The Injil

[Euthyphro]

What do Muslims believe about the Injil, the book revealed to Jesus? What was its general message? What language was it revealed in? How much of it is preserved in the gospels we have today, and is it possible to know what was originally in the Injil and what is later corruption?

[Woodrow]

What do Muslims believe about the Injil, the book revealed to Jesus? What was its general message? What language was it revealed in? How much of it is preserved in the gospels we have today, and is it possible to know what was originally in the Injil and what is later corruption?

All we do is speculate. To the best of my knowledge none of the actual Injil remains. It most likely would have been in Aramaic as that was the Language Jesus(as) spoke. There is a possibility that the words attributed to Jesus(as) that do not differ from the Qur'an are some of what was in the Injil. Based on that the Injil would have been a message containing the same basic truths as are in the Qur'an. There would have been some differences as the Injil was a specific message for a specific people, but there would be nothing in contradiction to the Qur'an.

[OurIslamic]

We believe in the ORIGINAL Injil, not the altered versions.

[newBro]

About the original Injil, Allah(s.w.t.) says:
Surah Maidah, 5:46
And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent 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.

Allah tells us that the original Injil contained 'guidance and light'. These are the qualities found in the Quran, and these are the qualities that the original Torah, which was sent to the Jews, contained, as Allah says:
(5:44)
It was We who revealed the Torah(to Moses): therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the prophets who bowed (as in Islam) to Allah's will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah's book, and they were witnesses thereto: therefore fear not men, but fear me, and sell not my signs for a miserable price. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers.

So we believe that the original Torah and Injil contained 'guidance and light'. However, the Jews and Christians changed them according to their own desires, as Allah tells us:
(5:12 and 13)
Allah did aforetime take a covenant from the Children of Israel, and we appointed twelve chieftains among them. And Allah said: "I am with you: if ye (but) establish regular prayers, practise regular charity, believe in my messengers, honour and assist them, and loan to Allah a beautiful loan, verily I will wipe out from you your evils, and admit you to gardens with rivers flowing beneath; but if any of you, after this, resisteth faith, he has truly wandered from the path of rectitude."

But because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor will you cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for Allah loveth those who are kind.

As for what we have today, we deny everything that is against the Quran and Sunnah to be from the original Torah and Injil. As for that portion which is not contrary to the teachings of the Quran and Sunnah, this is what the Messenger of Allah has commanded us:
Dawud :: Book 25 : Hadith 3637
Narrated AbuNamlah al-Ansari:

When he was sitting with the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) and a Jew was also with him, a funeral passed by him. He (the Jew) asked (Him): Muhammad, does this funeral speak? The Prophet (peace_be_upon_him) said: Allah has more knowledge. The Jew said: It speaks.

The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: Whatever the people of the Book tell you, do not verify them, nor falsify them, but say: We believe in Allah and His Apostle. If it is false, do not confirm it, and if it is right, do not falsify it.

And here's something for you to consider, though the translation does grave grave injustice to the actual words of Allah:

Surah Maryam (19:85-96)

85 The day We shall gather the righteous to (Allah) Most Gracious, like a band presented before a king for honours,
86 And We shall drive the sinners to Hell, like thirsty cattle driven down to water,-
87 None shall have the power of intercession, but such a one as has received permission (or promise) from (Allah) Most Gracious.
88 They say: "(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a son!"
89 Indeed you have put forth a thing most monstrous!
90 At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin,
91 That they should ascribe a son for (Allah) Most Gracious.
92 For it does not befit the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should take (to Himself) a son.
93 Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth but must come to (Allah) Most Gracious as a servant.
94 He does take an account of them (all), and hath numbered them (all) exactly.
95 And each one of them will come to Him on the Day of Resurrection, alone.
96 On those who believe and work deeds of righteousness, will (Allah) Most Gracious bestow love.

I ask Allah to forgive me, and to guide you that you may be saved from the fire that is otherwise prepared for you.

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

[Euthyphro]

All we do is speculate. To the best of my knowledge none of the actual Injil remains. It most likely would have been in Aramaic as that was the Language Jesus(as) spoke. There is a possibility that the words attributed to Jesus(as) that do not differ from the Qur'an are some of what was in the Injil. Based on that the Injil would have been a message containing the same basic truths as are in the Qur'an. There would have been some differences as the Injil was a specific message for a specific people, but there would be nothing in contradiction to the Qur'an.

Thanks Woodrow for your reply. Do you think any of Jesus sayings found in Mark, Matthew, Luke and John could be accurate paraphrases of the original Aramaic? Indeed, do you think any of the information in these gospels about Jesus' life and ministry is accurate? Do you think it is possible to reconstruct the "Historical Jesus" as modern scholars have tried to do?

[Euthyphro]

We believe in the ORIGINAL Injil, not the altered versions.

I understand that, OurIslamic, and that is being assumed in this thread. Could you describe what you think the original Injil was like? Does any of it still survive?

[Al-manar]

Peace

Indeed, do you think any of the information in these gospels about Jesus' life and ministry is accurate?

Yes it could be partly,but the story lines of Jesus can't be considered Injil ,In muslims terms ,Injil is the gospel of Jesus ,not a gospel about Jesus (Details later)...

Could you describe what you think the original Injil was like? Does any of it still survive?

that needs a long post ,wait for my next input inshaAllah...

Regards

[Euthyphro]

Yes it could be partly,but the story lines of Jesus can't be considered Injil ,In muslims terms ,Injil is the gospel of Jesus ,not a gospel about Jesus (Details later)...

that needs a long post ,wait for my next input inshaAllah...

Look forward to more details, Al-manar! I completely understand that the Injil would not have contained details about Jesus' life, only the message he was given. Though, like the Qur'an, it could contain stories about previous prophets, perhaps?

[Danah]

Those links might help:

The Gospels that are extant nowadays were written after the time of ‘Eesa (peace be upon him) and have been tampered with a great deal

Does the Gospel that was written in Aramaic exist today?

[Euthyphro]

Those links might help:

The Gospels that are extant nowadays were written after the time of ‘Eesa (peace be upon him) and have been tampered with a great deal

Does the Gospel that was written in Aramaic exist today?

Thanks for these links, Danah. Could you perhaps summarise what those articles argue? What light do they shed on the nature of the Injil?

[In the spirit of making this discussion open to people who might not have the time to read those two longish articles.]

[Woodrow]

Thanks Woodrow for your reply. Do you think any of Jesus sayings found in Mark, Matthew, Luke and John could be accurate paraphrases of the original Aramaic? Indeed, do you think any of the information in these gospels about Jesus' life and ministry is accurate? Do you think it is possible to reconstruct the "Historical Jesus" as modern scholars have tried to do?

Just my opinion, but I believe that some of the words of Jesus in the 4 Gospels are translations of what Jesus(as) said. But if they were from the Injil that was given to him or his own thoughts we have no way of knowing.

The Lord's prayer was retained in the original Aramaic by the Coptic, Nazarenes and Sabians. It is believed by many John the Baptist was a Sabian. I find it quite interesting in Aramaic and it has a reasonable possibility of having been revealed in the Injil. However, without a copy of the actual Injil that can not be certain.

Here it is in Aramaic with several translations.



Abwûn
"Oh Thou, from whom the breath of life comes,

d'bwaschmâja
who fills all realms of sound, light and vibration.

Nethkâdasch schmach
May Your light be experienced in my utmost holiest.

Têtê malkuthach.
Your Heavenly Domain approaches.

Nehwê tzevjânach aikâna d'bwaschmâja af b'arha.
Let Your will come true - in the universe (all that vibrates)
just as on earth (that is material and dense).

Hawvlân lachma d'sûnkanân jaomâna.
Give us wisdom (understanding, assistance) for our daily need,

Waschboklân chaubên wachtahên aikâna
daf chnân schwoken l'chaijabên.
detach the fetters of faults that bind us, (karma)
like we let go the guilt of others.

Wela tachlân l'nesjuna
Let us not be lost in superficial things (materialism, common temptations),

ela patzân min bischa.
but let us be freed from that what keeps us off from our true purpose.

Metol dilachie malkutha wahaila wateschbuchta l'ahlâm almîn.
From You comes the all-working will, the lively strength to act,
the song that beautifies all and renews itself from age to age.

Amên.
Sealed in trust, faith and truth.
(I confirm with my entire being)


Here is the link I copied that from, it also has a few other translations.

http://www.thenazareneway.com/lords_prayer.htm

It is interesting to note how the translations differ
over the centuries.

[Euthyphro]

That's really interesting, Woodrow, thanks. Do you have a reference for the original Aramaic you quoted?

[Woodrow]

That's really interesting, Woodrow, thanks. Do you have a reference for the original Aramaic you quoted?

That is in the link I posted. You will find the same Aramaic in the Aramic Coptic Bible. However, the oldest known Coptic in Aramaic was printed in about the 4th Century and it is often alleged it is the Latin Vulgate translated into Aramaic.

Aramaic is a neat language. Sort of mid way between Arabic and Hebrew. Most Aramaic speakers have no difficulty in understanding Arabic and Hebrew. Those of us who are familiar with Arabic can understand spoken Aramaic but have trouble with written Aramaic.

I will try to find The Coptic Aramaic. Many of todays Coptic churches use what is called the Coptic language and bears a closer resemblance to Greek than to Aramaic.

This page is quite accrate in the transliteration and pronunciation. But the translation is very erroneous.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/lordpray.html

If you scroll down a bit you will see it written in old Aramaic Script, which is so similar with Arabic that if you can read Arabic you can read it. My Arabic is only so-so and I have no trouble reading it.

Abwun is not Father. it is a word that denotes a parent that is neither male nor female, Birther or creator are better translations.Father in Aramaic is Abba

This link may help

http://www.barefootsworld.net/godsnames.html

[Danah]

Thanks for these links, Danah. Could you perhaps summarise what those articles argue? What light do they shed on the nature of the Injil?

[In the spirit of making this discussion open to people who might not have the time to read those two longish articles.]

Okay its hard to summarize all what what was mentioned in both links since they covered many important issues, but here is an important part of the first link I pasted here you may be interested in:

With regard to the Gospels that the Christians have, there are four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They are agreed that Luke and Mark did not see the Messiah, rather he was seen by Matthew and John. These four accounts which they call the Gospel, and they call each one of them a Gospel, were written by these men after the Messiah had been taken up into heaven. They did not say that they are the word of God or that the Messiah conveyed them from God, rather they narrated some of the words of the Messiah and some of his deeds and miracles. End quote.

Moreover, these books which were written after the time of the Messiah did not remain in their original form. The original versions were lost long ago. Ibn Hazm said:

With regard to the Christians, there is no dispute among them or anyone else that only one hundred and twenty men believed in the Messiah during his lifetime… and all of those who believed in him concealed themselves and were afraid during his lifetime and afterwards; they called people to his religion in secret and none of them disclosed himself or practised his religion openly, because any of them who was caught was executed.

They continued in this manner, not showing themselves at all, and they had no place where they were safe for three hundred years after the Messiah was taken up into heaven.

During this time, the Gospel that had been revealed from Allaah disappeared, apart from a few verses which Allaah preserved as proof against them and as a rebuke to them, as we have mentioned. Then when the Emperor Constantine became a Christian, then the Christians prevailed and started to practise their religion openly and assemble in safety.

If a religion is like this, with its followers practicing it in secret and living in constant fear of the sword, it is impossible for things to be transmitted soundly via a continuous chain of narrators and its followers cannot protect it or prevent it from being distorted.

btw, those were not articles, but questioned asked and qualified scholars replied to them.
I will try to see the other link to see if I can quote anything you might interest it. But I highly recommend you to read them so you may get a clear answer for your questions they are not too long after all.

[Al-manar]

What does the Quran tell about the Injil?

[003:048] "And God will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Torah and the Injil.

[005:046] And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Injil: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear God.


[005:110] Then will God say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Recount My favour to thee and to thy mother. Behold! I strengthened thee with the holy spirit, so that thou didst speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. Behold! I taught thee the Book and Wisdom, the Torah and the Injil and behold! thou makest out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, by My leave, and thou breathest into it and it becometh a bird by My leave, and thou healest those born blind, and the lepers, by My leave. And behold! thou bringest forth the dead by My leave. And behold! I did restrain the Children of Israel from (violence to) thee when thou didst show them the clear Signs, and the unbelievers among them said: 'This is nothing but evident magic.'


[007:157] "Those who follow the apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the Torah and the Injil;- for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him,- it is they who will prosper."



[009:111] God hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Torah, the Injil, and the Quran'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than God?

[048:029] Muhammad is the apostle of God; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other. Thou wilt see them bow and prostrate themselves (in prayer), seeking Grace from God and (His) Good Pleasure. On their faces are their marks, (being) the traces of their prostration. This is their similitude in the Taurat; and their similitude in the Injil is: like a seed which sends forth its blade, then makes it strong; it then becomes thick, and it stands on its own stem, (filling) the sowers with wonder and delight. As a result, it fills the Unbelievers with rage at them. God has promised those among them who believe and do righteous deeds forgiveness, and a great Reward.

[057:027] Then, in their wake, We followed them up with (others of) Our apostles: We sent after them Jesus the son of Mary, and bestowed on him the Injil; and We ordained in the hearts of those who followed him Compassion and Mercy. But the Monasticism which they invented for themselves, We did not prescribe for them: (We commanded) only the seeking for the Good Pleasure of God; but that they did not foster as they should have done. Yet We bestowed, on those among them who believed, their (due) reward, but many of them are rebellious transgressors.

[005:047] Let the people of the Injil judge by what God hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what God hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.

3:93 All food was lawful to the Children of Israel, except what Israel Made unlawful for itself, before the Law (of Moses) was revealed. Say: "Bring ye the Law and study it, if ye be men of truth."


4:160 For the iniquity of the Jews We made unlawful for them certain (foods) good and wholesome which had been lawful for them;- in that they hindered many from Allah's Way;-

6:146 For those who followed the Jewish Law, We forbade every (animal) with undivided hoof, and We forbade them that fat of the ox and the sheep, except what adheres to their backs or their entrails, or is mixed up with a bone: this in recompense for their wilful disobedience: for We are true (in Our ordinances).


3:50 "'(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 Allah, and obey me.


43:63 When Jesus came with Clear Signs, he said: "Now have I come to you with Wisdom, and in order to make clear to you some of the (points) on which ye dispute: therefore fear Allah and obey me.


16:64 And We sent down the Book to thee(Mohamed) for the express purpose, that thou shouldst make clear to them those things in which they differ, and that it should be a guide and a mercy to those who believe.


5:15 O people of the Book! There hath come to you our Messenger, revealing to you much that ye used to hide in the Book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary). There hath come to you from Allah a (new) light and a perspicuous Book,-


According to the verses:


1-God taught Jesus not only the Injil but also the Torah , through Inspiration.

2-The Injil was as every heavenly work, words of wisdom , guidance and light.

3-The Injil was not a work of new Laws and not meant to abolish or modify totally the law of the Torah, but to abolish some hard laws that God recompensed the Jews with , for their wilful disobedience.

4-The Injil, just as the Quran. Was also to make clear some matters, laws of dispute among the Jews…

5-The Quran quotes the Injil and by its name, sometimes, as in (9-111) and [048:029] .

6-The Quran names the Old & New Testament The Torah and The Injil as in (whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the Torah and the Injil)


7-The Quran confirms the Law(torah and injil) that had come before it, yet denies some of their contents ,in other words accepts them partly .


but what it accepts and what it denies?

To be continued

[Euthyphro]

That is in the link I posted. You will find the same Aramaic in the Aramic Coptic Bible. However, the oldest known Coptic in Aramaic was printed in about the 4th Century and it is often alleged it is the Latin Vulgate translated into Aramaic.

Aramaic is a neat language. Sort of mid way between Arabic and Hebrew. Most Aramaic speakers have no difficulty in understanding Arabic and Hebrew. Those of us who are familiar with Arabic can understand spoken Aramaic but have trouble with written Aramaic.

I will try to find The Coptic Aramaic. Many of todays Coptic churches use what is called the Coptic language and bears a closer resemblance to Greek than to Aramaic.

This page is quite accrate in the transliteration and pronunciation. But the translation is very erroneous.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/lordpray.html

If you scroll down a bit you will see it written in old Aramaic Script, which is so similar with Arabic that if you can read Arabic you can read it. My Arabic is only so-so and I have no trouble reading it.

Abwun is not Father. it is a word that denotes a parent that is neither male nor female, Birther or creator are better translations.Father in Aramaic is Abba

This link may help

http://www.barefootsworld.net/godsnames.html

The link says it's from the Kadish in the Talmud - i.e. 200-500 A.D. Are there any references before or during Jesus' lifetime?

Also, rereading the article, the idea that Matthew wrote his "mistranslation" in the second century is absurd, as even the most liberal scholars place Matthew in the first century.

[Woodrow]

The link says it's from the Kadish in the Talmud - i.e. 200-500 A.D. Are there any references before or during Jesus' lifetime?

Also, rereading the article, the idea that Matthew wrote his "mistranslation" in the second century is absurd, as even the most liberal scholars place Matthew in the first century.

At the moment I am only going to address your second Paragraph:

Also, rereading the article, the idea that Matthew wrote his "mistranslation" in the second century is absurd, as even the most liberal scholars place Matthew in the first century.

"The "Son of man" phrase moreover appears to be anachronistic. We have no evidence that it was ever applied to Jesus until the Gospel of Matthew came out. In all of Paul's epistles, he never once applied the phrase to Jesus. And in the epistles of Ignatius half a century later the phrase is never used as a title for Jesus. (We find elsewhere that Matthew was not written until some time after Ignatius's death.)"

Source: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/mt9.htm

What the TJ is in the event you have not come across it before, these 2 links will help you see what it is even if you disagree with it's authenticity:

http://www.tjresearch.info/

http://www.tjresearch.info/contents.htm

In the meantime I will look for some more links about the early "Lord's Prayer"

[Euthyphro]

"The "Son of man" phrase moreover appears to be anachronistic. We have no evidence that it was ever applied to Jesus until the Gospel of Matthew came out. In all of Paul's epistles, he never once applied the phrase to Jesus. And in the epistles of Ignatius half a century later the phrase is never used as a title for Jesus. (We find elsewhere that Matthew was not written until some time after Ignatius's death.)"

Ignatius died in 110 AD and knew Matthew's Gospel, so Matthew must be written before Ignatius' death.

As for the Son of Man - Mark, Matthew and Luke are the best and earliest historical sources we have for Jesus' life, and all have him calling himself the Son of Man. Of course there is no evidence any earlier than the earliest evidence... Son of Man was used throughout the Jewish literature of Jesus' time, used as a way of saying "I", and as reference to the apocalyptic figure described in the OT. So the evidence suggests that it was highly likely that Son of Man was used by Jesus of himself given the radical claims he made.

As for the "Talmud Jmmanuel"...complete hoax that noone can possibly take seriously. UFO connections to Jesus...;D

[Euthyphro]

Oops, "Ignatius died in 110 AD and knew Matthew's Gospel, so Matthew must be written before Ignatius' death." should be outside the quote.

[Woodrow]

Oops, "Ignatius died in 110 AD and knew Matthew's Gospel, so Matthew must be written before Ignatius' death." should be outside the quote.

No problem I will correct it,

[Woodrow]

Ignatius died in 110 AD and knew Matthew's Gospel, so Matthew must be written before Ignatius' death.

As for the Son of Man - Mark, Matthew and Luke are the best and earliest historical sources we have for Jesus' life, and all have him calling himself the Son of Man. Of course there is no evidence any earlier than the earliest evidence... Son of Man was used throughout the Jewish literature of Jesus' time, used as a way of saying "I", and as reference to the apocalyptic figure described in the OT. So the evidence suggests that it was highly likely that Son of Man was used by Jesus of himself given the radical claims he made.

As for the "Talmud Jmmanuel"...complete hoax that noone can possibly take seriously. UFO connections to Jesus...;D

I do agree the interpretation to come up with UFO's is erroneous. But, as far as the Authenticity of the JT I see no reason to doubt it's authenticity.

Now before we get too disjointed I noticed I still had not addressed one of your earlier issues. It might be one we can get out of the way easy and return and concentrate on the ones we disagree on.

Earlier you asked:

"Do you think it is possible to reconstruct the "Historical Jesus" as modern scholars have tried to do?"

I believe you and I agree that there is sufficient evidence to get at least enough of a view of the "historical Jesus(as)" to verify he was real and did perform numerous miracles such as rasing the dead, healint the sick and blind and many others.

[Woodrow]

To be honest I am having difficulty with finding any indisputable Aramaic that dates back to the time of Jesus(as). The oldest verifiable NT in Aramaic is in the Pe****ta dialect and was translated from the Greek into Pe****ta in about the year 400.

I had hoped to find something in the Sabians (More properly Sabean Mandeans) but that is futile as they essentialy end with John the Baptist and revere him above Jesus(as). Their scriptures do not contain any of what Christianity views as the NT. Their beliefs and books were considered Gnostic by the compilers of the Christian Bible. Only a small number of them remain only about 10,000-50,000 world wide and they are found in Iran and Iraq. Even if I do find any of their Aramaic writings it will not contain any of the words of Jesus(as) as they stop with John the Baptist.

But going off topic for a minute you may find these News articles about them interesting.

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=5307

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...X-QPD8DL34mQIQ

[Euthyphro]

I do agree the interpretation to come up with UFO's is erroneous. But, as far as the Authenticity of the JT I see no reason to doubt it's authenticity.

There is no available manuscript (TJ only exists in modern translations); the only "witness" to the "discovery" of the manuscript is a crazed UFOlogist; and TJ contains "prophecies" like "This Earth can nourish and support five hundred million people of all human populations. But if these laws are not followed, in two times a thousand years there will exist ten times five hundred million people, and the Earth will no longer be able to support them." Sorry, it's a hoax.

Now before we get too disjointed I noticed I still had not addressed one of your earlier issues. It might be one we can get out of the way easy and return and concentrate on the ones we disagree on.

Earlier you asked:

"Do you think it is possible to reconstruct the "Historical Jesus" as modern scholars have tried to do?"

I believe you and I agree that there is sufficient evidence to get at least enough of a view of the "historical Jesus(as)" to verify he was real and did perform numerous miracles such as rasing the dead, healint the sick and blind and many others.

Do you think there is enough evidence to show that he died by crucifixion?

[Danah]

.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/lordpray.html



http://www.barefootsworld.net/godsnames.html

Interesting..... a lot of similaritites between Arabic and Aramatic, I could guess some meaning before reading the translation line beneath it. Was the OT in Aramatic as well? or only the NT?

[Euthyphro]

Interesting..... a lot of similaritites between Arabic and Aramatic, I could guess some meaning before reading the translation line beneath it. Was the OT in Aramatic as well? or only the NT?

The OT is mostly Hebrew, with some portions in Aramaic. The NT is all in Greek, with (what the NT writers believed to be) Jesus' original Aramaic words translated/paraphrased.

[Al-manar]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


What can’t be material from the Injil, been inspired to Jesus, according to what we understand from the Quran:


1-A supposed Genealogy of Jesus.

2- Any content in the NT could be taken with absolute certainty to be a reference to a claimed Deity of Jesus or the Holy Spirit can’t be Injil.

3-Though the injil could have included short stories regarding prophets others etc used as lessons in morality for the readers, , but it couldn’t have been a biography dedicated for Jesus….
Jesus was not meant to preach his story, or what he did

“And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.” Matthew 9:35

Look at preaching
And healing

He was not preaching his actions …..
The New Testament focus is on his actions, that is why we can’t accept it as fully Injil…

4-Supposed Second coming during the lifetime of the disciples, messianic prophecies…. Though no wonder if a divine book contains prophecies, but such prophecies in the New Testament can’t be Injil material as we Muslims (also Jews ,Bible critics etc..) consider them to be false and been fabricated for Agenda of the Gospel writers .

5- The reference to John the Baptist Matt 11:14 And if ye will receive it, this is Elijah, which was for to come as fulfilling the
Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD" -Malachi 4:1-5.

6-Any content that may refer to the message of Jesus as the last one from heaven or him being the last messeneger.

7- As The Quran negates any tool to attain heaven but keeping the law, then any content related to the concept of blood atonement (statements,actions or prophecies) can’t be Injil ….

[Woodrow]

There is no available manuscript (TJ only exists in modern translations); the only "witness" to the "discovery" of the manuscript is a crazed UFOlogist; and TJ contains "prophecies" like "This Earth can nourish and support five hundred million people of all human populations. But if these laws are not followed, in two times a thousand years there will exist ten times five hundred million people, and the Earth will no longer be able to support them." Sorry, it's a hoax.



Do you think there is enough evidence to show that he died by crucifixion?

We have no doubt that somebody died by crucifixion and the witnesses did believe that person to be Jesus(as). However, we believe that by the words of Allaah(swt) we know that "they killed him not" and that the one who died by Crucifixion was not Jesus(as) but was somebody made to appear to be him. There is sufficient evidence to show that a crucifixion happened and many people did believe it to be Jesus(as)

[Euthyphro]

We have no doubt that somebody died by crucifixion and the witnesses did believe that person to be Jesus(as). However, we believe that by the words of Allaah(swt) we know that "they killed him not" and that the one who died by Crucifixion was not Jesus(as) but was somebody made to appear to be him. There is sufficient evidence to show that a crucifixion happened and many people did believe it to be Jesus(as)

I have a number of questions about this, but I'll raise two for now:

The first is about your historical methodology: do you think it is justifiable to assume the historical accuracy of the Qur'an? Would it be justifiable for me to assume the historical accuracy of the Bible and apply it to the historical claims in the Qur'an? Why/why not?

The second is: was it Allah who deceived the witnesses to the crucifixion into thinking the man on the cross was Jesus? If so, what was His rationale for doing this? If not, why did the witnesses get confused?

[Woodrow]

I have a number of questions about this, but I'll raise two for now:

The first is about your historical methodology: do you think it is justifiable to assume the historical accuracy of the Qur'an? Would it be justifiable for me to assume the historical accuracy of the Bible and apply it to the historical claims in the Qur'an? Why/why not?

Justifiable yes, Possible, I doubt it. I see an immediate impasse we are going to run into. That being how you and I view the 3 writings we will end up discussing. The OT, NT and the Qur'an.

I believe both you and I would come up with many mutually acceptable agreements over the OT. Our problems are going to arise over the Nature of the NT and the Qur'an. The fact is You accept the NT to be the word of God(swt) either direct or through the inspired words of the writers.

I accept the Qur'an to be the actual word of God(swt) dictated directly to Muhammad(PBUH)

Our belief over which Book is the word of God(swt) will be a major factor over how each of us interprets the historical evidence/facts.

The second is: was it Allah who deceived the witnesses to the crucifixion into thinking the man on the cross was Jesus? If so, what was His rationale for doing this? If not, why did the witnesses get confused?

to be honest I have no idea as to how it was done. I only know it was because we are told so in the Qur'an and I believe the Qur'an to be the actual, direct words from God(swt) I have no concern over if the NT is true or false. I have full faith in the truth of the Qur'an and since it is true there is no point to pay much heed to other writings except to follow in them that which I know to be true and in agreement with Allaah(swt)'s words.

[Al-manar]

to be honest I have no idea as to how it was done. I only know it was because we are told so in the Qur'an ..

Excuse me Bro Woodrow

where is it in the Quran is it mentioned someone was placed in the place of Jesus, where is his name or even a pronoun refers to him?

and if not there in the Quran where is it such Authentic Hadith to establish such believe?

[Woodrow]

Excuse me Bro Woodrow

where is it in the Quran is it mentioned someone was placed in the place of Jesus, where is his name or even a pronoun refers to him?

and if not there in the Quran where is it such Authentic Hadith to establish such believe?

:sl:Ahki,

That is true no where in the Qur'an or Ahadeeth does it say anyone was substituted for Jesus.

We do know Jesus(swt) was not crucified. This is stated in the Qur'an in several Surahs. I will quote the exact ones if needed. Based upon that and knowing that there were witnesses to the Crucifixion, can we come to any other conclusion besides whoever was crucified was not Jesus(as)


If you have a better explanation as to how come the people believed Jesus(as) was crucified and we know he wasn't please explain what you believe did happen.

[Euthyphro]

Justifiable yes, Possible, I doubt it. I see an immediate impasse we are going to run into. That being how you and I view the 3 writings we will end up discussing. The OT, NT and the Qur'an.

I believe both you and I would come up with many mutually acceptable agreements over the OT. Our problems are going to arise over the Nature of the NT and the Qur'an. The fact is You accept the NT to be the word of God(swt) either direct or through the inspired words of the writers.

I accept the Qur'an to be the actual word of God(swt) dictated directly to Muhammad(PBUH)

Our belief over which Book is the word of God(swt) will be a major factor over how each of us interprets the historical evidence/facts.

I'll explain my position so we both know how we approach the NT:

I approach the NT in two different ways depending on the type of claim being made - historical or theological. When approaching the books of the NT historically, I assume the same things I would for any other ancient writings of a similar genre, and from this the overall historical reliability of the books can be demonstrated. I am open to the possibility that the writers could be mistaken, but accept their historical claims unless I have some level of doubt (there are only two such claims that come to mind, and on balance I still accept these, weighing in my theological understanding of the surrounding historical events).

The justification for accepting the theological claims of the NT as a whole comes from the resurrection as a confirmation of Jesus' teaching and claims, church history showing the consequences of following or turning away from the NT's teaching, the overall coherence of the claims as a system of belief and my personal experience of the texts being "breathed through by God" (whatever that might mean ;-)). Again, I am open to the possibility of error in the writings, but experience has shown any "theological tension" to be due to my own misunderstanding rather than the writers'.

You're quite right that, in the end, it all comes down to our original assumptions. What I find hard to understand, though, is how you can accept the Qur'an as Allah's Word without first validating its historical claims. In order for the Qur'an to be Allah's Word, all of its historical claims must be true. But how can this be demonstrated independent of a historical method?

[Woodrow]

You're quite right that, in the end, it all comes down to our original assumptions. What I find hard to understand, though, is how you can accept the Qur'an as Allah's Word without first validating its historical claims. In order for the Qur'an to be Allah's Word, all of its historical claims must be true. But how can this be demonstrated independent of a historical method?

Peace Euthyphro

I sort fell into Islam through the back door. Although I did not have any contacts with any Muslims until 1959, through school teachings and my seminarian training I saw Islam as being very misguided and backward. However, after living in North Africa and the mid-East I came to appreciate Muslims as being very sincere, pious people. That was my main impetus to learn Arabic.

Anyhow as the years went by I bounced through various, assorted sundry Christian Denominations and finaly settled on being an Agnostic, but called my self Buddhist, cause it didn't scare my relatives as much as agnostic.

After a long time studying languages I came to the conclusion that the Qur'an could not have been written by human hands and could only be the word of God(swt)

I accepted Islam when I was 65 years old and up until the day I reverted, I never believed I would ever accept Islam.

[Al-manar]

:sl:

thanx Akhi for telling me the reason why you lean to the substitution claim now I understand you better...

:sl:Ahki,
We do know Jesus(swt) was not crucified. This is stated in the Qur'an in several Surahs. I will quote the exact ones if needed. Based upon that and knowing that there were witnesses to the Crucifixion, can we come to any other conclusion besides whoever was crucified was not Jesus(as)

We shouldn't accept the substitution claim and we could come to other conclusion for some reasons:

1- No doubt The substitution narration which neither be found in the quran nor the Sunna in the book of Tafsir comes from Gnosticism

"He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me." the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter


Applying such Gnostic concept to the Quran seems problematic, the verse tells:

And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so to them; and those who disagree concerning it are in doubt of it; they have no knowledge of it save pursuit of conjecture; they slew him not for certain. [Qur'an: 4-157]

When important figure, who been hated by many, disappears suddenly from the scene, conjecture comes to the scene.....

The verse affirms they have no knowledge but conjecture

If Judas was crucified in front of them, then we have here knowledge (even if false knowledge) and not conjecture...

we can understand their doubt whether he was crucified or not ,as long as they never witnessed that, and the man disappeared and they listened to conjecture......

The absence of Jesus would make them in doubt and be victims to conjecture, just as the absence of famous figures, who have lots of enemies,
I remember once there was conjecture that Ben laden has died, and his friend been killed and some people believed such conjecture and continued believing that till they found new message from him!!!
Had he stayed silent forever, you would find claims as, it was someone else similar to him, who been killed etc......

People followed conjecture after the departure of Jesus :

Some thought he was killed....

Others thought he been substituted on the cross...

Others thought he married Maria Magdalena...
Etc…..


Had the man been killed and been witnessed by his enemies and his friends alike, there wouldn’t had been such disagreement on how his mission terminated !!

The matter, according to the Quran, is conjecture and doubts which been experienced by those who witnessed nothing.

Knowing that there were witnesses to the Crucifixion

And we have so called witnesses to resurrection too, would we as Muslims accept such accounts? No, because.


Will they not, then, try to understand this Qur'an? Had it issued from any but God, they would surely have found in it many an inner contradiction! (Holy Quran 4:82)

:wa:

[Woodrow]

:sl:

thanx Akhi for telling me the reason why you lean to the substitution claim now I understand you better...




We shouldn't accept the substitution claim and we could come to other conclusion for some reasons:

1- No doubt The substitution narration which neither be found in the quran nor the Sunna in the book of Tafsir comes from Gnosticism

"He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me." the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter


Applying such Gnostic concept to the Quran seems problematic, the verse tells:

And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so to them; and those who disagree concerning it are in doubt of it; they have no knowledge of it save pursuit of conjecture; they slew him not for certain. [Qur'an: 4-157]

When important figure, who been hated by many, disappears suddenly from the scene, conjecture comes to the scene.....

The verse affirms they have no knowledge but conjecture

If Judas was crucified in front of them, then we have here knowledge (even if false knowledge) and not conjecture...

we can understand their doubt whether he was crucified or not ,as long as they never witnessed that, and the man disappeared and they listened to conjecture......

The absence of Jesus would make them in doubt and be victims to conjecture, just as the absence of famous figures, who have lots of enemies,
I remember once there was conjecture that Ben laden has died, and his friend been killed and some people believed such conjecture and continued believing that till they found new message from him!!!
Had he stayed silent forever, you would find claims as, it was someone else similar to him, who been killed etc......

People followed conjecture after the departure of Jesus :

Some thought he was killed....

Others thought he been substituted on the cross...

Others thought he married Maria Magdalena...
Etc…..


Had the man been killed and been witnessed by his enemies and his friends alike, there wouldn’t had been such disagreement on how his mission terminated !!

The matter, according to the Quran, is conjecture and doubts which been experienced by those who witnessed nothing.




And we have so called witnesses to resurrection too, would we as Muslims accept such accounts? No, because.


Will they not, then, try to understand this Qur'an? Had it issued from any but God, they would surely have found in it many an inner contradiction! (Holy Quran 4:82)

:wa:

:wa:

True Ahki.

You bring up some interesting points and all we can be certain of is what is said in the Qur'an. The rest is conjecture being just possible explanations but not proven fact.

[Euthyphro]

Peace Euthyphro

I sort fell into Islam through the back door. Although I did not have any contacts with any Muslims until 1959, through school teachings and my seminarian training I saw Islam as being very misguided and backward. However, after living in North Africa and the mid-East I came to appreciate Muslims as being very sincere, pious people. That was my main impetus to learn Arabic.

Anyhow as the years went by I bounced through various, assorted sundry Christian Denominations and finaly settled on being an Agnostic, but called my self Buddhist, cause it didn't scare my relatives as much as agnostic.

After a long time studying languages I came to the conclusion that the Qur'an could not have been written by human hands and could only be the word of God(swt)

I accepted Islam when I was 65 years old and up until the day I reverted, I never believed I would ever accept Islam.

Salaam, Woodrow, you have a very interesting story. I also admire the piety and devotion of Muslims like yourself - especially dedication to prayer. If I may ask, how did you come to that conclusion in the end?

[Woodrow]

Salaam, Woodrow, you have a very interesting story. I also admire the piety and devotion of Muslims like yourself - especially dedication to prayer. If I may ask, how did you come to that conclusion in the end?

Peace Euthyphro,

First came an intellectual understanding. Way back when I was first learning Arabic I managed get hold of a copy of the Qur'an in Arabic. I did not read it as a religious text, but rather as some insight into the Arabic language.

At that time I had never heard of the Qur'anic challange, so in my early years of studying Arabic I had no understanding of the uniqueness of the Qur'anic Arabic. I did know that the colloqual Arabic I was speaking in daily conversations was Darija and not pure Arabic so I found it understandable that Qur'anic Arabic did not fit in with the colloqual. Darija sounds much like the speaker has something stuck in his throat and is trying to cough it up. While the Qur'anic has a melodious almost musical quality to it.

Throughout the years I tried to find other examples of the Qur'anic Arabic and to this day the only place I can find it is in the Qur'an. Quite unique as no matter what dialect of Arabic a person speaks, they can read and comprehend it while at the same type speakers of different dialects have trouble understanding each other.

Anyhow to make a story short. On the day I reverted I had found my old Qur'an and picked it up out of curiosity to see if I could still read Arabic. As I was reading a strange thing happened, I was overcome with a feeling of warmth as if Allaah(swt) was speaking directly to me. I could not stop reading and can only say is I was not reading I was experiencing and feeling. It was a much deeper feeling then any time as a Christian I experienced what I used to call being "filled with the Holy Spirit"

The whole story of my reversion is posted in at least two threads. I will see if I can find it later, and post a link to it.

[Al-manar]

:sl:

Interesting story Bro woodrow

so you came to the Quran through the langauge door (there are other doors eg scientific statements etc..) and that is what makes it interesting,not so much those who comes through such door ....

I wonder if you read Al-Kashshaaf Tafsir ?

Before reading such amazing work(from cover to cover), I hadn't realized yet what it means by the Quranic linguistic miracles !!!

sadly that work not yet available in English !!!

:wa:

[Woodrow]

:sl:

Interesting story Bro woodrow

so you came to the Quran through the langauge door (there are other doors eg scientific statements etc..) and that is what makes it interesting,not so much those who comes through such door ....

I wonder if you read Al-Kashshaaf Tafsir ?

Before reading such amazing work(from cover to cover), I hadn't realized yet what it means by the Quranic linguistic miracles !!!

sadly that work not yet available in English !!!

:wa:

:wa: Ahki,

I have yet to read Al-Kashshaaf Tafsir, I had been wanting to buy a hard copy of it. The Islamic Book store at the Islamic Center of Austin was going to order it for me, but I moved from Austin before they did. Since it is in Arabic I prefer a hard copy as I can then circle any words I might not fully understand and use my dictionaries to get a better understanding.

I did find this edition of it in 4 volumns available from a bookstore in Beirut. A bit pricey but looks well worth it. I guess I will save my pennies until I can get it.

[Al-manar]

Just for those who may be interested to have the work on pc


this is a pdf copy of the work

http://www.archive.org/details/alqur...fsir01zamauoft

and that is a famous CD contains most tafsirs with search engine

download the whole cd in one link

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=PDQ8DQ6M

القرآن الكريم بالصوت والصورة للقارئ الشيخ محمود خليل الحصرى
تفسير الطبرى
تفسير ابن كثير
تفسير الطبى
فتح القدير
تفسير البغوى
تفسير البيضاوى
تفسير الجلالين
الوجيز للواحدى
تفسير ابى السعود
الدر المنثور
تفسير النسفى
روح المعانى
زاد المسير
تفسير الثعالبى
تفسير الكشاف
مختصر بن كثير
التحرير والتنوير
تفسير الثورى
تفسير الصنعانى
تفسير مجاهد
التبيان تفسير غريب القرآن
تذكرة الاريب تفسير الغريب
معانى القرآن
مفردات القرآن
جزء فى الباقيات الصالحات
شرح ايات الوصية

http://jyab.jeeran.com/archive/2009/7/914967.html

and Bro woodrow ..regarding the hard copy ,It costs about 40 Dollars the beirut deluxe edition and about 10 dollars the normal edition....

[Woodrow]

Just for those who may be interested to have the work on pc


this is a pdf copy of the work

http://www.archive.org/details/alqur...fsir01zamauoft

and that is a famous CD contains most tafsirs with search engine

download the whole cd in one link

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=PDQ8DQ6M

القرآن الكريم بالصوت والصورة للقارئ الشيخ محمود خليل الحصرى
تفسير الطبرى
تفسير ابن كثير
تفسير الطبى
فتح القدير
تفسير البغوى
تفسير البيضاوى
تفسير الجلالين
الوجيز للواحدى
تفسير ابى السعود
الدر المنثور
تفسير النسفى
روح المعانى
زاد المسير
تفسير الثعالبى
تفسير الكشاف
مختصر بن كثير
التحرير والتنوير
تفسير الثورى
تفسير الصنعانى
تفسير مجاهد
التبيان تفسير غريب القرآن
تذكرة الاريب تفسير الغريب
معانى القرآن
مفردات القرآن
جزء فى الباقيات الصالحات
شرح ايات الوصية

http://jyab.jeeran.com/archive/2009/7/914967.html

and Bro woodrow ..regarding the hard copy ,It costs about 40 Dollars the beirut deluxe edition and about 10 dollars the normal edition....:statisfie

:sl:

Jazakallah Khayran for the download links. I may have to check other bookstores. The one in Beirut was going to charge me 51 Euro I believe that is about $100 USA. Seemed a bit high. The Islamic Center in Austin estimated that they could get it for me for $25. If I can get them to order it and mail it to me, that may be my best choice. Although that will be the normal edition. But, then again I intend it to be a working book and not a bookcase center piece.

[Woodrow]

Now to explain to Euthyphro how our past few posts relate to "The Injil"

In this recent dialogue between Bro Al-manar and myself I became aware that there is Tafsir that give a more accurate portrayal of what the Qur'an says, than what I have stated. I may have to clarify some of my comments after I read the tafsir. Tafsir equates to being a commentary or explanation. Anything I say is only my own opinion unless I can relate it back to accepted tafsir or simply to the specific ayyats in the Qur'an without my opinion.

[cat eyes]

:sl:
I Want to buy the tafsir but do you stil have to have a teacher to help you understand it?:wa:

[Al-manar]

can't yet edit :statisfie

there is another link to the same book which i highly recommend

it is a revised version of the work and in 6 volumes


go there

http://www.waqfeya.com/book.php?bid=1234

and click on

اضغط هنا
begin download


the next book I highly recommend is the huge throughly work Mafatih al-Ghayb by Fakhr al-Din al-Razi

http://www.mediafire.com/?kzgmrymn4mz


or here

http://www.archive.org/details/mghtrazi


the most beloved tafsir to my mind is Tafsir Al-manar By the infamous sunni reformer Rashid Reda (I highly recommend it)... the man has gone to dimensions no other mufasir was able to ..... and showed that reason and Quran are in harmony.....

http://www.archive.org/details/tfseer_manar


sorry dear Euthyphro for me being little offtopic ... :D


peace

[Al-manar]

:sl:
I Want to buy the tafsir but do you stil have to have a teacher to help you understand it?:wa:

peace

according to your level of knowledge in arabic and religious terms....

dunno if Arabic is ur mother tongue?

regards

[Woodrow]

:sl:
I Want to buy the tafsir but do you stil have to have a teacher to help you understand it?:wa:

:wa:

The book is only available in Arabic. If you are a native speaker of Arabic you should not have any need for the help of a teacher. If you are not a native speaker, use the guidance of a teacher, or at least have a nice collection of reference books especially an Arabic dictionary. Not an Arabic-English dictionary but an Arabic one that gives definitions in Arabic.

[Euthyphro]

Peace Euthyphro,

First came an intellectual understanding. Way back when I was first learning Arabic I managed get hold of a copy of the Qur'an in Arabic. I did not read it as a religious text, but rather as some insight into the Arabic language.

At that time I had never heard of the Qur'anic challange, so in my early years of studying Arabic I had no understanding of the uniqueness of the Qur'anic Arabic. I did know that the colloqual Arabic I was speaking in daily conversations was Darija and not pure Arabic so I found it understandable that Qur'anic Arabic did not fit in with the colloqual. Darija sounds much like the speaker has something stuck in his throat and is trying to cough it up. While the Qur'anic has a melodious almost musical quality to it.

Throughout the years I tried to find other examples of the Qur'anic Arabic and to this day the only place I can find it is in the Qur'an. Quite unique as no matter what dialect of Arabic a person speaks, they can read and comprehend it while at the same type speakers of different dialects have trouble understanding each other.

Anyhow to make a story short. On the day I reverted I had found my old Qur'an and picked it up out of curiosity to see if I could still read Arabic. As I was reading a strange thing happened, I was overcome with a feeling of warmth as if Allaah(swt) was speaking directly to me. I could not stop reading and can only say is I was not reading I was experiencing and feeling. It was a much deeper feeling then any time as a Christian I experienced what I used to call being "filled with the Holy Spirit"

The whole story of my reversion is posted in at least two threads. I will see if I can find it later, and post a link to it.

Salaam Woodrow,

Sorry for taking a bit longer to reply to you, but your post got me thinking a lot about the "theology of spiritual experiences" (for want of a better term). In my case too, you see, it was a deep spiritual experience and transformation which made my enquiry into faith complete. Yet we can't both be right about what we believe (we could both be wrong of course!), despite these experiential "confirmations". So when we consider the fact that people of different faiths also have spiritual experiences, we have to be open to the idea that either others' aren't "genuine" or "authentic". This fact about spiritual experiences means that the objective reasons for what we believe become even more important.

Could you explain what the Qur'an challenge (that there is "no surah like it") actually is? What is it about the uniqueness of the Qur'an that means it must be from God? If it is the Qur'an's linguistic beauty, how can this be measured objectively?

Yours,
Euthyphro

[Euthyphro]

Now to explain to Euthyphro how our past few posts relate to "The Injil"

In this recent dialogue between Bro Al-manar and myself I became aware that there is Tafsir that give a more accurate portrayal of what the Qur'an says, than what I have stated. I may have to clarify some of my comments after I read the tafsir. Tafsir equates to being a commentary or explanation. Anything I say is only my own opinion unless I can relate it back to accepted tafsir or simply to the specific ayyats in the Qur'an without my opinion.

What do these Tafsir say that is different to what you've said so far?

[Danah]

:sl:

And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so to them; and those who disagree concerning it are in doubt of it; they have no knowledge of it save pursuit of conjecture; they slew him not for certain. [Qur'an: 4-157]

When important figure, who been hated by many, disappears suddenly from the scene, conjecture comes to the scene.....

The verse affirms they have no knowledge but conjecture

If Judas was crucified in front of them, then we have here knowledge (even if false knowledge) and not conjecture...

:sl:

Wasn't Judas the one who betrayed Jesus peace be upon him? I read somewhere that before the Jews reached Jesus that he came to his 12 apostles and asked them who will be on his place to be caught by Jews and he will be rewarded to be at the same level as Jesus will be in the afterlife. There was one young man among the twelve apostles accepted that.
Could it be that this young man is Judas who betrayed Jesus?

[Woodrow]

Could you explain what the Qur'an challenge (that there is "no surah like it") actually is? What is it about the uniqueness of the Qur'an that means it must be from God? If it is the Qur'an's linguistic beauty, how can this be measured objectively?

Yours,
Euthyphro

To a non Arabic speaker the Qur'anic Challenge is difficult to understand. I agree with you that an English (or any other Language) reader can find very beautiful works of literary art and in their opinion believe they are equal to the Qur'an. It does seem to a non-Arabic speaker that this challenge is judged by the objectivity of the reader.


To give a short description of what I believe it would require of a person to meet the Qur'anic Challange.

1. It would have to contain thoughts not expressed in any previous literature of the language.

2. It would need to be in a dialect that is not spoken colloquially, yet can be understood by all speakers of the language, no matter how diverse the dialects are.

3. It needs to be written in a form in which if a single word is altered it can be readily seen as being out of place. (In the Qur'an in any ayyat if you alter any word, it will no longer have the rhythmic flow of the ayyat and immediately be seen as out of place, even by a non-Muslim who never read the Qur'an)

4. It has to be of a melodious tone yet be as readily understood as prose.

Those were essentially what I was looking for in Arabic Literature when in my pre-Islamic era I was viewing the Qur'an as a literary form and tried to find other works in the same form.

Roughly as an oversimplification it would be similar as somebody, who never read the US Bill of Rights, to write the US bill of rights as a song to the tune of the "willian Tell overture" and carry the the full meaning of the Bill of Rights and understood by all English speakers no matter what dialect or colloquial form they speak.

I can find no explanation for the Qur'an except it is the unique word of God(swt)

[Woodrow]

Salaam Woodrow,

Sorry for taking a bit longer to reply to you, but your post got me thinking a lot about the "theology of spiritual experiences" (for want of a better term). In my case too, you see, it was a deep spiritual experience and transformation which made my enquiry into faith complete. Yet we can't both be right about what we believe (we could both be wrong of course!), despite these experiential "confirmations". So when we consider the fact that people of different faiths also have spiritual experiences, we have to be open to the idea that either others' aren't "genuine" or "authentic". This fact about spiritual experiences means that the objective reasons for what we believe become even more important.


Yours,
Euthyphro

I agree that "theology of spiritual experiences" (I agree, excellent termonology) do require more objective explanation as to the how and why we understand it as coming from God(swt). After a brief conemplation by myself, I believe it also gives a greater responsibility for us to use non-objective reasons in addition to our "confirmation"

[Woodrow]

What do these Tafsir say that is different to what you've said so far?

Peace Euthyphro,

I'm still in the process of compiling all of the ayyats relating to Jesus(as) into one file on my PC.

Small bit of Qur'an information:

Jesus(as) is refered by name in the Qur'an more times than any other person except for his mother Marriam (Mary)

[Euthyphro]

To a non Arabic speaker the Qur'anic Challenge is difficult to understand. I agree with you that an English (or any other Language) reader can find very beautiful works of literary art and in their opinion believe they are equal to the Qur'an. It does seem to a non-Arabic speaker that this challenge is judged by the objectivity of the reader.

Salaam Woodrow,

Did you mean the subjectivity of the reader?

To give a short description of what I believe it would require of a person to meet the Qur'anic Challange.

1. It would have to contain thoughts not expressed in any previous literature of the language.

2. It would need to be in a dialect that is not spoken colloquially, yet can be understood by all speakers of the language, no matter how diverse the dialects are.

3. It needs to be written in a form in which if a single word is altered it can be readily seen as being out of place. (In the Qur'an in any ayyat if you alter any word, it will no longer have the rhythmic flow of the ayyat and immediately be seen as out of place, even by a non-Muslim who never read the Qur'an)

4. It has to be of a melodious tone yet be as readily understood as prose.

Those were essentially what I was looking for in Arabic Literature when in my pre-Islamic era I was viewing the Qur'an as a literary form and tried to find other works in the same form.

Roughly as an oversimplification it would be similar as somebody, who never read the US Bill of Rights, to write the US bill of rights as a song to the tune of the "willian Tell overture" and carry the the full meaning of the Bill of Rights and understood by all English speakers no matter what dialect or colloquial form they speak.

I can find no explanation for the Qur'an except it is the unique word of God(swt)

I don't see why any of those four requirements necessarily require a divine explanation (for they're hardly miraculous). For each individual requirement, I could easily come up with an example with satisfies it. And as you said, much of the challenge is subjective: what makes one piece of literature of a "more melodious tone" than another?

More interestingly, I think, your criteria have absolutely nothing to do with the truth-claims of the literature in question. Your requirements are completely independent of the content of the literature - strange when the Qur'an is supposed to be a meaningful revelation to all of mankind.

Even more strange is the fact that these requirements are completely untestable for non-Arabic speakers - and I find it hard to believe that Allah would expect non-Arabic speakers to accept the Qur'an by blind faith, especially when it makes claims (such as "Jesus never died") which, judging by all other evidence, are false.

Yours,
Euthyphro

[Woodrow]

Salaam Woodrow,

Did you mean the subjectivity of the reader?




Yours,
Euthyphro

Peace Euthyphro,

Yes that was what I intended to post. (The pleasure or price of posting in a rush)

[Woodrow]

Salaam Woodrow,

Even more strange is the fact that these requirements are completely untestable for non-Arabic speakers - and I find it hard to believe that Allah would expect non-Arabic speakers to accept the Qur'an by blind faith, especially when it makes claims (such as "Jesus never died") which, judging by all other evidence, are false.

Yours,
Euthyphro

Peace Euthyphro,

I'll address your last paragraph first.

I suspect you would not accept my old cliche Catholic explanation of things like the "It is a mystery my son, we can not understand and must accept it as a matter of faith"


I didn't think you would. Nor should you be expected to. Islam is a religion of personal responsibility and we are obligated to avoid blind faith and seek to learn and study so we understand with informed faith.

I believe I have at lest a little understanding of where you are coming.

I do appreciate what you said here.

Even more strange is the fact that these requirements are completely untestable for non-Arabic speakers

I do not deny that those requirements are untestable for n on-Arabic speakers. Even deeper I do not believe any translation of the Qur'an is the Qur'an. The Qur'an can only be written and/or spoken in Arabic.

and I find it hard to believe that Allah would expect non-Arabic speakers to accept the Qur'an by blind faith,

That is not expected. Nor is it required for a person to understand the Qur'an to accept Islam. However if a person does accept Islam they will do their best to learn to read the Qur'an to the best of their ability. A person can accept Islam with little or no knowledge of the Qur'an. It is easy to become a Muslim, but it takes a lifetime to be a Muslim

[Euthyphro]

Peace Euthyphro,

I'll address your last paragraph first.

I suspect you would not accept my old cliche Catholic explanation of things like the "It is a mystery my son, we can not understand and must accept it as a matter of faith"

I didn't think you would. Nor should you be expected to. Islam is a religion of personal responsibility and we are obligated to avoid blind faith and seek to learn and study so we understand with informed faith.

I believe I have at lest a little understanding of where you are coming.

I do appreciate what you said here.

I do not deny that those requirements are untestable for n on-Arabic speakers. Even deeper I do not believe any translation of the Qur'an is the Qur'an. The Qur'an can only be written and/or spoken in Arabic.

That is not expected. Nor is it required for a person to understand the Qur'an to accept Islam. However if a person does accept Islam they will do their best to learn to read the Qur'an to the best of their ability. A person can accept Islam with little or no knowledge of the Qur'an. It is easy to become a Muslim, but it takes a lifetime to be a Muslim

I'm glad you can empathise with the way I am seeing things here, and that you agree with me about the importance of having reasons for what we believe. However, your last paragraph confused me. In order to become a Muslim, you have to believe that the Qur'an is one of Allah's Books. How is it possible to have an informed faith in Islam with no knowledge of the Qur'an?

[Woodrow]

I'm glad you can empathise with the way I am seeing things here, and that you agree with me about the importance of having reasons for what we believe. However, your last paragraph confused me. In order to become a Muslim, you have to believe that the Qur'an is one of Allah's Books. How is it possible to have an informed faith in Islam with no knowledge of the Qur'an?

Yes we have to believe all of the books revealed to the Prophets. However in order to accept Islam we need only have a desire to serve and worship God(swt). The basic requirement to become Muslim is to believe in all sincerity that there is but one God(swt) and Muhammad(PBUH) is his Prophet. There is no ritual, ceremony or the like for a person to accept Islam. No required classes, no type of mandatory teaching. This is a choice between the person and Allaah(swt) nothing is required except for a person to say the Shahadah with full sincerity. Although many people these days want to say it in the Masjid, it really makes no difference where it is said. It can be and often is said alone with no witness except Allaah(swt)

Once a person accepts Islam, the desire to learn how to be a Muslim becomes very intense and is the beginning of a lifetime of learning and questioning.

[Euthyphro]

Yes we have to believe all of the books revealed to the Prophets. However in order to accept Islam we need only have a desire to serve and worship God(swt). The basic requirement to become Muslim is to believe in all sincerity that there is but one God(swt) and Muhammad(PBUH) is his Prophet. There is no ritual, ceremony or the like for a person to accept Islam. No required classes, no type of mandatory teaching. This is a choice between the person and Allaah(swt) nothing is required except for a person to say the Shahadah with full sincerity. Although many people these days want to say it in the Masjid, it really makes no difference where it is said. It can be and often is said alone with no witness except Allaah(swt)

Once a person accepts Islam, the desire to learn how to be a Muslim becomes very intense and is the beginning of a lifetime of learning and questioning.

OK, well how can you sincerely believe that Mohammed is Allah's Prophet without believing that the Qur'an is from Allah?

[GreyKode]

I'm glad you can empathise with the way I am seeing things here, and that you agree with me about the importance of having reasons for what we believe. However, your last paragraph confused me. In order to become a Muslim, you have to believe that the Qur'an is one of Allah's Books. How is it possible to have an informed faith in Islam with no knowledge of the Qur'an?

Can you become a christian without having knowledge of the bible?
If no and you have to read the bible first, what miraculous aspect of the bible makes you think it is one of GOD's books?

I think what brother woodrow is trying to convey here is that Islam is centrally based on absolute monotheism and submission to ALLAH(swt) which is the central abd unique message of the Qur'an, that is what I personally, and probably brother woodorwm too think is the primary element of truth in Islam, on top of that the teachings and guidance of the prophet mohammed(pbuh) and the Qur'an add up to the the truth.

[Euthyphro]

Can you become a christian without having knowledge of the bible?
If no and you have to read the bible first, what miraculous aspect of the bible makes you think it is one of GOD's books?

I think what brother woodrow is trying to convey here is that Islam is centrally based on absolute monotheism and submission to ALLAH(swt), that is what I personally and probably brother woodorw too thinks is the primary element of truth in Islam, on top of that the teachings and guidance of the prophet mohammed(pbuh) and the Qur'an add up to the the truth.

Becoming a Christian has nothing to do with knowledge - it's about being "born again": receiving God's gift of a new, transformed life. This gift only comes by God's grace - it cannot be earned by anything we think or say or do.

[GreyKode]

Becoming a Christian has nothing to do with knowledge - it's about being "born again": receiving God's gift of a new, transformed life. This gift only comes by God's grace - it cannot be earned by anything we think or say or do.

Although we don't have the concept of being born again in Islam, but we believe that though a human can come to Islam through studying it, it is ultimately ALLAH's guidance that led him to Islam.

Anyway, I undersyand from your previous post that you were looking for objective evidence for Islam's truth.

[Euthyphro]

Anyway, I undersyand from your previous post that you were looking for objective evidence for Islam's truth.

Yes, specifically that the Qur'an is Allah's Word, since this has a direct bearing on what the Injil would have been like (if it actually existed) and on the Historical Jesus.

[GreyKode]

Yes, specifically that the Qur'an is Allah's Word, since this has a direct bearing on what the Injil would have been like (if it actually existed) and on the Historical Jesus.

What makes you think there was no Injil? your answer: The bible doesn't talk about it therefore there was no Injil.

What makes think the bible is GOD's word?

In short, you are saying that the Qur'an is wrong about the Injil because the bible says so, see the flaw in your argument.

[Euthyphro]

What makes you think there was no Injil? your answer: The bible doesn't talk about it therefore there was no Injil.

What makes think the bible is GOD's word?

In short, you are saying that the Qur'an is wrong about the Injil because the bible says so, see the flaw in your argument.

I don't think there was an Injil (i.e. a complete Book which Jesus either wrote or recited in full to his disciples) because there is no reliable evidence (i.e. from within 100 years, to be generous, of Jesus' death) that there was one, biblical or otherwise. And given the disciples' dedication to Jesus' teaching and actions, it seems bizarre that they would have completely missed this. Moreover, if a sovereign God had wished for this Book to be revealed, it seems even more bizarre that He would have allowed it to be corrupted.

[Woodrow]

I don't think there was an Injil (i.e. a complete Book which Jesus either wrote or recited in full to his disciples) because there is no reliable evidence (i.e. from within 100 years, to be generous, of Jesus' death) that there was one, biblical or otherwise. And given the disciples' dedication to Jesus' teaching and actions, it seems bizarre that they would have completely missed this. Moreover, if a sovereign God had wished for this Book to be revealed, it seems even more bizarre that He would have allowed it to be corrupted.

Does the Bible contain every word Jesus(as) preached during his 3 years of public ministry? I believe he had a large following during the time of his public ministry. Yet, when we read the Godspels we see very little of what he said. What we do see is a record of Jesus(as) and not the word of God(swt) that was given to him. We do know that e was often called Rabbi(Teacher) yet where are the words of what he taught. Very little of this as preserved, beyond the beautiful "Sermon on the Mount" which possibly was from the Injil.

At some point the history of the Messenger was preserved, but the people ignored the Message. It does seem that the people hearing the words of God(swt) would have preserved them in there minds and hearts and Grasped them with a tenacity that was as strong as a grip of steel. But, for some reason when the Greeks wrote down the Gospels they ignored the Gospels and kept the history of thE Mesenger. It seems the early Christians did follow the Godspel (God's word) (Injil in Arabic) but the Paulists Chose to keep the "Good Word" (Gospel) the accounts of Jesus's life.

The Injil was what Jesus(as) said, the Greek Author's saved very little of this, instead they kept a short history of Jesus(as). At some point The Injil became less important then the Messenger to the people and they ignored what had been given to them. With the advent of Paulism the worship of God(swt) was replaced by worship of the Prophet(PBUH)

[Al-manar]

:sl:

Wasn't Judas the one who betrayed Jesus peace be upon him? I read somewhere that before the Jews reached Jesus that he came to his 12 apostles and asked them who will be on his place to be caught by Jews and he will be rewarded to be at the same level as Jesus will be in the afterlife. There was one young man among the twelve apostles accepted that.
Could it be that this young man is Judas who betrayed Jesus?

:sl:

Dear sister ,

you have just provided one of the problems which make such gnostic based stories to be rejected entirely ,was Jesus betrayed by a disciple or had asked a disciple for a favor in return of a heavenly reward ! ?

in other words

a man betrayed jesus or a man helped him!!?

such narrations would not only make some wonder why would Allah if wanted to save jesus put someone else in his place ? what was the rationale for doing this?,but also it seems offenesive to one of the disciples (may Allah bless their souls) accusing him of being a traitor !!!

Such blessed disciples who been praised all without exception in the holy Quran:

[005:111] "And behold! I inspired the disciples to have faith in Me and Mine Apostle: they said, 'We have faith, and do thou bear witness that we bow to God as Muslims'".

[003:052] When Jesus found Unbelief on their part He said: "Who will be My helpers to (the work of) God?" Said the disciples: "We are God's helpers: We believe in God, and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims.

[061:014] O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of God: As said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) God?" Said the disciples, "We are God's helpers!"


As I have learned from reflecting the Glorious Quran,and have stated in one thread before.....
narrations could either elaborate the verse,or build a wall between the reader and the verse...

It is high time for the Quran reflectors to skip such Gnostic wall and go directly to the verse which is very clear ....... any information been circulated after the departure of Jesus was mere a conjecture ,which been in every kind and color......

one last question:

would the believe in such conjecture (whether, been killed,substituted,travelled and married etcc )harm the message of jesus or the faith of his followers?

in other words

suppose someone been taught the gospel and the law ,and once he listened to conjecture that Jesus been killed,would he no longer considered to be a believer ?
the answer is absolutely not...

It is the believe in the teacher and his message is one thing and the misinformation about the way his mission terminated is another..

disciple X believed in the gospel and kept the law,till he died

disciple X kept believing in true Monotheism till he died.

disciple X believed that jesus been killed,but his death just as other
prophets has no significance. .

disciple X will go to heaven inshaAllah.


peace

[Al-manar]

I don't think there was an Injil (i.e. a complete Book which Jesus either wrote or recited in full to his disciples) because there is no reliable evidence (i.e. from within 100 years, to be generous, of Jesus' death) that there was one, biblical or otherwise. .

Mark 10 Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee. 29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, 30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

Matthew 11:5

The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.


what is that gospel been preached to the poor? is it Jesus giving copies of a written work to his disciples to distribute among the people?

And given the disciples' dedication to Jesus' teaching and actions, it seems bizarre that they would have completely missed this.

missed what?preaching what he taught them?

if so, I don't think so. If not ,what do you mean?

if a sovereign God had wished for this Book to be revealed, it seems even more bizarre that He would have allowed it to be corrupted

God is sovereign and man has free will

I don't find the question why God allowed the bible to be corrupted by man,to be wise ,cause it would lead to other questions

Why would the sovereign God allow the man X (who has free will) to steal?

Why would the sovereign God allow the man X (who has free will)to produce cigarettes, harming himself and the others?

Why would the sovereign God created the man with free will,if he knows in advance that it will get man harm more than benefit?

Etc... Etc..............................

many questions from this kind ,while it is expected questions from agnostic ,atheist .... but I don't think it would be wise if a christian to ask a muslim such kind of questions.....

Don't get me into predestination,free will discussion from Islamic point of view....
;D
I don't have time to translate the proper rational Islamic works related(which none Available in English so far)....

Regards

[Euthyphro]

Does the Bible contain every word Jesus(as) preached during his 3 years of public ministry? I believe he had a large following during the time of his public ministry. Yet, when we read the Godspels we see very little of what he said. What we do see is a record of Jesus(as) and not the word of God(swt) that was given to him. We do know that e was often called Rabbi(Teacher) yet where are the words of what he taught. Very little of this as preserved, beyond the beautiful "Sermon on the Mount" which possibly was from the Injil.

At some point the history of the Messenger was preserved, but the people ignored the Message. It does seem that the people hearing the words of God(swt) would have preserved them in there minds and hearts and Grasped them with a tenacity that was as strong as a grip of steel. But, for some reason when the Greeks wrote down the Gospels they ignored the Gospels and kept the history of thE Mesenger. It seems the early Christians did follow the Godspel (God's word) (Injil in Arabic) but the Paulists Chose to keep the "Good Word" (Gospel) the accounts of Jesus's life.

The Injil was what Jesus(as) said, the Greek Author's saved very little of this, instead they kept a short history of Jesus(as). At some point The Injil became less important then the Messenger to the people and they ignored what had been given to them. With the advent of Paulism the worship of God(swt) was replaced by worship of the Prophet(PBUH)

I don't really know where to begin here. No, the gospels don't contain every word Jesus spoke - that would be ridiculous. But to say that we have very little of the message Jesus gave is equally ridiculous. It is clear from the gospels that Jesus preached the kingdom of God not just by speaking to different people (and there is plenty of that), but through miracles of healing and exorcism, and serving the poor and the lost - all of it is part of the gospel, the message which Jesus lived out on a daily basis. To suggest that he was just a mere Rabbi, and that the disciples distorted his teaching by making "The Injil less important than the Messenger" given the miracles Jesus did is to completely flatten the message. In Christianity, you see, Jesus is the message: he began the restoration of the Kingdom of God, and instructed his disciples to preach this "to the ends of the earth".

Which is exactly what Paul does in his ministry! Somehow you attempt to separate the "Paulists" from the early Christians, even though Paul's letters are the earliest Christian documents we have. And what is the gospel for Paul ? It's all about who Jesus is, and what he achieved in his ministry, death and resurrection!

This is what we get from a clear reading of the gospels and Paul. You haven't been able to say what it was Jesus actually talked about (The Injil), or given any historical reasons why we should disbelieve the gospels. Do you disagree that Jesus preached about the Kingdom of God? Do you disagree that his miracles and service to the poor are all to do with the message?

[Euthyphro]

Mark 10 Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee. 29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, 30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

Matthew 11:5

The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.


what is that gospel been preached to the poor? is it Jesus giving copies of a written work to his disciples to distribute among the people?

I'm a bit confused as to what you're trying to argue. Are you saying that "a gospel = a Book"? Gospel means "good news" - it is a message.

missed what?preaching what he taught them?

if so, I don't think so. If not ,what do you mean?

Missed the fact that Jesus was given a Book from God, or that Jesus claimed that he had been.

God is sovereign and man has free will

I don't find the question why God allowed the bible to be corrupted by man,to be wise ,cause it would lead to other questions

Why would the sovereign God allow the man X (who has free will) to steal?

Why would the sovereign God allow the man X (who has free will)to produce cigarettes, harming himself and the others?

Why would the sovereign God created the man with free will,if he knows in advance that it will get man harm more than benefit?

Etc... Etc..............................

many questions from this kind ,while it is expected questions from agnostic ,atheist .... but I don't think it would be wise if a christian to ask a muslim such kind of questions.....

Don't get me into predestination,free will discussion from Islamic point of view....
;D
I don't have time to translate the proper rational Islamic works related(which none Available in English so far)....

Regards

So you're saying that Qur'anic preservation isn't actually due to Allah, and it was just pure luck that this revelation managed to stay uncorrupted (unlike all the other Books that Allah revealed to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon...)?

My question is, essentially, why did Allah give Jesus a Book when He knew that Jesus' disciples would just mess it all up (just like all the Books before)? Why not choose a better way of revealing his message?

[Woodrow]

I don't really know where to begin here. No, the gospels don't contain every word Jesus spoke - that would be ridiculous. But to say that we have very little of the message Jesus gave is equally ridiculous. It is clear from the gospels that Jesus preached the kingdom of God not just by speaking to different people (and there is plenty of that), but through miracles of healing and exorcism, and serving the poor and the lost - all of it is part of the gospel, the message which Jesus lived out on a daily basis. To suggest that he was just a mere Rabbi, and that the disciples distorted his teaching by making "The Injil less important than the Messenger" given the miracles Jesus did is to completely flatten the message. In Christianity, you see, Jesus is the message: he began the restoration of the Kingdom of God, and instructed his disciples to preach this "to the ends of the earth".

Which is exactly what Paul does in his ministry! Somehow you attempt to separate the "Paulists" from the early Christians, even though Paul's letters are the earliest Christian documents we have. And what is the gospel for Paul ? It's all about who Jesus is, and what he achieved in his ministry, death and resurrection!

This is what we get from a clear reading of the gospels and Paul. You haven't been able to say what it was Jesus actually talked about (The Injil), or given any historical reasons why we should disbelieve the gospels. Do you disagree that Jesus preached about the Kingdom of God? Do you disagree that his miracles and service to the poor are all to do with the message?


Which is exactly what Paul does in his ministry! Somehow you attempt to separate the "Paulists" from the early Christians, even though Paul's letters are the earliest Christian documents we have. And what is the gospel for Paul ? It's all about who Jesus is, and what he achieved in his ministry, death and resurrection!

Peace Euthyphro,

even though Paul's letters are the earliest Christian documents we have

That is what I see as the problem.

I don't really know where to begin here. No, the gospels don't contain every word Jesus spoke - that would be ridiculous. But to say that we have very little of the message Jesus gave is equally ridiculous. It is clear from the gospels that Jesus preached the kingdom of God not just by speaking to different people (and there is plenty of that), but through miracles of healing and exorcism, and serving the poor and the lost - all of it is part of the gospel, the message which Jesus lived out on a daily basis. To suggest that he was just a mere Rabbi, and that the disciples distorted his teaching by making "The Injil less important than the Messenger" given the miracles Jesus did is to completely flatten the message. In Christianity, you see, Jesus is the message: he began the restoration of the Kingdom of God, and instructed his disciples to preach this "to the ends of the earth".

We do know that Jesus(as) did send his Disciples out to spread the word. We call that the Injil. Keep in mind the Gospels of Mark, Matthew Luke and John had yet to be written during the life of Jesus(as)'
No Jesus (as) not a mere Rabbi (teacher) he was a true Prophet as evidenced by his many miracles perfomed through him by God(swt)

Jesus(as) and all Prophets(PBUH) were not the messege. He did spread the true Injil, but sadly after he ascended into heaven, Paul spread a message about Jesus(as) and neglected the message Jesus(as) had spread.

[Al-manar]

It is clear from the gospels that Jesus preached the kingdom of God not just by speaking to different people (and there is plenty of that), but through miracles of healing and exorcism, and serving the poor and the lost - all of it is part of the gospel, the message which Jesus lived out on a daily basis.

Jesus as all other messenegers sent by God ,
had a message to convey (gospel) and God would provide his messenegers by tools(miracels) to give them religious legitimacy among people .
...

and again Jesus' actions eg, serving the poor and the lost ,are not gospel inspired from God but applying what he already been taught by God through the torah and the Injil.......
why to mix our cards here?!

To suggest that he was just a mere Rabbi, and that the disciples distorted his teaching

We don't know who his disciples are, to begin with.......

by making "The Injil less important than the Messenger" given the miracles Jesus did is to completely flatten the message.

That is if we assume that the gospel writers are disciples.....

In Christianity, you see, Jesus is the message: he began the restoration of the Kingdom of God

What is that (Kingdom of God) ? and how Jesus fulfilled his role ,according to the old testament?


Regards

[Al-manar]

I'm a bit confused as to what you're trying to argue. Are you saying that "a gospel = a Book"? Gospel means "good news" - it is a message.

A gospel ,for me is , good news for the believers and bad news for the disbelievers....

Missed the fact that Jesus was given a Book from God, or that Jesus claimed that he had been.

again that is assuming that they are authors of the gospels,or they put their signatures under what the writers of New Testament wrote !...

So you're saying that Qur'anic preservation isn't actually due to Allah, and it was just pure luck that this revelation managed to stay uncorrupted

It was preserved by God through us.......

God doesn't get a first class message that he protects from corruption and second class message that he let to be corrupted..
but he has two types of humans,those who undertake the trust and those not...


Regards

[Jenell]

What do Muslims believe about the Injil, the book revealed to Jesus? What was its general message? What language was it revealed in? How much of it is preserved in the gospels we have today, and is it possible to know what was originally in the Injil and what is later corruption?

ASA. It is not for us to guess and ponder over what was or what could have been (coulda, woulda, shoulda); it is for us to believe that Allah (SWT) sent the Injil, Torah, Zabur and Quran, to believe the books before the Quran did indeed exist. We are not held responsible for what was written in the Books prior to the Quran, so we should not try to make things harder for ourselves. There is Hadith in Al-Bukhari that talks about Umar (R.A.) reading the Torah so that he could argue with the Jews and the Prophet (SWS) told him to stop. Prophet (SWS) explained that if Moses (May Allah Be Pleased with Him) was alive during his time, Moses would have to follow the Prophet (SWS).
I hope this was helpful and not harmful.
ASA

"Our bodies has rights over us, treat them well."

[Euthyphro]

Peace Euthyphro,

even though Paul's letters are the earliest Christian documents we have

That is what I see as the problem.

I can see why that's a problem for people trying to argue that earliest Christian wasn't based around Jesus' identity, death and resurrection...but not for the Christian.

We do know that Jesus(as) did send his Disciples out to spread the word. We call that the Injil. Keep in mind the Gospels of Mark, Matthew Luke and John had yet to be written during the life of Jesus(as)'
No Jesus (as) not a mere Rabbi (teacher) he was a true Prophet as evidenced by his many miracles perfomed through him by God(swt)

Jesus(as) and all Prophets(PBUH) were not the messege. He did spread the true Injil, but sadly after he ascended into heaven, Paul spread a message about Jesus(as) and neglected the message Jesus(as) had spread.

How do we know that Jesus sent his Disciples to spread the Word (i.e. the gospel message) and that Jesus performed miracles other than the four gospels? Why should we trust their witness if they made up so much other garbage about dying, resurrection and distorting the true message?

You haven't given any historical evidence that shows the gospel message changed when Paul got his hands on it (since you have been unable to define what the true message was). Why should we disbelieve what the gospels say? Why do you think they are unreliable? And you haven't defended your radical claims about the Talmud Jmmanuel.

[Euthyphro]

*I meant "earliest Christians"*

[Euthyphro]

A gospel ,for me is , good news for the believers and bad news for the disbelievers....

OK, but what does "gospel" mean for a first-century Hellenistic Jew? And what were you trying to argue with the two passages you quoted?

again that is assuming that they are authors of the gospels,or they put their signatures under what the writers of New Testament wrote !...

Whoever wrote the New Testament is a moot point, as the NT is the only (possibly) reliable evidence we have about the disciples as well (apart from some Early Church Fathers, who don't help your case). My point is that absence of evidence, in this case, is evidence of absence, because we would expect some evidence if what you are claiming was true. All evidence points to the complete devotion of the disciples to Jesus and the message he preached, yet they seem blissfully unaware of anything to do with a Book.




[/QUOTE]
It was preserved by God through us.......

God doesn't get a first class message that he protects from corruption and second class message that he let to be corrupted..
but he has two types of humans,those who undertake the trust and those not...


Regards[/QUOTE]
So it was really down to who Allah gave the messages to as to whether the messages were preserved, right? But Allah chose those people, so why did he choose Jesus when he knew his disciples would mess up? Basically, why reveal His Word to people who can't be trusted to preserve it, causing all who follow in their footsteps to believe a corrupted message?

[Euthyphro]

* Apologies for messing up the quotes there...tiredness :( *

[Danah]

:sl:

Dear sister ,

you have just provided one of the problems which make such gnostic based stories to be rejected entirely ,was Jesus betrayed by a disciple or had asked a disciple for a favor in return of a heavenly reward ! ?

in other words

a man betrayed jesus or a man helped him!!?

such narrations would not only make some wonder why would Allah if wanted to save jesus put someone else in his place ? what was the rationale for doing this?,but also it seems offenesive to one of the disciples (may Allah bless their souls) accusing him of being a traitor !!!

Such blessed disciples who been praised all without exception in the holy Quran:

[005:111] "And behold! I inspired the disciples to have faith in Me and Mine Apostle: they said, 'We have faith, and do thou bear witness that we bow to God as Muslims'".

[003:052] When Jesus found Unbelief on their part He said: "Who will be My helpers to (the work of) God?" Said the disciples: "We are God's helpers: We believe in God, and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims.

[061:014] O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of God: As said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) God?" Said the disciples, "We are God's helpers!"


As I have learned from reflecting the Glorious Quran,and have stated in one thread before.....
narrations could either elaborate the verse,or build a wall between the reader and the verse...

It is high time for the Quran reflectors to skip such Gnostic wall and go directly to the verse which is very clear ....... any information been circulated after the departure of Jesus was mere a conjecture ,which been in every kind and color......






one last question:

would the believe in such conjecture (whether, been killed,substituted,travelled and married etcc )harm the message of jesus or the faith of his followers?

in other words

suppose someone been taught the gospel and the law ,and once he listened to conjecture that Jesus been killed,would he no longer considered to be a believer ?
the answer is absolutely not...

Of course NOT!
but its just a narration I read in a book called (The Sahih of Quran stories) and that narration was for Ibn Kathir May Allah have mercy on his soul that Jesus peace be upon him asked one of his disciple to be at his place.

As for the disciple who betrayed Jesus peace be upon him that was not from the Quran but from the bible "its my mistake I am sorry I should state that at my previous post" so I just wanted to know how far the two sources agreed upon that matter "IF" there is any similarity.


I wonder if you can read Arabic but here is the narration of Ibn Kathir if not I will try to find an English translation inshaAllah:

قال ابن أبي حاتم: حدثنا أحمد بن سنان، حدثنا أبو معاوية، عن المنهال بن عمرو، عن سعيد بن جبير، عن ابن عباس، قال: لما أراد الله أن يرفع عيسى إلى السماء خرج على أصحابه وفي البيت اثنا عشر رجلاً منهم من الحواريين، يعني فخرج عليهم من عين في البيت ورأسه يقطر ماء فقال: إن منكم من يكفر بي اثني عشرة مرة بعد أن آمن بي، ثم قال: أيكم يُلقى عليه شبهي فيقتل مكاني فيكون معي في درجتي؟ فقام شاب من أحدثهم سناً فقال له: اجلس. ثم أعاد عليهم فقام الشاب فقال: أنا، فقال: أنت هو ذاك. فأُلقي عليه شبه عيسى، ورُفع عيسى من روزنة في البيت إلى السماء.
قال: وجاء الطلب من اليهود فأخذوا الشبه فقتلوه ثم صلبوه فكفر به بعضهم اثنتي عشرة مرة بعد أن آمن به وافترقوا ثلاث فرق، فقالت طائفة: كان الله فينا ما شاء ثم صعد إلى السماء. وهؤلاء اليعقوبية. وقالت فرقة: كان فينا ابن الله ما شاء الله ثم رفعه الله إليه وهؤلاء النسطورية. وقالت فرقة: كان فينا عبد الله ورسوله ما شاء الله ثم رفعه الله إليه. وهؤلاء المسلمون، فتظاهرت الكافرتان على المسلمة فقتلوها فلم يزل الإسلام طامساً حتى بُعث الله محمداً صلى الله عليه وسلم.

I just wanted to know more about that matter

[Woodrow]

I can see why that's a problem for people trying to argue that earliest Christian wasn't based around Jesus' identity, death and resurrection...but not for the Christian.

Peace Euthyphro,

This will probably an area that our only recourse is to agree to disagree peacefully. If we both believed the same apout Paul, this debate would be non-existent. You have your reasons and justifications to believe that Paul preached Christianity. I have my reasons and justifications to believe that what he preached was not what Jesus(as) taught. I doubt if I can sway you from your view anymore than you can sway me from mine.



[QUOTE=Euthyphro;1247241]How do we know that Jesus sent his Disciples to spread the Word (i.e. the gospel message) and that Jesus performed miracles other than the four gospels? Why should we trust their witness if they made up so much other garbage about dying, resurrection and distorting the true message?[QUOTE]

To begin with we do not claim the NT is all wrong it does consider much that is in agreement with the Qur'an and we do believe those parts although we do prefer/should use the Qur'an rather then the NT, much the same as you would prefer to quote from the NT rather than what is said in the Qur'an.

We do not question the eyewitness accounts. There is no reason they spoke of what they saw. We do say that while they saw a person crucified, and did believe it to be Jesus(as) however, the person was not Jesus(as).

As far as Jesus(as) and his followers we do believe Jesus(as) was a true Prophet(PBUH) and that his followers were True Believers. The fact that they were true believers it is logical they would have gone out to spread the word.

You haven't given any historical evidence that shows the gospel message changed when Paul got his hands on it (since you have been unable to define what the true message was). Why should we disbelieve what the gospels say? Why do you think they are unreliable? And you haven't defended your radical claims about the Talmud Jmmanuel.

The reason we find the present day Gospels to be unreliable is because we do not see any evidence that places them as having been what was originally written. The oldest known writtings are in Greek. Since most of the People Jesus(as) spoke to were Jews and Aramaic was the colloqual language the Jews used the original should have been in Aramaic. What it appears to us anyhow, is that when the council of Nicea convened and decided to select what was to be in the NT they based their selection to only that which was in agreement of Paul and all other works were labeled as Gnostic and either destroyed or hidden from the common people.

The TJ turned out to be a poor choice for me to use as the oldest example of the Lord's prayer in Aramaic. I do have to agree I can not show any valid proof of it's authenticity.

[Euthyphro]

Salaam Woodrow, and thanks for your generous giving of reps!

Peace Euthyphro,

This will probably an area that our only recourse is to agree to disagree peacefully. If we both believed the same apout Paul, this debate would be non-existent. You have your reasons and justifications to believe that Paul preached Christianity. I have my reasons and justifications to believe that what he preached was not what Jesus(as) taught. I doubt if I can sway you from your view anymore than you can sway me from mine.

The problem is that the only reason you've given is that the Qur'an says otherwise. And you've only given subjective reasons to believe the massive claim that it is Allah's final revelation. I am very willing to be swayed when I see the appropriate evidence (either for the Qur'an or for an earlier version of Christianity that didn't proclaim Jesus' death and resurrection).

To begin with we do not claim the NT is all wrong it does consider much that is in agreement with the Qur'an and we do believe those parts although we do prefer/should use the Qur'an rather then the NT, much the same as you would prefer to quote from the NT rather than what is said in the Qur'an.

We do not question the eyewitness accounts. There is no reason they spoke of what they saw. We do say that while they saw a person crucified, and did believe it to be Jesus(as) however, the person was not Jesus(as).

As far as Jesus(as) and his followers we do believe Jesus(as) was a true Prophet(PBUH) and that his followers were True Believers. The fact that they were true believers it is logical they would have gone out to spread the word.

Italics: no it's not the same, really. As the Qur'an was written six hundred years ago, and contains legendary accounts of Jesus speaking as a baby and turning birds into clay, it cannot be considered a reliable source (not to mention that it denies the crucifixion, the most well-attested fact we know about Jesus' life). I don't pick and choose what I like from different sources (unless I have good reason to).

You don't question the eyewitness accounts, yet you readily reinterpret them when they are inconvenient (eg the crucifixion). What happens to the way we see history when we can say "Oh, it only appeared to the eyewitnesses that such and such happened" - is it historically valid for me to say "Oh, it only appeared to the eyewitnesses that Jerusalem was sacked in 70 A.D., but they were actually just confused or hallucinating" or "Oh, it only sounded to the listeners like Mohammed was speaking ayats of the Qur'an to them, but actually they were all just imagining". As a way of approaching history, I'm afraid to say it's pure nonsense.

The reason we find the present day Gospels to be unreliable is because we do not see any evidence that places them as having been what was originally written. The oldest known writtings are in Greek. Since most of the People Jesus(as) spoke to were Jews and Aramaic was the colloqual language the Jews used the original should have been in Aramaic. What it appears to us anyhow, is that when the council of Nicea convened and decided to select what was to be in the NT they based their selection to only that which was in agreement of Paul and all other works were labeled as Gnostic and either destroyed or hidden from the common people.

The TJ turned out to be a poor choice for me to use as the oldest example of the Lord's prayer in Aramaic. I do have to agree I can not show any valid proof of it's authenticity.

Italics: this is a bit of a sneaky sentence. Can reliable French biographies be written about Englishmen? Can they reliably record what an Englishman says despite not quoting them in their original language?

In fact, when we examine the gospels, much of the Greek put in Jesus' mouth can be readily translated back to Aramaic (which is not true of Greek normally). We see Hebraic idioms being translated into Greek (and often causing much confusion later, I might add, because of the gospel authors devotion to Jesus' actual words!). Of course there is some paraphrasing and summarising - because of the limitations of writing on papyri.

As for the stuff about the Council of Nicea, you need to read up a bit on your history and get away from hearsay. Despite popular myth (have you been reading Dan Brown by any chance?), the Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the Canon. And there are loads of extant Gnostic writings, many of which had fairly large numbers of adherents in the first few centuries. I invite you to reference any sources which show that the Church destroyed Gnostic manuscripts.

[There is a useful sourced article about these kinds of book-burning claims at http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qburnbx.html]

I'm glad you've decided to steer away from the TJ. I look forward to discussing with you about the authentic contemporary sources.

Yours,
Euthyphro

[Al-manar]

:sl:

but its just a narration I read in a book called (The Sahih of Quran stories)

I trust your words sister Danah,indeed what you wrote is written in such work.....

and that narration was for Ibn Kathir May Allah have mercy on his soul that Jesus peace be upon him asked one of his disciple to be at his place.

yes it is ..but more interesting is that you in your post never made a mistake.....

Ibn kathir have the contradictory betrayel narration as well


قال ابن جرير: وقد روي عن وهب نحو هذا القول، وهو ما حدثني المثنى، حدثنا إسحاق، حدثنا إسماعيل بن عبد الكريم، حدثني عبد الصمد بن معقل أنه سمع وهباً يقول: إن عيسى بن مريم لما أعلمه الله أنه خارج من الدنيا، جزع من الموت، وشق عليه، فدعا الحواريين، وصنع لهم طعاماً، فقال: احضروني الليلة، فإن لي إليكم حاجة، فلما اجتمعوا إليه من الليل، عشاهم، وقام يخدمهم، فلما فرغوا من الطعام، أخذ يغسل أيديهم، ويوضئهم بيده، ويمسح أيديهم بثيابه، فتعاظموا ذلك، وتكارهوه، فقال: ألا من رد عليّ الليلة شيئاً مما أصنع، فليس مني، ولا أنا منه، فأقروه، حتى إذا فرغ من ذلك، قال: أما ما صنعت بكم الليلة؛ مما خدمتكم على الطعام، وغسلت أيديكم بيدي، فليكن لكم بي أسوة، فإنكم ترون أني خيركم، فلا يتعاظم بعضكم على بعض، وليبذل بعضكم نفسه لبعض كما بذلت نفسي لكم، وأما حاجتي الليلة التي أستعينكم عليها، فتدعون الله لي، وتجتهدون في الدعاء أن يؤخر أجلي، فلما نصبوا أنفسهم للدعاء، وأرادوا أن يجتهدوا، أخذهم النوم حتى لم يستطيعوا دعاء، فجعل يوقظهم ويقول: سبحان الله، أما تصبرون لي ليلة واحدة، تعينوني فيها؟ فقالوا: والله ما ندري مالنا، لقد كنا نسمر فنكثر السمر، وما نطيق الليلة سمراً، وما نريد دعاء إلا حيل بيننا وبينه، فقال: يذهب الراعي وتفرق الغنم، وجعل يأتي بكلام نحو هذا ينعي به نفسه.
ثم قال: الحق ليكفرن بي أحدكم قبل أن يصيح الديك ثلاث مرات، وليبيعني أحدكم بدراهم يسيرة، وليأكلن ثمني. فخرجوا وتفرقوا، وكانت اليهود تطلبه، وأخذوا شمعون أحد الحواريين، وقالوا: هذا من أصحابه، فجحد وقال: ما أنا بصاحبه، فتركوه، ثم أخذه آخرون، فجحد كذلك، ثم سمع صوت ديك فبكى وأحزنه، فلما أصبح أتى أحد الحواريين إلى اليهود فقال: ما تجدون لي إن دللتكم على المسيح؟ فجعلوا له ثلاثين درهماً، فأخذها ودلهم عليه، وكان شبه عليهم قبل ذلك، فأخذوه فاستوثقوا منه وربطوه بالحبل، وجعلوا يقودونه ويقولون له: أنت كنت تحيي الموتى، وتنهر الشيطان، وتبرىء المجنون، أفلا تنجي نفسك من هذا الحبل؟ ويبصقون عليه، ويلقون عليه الشوك، حتى أتوا به الخشبة التي أرادوا أن يصلبوه عليها، فرفعه الله إليه، وصلبوا ما شبه لهم



That is why I said it is a problem included with the other problems of such concept...

I wonder if you can read Arabic

I stated that I read Tafsir Alkashaf (which available only in Arabic).

I just wanted to know how far the two sources agreed upon that matter "IF" there is any similarity.

The simliarity between them is that they both a conjecture...

I just wanted to know more about that matter

I have more details regarding such matter and other similar (walls) ,just I'm afraid the discussion may go further and further offtopic....
I can PM you with more on the topic if you would like,just let me know.....

And I'm pleased to share my thoughts with such knowledge seekers as you......


May Allah bless you


:wa:

[Al-manar]

Greetings,

Now I'm happy that the discussion is going to the right direction (the text itself)

Why should we disbelieve what the gospels say? Why do you think they are unreliable?

And

Whoever wrote the New Testament is a moot point,

Indeed, Whoever wrote the New Testament is a moot point,and that is what i was waiting you to get into.....

It is not who wrote the text ,but what the text itself claims...

[B]the NT is the only (possibly) reliable evidence we have about the disciples

And I would say the NT is not such reliable evidence ...... It has enough problems to reject the notion that it is from cover to cover reflects a divine message or even events to be taken with certainity...


Is it reliable to make one believe in a crucifiction resurrection?
Not till you clear up the contradictions therin...


Is it reliable if it claims The second coming of Jesus would be in the first century?

Is it reliable when its writers claim Jesus as the messiah king,and never show us a reliable proof for that?

why(Allah) reveal His Word to people who can't be trusted to preserve it ?

Why would Allah allow evil?

plz, let's discuss predestination and free will ,in another occasion...

but let's agree at the moment on:

Does Allah make mistakes? No ,people do.

Does Allah corrupt his own word? No ,some people did.

Regards

[Al-manar]

peace Euthyphro


It came to my mind idea to make my criticism more specific:


A claim

the NT writers are reliable and trustwothy in every word they wrote

Objection:

the NT writers are not reliable and trustwothy in every word they wrote

clues?

Just some :

The writer(s) of the gospel of Matthew:


1- Put on the mouth of Jesus a false prophecy

For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom."(matthew/16-28)


2- Misquoted the Old Testament several times.... eg,Isaiah 7:14.


3- contradicts the writer of the gospel of John in the resurrection narratives.

compare


Matthew 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. 3 His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4 And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men. 5 But the angel answered and said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7 And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you." 8 So they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word. 9 And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, "Rejoice!" So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me."

With

John 20:1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"



I think those three problems is a good way to begin textual verification to the reliability of the accounts of the NT books...


Regards

[Danah]

:sl:


I trust your words sister Danah,indeed what you wrote is written in such work.....



yes it is ..but more interesting is that you in your post never made a mistake.....

Ibn kathir have the contradictory betrayel narration as well


قال ابن جرير: وقد روي عن وهب نحو هذا القول، وهو ما حدثني المثنى، حدثنا إسحاق، حدثنا إسماعيل بن عبد الكريم، حدثني عبد الصمد بن معقل أنه سمع وهباً يقول: إن عيسى بن مريم لما أعلمه الله أنه خارج من الدنيا، جزع من الموت، وشق عليه، فدعا الحواريين، وصنع لهم طعاماً، فقال: احضروني الليلة، فإن لي إليكم حاجة، فلما اجتمعوا إليه من الليل، عشاهم، وقام يخدمهم، فلما فرغوا من الطعام، أخذ يغسل أيديهم، ويوضئهم بيده، ويمسح أيديهم بثيابه، فتعاظموا ذلك، وتكارهوه، فقال: ألا من رد عليّ الليلة شيئاً مما أصنع، فليس مني، ولا أنا منه، فأقروه، حتى إذا فرغ من ذلك، قال: أما ما صنعت بكم الليلة؛ مما خدمتكم على الطعام، وغسلت أيديكم بيدي، فليكن لكم بي أسوة، فإنكم ترون أني خيركم، فلا يتعاظم بعضكم على بعض، وليبذل بعضكم نفسه لبعض كما بذلت نفسي لكم، وأما حاجتي الليلة التي أستعينكم عليها، فتدعون الله لي، وتجتهدون في الدعاء أن يؤخر أجلي، فلما نصبوا أنفسهم للدعاء، وأرادوا أن يجتهدوا، أخذهم النوم حتى لم يستطيعوا دعاء، فجعل يوقظهم ويقول: سبحان الله، أما تصبرون لي ليلة واحدة، تعينوني فيها؟ فقالوا: والله ما ندري مالنا، لقد كنا نسمر فنكثر السمر، وما نطيق الليلة سمراً، وما نريد دعاء إلا حيل بيننا وبينه، فقال: يذهب الراعي وتفرق الغنم، وجعل يأتي بكلام نحو هذا ينعي به نفسه.
ثم قال: الحق ليكفرن بي أحدكم قبل أن يصيح الديك ثلاث مرات، وليبيعني أحدكم بدراهم يسيرة، وليأكلن ثمني. فخرجوا وتفرقوا، وكانت اليهود تطلبه، وأخذوا شمعون أحد الحواريين، وقالوا: هذا من أصحابه، فجحد وقال: ما أنا بصاحبه، فتركوه، ثم أخذه آخرون، فجحد كذلك، ثم سمع صوت ديك فبكى وأحزنه، فلما أصبح أتى أحد الحواريين إلى اليهود فقال: ما تجدون لي إن دللتكم على المسيح؟ فجعلوا له ثلاثين درهماً، فأخذها ودلهم عليه، وكان شبه عليهم قبل ذلك، فأخذوه فاستوثقوا منه وربطوه بالحبل، وجعلوا يقودونه ويقولون له: أنت كنت تحيي الموتى، وتنهر الشيطان، وتبرىء المجنون، أفلا تنجي نفسك من هذا الحبل؟ ويبصقون عليه، ويلقون عليه الشوك، حتى أتوا به الخشبة التي أرادوا أن يصلبوه عليها، فرفعه الله إليه، وصلبوا ما شبه لهم

I didn't know that there is a narration for Ibn Kathir about that!! Is there anywhere else we can find that narration?

I remembered reading about the sleeping of disciples at that night and the betrayer which was mentioned in the narration of Ibn Kathir was also mentioned in the quotes quoted from the bible in the book of Ahmed Deedat "Crucifixion Or Crucifiction" if you heard about that book.

I have more details regarding such matter and other similar (walls) :D,just I'm afraid the discussion may go further and further offtopic....
I can PM you with more on the topic if you would like,just let me know.....

Yes please, jazakAllah khair I am interested in that topic as well

:w:

[Euthyphro]

Salaam Al-manar,

In response to your three points:

1) This is certainly the most difficult issue about the gospels: "eschatology". The difficulty is the interpretation of such passages, written in highly apocalyptic language, and based on equally apocalyptic literature like the book of Daniel. I hold the orthodox preterist view, that the "Son of Man coming in his kingdom" is a prediction of judgement on Israel (specifically Jerusalem and the Temple) in AD 70. I recommend Andrew Perriman's book "The Coming of the Son of Man" for a good argument for this based on interpretation of the various "eschatological" passages (such as Mark 13, Matt 24).

2) How does this relate to historical reliability?
Anyway, with Isaiah 7:14 the writer simply quotes the variant known to him (and I think it's actually the oldest variant...but don't quote me on that).

3) I see no problems with the resurrection narratives - especially if they are from different eyewitnesses (as I would be happy to argue) who have different perspectives on the events. Historical reconstruction is always about putting the pieces together between different witnesses with different perspectives - just as happens in Law with numerous witnesses (often apparently conflicting). In fact, these surface "problems" are great evidence that the writers of the gospels weren't simply involved in a great conspiracy, making up the resurrection story!

Here is a highly plausible chain of events which makes sense of the different resurrection narratives and the actions of the various participants:

"Very early a group of women, including Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, Salome, and Joanna set out for the tomb. Meanwhile two angels are sent; there is an earthquake and one angel rolls back the stone and sits upon it. The soldiers faint and then revive and flee into the city. The women arrive and find the tomb opened; without waiting, Mary Magdalene, assuming someone has taken the Lord's body, runs back to the city to tell Peter and John. The other women enter the tomb and see the body is gone. The two angels appear to them and tell them of the resurrection. The women then leave to take the news to the disciples. Peter and John run to the tomb with Mary Magdalene following. Peter and John enter the tomb, see the grave clothes, and then return to the city, but Mary Magdalene remains at the tomb weeping, and Jesus makes His first appearance to her. Jesus next appears to the other women who are on their way to find the disciples. Jesus appears to Peter; He appears to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus; and then appears to a group of disciples including all of the Eleven except Thomas." (Quoted from Casteel, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.)

[Al-manar]

Peace Euthyphro

1) This is certainly the most difficult issue about the gospels: "eschatology". The difficulty is the interpretation of such passages, written in highly apocalyptic language, and based on equally apocalyptic literature like the book of Daniel. I hold the orthodox preterist view, that the "Son of Man coming in his kingdom" is a prediction of judgement on Israel (specifically Jerusalem and the Temple) in AD 70.

Matthew 24:29
Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory,And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.


Revelation 1:7 Behold, He is coming with clouds, and every eye will see Him, even they who pierced Him. And all the tribes of the earth will mourn because of Him.

2 Peter 3:1-12 Beloved, I now write to you this second epistle in both of which I stir up your pure minds by way of reminder, that you may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us, the apostles of the Lord and Savior, knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation." For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up. Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat?

what happened,exactly, in AD 70 that fulfilled these prophecies?

If Jesus did not mean that the heavenly signs in his prophecy would literally happen, what did he mean?

2) How does this relate to historical reliability?
Anyway, with Isaiah 7:14 the writer simply quotes the variant known to him (and I think it's actually the oldest variant...but don't quote me on that).

Not historical reliability ,it is a writer(Mathew) reliability...

The man made a claim in the very beginning of his gospel ,and we think that he exposed his true face very early before he goes on in his gospel....
before going into details ,would you ,plz answer that quesion:


Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. 15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. 16 But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste.

may be getting the whole context would help better...
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...+7&version=NIV.


The Question: who is the word in bold (the boy)according to the context of Isaiah refers to?

I know the answer for sure,just would like to get yours....

3) In fact, these surface "problems" are great evidence that the writers of the gospels weren't simply involved in a great conspiracy, making up the resurrection story!

the resurrection story has surface problems eg,(how many angels talked to the women),which i would skip,and has core problems

which i would show soon, just I need an answer to another question:



Matthew 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. 3 His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4 And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men. 5 But the angel answered and said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7 And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you." 8 So they went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word. 9 And as they went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, "Rejoice!" So they came and held Him by the feet and worshiped Him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me."


What does the word in bold (the women) refers to according to the context ?



Regards

[Euthyphro]

Salaam, Al-Manar, and apologies for the long time between posts. As much as I love discussing the gospels, this had to take a back seat for awhile so I could catch up on things I had to do in the "real world"! You raise some good points; my answers here will be very brief, so do ask me about the details if you're interested.

Firstly, the prophetic passages. I will ignore Revelation and 2 Peter for the time being (since we are talking about the reliability of the gospels), and focus on Matt 24:29-31.

I strongly recommend the exegesis of R.T. France for this passage (and indeed Matthew as a whole) in his commentary "The Gospel of Matthew" (New International Commentary on the New Testament). France interprets the apocalyptic imagery (note that this is clearly symbolic language) in v. 29-31 on the basis of its allusions with Old Testament passages in Isaiah and Daniel (each passage being related to God's earlier judgement on pagan cities and nations).

Secondly, Matthew's use of Isaiah 7:14. Of course, this passage originally referred to Ahaz's son - but like with many of the passages Matthew quotes, he is using the typology of a previous prophecy and applying it to the present. This was (and is) a common way to use prophetic passages in Scripture.

Finally, the resurrection passage. I agree, a plain reading of the passage gives the impression that "the women" refers to the two Marys. However, I find John Wenham's comments on the matter helpful:

"Matthew mentions Mary Magdalene and the other Mary at the burial and as setting out for the tomb. The angel speaks to "the women," who "ran to tell his disciples. And behold, Jesus met them."(27:55f.,61;28:1,5,8f.) If we had only Matthew we should take "the women" and "them" to be the Marys. But complicated movements of five women were apparently involved--Mary Magdalene left before the women entered the tomb, and the notifying of disciples required visits both to John's house and to Bethany. Probably only "the other Mary" was present at every point in the story and "the women" and "them" do not refer precisely to the two mentioned by name. Matthew is giving the detail necessary to convey his message, further elaboration would have been pointless distraction. He could of course have avoided any question by saying at verse 1 'certain women', but this would have been unnecessarily vague. His mention of Mary Magdalene and Mary of Clopas would have been suitable for three reasons: 1. It was they who set out together from Bethany as described at the beginning of his account. 2. Mary Magdalene was of special importance since she was the first person to see Jesus. 3. Mary of Clopas, however, was the one who was present throughout his whole narrative. Although he leaves out many details his is a judicious and accurate statement of what happened." (Wenham, "Easter Enigma")

I find this approach to be the most honest historically and exegetically. We have to take into account the historical details Matthew wants to convey to his particular audience.

Yours,
Euthyphro

[Al-manar]

Peace ,Euthyphro

Salaam, Al-Manar, and apologies for the long time between posts. As much as I love discussing the gospels, this had to take a back seat for awhile so I could catch up on things I had to do in the "real world"!

That is a wise thing.....

Ignoring the real world and addiction to books, reading etc... Could be a damage to one's life....

Real life should have the priority always.. I'm afraid my addiction to
Reading and writing will affect me once I will have a stable family life....
I hope to deal with this matter with wisdom inshaAllah....

I strongly recommend the exegesis of R.T. France for this passage (and indeed Matthew as a whole) in his commentary "The Gospel of Matthew" (New International Commentary on the New Testament). France interprets the apocalyptic imagery (note that this is clearly symbolic language) in v. 29-31 on the basis of its allusions with Old Testament passages in Isaiah and Daniel (each passage being related to God's earlier judgment on pagan cities and nations).

I think some direct quotations from the exegesis of R.T. France ,would help the readers of the post to get the full image?...

I find John Wenham's comments on the matter helpful

And I found no commentary,theory that solved such serious problem ....
John Wenham use the multiple visits theory ,but the fact such theory been refuted totally :

This early-departure quibble is nothing but another straw that inerrantists have grabbed to try to find consistency in the maze of inconsistencies that run throughout the resurrection narratives.

they try hopelessly to make John's Mary Magdalena consistent with the Mary Magdalena in Matthew's account

Is it is possible that Mary M left the tomb before she heard the angel's message?

The grammatical structure of Matthew's narrative requires readers to understand that Mary Magdalene was present from 28:1 through 28:10, and so she had to have both heard the angel announce the resurrection and experienced the personal encounter with Jesus after the women had run from the tomb. "Matthew" named only Mary Magdalene and the other Mary in his narrative; therefore, the reference to "the women" whom the angel spoke to in verse 5 by necessity had to include Mary Magdalene, and the plural pronouns they and them thereafter, which referred back to "the women," also, by grammatical necessity, had to include Mary Magdalene. No other conclusion can be obtained from the grammatical structure of this passage.

Matthew 28:1 Now after the Sabbath, as the first day of the week began to dawn, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. 2 And behold, there was a great earthquake; for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. 3 His countenance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. 4 And the guards shook for fear of him, and became like dead men. 5 But the angel answered and said to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here; for He is risen, as He said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. 7 And go quickly and tell His disciples that He is risen from the dead, and indeed He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you." 8 So Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went out quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to bring His disciples word. 9 And as Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to tell His disciples, behold, Jesus met Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, saying, "Rejoice!" So Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came and held Him by the feet . 10 Then Jesus said to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell My brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see Me."

he grammatical structure of Matthew's text will not allow this early departure of Mary Magdalene or the other Mary. If she departed before "the angels popped in," then just who the hell were the women whom the angel spoke to in Matthew 28:5? The two Marys were the only women that Matthew mentioned in his narrative.


The grammatical structure makes it so that it's impossible to divorce Mary Magdalene from not only having been there the whole time but also, necessarily makes her one of the women who saw a vision of angels who said that Jesus was alive!


Aside from this, there is a fact that I have already established: if the gospel writers were indeed "inspired" by the omniscient, omnipotent "Holy Spirit," then they were not the ones deciding what to include and what to exclude. That decision was being made for them; otherwise, there would have been no logical purpose at all for the "Holy Spirit" to have "inspired" them.

what sense is the Bible the "word of God." If, for example, Mark wrote what Mark chose to select, then the gospel of Mark would not be "the word of God" but the word of Mark. If not, why not?
If the "inspiration" of the omniscient, omnipotent "Holy Spirit" did not so guide and direct the writers that what they wrote was truth, then what was the purpose of inspiration? Was the "Holy Spirit" just wasting his time exercising an influence called "inspiration" that accomplished nothing more than what they writers could have accomplished on their own through reliance on oral traditions and their own personal experiences and choices?
If the Bible is indeed "the word of God," as biblical inerrantists claim, then it can be the word of God only if it is the word of God and not the word of Isaiah or Jeremiah or John or Mark or the apostle Paul . If the gospel of Mark contains only what Mark knew from his own personal experiences or familiarity with "oral traditions" and included by choices that he himself made, then what was the purpose of divine "inspiration"?

If the gospel writers were indeed "inspired" by the omniscient, omnipotent "Holy Spirit," then they were not writing what they chose to write or what they knew from "oral traditions" or their own personal experiences but were writing what they were directed by the omni-one to write. If the apostles, when they were brought before kings, did not speak their own words but what the "spirit of the Father" spoke through them, then why, when they were writing the New Testament, did they not write what the Holy Spirit was writing through them? Unless this was the case, then the gospel of Mark was not "the word of God" but the word of Mark, and the gospel of Matthew was not "the word of God" but the word of Matthew. If not, why not?


1. By names, who were “the women” who went to the tomb in Matthew’s narrative?

2. What is your textual basis for this answer?

3. If you excluded Mary Magdalene from your answer to number 1, what was your textual basis for this exclusion.

4. By names, who were “the women” whom the angel told that Jesus had risen (v:5)?

5. If you excluded Mary Magdalene from your answer to number 4, what was your textual basis for this exclusion?

6. By names, who were “the women” who ran from the tomb and encountered the resurrected Jesus (vs:8-10).

7. If you excluded Mary Magdalene from your answer to number 6. what was your textual basis for this exclusion?

8. If you included Mary Magdalene in your answers, how do you explain Mary Magdalene’s telling Peter and John that the body of Jesus had been stolen if she had by this time encountered both the angel and the risen Jesus?

Secondly, Matthew's use of Isaiah 7:14. Of course, this passage originally referred to Ahaz's son but like with many of the passages Matthew quotes, he is using the typology of a previous prophecy and applying it to the present. This was (and is) a common way to use prophetic passages in Scripture.

There is something positive and another negative from your part

The positive thing is that you (as few Christians) respected the context and wasn't seduced by the common way bible apologetics try to defend the passage and insisting on the claim that it simply refers to future fulfillment.....


The negative thing is that you resort to a new apologetic dodge to risk the gospel writers...

Their argument is that: if A deceptive dishonest interpretation been used by some Jews in the past and been accepted then, we as modern readers should accept it as well….

In other words they try to prove biblical inerrancy by assuming inerrancy


Let me elaborate more for the readers

And let me also introduce some Quranic material which is closely related to the serious critical point we are discussing now:

The Holy Quran affirms the human tampering with the bible ,It condemns those who write from their own mind a material claiming it to be inspired from God

Holy Quran 6:93 Who can be more wicked than one who inventeth a lie against Allah, or saith, "I have received inspiration," when he hath received none.

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


Though the previous verses condemn the general act of fabrication to the word of God…
The following verses highlight a special kind of tampering, it is a device been used basically by the Jews:


Holy Quran 5:41 O Messenger. let not those grieve thee, who race each other into unbelief: (whether it be) among those who say "We believe" with their lips but whose hearts have no faith; or it be among the Jews,- men who will listen to any lie,- will listen even to others who have never so much as come to thee. They change the words from their (right) times and places


The accusation is clear; it is the game of playing with words applying them to the wrong time and place ….

Such technique is called Pesher:

Pesher Hebrew for ‘commentary’ and particularly used for commentaries on the OT in the Dead Sea scrolls, which looked for hidden meanings in the text which were seen to apply to and to justify the community's way of life. The NT use of OT texts has some similarity with this method: over and above the original sense, a passage is said to have a special meaning for the present time (e.g. 1 Cor. 10: 11). Another, similar, method of interpretation was midrash (‘study’), which was essentially oral exposition in the synagogue to elucidate difficulties.

A Pesher is a kind of commentary on the Bible that was common in the community that wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls. This kind of commentary is not an attempt to explain what the Bible meant when it was originally written, but rather what it means in the day and age of the commentator, particularly for his own community. In the Isaiah Pesher, or commentary on the book of Isaiah, a verse or verses from Isaiah are quoted. Then the commentary begins, often introduced by the word "pesher," or "the interpretation of the word..." If we were to write a commentary in this way today we might quote a bible verse and then say, "and the meaning of the verse is..." and go on to show the significance of the verse for our own church, synagogue, or society.
We know from other scrolls at Qumran that the people who wrote many of the scrolls had serious conflicts and disagreements with the religious leaders in Jerusalem over the proper way to conduct worship in the Temple. Most scholars think that the community of the Dead Sea Scrolls was led by a group of priests who thought that the Jerusalem priests were corrupt. The group at Qumran therefore started their own community in which they tried to live pure and righteous lives, away from the corrupting influence of Jerusalem.

The Jewish Christians of Matthew's community believed that in
following the teaching of Jesus the messiah they were the authentic Jews
and the “true 1srael.”" Yet Matthew and his community also seem to
realize that their viewpoint is not the dominant one and that the Pharisaic
perspective was beginning to hold sway in “formative Judaism"-thus
the hostility and urgency of the gospel in attacking the Jewish leaders and
Claiming righteousness for those who would follow Jesus. The intention of Matthew page,23 By David E. Garland


-The eleven Matthian editorial quotations of the Old Testament, should be understood as pesher treatments of the Old Testament, And in dealing with them, the following factors should be constantly kept in mind (1) the Jewish concepts of corporate solidarity and typological correspondences in history (2) the Christian convictions of eschatological fulfillment and messianic presence (3) the treatment of certain prophecies and biblical events in the analogous eschatological and charismatic community at Qumran :and (4) the realization that prior to the standardization of the consonantal text at jamina there probably exited more versions and recessions of the old testament than are now extant ,as the discoveries at Qumran seem to indicate …..
Biblical exegesis in the apostolic period, page,127 By Richard N. Longenecker





- The community which the gospel writers belong to, though being a Jewish group but just as the Qumran group applied quotations from the book of Habakkuk to their founder (the teacher of righteousness) they were convinced that these prophecies found their fulfillments and their ultimate meaning in this person and the community he founded. The quotations they used in the book of Habakkuk indicate that the Qumran group felt free to adapt and shape the text in the light of their convictions about its fulfillment .this type of pesher method is what Matthew and his school exercised with the formula quotations. Matthew’s school shaped and rendered these key quotations to fit the contours of their traditions (a mixture of true and false hearsay accounts) about Jesus and his teachings.
What are they saying about Matthew?p,230 By Donald Senior


- The pesher like methods (which is condemned clearly in the Quran) is found wherever you find human desires and a purpose of indoctrination…..once you find a quest for religious legitimacy and status, once you find either modifying the text, and if not possible then to twist, distort, pervert, and concoct its verses as expediency dictated…. Such crime of deception in the name of religion have been practiced by the Jews, Christians and even in the Sufi sect who make The division of textual knowledge into exoteric, or manifest, esoteric, or hidden …. Thuse their priests interpret the Qur'anic verses in ways not only different from the apparent meanings, but contradict them.



- There are only two options to Christians:
Literal or nonliteral interpretation .If the literal method is accepted, one thereby falsifies the New Testament use of the Old Testament .If one accepts a nonliteral approach, then any interpretation is possible, and the whole operation becomes meaningless. Anthony Collins


-The true colors of the creators of Christianity come through in their entire radiant splendor. Examples of their perfidious display of propagandistic propensities are abundantly evident to anyone with a reasonably critical eye....
we have provided more than enough evidence to prove that NT writers have misquoted, misinterpreted, twisted, distorted, perverted, misapplied and misunderstood a sizable number of OT verses. They have even gone so far as to manufacture OT verses that don't even exist. Anyone who looks for objective scholarship in the field of biblical apologetics has embarked upon a journey into the realm of myth and fantasy in which people search for the nonexistent. Nothing is so biased as someone whose heart precedes his head, whose desire precedes his discretion, whose wish precedes his wisdom.. Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy


And finally the Quranic advice :

5:77 Say: "O people of the Book! exceed not in your religion the bounds (of what is proper), trespassing beyond the truth, nor follow the vain desires of people (the gospel writers and the desires of their deviant communities)who went wrong in times gone by,- who misled many, and strayed (themselves) from the even way.

Peace and guidance

[Al-manar]

I've yet to see facts be laid out, Historians currently accept that there was an early gospel coming after Jesus' crucifixion and death called the Q gospel

the theory of Q gospel is a well established one .... and if proven with absolute certainity it (besides the gospel of Thomas)would support the Quranic view of (the saying gospel aka Injil) ...

Parts of the injil (according to the Quran) has to be parts of (Q) and could be parts of the gospel of Thomas as well......

the injil is not a work that been lost completely... we find necessarily part of it in the 4 gospels and any saying gospel,discovered or still to
be discovered.....

what we have now is the true infallible Word of God

my previous posts suggests that what we have now is the false contradictory word of man.

Jesus received 0 words of God

really?!!

He was Immanuel (God With Us).

In light of the pesher game ,the writer of Matthew played with Isaiah 7(as I showed in previous posts) ,sorry to tell you Jesus was not Immanuel.
and I would add he is neither God nor with us.

I also believe that John comes first and all the Gospels were written before 70AD. (Less than 40 years after Christ's death).

When or who wrote it ,it doesn't matter ....

what matters (me at least) what it does say.....

Regards

[Al-manar]

Wikipedia:

Good News is the English translation of the Koine Greek ευαγγέλιον (euangelion) (eu "good" + angelion "message").The Greek term was Latinized as evangelium, and translated into Latin as bona annuntiatio. In Old English, it was translated as gōdspel (gōd "good" + spel "news"). The Old English term was retained as gospel in Middle English Bible translations and hence remains in use also in Modern English.