PDA

View Full Version : ive been scratchn my head for too long...any answers???



sevgi
01-07-2007, 06:11 AM
ive been told by a christian missionary worker that the current bible is recorded accounts by men who were around jesus.like, they have written down events, miracles and stuff they observed. eg) the book of mark etc...

i was told that not all these men are saints...how can they be trusted? why isnt there a part in the bible that is directed from God to Jesus?why isnt there a part where God, through jesus, talks to christians and directs them? who cares what mark and other guys have to say?(no offence) dnt christians want to know what jesus and god have to say?

anyone who can help me out? christians in particular?
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
lolwatever
01-07-2007, 06:28 AM
yep exactly, so according to that its not a holy book, i.e. its not a book that was revealed from god. It's just a collection of recounts and events.

The gospel that we believe in was revealed by god directly to jesus.

ws w rwb :)
Reply

Trumble
01-07-2007, 01:51 PM
Originally Posted by sumeyye
i was told that not all these men are saints...how can they be trusted?
'Saint' is only a label. You can only 'trust' that even people supposed to be saints (using the word to describe behaviour, rather than indicate canonization) were so; it's not as if anybody alive ever met them to formulate a judgement.. and even if they had been it might be wrong.They were people, as was Mohammed. As with every other case of 'trust', some will and some won't. As usual, it all comes down to faith. Many don't 'trust' Mohammed's claim that the Qur'an came from God via Gabriel. Just because that is the claim doesn't mean it can be trusted, indeed it could be argued that the rather less grandiose claims of the authors of the Gospels might be more trustworthy. I have no wish to start a very off-topic debate on that, incidently, I'm merely making the point.


why isnt there a part in the bible that is directed from God to Jesus?why isnt there a part where God, through jesus, talks to christians and directs them? who cares what mark and other guys have to say
Because the Bible is not the Qur'an and to Christians Jesus is far more than a prophet. What is important is the teachings of Jesus, who Christians believe was himself an aspect of the divine, and people care what Mark and the others have to say because what they say is what Jesus taught. Or least they have faith that is what they are saying - see above. Christians would say there is sufficient 'direction' there. Muslims would obviously disagree, hence the need for the Qur'an. Despite the assorted trivial discrepancies some people think of relevance, though, the actual message of the New Testament is perfectly clear regarding how people should behave towards each other.
Reply

Grace Seeker
01-07-2007, 06:20 PM
The word "saint" is an English word. It has different meanings depending on who is using it. English translations of the bible sometimes use the English word "saint' when translating the Greek New Testament word "[i]hagios[/ii]". hagios carries a couple of different meanings within it -- depending on the context it can mean "holy", "saint" or "consecrated". In each case it is referring to a person, place, or thing that is set apart for God. Indeed, as used in the Bible all Christians are understood to be hagios or saints, because all are set apart for God's purposes and consecrated to him. The word is the same word used by Jesus when he taught his disciples to pray, saying: "Our Father, who is in heaven, hallowed [or hagios] be your name...." That is, we are treat God's name as being holy, set apart for him, and not to be taken in vain.

The other way the word "saint" is used in English is in the identification of certain people as uniquely a special class of Christian, these are the saints as labelled by the Roman Catholic Church. Of course these people are saints, because the Bible identifies all Christians as being saints, but the Roman Catholic Church has set them apart as in a special class by themselves that offends some other Christians. Thus, some person rebell at the Roman Catholic identification of anyone as being a saint. This is the most probable understanding behind a missionary who would say that those who wrote the Bible were not saints. That is, he does not see them in a separate class of holiness from all other Christians. And again, the Bible makes it clear that all Christians can properly be called saints because each Christian belongs to God.

(My guess is that if the Quran had been written in Greek rather than Arabic, that the Quran would identify all Muslims as hagios (or saints) as well, in that the Ummah is understood to be uniquely God's people, set apart and consecrated to him, within Islam. I don't have a Greek translation of the Quran, so I can't verify it, but that would be my guess.)
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
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
- Qatada -
01-07-2007, 06:25 PM
Hey Grace seeker, that also gets me thinking.


How come the bibles in greek even though Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) was jewish? I think it was revealed in Aramaic right? And are there any remenants of the original Aramaic bible remaining?


PS: I only asked this because you're truthful in your responses. so thanks in advance. :)



Peace.
Reply

Grace Seeker
01-07-2007, 08:10 PM
Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
Hey Grace seeker, that also gets me thinking.


How come the bibles in greek even though Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) was jewish? I think it was revealed in Aramaic right? And are there any remenants of the original Aramaic bible remaining?


PS: I only asked this because you're truthful in your responses. so thanks in advance. :)



Peace.

Thank you for the high praise. I try to be truthful. And though I know I am biased in my opinion regarding what is truth and what is error, I hope not to be too overly biased in the sharing of the basic information of the faith. It really humbles me that you might see that in my responses.


Christians would not say that Jesus' (pbuh) message was a revelation in the same way that Muslims speak of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) receiving the Qu'ran. That is because for us Jesus is much more than a prophet bringing a message from God. Remember, Jesus is God manifesting himself to and among us. Thus, from a Christian persepctive, it is Jesus' disciples more than Jesus who should be equated with the prophet, for they (the disciples) are the ones who are passing along the message they have received from God. And that message is not just a message about how we human should live (though it contains that), but is primarliy a message about the transcendent God, creator of the universe, who broke into our world and interacted with us in person.

So, the Quran is a message about a topic, how people are to live life in submission to God. The gospel is not so much a message about a topic, but about God himself. Of course, Jesus' sermons do contain these messages of how to live, but the focus of the gospels is not on Jesus' messages, but on Jesus.

Sorry to take so long to get to your question, but I think understanding that background will help better understand my answer to your question now.

So, when the disciples shared the message that they shared, they were not just trying to pass along what Jesus had said, they were passing along that and much more about Jesus. And the people they were sharing it with lived in a world where few spoke Aramaic. Thus, if they wanted to tell about Jesus, rather than to pass along just his words in the language in which Jesus had spoken them, they passed along the larger story in the language understood by the people. Greek was the "lingua franca" (I'm trusting you know that phrase) of its day. Thus, they wrote in that lanuage.

In fact the name of the particular form of Greek they used tells you all you need to know about why they choose it. They wrote in Koine Greek. Koine, from which we get our English word "coin", means "common". What the authors of the gospels wrote in was the common tongue, the language of the common man, and was common to people all over the Roman empire. Their native tongue might be one of literally hunderds of different languages or dialects. But they would speak it AND they would also speak Koine Greek.

Why do we write on this Islamic board in English, and not Arabic, especially if we are going to talk about the Qu'ran? Well, some do choose to use Arabic. But to communicate with the majority of the people we write in English, even if the Qu'ran was given in Arabic. Same thing, with regard to the New Testament.




Your second question, "are there any remenants of the original Aramaic bible remaining?", presupposes that the bible was originally written in Aramaic. I don't believe it was.

The first of the books written that eventually were compiled into our New Testament where letters address by Paul to churches in Greek speaking portions of the world. Since he was just writing advice for that particular church, and not quoting the words of Jesus, it makes sense that these would have been composed in Greek from the beginning. By the time the gospels were written, the Romans had squelched the Jewish revolt and it no longer existed as a country. There was a large diaspora of Jews (both Christians Jews and non-Christian Jews) from the region of Palestine to other parts of the world. Further, because of the success of Paul's and others' missionary journeys, the church was becoming more and more a church composed of Gentiles (i.e. non-Jews) who would not be familiar with the Tanakh, nor speak Aramaic. Again, to pass along the story of Jesus to the greatest number of people, one would have written in Greek. So, though there is much Jewish background to the New Testament, and one can see the influence of Jewish beliefs and both the Aramaic and Hebrew languages in the writings, I believe that they were composed in Greek.


Does this mean that nothing was ever written in Aramaic? No, it does not mean that.

There is evidence that Matthew in particular, the most Jewish of the gospels in character, probably used some other documents to aid him in writing his gospel. And Luke probably did as well. We do not today have a copy of what that document was, there is a big question as to what was actually in it, but most scholars believe that such a document did at one time exist. Whether this was a collection of Jesus's sayings, some other less well preserved gospel, or exactly what is a big, unanswerable question. And so this unknown, possible source document is called by many the Q document (coming from the German word "Quelle", meaning "source").

What language was Q, if Q even ever existed, written in? Well, scholars still debate this. When first hypothesized it was suspected to also be in Greek. Others now suggest that it might have been in Aramaic. Whether it was or wasn't we will probably never know. One thing is certain, that though the Bible was composed in Greek, it was written by people who themselves also spoke either Aramaic or Hebrew (and some probably Latin as well). And some of these words have been preserved in the writting of these Greek documents, just like I used the phrase "lingua franca" earilier in our discussion or many people use the Latin "etcetera" because those terms, even though not English, have become a part of our common language. The Hebrew word "Amen" is perhaps the best example. Though sometimes spelled differently, it was universally recognized around known world then, and around the globe today.

Another thing is certain. The Bible was early on translated into many other languages, among them Syriac, closely related to Aramaic. The most ancient copies of it in Syriac are from the 4th century, but that makes some of these copies among the oldest copies for some parts of the Bible. These were well preserved by both the Syrian, Armenean and Coptic churches. There are older copies in Greek of course, but these syriac documents would still be considered valuable assests in the work of textual criticism - i.e. determining the most likely form of the original text for a given passage when variant readings appear among latter copies of the Bible.
Reply

- Qatada -
01-08-2007, 01:37 PM
Hey Grace seeker.


Thanks for the explanation. :)


Can i ask though, that if Jesus (peace be upon him) spoke in the aramaic language, it was probably because of some special reason [whether we look at it from a muslim or christian viewpoint.] Because according to muslims, we believe that the Qur'an if not in arabic isn't actually Qur'an, so wouldn't it be important that Jesus (peace be upon him)'s teachings remain in aramaic too?

Also, we know that the area of Al-Sham/Greater Syria [Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon] was taken over by the Romans quickly after Jesus (peace be upon him) or maybe within his lifetime. So due to that, can we really trust/rely on the earlier scriptures which are only linked back 400yrs after Jesus (peace be upon him)?


Look forward to your response. :)



Peace.
Reply

Grace Seeker
01-08-2007, 10:03 PM
Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
Hey Grace seeker.


Thanks for the explanation. :)


Can i ask though, that if Jesus (peace be upon him) spoke in the aramaic language, it was probably because of some special reason [whether we look at it from a muslim or christian viewpoint.] Because according to muslims, we believe that the Qur'an if not in arabic isn't actually Qur'an, so wouldn't it be important that Jesus (peace be upon him)'s teachings remain in aramaic too?

Also, we know that the area of Al-Sham/Greater Syria [Palestine, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon] was taken over by the Romans quickly after Jesus (peace be upon him) or maybe within his lifetime. So due to that, can we really trust/rely on the earlier scriptures which are only linked back 400yrs after Jesus (peace be upon him)?


Look forward to your response. :)



Peace.
Romans were already occupying the region you refer to as Al-Sham as much as 100-200 years before Jesus was born. As to a decision to trust scriptures that are only copies of copies and so that the oldest of them only go back to 400 years after Jesus, I don't know how to counsel you. But if you don't trust them, yoiu are rejecting our oldest available New Testament documents that are written in anything close to Aramaic.

There are older copies of the New Testament available, not many, but a few. And these oldest of our documents go as far back as the 2nd century (less than a generation older than when they were written), but all of these older New Testament documents are in Greek. Often these are only small sections, certainly not the whole of the New Testament (as codices, i.e. bound books, weren't invented yet), and usually just portions of a given gospel or letter is intact. But pieced together they can make a pretty good whole.


As to the conjecture that there was some special reason that Jesus spoke in Aramaic, I would suggest it was because of where he was raised. Christians do believe that Jesus was born "in the fullness of time", that is that God was intentional about the time and place where Jesus was born. It wasn't just in response to prophecy. The prophecy itself was made because God had determined this was THE time in all of human history when it was most appropriate for Jesus to be born. What made it so is something only God knows for sure. But we can see how his timing benefited in that the Jewish Messiah was born at a time an place when there was relative peace, that a common language was avaialable to the masses, that the resources of an emperial power made travel and communication the easiet it had ever been in human history. Within a few hunderd years all of this would disappear in the "Dark Ages". But by that time Christianity would be well established.

Christians don't think there was really anything uniquely special about the language of Aramaic itself. We believe very much in having Jesus' words in the language of the hearer. Of course, that means that good exegesis is required, for translation is not the easiest of tasks. But, again, the words of Jesus (important though they be) are not as important to us as the life of Jesus. So, we can make do with a translation; whereas, perhaps, for Islam it would not suffice.
Reply

Grace Seeker
01-08-2007, 10:08 PM
Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
Hey Grace seeker, that also gets me thinking.


How come the bibles in greek even though Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) was jewish? I think it was revealed in Aramaic right? And are there any remenants of the original Aramaic bible remaining?


PS: I only asked this because you're truthful in your responses. so thanks in advance. :)



Peace.

I need to add a P.S. to my post where I answered this question. In that post I spoke predominately about the New Testament. As I describe to you there, the dominant understanding of Christian scholarship is that it was all written in Greek and then translated to other languages.

However, you will find some Aramaic used in the writing of parts of the Old Testament (what Jews call the Tanakh). This is most notable in the writings of the prophet Daniel.
Reply

- Qatada -
01-08-2007, 10:43 PM
Thankyou grace seeker! :) i understand now that the idea of faith in christianity is usually more important than the specific texts itself. But that's just me, as we as muslims depend on both.



Peace.
Reply

Umar001
01-08-2007, 11:15 PM
Originally Posted by sumeyye
ive been told by a christian missionary worker that the current bible is recorded accounts by men who were around jesus.like, they have written down events, miracles and stuff they observed. eg) the book of mark etc...
This is not entirely true, the authors of the four Gospels which go under the name of the Gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John, might not be eye witnesses, this is something which some hold, but I have yet to see proof myself and I do not think I am alone withing the world of New Testament study to hold the view that the authors are not eye witnesses, rather, what some hold is that the authors of the gospels mainly worked from oral traditions which were rampant at the time, Mark being the earliest Gospel written, then either luke or matthew, which some hold had a common source, (Q) and also copied exhastivly from Mark's work, then you have John writting some very elaborate text.

If the man claims that the authors are eye witnesses then ask him to produce his proof for such an utterance.


Originally Posted by sumeyye
i was told that not all these men are saints...how can they be trusted?

From my understanding, someone please correct me if I am wrong, but the authors, at least four in number some say more, are not known. Forget asking how can we trust people who are not named saints, rather ask how can we trust a person who we have no knowledge of.


Originally Posted by sumeyye
why isnt there a part in the bible that is directed from God to Jesus?
Well the Gospels are accounts of Jesus' life, or so they claim to be, not accounts of God's message to Jesus, but rather Jesus' message to the people. The 'Good News'.

Originally Posted by sumeyye
why isnt there a part where God, through jesus, talks to christians and directs them?
Well if people hold the bible gospels to be historical then Jesus' words are directed at people who followed Jesus, but this again, according to John's gospel, is something that the Spirit of Truth would teach men in it's entirety, and not JEsus himself.

Originally Posted by sumeyye
who cares what mark and other guys have to say?(no offence) dnt christians want to know what jesus and god have to say?

Well you see, Christians believe that Mark and the 'other guys' said what JEsus and God had to say. For example, let me give you an Islamic view point:


You have a chain of narrators:
The Prophet, peace be upon him - Abdullah Ibn Umar - Nafii - Malik
You might not care what Sha'afi says, but because you believe what Sha'afi is narrating is the acutal words of the Prophet then you will listen to it.

Christians similarly believe that the Gospels are accurate accounts of Jesus' life so they read them, whether they are accurate accounts or not is something that you should establish and debate about.

Eesa.
Reply

waldolicous
01-08-2007, 11:30 PM
I assume you are talking about the gospels.

The Bible was more likely a mix of copying and paraphrasing(writing down what they remembered) of other sources which were supposed accounts of Jesus. The fact is that there are too many differences(such as from Jesus' arrest to resurrection) and too many exact copies(such as where the q theory came from) to take it seriously as mere different perspective of the same experience.
Reply

Grace Seeker
01-09-2007, 12:44 AM
Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
This is not entirely true, the authors of the four Gospels which go under the name of the Gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John, might not be eye witnesses, this is something which some hold, but I have yet to see proof myself and I do not think I am alone withing the world of New Testament study to hold the view that the authors are not eye witnesses, rather, what some hold is that the authors of the gospels mainly worked from oral traditions which were rampant at the time, Mark being the earliest Gospel written, then either luke or matthew, which some hold had a common source, (Q) and also copied exhastivly from Mark's work, then you have John writting some very elaborate text.

If the man claims that the authors are eye witnesses then ask him to produce his proof for such an utterance.




From my understanding, someone please correct me if I am wrong, but the authors, at least four in number some say more, are not known. Forget asking how can we trust people who are not named saints, rather ask how can we trust a person who we have no knowledge of.

Pretty knowledgeable job answering, Eesa. These are the only two parts of your response with which I am not in concurance.

Regarding the question of sainthood, I simply refer you to my post above.

As to the authors' identity, tradition and most scholars give credence to the idea that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all 1st century Christians and known to their readers as who they presented themselves to be. You are not alone among those in NT studies to think otherwise, but from what I read, I believe you are in the minority. Of course, I've never taken a poll. For a details answer to this question I would suggest a scholarly NT survey (not just what you find on a webpage) such as you might purchase at a college, Bible school, or seminary. I suggest a scholarly one, and not just a devotional one, because only the scholarly one will present both their own research and others in any fair sort of way so that you might hear arguments from both sides before the author give his/her own opinion. Another source would be a quality commentary which will also discuss authorship. Again be sure to find one that doesn't just creat a strawman of the opposing viewpoint.

I would like to take some time to develop the evidence for one of these gospels, the Gospel of John, that its author knew Jesus personally.

It is true the author never names himself -- none of the writers of the any of the gospels name themselves in the text. However, it seems that the identity of the author of the fourth Gospel was well known to his contemporaries for the very earliest tradition of the church, credit the fourth Gospel to John, the son of Zebedee, one of the first disciples. Iraneous bishop of Lyons stated plainly that "John, the disciple of the Lord, who had also leaned upon his breast, had himself published a Gospel during his residence in Ephesus in Asia." This is important because Iraneus was a student of Polycarp who had himself been a student of the Apostle John.

A deduction from the internal evidence of the Gospel of John is that the author personally witnessed the events he described, or else he must have had contemporary informants who were themselves eyewitnesses. He spoke easily and familiarly of the disciples and associates of Jesus (6:5-7; 12:21; 13:36; 14:5, 8, 22) and knew the background of those Jeus had only casual contact with, such as Nicodemus (3:1) or Annas (18:13). Small details appear frequently, such as the barley bread used at the feeding of the five thousand (6:9), the fragrance of the ointment Mary poured on Jesus (12:3), or the time at which Jesus left the Last Supper (13:30). These are not the creation of literary imagination, but they are the natural touches that come from personal memory.

Not only must the writer have been an eyewitness, but he also was closely aquainted with the personal career of Jesus from beginning to end. The author was aware of the thinking of the disciples, and apparently shared their interests and hopes. He reports the private discourses of Jesus at some length. Also, he shows knowledge of Jesus' inner consciousness that would have been possible only to a close associate.

All of the gospels make it clear that there was an inner circle of three disciples who were closest to Jesus: Simon Peter the fisherman, James the son of Zebedee and John the son of Zebedee. Peter did not write the fourth Gospel because it mentions him repeatedly, by name, in the third person. James the son of Zebedee did not write it for he was executed by Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:2) prior to the year 44. This leave John as our only possibility among the disciples. And this is the same person that Iraneous says wrote it.

According to 21:22 the disciple who wrote the Gospel is the same disciple Peter asked about while having breakfast with by the shore of Galilee sometime after the Resurrection. The text identifies this disciples as "the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper" and is also identified as "the disciple whom Jesus loved". This likewise fits with Iraneous testimony. And within the text the writer states:
This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.(21:24)
Assuming that the author of the letters attributed to John is the same person, and I do, we also find this testimony there:
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. (1 John 1:1,2)
Thus we are told that he was physically present, and eye-witness to Jesus' life, even going so far as to touch his hands (presumably examining the nail marks as the disciples were invited to do in John 20:27).

Now, Muslims may counter that it can't be so, because the Qu'ran teaches something different. Well, honestly, that isn't my problem. You may choose to believe what the Qu'ran teaches regarding Jesus' crucifixion. And in doing so, you will have to find reasons to dismiss the obvious teaching of the Christian scriptures. The easiest of those is simply to say it is corrupted. Then accept what you like and reject what you don't and who can say different. Do that if you want. But in doing so, I only ask you to recognize that such statements are statements of faith, not necessarily fact.
Reply

Grace Seeker
01-09-2007, 03:02 AM
Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah
Thankyou grace seeker! :) i understand now that the idea of faith in christianity is usually more important than the specific texts itself. But that's just me, as we as muslims depend on both.



Peace.
I probably wouldn't have worded it exactly that way, but I'll not raise an objection to it. Just remember what faith is. Faith is NOT just intellectual assent to a propositional truth about God. Faith is placing one's trust in God. There is a significant difference between the two. It is having an assurance that one can depend on God to see one through anything, the very worst that life can throw at you, even death itself, and get you through safely to the other side. It isn't propositional truths that make this possible, it is the person of God himself, that we care first and foremost about.

The text, the Bible, the Word of God is important, very important, but then remember that we think of Jesus is the living, incarnate Word. So even here knowing Jesus personally is more important than knowing the details about him as spellled out in one of the Gospel accounts. This is so, because through the Holy Spirit, we can have a living, ongoing, intimate connection with God in Jesus this very day.
Reply

Umar001
01-15-2007, 11:58 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Pretty knowledgeable job answering, Eesa.
May the Almighty increase me in knowledge and also allow me to produce the fruits of such knowledge, and thank you for your kindness.

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
As to the authors' identity, tradition and most scholars give credence to the idea that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were all 1st century Christians and known to their readers as who they presented themselves to be. You are not alone among those in NT studies to think otherwise, but from what I read, I believe you are in the minority. Of course, I've never taken a poll. For a details answer to this question I would suggest a scholarly NT survey (not just what you find on a webpage) such as you might purchase at a college, Bible school, or seminary. I suggest a scholarly one, and not just a devotional one, because only the scholarly one will present both their own research and others in any fair sort of way so that you might hear arguments from both sides before the author give his/her own opinion. Another source would be a quality commentary which will also discuss authorship. Again be sure to find one that doesn't just creat a strawman of the opposing viewpoint.
If you can please pm me with scholars you think I should look at and study views of, and since this is on my part a scholarly standpoint, I don’t think this will breach the rules of promoting faith, though please pm me, any such encouragement on the main board may be deleted.

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Iraneous bishop of Lyons stated plainly that "John, the disciple of the Lord, who had also leaned upon his breast, had himself published a Gospel during his residence in Ephesus in Asia." This is important because Iraneus was a student of Polycarp who had himself been a student of the Apostle John.

But we do not know if, whilst Iraneous might have said, he might have been referring to a different text, rather then the text we now posses.


Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
These are not the creation of literary imagination, but they are the natural touches that come from personal memory.
So you do not think at all that it is possible that the author could have had access to Oral Traditions which might include such statements, after all, we have no ‘criterion’ to judge which of these details are right or wrong, so these details do not necessitate a ‘personal memory’ as being the cause for them, but could be ‘extended imagination’ or ‘personal touches’ to make the text feel more powerful, which it has accomplished.

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Not only must the writer have been an eyewitness, but he also was closely aquainted with the personal career of Jesus from beginning to end. The author was aware of the thinking of the disciples, and apparently shared their interests and hopes. He reports the private discourses of Jesus at some length. Also, he shows knowledge of Jesus' inner consciousness that would have been possible only to a close associate.
Or it could be all the work of an evangelist who might have felt that the Holy Spirit might have inspired him to right such things, in the end we do not know whether he was right or wrong.

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
All of the gospels make it clear that there was an inner circle of three disciples who were closest to Jesus: Simon Peter the fisherman, James the son of Zebedee and John the son of Zebedee. Peter did not write the fourth Gospel because it mentions him repeatedly, by name, in the third person. James the son of Zebedee did not write it for he was executed by Herod Agrippa I (Acts 12:2) prior to the year 44. This leave John as our only possibility among the disciples. And this is the same person that Iraneous says wrote it.
This does not in and of itself provide us with evidence though, it just tells us that Peter did not write it because it mentions his name a lot, James was executed and John is the only option left, and that John is said to be the author of a Gospel by Iraneous.

Furthermore, the author never says I did this or I saw that, also if using the third person is a disqualifier, then what about the author’s saying ‘the disciples…’ and ‘the twelve..’ writing third person.

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
According to 21:22 the disciple who wrote the Gospel is the same disciple Peter asked about while having breakfast with by the shore of Galilee sometime after the Resurrection. The text identifies this disciples as "the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper" and is also identified as "the disciple whom Jesus loved". This likewise fits with Iraneous testimony. And within the text the writer states:
This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.(21:24)

This verse in itself shows a writer in the third form, saying ‘WE know that HIS testimony..’ furthermore, in my humble opinion, this seems like a later writing, but of course, I am no authority and I will have to read into it more. Furthermore I will not touch of the Epistles, lol, that is another depth altogether.


Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Now, Muslims may counter that it can't be so, because the Qu'ran teaches something different. Well, honestly, that isn't my problem. You may choose to believe what the Qu'ran teaches regarding Jesus' crucifixion. And in doing so, you will have to find reasons to dismiss the obvious teaching of the Christian scriptures. The easiest of those is simply to say it is corrupted. Then accept what you like and reject what you don't and who can say different. Do that if you want. But in doing so, I only ask you to recognize that such statements are statements of faith, not necessarily fact.
This feels like a low blow, in honesty, whether the text is authored by John the Disciple, has no implication on whether the text has been corrupted or not, they are two different things, furthermore, the belief of Muslims that the Message of Jesus is corrupt is a belief, whether there is evidence from history or not is a different thing, again. So that holds no weight for me personally.

Thank you for your time and patience Grace Seeker.

Regards Eesa.
Reply

sevgi
01-16-2007, 08:58 AM
i love this peaceful interfaith dialogue. its like a dream true.there is no bad intention.just honesty and purity. thank u everyone in here.:statisfie
Reply

Eric H
01-16-2007, 01:05 PM
Greetings and peace be with you sumeyye;
i love this peaceful interfaith dialogue. its like a dream true.there is no bad intention.just honesty and purity. thank u everyone in here.
I like to see this peaceful and tolerant dialogue between people of diverse faiths also. It is a dream we each have to keep working very hard towards, it seems the right and just thing to do between people of all faiths. :)

Thank you Grace Seeker for your explanations.:)

In the spirit of seeking a greater interfaith friendship

Eric
Reply

Grace Seeker
01-16-2007, 04:19 PM
Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace be with you sumeyye;

I like to see this peaceful and tolerant dialogue between people of diverse faiths also. It is a dream we each have to keep working very hard towards, it seems the right and just thing to do between people of all faiths. :)

Thank you Grace Seeker for your explanations.:)

In the spirit of seeking a greater interfaith friendship

Eric
Ah, but it is not me. It is Eesa who is willing to hear and respond in a scholarly way. He is not threatended when I disagree with him, and he is willing to present his own challenges to the Christian point of view without claiming something is historically true simply because it is so stated in the Qu'ran, even if that is what he believes. Thus we are able to meet each other on common ground respecting each other's faiths, and finding evidences that speak not just to our own points of view but that also engage other person in fruitful discussion.
Reply

Grace Seeker
01-16-2007, 11:38 PM
Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
[B]

This verse in itself shows a writer in the third form, saying ‘WE know that HIS testimony..’ furthermore, in my humble opinion, this seems like a later writing, but of course, I am no authority and I will have to read into it more. Furthermore I will not touch of the Epistles, lol, that is another depth altogether.
You wouldn't be the first to think that perhaps the 21st chapter of John was a later edition tacked on by some second century editor or redactor. :nervous:



This feels like a low blow, in honesty, whether the text is authored by John the Disciple, has no implication on whether the text has been corrupted or not, they are two different things, furthermore, the belief of Muslims that the Message of Jesus is corrupt is a belief, whether there is evidence from history or not is a different thing, again. So that holds no weight for me personally.
Sorry, if you feel like I delivered a low blow. I didn't mean it that way.

Eesa, you may not see the authoring of the text by John is having any connection with whether or not the text has been corrupted. But there are others here who think they have destroyed the integrity of scripture by the simple assertion that none of the New Testament was written by anyone who knew Jesus. That just isn't true on two counts. The first of those is that it is highly likely that much of the New Testament was in fact written by people who did know Jesus. The second is, if what was written was in inspired by God to be written, then it would be true no matter who wrote it, when it was written, and what it said. Indeed, it could be written hundreds of years after the time of Jesus, even going so far as to say things that actually contradict all the historical reports we have from that time telling us anything about Jesus, and if it was God's message then it would the truth and history itself would have to be wrong. Wouldn't you agree?
Reply

Umar001
01-18-2007, 02:53 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
You wouldn't be the first to think that perhaps the 21st chapter of John was a later edition tacked on by some second century editor or redactor. :nervous:
Am not alone, whoohooo. Lol.



Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Sorry, if you feel like I delivered a low blow. I didn't mean it that way.
I knew, or hoped that you did not, in honesty, it feels like alot of the time when, some people, want to discredit a Muslim who holds a position that other non-Muslims might hold, but that seems to also conform with his faith, it is easier to say to the Muslim 'Well you just want it that way anyway' or 'That's just because you believe the Qu'ran so ofcourse you think the text is ...'

I hope you see what I mean.


Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Eesa, you may not see the authoring of the text by John is having any connection with whether or not the text has been corrupted. But there are others here who think they have destroyed the integrity of scripture by the simple assertion that none of the New Testament was written by anyone who knew Jesus. That just isn't true on two counts. The first of those is that it is highly likely that much of the New Testament was in fact written by people who did know Jesus. The second is, if what was written was in inspired by God to be written, then it would be true no matter who wrote it, when it was written, and what it said. Indeed, it could be written hundreds of years after the time of Jesus, even going so far as to say things that actually contradict all the historical reports we have from that time telling us anything about Jesus, and if it was God's message then it would the truth and history itself would have to be wrong. Wouldn't you agree?

I will start with what I agree, and I do agree, if I held that the Bible we have today is an inspired G-d breathed, without any interpretation account of Jesus, peace be upon him, and the Early Church and so forth then I would believe in every word, regardless of what new discovery or how far from the events it was written down, am sure you do know that Muhammad, peace be upon him, came no less than 500 years after Jesus' ascention, peace be upon him, yet Muslims not only believe the Qu'ran to be an accurate account where it touches upon the Life of Jesus, peace be upon him, but even Moses, and Abraham and Adaam, peace be upon them, who were much earlier than Jesus, thus further away from Muhammad, peace be upon them, so the time and place of writing does not matter if the source is G-d.

I do disagree with the likely hood of much of the New Testament being authored by people who knew and met Jesus, peace be upon him.

Thank you for your patience.

Eesa. :)
Reply

Grace Seeker
01-18-2007, 04:12 PM
Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
I do disagree with the likely hood of much of the New Testament being authored by people who knew and met Jesus, peace be upon him.
I think, then, that this a point regarding which we will have to agree to disagree.

There are some "supposed" Christian scholars ("supposed" modifying the term scholars, not Christian) who you will be able to find that would support your view, whether for the same or different reason than you have reached your conclusions I don't know. But, I do not agree with their opinion either. I tend to be more of a modern traditionalist than what I would call old school liberal in my beliefs I guess.
Reply

shible
01-18-2007, 04:23 PM
:sl:
Originally Posted by sumeyye

i was told that not all these men are saints...how can they be trusted? why isnt there a part in the bible that is directed from God to Jesus?why isnt there a part where God, through jesus, talks to christians and directs them? who cares what mark and other guys have to say?(no offence) dnt christians want to know what jesus and god have to say?

anyone who can help me out? christians in particular?

If you need to know the really what happened then you can check the following thread and download the file present in the link which will clear all your doubts

http://www.islamicboard.com/discover...r-imagine.html

:sl:
Reply

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 08-04-2006, 09:14 AM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!