When was the New Testament corrupted?

[mattityahu]

Does the Qur'an say the New Testament was corrupted? If not, what is the first Islamic source that claims the New Testament was corrupted? When was the New Testament corrupted?

Yours,
M

[YusufNoor]

Does the Qur'an say the New Testament was corrupted? If not, what is the first Islamic source that claims the New Testament was corrupted? When was the New Testament corrupted?

Yours,
M

why don't you just show us some CONTEMPORANEOUS writings about Jesus the son of Mary[ May Allah's Peace and Blessings be upon both of them]. show us something from about 30 AD, and we'll examine it.

THEN, we can compare them to documents [allegedly] written decades later.
deal?

:w:

[mattityahu]

why don't you just show us some CONTEMPORANEOUS writings about Jesus the son of Mary[ May Allah's Peace and Blessings be upon both of them]. show us something from about 30 AD, and we'll examine it.

THEN, we can compare them to documents [allegedly] written decades later.
deal?

:w:

I am not claiming anything for the New Testament. I am simply asking what people's views are on the three questions I asked. There is no need for shouty capitals.

Peace,
M

[YusufNoor]

I am not claiming anything for the New Testament. I am simply asking what people's views are on the three questions I asked. There is no need for shouty capitals.

Peace,
M

you ask us WHEN was the "New Testament" corrupted, did you not? so bring us a "New Testament" from AD 30 and we'll compare it to the one we now have.

when shall you provide such a thing, eh?

we can wait!

:w:

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[glo]

you ask us WHEN was the "New Testament" corrupted, did you not? so bring us a "New Testament" from AD 30 and we'll compare it to the one we now have.

when shall you provide such a thing, eh?

we can wait!

:w:

Forgive my interruption, Yusuf, but why are you reacting so unpleasantly?
From what I see mattityahu is asking a simple question, namely which Islamic source first stated that the New Testament had been corrupted, and when this corruption is thought to have taken place.

I see nothing in mattityahu's behaviour or question which would warrant your annoyed response.

Your request to 'bring a "New Testament" from AD 30' to compare it to the present one does not offer us an answer to the question.

Perhaps it would be wiser to leave replying to the OP's question to somebody who has the required information ...

Salaam :)

[جوري]

The first Islamic source to say the NT is corrupted is the Quran.. I believe the Jews concur by mere fact they are still Jews-- I don't think a 'man/God' is what they were waiting for!

all the best

[جوري]

I don't find br. Yusuf's response to evoke the notion of 'annoyed', Rather he prefers to avoid the circuitous long route and cut the chase... I think it is direct to the point, given the nature of the question and undoubtedly the direction it is seeking!

all the best

[The_Prince]

from the Quran:

surah 4:157

and surah 2:79

[glo]

I don't find br. Yusuf's response to evoke the notion of 'annoyed', Rather he prefers to avoid the circuitous long route and cut the chase... I think it is direct to the point, given the nature of the question and undoubtedly the direction it is seeking!

all the best

I see nothing remotely like 'circuitous long routes' in mattityahu's questioning style ... it's a while since I have seen anybody ask such precise, brief and clear questions. :D
Rather Yusuf's attempt to divert the conversation to the origins of the New Testament is what I would call a 'long route' ... do precise questions not deserve precise answers?
Since we are in the 'Clarifications about Islam' section it would be great to find the Islamic information which was asked for.
Anything else would be better placed in the 'Comparative Religions' section and doesn't belong here at all.

Anyway, I found the question the OP asked a very interesting one, and I am looking forward to reading and learning more as this thread progresses.

Peace :)

[جوري]

I see nothing remotely like 'circuitous long routes' in mattityahu's questioning style ... it's a while since I have seen anybody ask such precise, brief and clear questions. :D
Rather Yusuf's attempt to divert the conversation to the origins of the New Testament is what I would call a 'long route' ... do precise questions not deserve precise answers?
Since we are in the 'Clarifications about Islam' section it would be great to find the Islamic information which was asked for.
Anything else would be better placed in the 'Comparative Religions' section and doesn't belong here at all.

Anyway, I found the question the OP asked a very interesting one, and I am looking forward to reading and learning more as this thread progresses.

Peace :)

Br. Yusuf did what we call 'hat min il'akhir' -- it is an intuitive thing as 'qalb almoslim daleelo'
other than that I believe Br. Prince and myself already gave a very concise reply to earliest Islamic literature pointing out the corruption in the bible.


I really don't know what belong where, and I am not sure I'd care one way or the other.. once I am subscribed or un-subscribed :D

all the best

[doorster]

I don't find br. Yusuf's response to evoke the notion of 'annoyed', Rather he prefers to avoid the circuitous long route and cut the chase... I think it is direct to the point, given the nature of the question and undoubtedly the direction it is seeking!

all the best

neither do I but it (act of playing the victim) will help when eliciting help from some of these mods

Edit:
The way I see it as follows:

Br. Yusuf tried to cut through the chase while you and Br. Prince pointed to the very source of Muslim evidence (i.e The Quran)

End of argument!

[glo]

from the Quran:

surah 4:157

and surah 2:79

Thanks Prince.

Here are the verses in question (from 'The Meanings Of The Holy Qur'an' by Abdullah Yusufali). Please add other translations if you feel this is not the most reliable source. It just happens to be the one I have available online.

Surah 2:79. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.

Surah 4:157. That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

[جوري]

neither do I but it (act of playing the victim) will help when eliciting help from some of these mods

thing with me, is I have been blogging for yrs, and I know I am doing without the body language and the tone of voice, but can pretty much tell a great deal about a poster from two posts or so (being generous for benefit of the doubt)...and I can also tell when they travel with a posse but come days apart.. after reading the stealth crusade and a few of their own confessionals on the christian forums I find myself running on zero tolerance....

:w:

[YusufNoor]

Forgive my interruption, Yusuf, but why are you reacting so unpleasantly?
:rollseyes

From what I see mattityahu is asking a simple question, namely which Islamic source first stated that the New Testament had been corrupted, and when this corruption is thought to have taken place.

:rollseyes

I see nothing in mattityahu's behaviour or question which would warrant your annoyed response.
:rollseyes

Your request to 'bring a "New Testament" from AD 30' to compare it to the present one does not offer us an answer to the question.

Perhaps it would be wiser to leave replying to the OP's question to somebody who has the required information ...
:rollseyes

Salaam :)

if one REALLY wants to know WHEN the "New Testament" was corrupted, we should start with the "ORIGINAL" and work our way up. THEN we might perhaps see when the corruption took place. sounds simple enough, eh?

in other words let's start at the beginning!

!he, sdrawkcab gnikrow naht retteb eb dluow taht

as for whatever you [mis]read into anything, i'm not responsible for your motives, you are.

have a nice day!

[mattityahu]

Surah 2:78-79: Among them are gentiles who do not know the scripture, except through hearsay, then assume that they know it. Therefore, woe to those who distort the scripture with their own hands, then say, "This is what GOD has revealed," seeking a cheap material gain. Woe to them for such distortion, and woe to them for their illicit gains.

It seems that this verse is referring to those who do not know the scripture. Then they can't have corrupted it, as they didn't have it in the first place.

Surah 4:157 And for claiming that they killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of GOD. In fact, they never killed him, they never crucified him - they were made to think that they did. All factions who are disputing in this matter are full of doubt concerning this issue. They possess no knowledge; they only conjecture. For certain, they never killed him.

Again, it is clear that those claiming the Jesus was killed had no knowledge of uncorrupted NT. So they certainly didn't corrupt it. Also, the verse is only claiming that "they" (whoever they were) didn't kill him. It doesn't say that Jesus wasn't killed at all. I accept that the Qur'an does teach things contrary to the New Testament (as we currently have it) in other places, so it implicitly claims that the New Testament is no longer free from error. The question then is which Islamic sources explicitly state when the documents were altered. Was it before or after the Qur'an was written, for example?

The first Islamic source to say the NT is corrupted is the Quran.. I believe the Jews concur by mere fact they are still Jews-- I don't think a 'man/God' is what they were waiting for!

all the best

Could you now answer the question above? Thanks.

if one REALLY wants to know WHEN the "New Testament" was corrupted, we should start with the "ORIGINAL" and work our way up. THEN we might perhaps see when the corruption took place. sounds simple enough, eh?

in other words let's start at the beginning!

As with the Qur'an, the documents no longer exist. As such, the method is impossible. My questions are to do with what Islamic sources say about the matter.

Yours,
M

[doorster]

It seems that this verse is referring to those who do not know the scripture. Then they can't have corrupted it, as they didn't have it in the first place.

so they constructed one or four from scratch based on hearsay?

well done!

now it is not corrupt but made-up, I suppose I can live with that idea

thanx, salam!

[mattityahu]

so they constructed one or four from scratch based on hearsay?

well done!

now it is not corrupt but made-up, I suppose I can live with that idea

thanx, salam!

I thought the Injil was from Allah, and that the original copy wasn't corrupted? Feel free to correct me on this.

Yours,
M

[doorster]

make-up your mind first, if you want to talk about Injil, then bring forth a copy and if you are talking about the new testament, then do not paste quranic ayats as you will surely confuse me.

[mattityahu]

make-up your mind first, if you want to talk about Injil, then bring forth a copy and if you are talking about the new testament, then do not paste quranic ayats as you will surely confuse me.

I thought that, according to Islam, the New Testament was the corrupted version of the Injil. If not, could you explain the difference?

Thanks,
M

[doorster]

I think you are too clever and sharp for me so I am bowing out suffice it to say that According to (my version or understanding of) Islam New Testament is indeed the corrupted version of the Gospel.

However, according to Christianity, it is perfect word of God aka Jesus

so why can we not leave it at that? you say He is God, I say he is Messenger of God and a Prophet, so are we going to or do we need to start a holy cyberwar over it

instead of that why not just you stick with your belief and let us get on with ours?

to you your way, to me mine!

[mattityahu]

I think you are too clever and sharp for me so I am bowing out suffice it to say that According to Islam New Testament is indeed the corrupted version of the Gospel.

However, according to Christianity, it is perfect word of God aka Jesus

so why can we not leave it at that? you say He is God, I say he is Messenger of God and a Prophet, so are we going to or do we need to start a holy cyberwar over it

instead of that why not just you stick with your belief and let us get on with ours?

to you your way, to me mine!

I'm in no way trying to impress my beliefs upon anyone, just simply trying to understand the Islamic point of view by asking what I feel are fairly natural questions. There is a need for each of us to find the truth, and to always pursue it. I am happy to invite anyone on this board to ask me any questions regarding what I currently believe (no that's not an invitation to pummel me with questions on this particular thread!) - there is as much that that I don't understand about my faith as there is about yours. To just "get on with my belief" would to me be intellectually dishonest.

Yours,
M

[doorster]

To just "get on with my belief" would to me be intellectually dishonest.

Implication being that I am?

:(

we are commanded to say:
... "O You who hide/deny the Truth (and, thus, by remaining ungrateful to the Creator's Ultimate Guidance (Quran), choose to live in darkness!)

I do not worship that which you worship. (Neither your idols, nor your holy men). Nor do you worship that which I worship.

And I will never worship that which you have ever worshipped. Nor (unless/until you see the Light) will you worship that which I worship.

Unto you your way, and unto me my Way"

[mattityahu]

Implication being that I am?

:(

we are commanded to say:
... "O You who deny the Truth (and, thus, by remaining ungrateful to the Creator's Ultimate Guidance, choose to live in darkness!)

I do not worship that which you worship. (Neither your idols, nor your holy men). Nor do you worship that which I worship.

And I will never worship that which you have ever worshipped.
Nor (unless you see the Light) will you worship that which I worship.

Unto you your way, and unto me my Way"

I have not denied anything in this thread, only asked questions. I ask questions because I am willing to be persuaded by good arguments. This is not a "cyberwar" - it's a discussion. I appreciate your efforts to answer my questions - now we will both have reasons to ask more questions about the things we are unsure about.

If this amounts to you being "intellectually dishonest" then I apologise. But I cannot just get on with my beliefs without questioning them and others. I assure you that I have doubts and questions about pretty much every system of belief going - I am a Christian because I have the fewest doubts about Christianity, and have found the evidence for it to be the most compelling.

Peace,
M

[doorster]

:) okay let me think on it and may be I'll consult with another person or two before I post to you on this subject

until then:
Unto you your way (in peace), and unto me my Way (in peace)

[mattityahu]

:) okay let me think on it and may be I'll consult with another person or two before I post to you on this subject

:thumbs_up

Thanks!
M

[Malaikah]

Since when was the NT the Injeel, corrupted or not?? My understanding is that the NT and the Injeel are two entirely different things but that parts of the Injeel may have been incorporated into the NT... Allahu alam...

[doorster]

oopse! I do beg your pardon I should have said: according to "My version of Islam" rather than "according to Islam" which gives the impression that we are all one. (I'm getting on a bit thus keep forgetting about zillion sects)

thanx for reminder, it is fixed now!

[mattityahu]

Since when was the NT the Injeel, corrupted or not?? My understanding is that the NT and the Injeel are two entirely different things but that parts of the Injeel may have been incorporated into the NT... Allahu alam...

So the Injeel was revealed, and written down correctly, am I right? Then, according to Islam, the early Christians added to and took away from the Injeel - giving us the New Testament. Seems fairly clear to me that this is the same as saying the New Testament is a corrupted version of the Injeel.

Could someone who knows more about the matter explain all this?

Thanks,
M

[Zafran]

Salaam

The Injeel is the book given to Christ

The NT is written by men after christ and there points of view

5:14 (Asad) And [likewise,] from those who say, "Behold, we are christians." [26] We have accepted a solemn pledge: and they, too, have forgotten much of what they had been told to bear in mind - wherefore We have given rise among them to enmity and hatred, [to last] until Resurrection Day: [27] and in time God will cause them to understand what they have contrived.

[Malaikah]

The Injeel is the book given to Christ

The NT is written by men after christ and there points of view

Thank you! You explained what I was trying to say so simply.

This is my understand - I could be wrong. Allah knows best.

mattityahu - I don't know whether the Injeel was ever written down.

[mattityahu]

Thank you! You explained what I was trying to say so simply.

This is my understand - I could be wrong. Allah knows best.

mattityahu - I don't know whether the Injeel was ever written down.

According the Zafran, the Injeel was a book.
So does the New Testament contain any of the Injeel? If so, which bits, and how do we know?

Yours,
M

[doorster]

Salaam

The Injeel is the book given to Christ

when? at his birth? or when he met John the Baptist? or at beginning of his last 3 years on earth?

and how? was it one pre-bound volume already written down? or was it sent down verse by verse to be written down by men?

The NT is written by men after christ and there points of view

did they chuck away or Burn the original in one go or because it was written down on many scrolls and when they collected them all together, those got mixed up with forgeries? or they edited the scrolls?

[Zafran]

According the Zafran, the Injeel was a book.
So does the New Testament contain any of the Injeel? If so, which bits, and how do we know?

Yours,
M

Injeel is the book given to Jesus pbuh as the TRANSLATION says

"I am indeed a servant of Allah, He gave me the Book and made me a prophet." 19/32

"And in their footsteps We sent Jesus, the Son of Mary, confirming the law that had come before him. We gave him the Gospel, therein was guidance and light and confirmation of the law that had come before him, a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah." 5/46.

"Then Allah says, "O Jesus, the son of Mary! Recount My favour on you and your mother, when I strengthened you with the angel Gabrael so that you speak to the people in childhood and maturity, and when I taught you the book and wisdom and Torah and Injeel." 5/110.



By Book we could mean oral tradition - the Quran called itself a book when it was being memorized orally.

The NT is the work of men after Jesus pbuh - like Paul he never met Jesus pbuh yet writes the most of the books. You also have Mark matthew and the other writers.

Allah knows what happend to the teachings of christ. We dont realy know what the christains did with it unless you can judge it by a criterion.

For the muslims and the believers we have the Quran - that is the guidence we rely on.

[YusufNoor]

I have not denied anything in this thread, only asked questions. I ask questions because I am willing to be persuaded by good arguments. This is not a "cyberwar" - it's a discussion. I appreciate your efforts to answer my questions - now we will both have reasons to ask more questions about the things we are unsure about.

If this amounts to you being "intellectually dishonest" then I apologise. But I cannot just get on with my beliefs without questioning them and others. I assure you that I have doubts and questions about pretty much every system of belief going - I am a Christian because I have the fewest doubts about Christianity, and have found the evidence for it to be the most compelling.

Peace,
M

:sl:

what we have here is a failure to communicate!

you must be coming from an assumption that YOUR [not yelling here, just using EXTRA emphasis. i just about flunked English, so it's all i got] "book" the New Testament is a correct book.

NO BORN Muslim will have that assumption unless and until HIS belief systems are corrupted and May Allah protect them from that!

what we kind of have to show you is the OPPOSITE of the "can the Qur'an stand the test" thread, which to ANY Muslim who's studied Qur'anic Revelation is an ABSOLUTE absurdity! i say kind of, because the OTHER route would be to examine how the New Testament came about.

you SEEM unwilling to do that. i could be wrong, Allahu Alum [that is Allah knows best]

if i paste what i wrote from a previous thread, you will perhaps just dismiss it. most of the "Christians" here do. in fact, they state unequivocally that they have NO INTEREST in what Jesus[as] said and even DENY that he HAD a message from God! [sounds UNBELIEVABLE, eh? [btw, i'm half Canadian, so i hope the eh?s don't bother you]] that's HALF of it, the rest later, In Sha'a Allah, which is, "if Allah wills it."

i recommend that you start here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWYuwI60ZAg

it will, In Sha'a Allah, give you a rough and basic understanding of where we as Muslims will approach this from. i've watched it MANY times, i love it. it's VERY entertaining and pretty dead on accurate. they actually carry the series on for another 10 vids, but just watch this one.

hopefully you will see that our answers are NOT insults but that the "Christian" books are SO corrupted that it will probably seem that way.

btw, the Injeel was the "Message" that Jesus[as] delivered. the closest thing mentioned about it in "Christian" theory would be the "Quelle" document or "Q." though i am NOT saying that "Q" is the Injeel, just giving the best comparison.

and although I [yeah that's capped] CAN'T explain it, some put it this way:

Jesus/Isa ibn Marriam, May Allah's Peace and Blessings be on both of them is/was [ANOTHER bit i can't explain] God/Allah's LIVING WORD in human form and the Qur'an is God/Allah's LIVING [WORD IN] BOOK [from]! i PREFER NOT to refer to "John" at all, but some scholars have studied more than me and are more knowledgeable. i just see John as the "youngest" of the 4 Gospels, which implies to me that it is the most corrupted, but Allahu Alum.

[you see, we believe that Jesus[as] IS the Messiah and that he WILL return. therefore, i don't know what the proper "tense" to refer to him always is.]

:w:

[mattityahu]

Thankyou YusufNoor for you amusing post and the video link. I point you to the video it was responding to, here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arhNcJqHwxo

I found especially interesting the verses he pointed out in the Qur'an - what do you make of these?

Yours,
M

[As for your original link, perhaps I can make a few comments:

1. The difference between the Roman Catholic and Protestant bibles

The ONLY difference is the 7 additional apocryphal books in the Roman Catholic bible. These books were only made canonical in 1546 (The Council of Trent), and are placed in the Old Testament. Moreover, Roman Catholicism doesn't generally understand the bible as the "Word of God", and place a much higher role on tradition. A strong historical case can be made for the exclusion of these 7 books from what I've seen.

2. Added passages

It is true that a few small sections of the New Testament as printed today were added later at some stage. The reason these passages are left in bibles today is that they are examples of Early Church teaching. They are not corrupted versions of original passages, as shown by stylistic criticism of these passages. There is little evidence to suggest that the remaining 5000 or so verses of the NT have been changed: they have been subject to close scrutiny by modern historical methods for at least 200 years and are showing little sign of giving in from what I've seen.]

[doorster]

when? at his birth? or when he met John the Baptist? or at beginning of his last 3 years on earth?

and how? was it one pre-bound volume already written down? or was it sent down verse by verse to be written down by men?

did they chuck away or Burn the original in one go or because it was written down on many scrolls and when they collected them all together, those got mixed up with forgeries? or they edited the scrolls?

this post has been tampered with!

[mattityahu]

this post has been tampered with!

Who corrupted it!!!

M

[جوري]

You should ask yourself, what message Jesus came with?
how his original message (if there was one) differs from that Nicene one, and what made him evolve from a man to a God!

all the best

[YusufNoor]

Thankyou YusufNoor for you amusing post and the video link. I point you to the video it was responding to, here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arhNcJqHwxo

I found especially interesting the verses he pointed out in the Qur'an - what do you make of these?

Yours,
M

[As for your original link, perhaps I can make a few comments:

1. The difference between the Roman Catholic and Protestant bibles

The ONLY difference is the 7 additional apocryphal books in the Roman Catholic bible. These books were only made canonical in 1546 (The Council of Trent), and are placed in the Old Testament. Moreover, Roman Catholicism doesn't generally understand the bible as the "Word of God", and place a much higher role on tradition. A strong historical case can be made for the exclusion of these 7 books from what I've seen.

2. Added passages

It is true that a few small sections of the New Testament as printed today were added later at some stage. The reason these passages are left in bibles today is that they are examples of Early Church teaching. They are not corrupted versions of original passages, as shown by stylistic criticism of these passages. There is little evidence to suggest that the remaining 5000 or so verses of the NT have been changed: they have been subject to close scrutiny by modern historical methods for at least 200 years and are showing little sign of giving in from what I've seen.]

:sl:

I found especially interesting the verses he pointed out in the Qur'an - what do you make of these?

you're not really going to make me watch Jay the idiot, are you? he's an intergral part of alot of Eesa and Abdullah's work. couldn't you just ask me about which verses, PLEASE?

PRETTY PLEASE?

WITH SUGAR ON TOP?

:w:

[mattityahu]

:sl:



you're not really going to make me watch Jay the idiot, are you? he's an intergral part of alot of Eesa and Abdullah's work. couldn't you just ask me about which verses, PLEASE?

PRETTY PLEASE?

WITH SUGAR ON TOP?

:w:

Yet you all expected me to watch the video responding to it? Is it OK if I call the guys in that video "idiots"? Seems like double standards to me.

Yours,
M

PS Who are Abdullah and Eesa?

[YusufNoor]

Yet you all expected me to watch the video responding to it?

yes, i know it doesn't SEEM fair, but i've seen alot of Jay. he contradicts himself alot [which OF COURSE get pretty good attention from Eesa and Abdullah.] it's ALMOST painful to watch that guy.

Is it OK if I call the guys in that video "idiots"? Seems like double standards to me.

but we're talking about Jay here!

Yours,
M

PS Who are Abdullah and Eesa?

:sl:

Eesa and Abdullah are the 2 in the Is the Bible Corrupted Series.

but seriously, i really, REALLY can't stand Jay.

give a guy a break, eh?

:w:

[mattityahu]

:sl:

Eesa and Abdullah are the 2 in the Is the Bible Corrupted Series.

but seriously, i really, REALLY can't stand Jay.

give a guy a break, eh?

:w:

It doesn't seem fair because it isn't. If I currently agree with Jay on this topic does that make me an idiot? The reality is that Eesa and Abdullah's understanding of Christian views of Inspiration and Canonisation are pretty simplistic and not at all representative of mainstream Christian teaching (if there is such a thing these days...I digress). Moreover, they didn't respond to Jay's video whatsoever by addressing the verses he quoted, or any of his arguments about historical evidence. I can't remember the verses he quoted - shall I watch the idiot again?

Yours,
M

[YusufNoor]

It doesn't seem fair because it isn't. If I currently agree with Jay on this topic does that make me an idiot?
The reality is that Eesa and Abdullah's understanding of Christian views of Inspiration and Canonisation are pretty simplistic and not at all representative of mainstream Christian teaching (if there is such a thing these days...I digress). Moreover, they didn't respond to Jay's video whatsoever by addressing the verses he quoted, or any of his arguments about historical evidence. I can't remember the verses he quoted - shall I watch the idiot again?

Yours,
M

:sl:

gah! i shall attempt to watch it. as you can see, i put it off for over 24 hours.

so i shall TRY to watch it and attempt to answer your question, In Sha'a Allah.

but...i'm ...not ...looking ...forward ...to...it...:cry:

:w:

[YusufNoor]

:sl:

SubhannAllah, that WAS painful!

in response to when was the Bible corrupted?

BEFORE it was even put together! the VAST MAJORITY of "Christian" beliefs were perverted during and after, Jesus ministry! i would venture a guess, "based upon the New Testament", that we can conclude the Jesus' ministry ended on or about Wednesday, April 25, 31AD.

THUS, the corruption of "Christianity" can said to have begun In Judea, on or about Wednesday, April 25, 31AD.

as far as the "New Testament" itself is concerned, MY position, WHICH IS THE CORRECT ONE, is that is was corrupted BEFORE it was ever written! and Allahu Alum!

however, once written, it was also corrupted/changed and translations are TO THIS DAY currently being corrupted. i can show some in another thread, In Sha'a Allah.

you see, Christians pull a "bait and switch," rather than deal with what the Qur'an says, they ask Muslims to "show me the exact time and place that my books were changed." [what's EXTREMELY amusing about this is that in regard to those documents that CANNOT and WILL NOT produce "the exact time and place" that the books were written OR who wrote them!]

the Qur'an however says, is Surat At Tawbah:

30: Muhsin Khan: And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allah's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!
31: Muhsin Khan: They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah (by obeying them in things which they made lawful or unlawful according to their own desires without being ordered by Allah), and (they also took as their Lord) Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary), while they (Jews and Christians) were commanded [in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)) to worship none but One Ilah (God - Allah) La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He). Praise and glory be to Him, (far above is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him)."


so if you read that, you will see that Islam claims 2 things in regard to Christianity:

1) you now claim that Jesus/Isa ibn Marriam, May Allah's Peace and Blessings be upon both of them, is the son of God.

2) you obey your leaders in regards to what is lawful and unlawful. in other words, you don't follow the way/"Sunnah" of Jesus. [you pretty much follow the corruption began by Paul.] some examples would be:

a) you eat pork
b) you eat shellfish
c) you eat other non-Kosher food.
d) you break the Sabbath
e) you don't honor Jewish Holy Days.

IN ALL of the above, you have "associated partners with Allah.


i have now answered your questions, exept Jays, although i addressed some of them.

how am i doing?

:w:

[mattityahu]

:sl:

SubhannAllah, that WAS painful!

in response to when was the Bible corrupted?

BEFORE it was even put together! the VAST MAJORITY of "Christian" beliefs were perverted during and after, Jesus ministry! i would venture a guess, "based upon the New Testament", that we can conclude the Jesus' ministry ended on or about Wednesday, April 25, 31AD.

THUS, the corruption of "Christianity" can said to have begun In Judea, on or about Wednesday, April 25, 31AD.

as far as the "New Testament" itself is concerned, MY position, WHICH IS THE CORRECT ONE, is that is was corrupted BEFORE it was ever written! and Allahu Alum!

however, once written, it was also corrupted/changed and translations are TO THIS DAY currently being corrupted. i can show some in another thread, In Sha'a Allah.

you see, Christians pull a "bait and switch," rather than deal with what the Qur'an says, they ask Muslims to "show me the exact time and place that my books were changed." [what's EXTREMELY amusing about this is that in regard to those documents that CANNOT and WILL NOT produce "the exact time and place" that the books were written OR who wrote them!]

the Qur'an however says, is Surat At Tawbah:

30: Muhsin Khan: And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allah's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!
31: Muhsin Khan: They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah (by obeying them in things which they made lawful or unlawful according to their own desires without being ordered by Allah), and (they also took as their Lord) Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary), while they (Jews and Christians) were commanded [in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)) to worship none but One Ilah (God - Allah) La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He). Praise and glory be to Him, (far above is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him)."


so if you read that, you will see that Islam claims 2 things in regard to Christianity:

1) you now claim that Jesus/Isa ibn Marriam, May Allah's Peace and Blessings be upon both of them, is the son of God.

2) you obey your leaders in regards to what is lawful and unlawful. in other words, you don't follow the way/"Sunnah" of Jesus. [you pretty much follow the corruption began by Paul.] some examples would be:

a) you eat pork
b) you eat shellfish
c) you eat other non-Kosher food.
d) you break the Sabbath
e) you don't honor Jewish Holy Days.

IN ALL of the above, you have "associated partners with Allah.


i have now answered your questions, exept Jays, although i addressed some of them.

how am i doing?

:w:

Saying "MY VIEW IS THE CORRECT ONE" is not evidence of your position. Do you have any historical evidence of what Jesus' message was before it was altered and written in the Gospels?

I would certainly be interested in modern corruptions of the Greek New Testament manuscripts.

Yours,
M

[جوري]

Saying "MY VIEW IS THE CORRECT ONE" is not evidence of your position. Do you have any historical evidence of what Jesus' message was before it was altered and written in the Gospels?

I would certainly be interested in modern corruptions of the Greek New Testament manuscripts.

Yours,
M

To the contrary he cemented his view with how deranged Christianity is from that which preceded it. Jesus' message shouldn't be deviant from that which was all along, given:

International Standard Version (©2008)
But he replied, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the nation of Israel."New American Standard Bible (©1995)
But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Jesus responded, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the nation of Israel."
King James Bible
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
American King James Version
But he answered and said, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
American Standard Version
But he answered and said, I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Bible in Basic English
But he made answer and said, I was sent only to the wandering sheep of the house of Israel.
Douay-Rheims Bible
And he answering, said: I was not sent but to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel.
Darby Bible Translation
But he answering said, I have not been sent save to the lost sheep of Israel's house.
English Revised Version
But he answered and said, I was not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Webster's Bible Translation
But he answered and said, I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Weymouth New Testament
"I have only been sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel," He replied.
World English Bible
But he answered, "I wasn't sent to anyone but the lost sheep of the house of Israel."
Young's Literal Translation
and he answering said, 'I was not sent except to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.'

one would assume that his message should be in keeping with that of Moses, Abraham, Issac and the clan, not turn into a man/god/spirit -- he was sent to the Jews to unite them, not make them worship him!

all the best

[YusufNoor]

Saying "MY VIEW IS THE CORRECT ONE" is not evidence of your position. Do you have any historical evidence of what Jesus' message was before it was altered and written in the Gospels?

I would certainly be interested in modern corruptions of the Greek New Testament manuscripts.

examples would be The Message, the Good News bible. and interestingly:

google: Orthodox Study Bible and check out the samples from Genesis
or go here:
http://orthodoxstudybible.com/samples

they are explaining Genesis with the Trinity even thought the trinity theories didn't come around for over a hundred years later.

Yours,
M

:sl:

i don't know if i wrote the Ayats in the proper order, but let me respond to the vid, In Sha'a Allah

10:94:
Muhsin Khan: So if you (O Muhammad SAW) are in doubt concerning that which We have revealed unto you, [i.e. that your name is written in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] then ask those who are reading the Book [the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] before you. Verily, the truth has come to you from your Lord. So be not of those who doubt (it).

Jay wants use THIS ayat as confirming Christianity AND you claim to agree with him!

well then , Alhumdulillah, you BOTH agree that Muhammad [PBUH] was written in the Torah and the Injeel! Allahu Akbar!

21:7:
Muhsin Khan: And We sent not before you (O Muhammad SAW) but men to whom We inspired, so ask the people of the Reminder [Scriptures - the Taurat (Torah), the Injeel (Gospel)] if you do not know.

that says ask the People of the Book if Allah sent Prophets before. you WOULD agree with that, wouldn't you?

29:46:
Muhsin Khan: And argue not with the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), unless it be in (a way) that is better (with good words and in good manner, inviting them to Islamic Monotheism with His Verses), except with such of them as do wrong, and say (to them): "We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you; our Ilah (God) and your Ilah (God) is One (i.e. Allah), and to Him we have submitted (as Muslims)."

it says NOT to argue, but to DISCUSS "WITH SOMETHING BETTER"; which is defined as: good words and in good manner, inviting them to Islamic Monotheism with (The Qur'an) except with those of YOU who do wrong, then tell them:"We believe in that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you; our Ilah (God) and your Ilah (God) is One (i.e. Allah), and to Him we have submitted (as Muslims)."

4:136:
Muhsin Khan: O you who believe! Believe in Allah, and His Messenger (Muhammad SAW), and the Book (the Quran) which He has sent down to His Messenger, and the Scripture which He sent down to those before (him), and whosoever disbelieves in Allah, His Angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Last Day, then indeed he has strayed far away.

that says we believe in ALL of the Original Scriptures/Messages given by Allah. AND if you don't, then you have INDEED strayed far away! i'm beginning to wonder why Jay has chosen all of these Ayats. they ALL confirm Islam!

5:46:
Muhsin Khan: And in their footsteps, We sent 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), confirming the Taurat (Torah) that had come before him, and We gave him the Injeel (Gospel), in which was guidance and light and confirmation of the Taurat (Torah) that had come before it, a guidance and an admonition for Al-Muttaqun (the pious - see V.2:2).
47:
Muhsin Khan: Let the people of the Injeel (Gospel) judge by what Allah has revealed therein. And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed (then) such (people) are the Fasiqun (the rebellious i.e. disobedient (of a lesser degree) to Allah.

OK, that says that Jesus confirmed the Torah and was given the Injeel. are yo telling me that BOTH you and Jay ARE in agreement with that?

it also says that whoever does not judge by whjat Allah has revealed which includes in the VERY NEXT AYAT,

"5:48:
Muhsin Khan: And We have sent down to you (O Muhammad SAW) the Book (this Quran) in truth, confirming the Scripture that came before it and Mohayminan (trustworthy in highness and a witness) over it (old Scriptures). So judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging away from the truth that has come to you. To each among you, We have prescribed a law and a clear way. If Allah willed, He would have made you one nation, but that (He) may test you in what He has given you; so strive as in a race in good deeds. The return of you (all) is to Allah; then He will inform you about that in which you used to differ."

the Quran, that you ARE in rebellion. again, are you telling me that BOTH you and Jay AGREE with that as well?!

and finally:

5:68:
Muhsin Khan: Say (O Muhammad SAW) "O people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians)! You have nothing (as regards guidance) till you act according to the Taurat (Torah), the Injeel (Gospel), and what has (now) been sent down to you from your Lord (the Quran)." Verily, that which has been sent down to you (Muhammad SAW) from your Lord increases in many of them their obstinate rebellion and disbelief. So be not sorrowful over the people who disbelieve.

AND you AGREE with THAT! Alhumdulillah!

why don't you take your Shahadah today!

Ash-hadu anla ilaha illal-Lahu Wahdahu la Sharika Lahu wa-ash-hadu anna Muhammadan abduhu wa rasuluhu

The English translation of the Shahadah is as follows:
I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship except Allah, the One, without any partner. And I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and His Messenger.

:w:

[mattityahu]

To the contrary he cemented his view with how deranged Christianity is from that which preceded it. Jesus' message shouldn't be deviant from that which was all along, given:


one would assume that his message should be in keeping with that of Moses, Abraham, Issac and the clan, not turn into a man/god/spirit -- he was sent to the Jews to unite them, not make them worship him!

all the best

All he did was ramble a bit about how "HE WAS CORRECT" and then quoted a couple of verses of the Qur'an about how we accept Jesus as the Son of God and that we (Gentiles) don't follow the Jewish cleanliness laws in the Torah. Yes Jesus mission was to give his message to the Jews, as you say, to unite them (in their worship and purpose). How does his message not do this?

Yours,
M

[جوري]

All he did was ramble a bit about how "HE WAS CORRECT" and then quoted a couple of verses of the Qur'an about how we accept Jesus as the Son of God and that we (Gentiles) don't follow the Jewish cleanliness laws in the Torah. Yes Jesus mission was to give his message to the Jews, as you say, to unite them (in their worship and purpose). How does his message not do this?

Yours,
M

actually the only person slobbering drivel thus far has been you.
he wrote and I quote him:

follow the corruption began by Paul.] some examples would be:

a) you eat pork
b) you eat shellfish
c) you eat other non-Kosher food.
d) you break the Sabbath
e) you don't honor Jewish Holy Days.

you wanted to know what the message of Jesus was, I quoted you from your bible, that Jesus came for the lost sheep of the Jews.. he (Jesus) p. should be in keeping with the laws of the Torah for that particular crowd... how did that translate to abrogation of the OT, plus the indoctrination of all of man/kind to christian paganism is beyond me..

all the best

[mattityahu]

YusufNoor,

The Message and Good News Bible are not corruptions of the Greek New Testament - they are translations, just as you have many translations of the Qur'an. Different translations meet with varying degrees of success in terms of accuracy, as I'm sure you find with the Qur'an also. This says nothing but translation is difficult, especially with ancient languages.

I hardly think Jay is saying he is agreeing with what the Qur'an says, he's simply quoting what your Qur'an teaches about the Scriptures.

1. Surah 10:94
Why would Allah point you towards corrupted scriptures to confirm what He is saying?

2. Surah 21:7
How can we confirm that Allah sent prophets before Mohammed if we cannot trust our own scriptures?

3. Surah 29:46
This verse says that Muslims should be in agreement with what was revealed to the Christians. But as we know from the Qur'an, the Christians (at the time of Mohammed) believed that the Scriptures revealed to them that Jesus was the Son of God. The verse can't be talking about what was originally revealed before the message was corrupted - after all, why agree with the Christians about their understanding of revelation if this is the case?

4. Surah 4:136
What's the point in confirming the Scriptures as originally revealed if the original message no longer exists?

5. Surah 5:46-48
Pretty much similar comments to those above.

6. Surah 5:68
Why would Allah command us to act according to a corrupted Gospel?

Your own Scriptures confirm that we should follow the scriptures as they were known to the Christians at the time of Mohammed. But we still use these Scriptures today!

Yours,
M

[mattityahu]

actually the only person slobbering drivel thus far has been you.
he wrote and I quote him:

you wanted to know what the message of Jesus was, I quoted you from your bible, that Jesus came for the lost sheep of the Jews.. he (Jesus) p. should be in keeping with the laws of the Torah for that particular crowd... how did that translate to abrogation of the OT, plus the indoctrination of all of man/kind to christian paganism is beyond me..

all the best

He kept all of the Laws in the Torah. He often rejected the Oral Law of the Pharisees. He fulfilled the purpose of Israel to bring blessing to the whole whole. The cleanliness laws of the Torah are for the Jews in order for them to be a holy, set apart people. The Gentiles did not need to keep the cleanliness laws, as is taught in the Talmud (Jewish Rabbinic teaching in OT times). He gave the apostles authority to "bind and loose" - that is, to decide which of the cleanliness laws the Gentiles needed to keep now that they could enter into a covenant with Yahweh.

Yours,
M

[جوري]

He kept all of the Laws in the Torah. He often rejected the Oral Law of the Pharisees. He fulfilled the purpose of Israel to bring blessing to the whole whole. The cleanliness laws of the Torah are for the Jews in order for them to be a holy, set apart people. The Gentiles did not need to keep the cleanliness laws, as is taught in the Talmud (Jewish Rabbinic teaching in OT times). He gave the apostles authority to "bind and loose" - that is, to decide which of the cleanliness laws the Gentiles needed to keep now that they could enter into a covenant with Yahweh.

Yours,
M

lols, let's say I agree with the above... shouldn't the logical thing, that Jews be extinct by now and not by mass genocide as your forefathers have tried but by fulfillment of promise?

Fact is, Christianity not only abrogated the moral laws and the covenant with Abraham, but it brought a new religion all together.. a paganist one with idols and multi-goded system.. and that is actually the reason Jews don't buy into christianity neither do Mandeans or Sabeans or Muslims, or any of the folks on the path of Abraham, past or present!

all the best

[AntiKarateKid]

I don't get why this has gone on for so long.

When did the New Testament get corrupted? When you lost parts of the paper trail. For criminal investigations, you need to know where the evidence has been at every moment in time. Even a small uncertainty invalidates it.

Don't you think we should give our holy books the same treatment?

[YusufNoor]

:sl:

i shall deal with some of the above posts later, In Sha'a Allah.

BUT, as Richard Elliott Friedman is my expert for the corruptions of the Torah; Bert Ehrman is my new "New Testament" guru!

have a watch:

http://www.bartdehrman.com/flv_comed...dy_central.htm

i'm also trying to find a page i had this morning that spoke to the issue of how NO 2 surviving Greek manuscripts are the same. that would indicate that EVERY SINGLE manuscript has been corrupted! [can i get giddy now? :p]
can the OP please post the "where & when as well as who" for ANY SINGLE BOOK in the New Testament? this would be a great help?

:w:

[mattityahu]

:sl:

i shall deal with some of the above posts later, In Sha'a Allah.

BUT, as Richard Elliott Friedman is my expert for the corruptions of the Torah; Bert Ehrman is my new "New Testament" guru!

have a watch:

http://www.bartdehrman.com/flv_comed...dy_central.htm

i'm also trying to find a page i had this morning that spoke to the issue of how NO 2 surviving Greek manuscripts are the same. that would indicate that EVERY SINGLE manuscript has been corrupted! [can i get giddy now? :p]
can the OP please post the "where & when as well as who" for ANY SINGLE BOOK in the New Testament? this would be a great help?

:w:

The differences in the manuscripts are more than 99% accounted for by more by scribal mistakes. We would expect minor errors when copying documents (just try copying out the New Testament yourself without making any errors), and these are trivial to check which words are in the original and which aren't just by looking at the proportion of manuscripts with each variant. The other differences are where sections have been added to the manuscripts (not taken away) and just looking at the literary style confirms this. To claim corruption would be to claim that you know what the originals said, and there is no historical evidence that can be used to somehow guess at a reconstruction of what the originals would have said if they had been different.

As to whether the originals, accurately or otherwise, represent the historical beginning of the Christian faith is another question, but pretty much all of modern scholarship on the topics of the Historical Jesus and the like assume the validity of the New Testament books as historical document. Their intrinsic historical attention to detail confirm that they are genuine historical documents from the first century. The Qur'an, on the other hand, even denies the historicity of the crucifixion, which is attested to even in extra-biblical sources.

I'm no expert on the dating and authorship of the NT books - I only know that the lack of mention of the destruction of the Jewish temple in AD 70 suggests that most were written before this time. Paul is certainly the author of at least 7 of the letters, and Luke is almost certainly the author of Luke and Acts. Eyewitness details in the gospel accounts suggest that some of Jesus' disciples were certainly involved in the other 3 gospels.

This is still something I'm looking into in more detail (Bart Ehrman's work in particular), but the more I research about it, the more the evidence confirms that the New Testament wasn't corrupted later by the Early Church.

Yours,
M

[AntiKarateKid]

The errors are certainly not minor. Here is a snippet of a major error. Can't they even get the background to the betrayer of Jesus correct?

1. In Matthew, Judas threw away the money to the priests before
dying, then he went to hang himself. After that, the priests
bought a field. In Acts, Judas used the money himself to buy a
field.

2. In Matthew, Judas threw away the money before dying, and then a
field was bought. In Acts, the field was bought before Judas died.

3. In Matthew, he died by hanging himself, whilst in Acts he fell
headlong and his bowels gushed out.

[mattityahu]

The errors are certainly not minor. Here is a snippet of a major error. Can't they even get the background to the betrayer of Jesus correct?

1. In Matthew, Judas threw away the money to the priests before
dying, then he went to hang himself. After that, the priests
bought a field. In Acts, Judas used the money himself to buy a
field.

2. In Matthew, Judas threw away the money before dying, and then a
field was bought. In Acts, the field was bought before Judas died.

3. In Matthew, he died by hanging himself, whilst in Acts he fell
headlong and his bowels gushed out.

Even if contradictions existed in the original documents, this does not show that they were corrupted. Anyhow, great big lists of alleged contradictions have been written (for both the bible and the qur'an) and responses to all of them can be found on the net. Just search for "how did Judas die?" or something similar.

Yours,
M

[جوري]

The difference is, Quranic refutations are solid, substantial and historically accurate.. not the case for the bible!

all the best

[AntiKarateKid]

I don't get why this has gone on for so long.

When did the New Testament get corrupted? When you lost parts of the paper trail. For criminal investigations, you need to know where the evidence has been at every moment in time. Even a small uncertainty invalidates it.

Don't you think we should give our holy books the same treatment?

Anyone care to respond to this?

[mattityahu]

YusufNoor,

The Message and Good News Bible are not corruptions of the Greek New Testament - they are translations, just as you have many translations of the Qur'an. Different translations meet with varying degrees of success in terms of accuracy, as I'm sure you find with the Qur'an also. This says nothing but translation is difficult, especially with ancient languages.

I hardly think Jay is saying he is agreeing with what the Qur'an says, he's simply quoting what your Qur'an teaches about the Scriptures.

1. Surah 10:94
Why would Allah point you towards corrupted scriptures to confirm what He is saying?

2. Surah 21:7
How can we confirm that Allah sent prophets before Mohammed if we cannot trust our own scriptures?

3. Surah 29:46
This verse says that Muslims should be in agreement with what was revealed to the Christians. But as we know from the Qur'an, the Christians (at the time of Mohammed) believed that the Scriptures revealed to them that Jesus was the Son of God. The verse can't be talking about what was originally revealed before the message was corrupted - after all, why agree with the Christians about their understanding of revelation if this is the case?

4. Surah 4:136
What's the point in confirming the Scriptures as originally revealed if the original message no longer exists?

5. Surah 5:46-48
Pretty much similar comments to those above.

6. Surah 5:68
Why would Allah command us to act according to a corrupted Gospel?

Your own Scriptures confirm that we should follow the scriptures as they were known to the Christians at the time of Mohammed. But we still use these Scriptures today!

Yours,
M

Could someone respond to this?

Yours,
M

[mattityahu]

AntiKarateKid,

It's not a criminal investigation, but a historical one. History, by definition, deals with uncertainty. We should carefully consider the evidence we have, and decide what is the most reasonable account of the past events. Do you claim to have a perfect "paper trail" for your holy book?

Yours,
M

[YusufNoor]

Could someone respond to this?

later, In Sha'a Allah

Yours,
M

:sl:

i found this lecture series by Bart Erhman online:

From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity (The Great Courses no. 6577) (Audio CD)

Course Lecture Titles 1. The Birth of Christianity 2. The Religious World of Early Christianity 3. The Historical Jesus 4. Oral and Written Traditions about Jesus 5. The Apostle Paul 6. The Beginning of Jewish-Christian Relations 7. The Anti-Jewish Use of the Old Testament 8. The Rise of Christian Anti-Judaism 9. The Early Christian Mission 10. The Christianization of the Roman Empire 11. The Early Persecutions of the State 12. The Causes of Christian Persecution 13. Christian Reactions to Persecution 14. The Early Christian Apologists 15. The Diversity of Early Christian Communities 16. Christianities of the Second Century 17. The Role of Pseudepigrapha 18. The Victory of the Proto-Orthodox 19. The New Testament Canon 20. The Development of Church Offices 21. The Rise of Christian Liturgy 22. The Beginnings of Normative Theology 23. The Doctrine of the Trinity 24. Christianity and the Conquest of Empire

you can download all 24 lectures here:

http://beemp3.com/download.php?file=...estament+Canon

#12 was a little tricky, it never showed up on the list, click the link:

More "From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity" songs

you'll find it there, In Sha'a Allh.

:w:

[mattityahu]

YusufNoor,

Thanks for this. Hopefully I'll have time after my exams in 3 weeks to listen to these.

Yours,
M

[Muhaba]

You need to read the commentary to understand the verses. Below are the verses with their commentary.

4:136: O you who profess to have believed, believe sincerely in Allah * and His Messenger and the Book which He has sent down to His Messenger and in every Book that He sent down before this: for whoso disbelieves in Allah and His Angels and His Books and His Messengers and the Last Day ** most surely strays far away into deviation.

Commentary:
*Here all those who profess to believe have been told to believe sincerely in the fundamental articles of the Muslim faith with all their implications. This is becuase profession of Faith merely brings one into the fold of Islam but does not satisfy the real demands required of a true Muslim. Therefore one who professes to embrace Islam has been asked to believe sincerely and seriously in Islam and mould one's thoughts, tastes, likes, attitudes and conduct in accordance with one's belief and establish friendship and enmity accordingly, and put in all one's efforts in accordance with one's belief.

** Here "kufr" implies two things: 1) a person may reject Islam outright. 2) One may pay lipservice to Islam but may not (sincerely) believe in it or may show by one's conduct that one does not, in fact, believe in Islam, in spite of one's profession.

Here "kufr" implies both these things and the verse warns that both kinds of "kufr" cannot go side by side with the articles of Islamic faith and will mislead the one away from the Truth into the paths of deviation.


5:46 - 47: Then after those Prophets, We sent Jesus, the son of Mary; he confirmed whatever had still remained intact of the Torah in his time. and We gave him the Injil wherein was Guidance and Light; that, too confirmed what was intact of the Torah* at the time; moreover, it was guidance and admonition for the God-fearing people. We had enjoined that those who were given the Injil should judge by the Law which had been sent down in it: those who do not judge by the Law which Allah has sent down are the transgressors.

* This means that Jesus did not bring any new religion but followed the same way that was followed by all the Prophets before him and invited the people to the same. He believed in what was intact in his time from among the original teachings of the Torah. The Injil also testified the same (Mathew 5 : 17 - 18). The Quraan reiterates this fact over and over again that each and every prophet, who was sent by Allah to any part of the world, confirmed the Message of all the Prophets who had gone before him and exerted his utmost to complete the work which they had left as a holy heritage, for he did not come to refute them or efface their religion and establish his own religion instead. Likewise, Allah did not send down any of His Books to refute any of His own previous Books, but to support and confirm them.


5:48: Then, O Muhammad, We sent this Book to you which has brought the truth: it confirms whatever has remained from the Book * at the time of its revelation and safeguards ** and protects it. Therefore you should judge between the people by the Law sent down by Allah and do not follow their desires by turning aside from the Truth that has come to you. -- We prescribed a law and a way of life for each of you, though your Lord could have made all of you a single community , if He so willed. But (He willed otherwise) in order to test you in what He has bestowed upon each of you: ultimately you shall all return to Him; then He will let you know the truth about that in which you have been differing.

* The use of the word Al-Kitab (the Book) here is very significant. Instead of saying, "The Quraan confirms whatever has remained intact from the former Books," it says, "from the Book." This is to show that the Quraan and all the Books that have been sent down by Allah in different languages and in different ages are in reality one and the same Book which has one and the same Author and one and the same object and aim. They impart one and the same knowledge and teaching to mankind with the only difference that they are couched in different languages and employ different methods to suit the various addressees. Therefore, the fact that these Books support and do not refute, confirm and do not contradict one another, shows that they are all different versions of one and the same Book (Al-Kitab).

** The Arabic word Muhaimin is very comprehensive in meaning. It means one who safeguards, watches over, stands witness, preserves, and upholds. The Quraan safeguards "the Book," for it has preserved within it the teachings of all the former Books. It watches over them in the sense that it will not let go waste their true teachings. It supports and upholds these Books in the sense that it corroborates the Word of God which has remained intact in them. It stands a witness because it bears testimony to the Word of God contained in those Books and helps to sort it out from the interpretations and commentaries of the people which were mixed with it; what is confirmed by the Quraan is the Word of God and what is against it is that of the people.



5:68: Say (O Muhammad SAW) "O People of the Book, you have no valid ground to stand on unless you observe the Torah and the Injil and the other Books which have been sent down to you from your Lord.

Commentary: "To observe the Torah and the Injil" means to follow their teachings sincerely and to follow the code of life laid down in them.

In this connection, one must keep in mind that the Bible contains two kinds of writings. Some portions in them have been interpolated by the Jewish and the Christian scholars. It is obvious that the Quraan does not demand the observance of these parts. But there are other portions that have been put down as the Commandments of God or as the sayings of Moses, Jesus, and other Prophets (Allah's pean be upon them all). The Quraan demands the observance of the latter parts only, for there is no marked difference between the teachings contained in them and those of the Quraan. Though even these parts of the Bible have not remained wholly intact and have been tampered with by the translators,the commentators, etc., nevertheless, one does feel that these teach teh same fundamental principles of the Faith that the Quraan teaches, and guides man to the same way of life that has been laid down in the Quraan. Thus it is clear that, if the Jews and the Christians had been following those teachings which have been attributed to God and their Prophets in teh Bible, most surely they would have been a community of righteous people at the time when Muhammad (Allah's peace be upon him) was sent as a Messenger and would have readily recognized that the Quraan contained the same Message that was contained in the former Books. In that case, for, then, there would have been no question of changing religion: this would have been a continuation of the same way that they were following before.

(Translation and Commentary from the Meaning of Quran by Saeed Abu Ala' Maududi)

(More later, insha-Allah)

[YusufNoor]

:sl:

perhaps we should change this to "how many times has the bible been corrupted:

http://www.bartdehrman.com/flv_heyns...ns_lecture.htm

it's a great lecture!

:w:

[YusufNoor]

So the Injeel was revealed, and written down correctly, am I right? Then, according to Islam, the early Christians added to and took away from the Injeel - giving us the New Testament. Seems fairly clear to me that this is the same as saying the New Testament is a corrupted version of the Injeel.

Could someone who knows more about the matter explain all this?

Thanks,
M

:sl:

there is no concrete evidence that the Injeel was preserved in writing. most of those who followed Jesus were the poor and the destitute as it APPEARS [in the NT] that he was rejected by the learned.

all of the "Gospels" are stories about Jesus. they do include and appear to "evolve" over time. we CANNOT tell EXACTLY what the Message of Jesus was because we have no revelation telling us EXACTLY what it was. we know, it would include whatever the Qur'an and the Hadeeth tell us. what IS explained to us is:

1) [4.157] And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

2) [5.46] And We sent after them in their footsteps Isa, son of Marium, verifying what was before him of the Taurat and We gave him the Injeel in which was guidance and light, and verifying what was before it of Taurat and a guidance and an admonition for those who guard (against evil).

3) [5.110] When Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! Remember My favor on you and on your mother, when I strengthened you I with the holy Spirit, you spoke to the people in the cradle and I when of old age, and when I taught you the Book and the wisdom and the Taurat and the Injeel; and when you determined out of clay a thing like the form of a bird by My permission, then you breathed into it and it became a bird by My permission, and you healed the blind and the leprous by My permission; and when you brought forth the dead by My permission; and when I withheld the children of Israel from you when you came to them with clear arguments, but those who disbelieved among them said: This is nothing but clear enchantment

4) [5.116] And when Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! did you say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah he will say: Glory be to Thee, it did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to (say); if I had said it, Thou wouldst indeed have known it; Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I do not know what is in Thy mind, surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things

5) [61.6] And when Isa son of Marium said: O children of Israel! surely I am the apostle of Allah to you, verifying that which is before me of the Taurat and giving the good news of an Apostle who will come after me, his name being Ahmad, but when he came to them with clear arguments they said: This is clear magic.

and while NOT a part of the 5:116, although some here always try to infer it:

6) [4.171] O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three [aka Trinity]. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector.

that's, while not all, what the major issues are dealing with Jesus in the Qur'an and Allahu Alum. could we extract EVERY ayat about Jesus in the Qur'an and say that THIS is the ENTIRE Injeel. well, we could, but that would be without guidance and we would be "inventing a lie about Allah." if it were necessary for us to know the Injeel, Allah would have revealed it to us.

i will, In Sha'a Allah, address some other question/comments/points in the near future.

:w:

[YusufNoor]

All he did was ramble a bit about how "HE WAS CORRECT" and then quoted a couple of verses of the Qur'an about how we accept Jesus as the Son of God and that we (Gentiles) don't follow the Jewish cleanliness laws in the Torah. Yes Jesus mission was to give his message to the Jews, as you say, to unite them (in their worship and purpose). How does his message not do this?

Yours,
M

yeah, he does that! :D

He kept all of the Laws in the Torah. He often rejected the Oral Law of the Pharisees. He fulfilled the purpose of Israel to bring blessing to the whole whole. The cleanliness laws of the Torah are for the Jews in order for them to be a holy, set apart people. The Gentiles did not need to keep the cleanliness laws, as is taught in the Talmud (Jewish Rabbinic teaching in OT times). He gave the apostles authority to "bind and loose" - that is, to decide which of the cleanliness laws the Gentiles needed to keep now that they could enter into a covenant with Yahweh.

Yours,
M

one of the common misconceptions about Jesus as a Jewish preacher would be that he rejected Law of the Pharisees. what he rejected was that Sadducees AND the Law of the house of Shimmei! while the [alleged] words of Jesus himself originated in the house of Hillel. that is why some of the Pharisees were so attracted to him.

i did some searching for you to give some examples:

he rulings of the House of Hillel represent the ultimate in conformity to the divine will, while the rulings of the House of Shammai represent an ideal that is too lofty for our present state (which is why we perceive them as “stricter” and more confining), and can only be realized on the conceptual level. In the era of Messiah, the situation will be reversed: a perfected world will embrace the more exacting application of Torah law expressed by the House of Shammai, while the Hillelian school of interpretation will endure only conceptually.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...hy/hillel.html

Hillel addressed to him the immortal words, 'That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the entire Torah; the rest is commentary. Go and learn.'

http://www.jewishmag.com/40mag/shamai/shamai.htm

"Love people and bring them close to Torah."

http://www.saratogachabad.com/mainpa..._3converts.htm

Broadly speaking, there is a fundamental difference between the two schools in their interpretation of Scripture. The Shammaites tend to interpret a biblical verse quite literally, whereas the Hillelites pay greater heed to its underlying purpose. An examination of ancient extra-tannaitic sources (e.g., the Apocrypha) reveals that Bet Shammai almost invariably follows the older halakhah, which was noted for its severity. Modern scholars therefore treat the Shammaites as conservatives and the Hillelites as liberals.

http://www.answers.com/topic/bet-shammai-and-bet-hillel

We have discussed the rift between the Pharisees (the mainstream Jews) and the Sadducees (the Jews who only followed the Written Torah, making up their own interpretations). We also explained how Herod’s massacres of rabbis and interference with the Temple hierarchy (not to mention his efforts at further Hellenizing the Jews) contributed to widespread corruption within the priesthood.

The schools of Hillel and Shammai are famous for their disputes in Jewish law. One of these concerned whether one should tell a bride on her wedding day that she is beautiful even if this is not true. The school of Shammai held that in this situation it would be wrong to lie. The school of Hillel held that a bride is always beautiful on her wedding day. (Talmud, Ketubot 16b-17a) The school of Hillel won the dispute. Indeed, Jewish law today almost always agrees with the school of Hillel. The Talmud (Eruvin 13b) explains why:

A heavenly voice declared: “The words of both schools are the words of the living God, but the law follows the rulings of the school of Hillel.”

So why does the law follow the rulings of the school of Hillel? The Talmud explains that the disciples of Hillel were gentle and modest, and studied both their own opinions and the opinions of the other school, and humbly mentioned the words of the other school before their own.

http://www.simpletoremember.com/arti...l_and_shammai/

"The young men of Jerusalem told me," said Natanel, "that the students of Hillel outnumber the students of Shammai, because Hillel is extremely humble and receives every man in joy. Shammai is very prickly, and if a man doesn't impress him in speaking to him, he will drive him away with rebukes. I am very dismayed by rebukes, and on account of this I will be a Rabbi like Hillel and not Shammai."

http://www.fonerbooks.com/derech.htm

A Gentile came to Shammai with the strange request that he be taught the entire Torah, but that it be done during the time he could stand on one foot! It is recounted that Shammai, a surveyor by trade, chased him away with a cubit stick. When this Gentile approached Hillel with the same request, instead of being scolded for such an impudent demand, he was told, “What is hateful to you, do not to your fellowman. This is the entire Torah. All the rest is commentary — now go and study.” The parallels with Hillel’s statement are readily recognized in Jesus’ statement in Matthew 7:12 and Paul’s “summary” in Galatians 5:14.

http://www.pfo.org/pharisee.htm

At an early age Jesus became a Rabbi of the House of Hillel. He saw himself as a reformer, trying to work within his own tradition to improve it.

http://www.theteachingsofjesus.blogs...llel-side.html

As a Jewish Rabbi, I understand Jesus’ Jewishness. This article treats the Historical Jesus and not the Jesus of Christian Faith who is ‘the Way and the Truth and the Life’. That is not part of my or Jesus’ tradition. Those definitions of faith to Jews are the Tnakh (Old Testament) and its oral commentary which continues until today. What is acceptable in my tradition is Jesus as a potential Jewish Messiah who was crucified in 30 CE. From my perspective and analysis of the scriptures and other texts I view Jesus as a charismatic radical Jewish Rabbi. In some ways he is comparable to the radical Prophet Jeremiah almost killed by the Jews several times, the Priests from Qumran who rejected the Temple and its Priesthood, Rabbi Hillel the Elder, the greatest sage of his day who during Jesus’ lifetime was considered a dangerous radical and Honi Ha’magil (the Circle Maker) a charismatic and miracle worker who called God ‘Abba’ – Father - and who made demands of his Abba. 1

http://www.moshereiss.org/christiani.../03_hillel.htm

i'm hoping that i cleared up everything EXCEPT your last questions, which i will attempt to reply to soon, In Sha'a Allah.

:w: