Quran VS Bible , a thoroughly comparative study,arranged by items

[IAmZamzam]

The past few posts bring to mind:

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"
attributed to Edmund Burke-- circa:1790

In which case we can hardly call them good at all.

[Grace Seeker]

This converation with Hiroshi has, I think, been meaningful. But I am curious how it is that it ended up in this thread rather than in the Questions of Jehovah Witnesses thread? Anyway, can we return to Al-manar's analysis of the Quran vs. the Bible here but continue this other discussion regarding JW views there?

[Al-manar]

This converation with Hiroshi has, I think, been meaningful. But I am curious how it is that it ended up in this thread rather than in the Questions of Jehovah Witnesses thread? Anyway, can we return to Al-manar's analysis of the Quran vs. the Bible here but continue this other discussion regarding JW views there?

That is true ,and I suggest the moderators that the previous posts regarding JW better be moved to its right thread about JW ,in order to enrich it and help the reader to find what he want to read...

On a personal note I do not believe the numbers of people willing to die for any faith is proof of the truth of the religion, but it is strong evidence that the followers have strong faith it is true.

well Said Bro Woodrow..

I think the bigger issue here is not that there are contradictions, nor even how many there are, but the mere fact that up until the point of the crucifixion the four Gospels remain primarily consistent with each other (for the most part—sort of) about the majority of key issues, and then once you get into the passion the contradictions suddenly start piling up out of nowhere and just keep on increasing until the resurrection saga at the end where hardly anything is consistent. It seems to strongly support the notion, held by Muslims, Gnostics, and many secular writers, that this part is the least reliable and most mythically embellished section of the whole saga.

And

No, there's really nothing in the Koran about it at all, and the ahadith in question are quite controversial.

the first post is intellegent note, indeed, just to add ...the biggest issue with the New Testament is not the contradiction (which you correctly said,that they keep on increasing until the resurrection) but the issue of accommodation ...... I believe it is the biggest ,most serious issue ...and the last dozen of my posts ,are just an intoduction to such serious issue.....

the second comment, comes only from advanced reader to Islamic issues.... just my advice one needs to approach such controversy and the other similar controversies eg; Apostasy etc... in a moderate way and not to exaggerate... and Allah knows best...


.................................................. ...............

back to Issue ( Origin of the christianity that should had been VS the christianity that shouldn't had been )

"'(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.

What had been forbidden to the Jews ,that Jesus came to allow some?

The answer to that question needs getting the broader context , before examining the law of food with the children of Israel ,according to the Quran, we need to get the context:

How far God blessed the Jews?


1- He rescued them from agony and afflection.

Quran - 7:141
And remember We rescued you from Pharaoh's people, who afflicted you with the worst of penalties, who slew your male children and saved alive your females: in that was a momentous trial from your Lord.


2-He made them inheritors of a blessed land,due to their patience and constancy,made amongst them prophets, and kings.

Quran - 7:137 And We made a people, considered weak (and of no account), inheritors of lands in both east and west, - lands whereon We sent down Our blessings. The fair promise of thy Lord was fulfilled for the Children of Israel, because they had patience and constancy, and We levelled to the ground the great works and fine buildings which Pharaoh and his people erected (with such pride).

Quran - 10:93
And [thereafter], indeed, We assigned unto the children of Israel a most goodly abode, and provided for them sustenance out of the good things of life.

Quran - 5:20
And Moses said to his people: "My people, remember God's favour upon you that he made amongst you prophets, and made you kings, and he gave you what He had not given any from the worlds."


But alas


They:


1- Corrupted the revelation:

5:13 they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them..

etc....

2- broke the convenant

Holy Quran 4:154
raising Mount Sinai high above them in witness of their solemn pledge. And We said unto them, “Enter the gate humbly”; and We told them, "Do not break the Sabbath-law"; and We accepted from them a most solemn pledge.

Holy Quran 2:84
And We have taken a covenant with you: "You shall not spill each other's blood, nor drive each other out from your homes." And you agreed to this while bearing witness.
Yet you it is who slay your people and turn a party from among you out of their homes, backing each other up against them unlawfully and exceeding the limits; and if they should come to you, as captives you would ransom them-- while their very turning out was unlawful for you. Do you then believe in a part of the Book and disbelieve in the other? What then is the re ward of such among you as do this but disgrace in the life of this world, and on the day of resurrection they shall be sent back to the most grievous chastisement, and Allah is not at all heedless of what you do.


2- Sins and transegressions

Quran - 5:62
And you see many of them hasten to sin and transgression and consuming money illicitly (or eating of things forbidden ). Miserable indeed is what they were doing.


Quran - 4:161
And because they practised usury although it had been forbidden them; and for using others' wealth unjustly. For those who are unbelievers among them We have reserved a painful punishment.


Quran - 2:58
And [remember the time] when We said: "Enter this land, and eat of its food as you may desire. abundantly; but enter the gate humbly and say, `Remove Thou from us the burden of our sins', [whereupon] We shall forgive you your sins, and shall amply reward the doers of good."
Then the evildoers substituted a saying other than that which had been said to them; so We sent down upon the evildoers wrath out of heaven for their ungodliness.


Holy Quran 7:163 And ask them about that town which stood by the sea: how its people would profane the Sabbath whenever their fish came to them, breaking the water's surface, on a day on which they ought to have kept Sabbath -because they would not come to them on other than Sabbath-days! Thus did We try them by means of their [own] iniquitous doings.


3 - Rejecting the signs ,killing the prophets:


Quran - 2:61
they went on rejecting the Signs of Allah and slaying His Messengers without just cause. This because they rebelled and went on transgressing.


Quran - 2:87
We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers; We gave Jesus the son of Mary Clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit. Is it that whenever there comes to you a messenger with what ye yourselves desire not, ye are puffed up with pride?- Some ye called impostors, and others ye slay!


4-They ordered the people to do good, but forget To practise it , sold the revelations for a trifling price such as worldly gains, status and renown , overlayed the truth with falsehood, suppressing the truth.

Quran - 2:41 And believe in that which I have sent down confirming that which is with you, and be not the first to disbelieve therein, and barter not My revelations for a small price, and Me alone shall ye fear.
42. And cover not Truth with falsehood, nor conceal the Truth when ye know (what it is).
44. Do ye enjoin right conduct on the people, and forget (To practise it) yourselves, and yet ye study the Scripture? Will ye not understand?


The punishment ?

1- covered with humiliation and misery

Quran - 2:61
They were covered with humiliation and misery; they drew on themselves the wrath of Allah.


2-Cursed by God and some prophets...

And because of their breaking their covenant, We have cursed them and made hard their hearts.

4:47 O you who have been given the Book! believe that which We have revealed, verifying what you have, before We alter faces then turn them on their backs, or curse them as We cursed the violaters of the Sabbath, and the command of Allah shall be executed.
Quran - 5:78
Cursed are those who have rejected from among the Children of Israel by the tongue of David and Jesus son of Mary. That is for what they have disobeyed, and for what they transgressed.

no wonder both David and Jesus are depicted shamefuly (by those whom they cursed)...one as adultrer and another as son of adultry!


3- Were given hard laws .

Holy Quran 4:160
And because of the iniquity (or injustice) of the Jews, We have forbidden them the good things which We had made lawful for them, and for their much obstructing the way of Allah.


The Bible?


Ezekiel 20: 21 “‘But the children rebelled against me: They did not follow my decrees, they were not careful to keep my laws, of which I said, “The person who obeys them will live by them,” and they desecrated my Sabbaths. So I said I would pour out my wrath on them and spend my anger against them in the wilderness. 22 But I withheld my hand, and for the sake of my name I did what would keep it from being profaned in the eyes of the nations in whose sight I had brought them out. 23 Also with uplifted hand I swore to them in the wilderness that I would disperse them among the nations and scatter them through the countries, 24 because they had not obeyed my laws but had rejected my decrees and desecrated my Sabbaths, and their eyes lusted after their parents’ idols. 25 So I gave them other statutes that were not good and laws through which they could not live

..................................

After we got the context ,let's now concentrate more on the things that were prohibited for the Jews then....

The law of food with the children of Israel ,according to the Quran, had stages:

1- Pre-torah era:

Holy Quran 3:93 All food was lawful to the children of Israel except that which Israel(Jacob) had forbidden to himself, before the Taurat was revealed.



Till next post

peace

[Hiroshi]

They:


1- Corrupted the revelation:

5:13 they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them..

etc....

Yusuf Ali has this comment to that verse in a footnote: "they began to misuse Scripture itself, by either taking words out of their right meaning, or applying them to things for which they were never meant".

Surah 5:13 does not mean that the Jews corrupted the writings of the Scriptures. It means that they misapplied the words by taking them out of context.

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

[Al-manar]

Yusuf Ali has this comment to that verse in a footnote: "they began to misuse Scripture itself, by either taking words out of their right meaning, or applying them to things for which they were never meant".

Surah 5:13 does not mean that the Jews corrupted the writings of the Scriptures. It means that they misapplied the words by taking them out of context.

yes the Jews , misapplied the words by taking them out of context, besides, displacing, adding,deleting....
more important writing a text from their minds claiming it to be the word of God....

Quran2:79

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


not sure if you read my posts which examined the issue in details right here

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...-items-24.html

[Hiroshi]

It's not always about spreading Christianity. Sometimes it just about defending the week and helpless and lifting the burden of the oppressed.

You do realize that those who abstain from the political world, whether it is their intent or not, have effectively cast their lot with prevailing said, be it for good or evil, they are saying they don't care.

The Jews suffered greatly under the oppression and heavy taxation of imperial Rome. They were desperate for someone to arise as the Messiah who would lead them into battle against this tyranny and defeat all of their enemies. At first, Jesus seemed the perfect candidate with his miraculous ability to feed thousands with five loaves and two fishes. This would have given them a military advantage under times of siege and food shortage. But Jesus proved a disappointment for them. When the people came to make him their king by force he withdrew into a mountain all alone (John 6:15). Perhaps many viewed that as uncaring cowardice on his part. But Jesus had a sacred responsibility entrusted to him and could not concern himself with worldly political squabbles. And Jesus' disciples have to follow his example.

[Hiroshi]

yes the Jews , misapplied the words by taking them out of context, besides, displacing, adding,deleting....
more important writing a text from their minds claiming it to be the word of God....

Quran2:79

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

The Qur'an is clear in saying that (1) the Torah and Injeel were revelations from God and (2) that no one can corrupt or change the words or decrees of God.

But many books have been made that are claimed to be from God but are not and never were. This must be what the above verse is referring to.

[جوري]

But Jesus had a sacred responsibility entrusted to him and could not concern himself with worldly political squabbles.

shouldn't 'God' be able to do everything?.. I mean did he entrust the 'sacred responsibility to himself' or did some other being entrust it unto him.. also why would god descend on earth and be so ineffectual taking a hiatus to a mountain retreat away from his subjects? He created the universe, yet couldn't manage a few folks in Palestine? Is this a joke?

he created all of this:

yet took a retreat in the mountain and was crucified by a couple of provincial villagers? Sob7an Allah!

[Al-manar]

The Qur'an is clear in saying that (1) the Torah and Injeel were revelations from God .

yes ..

that no one can corrupt or change the words of God..

verse?

[Hiroshi]

yes ..

verse?

The Qur’ān says: “There is none that can alter the Words (and Decrees) of God.” (Al-An‘ām 6:34) Thus, all attempts to change God’s words have failed because it is inconceivable that God would permit any manipulation of his books.

[جوري]

The Qur’ān says: “There is none that can alter the Words (and Decrees) of God.” (Al-An‘ām 6:34) Thus, all attempts to change God’s words have failed because it is inconceivable that God would permit any manipulation of his books.

Said verse is about the Quran so there is no manipulation of his 'book' not books!

all the best

[aadil77]

The Qur’ān says: “There is none that can alter the Words (and Decrees) of God.” (Al-An‘ām 6:34) Thus, all attempts to change God’s words have failed because it is inconceivable that God would permit any manipulation of his books.

I've seen these claims in JW pamphlets aimed at muslims, unfortunately they are false, Allah was reffering to the Quran - His last revelation to mankind

[IAmZamzam]

Indeed. The entire sentence goes: "Recite what has been revealed to you of the Book of your Lord, there is none who can alter His words; and you shall not find any refuge besides Him." (Surah 18, verse 27, Shakir)

[Al-manar]

The Qur’ān says: “There is none that can alter the Words (and Decrees) of God.” (Al-An‘ām 6:34) .

read the context

(Al-An‘ām 6:34 Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers.


Words here don't refer to neither the Quran nor the Bible ...... it is Synonyms to ( promises,decision,will).....

God promissed victory for those with patience and constancy ,a divine will that can't be altered...

similar verse:

Holy Quran - 37:172 Our word had been decreed to Our servants who were sent.That they would be made victorious.

God's word(s) in the Quran could refer to scripture besides promises,decisions,judgements,will eg; .....

Holy Quran: Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary.

God's word in the verse doesn't refer to scripture but to divine decision, and the divine decision or promise can never be altered ....

Regards

[Hiroshi]

read the context

(Al-An‘ām 6:34 Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers.


Words here don't refer to neither the Quran nor the Bible ...... it is Synonyms to ( promises,decision,will).....

God promissed victory for those with patience and constancy ,a divine will that can't be altered...

similar verse:

Holy Quran - 37:172 Our word had been decreed to Our servants who were sent.That they would be made victorious.

God's word(s) in the Quran could refer to scripture besides promises,decisions,judgements,will eg; .....

Holy Quran: Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary.

God's word in the verse doesn't refer to scripture but to divine decision, and the divine decision or promise can never be altered ....

Regards

The context is about messengers from God and the message that they bring.

Some are saying that there are certain Qur’ānic verses that speak of such corruption (Arabic, taḥrīf). But what do Muslim scholars say about this? Commentaries explain corruption in two ways: (1) Falsification of the text (altering any written character) and (2) twisting (distorting) the meaning of the text. Muslim commentators are not unanimous that the corruption referred to is that of altering the written text.

In “The Book of Monotheism,” which is part of his Ṣaḥīḥ, Imām Al-Bukhārī explains the meaning of the word “taḥrīf” as follows: “Taḥrīf means alteration. However, no one can alter any written character in a book of God. Taḥrīf was done to the text in the sense of twisting its meaning [misinterpreting it].” In his commentary on Al-Nisā’ [4]:46, Imām Al-Fakhr Al-Rāzī says: “The meaning of corruption (taḥrīf) is the introduction of vain doubt and wrong explanations and changing the word from its true meaning to a baseless sense by means of verbal tricks, as heretics do presently with the verses which contravene their own sect. This is the view that is more true.” In his commentary on Al-Mā’idah [5]:13, he says: “This corruption (taḥrīf) could be [1] false interpretation, and it could be [2] altering the written text. However, we have already shown that the first explanation is most probable, because it is impossible to alter the written text of a book that was handed down in unbroken and widespread succession.” Examples of twisting the meaning of God’s books can be seen in the interpretations that many religions give in support of their false beliefs.

[Zafran]

The context is about messengers from God and the message that they bring.

Some are saying that there are certain Qur’ānic verses that speak of such corruption (Arabic, taḥrīf). But what do Muslim scholars say about this? Commentaries explain corruption in two ways: (1) Falsification of the text (altering any written character) and (2) twisting (distorting) the meaning of the text. Muslim commentators are not unanimous that the corruption referred to is that of altering the written text.

In “The Book of Monotheism,” which is part of his Ṣaḥīḥ, Imām Al-Bukhārī explains the meaning of the word “taḥrīf” as follows: “Taḥrīf means alteration. However, no one can alter any written character in a book of God. Taḥrīf was done to the text in the sense of twisting its meaning [misinterpreting it].” In his commentary on Al-Nisā’ [4]:46, Imām Al-Fakhr Al-Rāzī says: “The meaning of corruption (taḥrīf) is the introduction of vain doubt and wrong explanations and changing the word from its true meaning to a baseless sense by means of verbal tricks, as heretics do presently with the verses which contravene their own sect. This is the view that is more true.” In his commentary on Al-Mā’idah [5]:13, he says: “This corruption (taḥrīf) could be [1] false interpretation, and it could be [2] altering the written text. However, we have already shown that the first explanation is most probable, because it is impossible to alter the written text of a book that was handed down in unbroken and widespread succession.” Examples of twisting the meaning of God’s books can be seen in the interpretations that many religions give in support of their false beliefs.

what text are you talking about here? - are you talking about the bible (which one 66 or 73 books?) including Pauls work and viewpoints from John, Luke, mattew and mark - is this what you are talking about???

[Hiroshi]

what text are you talking about here? - are you talking about the bible (which one 66 or 73 books?) including Pauls work and viewpoints from John, Luke, mattew and mark - is this what you are talking about???

Surah 7:157 describes these as "the Torah and the Gospel which are with them." (Pickthall) So, by this definition, the texts are what make up the body of writing that existed with the Jews and Christians at the time of the rise of Islam.

[Al-manar]

Falsification of the text (altering any written character) and (2) twisting (distorting) the meaning of the text. Muslim commentators are not unanimous that the corruption referred to is that of altering the written text..

good to know that...

Imām Al-Fakhr Al-Rāzī says: “The meaning of corruption (taḥrīf) is the introduction of vain doubt and wrong explanations and changing the word from its true meaning to a baseless sense by means of verbal tricks, as heretics do presently with the verses which contravene their own sect..

Have you read what Imām Al-Fakhr Al-Rāzī ,would write in the very next lines?

let me quote him:

Arabic

المسألة الرابعة: ذكر الله تعالى ههنا: { عَن مَّوٰضِعِهِ } وفي المائدة
{ مِن بَعْدِ مَوٰضِعِهِ }
[المائدة: 41] والفرق أنا إذا فسرنا التحريف بالتأويلات الباطلة، فههنا قوله: { يُحَرّفُونَ ٱلْكَلِمَ عَن مَّوٰضِعِهِ } معناه: أنهم يذكرون التأويلات الفاسدة لتلك النصوص، فههنا قوله: { يُحَرّفُونَ ٱلْكَلِمَ عَن مَّوٰضِعِهِ } معناه: أنهم يذكرون التأويلات الفاسدة لتلك النصوص، وليس فيه بيان أنهم يخرجون تلك اللفظة من الكتاب.
وأما الآية المذكورة في سورة المائدة، فهي دالة على أنهم جمعوا بين الأمرين، فكانوا يذكرون التأويلات الفاسدة، وكانوا يخرجون اللفظ أيضا من الكتاب، فقوله: { يُحَرّفُونَ ٱلْكَلِمَ } إشارة إلى التأويل الباطل وقوله: { مِن بَعْدِ مَوٰضِعِهِ } إشارة إلى إخراجه عن الكتاب.

English:

The fourth question: Allah mentioned in the verse the expression (after its places) and in another similar verse (from after its places)

{ عَن مَّوٰضِعِهِ }
compared to
{ مِن بَعْدِ مَوٰضِعِهِ }

the difference is: IF we understand the corruption in the sense of twisting the meaning [misinterpreting it]
then they (corrupted it after its places) { عَن مَّوٰضِعِهِ } ...means after the text had its place in the page,they twisted it, without altering it....
that is different from the verse 5:41 where the expression { مِن بَعْدِ مَوٰضِعِهِ } ,which refers to both kinds of corruption ,as they were both twisting the meaning ,and alter the written text as well ...

for those who would like to verify ,there is the specific page of the book (In Arabic)...

http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?...1&LanguageId=1

..........................

you see ,we have the words of Imām Al-Fakhr Al-Rāzī himslef, in the same exact page of his book, .... he affirmed his understanding of verse 5:41 as a reference to textual altering.....

[Hiroshi]

good to know that...



Have you read what Imām Al-Fakhr Al-Rāzī ,would write in the very next lines?

let me quote him:

Arabic

المسألة الرابعة: ذكر الله تعالى ههنا: { عَن مَّوٰضِعِهِ } وفي المائدة
{ مِن بَعْدِ مَوٰضِعِهِ }
[المائدة: 41] والفرق أنا إذا فسرنا التحريف بالتأويلات الباطلة، فههنا قوله: { يُحَرّفُونَ ٱلْكَلِمَ عَن مَّوٰضِعِهِ } معناه: أنهم يذكرون التأويلات الفاسدة لتلك النصوص، فههنا قوله: { يُحَرّفُونَ ٱلْكَلِمَ عَن مَّوٰضِعِهِ } معناه: أنهم يذكرون التأويلات الفاسدة لتلك النصوص، وليس فيه بيان أنهم يخرجون تلك اللفظة من الكتاب.
وأما الآية المذكورة في سورة المائدة، فهي دالة على أنهم جمعوا بين الأمرين، فكانوا يذكرون التأويلات الفاسدة، وكانوا يخرجون اللفظ أيضا من الكتاب، فقوله: { يُحَرّفُونَ ٱلْكَلِمَ } إشارة إلى التأويل الباطل وقوله: { مِن بَعْدِ مَوٰضِعِهِ } إشارة إلى إخراجه عن الكتاب.

English:

The fourth question: Allah mentioned in the verse the expression (after its places) and in another similar verse (from after its places)

{ عَن مَّوٰضِعِهِ }
compared to
{ مِن بَعْدِ مَوٰضِعِهِ }

the difference is: IF we understand the corruption in the sense of twisting the meaning [misinterpreting it]
then they (corrupted it after its places) { عَن مَّوٰضِعِهِ } ...means after the text had its place in the page,they twisted it, without altering it....
that is different from the verse 5:41 where the expression { مِن بَعْدِ مَوٰضِعِهِ } ,which Imām Al-Fakhr Al-Rāzī ...

for those who would like to verify ,there is the specific page of the book (In Arabic)...

http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?...1&LanguageId=1

..........................

you see ,we have the words of Imām Al-Fakhr Al-Rāzī himslef, in the same exact page of his book, .... he affirmed his understanding of verse 5:41 as a reference to textual altering.....

Thank you for pointing this out and I hope that I did not quote Imām Al-Fakhr Al-Rāzī out of context. If I did the I apologize. But I find it difficult to reconcile what he says there (that Surah 5:41: "refers to both kinds of corruption ,as they were both twisting the meaning, and alter the written text as well") with what he also said: "it is impossible to alter the written text of a book that was handed down in unbroken and widespread succession."

Had he changed his mind when he said that?

By the way, sorry to take so long to reply. I've been frantically busy and had a bout of illness.

[Zafran]

Surah 7:157 describes these as "the Torah and the Gospel which are with them." (Pickthall) So, by this definition, the texts are what make up the body of writing that existed with the Jews and Christians at the time of the rise of Islam.

Thats not true - becasue the Gospel of christ that he taught when he was alive clearly cannot be be applied to Pauls work as he came after - even further which bible the one that catholics were using with there 73 books? or the 66 book version? if the christians cant agree on what the bible contains how do we know they actually know what the gospel is and what isnt?

Its even more far feteched for JW has you guys have preety much authority on no book.

[Zafran]

Thank you for pointing this out and I hope that I did not quote Imām Al-Fakhr Al-Rāzī out of context. If I did the I apologize. But I find it difficult to reconcile what he says there (that Surah 5:41: "refers to both kinds of corruption ,as they were both twisting the meaning, and alter the written text as well") with what he also said: "it is impossible to alter the written text of a book that was handed down in unbroken and widespread succession."

Had he changed his mind when he said that?

By the way, sorry to take so long to reply. I've been frantically busy and had a bout of illness.

Here is an example 66 or 73 book which books should there be in the bible - for centuries christians had no problem with the 73 books later in the 16th century (reformation) a group decided to threw some books out of the bible - There you go the bible has clearly been changed. You have what christains claim the inspired word of God and then some men in the 16th century decide to take books out of the library- centuries after christ.

There is also the example of Moses being buried - once again somebodies been messing around with the text - clear cut proofs that the the Torah you have today and the "gospel" have been tamperd with by men.

[Al-manar]

Thank you for pointing this out and I hope that I did not quote Imām Al-Fakhr Al-Rāzī out of context. If I did the I apologize.

No need to apologize , the work is not available in English ... to blame you for that.

But I find it difficult to reconcile what he says there

I agree with you . the writer provided two contradictory views !! ..... and that should be enough for the christian critics ,to avoid quoting him in such specific matter....

for the sake of argument let's assume that the text X for thousands of years been preserved without any textual editing, does that mean that its content is wholly true?

let's assume that the bible textually been preserved completely,from the first minute the scribes wrote it , but does that mean what it tells is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

the Quran accuses the Jews as writing parts of the bible with their hands claiming it to be from God but it is not from God's inspiration ....

If the source of the Quran (whatever you may call him) was motivated to attack merely the christian ,jewish interpretation of the bible (imitiating the unitarians etc...), he wouldn't have negated the basic established biblical issues eg; crucifiction ,blood atonement , may be divinity of Jesus etc.....

and that is a basic lesson ,the christian critics should get before any discussion reagarding how the Quran views the bible.....

IF Mohamed peace be upon him(assuming him as the source of the Quran) believed the bible fully textually valid,why he negates the crucifiction,resurrection for example?

[Al-manar]

The law of food with the children of Israel ,according to the Quran, had stages:

1- Pre-torah era:

Holy Quran 3:93 All food was lawful to the children of Israel except that which Israel(Jacob) had forbidden to himself, before the Taurat was revealed.

up till the revelation of the law of the torah , All food was lawful to the children of Israel except that which Israel(Jacob) had forbidden to himself....

but what does that mean?

It seems that the children of Israel imitiated their father Jacob,avoiding some food he had forbidden to himself ....


2- Torah revelation till other new strict laws :

Holy Quran 4:160
And because of the iniquity (or injustice) of the Jews, We have forbidden them the good things which We had made lawful for them.

the verse refers to 1- a time when God revealed a law (Torah) making a distinction between the good and the bad and
2- later time when God revealed a strict law a s a part of his punishment on the Jews due to their injustice ,aggreession ....


3- afterwards, some strict laws :

the Quran - 6:146 And for the Jews We have forbidden all that have claws; and from the cattle and the sheep We forbade their fat except what is attached to the back, or entrails, or mixed with bone. That is a punishment for their rebellion, and We are truthful.

all beasts ,birds etc that have nails,claws were forbidden .... rabbits ,falcons etc...

to be concluded next post,InshahAllah....

[Grace Seeker]

Holy Quran: Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary.

God's word in the verse doesn't refer to scripture but to divine decision, and the divine decision or promise can never be altered ....

Regards

That is a very interesting verse, especially with the emphasis you elected to make. Where would one find commentaries on this passage from an Islamic perspective?

[Hiroshi]

the Quran accuses the Jews as writing parts of the bible with their hands claiming it to be from God but it is not from God's inspiration ....

Does the Qur'an make the same accusation about Christians and their writings?

[Zafran]

Does the Qur'an make the same accusation about Christians and their writings?

Well you have paul, Luke, John, Matthew and Mark - Paul came way after christ - so is this the Injeel of christ pbuh or a library created after Christ pbuh? Its not rocket science.

[Grace Seeker]

I don't think that really addresses Hiroshi's question.

And the answer to your question requires you answer one first.
When you ask, "Is this the Injeel of Christ?" you have to tell us whether you are simply using the Arabic term Injeel, which when translated into English means Gospel, or are you using the technical term for a particular set message that the Qur'an alleges Jesus delivered, but which it then also claims has been totally lost to history so that no one can actually review it today.


The term "Injel" is not an English term, but a transliteration of the Arabic إِنْجِيلِ which, when properly translated, is rendered "Gospel". Thus it seems that by using the term "Injel" rather than "Gospel" you are intentionally desiring to speak of something different than the gospel, but rather this alleged Injel of which no one can even find testimony of its existence outside of the Qur'an. So rather obviously, when the Injel is to be defined as an alleged product that no longer exists, and Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the works of Paul do exist, then they are not going to be the Injel. However, they are indeed a record of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The word gospel you see does not come from the Arabic term إِنْجِيلِ , but from the Greek term ευαγγελιου. And while the term ευαγγελιου is most commonly translated into English as "Gospel", it literally means "good message." And that is why the Injel could never be the true Gospel of Jesus Christ in place of the works of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul, for the Qur'an tells us that Jesus only brought a message similar to what Muhammad delivered. And that message is one which does testify to the oneness and greatness of God -- no problem thus far -- but with regard to mankind, the message is no different than that of Judaism. If people want to experience God's grace, their only hope is to work hard for it, jump through all sorts of hoops, and then know that in the end you still don't have any promises. That might be a good challenge, it certainly promotes a good way of life. But the primary message is: "You had better pick yourself up by your own bootstraps and fly right, because if you don't God's coming along and gonna knock you down." That is more of a good threat than good news.

On the other hand, Mark -- 1:1 αρχη του ευαγγελιου ιησου χριστου (The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God) -- tells us that he has a ευαγγελιου, a good message that (because the term ευαγγελιου is in the genitive case) is expressed in relationship that is connected with Jesus Christ. If Mark had met to say it was a message by Jesus, he would have written using the dative case or even the vocative case. But as Mark writes of this gospel using the genative case he is declaring that the goodness of the message has to do with what the message tells us about Jesus. Thus it is that all that Mark (or any of the other good news writers for that matter) relate to us of the things that Jesus himself said are only preliminary, laying the background for the truly exciting good news which is yet to come. And that good news is that in Jesus God has finally done something that he had been promising he was going to do since the time of Isaiah, God had sent his anointed one to his people to by God's power and God's mighty work and the goodness and grace of God, not human effort, not human goodness, redeem them and set the world right again. And Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and even others such as Peter, Jude and the author of Hebrews declare that this God did in the person and work of the man Jesus, who was more than just a man, but God's anointed agent for that purpose. Somehow the Injel the Qur'an speaks of missed that part of the message. So, no, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are not an alleged Injel, with a message that demands humans have to live up to some impossible, unachievable divine standard. Rather, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (and yes, in a way even the works of Paul) are a declaration of good news, a message that God has done the hard work, in Jesus we have been made right with God not by human effort, but by divine act and decree. Of course people are still called to live lives of submission to God and his ways, but when we fall short of the perfection he rightly demands of us, his creation, he accepts the anointed one's perfectedly submitted life as a substitute for ours as we accept his grace through faith. And that's why Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are called gospels (and not Injel), because they contain a message that really is one of good news for all who will receive it.


(NOTE TO MODS: I realize that this post may be construed as a violation of forum rules as it does indeed lay out a message other than that of Islam. I didn't write it for that purpose, but because of Zafran's question. Over and over Muslims and Christians debate whether or not the Gospels of the NT are corrupted, and two of the reasons that Muslims claim they are is because they present a different message than what Islam projects to be in the Injel, and because they differ than the Qur'an with regard to the events of Jesus' life. What never seems to get said by anyone, it is precisely those differences that make the Gospels gospels in the first place. To present the supposed message of the Injel would be to present something that, at least from the Christian perspective, would NOT be gospel at all, for it wouldn't be a message of genuine good news. In light of the fact that this is comparative religion, and a thread on the difference between the Qur'an and the Bible, and this question focused on whether or not the existing books of the NT recorded the Injel which Zafran termed "gospel", I felt that this was the time to try to draw that distinction between our two completely different understandings as to what is and what is not a gospel message. With respect, I hope you will allow the post to stand.)

[Hiroshi]

The law of food with the children of Israel ,according to the Quran, had stages:

1- Pre-torah era:

Holy Quran 3:93 All food was lawful to the children of Israel except that which Israel(Jacob) had forbidden to himself, before the Taurat was revealed.

up till the revelation of the law of the torah , All food was lawful to the children of Israel except that which Israel(Jacob) had forbidden to himself....

According to Genesis 9:4 God said to (before the Torah) Noah: "Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood." This prohibition on eating blood must apply to the whole human family since all of us are descendants of Noah.

[Hiroshi]

No need to apologize , the work is not available in English ... to blame you for that.



I agree with you . the writer provided two contradictory views !! ..... and that should be enough for the christian critics ,to avoid quoting him in such specific matter....

I believe that you are right.

[Hiroshi]

If the source of the Quran (whatever you may call him) was motivated to attack merely the christian ,jewish interpretation of the bible (imitiating the unitarians etc...), he wouldn't have negated the basic established biblical issues eg; crucifiction ,blood atonement , may be divinity of Jesus etc.....

and that is a basic lesson ,the christian critics should get before any discussion reagarding how the Quran views the bible.....

IF Mohamed peace be upon him(assuming him as the source of the Quran) believed the bible fully textually valid,why he negates the crucifiction,resurrection for example?

The Qur'an contains some very good and detailed accounts of stories from the Old Testament. But it contains very little, hardly anything, from the New Testament. Perhaps Mohamed had only scanty knowledge of the NT and did not realise that he was directly contradicting the text.

[Hiroshi]

for the sake of argument let's assume that the text X for thousands of years been preserved without any textual editing, does that mean that its content is wholly true?

What convinces you that the text of the Qur'an is wholly true?

[Grace Seeker]

The Qur'an contains some very good and detailed accounts of stories from the Old Testament. But it contains very little, hardly anything, from the New Testament. Perhaps Mohamed had only scanty knowledge of the NT and did not realise that he was directly contradicting the text.

This makes sense if one rejects the idea that the Qur'an was a divinely inspired, even dictated work, from God. Now, of course you do reject that, but it isn't going to fly from an Islamic point of view. Allah would have had perfect knowledge of the events of Jesus' life, presumably even better than those disciples who other "witnesses" to whom it appeared that Jesus was crucified when he, if one accepts the Qur'an's version of events, reportedly was not.

[Hiroshi]

Well you have paul, Luke, John, Matthew and Mark - Paul came way after christ - so is this the Injeel of christ pbuh or a library created after Christ pbuh? Its not rocket science.

More importantly, as Al-manah pointed out, the Qur'an teaches things that directly conflict with Luke, John, Matthew, Mark and Paul. So that leads the Muslim to assume that the writings of Luke, John, Matthew, Mark and Paul do not contain the pure Injeel.

[Hiroshi]

This makes sense if one rejects the idea that the Qur'an was a divinely inspired, even dictated work, from God. Now, of course you do reject that, but it isn't going to fly from an Islamic point of view. Allah would have had perfect knowledge of the events of Jesus' life, presumably even better than those disciples who other "witnesses" to whom it appeared that Jesus was crucified when he, if one accepts the Qur'an's version of events, reportedly was not.

I suppose you are right.

I personally think that Mohamed must have been horrified when he saw the amount of idolatry with images, trinitarian ideas and worship of saints, etc. that had corrupted the Christianity of his time. And so he rejected much of Christian thinking.

[Woodrow]

I don't think that really addresses Hiroshi's question.

And the answer to your question requires you answer one first.
When you ask, "Is this the Injeel of Christ?" you have to tell us whether you are simply using the Arabic term Injeel, which when translated into English means Gospel, or are you using the technical term for a particular set message that the Qur'an alleges Jesus delivered, but which it then also claims has been totally lost to history so that no one can actually review it today.


The term "Injel" is not an English term, but a transliteration of the Arabic إِنْجِيلِ which, when properly translated, is rendered "Gospel". Thus it seems that by using the term "Injel" rather than "Gospel" you are intentionally desiring to speak of something different than the gospel, but rather this alleged Injel of which no one can even find testimony of its existence outside of the Qur'an. So rather obviously, when the Injel is to be defined as an alleged product that no longer exists, and Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the works of Paul do exist, then they are not going to be the Injel. However, they are indeed a record of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The word gospel you see does not come from the Arabic term

Peace Gene,

Here Muslims and Christians often have a difference of opinions in the meanings of the words Injil and Gospel. To be honest I do not believe there is an English word for Injil and Gospel is used as an approximation.

The word Gospel which is of Germanic origin and used nearly exclusively for the Books of John, Mark, Mathew and Luke. You gave a very good definition of what is meant by Gospel to Christians in the remainder of your post. But that does not fit the concept of Injil as understood by Muslims.

While Injil could be reasonably translated as the German "Gotts Spel" Meaning God's Word. The Injil does carry that the concept of the 4 Gospels of the bible. We do believe the Injil is actually God's (swt) Word and not the inspired word of man.

S


Gotts Spel which later became the English "Godspel" Which carries 2 meanings God's Word and Good Word. However as you explained this came to be used almost exclusively to mean 4 specific books of the NT. These books can not be the Injil as we believe the Injil was revealed to Jesus(as) and those4 Books were not given to Jesus(as)

I probably caused more confusion.

But I do thank you for your views of the gospel and I think that does show the difference between Muslim and Christian in the concept of Gospel.

[YusufNoor]

I don't think that really addresses Hiroshi's question.

And the answer to your question requires you answer one first.
When you ask, "Is this the Injeel of Christ?" you have to tell us whether you are simply using the Arabic term Injeel, which when translated into English means Gospel, or are you using the technical term for a particular set message that the Qur'an alleges Jesus delivered, but which it then also claims has been totally lost to history so that no one can actually review it today.


The term "Injel" is not an English term, but a transliteration of the Arabic إِنْجِيلِ which, when properly translated, is rendered "Gospel". Thus it seems that by using the term "Injel" rather than "Gospel" you are intentionally desiring to speak of something different than the gospel, but rather this alleged Injel of which no one can even find testimony of its existence outside of the Qur'an. So rather obviously, when the Injel is to be defined as an alleged product that no longer exists, and Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the works of Paul do exist, then they are not going to be the Injel. However, they are indeed a record of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The word gospel you see does not come from the Arabic term إِنْجِيلِ , but from the Greek term ευαγγελιου. And while the term ευαγγελιου is most commonly translated into English as "Gospel", it literally means "good message." And that is why the Injel could never be the true Gospel of Jesus Christ in place of the works of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul, for the Qur'an tells us that Jesus only brought a message similar to what Muhammad delivered. And that message is one which does testify to the oneness and greatness of God -- no problem thus far -- but with regard to mankind, the message is no different than that of Judaism. If people want to experience God's grace, their only hope is to work hard for it, jump through all sorts of hoops, and then know that in the end you still don't have any promises. That might be a good challenge, it certainly promotes a good way of life. But the primary message is: "You had better pick yourself up by your own bootstraps and fly right, because if you don't God's coming along and gonna knock you down." That is more of a good threat than good news.

On the other hand, Mark -- 1:1 αρχη του ευαγγελιου ιησου χριστου (The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God) -- tells us that he has a ευαγγελιου, a good message that (because the term ευαγγελιου is in the genitive case) is expressed in relationship that is connected with Jesus Christ. If Mark had met to say it was a message by Jesus, he would have written using the dative case or even the vocative case. But as Mark writes of this gospel using the genative case he is declaring that the goodness of the message has to do with what the message tells us about Jesus. Thus it is that all that Mark (or any of the other good news writers for that matter) relate to us of the things that Jesus himself said are only preliminary, laying the background for the truly exciting good news which is yet to come. And that good news is that in Jesus God has finally done something that he had been promising he was going to do since the time of Isaiah, God had sent his anointed one to his people to by God's power and God's mighty work and the goodness and grace of God, not human effort, not human goodness, redeem them and set the world right again. And Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and even others such as Peter, Jude and the author of Hebrews declare that this God did in the person and work of the man Jesus, who was more than just a man, but God's anointed agent for that purpose. Somehow the Injel the Qur'an speaks of missed that part of the message. So, no, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are not an alleged Injel, with a message that demands humans have to live up to some impossible, unachievable divine standard. Rather, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (and yes, in a way even the works of Paul) are a declaration of good news, a message that God has done the hard work, in Jesus we have been made right with God not by human effort, but by divine act and decree. Of course people are still called to live lives of submission to God and his ways, but when we fall short of the perfection he rightly demands of us, his creation, he accepts the anointed one's perfectedly submitted life as a substitute for ours as we accept his grace through faith. And that's why Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are called gospels (and not Injel), because they contain a message that really is one of good news for all who will receive it.


(NOTE TO MODS: I realize that this post may be construed as a violation of forum rules as it does indeed lay out a message other than that of Islam. I didn't write it for that purpose, but because of Zafran's question. Over and over Muslims and Christians debate whether or not the Gospels of the NT are corrupted, and two of the reasons that Muslims claim they are is because they present a different message than what Islam projects to be in the Injel, and because they differ than the Qur'an with regard to the events of Jesus' life. What never seems to get said by anyone, it is precisely those differences that make the Gospels gospels in the first place. To present the supposed message of the Injel would be to present something that, at least from the Christian perspective, would NOT be gospel at all, for it wouldn't be a message of genuine good news. In light of the fact that this is comparative religion, and a thread on the difference between the Qur'an and the Bible, and this question focused on whether or not the existing books of the NT recorded the Injel which Zafran termed "gospel", I felt that this was the time to try to draw that distinction between our two completely different understandings as to what is and what is not a gospel message. With respect, I hope you will allow the post to stand.)

my apologies to the OP, but time only permits me to address the fisrt bit of this rot. to wit:

The term "Injel" is not an English term, but a transliteration of the Arabic إِنْجِيلِ which, when properly translated, is rendered "Gospel". Thus it seems that by using the term "Injel" rather than "Gospel" you are intentionally desiring to speak of something different than the gospel, but rather this alleged Injel of which no one can even find testimony of its existence outside of the Qur'an.

When we speak of the Injeel, we are speaking of the Message given to Isa ibn Marriam. your statement implies the that either your “God the Father” NEVER gave a coherent Message to Isa ibn Marriam, or as you would associate partners with Allah, “God the son” OR that Isa ibn Marriam or “Jesus of Nazareth” [a name by which NO FOLLOWER OF HIS EVER CALLED, nor was he known by for a millennia] was INCAPABLE of delivering said Message!
As for “testimony of its existence outside of the Qur'an,” you would lay a false claim that Deuteronomy 18:18 refers to “Jesus of Nazareth” [a name by which NO FOLLOWER OF HIS EVER CALLED, nor was he known by for a millennia]. Let’s review this passage shall we:
“18 I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him.” IF this were to refer to your “associate God” [which it doesn’t], then we would define the “Injeel” as “the words that God put in the mouth of Isa ibn Marriam and which he was commanded to speak!” the fact that our present varieties of Christians felt no obligation to record and or maintain those “words that God put in the mouth of Isa ibn Marriam and which he was commanded to speak” is the reason that Allah planned for and sent the Final Messenger, Muhammad ibn Abdullah, Sallla Allahu Alayhee wa Salaam!
IF, Christians believed that Jesus of Nazareth was the fulfillment of those words, why DIDN’T they preserve them in a proper “chain of evidence?”

So rather obviously, when the Injel is to be defined as an alleged product that no longer exists, and Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and the works of Paul do exist

Actually, 7 letters of Paul exists, but there is no contemporaneous forensic evidence of ANY writings by authors named Matthew, Mark, Luke or John! It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for you to make any claims about the words of Jesus of Nazareth based upon factual evidence! In fact, to paraphrase YOUR Gospels, you can only make claims based upon “a house made of sand” and NOT one built upon “a house of stone!”
While we MAY agree on 7 of the letters attributed to Paul, who did your “associate god” give the “keys to the kingdom of heaven to? we see addressed to Peter: Matt 16:19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." NIV. Where is the preserved authentic “Gospel according to Peter?”
If you have any contemporaneous forensic evidence of the “words that God put in the mouth of Isa ibn Marriam and which he was commanded to speak,” please present it!

However, they are indeed a record of the gospel of Jesus Christ. The word gospel you see does not come from the Arabic term إِنْجِيلِ , but from the Greek term ευαγγελιου. And while the term ευαγγελιου is most commonly translated into English as "Gospel", it literally means "good message

The works of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are indeed “anonymous” books of unknown origin, which you as a Christian value MORE than “words that God put in the mouth of Isa ibn Marriam and which he was commanded to speak.” To therefore make the following claim: “And that is why the Injel could never be the true Gospel of Jesus Christ in place of the works of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul, for the Qur'an tells us that Jesus only brought a message similar to what Muhammad delivered” is absurd! You must first know WHAT Isa ibn Marriam actually said BEFORE you can speak contemptuously of the writings of the Qur’an.
And that message is one which does testify to the oneness and greatness of God -- no problem thus far -- but with regard to mankind, the message is no different than that of Judaism. But it IS different than that of the triune godship of Christianity!

If people want to experience God's grace, their only hope is to work hard for it, jump through all sorts of hoops, and then know that in the end you still don't have any promises. That might be a good challenge, it certainly promotes a good way of life

To firstly address this, your vtreatmewnt of the Words of Allah:

Al Kahf 18:56:
And We send not the Messengers except as giver of glad tidings and warners. But those who disbelieve, dispute with false argument, in order to refute the truth thereby. And they treat My Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.), and that with which they are warned, as jest and mockery!

And for the “promises of Allah,” we further read in 18:1-2:

All the praises and thanks be to Allah, Who has sent down to His slave (Muhammad SAW) the Book (the Quran), and has not placed therein any crookedness.
(He has made it) Straight to give warning (to the disbelievers) of a severe punishment from Him, and to give glad tidings to the believers (in the Oneness of Allah Islamic Monotheism), who work righteous deeds, that they shall have a fair reward (i.e. Paradise).
And in 18:29-31:
And say: "The truth is from your Lord." Then whosoever wills, let him believe, and whosoever wills, let him disbelieve. Verily, We have prepared for the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers, etc.), a Fire whose walls will be surrounding them (disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah). And if they ask for help (relief, water, etc.) they will be granted water like boiling oil, that will scald their faces. Terrible the drink, and an evil Murtafaqa (dwelling, resting place, etc.)!
Verily! As for those who believe and do righteous deeds, certainly! We shall not suffer to be lost the reward of anyone who does his (righteous) deeds in the most perfect manner.
These! For them will be 'Adn (Eden) Paradise (everlasting Gardens); wherein rivers flow underneath them, therein they will be adorned with bracelets of gold, and they will wear green garments of fine and thick silk. They will recline therein on raised thrones. How good is the reward, and what an excellent Murtafaqa (dwelling, resting place, etc.)!
18:46:
Wealth and children are the adornment of the life of this world. But the good righteous deeds (five compulsory prayers, deeds of Allah's obedience, good and nice talk, remembrance of Allah with glorification, praises and thanks, etc.), that last, are better with your Lord for rewards and better in respect of hope.
18:88:
"But as for him who believes (in Allah's Oneness) and works righteousness, he shall have the best reward, (Paradise), and we (Dhul-Qarnain) shall speak unto him mild words (as instructions)."

18:107-108:
"Verily! Those who believe (in the Oneness of Allah Islamic Monotheism) and do righteous deeds, shall have the Gardens of Al-Firdaus (the Paradise) for their entertainment.
"Wherein they shall dwell (forever). No desire will they have to be removed therefrom."

Of course the reason that you remain blind to this is that your religion is founded on the ridiculous idea that you MUST associate partners with Allah! Nowuthubillah!
We see in an authentic Hadeeth Qudsi:
Hadith Qudsi 34
On the authority of Anas (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) say:
"Allah the Almighty said:
'O son of Adam, so long as you call upon Me and ask of Me, I shall forgive you for what you have done, and I shall not mind. O son of Adam, were your sins to reach the clouds of the sky and were you then to ask forgiveness of Me, I would forgive you. O son of Adam, were you to come to Me with sins nearly as great as the earth and were you then to face Me, ascribing no partner to Me, I would bring you forgiveness nearly as great as it.'"

[At-Tirmidhi (also by Ahmad ibn Hanbal). Its chain of authorities is sound.]
As Muslims we rely totally on the Mercy of Allah as seen on this Hadeeth Qudsi:
Hadith Qudsi 33
On the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), from among the things he reports from his Lord (mighty and sublime be He), is that he said:
"A servant [of Allah's] committed a sin and said: 'O Allah, forgive me my sin.' And He (glorified and exalted be He) said: 'My servant has committed a sin and has known that he has a Lord who forgives sins and punishes for them.' Then he sinned again and said: 'O Lord, forgive me my sin.' And He (glorified and exalted be He) said: 'My servant has committed a sin and has known that he has a Lord who forgives sins and punishes for them.' Then he sinned again and said: 'O Lord, forgive me my sin.' And He (glorified and exalted be He) said: 'My servant has committed a sin and has known that he has a Lord who forgives sins and punishes for sins. Do what you wish, for I have forgiven you.'"

[Muslim (also by al-Bukhari).]

It is bothersome when you make jest at the commands of Allah we even, according to YOUR book, we see Isa ibn Marriam have this conversation in Matt 19:

16 Just then a man came up to Jesus and asked, “Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?”
17 “Why do you ask me about what is good?” Jesus replied. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter life, keep the commandments.”
18 “Which ones?” he inquired.
Jesus replied, “‘You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, 19 honor your father and mother,’[c] and ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’[d]”
20 “All these I have kept,” the young man said. “What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
22 When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.
23 Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly I tell you, it is hard for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

So you are saying that Jesus meant Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to”jump through all of the hoops necessary” to enter the kingdom of God? :hmm:

May Allah protect us!

:wa:

[Al-manar]

Does the Qur'an make the same accusation about Christians and their writings?

As I said before, the New testament is a JEWISH production ....... the proofs that the writers of the NT were Jews is overwhelming.....

According to Genesis 9:4 God said to (before the Torah) Noah: "Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood." This prohibition on eating blood must apply to the whole human family since all of us are descendants of Noah.

The Quranic verse is specified for such period from Jacob till Torah revelation....
anyway ,where according to such verse Jacob or his children ate blood?

The Qur'an contains some very good and detailed accounts of stories from the Old Testament. But it contains very little, hardly anything, from the New Testament. Perhaps Mohamed had only scanty knowledge of the NT and did not realise that he was directly contradicting the text..

IF he had never heard about a new testament crucifiction! , why would he bring the issue on the Quran denying it?!!!

What convinces you that the text of the Qur'an is wholly true?.

the internal evidence itself ..not who,where,when it was written...

the Qur'an teaches things that directly conflict with Luke, John, Matthew, Mark and Paul. So that leads the Muslim to assume that the writings of Luke, John, Matthew, Mark do not contain the pure Injeel..

yes they contain it mostly (details in next posts)...

I personally think that Mohamed must have been horrified when he saw the amount of idolatry with images, trinitarian ideas and worship of saints, etc. that had corrupted the Christianity of his time. And so he rejected much of Christian thinking..

Mohamed's problem(assuming him not God as the source of Islam) with christianity is even bigger.........

as one should be horrified not only with the christian trinity ,and other shirk ideas but also the idea that the grace of God, not human effort, not human goodness, redeem them .just God's giving them his blood ...a dogma that perversed the position of God ,making him the servant of man , not man as the servant of God .... a dogma that contributed hugely to the lack of morality of most of those who adhere to it.....such message, though seems good news for some ,seems bad news for others...

Surah 7:157 describes these as "the Torah and the Gospel which are with them."

I agree with you ... I will prove (using the Quran verses) without any reasonable doubt that the parts which record the sayings of Jesus in the 4 gospels mostly HAS TO BE most of the Injeel .....

a concept of lost injeel of Jesus is something would contradict the Quran (details later).....

That is a very interesting verse, especially with the emphasis you elected to make. Where would one find commentaries on this passage from an Islamic perspective?

that what next post ,would be about...

[Hiroshi]

As I said before, the New testament is a JEWISH production ....... the proofs that the writers of the NT were Jews is overwhelming.....

I understand.

The Quranic verse is specified for such period from Jacob till Torah revelation....
anyway ,where according to such verse Jacob or his children ate blood?

1 Samuel 14:42 says: "They pounced on the plunder and, taking sheep, cattle and calves, they butchered them on the ground and ate them, together with the blood."

[Al-manar]

I understand.

1 Samuel 14:42 says: "They pounced on the plunder and, taking sheep, cattle and calves, they butchered them on the ground and ate them, together with the blood."

IF the previous record is true it shows merely a case of violation of the law...

31 That day, after the Israelites had struck down the Philistines from Mikmash to Aijalon, they were exhausted. 32 They pounced on the plunder and, taking sheep, cattle and calves, they butchered them on the ground and ate them, together with the blood. 33 Then someone said to Saul, “Look, the men are sinning against the LORD by eating meat that has blood in it.”

it doesn't proof that the children of Israel (even those who ate blood) thought of blood eating as legal according to the law ....

[Hiroshi]

As I
the internal evidence itself ..not who,where,when it was written...

What internal evidence?

[Hiroshi]

IF the previous record is true it shows merely a case of violation of the law...

31 That day, after the Israelites had struck down the Philistines from Mikmash to Aijalon, they were exhausted. 32 They pounced on the plunder and, taking sheep, cattle and calves, they butchered them on the ground and ate them, together with the blood. 33 Then someone said to Saul, “Look, the men are sinning against the LORD by eating meat that has blood in it.”

it doesn't proof that the children of Israel (even those who ate blood) thought of blood eating as legal according to the law ....

You've lost me. What point are you making here?

[Hiroshi]

IF he had never heard about a new testament crucifiction! , why would he bring the issue on the Quran denying it?!!!

If the Gospel had merely said that some Jews had reported seeing Jesus crucified then the Qur’an would not contradict this at all. The Qur’an states that it appeared to them that Jesus had been crucified.

Mohamed must have seen or heard about Christians bowing to the cross and worshipping as God images of Jesus. In his judgement he would have viewed this as being quite wrong – as indeed it is!

Mohamed believed in the virgin birth and that Jesus was a miracle working prophet. But anything beyond that must have seemed to lead to the error that Christianity had fallen into. The Qur’an contains firm statements that no one should be punished for another’s sin, that the sacrifice of Jesus did not happen, that the trinity doctrine is false and that God has no Son.

[Al-manar]

You've lost me..

I have lost you only in your last post when you wrote:

If the Gospel had merely said that some Jews had reported seeing Jesus crucified then the Qur’an would not contradict this at all. The Qur’an states that it appeared to them that Jesus had been crucified..

I think I need some elaboration to get the meaning you intend ...

would you elaborate the point,plz?

[Hiroshi]

it doesn't proof that the children of Israel (even those who ate blood) thought of blood eating as legal according to the law ....

Noah and his descendants were prohibited from eating blood. Then centuries later this was repeated to the Israelites as part of the law of Moses. At no time were the children of Israel lawfully allowed to eat blood.

[Al-manar]

Noah and his descendants were prohibited from eating blood. Then centuries later ? this was repeated to the Israelites as part of the law of Moses. At no time were the children of Israel lawfully allowed to eat blood.

and I have no objection to that .... the prohibition was repeated again in the Quran

Holy Quran 6:145 Say [O Prophet]: "In all that has been revealed unto me, I do not find anything forbidden to eat, if one wants to eat thereof, [134] unless it be carrion, or blood poured forth, or the flesh of swine-for that, behold, is loathsome-or a sinful offering [135] over which any name other than God's has been invoked.

[Hiroshi]

I have lost you only in your last post when you wrote:



I think I need some elaboration to get the meaning you intend ...

would you elaborate the point,plz?

My point was, in the early times at the rise of Islam, very likely no Muslim thought that there was any contradiction between the writings of the Christians and those of the the Qur'an. The Qur'an merely seemed to be giving more detail, explaining that the witnesses to the crucifixion were deceived about what they saw.

[Hiroshi]

and I have no objection to that .... the prohibition was repeated again in the Quran

Holy Quran 6:145 Say [O Prophet]: "In all that has been revealed unto me, I do not find anything forbidden to eat, if one wants to eat thereof, [134] unless it be carrion, or blood poured forth, or the flesh of swine-for that, behold, is loathsome-or a sinful offering [135] over which any name other than God's has been invoked.

Exactly right.

[Al-manar]

Jesus As a word from God in the Quran?

Holy Quran 4:171
O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary.


the Quran - 3:45 Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary.


Classic commentaries (I will quote those that are called the mothers of classic tafsirs):

1- Tafsir Ibn katheer :

His Word, which He bestowed on Mary.means he was created by the word(order,will) by which the angel Gabriel was sent to Mary ,to perform the miracelous pregnancy .


2-Tafsir Alqurtubi :

the word refered to is the word (be) ,means Jesus was formed without a human father.


3- Tafsir Al-tabari:

The word refered to is the message of glad tidings that Mary received.so a word from him means a message from him.


4- Tafsir Al-Kashaf:

Jesus was called a word from Allah ,cause he came to being by his word without semen ,but directly...

5-Tafsir Al-razi(repeat the words of Alkashaf) :

Jesus was called a word from Allah ,cause he came to being by his word without semen ,but directly...

the same exact commentary was repeated in all the Tafsirs, eg; Tafsir Alkhazin, Tafsir Altabarani,Tafsir Mafatih alghayb ,fe zelal alquran etc.....

..................................


They Just interpreted the Quran by the Quran, "The Word" is literally God's utterance "Be." :

Holy Quran 3:59
The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: 'Be.' And he was."

when God wills something he says to it "Be" and it is.

Holy Quran 16:40 "Verily! Our (Allah's) Word unto a thing when We intend it, is only that We say unto it "Be!" - and it is"


one question here, Jesus was beacause of the word or he is the word itself?


The verse tells: a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary.

though he was cause of the word but was called the word ...and similar experessions from that kind is found in the Quran and the Arabic language.. it is when you mention the source but refering to the object,calling the object by the name of the source ...

eg; هذا خلق الله

means

That is God's creation .

which means,

هذا مخلوق الله

That is God's creature.


you see, here you called the creature by the name of the action that made him...

.......................

My point was, in the early times at the rise of Islam, very likely no Muslim thought that there was any contradiction between the writings of the Christians and those of the the Qur'an. The Qur'an merely seemed to be giving more detail, explaining that the witnesses to the crucifixion were deceived about what they saw.

If you want to know what I believe the Quran says regarding the crucifiction, well it says there wasn't a crucifiction neither for Jesus nor for anyone else ...... and in previous posts I provided several points to refute the substitution theory ,such theory which built a wall between the Quranic reader and the literal ,simple meaning the verses would tell....

anyway even if the Quran suggested substitution ,again it would be incorrect to say ,
(Qur'an merely seemed to be giving more detail), as even if both the bible and Quran in accord of crucifiction ,there still the contradiction of who was crucified .....

I don't think both the bible and Quran once ever could be get in harmony in the issue of crucfiction ....


once some christian scholars eg; William Montgomery Watt, tried to argue, though the Quran denied a jewish crucifiction, but could refer to a Roman crucifiction ...hence thinking that would get both the books in harmony .. and the dispute is over....

such approach though noble (from those who seek muslim& christian unity) ,yet flawed (details may be in another occasion ..

[Hiroshi]

If you want to know what I believe the Quran says regarding the crucifiction, well it says there wasn't a crucifiction neither for Jesus nor for anyone else ...... and in previous posts I provided several points to refute the substitution theory ,such theory which built a wall between the Quranic reader and the literal ,simple meaning the verses would tell....

anyway even if the Quran suggested substitution ,again it would be incorrect to say ,
(Qur'an merely seemed to be giving more detail), as even if both the bible and Quran in accord of crucifiction ,there still the contradiction of who was crucified .....

I don't think both the bible and Quran once ever could be get in harmony in the issue of crucfiction ....

You are 100% correct in saying that Jesus is a creature or a creation of God.


I have read history books in my local library that say that at first Muslims had great respect for the Bible because they believed that the Bible was in agreement with the Qur'an and gave proof that the Qur'an was the authentic word of God. But when the time came for a careful inspection and comparison of the two books it was seen that they were not in agreement. Then the Muslims changed their attitude completely and began to charge the Bible with corruption.

[جوري]

I have read history books in my local library that say that at first Muslims had great respect for the Bible because they believed that the Bible was in agreement with the Qur'an and gave proof that the Qur'an was the authentic word of God. But when the time came for a careful inspection and comparison of the two books it was seen that they were not in agreement. Then the Muslims changed their attitude completely and began to charge the Bible with corruption.

I doubt your history book were written with the correct historical point of view that reflects Islamic beliefs and opinions-- the Quran is replete with verses against the corruption of the books and the very basic tenet upon which your religion is based:

يَا أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ لاَ تَغْلُواْ فِي دِينِكُمْ وَلاَ تَقُولُواْ عَلَى اللّهِ إِلاَّ الْحَقِّ إِنَّمَا الْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ رَسُولُ اللّهِ وَكَلِمَتُهُ أَلْقَاهَا إِلَى مَرْيَمَ وَرُوحٌ مِّنْهُ فَآمِنُواْ بِاللّهِ وَرُسُلِهِ وَلاَ تَقُولُواْ ثَلاَثَةٌ انتَهُواْ خَيْرًا لَّكُمْ إِنَّمَا اللّهُ إِلَـهٌ وَاحِدٌ سُبْحَانَهُ أَن يَكُونَ لَهُ وَلَدٌ لَّهُ مَا فِي السَّمَاوَات وَمَا فِي الأَرْضِ وَكَفَى بِاللّهِ وَكِيلاً (4:171)
Basit - Hussari - Minshawi

4:171 (Asad) O FOLLOWERS of the Gospel! Do not overstep the bounds [of truth] in your religious beliefs, [180] and do not say of God anything but the truth. The Christ Jesus, son of Mary, was but God's Apostle - [the fulfilment of] His promise which He had conveyed unto Mary - and a soul created by Him. [181] Believe, then, in God and His apostles, and do not say, "[God is] a trinity". Desist [from this assertion] for your own good. God is but One God; utterly remote is He, in His glory, from having a son: unto Him belongs all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth; and none is as worthy of trust as God.


_____________________________________

tell me how that can at all be construed as 'early' agreement?

[IAmZamzam]

I have read history books in my local library that say that at first Muslims had great respect for the Bible because they believed that the Bible was in agreement with the Qur'an and gave proof that the Qur'an was the authentic word of God. But when the time came for a careful inspection and comparison of the two books it was seen that they were not in agreement. Then the Muslims changed their attitude completely and began to charge the Bible with corruption.

I'm pretty sure that, for once, I speak for everyone when I say that we're not the least bit interested in vague recollections of scholarly sources, but only in citations and defenses of said sources.

[Al-manar]

Back to issue

(Origin of christianity , the christianity that should had been VS the christianity that shouldn't had been)


In previous posts, we investigated the Quranic verses supposing what the true christianity should had been and what role Jesus was supposed to do,supporting the Quranic verses with history and scholary works...

In terms of monotheism ,as explained here

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ml#post1376895
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ml#post1379397

lots of Jews were not such pure monotheists and the ideas of a possibility of physical Manifestation to God were there among some Jews who never thought of themselves as nothing but monotheists !....

In terms of the law ,Jews were punished by strict,hard laws that Jesus came to easien ,including the Law of food and the law of the Sabbath as well.....

In terms of Society ,the era of the second temple witnessed unparalleled sectarian conflict in the whole Jewish history ..

just as other prophets:
Holy Quran 16:64 And We sent down the Book to thee 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.

to sum up: Jesus was sent to be A GUIDE ,redirecting those Jews who went astray to true monotheism ..... and A MERCY , abolishing the hard laws, giving the divine jugment on the issues the society disputed strongly on .


Jews needed what is more than a useless action of spilling some blood on a cross ...as there had been a neccesity of blood ,but what blood?

It is some fresh ,divine blood ,brought by Jesus ,to be injected into the sick body of Judaism that suffered from the shirk viruses , the fever of sectarian conflicts,the hammer of hard laws....

Had his mission succeded ?

during his life time A group from the Children of Israel believed, and another group disbelieved ,verse [61:14].

A third group would emerge after his Earthly mission terminated ?

till next post

peace

[Hiroshi]

I'm pretty sure that, for once, I speak for everyone when I say that we're not the least bit interested in vague recollections of scholarly sources, but only in citations and defenses of said sources.

You will have to find them yourself. Any citation that I make will also likely have been documented by Answering Islam. If anyone can link my quotation to them then I get myself banned from posting here.

[جوري]

You will have to find them yourself. Any citation that I make will also likely have been documented by Answering Islam. If anyone can link my quotation to them then I get myself banned from posting here.

Don't you think that worse than being banned is your credibility here or anywhere you go to disseminate false information? A citation needs more than a site as a reference, it needs to be an established historical fact and not some demented orientalists' opinion!

[IAmZamzam]

You will have to find them yourself. Any citation that I make will also likely have been documented by Answering Islam. If anyone can link my quotation to them then I get myself banned from posting here.

I'm not doing your work for you. If you're the least bit interested in being convincing to anyone who doesn't already share your belief so unhesitantly and unthinkingly that they won't bother to look it up themselves, you're going to have to cite your sources. As we say it here in America, "You talk the talk, you walk the walk." Then again, it does often seem to me that so many Christian evangelists are not interested in that at all.

[Grace Seeker]

[B]
They Just interpreted the Quran by the Quran, "The Word" is literally God's utterance "Be." :

Though I understand what you say following this, it still leaves me with the question: How is a noun literally a verb?


The closest you come to answer that (but still doesn't do it for me) is:

though he was cause of the word but was called the word ...and similar experessions from that kind is found in the Quran and the Arabic language.. it is when you mention the source but refering to the object,calling the object by the name of the source ...

Can you explain your meaning some more, please?

[Al-manar]

Can you explain your meaning some more, please?

excuse me ,if my wording weren't clear enough ....

some more Arabic expressions:


قال الله تبارك وتعالى للجنة : أنت رحمتي

Allah said to Paradise, 'You are My Mercy,'

paradise is a fruit of God's mercy,yet we can call it ,it is God's mercy.....

انظر لقدرة الله فالسماء ليست قدرة الله و لكن اثر
من اثر قدرة الله

A believer said to another while looking at the sky ,oh look at God's power(instead of saying look at God's sky)
the sky is not God's power itself but a fruit of it ,yet you can call it in Arabic (God's power) ....

[Grace Seeker]

Jesus As a word from God in the Quran?

Holy Quran 4:171
O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary.


the Quran - 3:45 Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary.


one question here, Jesus was beacause of the word or he is the word itself?


The verse tells: a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary.

So, Jesus is a fruit of Allah's word, he isn't actually Allahs' word? Is that what you are saying?

Doesn't Islam teach that all persons are originated by Allah in heaven BEFORE they are conceived in the womb, even those who are birthed in the natural means and not by a virgin birth. I thought Allah, not human semen, is the ultimate cause of all of our births. So, wouldn't it be just as true of every other person, not just Jesus, that we are each the fruit of Allah's word or Allah's will? Why take the time to express something about Jesus that is not unique to him? Or do you still see this expression of Jesus being Allah's word as somehow being unique? If so, how, please?

[Hiroshi]

I'm not doing your work for you. If you're the least bit interested in being convincing to anyone who doesn't already share your belief so unhesitantly and unthinkingly that they won't bother to look it up themselves, you're going to have to cite your sources. As we say it here in America, "You talk the talk, you walk the walk." Then again, it does often seem to me that so many Christian evangelists are not interested in that at all.

It isn't "work". You can google all the historical facts in five minutes. But let's leave this and talk about something else instead.

[Hiroshi]

Don't you think that worse than being banned is your credibility here or anywhere you go to disseminate false information?

I don't think that your estimation of my credibility would change much either way.

[جوري]

I don't think that your estimation of my credibility would change much either way.

That is not true.. I don't know you personally to have type cast you into a category.. I can only know of you from what you present and if what you present lacks credibility it makes you either ignorant and drawing satisfaction from overly simplistic conclusions or simply untrustworthy!

all the best

[IAmZamzam]

It isn't "work". You can google all the historical facts in five minutes. But let's leave this and talk about something else instead.

If it takes so little time, why haven't you done it when you're the one who made the claim and has been asked to back it up? "But let's leave this and talk about something else instead" indeed. Ha!

[Hiroshi]

If it takes so little time, why haven't you done it when you're the one who made the claim and has been asked to back it up? "But let's leave this and talk about something else instead" indeed. Ha!

I did do it. Right after I replied to your post number 551. Took all of 5 minutes like I said. But I don't want to pursue a matter for discussion that many would find too controversial. If you don't believe me then that's okay. I don't mind.

[Hiroshi]

That is not true.. I don't know you personally to have type cast you into a category.. I can only know of you from what you present and if what you present lacks credibility it makes you either ignorant and drawing satisfaction from overly simplistic conclusions or simply untrustworthy!

all the best

Sorry to hear that.

[IAmZamzam]

I've you've done it, show it. If you find the subject "too controversial", you shouldn't have brought it up at all. As it is, I still think you're lying or shirking. Maybe both.

[Hiroshi]

If you find the subject "too controversial", you shouldn't have brought it up at all.

You are quite right.

[Al-manar]

wouldn't it be just as true of every other person, not just Jesus, that we are each the fruit of Allah's word or Allah's will? Why take the time to express something about Jesus that is not unique to him?

what is unique,unusual about Jesus is his being without human father ,the same what is unique about Adam is his being without father and mother .....

the verses express the idea , God's will, produces the usual and the unusual , a critical message against the johannine word (as understood by the trinitarians), telling ; if you would use the term (word of God) ,ok let's use it ,but let me tell you what it does really mean when related to Jesus :

Holy quran 3:59 Verily, in the sight of God, the nature of Jesus is as the nature of Adam, whom He created out of dust and then said unto him, "Be" - and he is.

[Grace Seeker]

what is unique,unusual about Jesus is his being without human father ,the same what is unique about Adam is his being without father and mother .....

the verses express the idea , God's will, produces the usual and the unusual ,

But I thought your point was that Jesus was the word as in fruit of God's will, as expressed through his spoken word. He wasn't the word itself. How do other people come into being? How does God's will express them into being?

a critical message against the johannine word (as understood by the trinitarians), telling ; if you would use the term (word of God) ,ok let's use it ,but let me tell you what it does really mean when related to Jesus :

Holy quran 3:59 Verily, in the sight of God, the nature of Jesus is as the nature of Adam, whom He created out of dust and then said unto him, "Be" - and he is.

I appreciate that for you this seems a reasoned argument. The problem I have with it is that it doesn't conform the the understanding of the Word I have as presented by John:

• The Word was God. (1:1)
• He (the Word) was with God in the beginning. (1:2)
• Through him (the Word) all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. (1:3)

Hard to be a created being when you are yourself the creator who spoke all things into being. In fact, if you realize that God made everything that is by the power of his Word, the it fits perfectly that when this Word becomes flesh (1:14) we might continue to refer to the Word as God incarnate. Clearly, it is not just with regard to the crucifixion that our two sacred texts disagree about Jesus.

[Al-manar]

But I thought your point was that Jesus was the word as in fruit of God's will, as expressed through his spoken word. He wasn't the word itself. How do other people come into being? How does God's will express them into being?.

yes Jesus(the unusual birth) was the fruit of be (the word),just as other people (the usual birth) were the fruit of be (the word)....

we are all the fruit of (be) aka (the word):

Holy Quran - 40:68 It is He Who gives Life and Death(for all living creatures); and when He decides upon an affair, He says to it, "Be", and it is.

but some people thought that there are a metaphysical sonship between Jesus and God ,the Quran tells them simply ,though his birth was unusual,but the word aka ( be) would create the usual as well as the unusual, with no meaning beyond that :

Holy Quran - 19:35 God was never to take a son, be He glorified. If He decrees a matter, then He simply says to it: "Be," and it is

Holy Quran - 3:47 Said she: "O my Sustainer! How can I have a son when no man has ever touched me?" [The angel] answered: "Thus it is: God creates what He wills when He wills a thing to be, He but says unto it, 'Be' - and it is.

I appreciate that for you this seems a reasoned argument. The problem I have with it is that it doesn't conform the the understanding of the Word I have as presented by John..

I never negated or wondered that the writer of John viewed Jesus as God .... that is a highly possible matter .... the book has verses, highly possible to be a reference to divinity, and has(besides ,other verses in other gospels) anti-divinity verses as well......
such contradiction, fueled the never-ending debate between the Trinitarian VS the Unitarians ,a game of gambling that some good muslims mistakenly played, imitiating the unitarians...

Clearly, it is not just with regard to the crucifixion that our two sacred texts disagree about Jesus
.

True ..... If they merely disagree on that,then my thread would have been concluded long time ago...

[Grace Seeker]

Holy Quran - 19:35 God was never to take a son, be He glorified. If He decrees a matter, then He simply says to it: "Be," and it is

Is it the view of Islam that in Christianity (I suppose I need to specify mainline, historic, trinitarian Christianity, given what some consider to be Christianity) that we think that God took a son? If so, know that this is not our understanding when we speak of Jesus as the Son of God any more than yours is.



Holy Quran - 3:47 Said she: "O my Sustainer! How can I have a son when no man has ever touched me?" [The angel] answered: "Thus it is: God creates what He wills when He wills a thing to be, He but says unto it, 'Be' - and it is.

This is something that we share. God creates out of his will and speaks all things into being that be. I would go even further and say that God does this and this is the way he does this because in reality he, God/Allah, is the one and only true being. Nothing else is, nothing else bes, unless it exists in God. For God not only speaks things into being, it is by his being that they are sustained. Existentially we are actually nothing. But we find existence in God's existence, in his being. On an existentially cosmic scale, God is all there is. This is why both of our religions recognize Allah as our Sustainer, in fact not just our sustainer, but THE one and only Sustainer.

[YusufNoor]

Is it the view of Islam that in Christianity (I suppose I need to specify mainline, historic, trinitarian Christianity, given what some consider to be Christianity) that we think that God took a son? If so, know that this is not our understanding when we speak of Jesus as the Son of God any more than yours is.



Holy Quran - 3:47 Said she: "O my Sustainer! How can I have a son when no man has ever touched me?" [The angel] answered: "Thus it is: God creates what He wills when He wills a thing to be, He but says unto it, 'Be' - and it is.

This is something that we share. God creates out of his will and speaks all things into being that be. I would go even further and say that God does this and this is the way he does this because in reality he, God/Allah, is the one and only true being. Nothing else is, nothing else bes, unless it exists in God. For God not only speaks things into being, it is by his being that they are sustained. Existentially we are actually nothing. But we find existence in God's existence, in his being. On an existentially cosmic scale, God is all there is. This is why both of our religions recognize Allah as our Sustainer, in fact not just our sustainer, but THE one and only Sustainer.

so...despite being a "mainline, historic, trinitarian Christian," you want us to believe that you think the following statement is false:

John 3:16 (Wycliffe New Testament)

16 For God loved so the world, that he gave his one begotten Son, that each man that believeth in him perish not, but have everlasting life.

do i have this correctly? that it was IMPOSSIBLE for "God [who] loved so the world, to ACTUALLY gIve his one begotten Son, that each man that believeth in him perish not, but have everlasting life?"

is that what you mean?

and thus, ALL Christianity is a lie?

really?

you sure?

[Al-manar]

Is it the view of Islam that in Christianity (I suppose I need to specify mainline, historic, trinitarian Christianity, given what some consider to be Christianity) that we think that God took a son.

In Islam, calling yourself or others , son(s) of God is something be condemned in the Quran ... a sonship related to the almighty, in whatever sense you may suggest ,is rejected entirely .....
I know that such topic is important and interesting, just try at best not to go so much offtopic...

let's postpone the discussion in that specific matter ,for the future term (Son of God)

[Al-manar]

Back to Issue .......................


(Origin of christianity , the christianity that should had been VS the christianity that shouldn't had been)


we tried in our last posts related,to shed light on the Quranic verses that ,though few,yet provided us with the basic guidelines needed to understand the origin of christianity as should had been ....
we described the duties of Jesus and the true message he preached ......

before shedding light on the christianity that shouldn't had been,we need to get the context .....

The Jewish reaction to the message of Jesus?

1- The disciples ,without exception, believed & supported him :

the Quran - 3:52 When Jesus found Unbelief on their part He said: "Who will be My helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the disciples: "We are Allah's helpers: We believe in Allah, and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims.

and that verse not only negates the idea of a disciple writing about a divinity of Jesus,blood atonement (a disciple writing a gospel(s) of those that we have today) but also negates the gnostic based idea of a traitor disciple(so called Judah or whatever) who sold his prophet for a sum of money....

only the disciples believed in his message?

the Quran - 61:14
O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of Allah: As said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the disciples, "We are Allah's helpers!" then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved.

Reaction of the disbelievers?

offenses:

"... the Jewish Encyclopœdia admits that Jewish legends concerning Jesus are found in the Talmud and Midrash . It is the tendency of all these sources to belittlethe person of Jesus by ascribing to Him illegitimate birth, magic, and a shameful death. "


1- illegitimate birth:

the Quran - 4:156
And because of their disbelief and of their speaking against Mary a tremendous calumny.

Jerusalem Abodah Zarah 2:2/7 "someone ... whispered to him in the name of Jesus son of Pandera"

In some of the texts, the father produced a son with a woman named Mary (Miriam in Hebrew). Several of the texts indicate that the mother was not married to Pandera, and was committing adultery and - by implication - Jesus was a basta*d child.(wikipedia)


2- Magic:

the Quran - 5:110
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.'

Babylonian Sanhedrin 107b - "The master said: Jesus the Nazarene practiced magic (Editions or MSs: Firenze II.1.8-9, Barco )

3-Shameful death:

Holy Quran [4:157] That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Apostle of God";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him

Babylonian Sanhedrin 43a-b -"on the eve of Passover they hanged Jesus the Nazarene" (Editions or MSs: Herzog 1, Karlsruhe 2)

Why would they attack him that way?

the Quran - 2:87 And verily We gave unto Moses the Scripture and We caused a train of messengers to follow after him, and We gave unto Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs (of Allah's sovereignty), and We supported him with the Holy spirit. Is it ever so, that, when there cometh unto you a messenger (from Allah) with that which ye yourselves desire not, ye grow arrogant, and some ye disbelieve and some ye slay?


What the Jews desired him to be?

That is one serious,crucial question


till next post...

[Al-manar]

Before analysing the Jews motives for rejecting Jesus , we need to discuss some items strongly related items,left ....

we visited the Quranic verses that define who was the real Jesus ,and what is meant by real christianity ..... now let's visit both the terms (christians) and (Injeel) from a Quranic point of view....

the misunderstanding of both terms among muslims and christians is common ,now let's relax ,analyse the verses related ,to reach satisfying conclusion ...

Christians,who and when?


True Christians?


They are any human being that believed in the true message of Jesus during and after his earthly mission :

1- the disciples:

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

2- a section among the Jews during the life time of Jesus:

Holy Quran :O you who believe, be helpers of God, as Jesus, son of Mary, had said to the disciples: "Who will help me in the way of God?" and they had answered: "We are the helpers of God." Then a section among the children of Israel believed, but a section among them did not.

3- Any Jewish member (even if was misinformed and believed that Jesus was crucified) that contiuned keeping the law and stick to pure monotheism after the departure of Jesus till the coming of Islam.

Holy Quran : Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.

4 - Muslims.

Quran - 42:13 The same religion has He established for you as that which He enjoined on Noah - the which We have sent by inspiration to thee - and that which We enjoined on Abraham, Moses, and Jesus: Namely, that ye should remain steadfast in religion, and make no divisions therein: to those who worship other things than Allah, hard is the (way) to which thou callest them.

in a word,true christians is not such narrow term ,that some people would understand it to be....

False Christians?

1-Those who improbably believed in Jesus as God,yet thought of themselves as witnessing the end of times and of Jesus as fulfilling imaginary role he wasn't supposed to do ,and atoning others with his blood... eg; the writer of Matthew and those alike...

2- Those who believed in Jesus as God ,atoning others with his blood. ,possibly the writer(s) of John ,Paul etc.... who


3- Those who,though believed not in Jesus as God yet believed in everything else in the New Testament eg; Arius and other unitarians...

some Muslims mistakenly would suggest Arians as the true christians ,and the true followers of the message of Jesus.... but they ignore the fact that Arianism before the the second century AD ,never existed yet ..... and different of Islam and true christianity as well ..similar to the way Islam is different from Jehovah's Witness etc....

till next post

peace

[Grace Seeker]

now let's visit both the terms (christians) and (Injeel) from a Quranic point of view....

I accept that what you posted above does represent a Quranic point of view.

What I don't accept is that I or anyone else should be compelled to utilize any point of view that comes from outside of Christianity to define what is or is not Christian. Surely you would not allow for non-Muslims to define Islam. Likewise the Qur'an cannot define who are and who are not true Christians.

[Al-manar]

I accept that what you posted above does represent a Quranic point of view.

What I don't accept is that I or anyone else should be compelled to utilize any point of view that comes from outside of Christianity to define what is or is not Christian.

The Quranic point of view could be utilize ,only if we analyse objectively ,the source from which christians get their theology,and their belief that such theology is the true representative of of true christianity ........ after we provide our objections ,christians are free to counter argument ...and the reader is the judge ........ and never to be forgetten,all such objections from our part ,should be objective and focused on the bible itself .....

you have all the right to define your theology,but we have all the right to show you where you erred,from objective point of view..... I have compelling reasons to believe that what the writers of the New testament defined as true christianity,is not true and based on flawed Exegesis .... all that comes from the bible itself not the Quran....

that what will be our next posts about.....

[Grace Seeker]

Al-Manar, I have appreciated your thread. And as I was home having lunch today an article on the news made me think of a saying that I think I may have to modify to fit in this thread.

The news article highlighted a new debate in the scientific community and showed how unsettled science can sometimes be when new ideas are introduced. Hypotheses are set forth and then attacked. While many of us may think that science is all cut and dried having to do with facts, the process of arriving at those "universally accepted" opinions is anything but free of controversy. And it led me to think of the old Otto von Bismark quote: "Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made." I said to my wife, I think we are going to have to add science to the list. Then we started to run off a few other things that experience has taught us one is better off dealing with the finished product than with the process by which it is formed -- catsup, chocolate milk, and creamed corn being a few of those examples.

Anticipating some of what you might write about from the opening chapter of Christian history, I suspect that theology might be another one of those things of which one could say "Politics, sausage and theology -- it is better not to see these being made." Things were definitely fluid back then and not near as neat and orderly as we try to present them centuries later. Nonetheless I look forward to your continued presentations.

[IAmZamzam]

What I don't accept is that I or anyone else should be compelled to utilize any point of view that comes from outside of Christianity to define what is or is not Christian.

And I find that unacceptable, as I have stated.

I not only was a Christian for years and years and years, I probably know at least as much about it as you do (or did at one time, maybe still do). Even if this were not the case, it still wouldn't magically preclude me from having a worthwhile viewpoint on the matter. It's just a sneaky ad hominem attack, and a puerile one at that.

[Grace Seeker]

And I find that unacceptable, as I have stated.

I not only was a Christian for years and years and years, I probably know at least as much about it as you do (or did at one time, maybe still do). Even if this were not the case, it still wouldn't magically preclude me from having a worthwhile viewpoint on the matter. It's just a sneaky ad hominem attack, and a puerile one at that.

Then you won't mind us non-Muslims defining what it is or is not Islamic?

[IAmZamzam]

If they know as much about Islam as I do about Christianity? No, I wouldn't necessarily mind, although that doesn't mean that I'll agree with them. If I have any refutations to offer then they certainly won't be such a loathsome cop-out as, "You're not a Muslim, therefore your word on the issue is worthless."

You won't find anything in Islam remotely comparable to the Trinity, however, so it's not an issue.

[Grace Seeker]

If I have any refutations to offer then they certainly won't be such a loathsome cop-out as, "You're not a Muslim, therefore your word on the issue is worthless."

That's NOT what I said.

[Hiroshi]

You won't find anything in Islam remotely comparable to the Trinity, however, so it's not an issue.

When you were a Christian did you believe that the Trinity teaching was found in the Bible?

[IAmZamzam]

When you were a Christian did you believe that the Trinity teaching was found in the Bible?

Believe it or not I seem to remember that the subject wasn't on my mind a whole lot to begin with.

[IAmZamzam]

That's NOT what I said.

You didn't put it that harshly in your wording, but that is EXACTLY what you said. Being an outsider does not make one an automatic ignorant. It doesn't even make one automatically more ignorant than an insider. Even at the very most fundamental things. Sometimes being the person who holds a particular viewpoint makes you less aware of what it is you're really saying than a dissenter would be. Haven't you ever seen that happen to anyone? Don't you know what I'm talking about? Open your eyes, it happens all the time in this life.

[Hiroshi]

Believe it or not I seem to remember that the subject wasn't on my mind a whole lot to begin with.

I bet it is now.

[YusufNoor]

Quote Originally Posted by Yahya Sulaiman View Post
If I have any refutations to offer then they certainly won't be such a loathsome cop-out as, "You're not a Muslim, therefore your word on the issue is worthless."

Quote by Grace Seeker
That's NOT what I said.

;D

you DO say it! ALL the time!

the NEXT quip is usually:

"some form of" Allah is a moon god. [nauthubillah]

you have a history...

[IAmZamzam]

I bet it is now.

If I didn't have to deal with Christians about it so much then it wouldn't be. How often is the Hindu "one god pantheon" on your own mind?

[Al-manar]

Injeel ?


1- A revelation was sent to Jesus, as a guidance and light, confirmation yet modifying few items of the Law that had come before him, to make clear to Jews some of the (points) on which they dispute, a guidance and an admonition to those who fear God, verses 5:046,3:50 ,43:63 ...

2 - It HAS TO BE mostly the saying parts of the the synoptic gospels

[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."

the Quran though tells that both the books were tampered with(we have exposed that in previous posts),yet most the truth has remained therein .....
the verse is not telling christians,Jews to go look up a passage (s) in a lost gospel .....

the Injeel is mostly within the new testament .... why mostly?

The Quran quotes the Injeel (besides the torah),directly ?

[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?


Holy Quran [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.

Are such promise & proverb to be found in the Old and New Testament?

if they are not there, then the Saying gospel (which is within the New testament) is missing some parts.....

If the following modifications of the Law were parts of the Injeel, and no mention about them in the saying gospel, then we can be assured of missing parts in the saying gospel that are parts of the Injeel .....


Holy Quran 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.

Holy Quran 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.

that is why I said the Injeel is MOSTLY within the saying gospel ,and that MAY support PARTLY what Grace-seeker suggested regarding the well established Q gospel theory ,as being in oral form not written text .....


more to write next post InshaAllah....

[Grace Seeker]

;D

you DO say it! ALL the time!

the NEXT quip is usually:

"some form of" Allah is a moon god. [nauthubillah]

you have a history...

Something you hate to be referenced. But, check my history, I've never said that Allah is a moon-god, have I? What I have said is that in the same way that Muslims hate it when people from outside Islam make those types of statements with regard to Islam, so too do I hate it when people from outside of Christianity try to say what it is that Christians think and believe. If you hate the one, you can imagine then how much I hate the other.

You see you argue that Christians are not monotheistic and no amount of us saying that we are makes it so. But at the same time, no amount of someone outside of Christianity saying that we are not monotheistic makes that view so either. The best we can say is that despite Christianity's self understanding as being a monotheistic religion, you as a Muslim don't think that such a self-evaluation is true. But you can't say that it categorically is not true, because you are not the final arbitrar of what is and isn't true.

Additionally, it is rare that a Muslims properly states what it actually is that Christians believe with regard to God. And among the worst mis-staters of what we mean by the Trinity are those who claim that they were themselves once Christians.

That is why I have said:

I don't accept is that I or anyone else should be compelled to utilize any point of view that comes from outside of Christianity to define what is or is not Christian.

.
The adherents of a religion, any religion, should be the ones who get to define what it is that they believe.


That is not to say that they can't be critiqued from outside. However, there is a difference between critiquing another person's view and trying to define it for them. I assert that only Christians can define (however poorly) what it means to be a Christian, what Christians believe and what Christianity is. Let us do that first and then, after we have defined ourselves, critique what you perceive to be the invalidity of those beliefs or the manner in which we practice it.

So, I have no disagreement with this part of what Yahya Sulaiman said:
.

Being an outsider does not make one an automatic ignorant. It doesn't even make one automatically more ignorant than an insider. Even at the very most fundamental things. Sometimes being the person who holds a particular viewpoint makes you less aware of what it is you're really saying than a dissenter would be.

.
Indeed, there is actual value in understanding how an outsider might see one's faith.
.

[Grace Seeker]

the verse is not telling christians,Jews to go look up a passage (s) in a lost gospel .....

.
The term "Christian" wasn't coined during Jesus' earthly ministry. Indeed, it wasn't until Paul and Barnabas were engaged in ministry among both Jews and Gentiles who were becoming followers of the Way (as it was first known) that the term "Christian" became what the body of believers was called. Yet, based upon what I've heard many Muslims express in the past, given their distrust of Paul's ministry, would those who came under Paul's influence with regard to this new faith even qualify to be called Christians in the Quranic sense of the word?
.

[IAmZamzam]

So it's an especial shame for an ex-Christian like me to misunderstand (translation: have an alternate viewpoint than) a Christian doctrine. Or could it just be that the reason I left Christianity in the first place was precisely because I did understand it?

You act as though we Muslims are some minority voice quacking in a lonely wind. In reality Christians are the only group of people who don't agree that the Trinity is nonsense that tries to have it both ways. And not even all Christians. This is not some idiosyncratic theory of ours. Does the thought never pop into your head that when you speak of a plural singular and nobody but you sees any meaningful difference between this impossible distinction and a plain vanilla plural, they may be seeing things that way for a good reason?

And you still haven't answered my question from earlier (at least, I think it was you I asked) so I'll ask again: is the Trinity doctrine comprehensible? Because if it is then there should be an objective and coherent way of defining it which you can tell us and which we can check against others, and if it isn't then you have neither any right nor any reason to say that you Christians understand it any better than anyone else. I think the only reason you won't answer me is because you, like so many Christians, enjoy the luxury of being able to shift your ground on the issue whenever it supports your beliefs.

[Grace Seeker]

So it's an especial shame for an ex-Christian like me to misunderstand (translation: have an alternate viewpoint than) a Christian doctrine. Or could it just be that the reason I left Christianity in the first place was precisely because I did understand it?

.
Whether you understand it or not I can't say. What I said was that it is mis-stated.

You act as though we Muslims are some minority voice quacking in a lonely wind. In reality Christians are the only group of people who don't agree that the Trinity is nonsense that tries to have it both ways. And not even all Christians. This is not some idiosyncratic theory of ours. Does the thought never pop into your head that when you speak of a plural singular and nobody but you sees any meaningful difference between this impossible distinction and a plain vanilla plural, they may be seeing things that way for a good reason?

.
NO. Not even after you try to point it out.

And you still haven't answered my question from earlier (at least, I think it was you I asked) so I'll ask again: is the Trinity doctrine comprehensible?

.
It is the attempted expression of a truth that remains at it's heart a mystery. Comprehensible to some, while at the same time seemingly incomprehensible to others. I suspect that the vast majority of Christians who accept it don't understand it any better than those who reject it. But, yes, I do believe it is comprehensible -- though not by those who insist on doing a mathematical analysis of an ontological and existentialistic construct.

I think the only reason you won't answer me is because you, like so many Christians, enjoy the luxury of being able to shift your ground on the issue whenever it supports your beliefs.

.
Or perhaps, realizing how many times folks have gone round and round on this issue over the years, out of respect for this thread and a desire not to derail it.

[جوري]

though not by those who insist on doing a mathematical analysis of an ontological and existentialistic construct.

what constructs would you like us to understand it under?

[Predator]

Before analysing the Jews motives for rejecting Jesus , we need to discuss some items strongly related items,left ....

we visited the Quranic verses that define who was the real Jesus ,and what is meant by real christianity ..... now let's visit both the terms (christians) and (Injeel) from a Quranic point of view....

the misunderstanding of both terms among muslims and christians is common ,now let's relax ,analyse the verses related ,to reach satisfying conclusion ...

Christians,who and when?


True Christians?


They are any human being that believed in the true message of Jesus during and after his earthly mission :

1- the disciples:

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

2- a section among the Jews during the life time of Jesus:

Holy Quran :O you who believe, be helpers of God, as Jesus, son of Mary, had said to the disciples: "Who will help me in the way of God?" and they had answered: "We are the helpers of God." Then a section among the children of Israel believed, but a section among them did not.

3- Any Jewish member (even if was misinformed and believed that Jesus was crucified) that contiuned keeping the law and stick to pure monotheism after the departure of Jesus till the coming of Islam.

Holy Quran : Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.

4 - Muslims.

Quran - 42:13 The same religion has He established for you as that which He enjoined on Noah - the which We have sent by inspiration to thee - and that which We enjoined on Abraham, Moses, and Jesus: Namely, that ye should remain steadfast in religion, and make no divisions therein: to those who worship other things than Allah, hard is the (way) to which thou callest them.

in a word,true christians is not such narrow term ,that some people would understand it to be....

Ibn Kathir 61:14 also speaks about the True Christians who were killed


Imam Abu Ja`far bin Jarir At-Tabari reported that Ibn `Abbas said, "When Allah decided to raise `Isa to heaven, `Isa went to his companions while drops of water were dripping from his head. At that time, there were twelve men at the house. `Isa said to them, `Some of you will disbelieve in me twelve times after having believed in me.' He then asked, `Who among you volunteers that he be made to resemble me and be killed instead of me; he will be with me in my place (in Paradise).' One of the youngest men present volunteered, but `Isa commanded him to sit down. `Isa repeated his statement and the young man again stood up and volunteered, and `Isa again told him to sit down. `Isa repeated the same statement and the young man volunteered. This time, `Isa said, `Then it will be you.' The appearance of `Isa was cast upon that young man, while `Isa, peace be on him, was raised to heaven through an opening in the roof of the house. The Jews came looking for `Isa and arrested the one that appeared as him, killing him by crucifixion. Some of them disbelieved in `Isa twelve times, after they had believed in him.
They divided into three groups. One group, Al-Ya`qubiyyah (the Jacobites), said, `Allah remained with us as much as He willed and then ascended to heaven.' Another group, An-Nasturiyyah (the Nestorians), said, `Allah's son remained with us as much as Allah willed and He then rasied him up to heaven.' A third group said, `Allah's servant and Messenger remained with us as much as Allah willed and then Allah raised him up to Him.' The last group was the Muslim group. The two disbelieving groups collaborated against the Muslim group and annihilate it. Islam remained unjustly concealed until Allah sent Muhammad
　
Paul is undoubtedly a part of those disbelieving groups which killed the Muslim group as we can see that a few of Paul’s murders are listed in the bible
"Saul, yet breathing out threatening and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord...."
(Acts 9:1)
"...many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority from the chief priests; and when they were put to death, I gave my voice against them"
(Acts 26:10)
"And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women"
(Acts 22:4)
The list of Paul’s murders of the true believers is a very long one. and his intentions are very clear to everyone, "To destroy the true religion" of Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) and yet he says he is free from any sin of murder.
"I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men"
(Acts 20:26)
This way, even Hitler would be in Christian heaven as murder is a very minor sin and anyone can get away with it.

[IAmZamzam]

All right then, Grace Seeker, if the Trinity is comprehensible to all but the precious elite few who have this esoteric or expert theological knowledge necessary to master it, why don't you use your own to do your best to initiate us into these mysteries? Feel free to start another thread on it if you like. I am very interested to see what, in all my three years constantly at the top of all my theology classes at a very fine accredited Christian high school, and throughout all my readings in C.S. Lewis and others, and all my exegetical study through books and internet articles, and all my discussions with much more knowledgeable Christians than myself, and all the countless discussions and arguments I've had with WAY too many missionaries to count in the many years since I left Christianity, I somehow missed. Let's hear it. Explain.

[Grace Seeker]

Paul is undoubtedly a part of those disbelieving groups which killed the Muslim group.

.

Paul most certainly originally opposed the followers of the Way. But do you remember on what grounds who opposed them?

[Ramadhan]

The term "Christian" wasn't coined during Jesus' earthly ministry. Indeed, it wasn't until Paul and Barnabas were engaged in ministry among both Jews and Gentiles who were becoming followers of the Way (as it was first known) that the term "Christian" became what the body of believers was called. Yet, based upon what I've heard many Muslims express in the past, given their distrust of Paul's ministry, would those who came under Paul's influence with regard to this new faith even qualify to be called Christians in the Quranic sense of the word?

Actually, the word used in the Qur'an is Nasara (nasrani).

not sure if all followers of Paul/Saul (christians) can be classified under the term "nasara"

[Ramadhan]

Something you hate to be referenced. But, check my history, I've never said that Allah is a moon-god, have I? What I have said is that in the same way that Muslims hate it when people from outside Islam make those types of statements with regard to Islam, so too do I hate it when people from outside of Christianity try to say what it is that Christians think and believe. If you hate the one, you can imagine then how much I hate the other.

ah GS, you are at it again.

You are making analogy of muslims who say that christians worship jesus as god (along with the father as god and holy spirit as god) to christians who say that muslims worship moon god.

It is either you are awfully naive or the other option (which I dare not mention, lest it hurt your ego).

Isn't christians themselves who declare they worship jesus, in addition to Holy spirit and the father?
Isn't jesus pbuh a human?
so christian worship a human god, right?
so there are three entities that christian worship, correct?

Now, tell me if there is a muslim who proclaim that they worship moon, or that if there is any Qur'an verse and/or hadith that say or even subtly or vaguely indicate that we worship god?
Makes you wonder why christians love saying that muslims worship moon god, eh? and makes you question their intention?

You know the answers to the above questions.

[Ramadhan]

The term "Christian" wasn't coined during Jesus' earthly ministry. Indeed, it wasn't until Paul and Barnabas were engaged in ministry among both Jews and Gentiles who were becoming followers of the Way (as it was first known) that the term "Christian" became what the body of believers was called. Yet, based upon what I've heard many Muslims express in the past, given their distrust of Paul's ministry, would those who came under Paul's influence with regard to this new faith even qualify to be called Christians in the Quranic sense of the word?

You know very well that not all early christians were followers of Paul.

[Hiroshi]

Injeel ?



[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."

Allah is speaking to Moses here, right? Did the Injil even exist in Moses' time?

[ardianto]

Allah is speaking to Moses here, right?

Wrong. Allah (swt) is telling stories about prophets in the past to Rasulullah Muhammad (saw) here. Prophet that mentioned in surah Al Ar'af is not only Moses (as). But also other prophets.

Did the Injil even exist in Moses' time?

It didn't. But Injil had been exist in the time when Qur'an was revealed.


Hiroshi. I guess you read this surah Al Ar'af in quick reading and not complete. If you want to know what is surah Al Ar'af about, you must read the whole surah, not only several verses.

[Hiroshi]

Wrong. Allah (swt) is telling stories about prophets in the past to Rasulullah Muhammad (saw) here. Prophet that mentioned in surah Al Ar'af is not only Moses (as). But also other prophets.

It didn't. But Injil had been exist in the time when Qur'an was revealed.


Hiroshi. I guess you read this surah Al Ar'af in quick reading and not complete. If you want to know what is surah Al Ar'af about, you must read the whole surah, not only several verses.

Well, thanks for responding Ardianto.

My Qur'an translated by Yusuf Ali has a footnote to Surah 7:157 which says: "In this verse is a pre-figuring, to Moses, of the Arabian Messenger, the last and greatest of the messengers of Allah." Did Yusuf Ali also do a quick and not complete reading of his own translation? And is this footnote completely wrong? It says that Allah is speaking in this verse "to Moses".

[Ramadhan]

My Qur'an translated by Yusuf Ali has a footnote to Surah 7:157 which says: "In this verse is a pre-figuring, to Moses, of the Arabian Messenger, the last and greatest of the messengers of Allah." Did Yusuf Ali also do a quick and not complete reading of his own translation? And is this footnote completely wrong? It says that Allah is speaking in this verse "to Moses".

Even if you read the verse alone and even if you are non-muslim you would not conclude it is Allah speaking to Musa a.s. In the verse Allah SWT gives information (i presume to the benefits of ahli kitab primarily) that the news of the coming of the unlettered prophet had already been related to prophet Musa (through taurat) and prophet Isa a.s. (through injeel)
Also, based on the footnote you claim above, it clearly does not say Allah is speaking to Musa a.s. in the verse.
"In this verse is a pre-figuring, to Moses, of the Arabian Messenger, the last and greatest of the messengers of Allah."
means that Allah SWT has revealed to Musa about prophet Muhammad SAW, and the revelation was recorded in the Torah, just as it was also revealed to Jesus pbuh, recorded in injeel.
It is interesting of you, Hiroshi, that you love cut and paste (even if it is only a footnote of a translation) and then tried to twist the meaning of it.
Back to old habit, eh?

[YusufNoor]

Well, thanks for responding Ardianto.

My Qur'an translated by Yusuf Ali has a footnote to Surah 7:157 which says: "In this verse is a pre-figuring, to Moses, of the Arabian Messenger, the last and greatest of the messengers of Allah." Did Yusuf Ali also do a quick and not complete reading of his own translation? And is this footnote completely wrong? It says that Allah is speaking in this verse "to Moses".

:sl:

note to Hiroshi:

Yusuf Ali is NOT repeat NOT an Islamic Scholar! his translation is noted for it's literary value. you could call it the "King James" version of the Qur'an, it is filled with mistakes and his tafseer contains alot of his own opinion. i grew weary of reading his commentary. at least use Muhammad Asad if you want to use a translation.

for a more scholarly approach, go with ibn Kathir, at the least Muhsin Khan.

don't "pretend" that you've found mistakes "with Islam" when using Yusuf Ali, all you have done is find mistakes with Yusuf Ali.

:wa:

[Hiroshi]

:sl:

note to Hiroshi:

Yusuf Ali is NOT repeat NOT an Islamic Scholar! his translation is noted for it's literary value. you could call it the "King James" version of the Qur'an, it is filled with mistakes and his tafseer contains alot of his own opinion. i grew weary of reading his commentary. at least use Muhammad Asad if you want to use a translation.

for a more scholarly approach, go with ibn Kathir, at the least Muhsin Khan.

don't "pretend" that you've found mistakes "with Islam" when using Yusuf Ali, all you have done is find mistakes with Yusuf Ali.

:wa:

Even if you read the verse alone and even if you are non-muslim you would not conclude it is Allah speaking to Musa a.s. In the verse Allah SWT gives information (i presume to the benefits of ahli kitab primarily) that the news of the coming of the unlettered prophet had already been related to prophet Musa (through taurat) and prophet Isa a.s. (through injeel)
Also, based on the footnote you claim above, it clearly does not say Allah is speaking to Musa a.s. in the verse.
"In this verse is a pre-figuring, to Moses, of the Arabian Messenger, the last and greatest of the messengers of Allah."
means that Allah SWT has revealed to Musa about prophet Muhammad SAW, and the revelation was recorded in the Torah, just as it was also revealed to Jesus pbuh, recorded in injeel.
It is interesting of you, Hiroshi, that you love cut and paste (even if it is only a footnote of a translation) and then tried to twist the meaning of it.
Back to old habit, eh?

Actually nothing was cut and pasted. I typed it out.

N. J. Dawood's translation reads:

[Moses says:] “Forgive us and have mercy on us: You are the noblest of those who forgive. Ordain for us what is good, both in this life and in the hereafter. To You alone we turn.”

He replied: “I will visit My scourge upon whom I please: yet My mercy encompasses all things. I will show mercy to those that keep from evil and give alms, and to those that in Our signs believe; to those that shall follow the Apostle – the Unlettered Prophet – whom they shall find described to them in the Torah and the Gospel. He will enjoin righteousness upon them and forbid them to do evil. He will make good things lawful to them and prohibit all that is foul. He will relieve them of their burdens and of the shackles that weigh upon them. Those that believe in him and honour him, those that aid him and follow the light sent down with him, shall surely triumph.”

Say*: “You people! I am God’s emissary to you all ... [etc.].”

*These words are addressed to Muhammad.



The footnote clearly shows that it is at the beginning verse 158 that words are being addressed to Muhammad. Until the end of verse 157 the passage is in inverted commas showing that the translator understood these words as being addressed to Moses after the words: "He replied" [to Moses].

[Al-manar]

verse 7:157 should be read in context ,

the chapter begins with the story of Adam then a mesage to the readers warning against Satan and misbehave ,then visiting Hell and heaven ,then verses related to creation,then story of Noah,Aad ,thamood ,Lut,Madian,Shuaib in brief then again a mesage to the readers of the lesson learned from the fate of such bad people.. then the story of Moses ....
we note that while telling the story ,some of the lines dedicated to the what God told or did with Moses and his people ....some other lines doesn't look like something related to the story lines eg; In verse 145

(145) And We ordained laws for him in the tablets in all matters, both commanding and explaining all things, (and said): "Take and hold these with firmness, and enjoin thy people to hold fast by the best in the precepts: soon shall I show you the homes of the wicked,- (How they lie desolate).
(146)Those who behave arrogantly on the earth in defiance of right - them will I turn away from My signs: Even if they see all the signs, they will not believe in them; and if they see the way of right conduct, they will not adopt it as the way; but if they see the way of error, that is the way they will adopt. For they have rejected our signs, and failed to take warning from them.


Though In verse 145 ,we have God telling Moses (Take and hold these with firmness,etc....),the saying of the very following verse (Those who behave arrogantly etc...) can be understood as not included in the words in verse 145 whom God told Moses....

similar case of the verse 155 and 156 ...there is a story line and .some other lines doesn't look like something related to the story lines


7:155 And Moses chose seventy of his people for Our place of meeting: when they were seized with violent quaking, he prayed: "O my Lord! if it had been Thy will Thou couldst have destroyed, long before, both them and me: wouldst Thou destroy us for the deeds of the foolish ones among us? this is no more than Thy trial: by it Thou causest whom Thou wilt to stray, and Thou leadest whom Thou wilt into the right path. Thou art our Protector: so forgive us and give us Thy mercy; for Thou art the best of those who forgive.
156 "And ordain for us that which is good, in this life and in the Hereafter: for we have turned unto Thee." He said: "With My punishment I visit whom I will; but My mercy extendeth to all things. That (mercy) I shall ordain for those who do right, and practise regular charity, and those who believe in Our signs;-

157 "Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the law and the Gospel;- 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."

158 Say (O Muhammad): O mankind! Lo! I am the messenger of Allah to you all - (the messenger of) Him unto Whom belongeth the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth. There is no Allah save Him. He quickeneth and He giveth death. So believe in Allah and His messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, who believeth in Allah and in His Words, and follow him that haply ye may be led aright.



the words in bold (He said)or (God said) is a beginning of a statement though has some connection to the story but isn't part of the story line.... after such statement (verse 156 till 160) the story lines goes on again ......

Yusuf Ali is NOT repeat NOT an Islamic Scholar! his translation is noted for it's literary value. you could call it the "King James" version of the Qur'an, it is filled with mistakes and his tafseer contains alot of his own opinion. i grew weary of reading his commentary. at least use Muhammad Asad if you want to use a translation.

The only cons with the translation of Muhammad Asad is some instances where he over used the metaphorical understanding ..... though such thing, still I recommend his translation as your first choice....

[Ramadhan]

Actually nothing was cut and pasted. I typed it out

Anyone with rudimentary understanding of the Qur'an would understand that the structure of the Qur'an is not linear. And indeed you should be careful in not cutting and pasting (although you used the old ways: retyping it).

The footnote clearly shows that it is at the beginning verse 158 that words are being addressed to Muhammad. Until the end of verse 157 the passage is in inverted commas showing that the translator understood these words as being addressed to Moses after the words: "He replied" [to Moses].

None of the translations from Quran.com translated it as "He replied", all of them translated as "He Said:", and clearly anyone with basic understanding of both Qur'an and Qur'an arabic could understand that the word "Qalaa" in this verse only mean "He says", addressed not specifically to Moses, but as a general statement (about his all-encompassing mercy, criteria of persons who He give rewards or punishments).

QS. 7:156
Sahih International
[ Allah ] said, "My punishment - I afflict with it whom I will, but My mercy encompasses all things." So I will decree it [especially] for those who fear Me and give zakah and those who believe in Our verses -
Muhsin Khan
He said: (As to) My Punishment I afflict therewith whom I will and My Mercy embraces all things. That (Mercy) I shall ordain for those who are the Muttaqun (pious - see V.2:2), and give Zakat; and those who believe in Our Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs and revelations, etc.);
Pickthall
He said: I smite with My punishment whom I will, and My mercy embraceth all things, therefore I shall ordain it for those who ward off (evil) and pay the poor-due, and those who believe Our revelations;
Yusuf Ali
He said: "With My punishment I visit whom I will; but My mercy extendeth to all things. That (mercy) I shall ordain for those who do right, and practise regular charity, and those who believe in Our signs;-
Shakir
He said: (As for) My chastisement, I will afflict with it whom I please, and My mercy encompasses all things; so I will ordain it (specially) for those who guard (against evil) and pay the poor-rate, and those who believe in Our communications.
Dr. Ghali
Said He, "My torment, I afflict with it whomever I decide, and My mercy has embraced everything; so I will soon prescribe it to the ones who are pious and bring the Zakat, (i.e., pay the poor-dues) and the ones who (themselves) believe in Our signs, .

then continues to verse 157.

[Al-manar]

.
Yet, based upon what I've heard many Muslims express in the past, given their distrust of Paul's ministry, would those who came under Paul's influence with regard to this new faith even qualify to be called Christians in the Quranic sense of the word?
.

The Quran uses the word (Nasara) for christians ,it is the Arabic title the Arab used when refering to trinitarians,Paul or whoever ..... opposite to ( followers of the true message of Jesus ) when refering to anyone who held not the trinitarian theologies .....

[Insaanah]

N. J. Dawood's translation reads:

[Moses says:] “Forgive us and have mercy on us: You are the noblest of those who forgive. Ordain for us what is good, both in this life and in the hereafter. To You alone we turn.”

He replied: “I will visit My scourge upon whom I please: yet My mercy encompasses all things. I will show mercy to those that keep from evil and give alms, and to those that in Our signs believe; to those that shall follow the Apostle – the Unlettered Prophet – whom they shall find described to them in the Torah and the Gospel. He will enjoin righteousness upon them and forbid them to do evil. He will make good things lawful to them and prohibit all that is foul. He will relieve them of their burdens and of the shackles that weigh upon them. Those that believe in him and honour him, those that aid him and follow the light sent down with him, shall surely triumph.”

Say*: “You people! I am God’s emissary to you all ... [etc.].”

*These words are addressed to Muhammad.

The footnote clearly shows that it is at the beginning verse 158 that words are being addressed to Muhammad. Until the end of verse 157 the passage is in inverted commas showing that the translator understood these words as being addressed to Moses after the words: "He replied" [to Moses].

:sl: Muslim brothers and sisters, and peace to all,

Please be aware that the Nessim Joseph Dawood translation of the Qur'an, is one that is used quite often by answering islam. There are reasons that they like to quote from this one, though they do sometimes use others. I suspect this one suits their purposes quite nicely.

Please be aware of the following:

"N.J. Dawood is perhaps the only Jew to have translated the Qur'an into English. Available in the Penguin edition, Dawood's translation, The Koran (London, 1956) is perhaps the most widely circulated non-Muslim English translation of the Qur'an. The author's bias against Islam is readily observable in the Introduction. Apart form adopting an unusual Sura order in his translation, Dawood is guilty also of having mistranslated the Qur'an in places such as Baqara II:9 and A'raf VII:31, etc."
- A.R. Kidwai (The Muslim World Book Review, Vol. 7, No. 4 Summer 1987).

Source: http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/365385.N_J_Dawood

Consider, for example, the most widely available translation in English, by N J Dawood, the first edition of which was published by Penguin in 1956. This translation subverts the original in several ways. Often a single word is mistranslated in a verse to give it totally the opposite meaning. In 2:217, for example, we read: "idolatry is worse than carnage". The word translated as "idolatry" is "fitna", which actually means persecution or oppression. Dawood's translation conveys an impression that the Qur'an will put up with carnage but not idolatry. In fact, the Qur'an is making persecution and oppression a crime greater than murder. The extract should read: "oppression is more awesome than killing".

At other times, Dawood uses subtle mistranslation to give an undertow of violence to the language of the Qur'an. This is evident even in his translations of chapter titles. "Az-Zumar", which simply means "crowd", is translated as "The Hordes"; "As-Saff", which means "the ranks", is translated as "Battle Array". "Al-Alaq", which literally means "that which clings", and refers to the embryo as it attaches to the wall of the uterus, is translated as "Clots of Blood". Most Muslim translators simply call the chapter "The Clot". What is intended to convey the idea of birth, Dawood projects as the notion of death. Like previous orientalist translators, he also goes out of his way to suggest that the Qur'an is a sexist text. The Qur'an demands that humanity serve God; in Dawood's translation, this injunction applies only to men. Spouses become virgins. Conjuring witches appear from nowhere. Thus, readers of Dawood's version - and most other popular translations of the Qur'an - have come away with the impression that the Holy Book sanctions violence or sexual oppression.

Source: http://www.newstatesman.com/200408090035

:sl:

[Al-manar]

Injeel ? p.2


looking for lost Injeel?

If you keep searching for it ,well ... the Quan tells you it has to be mostly within the New Testament .............

It has to be mostly the saying gospel (call it Q or whatever you like ) that is within the new testament ..... if there is something missed from it ,the Quran has already mentioned it (proverbs and what laws been modified)...in other words there is no Injeel secrets that is hidden from you ..... the Injeel is already available within the new testament and the Quran.......
the Quranic definition to Injeel won't exclude any discovered saying gospel ,in condition to be the same ideas of the Saying gospel within the new testament ....

.................................................. ...............

Having visited what Quran means by Chistianity,Christians,gospel .....

let's now visit ,evaluate what the writers of the bible mean't by Chistianity,Christians,gospel .....


till next post

[Hiroshi]

Insaanah, thank you for you comments regarding Dawood's translation. I did not know that Muslims found it so objectionable. I have just six translations of the Qur'an in English and Dawood happens to be one of them.





Anyway, we may as well wrap up the discussion because it won’t go anywhere.

One Muslim that I spoke to explained things this way. He said that Allah is not limited by time in the way that we are. The past, present and future are all the same to him. So while Allah was replying to Moses’ prayer, Moses gradually faded into the past as Allah moved forward in time until, by the start of verse 157, Allah was finally addressing Muhammad and his contemporaries. That is kind of a nice idea.

Islamic Awareness say that there is an "insertion" of a comment (idraj), in harmony with the style language of the Qur’an, after the phrase “and those who believe in Our signs”

Quote:
He said: "With My punishment I visit whom I will; but My mercy extendeth to all things. That (mercy) I shall ordain for those who do right, and practise regular charity, and those who believe in Our signs;- "Those who follow the messenger, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures), ... [etc.]”

The Sahih International translation punctuates the passage so that the insertion comes after the phrase “but My mercy encompasses all things”.

Naidamar said: “None of the translations from Quran.com translated it as "He replied", all of them translated as "He Said:", and clearly anyone with basic understanding of both Qur'an and Qur'an arabic could understand that the word "Qalaa" in this verse only mean "He says", addressed not specifically to Moses, but as a general statement”.

And Ardianto said: “Allah (swt) is telling stories about prophets in the past to Rasulullah Muhammad (saw) here.”



So I count here 5 different explanations of Surah 7:157. Most of them, in line with Dawood’s translation, agree that the words: “He said” are to be taken to mean that Allah was indeed replying to Moses.

Reasonably, since Moses prayed for Allah to ordain good things, Allah is replying to this prayer when he says: “That (mercy) I shall ordain for those who ...” and goes on to list four requirements. I would say that is quite impossible to separate number four on the list (following the Prophet mentioned in the Torah and Injil) from the speech that went before it.

But let’s not argue.

[IAmZamzam]

Hiroshi, have you forgotten that there are no quotation marks in Arabic to mark where a quote begins and ends?

[Al-manar]

So I count here 5 different explanations of Surah 7:157. Most of them, in line with Dawood’s translation.

what 5 explanations? the verse has only 2 suggested understandings

1- the most acceptable esp;to the Arab readers is that there is a kind of an "insertion" of a comment (idraj).

2- Another one seems to be weaker, is that God told Moses about a future thing.....

the cases of idraj in the Quran are numerous , and me as native Arabic reader ,never understood the verse as God telling moses about the future....

whatever of the 2 possible meanings is more accurate ,is not a matter to argue ..... both are possible and both put an end to such objection....

[IAmZamzam]

Oh, for heaven's sake. Look at the passage without any quotation marks (as they are, again, always added in the translation, Arabic having none of its own):

Moses chose seventy of his people for Our place of meeting: when they were seized with violent quaking, he prayed: O my Lord! if it had been Thy will Thou couldst have destroyed, long before, both them and me: wouldst Thou destroy us for the deeds of the foolish ones among us? this is no more than Thy trial: by it Thou causest whom Thou wilt to stray, and Thou leadest whom Thou wilt into the right path. Thou art our Protector: so forgive us and give us Thy mercy; for Thou art the best of those who forgive. And ordain for us that which is good, in this life and in the Hereafter: for we have turned unto Thee. He said: With My punishment I visit whom I will; but My mercy extendeth to all things. That (mercy) I shall ordain for those who do right, and practise regular charity, and those who believe in Our signs—those who follow the apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures), in the law and the Gospel; 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. (Yusuf Ali)

As you can see, there is no problem if you just assume that the quotation marks would go in a much more logical place than where some translators bizarrely choose to place them:

[Moses] prayed: “O my Lord! if it had been Thy will Thou couldst have destroyed, long before, both them and me: wouldst Thou destroy us for the deeds of the foolish ones among us? this is no more than Thy trial: by it Thou causest whom Thou wilt to stray, and Thou leadest whom Thou wilt into the right path. Thou art our Protector: so forgive us and give us Thy mercy; for Thou art the best of those who forgive. And ordain for us that which is good, in this life and in the Hereafter: for we have turned unto Thee.”

He said: “With My punishment I visit whom I will; but My mercy extendeth to all things.”

That (mercy) I shall ordain for those who do right, and practise regular charity, and those who believe in Our signs—those who follow the apostle, the unlettered Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures), in the law and the Gospel; 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.

[Hiroshi]

Hiroshi, have you forgotten that there are no quotation marks in Arabic to mark where a quote begins and ends?

Of course not. And I accept that there can be ambiguity where there is no punctuation.

[Hiroshi]

what 5 explanations? the verse has only 2 suggested understandings

1- the most acceptable esp;to the Arab readers is that there is a kind of an "insertion" of a comment (idraj).

2- Another one seems to be weaker, is that God told Moses about a future thing.....

the cases of idraj in the Quran are numerous , and me as native Arabic reader ,never understood the verse as God telling moses about the future....

whatever of the 2 possible meanings is more accurate ,is not a matter to argue ..... both are possible and both put an end to such objection....

The problem with the "insertion" explanation is that the words: "Those who follow the messenger" (to abbreviate what was said) do not make a sentence. They make a subject without a predicate (or part of a predicate without the subject). They need to be joined with what was spoken immediately before in order to make sense, thus: "That mercy I shall ordain for ... those who follow the messenger." Reasonably, they cannot be an insertion but must rather be connected with Allah's reply to Moses.

[Ramadhan]

The problem with the "insertion" explanation is that the words: "Those who follow the messenger" (to abbreviate what was said) do not make a sentence. They make a subject without a predicate (or part of a predicate without the subject). They need to be joined with what was spoken immediately before in order to make sense, thus: "That mercy I shall ordain for ... those who follow the messenger." Reasonably, they cannot be an insertion but must rather be connected with Allah's reply to Moses.

Now I am starting to wonder if you actually think that The Qur'an was conveyed and recorded in English, instead in Arabiyya.

[Insaanah]

Of course not. And I accept that there can be ambiguity where there is no punctuation.

There is no ambiguity about the message of that passage. And the message seems to be forgotten here. Even the Jews, who were well known for their hairsplitting over issues, knew very well what this passage was saying to them, and what was now required of them with advent of the Prophet they had been expecting.

Not only is the story of Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) being told in some of the verses, but also, the whole Qur'an is a narrative to mankind, including Jews and Christians. In the latter part of ayah 156, Allah tells of those he will decree His Mercy for; those who fear Him, give Zakat and believe in Allah's revelations. The Jews and Christians would say, "We fear God, we give our charity, and we believe in what was revealed to us, so we are fine."

An example of what they used to say (in this case the Jews) is:

And when it is said to them, "Believe in what Allah has revealed," they say, "We believe [only] in what was revealed to us." And they disbelieve in what came after it, while it is the truth confirming that which is with them. (Qur'an 2:91, part)

Allah goes on, in verse 157, to clarify beyond all doubt what Jews and Christians have to do to attain fulfilment of the latter half of verse 156; they must follow the unlettered prophet, descriptions of whom are in their book, the Torah and in the injeel. Allah then goes on to say at the end of verse 157, "Then those who believe in him, and honour him, and help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him (Qur'an): they are the successful."

The message from Allah is very clear that if they claim to believe, then they must believe in and follow the Prophet and the revelation that God has now sent with him for them and for all of mankind; Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and the Qur'an.

It is a clear message for all.

Peace.

[aadil77]

Now I am starting to wonder if you actually think that The Qur'an was conveyed and recorded in English, instead in Arabiyya.

one of the problems christians have with the bible

[Woodrow]

one of the problems christians have with the bible

I actually know a few (Non-mainstream) Christians who believe the Bible came down from heaven, fully bound and in Elizabethan English. There are some Christians who do believe Jesus(as) and his apostles spoke Elizabethan English. I do believe that is some, not the majority. Ann Richards when she was elected Governor of Texas was asked which bible did she want to take the oath of office on? She answered "The KJV, if it was good enough for Jesus(as), it is good enough for me."

[Grace Seeker]

I actually know a few (Non-mainstream) Christians who believe the Bible came down from heaven, fully bound and in Elizabethan English. There are some Christians who do believe Jesus(as) and his apostles spoke Elizabethan English. I do believe that is some, not the majority. Ann Richards when she was elected Governor of Texas was asked which bible did she want to take the oath of office on? She answered "The KJV, if it was good enough for Jesus(as), it is good enough for me."

And I suppose you're going to tell me that it isn't so? If God didn't given them to us himself, then where do you suppose we got all those English translations?

[Hiroshi]

Now I am starting to wonder if you actually think that The Qur'an was conveyed and recorded in English, instead in Arabiyya.

If "Those who follow the messenger, full stop" makes sense in Arabic what is it saying?

[Al-manar]

Origin of the christianity that shouldn't had been p.1

After long time of reading ,reflecting ...I'm totally satisfied with the following approach to such matter .... I'm always satisfied when my arguments is based both on the Quran and the scholary works that based on the biblical text itself ,not the speculations ....

Christianity is a problem that resulted from vain desires ,and false hopes ....... before we provide our introduction to the root of the problem ,let's make a visit again to the Quran :

we have read that according to the Quran , The Jews differed in their reaction with Jesus ....

(1st)

A part of them accepted his message as a reformer prophet ....

the Quran - 3:52 When Jesus found Unbelief on their part He said: "Who will be My helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the disciples: "We are Allah's helpers: We believe in Allah, and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims.

the Quran - 61:14
O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of Allah: As said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the disciples, "We are Allah's helpers!" then a portion of the Children of Israel believed.

There is no wonder that some Jews accepted Jesus as a prophet of God :

traces of what have been Jesus's original claim as prophet remain in the Gospel texts.

"A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house" (Mark 6:4).

A Pharisee thought to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is" (Luk 7:39). Why would the Pharisee wonder if Jesus was a prophet unless this was Jesus's claim or at least a claim made for him by his followers?

On the way through the district of Caesarea Philippi, Jesus "asked his disciples, 'Who do men say that I am?' And they told him, 'John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others one of the prophets'" (Mark 8:27).

When Jesus announced his resolve to go to Jerusalem, he is reported by Luke to have said, "Nevertheless I must go on my way …; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem" (Luke 13:33).

there are Jews who believed in Jesus as a prophet and nothing more during his lifetime, after his departure eg; those represented others who already quoted in NT ,and the Ebonite's etc.....


(2nd)

A second part believed in him as a prophet but from the false type ,as they believed that the the door of newly prophethood is closed ,just Elijah and the king messiah who would arrive .... such group refused him, ascribing to Him illegitimate birth, magic, and a shameful death ......

they refused him as he simply fulfilled not their own desires

the Quran - 2:87 And verily We gave unto Moses the Scripture and We caused a train of messengers to follow after him, and We gave unto Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs (of Allah's sovereignty), and We supported him with the Holy spirit. Is it ever so, that, when there cometh unto you a messenger (from Allah) with that which ye yourselves desire not, ye grow arrogant, and some ye disbelieve and some ye slay?


(3rd)

A third party who neither accepted him as false prophet neither mere a prophet, such group though had something in common(the vain desire of messianic hopes ) with the second party already mentioned ,yet they overstepped the bounds .... the fact as they wouldn't be satisfied to accept Jesus as merely a prophet , they imported Old Testament titles Son of God,Son of man , a role and nature invalid for Jesus etc ..... to satisfy their desires and to give hope for those dreamers of a messianic golden age and the Earth that would turn into paradise ......

those third party are the writers of the New Testament and their communities ,who were already preceded by those(dead sea scrolls community) who had similar vain desires .....

In sum ,we have the Quran classifiying the Jews in such era into three basic parties ....and we provided non-Quranic clear text to support every verse...

next post would be the focus on the third party aka christians ......

we would try to investigate the origin , through a very satisfying approach:

How would you get the root of the matter?

It is when you follow that formula:
1- If you analyze some of the errors of the writers of the New testament (the source from which christianity comes from)
2- you would get the intention of the writers
3- getting the intentions of the writers would get you a clue of the origin of the whole matter .....

to be continued

peace

[Hiroshi]

1- If you analyze some of the errors of the writers of the New testament (the source from which christianity comes from)
2- you would get the intention of the writers
3- getting the intentions of the writers would get you a clue of the origin of the whole matter .....



peace

So God wasn't able to protect his Injil, his written word, from error?

[Ramadhan]

So God wasn't able to protect his Injil, his written word, from error?

Did God ever say He was going to preserve Injil?

[Al-manar]

So God wasn't able to protect his Injil, his written word, from error?

well;.......

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?

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.....

God doesn't reveal 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...

[Hiroshi]

Did God ever say He was going to preserve Injil?

Surah 6:34 says: "there is none that can alter the Words and Decrees of Allah". I believe that these words can apply to both the promises of God and also to the written scriptures in which they were recorded.

This link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahrif

says:

Islamic tradition holds that the Gospel was available to Arabs as narrated by 'Aisha:

"The Prophet returned to Khadija while his heart was beating rapidly. She took him to Waraqa bin Naufal who was a Christian convert and used to read the Gospels in Arabic. Waraqa asked (the Prophet), "What do you see?" When he told him, Waraqa said, "That is the same angel whom Allah sent to (the Prophet) Moses. Should I live till you receive the Divine Message, I will support you strongly."[12]

... Khadija then took him to Waraqa bin Naufil, the son of Khadija's paternal uncle. Waraqa had been converted to Christianity in the Pre-lslamic Period and used to write Arabic and write of the Gospel in Arabic as much as Allah wished him to write...[13]

... Khadija then took him to Waraqa b. Naufal b. Asad b. 'Abd al-'Uzza, and he was the son of Khadija's uncle, i.e., the brother of her father. And he was the man who had embraced Christianity in the Days of Ignorance (i.e. before Islam) and he used to write books in Arabic and, therefore, wrote Injil in Arabic as God willed that he should write...[14]

These Hadiths suggest that in the late 700s Jews and Christians were still using an uncorrupted text. If this is the suggested time of corruption there would already be too many copies in circulation to change — not to mention the diversity of language as there were even texts in Arabic.


This same source also says that:

The theme of tahrif found its first detailed elaboration in the writings of Ibn Hazm (10th century).



So then, it wasn't until the 10th century, hundreds of years after the rise of Islam, that the Injil first came to be accused of corruption. If this accusation were true then the corruption must have taken place between the 7th and the 10th centuries. But we today have manuscripts of the NT dating back to even before the 7th century.

[Hiroshi]

A christian memeber, wondered the same before, and that was my reply

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?

etc... etc..........

Actually these are very good questions. Why does God permit evil and all the related suffering? The answer is that Satan has challenged that he can cause any of God's intelligent creatures, human or angelic, to rebel against the Creator. This outrageous challenge calls into question the love, faithfulness and integrity of all of God's servants and even calls into question God's very right to rule.

But these are moral issues. These are not questions that can be settled by a display of power or force. For example, God could have destroyed Satan at the very beginning. But that would not have proven that God was in the right. It might actually have suggested to all onlookers, that rather Satan was the one in the right.

God has wisely allowed Satan to carry out his challenge which means that each one of us is faced with a test. Do we give in to evil as Satan would wish? Or do we prove Satan to be a liar by showing love and obedience to God and try to leave in a way that pleases him?

Sadly, many fall prey to Satan's snares. But there are also countless others who bring glory to God by showing their loyalty to him and their willingness to accept his Sovereignty even in the face of death. These ones show that Satan is a slanderer and a liar. In the final end, God will be fully justified in destroying Satan and all who side with him. This final judgement will set an important precedent. Then there will be peace and harmony throughout creation and no one else will ever again challenge God's righteous way of ruling.

[جوري]

Surah 6:34 says: "there is none that can alter the Words and Decrees of Allah". I believe that these words can apply to both the promises of God and also to the written scriptures in which they were recorded.

This link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahrif

says:

Islamic tradition holds that the Gospel was available to Arabs as narrated by 'Aisha:

"The Prophet returned to Khadija while his heart was beating rapidly. She took him to Waraqa bin Naufal who was a Christian convert and used to read the Gospels in Arabic. Waraqa asked (the Prophet), "What do you see?" When he told him, Waraqa said, "That is the same angel whom Allah sent to (the Prophet) Moses. Should I live till you receive the Divine Message, I will support you strongly."[12]

... Khadija then took him to Waraqa bin Naufil, the son of Khadija's paternal uncle. Waraqa had been converted to Christianity in the Pre-lslamic Period and used to write Arabic and write of the Gospel in Arabic as much as Allah wished him to write...[13]

... Khadija then took him to Waraqa b. Naufal b. Asad b. 'Abd al-'Uzza, and he was the son of Khadija's uncle, i.e., the brother of her father. And he was the man who had embraced Christianity in the Days of Ignorance (i.e. before Islam) and he used to write books in Arabic and, therefore, wrote Injil in Arabic as God willed that he should write...[14]

These Hadiths suggest that in the late 700s Jews and Christians were still using an uncorrupted text. If this is the suggested time of corruption there would already be too many copies in circulation to change — not to mention the diversity of language as there were even texts in Arabic.


This same source also says that:

The theme of tahrif found its first detailed elaboration in the writings of Ibn Hazm (10th century).



So then, it wasn't until the 10th century, hundreds of years after the rise of Islam, that the Injil first came to be accused of corruption. If this accusation were true then the corruption must have taken place between the 7th and the 10th centuries. But we today have manuscripts of the NT dating back to even before the 7th century.

what you don't know about ibn waraq is that in fact he wasn't a practicing christian because he believed the 'gospel' was very corrupted .. try to look for him in islamic sources after all that is the primary source from which Wikipiedia or other orientalists take a historical piece and add or subtract their spin!

all the best

[جوري]

Actually these are very good questions. Why does God permit evil and all the related suffering?

see this thread:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...og-thread.html

all the best

[Hiroshi]

what you don't know about ibn waraq is that in fact he wasn't a practicing christian because he believed the 'gospel' was very corrupted .. try to look for him in islamic sources after all that is the primary source from which Wikipiedia or other orientalists take a historical piece and add or subtract their spin!

all the best

So what are you saying was corrupted? Was it Ibn Waraq that was corrupted in his thinking? Or was the Injil already corrupted even in Muhammad's time?

[جوري]

So what are you saying was corrupted? Was it Ibn Waraq that was corrupted in his thinking? Or was the Injil already corrupted even in Muhammad's time?

what I am saying is obvious, Ibn Warraq didn't follow Christianity as you know it nor did he think it was the right path, if he did logic would dictate that he'd not vouch for prophet Mohammed's (PBUH) prophet-hood. Your bible has been corrupted since the inception of Trinitarianism and that happened well before Islam as such if God wanted to give people a chance to walk aright to the path of the righteous he'd make authoritative and beyond a reasonable doubt that such a doctrine of 'Trinitarianism' is corrupt indisputably and that was indeed crystallized in the Quran.

all the best

[Hiroshi]

what I am saying is obvious, Ibn Warraq didn't follow Christianity as you know it nor did he think it was the right path, if he did logic would dictate that he'd not vouch for prophet Mohammed's (PBUH) prophet-hood. Your bible has been corrupted since the inception of Trinitarianism and that happened well before Islam as such if God wanted to give people a chance to walk aright to the path of the righteous he'd make authoritative and beyond a reasonable doubt that such a doctrine of 'Trinitarianism' is corrupt indisputably and that was indeed crystallized in the Quran.

all the best

Surah 5:65-66 says: " If only the People of the Book had believed and been righteous, We should indeed have blotted out their iniquities and admitted them to gardens of bliss. If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side."

It doesn't make sense that the Qur'an would encourage these people to stand fast by corrupted books.

[Hiroshi]

what I am saying is obvious, Ibn Warraq didn't follow Christianity as you know it nor did he think it was the right path, if he did logic would dictate that he'd not vouch for prophet Mohammed's (PBUH) prophet-hood. Your bible has been corrupted since the inception of Trinitarianism and that happened well before Islam as such if God wanted to give people a chance to walk aright to the path of the righteous he'd make authoritative and beyond a reasonable doubt that such a doctrine of 'Trinitarianism' is corrupt indisputably and that was indeed crystallized in the Quran.

all the best

I quoted this from the link:

"The theme of tahrif found its first detailed elaboration in the writings of Ibn Hazm."


Do you disagree with that statement?

[جوري]

Surah 5:65-66 says: " If only the People of the Book had believed and been righteous, We should indeed have blotted out their iniquities and admitted them to gardens of bliss. If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side." It doesn't make sense that the Qur'an would encourage these people to stand fast by corrupted books.

I quoted this from the link:

"The theme of tahrif found its first detailed elaboration in the writings of Ibn Hazm."


Do you disagree with that statement?

I think the verse is obvious I don't see how you can possible render to it another meaning? you neither believe nor are you righteous you're in fact corrupt and following your own whims and don't at all follow any laws of God.. How is it that you always find another meaning.. I don't even have to dig into tafsir when it is so patent!
The 'theme of tahrif' has existed since you've had Trinitarianism.. so look into the council of nicea and see when the vote was taken to make man a god and that is how far back it goes.. further there is no evidence that the injil was ever in the hands of the people.. it was merely what Jesus (p) uttered, and you can't trace any utterances as having been said by him, heck you don't even know what language he spoke!

all the best

[Insaanah]

Surah 5:65-66 says: " If only the People of the Book had believed and been righteous, We should indeed have blotted out their iniquities and admitted them to gardens of bliss. If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side."

It doesn't make sense that the Qur'an would encourage these people to stand fast by corrupted books.

And it is not telling them to do so. It is telling them that they should have abided by the injeel and taurat, not man made teachings. And that they should have followed all the revelations from their Lord, and so when the Qur'an was revealed, followed that.

And had they followed the unchanged revelations of Allah, at the time when Prophet Muhammad (Allah's peace and blessings be upon him) was sent as a Messenger, they would have readily recognised that the Qur'an contained the same Message that was contained in the former revelations given by Allah. They would have felt no difficulty in following the Holy Prophet, as there would have been no question of changing their religion: this would have been a continuation of the same way that they were following before.

Peace.

[Hiroshi]

you neither believe nor are you righteous you're in fact corrupt and following your own whims and don't at all follow any laws of God..

all the best

I don't dish out this kind of abuse and I don't expect it from others. Can't we just have a sensible discussion?

[Hiroshi]

And it is not telling them to do so. It is telling them that they should have abided by the injeel and taurat, not man made teachings. And that they should have followed all the revelations from their Lord, and so when the Qur'an was revealed, followed that.

And had they followed the unchanged revelations of Allah, at the time when Prophet Muhammad (Allah's peace and blessings be upon him) was sent as a Messenger, they would have readily recognised that the Qur'an contained the same Message that was contained in the former revelations given by Allah. They would have felt no difficulty in following the Holy Prophet, as there would have been no question of changing their religion: this would have been a continuation of the same way that they were following before.

Peace.

If you mean to say that it is the man made teachings that are corrupt and not the Injeel and Taurat then I entirely agree. Is that what you meant?

[جوري]

I don't dish out this kind of abuse and I don't expect it from others. Can't we just have a sensible discussion?

That isn't abuse, it is clarification of terms!
you neither believe in what God has revealed nor are your following the path of the righteous. If in your mind you believe you do, then what concern have you of the interpretation of others of your beliefs?

all the best

[Insaanah]

If you mean to say that it is the man made teachings that are corrupt and not the Injeel and Taurat then I entirely agree. Is that what you meant?

I was referring to the injeel and taurat as revealed by Allah. Not books with writings of humans interspersed, giving rise to extraneous ideas such as God begetting a son, etc, that were never revealed by Allah.

Peace.

[Grace Seeker]

Origin of the christianity that shouldn't had been p.1

After long time of reading ,reflecting ...I'm totally satisfied with the following approach to such matter .... I'm always satisfied when my arguments is based both on the Quran and the scholary works that based on the biblical text itself ,not the speculations ....

Christianity is a problem that resulted from vain desires ,and false hopes ....... before we provide our introduction to the root of the problem ,let's make a visit again to the Quran :

we have read that according to the Quran , The Jews differed in their reaction with Jesus ....

A part of them accepted his message as a reformer prophet ....

....there are Jews who believed in Jesus as a prophet and nothing more during his lifetime, after his departure eg; those represented others who already quoted in NT ,and the Ebonite's etc.....

A second part believed in him as a prophet but from the false type ,as they believed that the the door of newly prophethood is closed ,just Elijah and the king messiah who would arrive .... such group refused him, ascribing to Him illegitimate birth, magic, and a shameful death ......

they refused him as he simply fulfilled not their own desires

A third party who neither accepted him as false prophet neither mere a prophet, such group though had something in common(the vain desire of messianic hopes ) with the second party already mentioned ,yet they overstepped the bounds .... the fact as they wouldn't be satisfied to accept Jesus as merely a prophet , they imported Old Testament titles Son of God,Son of man , a role and nature invalid for Jesus etc ..... to satisfy their desires and to give hope for those dreamers of a messianic golden age and the Earth that would turn into paradise ......

those third party are the writers of the New Testament and their communities ,who were already preceded by those(dead sea scrolls community) who had similar vain desires .....

In sum ,we have the Quran classifiying the Jews in such era into three basic parties ....and we provided non-Quranic clear text to support every verse...

next post would be the focus on the third party aka christians ......

we would try to investigate the origin ,

Despite all of the other posts that keep interrupting the train of thought in this thread, you have done an admirable job staying on topic. Even though there are places where I find myself questioning your theory, very informative with respect to your views and good solid research on your part as well.

[Hiroshi]

That isn't abuse, it is clarification of terms!
you neither believe in what God has revealed nor are your following the path of the righteous. If in your mind you believe you do, then what concern have you of the interpretation of others of your beliefs?

all the best

Sorry for the short break Vale's Lily, I've been away in hospital.

Okay, no offence taken then. But if you say that I am "corrupt" as well it implies that I am not sincere. I assure you that I am most sincere in everything that I say and I am sure that you are also.

Belief, most especially religious belief, has to be based on evidence. We can look around us and see the wonderful creation and take that as evidence of a God who loves mankind. But we need to know also what God requires of each one of us. What responsibilities must we carry in order to have God's approval? This question and many other questions can only be answered by looking at the scriptures.

Today, Muslims reject the Bible as being the reliable guidance from God to mankind. But this way of thinking is a change from what was taught by Islam from the very beginning. The Qur'an encourages respect for the Torah and Injil. It was not until four centuries after the rise of Islam that Muslim writers began to accuse the Bible of being grossly altered and corrupted by the hand of man. And this accusation was not based on any evidence in the manuscripts themselves (such evidence has never existed) but rather it was based on the points of disagreement between the Bible and the Qur'an.

So then one book has to be favoured over the other, if they cannot both be true. Which one? We need to compare them. Isn't that the whole purpose of this thread?

[Hiroshi]

I was referring to the injeel and taurat as revealed by Allah. Not books with writings of humans interspersed, giving rise to extraneous ideas such as God begetting a son, etc, that were never revealed by Allah.

Peace.

Psalms 2:7 (King James) says: "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."

Does the Qur'an tell you to reject the psalms which were written long, long before the Qur'an came to mankind?

[Insaanah]

Psalms 2:7 (King James) says: "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."

Does the Qur'an tell you to reject the psalms which were written long, long before the Qur'an came to mankind?

Read the part in bold Hiroshi. You are well aware of what Allah says in the Qur'an about the man-made notion of him begetting a son, and how many times He refutes this concept. The Qur'an comes confirming the original scriptures as revealed by Allah, which taught that He is One, with no associates whatsoever in His Divinity, and no sons or other relatives. Those who knew the truth of the earlier scriptures at the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him), became Muslim, because they could see the Qur'an was from the same Revealer and the same Source, and that it confirmed the true message of their scriptures, and it was the logical step for them to do so because the message was the same, and it was now required of them to follow the unchanged scripture and the messenger to whom Allah had revealed it. Such people knew that despite the human interjections in the teachings of their faith, God had taught neither trinity nor son.

Peace.

EDIT: Apologies brother al-Manar for these posts interrupting your series

[Hiroshi]

Read the part in bold Hiroshi. You are well aware of what Allah says in the Qur'an about the man-made notion of him begetting a son, and how many times He refutes this concept. The Qur'an comes confirming the original scriptures as revealed by Allah, which taught that He is One, with no associates whatsoever in His Divinity, and no sons or other relatives. Those who knew the truth of the earlier scriptures at the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him), became Muslim, because they could see the Qur'an was from the same Revealer and the same Source, and that it confirmed the true message of their scriptures, and it was the logical step for them to do so because the message was the same, and it was now required of them to follow the unchanged scripture and the messenger to whom Allah had revealed it. Such people knew that despite the human interjections in the teachings of their faith, God had taught neither trinity nor son.

Peace.

EDIT: Apologies brother al-Manar for these posts interrupting your series

And peace to you.

The Qur'an speaks with approval of the Psalms in Surah 4:163, Surah 17:55 and Surah 21:105. But, as you have noted, these Psalms themselves contradict what the Qur'an states about God having no son.

So then, there seem to be two options here for you. Either the second Psalm was never inspired by God. Or it was but then came to be corrupted by copyists. What is the common belief among Muslims?

[جوري]

Sorry for the short break Vale's Lily, I've been away in hospital.

Hope you feel better

Okay, no offence taken then. But if you say that I am "corrupt" as well it implies that I am not sincere. I assure you that I am most sincere in everything that I say and I am sure that you are also.

corruption and sincerity are two separate issues ..

Belief, most especially religious belief, has to be based on evidence.

I utterly agree, but aside from evidence based it has to also make logical sense!

We can look around us and see the wonderful creation and take that as evidence of a God who loves mankind. But we need to know also what God requires of each one of us. What responsibilities must we carry in order to have God's approval? This question and many other questions can only be answered by looking at the scriptures. Today, Muslims reject the Bible as being the reliable guidance from God to mankind. But this way of thinking is a change from what was taught by Islam from the very beginning. The Qur'an encourages respect for the Torah and Injil. It was not until four centuries after the rise of Islam that Muslim writers began to accuse the Bible of being grossly altered and corrupted by the hand of man. And this accusation was not based on any evidence in the manuscripts themselves (such evidence has never existed) but rather it was based on the points of disagreement between the Bible and the Qur'an. So then one book has to be favoured over the other, if they cannot both be true. Which one? We need to compare them. Isn't that the whole purpose of this thread?

And I have clarified for you and repeatedly that what was revealed in the Torah and Injeel have nothing to do with what you have in your possession today, I have quoted to you from the Quran itself that the concept of trinity which existed well before Islam ergo the council of Nicea was well established and the bibles very much corrupt well before 'Muslim writers' began 'accusing'. In fact I'd say the obsession to validate self has always been a christian one, since Islam's very inception, christians have been working over time to mar distort and corrupt not mention wage illegal wars against Muslims and Islam, be that as it may It was God's promise that Islam shall reign supreme above all in spite of millennium long wars from the left and the right.

Let me ask you this, even if you find something in the Quran that states point blank what you have in your possession is the unaltered word of God (which you won't) but let's say you did, what good would that do? If everything in the Torah is correct and now you have christianity and chose to be christian would you go back to being a Jew simply because their book is unaltered? Hopefully you can see why this is a complete exercise in futility!

Not only is the bible corrupt, and you worshiping a false God, but we already have the unaltered word of God and a complete system, why should acknowledging christianity matter at this stage?

Matthew 15:24 -
He answered, “I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.”

so what is the point even if we're to agree by sheer hypocrisy that what you have is the true word of God?

all the best

[Insaanah]

But, as you have noted, these Psalms themselves contradict what the Qur'an states about God having no son.

None of the prophets that God sent since prophet Adam (peace be upon him), preached that God begot a son or had any other kind of associate in His Divinity. This notion flies in the face of everything God Himself had taught through all the Prophets, Messengers, and books, for thousands of years, not just the Qur'an. So, in your statement above, what you are actually saying is that God contradicted Himself. Glorified and Exalted be He above such things.

Either the second Psalm was never inspired by God.

That being a supposed "option", what are you trying to imply about the above verses you quoted, or the One Who revealed them?

And do you seriously think that Muslims would believe that the original zaboor (Allah only knows if true remnants of it are in existence) as given to Prophet David (peace be upon him) was never inspired by Allah, despite what you know Allah has said in the Qur'an? We believe in all of the Qur'an - we don't pick and choose bits to believe in while leaving out others.

Peace.

[Hiroshi]

So, in your statement above, what you are actually saying is that God contradicted Himself.

Am I? I am just agreeing with you that Qur'an says that God has no son although the Psalms in the Bible say the opposite. Psalm 89:26-27, as another example, says: "He himself calls out to me, "You are my Father, my God and the Rock of my salvation." Also, I myself shall place him as firstborn, the most high of the kings of the earth."

That being a supposed "option", what are you trying to imply about the above verses you quoted, or the One Who revealed them?

I am not trying to lead you anywhere with these questions. I just want to know what you believe the "Psalms" referred to in the Qur'an to be. You cannot believe that these are the Psalms in the Bible because of this conflict of statements.

And do you seriously think that Muslims would believe that the original zaboor (Allah only knows if true remnants of it are in existence) as given to Prophet David (peace be upon him) was never inspired by Allah, despite what you know Allah has said in the Qur'an?

I am sure that you believe that the original zaboor was inspired by God. But when and how was it then corrupted (as you seem to believe) into the writings that now appear in our Bible? And how could the Qur'an speak of them approvingly if they were already corrupted by the sixth and seventh centuries?

[Hiroshi]

Hope you feel better

My sincere thanks. Actually I am quite sick but feeling okay for the moment.

And I have clarified for you and repeatedly that what was revealed in the Torah and Injeel have nothing to do with what you have in your possession today, I have quoted to you from the Quran itself that the concept of trinity which existed well before Islam ergo the council of Nicea was well established and the bibles very much corrupt well before 'Muslim writers' began 'accusing'.

The trinity doctrine didn't corrupt the Bible. Corrupt theologians have twisted meaning of the scriptures. But nowhere is the Trinity mentioned.

[Insaanah]

I am sure that you believe that the original zaboor was inspired by God. But when and how was it then corrupted (as you seem to believe) into the writings that now appear in our Bible? And how could the Qur'an speak of them approvingly if they were already corrupted by the sixth and seventh centuries?

This is going to be my last post on the matter, because I am getting a little dizzy from going round and round in circles and getting asked the same question again and again, having already given the answer a few times,

here: http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ml#post1395056
here: http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ml#post1395356
and here: http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ml#post1396041

I just want to know what you believe the "Psalms" referred to in the Qur'an to be.

I have no need to know what the original zaboor is, because we have the complete, unchanged and final guidance of Allah with us. All we need to know is that it was given by Allah to Prophet David (peace be upon him), and we believe in it, even though we may never have seen it or read a word of it.

The Qur'an is our criterion for right and wrong. Possibly some parts of the psalms may agree with it, or may not. The parts that agree may be from Allah, or may not. But we don't need to go digging to find out, because we have the Qur'an, and as Muslims, we have faith in whatever Allah revealed before the Qur'an, even though we may not have seen it.

This is the Scripture whereof there is no doubt, a guidance unto those who ward off (evil). Who believe in the Unseen, and establish worship, and spend of that We have bestowed upon them; And who believe in that which is revealed unto thee (Muhammad) and that which was revealed before thee, and are certain of the Hereafter. (Qur'an 2:2-4)

We believe in all the scriptures that Allah revealed, not the words of men added to them. The book we have to follow and act on now, is the final guidance sent by Allah, completely free from human interference. We have faith in Allah's earlier revelations, the original teachings of which the Qur'an confirms. We have no need to delve ito what is or isn't the psalms.

But when and how was it then corrupted (as you seem to believe) into the writings that now appear in our Bible?

Ditto.

Peace.

[جوري]

My sincere thanks. Actually I am quite sick but feeling okay for the moment.

you should take some rest!

The trinity doctrine didn't corrupt the Bible. Corrupt theologians have twisted meaning of the scriptures. But nowhere is the Trinity mentioned.

The trinity doctrine is quite corrupt and very deviant from the concept of monotheism. I agree trinity isn't mentioned any where in the bible yet it is indeed a conundrum why you subscribe to this triune God if no such mention is made in the bible? The Quran addresses the corrupt beliefs of christians and you can't deny that you believe in the trinity whether or not it is written down in such words worship me, worship my father who is also me, worship the holy spirit who is also me and bow before my mother for she birthed me...

It is odd frankly and not befitting of God nor the time we live in, I mean even if people were OK with millenniums of ignorance, the time has come to shed the cloak of darkness, ask the right questions and follow the right path!

all the best

[aadil77]

^He's a JW - he doesn't believe in trinity

[جوري]

It is all good says Lily as she munches on half an orange and calculates the calories of her صفيحة بعلبكية

[Ramadhan]

The trinity doctrine didn't corrupt the Bible. Corrupt theologians have twisted meaning of the scriptures. But nowhere is the Trinity mentioned.

who are those corrupt theologians?
why did they twist the meaning of your scripture?
what did they gain from it?
what are their motives?
how on earth did they have the gall to twist the meaning of the scripture?
If twisting (and not changing or corrupting) is the only things they've done, then surely most people (christians) could see the mistakes, right?

[Hiroshi]

This is going to be my last post on the matter, because I am getting a little dizzy from going round and round in circles and getting asked the same question again and again, having already given the answer a few times,

here: http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ml#post1395056
here: http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ml#post1395356
and here: http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ml#post1396041


I have no need to know what the original zaboor is, because we have the complete, unchanged and final guidance of Allah with us. All we need to know is that it was given by Allah to Prophet David (peace be upon him), and we believe in it, even though we may never have seen it or read a word of it.

The Qur'an is our criterion for right and wrong. Possibly some parts of the psalms may agree with it, or may not. The parts that agree may be from Allah, or may not. But we don't need to go digging to find out, because we have the Qur'an, and as Muslims, we have faith in whatever Allah revealed before the Qur'an, even though we may not have seen it.

This is the Scripture whereof there is no doubt, a guidance unto those who ward off (evil). Who believe in the Unseen, and establish worship, and spend of that We have bestowed upon them; And who believe in that which is revealed unto thee (Muhammad) and that which was revealed before thee, and are certain of the Hereafter. (Qur'an 2:2-4)

We believe in all the scriptures that Allah revealed, not the words of men added to them. The book we have to follow and act on now, is the final guidance sent by Allah, completely free from human interference. We have faith in Allah's earlier revelations, the original teachings of which the Qur'an confirms. We have no need to delve ito what is or isn't the psalms.



Ditto.

Peace.

Your answer requires tremendous faith in human interference where there hasn't been any. This famous Psalm is referred to as the second Psalm and is quoted again and again elsewhere in the Bible (Acts 4:24-26; Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5; Hebrews 5:5). Acts 4:25 says that the Psalm is the sayings of God through David.

I don't believe that there is a record anywhere of a single variance of even a word in any ancient manuscript of the second Psalm. If you could show me that there was then I would be most interested.

But we could close the discussion here as you wish. You say that you don't need to delve into these matters and I don't want to make you dizzy again.

[Hiroshi]

you should take some rest!


The trinity doctrine is quite corrupt and very deviant from the concept of monotheism. I agree trinity isn't mentioned any where in the bible yet it is indeed a conundrum why you subscribe to this triune God if no such mention is made in the bible? The Quran addresses the corrupt beliefs of christians and you can't deny that you believe in the trinity whether or not it is written down in such words worship me, worship my father who is also me, worship the holy spirit who is also me and bow before my mother for she birthed me...

It is odd frankly and not befitting of God nor the time we live in, I mean even if people were OK with millenniums of ignorance, the time has come to shed the cloak of darkness, ask the right questions and follow the right path!

all the best

I agree with everything that you say here. As Aadil77 pointed out, I don't believe in the trinity.

[جوري]

I agree with everything that you say here. As Aadil77 pointed out, I don't believe in the trinity.

Who is Jesus to you? and who is the comforter?

[Hiroshi]

who are those corrupt theologians?
why did they twist the meaning of your scripture?
what did they gain from it?
what are their motives?
how on earth did they have the gall to twist the meaning of the scripture?
If twisting (and not changing or corrupting) is the only things they've done, then surely most people (christians) could see the mistakes, right?

People do similar things even today. I have known commentators and clergymen make the claim that the Bible is in agreement with the theory of evolution. Evolution has become in modern times the fashionable explanation for our existence here on earth and few people dare to deny it for fear of ridicule.

In ancient times the fashionable explanation for life, the universe and everything was Greek philosophy. Early Christian theologians borrowed many ideas from the Greek philosophers, especially Plato, and used them to explain the meaning of the Bible. I can give you a whole list of names of these apologists and theologians if you like. Of great interest to them was the title of "Word" or "Logos" (in Greek) used for Jesus in John's prologue. As the "Word" of God, Jesus spoke words from God as all the prophets did. And that is all that the title meant. Jesus was like God's spokesman. But in Greek philosophy "Logos" was a technical term with many meanings including "mind" or "rational thought". So these theologians believed that Jesus was the very mind and thinking of God. So they then went on to conclude that Jesus must be co-eternal with God, even of the same substance as God. Eventually, they decided that Jesus must be God himself.

Since there could only be one God, the theologians believed that Father and Son must be the same God, although distinct persons. Then much later, the "Holy Spirit" was also added to make a third person, a trinity.

Plato had greatly admired the ancient Egyptian religion with it's trinity of gods: Isis, Osiris and Horus. He had used the technical vocabulary of his philosophy to explain how these three separate persons could be one deity. And the terminology of his philosophy was used in exactly the same way by early theologians to formulate the doctrine of the trinity that is still taught in the churchs today. The trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is therefore really a copy of the earlier pagan trinities of ancient cultures such as Hindu, Babylonian and Egyptian.

[Hiroshi]

Who is Jesus to you? and who is the comforter?

The comforter is not a person but is rather the power of God, God's spirit, God's active force.

Jesus is God's servant who died for my sins and who God has exalted to become Lord and King over all the earth.

[جوري]

The comforter is not a person but is rather the power of God, God's spirit, God's active force. Jesus is God's servant who died for my sins and who God has exalted to become Lord and King over all the earth.

all the best

[Ramadhan]

People do similar things even today. I have known commentators and clergymen make the claim that the Bible is in agreement with the theory of evolution. Evolution has become in modern times the fashionable explanation for our existence here on earth and few people dare to deny it for fear of ridicule.

I am sorry, but it is very clear even to non christians that the bible is very literal about the creation process and age of the world. There is no confusion.
Christians just accept it as one of the many things about the bible they just "shrug it off" because they know they cannot defend it.

Jesus as the divine, however, is another matter.
The divinity of jesus is the biggest thing in christianity.
It is inconceivable that all current christian theologians got it wrong if they do not have some material to back up their claim (even though the opposing materials are also evident to begin with). There must have been more than just a little twisting of meanings to begin with.

In ancient times the fashionable explanation for life, the universe and everything was Greek philosophy. Early Christian theologians borrowed many ideas from the Greek philosophers, especially Plato, and used them to explain the meaning of the Bible. I can give you a whole list of names of these apologists and theologians if you like. Of great interest to them was the title of "Word" or "Logos" (in Greek) used for Jesus in John's prologue. As the "Word" of God, Jesus spoke words from God as all the prophets did. And that is all that the title meant. Jesus was like God's spokesman. But in Greek philosophy "Logos" was a technical term with many meanings including "mind" or "rational thought". So these theologians believed that Jesus was the very mind and thinking of God. So they then went on to conclude that Jesus must be co-eternal with God, even of the same substance as God. Eventually, they decided that Jesus must be God himself.

your explanation does not add up.

How did the early christian theologians got it so totally wrong about such important issue while, I assume, they still the original new testament and they were even much closer in time to the event of Jesus?
How come those theologians got so EASILY confused?
I thought they were supposed to be filled with holy spirit that help them in writing the new testaments and understandng them?

And can you supply us the identities of those theologians that twisted the meanings of the bible and when they lived? thanks.

[Hiroshi]

I am sorry, but it is very clear even to non christians that the bible is very literal about the creation process and age of the world. There is no confusion.

It sure is. The first verse in the Bible says that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. But how long ago was "in the beginning"? We are not told. It could have been hundreds of billions of years ago that the physical universe and our planet came into existence.

Genesis then goes on to speak of six creative days during which changes were made to the earth and life began to appear. But again, these creative days cannot just be ordinary 24 hour days. Why? Because the seventh day has not yet ended (Psalms 95:11; Hebrews 4:4-5). We are still in that seventh day which has continued since Adam's creation. This being so, the seventh "day" must be thousands of years in duration. And reasonably, the same would be true of the other six.

This still does not put the Bible in agreement with evolution though. We are talking tens of thousands of years here but not the millions of years demanded by the evolution theory for life to appear.

[Hiroshi]

Christians just accept it as one of the many things about the bible they just "shrug it off" because they know they cannot defend it.

I can defend it. What is the problem?

[Hiroshi]

Jesus as the divine, however, is another matter.
The divinity of jesus is the biggest thing in christianity.
It is inconceivable that all current christian theologians got it wrong if they do not have some material to back up their claim (even though the opposing materials are also evident to begin with). There must have been more than just a little twisting of meanings to begin with.





your explanation does not add up.

How did the early christian theologians got it so totally wrong about such important issue while, I assume, they still the original new testament and they were even much closer in time to the event of Jesus?
How come those theologians got so EASILY confused?
I thought they were supposed to be filled with holy spirit that help them in writing the new testaments and understandng them?

And can you supply us the identities of those theologians that twisted the meanings of the bible and when they lived? thanks.

I have a book that I would like to quote from.

Early Christian Doctrines by J. N. D. Kelly, pages 84-85:

In Justin the oneness, transcendence and creative role of God are asserted in language strongly coloured by the Platonizing Stoicism of the day. It was apparently his sincere belief that the Greek thinkers had had access to the works of Moses.

...

“We have learned,” he states, “that, being good, He created all things in the beginning out of formless matter.” This was the teaching of Plato’s Timaeus, which Justin supposed to be akin to be akin to, and borrowed from, that contained in Genesis. For Plato, of course, pre-existent matter was eternal, but it is improbable that Justin acquiesced in the implied dualism;

...

A further important point he made was that, in creating and sustaining the universe, God used His Logos, or Word, as His instrument.

Page 96:

The Apologists’ originality (their thought was more Philonic than Johannine) lay in drawing out the further implications of the Logos idea in order to make plausible the twofold fact of Christ’s pre-temporal oneness with the Father and His manifestation in space and time. In so doing, while using such Old Testament texts as Ps. 33, 6 (“By the word of the Lord were the heavens made”), they did not hesitate to blend with them the Stoic technical distinction between the immanent word (logos endiathetos) and the word uttered or expressed (logos prophorikos).

Page 100:

“The Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son by the unity and power of divine spirit, the Son of God is the Father’s intelligence and Word” (nous kai logos). To make his point clearer, Athenagoras then points out that, while He is God’s offspring, He never actually came into being (ouk hos genomenon), “for God from the beginning, being eternal intelligence, had His Word (logos) in Himself, being eternally rational” (aidios logikos).





I hope that you can see from just these few extracts how muddled up these men were with ideas from Philonic, Stoic and Platonic philosophy which they tried to blend with the scriptures resulting in a completely distorted picture of Christ who John’s gospel calls the Word (or Logos). The title of “Logos” made them think that Christ must be God’s intelligence and rational thought and hence in unity with God’s very being. Greek philosophy led them astray completely and finally resulted in the monstrous belief that God is a trinity.

[جوري]

Hiroshi, I invite to Islam, I think you'd feel better!
let me know if any of us can be of help to you on a journey of faith, logic and knowledge!

all the best

[Hiroshi]

Hiroshi, I invite to Islam, I think you'd feel better!
let me know if any of us can be of help to you on a journey of faith, logic and knowledge!

all the best

Thank you Vale's Lily. You can see the mess that Christianity got into when it became corrupt. I am sure that Islam attracted many people in the past as well as today with the simple understandable teaching of the oneness of God as opposed to the incomprensible trinity doctrine. But in my own case, I still see many differences between my beliefs and those of Muslims.

[Hiroshi]

And can you supply us the identities of those theologians that twisted the meanings of the bible and when they lived? thanks.

In my post #664 I mentioned two of the very early "Apologists". One called Justin Martyr apparently (wrongly) believed that the Greek thinkers had read the Bible and used it as a basis for their ideas. Another Apologist was Tatian who was Justin's disciple. Another was Theophilus of Antioch. And another was Athenagoras who I also named in #664. Such men wrote extensively about their beliefs and we can see that they were not always in agreement with each other. Their ideas and reasonings were developed further by later generations. But in these early times the Apologists were a long way from formulating the trinity doctrine which was to become the orthodox teaching of Christianity centuries later.

On page 100 my book it says:

"... for all of them the description "God the Father" connoted, not the first Person of the Holy Trinity, but the one Godhead considered as author of whatever exists;"

[IAmZamzam]

These creative days cannot just be ordinary 24 hour days. Why? Because the seventh day has not yet ended (Psalms 95:11; Hebrews 4:4-5). We are still in that seventh day which has continued since Adam's creation. This being so, the seventh "day" must be thousands of years in duration. And reasonably, the same would be true of the other six.

Also because were the days literal then there would have already been several mornings and evenings before any distinction existed between day and night.

[Hiroshi]

Also because were the days literal then there would have already been several mornings and evenings before any distinction existed between day and night.

Thank you for your supporting comment Yahya.

Just to add a few more details to the Genesis account, I want to mention that the "darkness" spoken of in Genesis 1:2 was, according to that verse, only pervading the earth's surface, not all of space. We can note that most known planets characteristically have an opaque atmosphere if they have any substantial atmosphere at all. Dust, debris and obscuring gases would need to be cleared before sunlight could filter through to the planet's surface. And that was the action that God took when he said: "Let there be light" (Genesis 1:3). The Hebrew verb used in this passage can denote that this was a gradual process. It began on day one (perhaps beginning as a diffused glow) but it was not until day four that the sun, moon and stars could clearly be seen from the earth's surface as described in Genesis 1:14-19.

[Al-manar]

Thank you all ( for your input ,and the spirit of mutual respect .......
some posts raised some questions that will be answered in the right time.......

......................................

Origin of Christianity P:2


christianity is a theology that has basic concepts ,In order to understand it we should deal with each concept .....

previously we dealt with the issue of taking Jesus as God , and how I found out that the Quran gives a hint to the origin of the matter , in a way that surprised me.....

one of the verses that seemed to me challenging and difficult to grasp it was:

the Quran - 5:72 They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers.

I used to believe that the new pagan converts to christianity ,influenced it in the matter of taking Jesus as God .... and that made the verse vague for me !!

It raised 2 difficulties

why mentioning the sons of Israel ,if they are innocent of the dogma ?

why to warn them ,if they are believed to be true monotheists,of shirk ?

after reading the work of the new school that reinvestigate the matter ....the wall that was hindering me from getting the direct meaning of the verse was broken...

the verse again:

They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise.


Tthe meaning is simple :

Though Jesus(pbuh) himself warned the children of Israel of shirk , they said he is God ....
it wasn't the Romans neither the worshippers of krishna etc... who called him God .....
It was the Jews themselves ......

the verse could ,not only suggest that it is the Jews who began believing Jesus as God,but also could suggest that they began that in early period ...

what made them think so? we have answered that previously (more details related coming

soon)...

........

now the next step .. another verse and another guideline:

where christianity came from? conspiracy? intentional lies?

the Quran would DEFINE it and says ,It is (DESIRES)....


The beliefs of its believers are based on DESIRES:

Quran 2:120 Never will the Jews or the Christians be satisfied with thee unless thou follow their form of religion. Say: "The Guidance of Allah,-that is the (only) Guidance." Wert thou to follow their desires after the knowledge which hath reached thee, then wouldst thou find neither Protector nor helper against Allah.


Quran 5:48 And unto thee [O Prophet] have We vouchsafed this divine writ, setting forth the truth, confirming the truth of whatever there still remains of earlier revelations and determining what is true therein. so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee.


Those desires were produced by the writers of the Bible whom their exegesis not only led them astray , overstepping the bounds, but also misled many of their readers..


Quran 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 who went wrong in times gone by,- who misled many, and strayed (themselves) from the even way.

The beauty of such imaginary desires would block its believers from the truth

Holy Quran 28:50 If they do not respond to you, you will know that they follow only their own desires. Who is further astray than the one who follows his own desires with no guidance from God? Truly God does not guide those who do wrong.

Holy Quran 47:14Can those who follow clear proof from their Lord be compared to those whose foul deeds are made to seem alluring to them, those who follow their own desires?

.......................

what desires the Quran is refering at? why vain desires and not revealed divine truth?

you will be surprised when you find out that such desires weren't the product of such supposed evil pagan conspirators who corrupted Judaism and the true message of Jesus...but rather the faulty exegesis of those Jews who dreamt of the final victory and the paradise on Earth that is soon to be witnessed during their final generation ...


we will get the Quran apart and let the bible speak for itself

till next post

peace

[Hiroshi]

Thank you all ( for your input ,and the spirit of mutual respect .......
some posts raised some questions that will be answered in the right time.......

......................................

Origin of Christianity P:2


christianity is a theology that has basic concepts ,In order to understand it we should deal with each concept .....

previously we dealt with the issue of taking Jesus as God , and how I found out that the Quran gives a hint to the origin of the matter , in a way that surprised me.....

one of the verses that seemed to me challenging and difficult to grasp it was:

the Quran - 5:72 They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers.

This echoes what was written in the New International Version at John 10:31-36:

31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” 33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?

According to this rendering Jesus clearly denies any accusation that he claims to be Almighty God.

[Saad17]

This echoes what was written in the New International Version at John 10:31-36:

31 Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32 but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” 33 “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?

According to this rendering Jesus clearly denies any accusation that he claims to be Almighty God.

Yes, indeed the Jewish people at that time were honest and righteous people yes?

[Saad17]

Also connect the missing piece.

Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39 Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

Here Jesus (PBUH) is clearly telling them that he only claims to be Son of God which can mean that he is a servant of God, a prophet also.

[Hiroshi]

Yes, indeed the Jewish people at that time were honest and righteous people yes?

Not the ones speaking with Jesus in this passage apparently.

[Hiroshi]

Also connect the missing piece.

Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39 Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

Here Jesus (PBUH) is clearly telling them that he only claims to be Son of God which can mean that he is a servant of God, a prophet also.

I believe that I can agree with everything you say here.

[Al-manar]

Peace

before writing anything related to the topic ....

I'd like to say a due good bye for a good christian member who used to particiapte in the muslim christian dialogue here in the board...

Grace-seeker ,though we disagreed mostly ,you will be always remembered as the wise debater who knows how to led a civil discussion .......

I understand the circumstances that won't enable you to have a time to participate with us .....
I hope that the due word of goodbye to you would also represent the moderate muslims of the board who find no difficulty dealing kindly and justly with the peaceful christians ...hence applying the Quranic principle in verse 60:8 Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just.
.................................................. ..............

[Al-manar]

well,

the next items will be based on the descriptive Quranic terms (desire and excess) ....... I found out the quranic description of christianity as based on (desires and excess)to be sound ..so the next items would be under those two categories .....

what were the desires of the writers of the New testaments ? scriptural origin of such desires?

1st Desire,(The Messiah)

we would begin with that concept as it is the key that would open the box of all the other desires ...

What is the concept of the messiah ? in one word it is a wish , desire,such desire didn't begin with the New testament but much older ......

the issue is complicated and needs introduction ........ we need to get an outline of the ancient Jewish history:

http://ancienthistory.about.com

The period of the Judges begins after the the 40 years in the wilderness described in Exodus. Moses dies before reaching Canaan. Once the Hebrews reach the promised land, they find they are in frequent conflict with the neighboring regions. They need leaders to guide them in battle. The leaders are the judges who also handle more traditional judicial matters as well. Joshua comes first.
There is archaeological evidence of Israel at this time. It comes from the Merneptah Stele, which is currently dated to 1209 B.C
.......

The period of the united monarchy begins when the judge Samuel reluctantly anoints Saul as king of the tribes of Israel. During Saul's kingship, the Philistines attack and a young shepherd named David volunteers for a one-on-one with the fiercest of the Philistines, a giant named Goliath. With a single stone from his slingshot, David fells the Philistine and wins a reputation that outshines Saul's. When Saul dies, David replaces him as king and when David dies, his son by Bathsheba becomes the wise King Solomon. This information is basically from the Bible, with only occasional support from archaeology.

After Solomon, the United Monarchy falls apart.Jerusalem is the capital of Judah, the southern Kingdom, which is led by Rehoboam. Its inhabitants are the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Simeon (and some Levi). Simeon and Judah later merge.
Jeroboam leads a revolt of the northern tribes to form the Kingdom of Israel. The 9 tribes that make up Israel are Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, Dan, Menasseh, Ephraim, Reuben and Gad (and some Levi). The capital of Israel is Samaria.

(Israel falls to the Assyrians in 721; Judah falls to the Babylonians in 597.)
In 722 - Assyrians, under Shalmaneser, and then under Sargon, conquer Israel and destroy Samaria. Jews are exiled.
In 612 - Nabopolassar of Babylonia destroys Assyria.
In 587 - Nebuchadnezzar II seizes Jerusalem. The Temple is destroyed.
In 586 - Babylonia conquers Judah. Exile to Babylon.
Diaspora: 722 (Israel) and 586 (Judah).
In 539 - the Babylonian Empire falls to Persia which is ruled by Cyrus.
In 537 - Cyrus allows Jews from Babylon back into Jerusalem.
From 550-333 - The Persian Empire rules Israel.
From 520-515 - Second Temple is built.
After Alexander dies, Ptolemy I Soter takes Egypt and becomes king of Palestine in 305.
250. - The beginning of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes.
198. - Seleucid King Antiochus III (Antiochus the Great) ousts Ptolemy V from Judah and Samaria.
63 B.C. - Pompey makes the region of Judah/Israel a client kingdom of Rome.
6 A.D. - Augustus makes it a Roman province (Judaea).
66 - 73. - Revolt.
70. - Romans occupy Jerusalem. Titus destroys the Second Temple.
......

what were the Jewish expectations before the mission of Jesus ?

till next post

[Hiroshi]

well,

what were the Jewish expectations before the mission of Jesus ?

Many likely expected that the Messiah would become a powerful king that would overthrow Roman oppression and go on to conquer the world for the Jews to establish God's kingdom.

Luke 19:11 says: "While they were listening to this, he went on to tell them a parable, because he was near Jerusalem and the people thought that the kingdom of God was going to appear at once."

And John 6:14-15 says: "After the people saw the sign Jesus performed, they began to say, “Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world.” Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force, withdrew again to a mountain by himself."

God's kingdom was to come in the far future but the Jews were impatient and wanted Jesus to be a political king for them immediately.

[Al-manar]

In order to check the varied expectations of the Jews before the mission of Jesus we need to visit the sources of Jewish thought before 70 C . E .


The Jews were expecting :

A- A prophet

could be :

1- A special prophet ;one like moses

Deu 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

The Jews used to include such expectation alongside the hope of the messiah king up till the time of Jesus

John 1:21
They asked him, “Then who are you? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the Prophet?” He answered, “No.”


some Jews after seeing the signs Jesus performed thought of him as such special prophet

John 6:14
After the people saw the sign Jesus performed, they began to say, “Surely this is the Prophet who is to come into the world.”

John 7:40
On hearing his words, some of the people said, “Surely this man is the Prophet.”

Acts 3:20
and He may send Jesus Christ who before hath been preached to you, whom it behoveth heaven, indeed, to receive till times of a restitution of all things, of which God spake through the mouth of all His holy prophets from the age. 22`For Moses, indeed, unto the fathers said -- A prophet to you shall the Lord your God raise up out of your brethren, like to me; him shall ye hear in all things, as many as he may speak unto you; 23and it shall be, every soul that may not hear that prophet shall be utterly destroyed out of the people;


2- Old prophet came back to the scene:

Luke 9:8 Now Herod the tetrarch heard about all that was going on. And he was perplexed because some were saying that John had been raised from the dead, 8 others that Elijah had appeared, and still others that one of the prophets of long ago had come back to life.

Mark 8:28 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah."

Matthew 16:14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

3- A prophet:

the way some Jews reacted with Jesus according to the new testament ,shows that they were open to accept the idea of a new prophet ,and it seems that they wouldn't make it conditional that the prophet must has been mentioned in a prediction in the old testament...

Matthew 16:14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

John 9:17
Then they turned again to the blind man, “What have you to say about him? It was your eyes he opened.” The man replied, “He is a prophet.”

John 4:19
“Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet.


Luke 7:16
Then he went up and touched the bier they were carrying him on, and the bearers stood still. He said, “Young man, I say to you, get up!” 15 The dead man sat up and began to talk, and Jesus gave him back to his mother. 16 They were all filled with awe and praised God. “A great prophet has appeared among us,” they said. “God has come to help his people.” 17 This news about Jesus spread throughout Judea and the surrounding country.


B- ELIJAH:


both the bible and Quran agree on him as a prophet

in the Quran He told his people to come back to the worship of the Lord and to leave the worship of idols.

Quran 37: 123 Verily Elias is one of the apostles. When he said to his people: "Will you not fear God? "Will ye call upon Ba'al and leave the Best of Creators, God, your Lord and Cherisher and the Lord and Cherisher of your fathers of old?"................They denied him, and will surely be brought to punishment,Except the sincere and devoted Servants of God (among them).And We left his (memory) for posterity.


according to the bible ,Elijah taken bodily into Heaven .... Elijah,while, in company with Elisha , approaches the Jordan. He rolls up his mantle and strikes the water (2 Kings 2:8). The water immediately divides and Elijah and Elisha cross on dry land. Suddenly, a chariot of fire and horses of fire appear and Elijah is lifted up to heaven in a whirlwind. As Elijah is lifted up, his mantle falls to the ground and Elisha picks it up. (wiki)

Centuries after his(so called) departure, the Jewish nation awaits the coming of Elijah to precede the coming of the Messiah

Malachi 4:5
"See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before that great and dreadful day of the LORD comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse."


In Apocrypha

Sirach 48:9
How awesome are you, ELIJAH! Whose glory is equal to yours?5You brought a dead man back to life from the nether world, by the will of the LORD.6You sent kings down to destruction, and nobles, from their beds of sickness.7You heard threats at Sinai, at Horeb avenging judgments.8You anointed kings who should inflict vengeance, and a prophet as your successor.


some people thought of Jesus as Elijah came back to Earth

Matthew 16:14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."


some Jews thought of John the baptist as Elijah ,but he corrected them

John 1:21 And they asked him (John the baptist ), What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not.



till next post

[Al-manar]

though John denied being Elijah ,yet Jesus says he is(Matthew 11:13-14) - "For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. 14"And if you care to accept it, he himself is Elijah, who was to come."

I don't think that Jesus(IF he ever said so) thought of John as Elijah incarnated ...but it seems the meaning intended, is that, John is very similar to Elijah

"Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your petition has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will give him the name John. 14"And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth. 15"For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and he will drink no wine or liquor; and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, while yet in his mother’s womb. 16"And he will turn back many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God. 17"And it is he (John the baptist) who will go as a forerunner before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers back to the children, and the disobedient to the attitude of the righteous; so as to make ready a people prepared for the Lord," (Luke 1:13-17).

there is here a problem ....It is not a problem of contradiction as it is oftenly suggested.... but rather another problem ,Elijah taken alive, bodily into heaven,according to (2 Kings 2:8). and will be sent to Earth once again ,according to Malachi 4:5 ...

1- If he was taken alive to heaven and God promised to get him back to earth in future,then it is logical that it is him literally who will come,none else whatever similar to him....

2- let's ignore the literal meaning and assume for the sake of argument that John the baptist is a fullfilment to Malachi 4:5 .... what did he fullfil?

A - The passage claims that he will come to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers ,and it doesn't require a great deal of wisdom to realize that such thing has never been materialized ....

B- The passage claims he will come before the great and dreadful day of the LORD , again a concept that has never been materialized .

to make the matter worse, according to mark ,Jesus said ,that the excution of John the baptist was prophecised in the old testament !!!

(Mark 9:13) But I (Jesus) tell you, Elijah (aka John the baptist)has come, and they have done to him everything they wished, just as it is written about him.”

where is such prophecy regarding John the baptist aka Elijah being executed ? you can searach the old testament till day of judgment,and never find such claimed prophecy

IF there is no prophecy ,then we can safely assume 3 possiblities

1- the prophecy was there but been deleted due to textual corruption.

2- Jesus decieved the listeners claiming falsely a prophecy fulfillment.

3- The writers of the new testament put in the mouth of Jesus such false words.




till next post

[IAmZamzam]

There are two other possibilities: that the Gospels themselves suffered textual corruption (which they have, at least in many other cases), or that the prophecy cited comes from some now forgotten book which is not included in current Old Testament canon (which just goes to show you how reliable a canon Christians have). Any which way, though, the Christians have it bad.

[Al-manar]

There are two other possibilities: that the Gospels themselves suffered textual corruption

yes, and that could be linked to the third possibility ....

or that the prophecy cited comes from some now forgotten book which is not included in current Old Testament canon .

I'm not in much favor to such possibility ,I think the case of Elijah is a similar case to Jesus eg; the writers manufactured OT prediction about his resurrection that doesn't even exist ....
Luke 24:46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day.....

nowhere it is written that the messiah will rise from the dead on the third day.....

If they manufactured a prediction of the end of life of Jesus ,why don't they manufacture a prediction of the end of life of John the baptist ?....
putting in our mind ,the fact that, Elijah is not John the baptist ... If it is written that Elijah will come to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers and be executed ....it should be none of John the baptist business .... John is not Elijah ,we just accepted ,for the sake of argument, the new testament concept of a person similar to Elijah could represent him in fulfilling the prophecies ,which is flawed concept .....

Any which way, though, the Christians have it bad

Exactly.... If their quotations are not manufactured that neccesarily leads to a scripture that the writers of the gospels believed to be the word of God ,yet been lost and forgotten ...

peace

[Pak-istan786]

MashAllah, Islaam is proving to be the most definitive religion, this thread is very interesting to read through. Out of curiosity, has anyone ever been able to disprove anything in Islam? Everything I see seems to be intact, and Dr. Naik is a very good debater and he is so educated and convincing IMO( one example of a person Ive heard about). What about for the Bible and the Torah, I don't see much integrity with their history? I am so amazed that you guys have all this knowledge mashAllah! People try to dispute Islam, but I havent seen anyone succeed from this thread.

[Hiroshi]

MashAllah, Islaam is proving to be the most definitive religion, this thread is very interesting to read through. Out of curiosity, has anyone ever been able to disprove anything in Islam? Everything I see seems to be intact, and Dr. Naik is a very good debater and he is so educated and convincing IMO( one example of a person Ive heard about). What about for the Bible and the Torah, I don't see much integrity with their history? I am so amazed that you guys have all this knowledge mashAllah! People try to dispute Islam, but I havent seen anyone succeed from this thread.

Islam has had to make changes from what was originally believed. For the first nearly four centuries Muslims were made to respect the Torah and the Gospel as Muhammad and the Qur'an had taught them. Surah 5:44-46 says that in them are "guidance and light". But then Muslim writers began accusing Christians and Jews of changing their own scriptures. There was no basis for these accusations except that these scriptures disagreed with the Qur'an.

There has obviously been no corruption of the Torah and Gospel before Muhammad otherwise the Qur'an is wrong to say that there is "guidance and light" in them. And there can have been no corruption after Muhammad's time because we still have writings of these scriptures preserved for us today from before the rise of Islam for comparison.

[جوري]

Islam has had to make changes from what was originally believed. For the first nearly four centuries Muslims were made to respect the Torah and the Gospel as Muhammad and the Qur'an had taught them. Surah 5:44-46 says that in them are "guidance and light". But then Muslim writers began accusing Christians and Jews of changing their own scriptures. There was no basis for these accusations except that these scriptures disagreed with the Qur'an. There has obviously been no corruption of the Torah and Gospel before Muhammad otherwise the Qur'an is wrong to say that there is "guidance and light" in them. And there can have been no corruption after Muhammad's time because we still have writings of these scriptures preserved for us today from before the rise of Islam for comparison.

I wish you'd stop dispensing with the same rhetoric which was dispelled by several members using both Quran and hadith, yesterday you try your own rendition with Abraham (p) test of devotion turning God into some bloodthirsty purposeless harvest God, today with the 'Muslim writers' deranged the original beliefs. Do you want to go around peppering every section with nonsense hoping to find one weak link with which you can infiltrate with all sorts of deviant and perverse renditions? Keep your explanations as far as your religion is concerned. NO ONE here has given you the authority to speak on behalf of Muslims. Not only are you completely ignorant of Islam but you don't have basic level knowledge of it to be able to do so!

all the best

[Hiroshi]

I wish you'd stop dispensing with the same rhetoric which was dispelled by several members using both Quran and hadith, yesterday you try your own rendition with Abraham (p) test of devotion turning God into some bloodthirsty purposeless harvest God, today with the 'Muslim writers' deranged the original beliefs. Do you want to go around peppering every section with nonsense hoping to find one weak link with which you can infiltrate with all sorts of deviant and perverse renditions? Keep your explanations as far as your religion is concerned. NO ONE here has given you the authority to speak on behalf of Muslims. Not only are you completely ignorant of Islam but you don't have basic level knowledge of it to be able to do so!

all the best

Sorry if the facts of history disagree with you.

[Insaanah]

Islam has had to make changes from what was originally believed. For the first nearly four centuries Muslims were made to respect the Torah and the Gospel as Muhammad and the Qur'an had taught them.

But then Muslim writers began accusing Christians and Jews of changing their own scriptures. There was no basis for these accusations except that these scriptures disagreed with the Qur'an.

You know full well that this is not the case. I have quoted this very verse to you just a couple of weeks ago:

"Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby." (2: 79)

Throughout your stay here, even after having the same facts repeatedly clarified by Muslim members to you, at various times and in various different threads, you seem hellbent on putting your own spin on verses to make them appear to agree with your own beliefs or to try to make us look like as though we are in the wrong. It is one thing having an honest misunderstanding which one then acknowledges clarification of, but to repeatedly persist in your fallacious renditions of your own desires is something else.

This is not an "Islam how Jehovah's Witnesses would like to see it" forum, as you well know - this is an Islamic forum!

Peace.

[جوري]

Sorry if the facts of history disagree with you.

There are no facts in what you mention (see everyone's post on the matter) if you're not looking for the Muslim response then don't be on an Islamic forum for surely you're to encounter truths that disagree with your brand and there are millions of christian website to peddle in christian rhetoric! else justify your posts to echo what is known to Muslims scholars and laymen alike with evidence from Quran and Sunnah!

[جوري]

against the forum rules.

It is also intellectual dishonesty to disseminate faulty information with the intent of misleading people purposefully if one were a little bit altruistic and not looking merely to follow the law! Truly I pity Christians, they persist in their falsehood hoping to lead astray as many as they can to an eternal abyss and what a grievous thing that is to live like devils and follow in their footsteps!

:w:

[Amat Allah]

Islam has had to make changes from what was originally believed. For the first nearly four centuries Muslims were made to respect the Torah and the Gospel as Muhammad and the Qur'an had taught them. Surah 5:44-46 says that in them are "guidance and light". But then Muslim writers began accusing Christians and Jews of changing their own scriptures. There was no basis for these accusations except that these scriptures disagreed with the Qur'an.

"And among them are those who listen to you, but We have placed over their hearts coverings, lest they understand it, and in their ears deafness. And if they should see every sign, they will not believe in it. Even when they come to you arguing with you, those who disbelieve say, "This is not but legends of the former peoples." (25) Surat Al-An`aam.

[Hiroshi]

You know full well that this is not the case. I have quoted this very verse to you just a couple of weeks ago:

"Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby." (2: 79)

Throughout your stay here, even after having the same facts repeatedly clarified by Muslim members to you, at various times and in various different threads, you seem hellbent on putting your own spin on verses to make them appear to agree with your own beliefs or to try to make us look like as though we are in the wrong. It is one thing having an honest misunderstanding which one then acknowledges clarification of, but to repeatedly persist in your fallacious renditions of your own desires is something else.

This is not an "Islam how Jehovah's Witnesses would like to see it" forum, as you well know - this is an Islamic forum!

Peace.

Rather than quote Surah 2:79, can you produce one scrap of hard manuscript evidence of the wholesale corruption of Torah and Injil that seems to be so casually accepted as fact?

[Woodrow]

Rather than quote Surah 2:79, can you produce one scrap of hard manuscript evidence of the wholesale corruption of Torah and Injil that seems to be so casually accepted as fact?

The Council of Nicea in 325 and the removal of many books from both the OT and NT as being gnostic and/or apocryphal

[Ramadhan]

Rather than quote Surah 2:79, can you produce one scrap of hard manuscript evidence of the wholesale corruption of Torah and Injil that seems to be so casually accepted as fact?

Hiroshi, just take a closer look at your own jehova witness bible (new world translation).
That's your evidence.

[Hiroshi]

The Council of Nicea in 325 and the removal of many books from both the OT and NT as being gnostic and/or apocryphal

Hi Woodrow.

As far as can see, early Islamic commentators took Surah 2:79 to mean that the Jews deliberately altered passages in the Torah that prophecied about the coming of Muhammad.

http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?...&UserProfile=0


If such action was actually carried out then what would have been the result? Could the Jews have consistently altered every copy and record of the Torah over the entire world? Surely not.

And have you ever made a study of these apocryphal books that you mention? I have undertaken some research myself. Some of the writings have a certain historical value. But others are rife with historical and geogaphical inaccuracies and anachronisms. There is often evidence of deliberate dishonesty and influence from pagan Greek ideas. They contain superstition and error. They are completely lacking in prophecy. And external as well as internal evidence weighs against them in that many authorities rejected them. None of the NT writers quoted from OT apocryphal books. And the later apocryphal books that were pretended to form part of the NT were even less convincing.

[جوري]

If such action was actually carried out then what would have been the result? Could the Jews have consistently altered every copy and record of the Torah over the entire world? Surely not.

It doesn't matter how much or how little was altered! what matters is that it was altered-- which part should one accept as accurate or false? You seem to be under the impression that you can get 65% of your religion correct and that will be ok with God?!
If you're going to establish the law of (God) then you must take it in totality not snip out the parts that displease you or abolish things that don't fit the tide, if you are truly a believer!
as an example, in the current "Jewish state' for instance polygamy was abolished in the 1950's, when it is allowable under Jewish law noticed I said allowed not an injunction so why do away with things that unread Christians consider barbaric simply to have money funneled in or whatever other reason.

Islam we take in totality no adulteration, that which we don't understand we trust that there might come an age when we will or accept it simply as part of faith even though the disbelievers may protest it!

all the best

[Woodrow]

Hi Woodrow.

As far as can see, early Islamic commentators took Surah 2:79 to mean that the Jews deliberately altered passages in the Torah that prophecied about the coming of Muhammad.

http://www.altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?...&UserProfile=0


If such action was actually carried out then what would have been the result? Could the Jews have consistently altered every copy and record of the Torah over the entire world? Surely not.

And have you ever made a study of these apocryphal books that you mention? I have undertaken some research myself. Some of the writings have a certain historical value. But others are rife with historical and geogaphical inaccuracies and anachronisms. There is often evidence of deliberate dishonesty and influence from pagan Greek ideas. They contain superstition and error. They are completely lacking in prophecy. And external as well as internal evidence weighs against them in that many authorities rejected them. None of the NT writers quoted from OT apocryphal books. And the later apocryphal books that were pretended to form part of the NT were even less convincing.

The changes in the Torah are probably the most subtle and took place over afew thousand years. In my opinion most of those occured as a change in language as Hebrew ceased to be a spoken language and used only in the synagogues. At that point the Torah became what it was interpreted to mean. There is considerable difference between how Christians and Jews interpret the Torah. Either one or both interpretations are in error.

As for the gnostic books, I do agree there were very many false books that were presented as being true Gospels. However no matter what sources you use it does appear the Gospels of Thomas, Peter and Bartholomew do seem to have been legitimate and were accepted as true until the time of the First Council. So the question remains as to how valid was the Council of Nicea and how did the Vatican determine what should be removed.

It is ironic that the JWs who are one of the most outspoken groups against Catholicism, base their belief on works preserved by the Catholic Church. How do you fix a broken clock, when you do not have the original clock to see how it is supposed to be?

[Al-manar]

If such action was actually carried out then what would have been the result? Could the Jews have consistently altered every copy and record of the Torah over the entire world? Surely not. .

you know ,I won't blame you for your obsession with such issue (does the Quran validate the bible) , neither for skipping my quranic quotations related to the topic,in previous posts .....

I only blame you for narrowing the meaning of textual truthfulness to mere the Question of Transmission....

1- Does proving a written work as transmitted perfectly through the ages ,validate its entire content as facts ?

I don't think so...


2- Does the Quraic validation to the entire content of the bible (if it is so the case),prove to the objective researcher that the bible all the way tell the truth?

I don't think so.


you have asked :

Rather than quote Surah 2:79, can you produce one scrap of hard manuscript evidence of the wholesale corruption of Torah and Injil that seems to be so casually accepted as fact? .

there you ask for a manuscript evidence of corruption,but what corruption you refer to?

If corruption for you Synonyms with (textual modification to already existing text) I will provide you with an example for such narrow definition to corruption...

read the article (at the last line of the post) as a beginning and more will be given in the right time...

but the Quran seems to define the corruption in a wider range ..... It is not only to modify an already existing text ...but to write a text eg;book,chapter and claim it to be from God and add it to the body of the scripture ....

it is not a matter of a phrase deleted or added to a page ...it is full books that been added to the bible which have not the least trace of divine inspiration eg; song of solomon etc..... more to mention regarding such specific point in our future term (TORAH)...

If you honestly search for a prove of Biblical tampering , try not compare the modern text in accordance with the old text ...but try to compare the modern text with the easily to be verified facts ........

I have provided some biblical problems eg; http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ml#post1401294

that shows that parts of the bible ( call it the original autographs if you wish) can't be telling the truth .....

if you think otherwise,then that is what that thread for,just refute me ,if making sense, I promise to update my thoughts immediately ....


Again your question

can you produce one scrap of hard manuscript evidence of the wholesale corruption of Torah and Injil ? .

Yes I can ,just one of the irrefutable proofs of the narrow definition of corruption

http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/4jerem90.html

peace

[gmcbroom]

Hmmmm......Sura 10:37 This Koran could not have been devised by any but God. It confirms what was revealed before it and fully explains the scriptures. It is beyond doubt from the lord of the universe.

Now if the Koran doesn't doubt the accuracies of the Torah or the Gospels, why should you? Further, Sura 5:44-47 and Sura 5:68 would tend to imply that Jews and Christians would attain nothing until they observed the Torah and the Gospel and that which has revealed to you from your Lord.

Seems Christians and Jews are supposed to believe what they believe according to their sacred scriptures.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

[Hiroshi]

It doesn't matter how much or how little was altered! what matters is that it was altered-- which part should one accept as accurate or false? You seem to be under the impression that you can get 65% of your religion correct and that will be ok with God?!


all the best

But you see, any such alteration would only take place by a few unprincipled characters living in the 7th century. And how many manuscripts could they corrupt? The vast numbers of other copies elsewhere in the world would immediately reveal the late alteration and the variant reading would be rejected. 1 John 5:7 contains a (very) late textual corruption in the King James Version. But modern versions of the Bible reject this reading and show the correct wording here. So it is not a problem.

[جوري]

But you see, any such alteration would only take place by a few unprincipled characters living in the 7th century. And how many manuscripts could they corrupt? The vast numbers of other copies elsewhere in the world would immediately reveal the late alteration and the variant reading would be rejected. 1 John 5:7 contains a (very) late textual corruption in the King James Version. But modern versions of the Bible reject this reading and show the correct wording here. So it is not a problem.

Did you not read anything at all Al-Manar wrote? your religion was voted on by a council not dictated by God as for variant readings that would be rejected or accepted I really recommend you some

for starters..

all the best

[Hiroshi]

you know ,I won't blame you for your obsession with such issue (does the Quran validate the bible) , neither for skipping my quranic quotations related to the topic,in previous posts .....

I only blame you for narrowing the meaning of textual truthfulness to mere the Question of Transmission....

1- Does proving a written work as transmitted perfectly through the ages ,validate its entire content as facts ?

I don't think so...

I didn't come to accept the Bible as reliable and truthful simply by studying manuscripts and textual transmission. I came to realise that the Bible is a book of prophecy and could only have come from God who knows what the future will bring. Approximately one third of the Bible is prophecy. And these never fail to come true. Often the Bible foretells what will happen with great nations and world powers that dominate the international scene centuries in advance. Just to cite one example, it was foretold that the Jews would be exiled to Babylon but that they would afterwards be liberated by Cyrus the Persian king. Cyrus is named in prophecy some 200 years before he acted as liberator -- so even before he was born. The prophecy stated that Babylon's waters would be dried up (Isaiah 44:27-28). And that is exactly what Cyrus did. History records that he diverted the waters of the river Euphrates by digging a channel. Then when the waters were gone his soldiers invaded the city of Babylon by marching through the muddy river bed.

There are prophecies that have come true and we have historical records to prove it. There are prophecies that are coming true today and we can witness them unfolding. And there are prophecies still to occur in which we have absolute confidence that God will fulfill his promises.

[جوري]

Approximately one third of the Bible is prophecy.

you'll find that in any religion.. even Nostradamus' predictions have come true.. if you base your entire belief system on fulfilled or unfulfilled 'prophecies' you're bound to be of the losers on the day of recompense!

all the best

[IAmZamzam]

I didn't come to accept the Bible as reliable and truthful simply by studying manuscripts and textual transmission. I came to realise that the Bible is a book of prophecy and could only have come from God who knows what the future will bring. Approximately one third of the Bible is prophecy. And these never fail to come true. Often the Bible foretells what will happen with great nations and world powers that dominate the international scene centuries in advance. Just to cite one example, it was foretold that the Jews would be exiled to Babylon but that they would afterwards be liberated by Cyrus the Persian king. Cyrus is named in prophecy some 200 years before he acted as liberator -- so even before he was born. The prophecy stated that Babylon's waters would be dried up (Isaiah 44:27-28). And that is exactly what Cyrus did. History records that he diverted the waters of the river Euphrates by digging a channel. Then when the waters were gone his soldiers invaded the city of Babylon by marching through the muddy river bed.

There are prophecies that have come true and we have historical records to prove it. There are prophecies that are coming true today and we can witness them unfolding. And there are prophecies still to occur in which we have absolute confidence that God will fulfill his promises.

Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken; then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory; and he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place. (Matthew 24:29-34)

[gmcbroom]

The Vales Lily,
I watched the video you posted. First, i have to say their right that scribes had to copy it by hand. Now, this isn't anything new. The scribes in question were ordained clergy. Why clergy, simple their not going to want to deviate from the scriptures their copying from as that would be scrilegeous and dangerous. As for the defferent accounts not all who copied the scriptures would agree on doctrine so their copies would reflect this. That is how various heresies came about throughout history for example Nestorism, Arianism, and Monothelitism. The the first early councils brought together were to solidify the faith for all The Church. So that heresies would stop ripping apart the faith and causing persecutions.The Church voting on a dogma or doctrine isn't new. Infact drawing lots was how an Apostle was chosen when Judas Iscariot vacated his postion. As for the content of the video. the keynote speaker is from the Bible belt in the US and no doubt highly academically accredited yet I don't put much faith in what a college says as the scholastic attitude of late is extremely atheistic thus lacking faith and just embracing logic and reason. If I'm going to trust a source it would be ordained catholic , and apostolic as that is The Church. The four marks of the Church are One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church. Without that, all the degrees in the world amount to nothing concerning the Catholic Church. There just opinions nothing else.
If the Koran confirms what the scriptures say as Sura 10:37 seems to indicate then why would I follow a anything else as a Christian. I will stay with the Torah and Gospels.

Peace be with you
gmcbroom

[Hiroshi]

Did you not read anything at all Al-Manar wrote? your religion was voted on by a council not dictated by God as for variant readings that would be rejected or accepted I really recommend you some

for starters..

all the best

The speaker said that all of the manuscripts of the gospels are different from one another "in lots of little ways". To get that in perspective, when obviously spurious texts (such as Mark 16:9-20) have been eliminated, the count is about one word in a thousand where there is any variance. Almost always this is inconsequencial or causes hardly any change in the meaning. There are admittedly some cases where there are difficulties. John 1:18 in some manuscripts reads: "only begotten Son" and in others "only begotten god". The latter reading (the most likely correct) causes a problem for trinitarians. But I don't see even these as major issues that should make us cause us to reject the gospels as worthless.

[IAmZamzam]

The speaker said that all of the manuscripts of the gospels are different from one another "in lots of little ways". To get that in perspective, when obviously spurious texts (such as Mark 16:9-20) have been eliminated, the count is about one word in a thousand where there is any variance. Almost always this is inconsequencial or causes hardly any change in the meaning.

From one of my articles:

What I’m going to point out here is a series of verses with their text notes from the New Living Translation of the Bible, Gift & Award edition...

“However, no one knows the day or the hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows." (Matthew 24:36)

Some manuscripts omit the phrase “or the Son himself.”

"Here begins the Good News about Jesus the Messiah, the son of God." (Mark 1:1)

Some manuscripts do not include “the son of God.”

“I saw this happen to Jesus, so I testify that he is the Son of God.” (John 1:34)

Some manuscripts read “the chosen One of God.”

"Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard, Jesus is baptizing and making more disciples than John.'” (John 4:1)

Some manuscripts read “The Lord.”...

"Then Jesus led them to Bethany, and lifting his hands to heaven, he blessed them. While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up to heaven. They worshiped him and then returned to Jerusalem filled with great joy. And they spent all of their time in the Temple praising God." (Luke 24:50-53)

Some manuscripts do not include “and was taken up to heaven”. Some manuscripts do not include “worshiped him and”.

"The women fled from the tomb, trembling and bewildered, saying nothing to anyone because they were too frightened to talk.”

The most reliable early manuscripts conclude the Gospel of Mark at verse 8. Other manuscripts include various endings to the Gospel. Two of the more noteworthy endings are printed here.

[جوري]

were to solidify the faith for all The Church

I know to solidify it on Greek mythology!
you should listen to his entire lectures btw not just ten mins~!

If the Koran confirms what the scriptures say as Sura 10:37 seems to indicate then why would I follow a anything else as a Christian. I will stay with the Torah and Gospels.

The Quran doesn't state that the corrupt books you've in your hands are from God, and I'd urge you as to not perpetuate foolish notions that are started by some and never verified to read the Quran in totality.. you'd be surprised of how just how corrupt the lying hands of your scribes are the making of the fuels of hell!

The speaker said that all of the manuscripts of the gospels are different from one another "in lots of little ways". To get that in perspective, when obviously spurious texts (such as Mark 16:9-20) have been eliminated, the count is about one word in a thousand where there is any variance. Almost always this is inconsequencial or causes hardly any change in the meaning. There are admittedly some cases where there are difficulties. John 1:18 in some manuscripts reads: "only begotten Son" and in others "only begotten god". The latter reading (the most likely correct) causes a problem for trinitarians. But I don't see even these as major issues that should make us cause us to reject the gospels as worthless.

It isn't considered it 'little ways' when you turn man into a God, his messengers into lecherous perverts, apostles unable to bear a message, or for this alleged god himself to self-immolate.. I mean believe me I understand your monumental effort in deflecting focus from the big errors, the addendum of entire passages and corruption of the very being of God, but it is the sort of thing you can get away in trailer parks perhaps door to door not to schooled individuals even if on a most basic level!

all the best

[gmcbroom]

The Vales Lily,
Only time will tell my friend whether the muslim or christian perspective is correct. Personally, I don't put much credence in the Koran, just as you don't put much credence in the Bible. Our viewpoints are at odds. I'm aware that Islam doesn't condone an ordained priesthood. So your entiltled to your opinion of lecherous perverts. I, however, as a catholic disagree. Your arguments have been made before and will be again throughout time by both muslims and even christians who do not know their faith. However, to catholics and even any christian faith that has apostolic succession your arguments will fall on deaf ears.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

[جوري]

The Vales Lily, Only time will tell my friend whether the muslim or christian perspective is correct. Personally, I don't put much credence in the Koran, just as you don't put much credence in the Bible. Our viewpoints are at odds. I'm aware that Islam doesn't condone an ordained priesthood. So your entiltled to your opinion of lecherous perverts. I, however, as a catholic disagree. Your arguments have been made before and will be again throughout time by both muslims and even christians who do not know their faith. However, to catholics and even any christian faith that has apostolic succession your arguments will fall on deaf ears. Peace be with you gmcbroom

GMCbroom,

you wish my comments were about lecherous priests.. in fact they're about what is written in your book!

Lot had sex with his two daughters. One might even conclude that he had God's help in this, as he was both very old and very drunk at the time. There was no punishment for any of them. On the contrary, both daughters were rewarded with sons who founded nations (Gen 19:33-38). Earlier (Gen 19:8), Lot had offered his daughters to be used by a mob. And Peter said that Lot was a "righteous man" (2Peter 2:8).

Just to mention one in passing.. your lack of trust in the Quran is meaningless to me and the other 1.86 billion Muslims. A word of God, outside of not being adulterated, or at odds with 'Godliness' should have some textual and logical integrity... Lecherous priests can't be faulted for their lusts, after all they're simply following in the footsteps of 'Holy people' from the bible. Imagine that, Lut sent to folks to warn them against sins of the flesh only to sleep with his own daughters and father his own grandchildren.. and you expect that we should take that as credible or good? give me a break and do me a favor and stop quoting me from the Quran that which you obviously haven't a clue of!

all the best

[Perseveranze]

Asalaamu Alaikum,

I miss Ahmad Deedat...

[جوري]

I miss Ahmad Deedat...

Allah yer7mao.. he was one of the best bar none!

[gmcbroom]

The Vales Lily,

I'll take your suggestion under advisement but I can't guaranty that I won't respond. Either way you can render your opinion and I'll render mine. As for Lot it was the daughters who seduced their father not the other way around. As for the two men lot was protecting they were angels and they were guests under his roof and hospitality meant everything back then as it does even today in some cultures. What Lot did is deploreable to us in this day and age (offering his daughters in exchange) but back then women weren't on equal footing socially. It doesn't make it right just the societal standards of that time.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

[جوري]

The Vales Lily, I'll take your suggestion under advisement but I can't guaranty that I won't respond. Either way you can render your opinion and I'll render mine. As for Lot it was the daughters who seduced their father not the other way around. As for the two men lot was protecting they were angels and they were guests under his roof and hospitality meant everything back then as it does even today in some cultures. What Lot did is deploreable to us in this day and age (offering his daughters in exchange) but back then women weren't on equal footing socially. It doesn't make it right just the societal standards of that time. Peace be with you gmcbroom

I am not rendering an opinion I am listing the undeniable facts!
God wouldn't send a messenger to a people to warn them about lewd acts of the flesh only to have him commit incest and lewd acts on top of drunkenness and prostitution .. what credibility exists in that? God's law should be a constant not made to fit the tides-- do you read what you write? you suggest that God changes his mind because people were silly ad immature then?. perhaps if Jeremiah 8:8 "'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?

wasn't so rampant in the bible, we wouldn't take its contents and adherents with such a grain of salt..

all the best

[Ramadhan]

The speaker said that all of the manuscripts of the gospels are different from one another "in lots of little ways". To get that in perspective, when obviously spurious texts (such as Mark 16:9-20) have been eliminated, the count is about one word in a thousand where there is any variance. Almost always this is inconsequencial or causes hardly any change in the meaning. There are admittedly some cases where there are difficulties. John 1:18 in some manuscripts reads: "only begotten Son" and in others "only begotten god". The latter reading (the most likely correct) causes a problem for trinitarians. But I don't see even these as major issues that should make us cause us to reject the gospels as worthless.

you dont even have the original gospels to begin with, and you dont have oral tradition where everything is recorded and memorised, so how do you make certain that gospels that you have now is 100% record of jesus (as) sayings and actions without any embellishments?

also, if you have no problem with all those thousands versions of bible, why were jehova witness founders NOT happy with KJV, and proceeded to make his own versions?
Clearly, even your founders thought that bible has been corrupted.

[gmcbroom]

The Vales Lily,
Genesis 19 is simply explaining how the Moabites and Ammonites came into being through the 2 daughters of Lot. As for 2 Peter 2:8 He is simply stating how God saved Lot a righteous man oppressed by the licentious conduct of unprincipled people. and that if God can do that then the Lord knows how to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgement.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

[جوري]

The Vales Lily, Genesis 19 is simply explaining how the Moabites and Ammonites came into being through the 2 daughters of Lot. As for 2 Peter 2:8 He is simply stating how God saved Lot a righteous man oppressed by the licentious conduct of unprincipled people. and that if God can do that then the Lord knows how to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgement. Peace be with you gmcbroom

gmcbroom

if biblical content is trustworthy for you to wager your eternity then be my guest, we have merely listed our endless list of reservations which no christian has been able to substantiate with some dexterity!

all the best

[gmcbroom]

The Vales Lily,
It's not just Sacred Scripture. It's also Sacred Tradition that guides me to the Church. I know you don't share that belief. But then that's why this forum is here is it not? Its called comparative religion for a reason. It brings together various faiths from across the world. True this is a Muslim Forum and it makes sense that the dominant position here is Islam. Just like the dominant position on Catholic Answers Forum is Catholic. The presence of the comparative religions section here is similiar to the Non-Catholic religions section there, its to find out our similiarities and our differences.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

[جوري]

The Vales Lily, It's not just Sacred Scripture. It's also Sacred Tradition that guides me to the Church. I know you don't share that belief. But then that's why this forum is here is it not? Its called comparative religion for a reason. It brings together various faiths from across the world. True this is a Muslim Forum and it makes sense that the dominant position here is Islam. Just like the dominant position on Catholic Answers Forum is Catholic. The presence of the comparative religions section here is similiar to the Non-Catholic religions section there, its to find out our similiarities and our differences. Peace be with you gmcbroom

What is your point? Comparative religion is meant to elucidate concepts and expose prevarications and fabrications. You seem unwilling or unable to defend these very grave erroneous beliefs per your bible, reconcile them with common sense, logic and the being of the divine. You seem to be pulling words out of a hat and adhering to logical fallacies of numbers and denominations rather than a very basic need that can't be denied and the one that has to do with salvation for God's creed for the world to satisfy both the heart and the mind and the human condition in all its facets!

all the best

[gmcbroom]

The Vales Lily,
My point is that our religious views are different as we come from different faiths. You believe what you believe and I believe what I believe. I didn't come here to convert anyone; just to share a catholic perspective because thats what I thought this section is for.
peace be with you
gmcbroom

[جوري]

The Vales Lily, My point is that our religious views are different as we come from different faiths. You believe what you believe and I believe what I believe. I didn't come here to convert anyone; just to share a catholic perspective because thats what I thought this section is for. peace be with you gmcbroom

I don't think you're capable of converting anyone.. my point is that beliefs should be based on something more substantial than what you're presenting here..
have a great evening

[gmcbroom]

The Vales Lily,
I disagree, beliefs are a matter of faith. You either have it or you don't.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

[Hiroshi]

you dont even have the original gospels to begin with, and you dont have oral tradition where everything is recorded and memorised, so how do you make certain that gospels that you have now is 100% record of jesus (as) sayings and actions without any embellishments?

also, if you have no problem with all those thousands versions of bible, why were jehova witness founders NOT happy with KJV, and proceeded to make his own versions?
Clearly, even your founders thought that bible has been corrupted.

Surah 7:157 says that the Gospel and Torah are "with them" (Jews and Christians). What writings they had at that time, at the rise of Islam, are the same as what we have today.

Many Bible translators are influenced by their own pre-conceived doctrines and beliefs. Also, the NT of the KJV is based on just a few manuscripts of only slight authority as well as being written in an archaic style of English that no one understands today. But JWs have spent more than a century intensely studying the languages and original writings of the scriptures. And the Bible's message is not unclear. Our aim is to present it will absolute accuracy.

[Hiroshi]

From one of my articles:

What I’m going to point out here is a series of verses with their text notes from the New Living Translation of the Bible, Gift & Award edition...

“However, no one knows the day or the hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows." (Matthew 24:36)

Some manuscripts omit the phrase “or the Son himself.”

My belief is that trinitarians were worried by those words and deliberately omitted them. The inclusion of the words "or the Son himself" is well supported by the best and most ancient mss and also agrees with Mark 13:32.

From one of my articles:



"Here begins the Good News about Jesus the Messiah, the son of God." (Mark 1:1)

Some manuscripts do not include “the son of God.”

Most of my modern Bibles do not include this phrase. Likely it should be omitted. Many versions that include it carry a footnote to say that it is not included in all the mss.

“I saw this happen to Jesus, so I testify that he is the Son of God.” (John 1:34)

Some manuscripts read “the chosen One of God.”

"Jesus learned that the Pharisees had heard, Jesus is baptizing and making more disciples than John.'” (John 4:1)

Some manuscripts read “The Lord.”...

"Then Jesus led them to Bethany, and lifting his hands to heaven, he blessed them. While he was blessing them, he left them and was taken up to heaven. They worshiped him and then returned to Jerusalem filled with great joy. And they spent all of their time in the Temple praising God." (Luke 24:50-53)

Some manuscripts do not include “and was taken up to heaven”. Some manuscripts do not include “worshiped him and”.

"The women fled from the tomb, trembling and bewildered, saying nothing to anyone because they were too frightened to talk.”

The most reliable early manuscripts conclude the Gospel of Mark at verse 8. Other manuscripts include various endings to the Gospel. Two of the more noteworthy endings are printed here.

Of these other examples the conclusion to Mark's Gospel is obviously spurious and need not be considered. The "worship" of Jesus refers to obeisance (as in many other places) rather than to relligious worship of God. And there is just some disagreement about whether a particular title or designation, which occurs elsewhere, should be applied to Jesus in a particular verse. Why should these cause a serious problem?

[Hiroshi]

It is ironic that the JWs who are one of the most outspoken groups against Catholicism, base their belief on works preserved by the Catholic Church. How do you fix a broken clock, when you do not have the original clock to see how it is supposed to be?

That bothered me for a time. But although the Catholic Church did preserve these works they also jealously kept them out of sight from others and persecuted and burned at the stake anyone who tried to teach or translate the Bible. It was more of a case of Catholicism preventing access to the scriptures.

The changes in the Torah are probably the most subtle and took place over afew thousand years. In my opinion most of those occured as a change in language as Hebrew ceased to be a spoken language and used only in the synagogues. At that point the Torah became what it was interpreted to mean. There is considerable difference between how Christians and Jews interpret the Torah. Either one or both interpretations are in error.

Well, the Jewish copyists exercised the utmost care in their work, even counting the number of letters that were written. In the Dead Sea scroll of Isaiah, more than 1,000 years older than the Masoretic text, only minor differences were found, mostly in spelling.

As for the gnostic books, I do agree there were very many false books that were presented as being true Gospels. However no matter what sources you use it does appear the Gospels of Thomas, Peter and Bartholomew do seem to have been legitimate and were accepted as true until the time of the First Council. So the question remains as to how valid was the Council of Nicea and how did the Vatican determine what should be removed.

I need to research about those apocryphal gospels and get back to you.

[جوري]

The Vales Lily, I disagree, beliefs are a matter of faith. You either have it or you don't. Peace be with you gmcbroom

Beliefs should be based on common sense.. otherwise why not kneel before ganesh or Zeus? Essentially Christianity shares the same polytheistic foundation and you're basically helpless to defend it because it is a matter of 'faith' Hindus have faith too, so do Zoroastrians.. something to think about!

all the best

[Al-manar]

I didn't come to accept the Bible as reliable and truthful simply by studying manuscripts and textual transmission. I came to realise that the Bible is a book of prophecy and could only have come from God who knows what the future will bring. .

I agree that the bible has lots of prophecies ,yet dozens of them are either imaginary ,unfulfilled (I have just exposed one example of them in the post about john the baptist)......

we are about to discuss the messianic prophecies in details .. and show you that the reason you believe in the bible as trustworthy (claim of prophecy fullfilment) is the same exact reason for me to believe the bible as untrustworthy (imaginary ,failed prophecies)..... logic tells ,false imaginary prophecies can't be inspired by God !..

[Ramadhan]

Surah 7:157 says that the Gospel and Torah are "with them" (Jews and Christians). What writings they had at that time, at the rise of Islam, are the same as what we have today.

you have asked about this verse few times before and been given plenty of explanations from the tafseer.
Could you read those again and explain why do you not agree with them.

Many Bible translators are influenced by their own pre-conceived doctrines and beliefs.

So, which ones are those translators?
do christians have some standards?
Or is bible free to be interpreted based on every scribes' pre-conceived doctrines and beliefs?
Does this mean also that there is high possibility that the early translators got it wrong, say from the original gospel of jesus (which should be in hebrew or aramaic) to koine greek?

Also, the NT of the KJV is based on just a few manuscripts of only slight authority as well as being written in an archaic style of English that no one understands today

so, does this mean that bible needs to be updated all the time according to the current trend and understanding?
because thats what it seems to be the case.

But JWs have spent more than a century intensely studying the languages and original writings of the scriptures.

everyone knows that there is no such thing as original writings of bible.
even christians do not agree which books should be included in the bible.
Jesus (as) was likely to have spoken either hebrew or aramaic to his disciple, and none of the four gospels in the bible is written in the language.
Also, I heard that NIV is pretty good and based on a much more thorough research than NWT, so why won't JWs discontinue the use of NWT and replace it with NIV which is more modern?

As has been repeatedly said before, how do you fix each new subsequent versions of bible when you have no originals to begin with?

And I predict that there will always be attempts to make new versions of bible as later generations will not be satisfied with the previous versions of bible.
When each generations "attempt" to make the newer versions more "accurate", it is when bible will get further and further from the orginals that do not exist.

[IAmZamzam]

Hiroshi, you are missing the forest for the trees. There are a ton of alternate verses out there disagreeing over designations and statements most Christians consider a reference to Jesus's (P) divinity. This doesn't bother you? It's proof that, contrary to what you said before, the text is corrupted, and over some very important issues. Nor are those the only example I could give you.

[gmcbroom]

Yahya Sulaiman,
You say that there are tons of alternative verses out there disagreeing with statements over Jesus's divintiy. Care to name or post a few?
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

[IAmZamzam]

What I said is that there are tons of other textual variants in addition to the ones I've already listed, some over very important things. I didn't say they were all over Jesus's (P) divinity. The ones I've cited should suffice for that.

[YusufNoor]

That bothered me for a time. But although the Catholic Church did preserve these works they also jealously kept them out of sight from others and persecuted and burned at the stake anyone who tried to teach or translate the Bible. It was more of a case of Catholicism preventing access to the scriptures.

Well, the Jewish copyists exercised the utmost care in their work, even counting the number of letters that were written. In the Dead Sea scroll of Isaiah, more than 1,000 years older than the Masoretic text, only minor differences were found, mostly in spelling.

I need to research about those apocryphal gospels and get back to you.

:wa:

just to make a point or 2:

Isaiah is NOT part of the Torah! it was one of the latest Scrolls of the Neve'im to be completed [albeit with 3 different authors]. the collective works of Ezra and Nehemiah are the bulk of the last [which of course differs depending how you date Daniel] of the Ketiv'um.

that being said, one cannot say the because Isaiah in pretty close to the same, that also holds true for the Torah, they are different scrolls.

in his version of the documentary hypothesis, Professor Richard Elliott Friedman points to Jeremiah's scribe Baruch as the "Deuteronomist" and Ezra as being the final editor of the Torah. this would put the final "changes" in the Torah in the 5th Century BCE. Friedman is a Professor of Hebrew and he dates the "Priestly" additions much earlier than Wellhausen, who based his decision on purely theological reasons. Friedman uses theological as well as linguistic properties of the text.

the "minimalist" or 1 author theory on Genesis, championed by Professor Gary A Rendsburg of Rutgers puts the text just prior to 1000 BCE. Scholarship thus puts the Torah, as we know it today, AT LEAST 2 to 3 hundred years AFTER the time of Moses, PBUH. the Torah of today is NOT the "Torah" of Mose, PBUH. ADDITIONALLY the "Torah" in the time of Moses, PBUH, referred to the LAW given to him and NOT the 5 Books containing stories about him, and earlier times.

if i may say a word about the Council of Nicea, PLEASE forget all the misconceptions and folklore we have all been taught about it INCLUDING the development of the "canon" of the Bible. let me quote from this website:

In Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, Constantine collated an entirely new Bible at the Council of Nicea, containing only books that speak of Jesus as divine. All books that portrayed him as human were burned.

true or false?

False. While it is true that the development of the Bible was a historical process that took centuries, Constantine had nothing to do with it and the Council of Nicea did not discuss it.

http://www.religionfacts.com/da_vinci_code/nicea.htm

please seek out and read: Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine by Bart D Ehrman.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...ance/beliefnet

whilst i disagree with a few of Prof Ehrman's conclusions, we could ALL do with a "fresher" outlook of the proceedings. i KNOW i had to give up some preconceived notions the reality of the situation is not readily apparent to most. the more we strive for a Scholarly outlook of history, the better the Truth can be revealed, In Sha'a Allah!

you may return to your regularly scheduled programming!

:sl:

[Hiroshi]

The Council of Nicea in 325 and the removal of many books from both the OT and NT as being gnostic and/or apocryphal

Actually, I don't believe that any such action was taken in 325. Where did you read that this took place? Do you have any references to historical records concerning this?

[Hiroshi]

If i may say a word about the Council of Nicea, PLEASE forget all the misconceptions and folklore we have all been taught about it INCLUDING the development of the "canon" of the Bible. let me quote from this website:

In Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, Constantine collated an entirely new Bible at the Council of Nicea, containing only books that speak of Jesus as divine. All books that portrayed him as human were burned.


true or false?

False. While it is true that the development of the Bible was a historical process that took centuries, Constantine had nothing to do with it and the Council of Nicea did not discuss it.

Does this support what I just said in my last post?

[Hiroshi]

you have asked about this verse few times before and been given plenty of explanations from the tafseer.
Could you read those again and explain why do you not agree with them.

Blame an old man's memory. Did the tafseer say that the Torah and Injil were not with the Jews and Christians?

[Ramadhan]

Blame an old man's memory. Did the tafseer say that the Torah and Injil were not with the Jews and Christians?

You have asked this before a few times. You seem to be in the same mould of other run-of-the-mills evangelists who have no problems lying whenever having to defend the house built on sand that is christianity and bible. Just a few posts ago you even claimed that christians have the "writings of original scriptures" which is such a blatant lie, and to make it worse, it's silly to do it on this forum where we can easily point you towards the truth.

Here's an example of your prior "query" on the verse, and I hope this time you will remember it:


http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...about-145.html

Peace Woodrow.

Thank you for addressing my question. But Surah 7:157 (Pickthall) reads: "Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel [or: "Injil"] (which are) with them." Now those ones alluded to here must include Christians who embraced Islam at a time when they had the Injil "with them". If this is so, then the scriptures that were available at the time of the rise of Islam must be the Injil as defined by the Qur'an. And we have those same scriptures translated into our Bibles today.

It is not only possible but probable that some Christians did retain the Injil until at least the time of Muhammad(PBUH) We do know one of his uncles ( I believeit was an Uncle) was Christian and he had considerable respect for him. It is also known that on at least one occasion Christians in the region were permitted to hold their worship in a Mosque.It seems that at least those Christians still had the Injil

But, that does not mean all who called themselves Christian were following the Injil. It does seem that the Christians in Greece were following something different than what some of the other Christians were following, if you look at the differences of some of the older denominations that still exist today such as the Coptics, Nazarenes and Sabians. They differ so much that some Christians of today do not view them as being Christian. What is in todays Bible was determined by the Council of Nicea in the year 325. It is probable it had not been accepted by Christians outside Catholicism until centuries later.

So I agree that the Injil was retained until it was fully replaced by the Catholic Bible determined by the Council of Nicea. Which is today's bible with the exception of the KJV which removed 7 books that the council approved.

[Hiroshi]

You have asked this before a few times. You seem to be in the same mould of other run-of-the-mills evangelists who have no problems lying whenever having to defend the house built on sand that is christianity and bible. Just a few posts ago you even claimed that christians have the "writings of original scriptures" which is such a blatant lie, and to make it worse, it's silly to do it on this forum where we can easily point you towards the truth.

Here's an example of your prior "query" on the verse, and I hope this time you will remember it:


http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...about-145.html

Thank you for the link but what should I be looking at here? I can't see any posts from me or replies to me.

Originally Posted by Woodrow
It is not only possible but probable that some Christians did retain the Injil until at least the time of Muhammad(PBUH) We do know one of his uncles ( I believeit was an Uncle) was Christian and he had considerable respect for him. It is also known that on at least one occasion Christians in the region were permitted to hold their worship in a Mosque.It seems that at least those Christians still had the Injil

But, that does not mean all who called themselves Christian were following the Injil.

No they were not as you rightly say. There were false ideas and irresponsible men "twisting" the meaning of the scriptures even in the time of Peter and Paul (2 Peter 15-17). After centuries of time and worldly influence, Christianity had become rife with divisions and false teachings.

It does seem that the Christians in Greece were following something different than what some of the other Christians were following, if you look at the differences of some of the older denominations that still exist today such as the Coptics, Nazarenes and Sabians. They differ so much that some Christians of today do not view them as being Christian.

This doesn't necessarily mean that they had a different Injil. It just means that they were twisting the scriptures or ignoring certain parts. If you can show any writings that they had which are claimed to be the true Injil quite apart from what is in our NT then we could examine that and investigate further.

What is in todays Bible was determined by the Council of Nicea in the year 325. It is probable it had not been accepted by Christians outside Catholicism until centuries later.

So I agree that the Injil was retained until it was fully replaced by the Catholic Bible determined by the Council of Nicea. Which is today's bible with the exception of the KJV which removed 7 books that the council approved.

I can see no historical evidence that there was any change to the Bible canon at the Council of Nicea in 325. Please can you provide the source for this information?

[Hiroshi]

Hiroshi, you are missing the forest for the trees. There are a ton of alternate verses out there disagreeing over designations and statements most Christians consider a reference to Jesus's (P) divinity. This doesn't bother you? It's proof that, contrary to what you said before, the text is corrupted, and over some very important issues. Nor are those the only example I could give you.

Yes it does bother me. And I believe that we should take a keen interest in such matters in order to gain an accurate understanding of the Bible.

The corruption that you speak of is in reality a tiny percentage of the whole. It doesn't make a vast difference to the Bible's overall message. I don't know of any variation in the text that causes uncertainty about a matter of doctrine.

[Hiroshi]

everyone knows that there is no such thing as original writings of bible.

You are right, of course. We do not have the original writings with us today.

So, which ones are those translators?
do christians have some standards?
Or is bible free to be interpreted based on every scribes' pre-conceived doctrines and beliefs?
Does this mean also that there is high possibility that the early translators got it wrong, say from the original gospel of jesus (which should be in hebrew or aramaic) to koine greek?

Take as an example Revelation 3:14 which calls Jesus: “the beginning [Greek: “arche”] of the of the creation of God” (KJV). A similar expression occurs at John 2:11 “This beginning [Greek: “arche”] of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee”.

In the first verse “arche” means that Jesus is the first creation of God just as in the second verse the reference is to the first miracle of Jesus.

Of course, Trinitarians do not believe that Jesus is a created being and so they try to hide the meaning of Revelation 3:14 in many translations:

“the ruler of God’s creation” (New International Version)
“the Origin and Beginning and Author of God's creation” (Amplified Bible)
“the source of God's creation” (Contemporary English Version)
“the ruler of all God has made” (New Century Version)
“the ruler of God’s creation” (Common English Bible)
“the source of God’s creation” (GOD’S WORD Translation)
“the chief of the creation of God” (Young’s Literal Translation)

In the NT, with one exception, the word for “ruler” is “archon” (as at Revelation 1:5) not “arche”. And the sense of “origin” doesn’t appear anywhere in the NT but rather is used in Greek philosophical writings. In any case, other scriptures like 1 Corinthians 8:6 state that the creation is through Jesus but from the God the Father. So Jesus is clearly not the source and origin of creation, the Father is.

A careful examination and study of God’s word is rewarding and reveals many man-made doctrines such as the Trinity to be false.

[gmcbroom]

Hirosi,
The revelation reference your referring to 3:14. I don't see the problem? Is it where it's says the source of God's creation? I don't have an issue with the passage. It's a mystery and as such unexplainable.

Were you baptised in the name of the Father only? I ask because in the Didache translation I'm reading Chapters 7:1-7:4 all refer to baptizing in the name of the Father,and of the Son, and of the Holy spirit.

May I ask you a personal question? As a Unitarian how were you baptized? If it calls for a trinitarian baptism from the very beginning Then that should impy a trinitarian belief. After all, if Jesus were just a prophet then adding him into the baptism would be extrememly narcissistic not to mention blasmephemous.

[IAmZamzam]

I don't know of any variation in the text that causes uncertainty about a matter of doctrine.

I think those should definitely count! You want another example? Try the variances in Matthew 5:22.

[Hiroshi]

Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken; then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory; and he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. So also, when you see all these things, you know that he is near, at the very gates. Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away till all these things take place. (Matthew 24:29-34)

In the Bible “stars” can represent or symbolize a number of different things. Often the meaning is that of a king or a prominent individual. And a star or stars “falling from heaven” pictures the downfall of such ones. In addition, the removal of starlight from the heavens along with light from the moon and sun is a frequent symbol used in prophetic warnings of disaster brought as a result of God’s judgment.

Isaiah 14:12-13 NIV says of the king of Babylon: “How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! You said in your heart, “I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God””. (The “stars of God” here refer to the line of kings of Judah descended from David as shown in Numbers 24:17).

A similar picture occurs in Daniel 8:9-10 NIV: “Out of one of them came another horn, which started small but grew in power to the south and to the east and toward the Beautiful Land. It grew until it reached the host of the heavens, and it threw some of the starry host down to the earth and trampled on them.”

Regarding the “generation” mentioned in Matthew 24:34 the 1 May 1999 Watchtower magazine published by JWs said this on page 11:

12 In the years leading up to 66 C.E., Christians would have seen many of the preliminary elements of the composite sign being fulfilled—wars, famines, even an extensive preaching of the good news of the Kingdom. (Acts 11:28; Colossians 1:23) When, though, would the end come? What did Jesus mean when he said: ‘This generation [Greek, ge·ne·a′] will not pass away’? Jesus had often called the contemporaneous mass of opposing Jews, including religious leaders, ‘a wicked, adulterous generation.’ (Matthew 11:16; 12:39, 45; 16:4; 17:17; 23:36) So when, on the Mount of Olives, he again spoke of “this generation,” he evidently did not mean the entire race of Jews throughout history; nor did he mean his followers, even though they were “a chosen race.” (1 Peter 2:9) Neither was Jesus saying that “this generation” is a period of time.
13 Rather, Jesus had in mind the opposing Jews back then who would experience the fulfillment of the sign he gave. Regarding the reference to “this generation” at Luke 21:32, Professor Joel B. Green notes: “In the Third Gospel, ‘this generation’ (and related phrases) has regularly signified a category of people who are resistant to the purpose of God. . . . [It refers] to people who stubbornly turn their backs on the divine purpose.”
14 The wicked generation of Jewish opposers who could observe the sign being fulfilled would also experience the end. (Matthew 24:6, 13, 14) And that they did! In 70 C.E., the Roman army returned, led by Titus, son of Emperor Vespasian. The suffering of the Jews who were again bottled up in the city is almost beyond belief. Eyewitness Flavius Josephus reports that by the time the Romans demolished the city, about 1,100,000 Jews had died and some 100,000 were taken captive, most of those soon to perish horribly from starvation or in Roman theaters. Truly, the tribulation of 66-70 C.E. was the greatest that Jerusalem and the Jewish system had ever experienced or would ever experience. How different the outcome was for Christians who had heeded Jesus’ prophetic warning and had left Jerusalem after the departure of the Roman armies in 66 C.E.! The anointed Christian “chosen ones” were “saved,” or kept safe, in 70 C.E.—Matthew 24:16, 22.


“Insight on the Scriptures”, Volume 1 published by JWs says this on page 1033:
Figurative Use. Stars are used in the Bible in a figurative sense and in metaphors or similes to represent persons, as in Joseph’s dream in which his parents were represented by the sun and moon, and his 11 brothers by 11 stars. (Ge 37:9, 10) Job 38:7 parallels “the morning stars” that joyfully cried out at earth’s founding with the angelic “sons of God.” The resurrected and exalted Jesus spoke of himself as “the bright morning star” and promised to give “the morning star” to his conquering followers, evidently indicating a sharing with him in his heavenly position and glory. (Re 22:16; 2:26, 28; compare 2Ti 2:12; Re 20:6.) The seven “angels” of the congregations, to whom written messages are delivered, are symbolized by seven stars in the right hand of Christ. (Re 1:16, 20; 2:1; 3:1) “The angel of the abyss” called Abaddon is also represented by a star.—Re 9:1, 11; see ABADDON.
In the proverbial saying of Isaiah chapter 14, the boastful and ambitious king of Babylon (that is, the Babylonian dynasty of kings represented by Nebuchadnezzar), called the “shining one” (Heb., heh·lel′; “Lucifer,” KJ), is presented as seeking to lift up his throne “above the stars of God.” (Isa 14:4, 12, 13; see SHINING ONE.) The metaphor of a “star” is used in referring prophetically to the Davidic kings of Judah (Nu 24:17), and Bible history shows that the Babylonian dynasty for a time did rise above these Judean kings by conquest of Jerusalem. A similar prophecy in Daniel chapter 8 describes the small “horn” of some future power as trampling down certain stars of “the army of the heavens” and moving against the Prince of the army and his sanctuary (Da 8:9-13); while at Daniel chapter 12, by simile, those persons “having insight” and bringing others to righteousness are pictured as shining “like the stars” in “the time of the end.” (Da 12:3, 9, 10) By contrast, immoral deviators from truth are compared to “stars with no set course.”—Jude 13.
The darkening of the stars, along with the sun and moon, is a frequent figure used in prophetic warnings of disaster brought as a result of God’s judgment. (Isa 13:10; Eze 32:7; Re 6:12, 13; 8:12; compare Job 9:6, 7.) The dimming of such luminaries is also used in the description of the fading years of the aged person at Ecclesiastes 12:1, 2. Elsewhere stars are spoken of as falling or being cast down to earth. (Mt 24:29; Re 8:10; 9:1; 12:4) “Signs” in sun, moon, and stars are foretold as evidence of the time of the end.—Lu 21:25.

[Hiroshi]

I think those should definitely count! You want another example? Try the variances in Matthew 5:22.

English Standard Version reads: "everyone who is angry with his brother[a] will be liable to judgment", and a footnote says: "a. Some manuscripts insert without cause".

Is this the variance that you refer to?

[Hiroshi]

Hirosi,
The revelation reference your referring to 3:14. I don't see the problem? Is it where it's says the source of God's creation? I don't have an issue with the passage. It's a mystery and as such unexplainable.

Were you baptised in the name of the Father only? I ask because in the Didache translation I'm reading Chapters 7:1-7:4 all refer to baptizing in the name of the Father,and of the Son, and of the Holy spirit.

May I ask you a personal question? As a Unitarian how were you baptized? If it calls for a trinitarian baptism from the very beginning Then that should impy a trinitarian belief. After all, if Jesus were just a prophet then adding him into the baptism would be extrememly narcissistic not to mention blasmephemous.

I am a Jehovah's Witness, McBroom. We do not believe in the Trinity.

Matthew 28:19 does not mean that the Father, Son and Holy Spiriy all have the same name. In modern English we can say: "in the name of the law" meaning "by the authority of the law". But the law doesn't literally have a name. In the Greek of the NT a similar idiom existed. Matthew 10:41 KJV says: "He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward."

When Matthew 28:19 instucts to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" it means that the baptism must be done in recognition of the authority of God the Father, of his Son Jesus and of God's spirit.


To render "αρχη" as "source" at Revelation 3:14 is, I believe, a mistranslation. Nowhere in the NT does this word have that meaning. It should be translated "beginning" as at Revelation 21:6 and Revelation 22:13.

[Hiroshi]

I ask because in the Didache translation I'm reading Chapters 7:1-7:4 all refer to baptizing in the name of the Father,and of the Son, and of the Holy spirit.

So is the Didache translation a Bible translation? If so, chapters 7:1-7:4 of which book are you referring to?

[gmcbroom]

Hiroshi,
I know you don't believe in the Trinity and this has actually puzzled me because the Jehova's Witnesses in the the beginning of your sect clearly did. I don't have the reference in front of me but I'm looking for it. I was invited to a Kingdom Hall and shown that you all have intensive historical records from the beginning of your order in order to answer anyones questions about your faith and it's stances. I suggest you don't take my word for it, review them.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

[gmcbroom]

Hiroshi,
As for the Didache, that was the only one I could find online and it had multiple translations. However, it was a small document more an outline or manual than anything else.
Peace be wuith you
gmcbroom

[Hiroshi]

Hiroshi,
I know you don't believe in the Trinity and this has actually puzzled me because the Jehova's Witnesses in the the beginning of your sect clearly did. I don't have the reference in front of me but I'm looking for it. I was invited to a Kingdom Hall and shown that you all have intensive historical records from the beginning of your order in order to answer anyones questions about your faith and it's stances. I suggest you don't take my word for it, review them.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

I have never heard before that Jehovah's Witnesses once believed in the Trinity. But certainly there have been many changes in our understanding of the Bible from the earliest times. These include our stand on neutrality (we refuse military service) and with regard to participation in celebrations such as Christmas. We were willing to study, learn and readjust our thinking when necessary.

As for the Didache, that was the only one I could find online and it had multiple translations. However, it was a small document more an outline or manual than anything else.

I see. Thanks.

[gmcbroom]

Hiroshi, I found it. Look under Studies in the Scriptures Vol. 7. That was according to your founder Russell. Though after his death the Trinity was looked on as more satanic though. So it would seem that there was a differing of opinion among the leaders of the Watch Tower after he died.
Peace be with you.
gmcbroom

[IAmZamzam]

English Standard Version reads: "everyone who is angry with his brother[a] will be liable to judgment", and a footnote says: "a. Some manuscripts insert without cause".

Is this the variance that you refer to?

Yep.

8letters

[gmcbroom]

What do you guys mean by variance? It's discussing anger.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom