman is over stating his case.

 

Regarding where you quote Ehrman in saying  “many of the books and epistles were probably later forgeries.”   Again NT scholars are more than versed in theses books and epistles which were later forgeries and besides your claim is vague.

You citing Origens critique of the NT only validates Christian scholarly integrity. Again there is nothing  new in what Erhman and you are saying. Christians have worked through this staff for centuries as Origen illustrates.

 

In regards to a linear or radial transmission of texts (radial meaning a few copies made of an original manuscript that all went in different directions) what the radial transmission does, as opposed to a linear transmission, is that it validates the reliability of the reconstructed text through samples that are diverse in geographical spread.

You ask when were these "1800 pages of text" written? Again you miss the point. What ever the dates may be, it is more manuscript data that validate the reconstructed text.

 

In regards to early Church leaders quoting extensively from the scriptures as verifying the reliability of the NT you said “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".”

Considering that many of the eye witness disciples lived up to the 2nd century your comment is disingenuous. The point is they were quoting from 1st Century texts and 1st century oral traditions.

For example. In his writings Ignatius of Antioch quotes -

John 8:29, John 17:11-12, James 4:6  names Onesimus as in Philemon, John 1:14,  1 Tim 4:10,  1 Pet 2:9, 9 – Matt 5:2, 2 Tim 2:24-25, Luke 23:34, 11 – Rom 2:4, 12 – Matt 23:35, Acts 9:15, Eph 6:16, Luke 10:27, Matt 12:33,  1 Cor 4:20, Rom 10:10, 2 Cor 8:18, Cor 6:14-16,Cor 1:20 , 3 – 1 Tim 4:12 ,4 – Luke 6:46, 8 – 2 Cor 5:17, mentions Judaizers , 9 – 2 Thess 3:10, Phil 3:18-19, 2 Tim 3:4, 10 – Acts 11:26,9 – Heb 10:12-13, 11 – warns of "Nicolaitanes",2 – 2 Cor 4:18 ,Gal 2:20 ,

2 Tim 3:6, Rev 1:7

 

Clement quotes –

Titus 3:1, Acts 20:35 , 1 Pet 3:20, 2 Pet 2:5 , Heb 11:5 , 1 Cor 2:9 and calls it scripture , 35 – Rom 1:32 ,  Heb 1:3-4 , Church as a body metaphor, as in 1 Corinthians , James 4:1 Jesus' “millstone” quote (which is present in Matthew, Mark and Luke) , James 5:20.

 

You said Islam has first century manuscripts in having an inscription that contains Surah 112 (Al-Ikhlas) from the year 650 CE, which puts it right around the time of Uthman's rule. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this one of the contentious palimpsests of the Sanaa Koran that Puin critiques?  If so then ironically Sura 112 is particularly a highly contentious verse shedding doubt on the Korans veracity in terms of who the speaker is – God or Mohammad ?

 
You say  that Muslims have been reciting the same Quran for the past 1400 years, with no variation or disagreement, as proof that the Quran has remained as it was when it was revealed. As I asked above. What are your reciters reciting? Pre Uthman Koran or Post Uthman Koran?

You have no evidence that there are no significant textual variants in the Koran since you don’t have your original Koran manuscripts since Uthman. The only way to prove that it is not defective would be to compare it to the originals.

 

You mention Gier in stating there is no record of Caesar Augustus' decree for a census. There are many scholars who would disagree with Gier. There could be any number of reasons for no mention of Caesar Augustus' decree, and this is an issue more than adequately addressed by people such as Historian Dr. Edwin Yamauchi and Roman historian A. N. Sherwin White. See the attached site. http://www.jashow.org/Articles/editors-choice/EC1205W3C.htm - http://www.jashow.org/Articles/editors-choice/EC1205W3C.htm

 

Keener gives numerous examples of historical fact lining up with the NT. He describes how the family of Sergis Paulus mentioned in Acts 13 matches inscriptions found in South Asia Minor, the death of Herod Agripa in Caesera is mentioned by the ancient historian Josephus.

Travel itineraries listed in Acts match the known geography even in obscure areas such as Anatolia where people didn’t travel much, plus the description of people using their local languages and being worshipers of Hermes and Zeus match up with what is now known. The account of Lydia a dealer in purple cloth line sup with the ancient city of Thyatira which is known as a centre of cloth dyeing. These are all examples of historical evidence matching the bible.

Keener states a survey done on NT scholars both Christian and non Christian cite the Book of acts as a history or biography not a poem, legend or epic, and further more it is supported by extra biblical sources.



Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 28 January 2013 at 2:18pm
The question remains for all Christians, where is the Injeel, the Gospel that Jesus was preaching according to the Bible account? Do anyone has the answer?
Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 28 January 2013 at 4:47pm
Originally posted by honeto

The question remains for all Christians, where is the Injeel, the Gospel that Jesus was preaching according to the Bible account? Do anyone has the answer?
Hasan


Yes, Hasan, Smile

Jesus was the good news... the Gospel... the 'new thing' being done by God... the new covenant.
Jesus was teaching about Himself.  Jesus is the good news... the Gospel(the thing that was meant by 'the injeel')  It was not a book.  It was the message of Jesus.

Salaam,
Caringheart


-------------
Let us seek Truth together
Blessed be God forever


Posted By: Experiential
Date Posted: 28 January 2013 at 5:05pm
Originally posted by honeto

The question remains for all Christians, where is the Injeel, the Gospel that Jesus was preaching according to the Bible account? Do anyone has the answer?
Hasan
The New Testament (4 Gospels, Book of Acts and the letters of Peter, James, John and Paul and the Book of Revelation) were all well  established long before Mohamad came on the scene in the 7th Century. Its obvious the Injeel Mohamad was referring to was the same.



Print Page | Close Window