Basics In Christianity

[Jayda]

Howdy, long time no speak,

I didn't want to jump in, but please start a thread or something with a discussion on the following, some points which perplex me.

I think we have spoken a bit about the possible authors of the Gospels, I don't remember it ending properly, or it being much of a discussion, I think it mainly fizzled out under the broad topic of threads. So I'd like some reasons why you truly feel the apostles wrote the Gospels and why that is a more probable position than any other.

Also please cite some evidence for the death of any of the disciples of Jesus, which can be said to be historically probable.

hola Al Habeshi,

the textual 'Gospels' are different (but related) from what Christians, especially Catholics, call 'the Gospel.' 'the Gospel' refers to the original traditions and oral teachings of Jesus passed on from Jesus to the disciples and then to the first generations of the Church, collectively referred to as 'the apostles.' at that point two things happened, the received 'Gospel' was written down by various apostles (some of whom included the original disciples) according to how they had recieved them, thus becomming 'the Gospels' and simultaneously the living tradition 'the Gospel' continued to grow within the confines of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church guided by the Holy Spirit and collectively stewarded by the five Patriarchs, the prince of whom is the Pope.

so think of the text gospels as snapshots of the living tradition that was begun by Jesus and carried into the present day. the importance for us (especially Catholics) is the chain of transmission, what you might call an 'isnad,' which traces one of the written gospels back to an apostolic source. if it does not then that is proof that gospel does not come from the living tradition called 'the Gospel.' the early Church, which is the living tradition and second half of 'the Gospel' painstakingly reviewed the validity of these chains to determine actual apostolic origin, their determinations ruled out some texts as false and others as true.

obviously not everything that claims to be a legitimate Gospel purporting to trace back to an actual apostle is truthful in this regard.

the work of modern scholars is questionable at best, looking back from 2000 years at a movement which by secular accounts was not worthy of comment (thus providing little to no data), without inheriting the rich oral traditions and history that the Church Fathers held at that time, and religiously without guidance by the Holy Spirit, these modern authors lack both the authority and the context to 'double check' the work of the Holy Fathers. i've seen some rather ridiculous attempts to assert the validity of 'other Gospels' like that of 'Barnabas' which was clearly a medieval forgery, or the supposed existance of 'Q documents' which amount to nothing more than a totally unfounded myth that the similarities of Luke and Mark are not the result of their shared oral tradition but rather a written account of proverbs and phrases attributed to Jesus and from a much earlier time period, ie the apocryphal 'gospel of Thomas' in disguise.

these misguided attempts reflect the western secular agenda of tearing down the agreed upon opinion regarding the origins and beginnings of Christianity, merely because these opinions are completely in sync with the early Christian accounts... something which rings alarm bells for secular 'scholars,' or other opportunists desiring to profit from their lies.

que Dios te bendiga

[Umar001]

hola Al Habeshi,

the textual 'Gospels' are different (but related) from what Christians, especially Catholics, call 'the Gospel.' 'the Gospel' refers to the original traditions and oral teachings of Jesus passed on from Jesus to the disciples and then to the first generations of the Church, collectively referred to as 'the apostles.' at that point two things happened, the received 'Gospel' was written down by various apostles (some of whom included the original disciples) according to how they had recieved them, thus becomming 'the Gospels' and simultaneously the living tradition 'the Gospel' continued to grow within the confines of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church guided by the Holy Spirit and collectively stewarded by the five Patriarchs, the prince of whom is the Pope.

HOwdy Jayda,

Although I do not agree with your historical representation of 'the Gospel' I am glad to see that there is a difference between the textual Gospels and the oral tradition of Jesus, although again we do not agree on how much difference and if it is only a difference of catagory.

WHat I mean is that we agree that Jesus taught the Gospel, the Injeel, the Evangel, but we don't agree on is the history of these teachings and whether the 4 Gospels we have now are good representations of those teachings.

so think of the text gospels as snapshots of the living tradition that was begun by Jesus and carried into the present day. the importance for us (especially Catholics) is the chain of transmission, what you might call an 'isnad,' which traces one of the written gospels back to an apostolic source. if it does not then that is proof that gospel does not come from the living tradition called 'the Gospel.' the early Church, which is the living tradition and second half of 'the Gospel' painstakingly reviewed the validity of these chains to determine actual apostolic origin, their determinations ruled out some texts as false and others as true.

But on what basis, what was the science used. For example, if we are to look at the 'isnaad' what do we find, the isnaad would not be sufficient, think about it. Here are some conditions I would put,

1. The narrator has to be trustworthy (known for his faith and honesty etc)
2. The narrator has to be reliable (in memory and/or writing dep.)
3. The narrators have to have been shown to have met, a continious chain back to the first.

On these alone the tradition would fail. Who is the Early Church? Meaning who are its people, what type of people are these and what was their criteria for asessing something. I have only seen late traditions given to the Gospels when it came to attributing authorship.

obviously not everything that claims to be a legitimate Gospel purporting to trace back to an actual apostle is truthful in this regard.

How would you know if it is true or not? What would criteria be?

i've seen some rather ridiculous attempts to assert the validity of 'other Gospels' like that of 'Barnabas' which was clearly a medieval forgery,

Just out of curiousity what evidence is there to show that the Gospel of Barnabas is a forgery. I don't have a personal opinion on it to be honest but I do find it interesting.

or the supposed existance of 'Q documents' which amount to nothing more than a totally unfounded myth that the similarities of Luke and Mark are not the result of their shared oral tradition but rather a written account of proverbs and phrases attributed to Jesus and from a much earlier time period, ie the apocryphal 'gospel of Thomas' in disguise.

Not all scholars suppose that it is the Gospel of Thomas, or that it is a Gospel at all. I think the Q hypothesis is pretty good. What do you feel is unfounded? There is a possibility that the Q material was written, whether it was Oral Tradition or Written Tradition isn't much different.

these misguided attempts reflect the western secular agenda of tearing down the agreed upon opinion regarding the origins and beginnings of Christianity, merely because these opinions are completely in sync with the early Christian accounts... something which rings alarm bells for secular 'scholars,' or other opportunists desiring to profit from their lies.

que Dios te bendiga

Or it might be that the more discoveries we have the better chance we have at understanding the past, it is easy to look back at things and presuppose that it is right all along, but it might not be right. The traditions which were not scrutinised before but are now are not right because they were not scrutanised or they are scrutanised. Shouldn't they stand up to scrutany, objective scrutany, whether now or tomorow or 10 years from now?

Good day

[Jayda]

hola Al Habeshi,

lol you must be american... i do not hear 'howdy' very often outside the united states :)

the criteria you provided regarding the substantiation of hadith is interesting to me, since they are quite similar to how the early Fathers agreed upon Canon. for example, our concept of 'apostolic succession' in determining apostolic origin is nearly identical to your requirement for an unbroken chain of scholars. in order for a gospel to have been considered legitimate it must be something transmitted and accepted traced back through a bishopric. that means that such and such a bishop recieved it from the bishop in his See before him... going all the way back to the apostle that first created the bishopric and passed the gospel (written and oral) on. that is how we know a gospel is truly written by an apostle... without apostolic succession a gospel is too questionable for canon because without an apostle, it is not a gospel.

but there are a few additional items that were necessary for canon... for example a written account needed to also be 'universal,' which means something generally known and accepted by all Christians regardless of locality.

these, incidentally, are why the 'gospel of Barnabas' is not even remotely considered a gospel. at no time in Christian history was such a gospel universal, and while it claims to have an apostolic source (Barnabas), no apostolic tradition upholds such a claim. however we do, in fact, have writings from Barnabas which are supported by apostolic succession. the epistle of Barnabas is one of them but is not the same (and has much different theology) as the 'gospel' of Barnabas. aside from our religious institutions, secular history deems it a medieval forgery.

concerning your question regarding the the apostolic age... the early Church is very specifically defined as the Church during the times of the twelve apostles, their Christian contemporaries and their students (the bishops). this time period is the one which is described in 'Acts.' it would definitely be wise to read Acts (it is short) from beginning to end, rather than just parts, to understand what the Christian Church looked like at this time... the time range was from pentacost to the very beginning of the second century (the death of John the Apostle). it is important to note that while the apostolic age ended with the death of John the Apostle, there were living apostles well into the second century (when Canon for the gospels closed), they were the students and contemporaries at one time, of the aged disciples.

tellingly, there is no record or tradition dating back to this time that suggests Jesus 'wrote' anything, especially not Q documents. but even there, there is misconception regarding the nature of such hypothetical writings... this is the result of bad scholarship on the part of the popular fiction writer Dan Brown. the Q hypothesis suggests that the gospels aside from Mark have another common written source outside of Mark, which was a collection of sayings of Jesus authored by the apostles. most people seem to find this unfounded (as opposed to false) since it is based entirely on the circumstantial evidence that there are things in the other gospels not found in mark, however there is no concrete evidence... ie existing manuscripts, fragments of such documents, or even mention of them by any Christian source from the apostles into the present day. in short, there is no historic record to match the claim.

nor is the question of Q substantiated since it assumes that the gospels were based off of apostolic documents other than the gospels themselves... in other words it takes for granted, without proving, that the gospels were not written by the people they are attributed to, but rather based off of documents those people wrote.

tradition is the most fundamental key in all of this, it is the only truly historical record of how the Church grew from the twelve apostles at pentacost into the Church of today. secular scrutiny should not be confused for 'objective,' scholars always bring forth their own biases in pursuit of substantiating their preconcieved hypotheses, if they are proven wrong years of research, money and education have been for waste. it is a great pressure to substantiate what they believe, rather than uncover the historic record.

it is different for the Church. at each step during the process, especially in the beginning, the leaders and the parishoners maintained the highest levels of scrutiny to protect the sacred traditions from the omnipresent threat of heresy and heretical scriptures. for them, scrutiny was a matter not just of personal responsibility but also of survival, and of course they were guided by the Holy Spirit.

i am not certain what discoveries you are alluding to, but secular scholars today can at best only recover fragments of the resources available to the early Church in abundance, or written by the early Church itself. from this they attempt create unstable, shifting models of what the Church looked like, developing theories rather than establishing history. meanwhile the Church continues in an unbroken chain to transmit this record into the future.

que Dios te bendiga

[Grace Seeker]

Hola Jayda, Howdy Al Habeshi,

I appreciate the depth of both of your comments and questions and responses to each other. They are obviously not cut and paste copyings of other people's writings, but you have studied, analyzed, synthesized, and produced your own thoughts here. Thank-you.


Al Habeshi, though Jayda did not make comment on it, I am not so sure that she would be in as full agreement with your statement as you might suppose:

I am glad to see that there is a difference between the textual Gospels and the oral tradition of Jesus, although again we do not agree on how much difference and if it is only a difference of catagory.

What I mean is that we agree that Jesus taught the Gospel, the Injeel, the Evangel, but we don't agree on is the history of these teachings and whether the 4 Gospels we have now are good representations of those teachings.

Saying that there is a difference between the textual Gospel and the oral tradition, is not the same as saying that the Gospels are to be what you think of when using the word Injeel. The word "Gospel" comes from the word "euangleion", literally meanning "good news". That "good news" which the evangelists refer to is not merely a recording of Jesus' sermons and other sayings. That would fall considerably short of the understanding of "good news" that the church was celebrating in the life of Jesus. The "Good News" of the Gospel is the proclamation made by the early church at every level, and retained by the church today:

Christ has died; Christ is risen; Christ will come again.

Such a statement of faith hardly fits with your understanding of Jesus' Injeel. But whether we are talking about the 4 Gospels, the writings of Paul, the writings of other Apostles like John and Peter, other writings of the Apostolic Church, or the oral tradition of the Church before the written record formed by the 4 evangelists, this Gospel is THE Gospel message, the kerygma, of the 1st century church.




Jayda, we are in agreement that there is no record to suggest that Jesus ever wrote anything. I would go even farther and suggest that there is no record that Jesus ever dicated anything to be written. It appears that Jesus was content to teach his disciples and have them remember what it was that he taught. Again, I suggest that this is because that it is ulimately what Jesus did (on the cross) rather than what Jesus said, that was the most important part of his coming. The apostolic mission was not to make practicioners of the sermon on the mount, but believers in Jesus Christ as the one God has sent to reconcile humanity to himself. Disciples we were to become followers of Jesus personally, not merely keepers of his teachings.

And I think that this is one of the reasons that we don't see any written Gospel record for a long time in the life of the Church. We have other Christian writings and they tell us about the worship life and other issues going on in the 1st generation of the church. They tell us that the early church did in fact worship Jesus as Lord and the Son of God. But they don't tell the whole story because they didn't need to. The apostles still were around and they were the source needed to proclaim the key elements of Jesus' life to the church. It is only when the Church realizes that they were losing those who could tell (or correct) this part of the story, that the Gospel message takes written form. Again, not to preserve Jesus' message, if that had been the essential element it would have been written from the beginning. But to preserve the witness of those who heard and saw for themselves, as John writes in his letter:

The life [Jesus] 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 1:2)

It was something that they had heard with their own ears, seen with their own eyes, and touched with their own hands. Once those ears, eyes, and hands were gone, so would be that witness. So they wanted to have it recorded before the witnesses could no longer bear witness for themselves. The oral tradition sufficed until then; they would want a written record for the ages to come.

As far a Q goes, I'm not as concerned about it as you appear to be. I think that we see there is enough content that Matthew and Luke have in common with each other that is not present in Mark, to suggest that they had access to some sort of shared knowledge. I know that a Q document has been speculated for that. If it every existed it would explain much with regard to how it is that Matthew and Luke share those similarities. As to it having to be a written document versus oral tradition, I am unconvinced. As to why it cannot be a (now lost) written document, I don't understand what you find so objectionable?

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

[Umar001]

This is taken from the thread on Questions for Christians,

Howdy, long time no speak,

I didn't want to jump in, but please start a thread or something with a discussion on the following, some points which perplex me.

I think we have spoken a bit about the possible authors of the Gospels, I don't remember it ending properly, or it being much of a discussion, I think it mainly fizzled out under the broad topic of threads. So I'd like some reasons why you truly feel the apostles wrote the Gospels and why that is a more probable position than any other.

Also please cite some evidence for the death of any of the disciples of Jesus, which can be said to be historically probable.

[Umar001]

Jayda:

• “Fathers agree upon a cannon.”
Which Fathers, who were they and where did this take place?

• “Nearly identical”
On what points does it differ?

I think I understand the concept of continuation I the chain.

Having considered the above, whilst I understand the claim, I also think most groups would have claimed the same. Everyone would have claimed a successive chain to Jesus or his disciples, how would we, or how do you verify the catholic chains?
We agree then that without the succession, the chain, then we should not rely upon the text.

I am guessing that there are supposed chains for all the NT gospels. I have heard of some through Papias, are those such that you accept? Any chance we could list them here.

• “universal”
All Christians? I think this should be changed to all ‘orthodox’ Christians. Since according to orthodox writers there were ‘heretics’ (Eusibus against heresy) out there which didn’t accept ‘your’ theology or books. Of course, though, they saw themselves as ‘orthodox’, the right ones and ‘you’ as the ‘heretic’, the deviant.

• Barnabas:-
Not accepted universally: of course, just as some of your books were not accepted by others. This is the battle between, perceived, heretics and orthodox.

Tradition: Well how would we find out of there was any apostolic tradition? If there was one it would have been dismissed as false by those you deem Orthodox because the apostles could not have said such a thing, it would be theologically wrong according to your theology. If the chain was considered false, due to the theological implications of the book, then can we really expect that chain to reach us? I mean, even Papia’s work, which is used for his witness about the gospels, even his book was lost, only surviving parts are here because they were quoted by later Christians! So how can we expect the chains or even mentions of such books to come down to us?

• Acts
How accurate is it? Who wrote it, and how can we trust it? Who were his, or her sources? How is all the above verified?

• On Q
With regards to not being any tradition, should we expect some?

“a collection of sayings…” the author of any possible Q document would be difficult, impossible, I would say, to be traced. I do not know who has presupposed an apostolic authorship as definite, I have only seen hypothesis with regards to such things.

No evidence? Have you seen the statistics of common verses between Matt and Luke, which are not in Mark? I think Q is the most probable and best explanation for such evidence.

Existing manuscripts/fragments

A document which is absorbed by others and then the latter is copied out and used more often usually renders the former document to be lost or cast aside. Why would people copy Q if they could copy Matt or Luke? And if people did copy Q, then those that came later would only disregard it anyway.

Not mentioned, well then we would have to look at when things are normally mentioned and by whom, did these people mention every book or did they only speak of some? Did they mention only what interested them or not? Etc.

• maintained the highest level of scrutiny
I have to disagree, I have not seen any evidence of that, please show us. What I have read, although I cannot remember where, is that a lot of the variants and changes occurred early on. Also guarding them from heresy could actually be translated as guarding them from orthodoxy, depending on what theological view you personally subscribe to. Changes made so as to not provide adoptionists with any evidence from scripture are, according to those adoptionists, changes not to guard against heresy but rather to corrupt the message, and so on.

I do agree that secular scrutiny should not be assumed as being objective, but we should all try to be as objective as possible, just as some scholars from a faith background are bias, some secular ones are too, but this should not, always, cause us to reject all their work, and definitely not lead us to stop research our self in an objective manner, as much as possible.

Well the discoveries are discoveries of writings which you might see as heretical, and these should aid to see what Christianity was like in the early days, or at least how diverse it was. And it might not change what the fathers knew, but it can change just how reliable we view these fathers, how unique their claims were, amongst other things.

Whether we believe the Fathers are trustworthy and reliable and have transmitted things unchanged or whether we believe the opposite we should have reasons for doing so.

Grace Seeker:

With all due respect Grace Seeker, that is the understanding of some of the early Christian, that the Good News, the Gospel, is the Death and resurrection of Jesus and the salvation brought by it. This is what you believe the Gospel to be, and I agree, some Christians do believe that, but I believe that the Good News, is something totally different. That is what I meant when I said we agree, meaning we agree that the Gospels accounts are not the Gospel, the Good News of Jesus, but rather, they are writings which might contain the Good News, the Gospel of Jesus, the message of the death and resurrection, but whether these Gospels represent the Gospel of Jesus, the Good News of Jesus, that which you understand to be the death and resurrection is something we disagree on.

This message you speak of is that which strings together the NT, a theology that was a criterion for selecting the books of apostolic tradition, right or wrong?

I will agree that Paul taught this, but I disagree that there is a solid basis to say that John or Peter taught these. Or that this is the only theological belief of early Christians, with those whom you feel might be heretics stating that Jesus’ good news was something different.

I've had to rush this abit, sorry about the time delay,

Regards,

Eesa

[Talha777]

Which is the true story?

The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these STONES to become bread." (Matthew 4:3)

-or-

The devil said to him, "If you are the Son of God, tell this STONE to become bread." (Luke 4:3)

Obviously both stories can't be correct, one of the "Gospels" is wrong. Was it one stone or more than one stone? All this tells me the authors of the "synoptic gospels" were basically making stuff up. If there's anything I know about liars, it's that they can't get their story straight.

[Keltoi]

Which is the true story?

The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these STONES to become bread." (Matthew 4:3)

-or-

The devil said to him, "If you are the Son of God, tell this STONE to become bread." (Luke 4:3)

Obviously both stories can't be correct, one of the "Gospels" is wrong. Was it one stone or more than one stone? All this tells me the authors of the "synoptic gospels" were basically making stuff up. If there's anything I know about liars, it's that they can't get their story straight.

You can't be serious right? Two different people are referring to the same event. One says "stone" and the other says "stones". Somehow that doesn't disturb me in the least. In reality, it makes the story even more credible to me as two different people relate the same story, with one adding a plural to the singular of the other. Was it one stone or multiple stones? Does it matter? The point is that Christ was tempted to make bread out of stone to satisfy his hunger.

[Grace Seeker]

Which is the true story?

The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these STONES to become bread." (Matthew 4:3)

-or-

The devil said to him, "If you are the Son of God, tell this STONE to become bread." (Luke 4:3)

Obviously both stories can't be correct, one of the "Gospels" is wrong. Was it one stone or more than one stone? All this tells me the authors of the "synoptic gospels" were basically making stuff up. If there's anything I know about liars, it's that they can't get their story straight.

If I was in a courtroom, sitting as a member of the jury, and you were the defense attorney trying to get your client the devil off from a charge of haivng tempted Jesus, I don't think that I would bring this up. What I would see is that two witnesses declare the same basic story. As in my experience no two eyewitness ever agree on every detail, that they should be so consistent, and with only these minor disagreements, would tell me as a juror that they were bearing witness to the same event, thus making their testimony all the more credible.

A better cross would be to simply point out that neither Luke nor Matthew were actually present at the time of this alleged temptation. Thus, anything they tell me about it must be at least second-hand, if not more removed.

Talking about second hand -- how about a book that was composed by comparing the notes of many people, who heard a message spread over a number of years, from a single person who claims that he got it from an angel that no one else ever saw or heard, and yet we are all to believe that (1) the angel actually existed and (2) that it delivered its message accurately and (3) that it really was a messenger of God (not the devil). Now, that's trustworthy testimony.

[Umar001]

Talking about second hand -- how about a book that was composed by comparing the notes of many people, who heard a message spread over a number of years, from a single person who claims that he got it from an angel that no one else ever saw or heard, and yet we are all to believe that (1) the angel actually existed and (2) that it delivered its message accurately and (3) that it really was a messenger of God (not the devil). Now, that's trustworthy testimony.

Well what is interesting is that, the book which was composed by comparing the notes of many people cannot be held as being truth. We do not know what happend, what we do know is that the books were put together, meaning the individual books, by others later removed, the authors themselves are anonymous, their sources, more importantly, are anonymous, the authors show a bias, with the text of their sources, as shown in the verses changed from Mark by those who used him as a source.

What we have is that we have such a lack of evidence that we have to make assumptions which in some cases cannot be proven. For example the assumption that Markan priority. This is generally, if I am not mistaken accepted because it's the best solution.

So we have books, one which is being used by the other two, who change things in some places, who posess a higher view of Jesus, as though they are taking out or changing what they feel is wrong. How does one know that we have the real, historical, Jesus? One does not, that's a matter of faith alone, i.e. that the Gospels we have are accurate representations of Jesus.

So we have books which have crucial differences from one another, written by non eyewitenesses whose sources are not disclosed, but we know from the fact that we have one sources of some of them, i.e. Mark, that they did change their source's accounts. Interesting. To top this further, we have also other Gospels and other teachings, the only one to survive to us has been the one which became widely believed and victorious, the others perish, how do we know we have the right Gospel of Jesus? And that those whom opposed Paul are not the ones who were right? Or that the Oral Tradition which arraived to Mark was not wrong? The questions are endless, their importances is undescribable.

As for the comparison with Muhammad, a sole revelation, then I agree, it would be hard to believe, but if this book and message shows itself tobe true then surely we should believe it, since it would be God's book.

The comparison is not right, since we are dealing with the preservation of a man's message, whether the man is right or wrong. Our discussion about Matthew Mark Luke and John is not to prove that JEsus was right or wrong, but to show that they preserved the right view of Jesus! Similarly, if one wants to make a comparison, he should not look at how Muhammad recieved revelation, but rather how the revelation was preserved.

Peace

[NoName55]

• jazaka Allah khair at Br. Al Habeshi

Talking about second hand -- how about a book that was composed by comparing the notes of many people, who heard a message spread over a number of years, from a single person who claims that he got it from an angel that no one else ever saw or heard, and yet we are all to believe that (1) the angel actually existed and (2) that it delivered its message accurately and (3) that it really was a messenger of God (not the devil). Now, that's trustworthy testimony.

very clever indeed!

[Grace Seeker]

This message you speak of is that which strings together the NT, a theology that was a criterion for selecting the books of apostolic tradition, right or wrong?

Wrong. Though it is a theme in nearly all New Testament books, it is not quite universal. It is not a theme in Philemon, James, 2 Peter, or Jude.

I will agree that Paul taught this, but I disagree that there is a solid basis to say that John or Peter taught these. Or that this is the only theological belief of early Christians, with those whom you feel might be heretics stating that Jesus’ good news was something different.

Not just Paul. Even your above statement implies that this understanding of the Gospel is found throughout the New Testament. Why do you say that you don't believe that John or Peter taught it?

[Grace Seeker]

The comparison is not right, since we are dealing with the preservation of a man's message, whether the man is right or wrong. Our discussion about Matthew Mark Luke and John is not to prove that JEsus was right or wrong, but to show that they preserved the right view of Jesus! Similarly, if one wants to make a comparison, he should not look at how Muhammad recieved revelation, but rather how the revelation was preserved.

Peace

And I understand that there are some parallels with how the early Christians and the early Muslims handled the accumulation of material they didn't want preserved -- they burned it.

In the third century, some bishops did in fact order the burning of what was termed heretical books. At that point your argument of "to the victor" must be conceded. But we do have some records of hidden books, and these have not been all that earthshaking. They show a clearly gnostic community that was not a part of the church, and that had developed completely different traditions, not people who were part of the church but disagreed and lost. Plus, I think it worth considering that such debates in the late first and early second century would have been in the lifetimes of those who themselves sat at the feet of the disciples and could correct the church if it erred. Such, I suggest, is why the victor in this case is likely to be truth.

As far as the Qur'an goes, my understanding (which admittedly is still shaky) is that the compiling of the Qur'an from all of the different witnesses involved comparing notes, and when the different set of notes disagreed, that it was just one man (not Mohammed) who determined which was to be accepted and which burned. Then the Qur'an was finally written in its final form from this compilation. I may not be quite right on that, so please correct me where I am wrong.

[Umar001]

Wrong. Though it is a theme in nearly all New Testament books, it is not quite universal. It is not a theme in Philemon, James, 2 Peter, or Jude.

If not explicitly stated then, at very least, the books do not go against it but present other theological ideals. So for example, these books might be silent to explicit remarks about the death and resurrection of Jesus, but their silent is alright as long as they do not oppose it, and as long as they do not contain any unorthodox ideas. But I will also read each and see the topics, somtimes, especially with the letters, certain matters are not mentioned because they are not deemed important but because they are not called upon the circumstances, so there would be no problem in accepting books who do not speak on the death, unless they oppose it.

Not just Paul. Even your above statement implies that this understanding of the Gospel is found throughout the New Testament. Why do you say that you don't believe that John or Peter taught it?

Well, I have said that I don't believe there is a solid basis for believing that either of them taught it, although it is found in the New Testament, it is also known that people wrote in other's name to give authority to their writing. It would be upon those whom are positive that they wrote it show evidence to substantiate it.

[Umar001]

And I understand that there are some parallels with how the early Christians and the early Muslims handled the accumulation of material they didn't want preserved -- they burned it.

The question which is distinguishing in this though is who done the burning and why?

In the third century, some bishops did in fact order the burning of what was termed heretical books. At that point your argument of "to the victor" must be conceded. But we do have some records of hidden books, and these have not been all that earthshaking. They show a clearly gnostic community that was not a part of the church, and that had developed completely different traditions, not people who were part of the church but disagreed and lost. Plus, I think it worth considering that such debates in the late first and early second century would have been in the lifetimes of those who themselves sat at the feet of the disciples and could correct the church if it erred. Such, I suggest, is why the victor in this case is likely to be truth.

Of course those groups were not part of the 'church' they didn't agree with the 'church'.

The hidden books may not be earthshaking for you, but I think they are for they raise many a question amongst which are, how early can these be dated? If we had no prior knowledge of some of these but only stumbled across them through chance then how many more were there? Who wrote them and did they rely on oral tradition, etc.

As for the debates, then I don't think this suggest likelihood. Since we had if I am not mistaken, people claiming to have been disciples of disciples of Paul for examples and then teaching purely gnostic stuff, or we had for example people claiming to be writing as one person but not being them. There is so much confusion we cannot be sure of what constitutes an authentic text. Think about it, how would we know whom was being truthful in being taught by disciples and also who if having been taught by disciples was still true to those teachings and did not impose his/her own interpretation to those teachings?

As far as the Qur'an goes, my understanding (which admittedly is still shaky) is that the compiling of the Qur'an from all of the different witnesses involved comparing notes, and when the different set of notes disagreed, that it was just one man (not Mohammed) who determined which was to be accepted and which burned. Then the Qur'an was finally written in its final form from this compilation. I may not be quite right on that, so please correct me where I am wrong.

The Qur'an was memorised, it was also written, but not compiled between two sheets. At a crucial battle some Memorisers of the Qur'an died and thus the Leader of the Muslims was asked by his soon to be successor about compiling the Qur'an in case of further casualties in a different battle.

Thus the compilation stood underway. It was collected, under strict criteria, although one should remember that these were first hand eye witnesses of Muhammad, those whom had memorised the Qur'an with him and whom had recited it and some of whom had written it down for him, thus after this the Qur'an was compiled, I will type it up from a book when I get that book from home, I should have it done before the end of today, so I will be able to speak about corroboration in compilation.

[Malaikah]

Talking about second hand -- how about a book that was composed by comparing the notes of many people, who heard a message spread over a number of years, from a single person who claims that he got it from an angel that no one else ever saw or heard, and yet we are all to believe that (1) the angel actually existed and (2) that it delivered its message accurately and (3) that it really was a messenger of God (not the devil). Now, that's trustworthy testimony.

That is a pretty shallow argument don't you think? The same could easily be said, say, by Jews about Jesus, that he was really a devil in disguise.

Jesus was a single person too, was he not? Making an even bigger claim than an angel was teaching him- he claimed that he was the son of God (according to you. not that I believe this) and yet never showed any one the proof that he was really part of the Trinity. No one ever saw him in his God form.

And by the way, the Quran was not composed by comparing the notes of many people, they did not hear the message spread over a number of years only, it was constantly repeated, over and over again, on a daily basis, and many people actually did see and hear the angel Gabriel (only not in his angel form). We don't need to see Gabriel to believe. We have the results of his meetings with him- the Quran, which is proof enough, as well as the miracles performed at the Prophets hands.:thumbs_up

[ummzayd]

Talking about second hand -- how about a book that was composed by comparing the notes of many people, who heard a message spread over a number of years, from a single person who claims that he got it from an angel that no one else ever saw or heard, and yet we are all to believe that (1) the angel actually existed and (2) that it delivered its message accurately and (3) that it really was a messenger of God (not the devil). Now, that's trustworthy testimony.

peace

as the sister already said, saying that the quran was 'composed' by 'comparing the notes of many people' etc. etc. is not at all a fair assessment of what actually happened. Many companions of the Prophet pbuh memorised the qur'an as and when it was revealed; during the lifetime of the Prophet pbuh it was written down in parts (although not all together, in book form); after the death of the Prophet pbuh there were many people who knew the whole qur'an off by heart, the caliph oversaw its production into book form. that is the trustworthy testimony that the qur'an as revealed to the Prophet pbuh is the qur'an I have today on my bookshelf.

if you accepted all this as fact, would it make any difference to your opinion as to the ultimate origin of the qur'an? ie from God? Of course not. It is not these facts which convince me of the truth of the Qur'an either. It is reading the Qur'an itself. It is not at all like reading the bible - words on paper - there is a mystical quality to it which is difficult to define. You feel the presence of God, His Majesty and His Pure Goodness. subhan'Allah. I guess the feeling is not available to everyone, but neither is anyone excluded except by their own limitations. I would say, if you can claim that the source of God's book is actually the devil - then that is definitely a barrier, and would probably prevent you from gaining anything from reading the qur'an.

I wish I could ask you to open your mind, to sincerely and humbly beg the One God for guidance and grace. I feel sure that if you were able to do that sincerely you would be guided. I am sure you would think that is very patronising and condescending of me - sorry.

peace

[Keltoi]

Grace Seeker was not saying the Qu'ran was from the Devil. He was making a point about those who believe the Bible has dubious origins. I actually concur with Grace Seeker on that point. As a Christian I find the origins of the Qu'ran to be much more dubious than the Gospels, which were written by different men telling the same story. That doesn't mean I believe the Qu'ran to be from the Devil, to be corrupted, etc. Only that it takes just as much if not more faith to accept that Muhammed was given the Qu'ran by an angel.

[MustafaMc]

Jayda, we are in agreement that there is no record to suggest that Jesus ever wrote anything. I would go even farther and suggest that there is no record that Jesus ever dicated anything to be written. It appears that Jesus was content to teach his disciples and have them remember what it was that he taught.

Furthermore there is no evidence that the disciples were instructed to memorize ver batim what Jesus said as evidenced by different versions of the "Lord's Prayer". This prayer and the "Sermon on the Mount" would be prime cases for exact recording for prosperity. Contrast this with the Qur'an where every word recited by Muhammad (pbuh) as revelation was immediately memorized and written on whatever means was readily available. There is no evidence to suggest that the Qur'an that I have on my bookshelf today is not word-for-word and letter-for-letter identical to what was recited by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

A better cross would be to simply point out that neither Luke nor Matthew were actually present at the time of this alleged temptation. Thus, anything they tell me about it must be at least second-hand, if not more removed.

Since there were no witnesses, how were the details of the Temptation of Jesus (as) conveyed to the gospel authors? Also, how can God be tempted by Satan?

Talking about second hand -- how about a book that was composed by comparing the notes of many people, who heard a message spread over a number of years, from a single person who claims that he got it from an angel that no one else ever saw or heard, and yet we are all to believe that (1) the angel actually existed and (2) that it delivered its message accurately and (3) that it really was a messenger of God (not the devil). Now, that's trustworthy testimony.

As has been noted by several Muslims and Muslimahs above, the Qur'an was memorized in toto by many hafiz during the lifetime of Muhammad (pbuh). Furthermore, the revealed portion of the Qur'an was reviewed with the Angel Jibrael during each Ramaddan. So, yes, the accuracy is beyond question.
Actually, others did see the Angel Jibrael in the form of a man during the questioning of Muhammad (pbuh) regarding faith, Islam, ihsan (perfection), and the "Hour". The message of the Qur'an is evidence that the messenger (Jibrael) was not Shaytan (the devil). The Qur'an glorifies Allah and it portrays Shaytan as a reprobate. Further evidence that the Qur'an was not made up by Prophet Muhammad is the passage that corrected him for dismissing the searching blind man and giving attention to the powerful man. Yes, it is a part of our faith that the Angel Jibrael exists, that he delivered the Message accurately and that he was a Messenger from Allah and not the devil.

The last bit of sarcasm was uneccessary, but I will counter with a question, "What evidence is there that the one that spoke to Saul on the road to Damascus was actually Jesus (as) and not Shaytan and that it was not Shaytan who revealed the 'gospel' to Saul/Paul in the 3 years prior to his 15 day visit with Peter and James?" (Galatians)

As far as the Qur'an goes, my understanding (which admittedly is still shaky) is that the compiling of the Qur'an from all of the different witnesses involved comparing notes, and when the different set of notes disagreed, that it was just one man (not Mohammed) who determined which was to be accepted and which burned. Then the Qur'an was finally written in its final form from this compilation. I may not be quite right on that, so please correct me where I am wrong.

Quoting from http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/compilationbrief.html

• Umar Ibn Al-Khattab urged Abu Bakr to preserve and compile the Qur'an. This was prompted after the battle of Yamamah, where heavy casualties were suffered among the reciters who memorized the Qur'an.
• Abu Bakr entrusted Zayed Ibn Thabit with the task of collecting the Qur'an. Zayed had been present during the last recitation of the Qur'an by the Prophet to Angel Jibreel (Gabriel).
• Zayed, with the help of the companions who memorized and wrote verses of the Qur'an, accomplished the task and handed Abu Bakr the first authenticated copy of the Qur'an. The copy was kept in the residence of Hafsah, daughter of Umar and wife of the Prophet.
• Uthman ordered Zayed Ibn Thabit, Abdullah Ibn Al Zubayr, Saeed Ibn Al-Aas, and Abdur-Rahman Ibn Harith Ibn Hisham to make perfect copies of the authenticated copy kept with Hafsa. This was due to the rapid expansion of the Islamic state and concern about differences in recitation.
• Copies were sent to various places in the Muslim world. The original copy was returned to Hafsa, and a copy was kept in Madinah.

The destroyed copies of the Qur'an differed not in the content, rather in punctuation and vowel marks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_...the_Qur'an
It is an increasing claim made by some Muslim and non-Muslim scholars that early Uthmanic texts of the Quran differed in terms of punctuation from the version traditionally read today. It is believed that early versions of the text did not contain diacritics, markers for short vowels, and dots that are used to distinguish similarly written Arabic letters such as r[ر] & z[ز] or t[ت] & ṭ[ث] or f[ف] & q[ق]. One claim is that dots were introduced into the writing system sometime about half a century after the standardization of the Uthmanic text around 700 A.D. When the compilation was finished, sometime between 650 and 656 CE, Uthman sent copies of it to the different centres of the expanding Islamic empire. From then on, thousands of Muslim scribes began copying the Qur'an. He ordered the destruction of all other copies.

Only that it takes just as much if not more faith to accept that Muhammed was given the Qu'ran by an angel.

Yes, this is an article of Islamic faith. As has been noted the authenticity of the NT has not been documented even to the extent of Muslim hadith. In all honesty, the gospels and Acts bear a closer resemblance to what we would clasify as "weak hadith" than they do to the Qur'an.

[Keltoi]

When you say the Qu'ran has been "documented" moreso than the Gospels, you have to realize what exactly you believe to be documented. The Gospels are a collection of writings by different men relating a very important event...the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. When you speak of documenting the Qu'ran, you are actually speaking primarily on the issue of whether what Muhammed spoke is word for word included in the Qu'ran today. What Muhammed spoke wouldn't matter at all if it wasn't accepted as the Word of God. Why is it accepted as the Word of God? What "documents" that as being true? It is an article of faith on which the religion of Islam is based.

The Gospel accounts are very important for Christianity because different men relate the same experience and account of Christ's life and Resurrection. Yes, occasionally one will pluralize something that is singular in another...or one might describe a scenario as occurring at a different hour of the day. These "contradictions" are actually a positive when it comes to documenting the Ministry of Christ, because we know these men didn't get together and formulate a story amongst themselves in order to insure absolute word for word copies of one another.

[MustafaMc]

When you say the Qu'ran has been "documented" moreso than the Gospels, you have to realize what exactly you believe to be documented. The Gospels are a collection of writings by different men relating a very important event...the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. When you speak of documenting the Qu'ran, you are actually speaking primarily on the issue of whether what Muhammed spoke is word for word included in the Qu'ran today.

You are exactly correct in that the Qur'an is an accurate record of what Muhammad (saaws) spoke and what Muslims claim is a revelation from Allah (swt). The NT clearly is not an accurate record of words spoken directly by Jesus (as).

What Muhammed spoke wouldn't matter at all if it wasn't accepted as the Word of God. Why is it accepted as the Word of God? What "documents" that as being true? It is an article of faith on which the religion of Islam is based.

I agree that acceptance of the Qur'an as the Word of Allah is a primary article of Islamic faith. Some may claim to prove this as fact, but I accept it on faith.

The Gospel accounts are very important for Christianity because different men relate the same experience and account of Christ's life and Resurrection. Yes, occasionally one will pluralize something that is singular in another...or one might describe a scenario as occurring at a different hour of the day. These "contradictions" are actually a positive when it comes to documenting the Ministry of Christ, because we know these men didn't get together and formulate a story amongst themselves in order to insure absolute word for word copies of one another.

How can inconsistencies and contradictions be considered a positive? If they were the literal or inspired Words of God there would be no errors. The errors clearly demonstrate the human origin for the Bible. For example, why would God reveal or inspire that Jesus was the son of Joseph in direct contradiction to the virgin birth? Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself, when he began [to teach], was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the [son] of Heli,

[Keltoi]

You are exactly correct in that the Qur'an is an accurate record of what Muhammad (saaws) spoke and what Muslims claim is a revelation from Allah (swt). The NT clearly is not an accurate record of words spoken directly by Jesus (as).

I agree that acceptance of the Qur'an as the Word of Allah is a primary article of Islamic faith. Some may claim to prove this as fact, but I accept it on faith.

How can inconsistencies and contradictions be considered a positive? If they were the literal or inspired Words of God there would be no errors. The errors clearly demonstrate the human origin for the Bible. For example, why would God reveal or inspire that Jesus was the son of Joseph in direct contradiction to the virgin birth? Luke 3:23 And Jesus himself, when he began [to teach], was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the [son] of Heli,

As has been stated before in other threads, the Muslim and Christian beliefs about divine inspiration seem to be at odds as well. Christians do not claim that God wrote a book, or more specifically, that He dictated word for word what was to be contained within. Muslims do believe that God dictated a book to Muhammed in a word for word format. So I believe that Muslims have a reason to be "obsessive"(for lack of a better word) that the Qu'ran be unaltered and "uncorrupted".

There is no indication that Christ ever dictated anything to be written down, and most certainly never wrote anything Himself. Being a teacher of oral parables, the job of writing fell to the Apostles and the leadership of the early Church, not to Christ. So then Christians look to the Gospels as our trusted record of Christ's life, death, and Ressurrection. That is why when several Apostles relate the same event, even if their are differences in detail as to how it is described(as there are between different witnesses of any event), it only adds credibility to the event itself. These differences in detail, such as the hour of the day, plural vs. singular, who was there, etc, have little bearing on the issue for a Christian, as we understand that it was written by men relating an event from different perspectives.

That leads to the verse you mentioned about Joseph being(as was supposed) the father of Jesus. Here we have Luke describing Christ's early ministry, and it is mentioned that the community thought Joseph to be the father of Jesus. This is quite simply an historical recollection, which the OT and NT have in abundance. This isn't God dictating a line of Scripture.

Hopefully that makes sense....:D

[Umar001]

Grace Seeker was not saying the Qu'ran was from the Devil. He was making a point about those who believe the Bible has dubious origins. I actually concur with Grace Seeker on that point. As a Christian I find the origins of the Qu'ran to be much more dubious than the Gospels, which were written by different men telling the same story.

What do you actually find dubious? That God chose to speak to Muhammad and Muhammad convey the Qur'an? Or the fact that the Qur'an was written down word for word?

The Gospel accounts are very important for Christianity because different men relate the same experience and account of Christ's life and Resurrection. Yes, occasionally one will pluralize something that is singular in another...or one might describe a scenario as occurring at a different hour of the day. These "contradictions" are actually a positive when it comes to documenting the Ministry of Christ, because we know these men didn't get together and formulate a story amongst themselves in order to insure absolute word for word copies of one another.

Well, they only do provide comfort in knowing that they all didn't agree to tell the same lie. But if they were eye witnesses then this poses problems, specially when you have one relating a major event at a different time than the other. Now, if one drops that supposition and holds the view that the authors were not eye witnesses but were relating oral tradition and shaping it according to the theological need and beliefs of the community then these differences are easily explained. Easily explained that is but not easily justified, they only raise more questions.

As has been stated before in other threads, the Muslim and Christian beliefs about divine inspiration seem to be at odds as well. Christians do not claim that God wrote a book, or more specifically, that He dictated word for word what was to be contained within. Muslims do believe that God dictated a book to Muhammed in a word for word format. So I believe that Muslims have a reason to be "obsessive"(for lack of a better word) that the Qu'ran be unaltered and "uncorrupted".

I think this is actually a big factor in the preservation of the texts. Hardly many would change a text if they believe it is God's direct word and that they would be going to hell for changing it. Where as if someone feels it is not God's direct word, and that they can also be inspired by God to make changes, this would open the door for changes/'corrections'/explanations etc to take place.

[Grace Seeker]

I would like to respond to each of you personally, for I respect each one of you individually and appreciate the way you engage in discussion rather than argument. I think that on this occassion that Keltoi has for the most part been able to surmise what I might have said. Thus, I'll not recover the old ground. However I do want to personally affirm that I never said nor is it my position that the Qur'an is a creation of the devil. What I would say is that I do think there is a significantly higher human element to it than Muslims would agree is present.

What do you actually find dubious? That God chose to speak to Muhammad and Muhammad convey the Qur'an? Or the fact that the Qur'an was written down word for word?

What I find dubious is that if God did choose to speak to Muhammad that he would reveal information about Jesus that runs counter to that which is found in the Gospels. Having reached a position of having trust in the overall message contained in the Gospels, if a book claims to be from God and yet contradicts this other testimony, I then find it's claims of diving inspiration to be dubious.

I think this is actually a big factor in the preservation of the texts. Hardly many would change a text if they believe it is God's direct word and that they would be going to hell for changing it. Where as if someone feels it is not God's direct word, and that they can also be inspired by God to make changes, this would open the door for changes/'corrections'/explanations etc to take place.

On that point we concur. I fear that perhaps this even did happen in certain circumstances. I still hold that the overall message is a faithful recounting of the experiences of the disciples with Jesus and the teachings of the first generation of the church.



P.S. Mustafa, you point with respect to Paul's visiion is well taken. Touche.

[Jayda]

Jayda:

• “Fathers agree upon a cannon.”
Which Fathers, who were they and where did this take place?

• “Nearly identical”
On what points does it differ?

hola Al Habeshi,

More generally all of the early patriarchs, specifically: St. Justin Martyr, Origen, St Irenaeus, St. Athanasius, Eusebius and St. Augustine among others.

the gospels differ in that some contain stories that others do not and in the stories that they tell there are small differences in unimportant details, they do not contradict the narratives nor lessons.

I think I understand the concept of continuation I the chain.

Having considered the above, whilst I understand the claim, I also think most groups would have claimed the same. Everyone would have claimed a successive chain to Jesus or his disciples, how would we, or how do you verify the catholic chains?
We agree then that without the succession, the chain, then we should not rely upon the text.

the chains of succession are recorded and documented as a matter of Church history, it is 'in house' and has been open common knowledge since the beginning. we know such and such a bishop held his position during our life time and we know from our parents and our community that another man held it before, going back to the beginning. furthermore it is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

and yes, without succession we do not consider a priest, bishop, book or word to be valid.

I am guessing that there are supposed chains for all the NT gospels. I have heard of some through Papias, are those such that you accept? Any chance we could list them here.

we only accept the canon that is before us today, for all intents and purposes it was closed by the end of the 3rd century. i vaguely recall st. papias attempting to rearrange the gospel narrative into something chronological, but he wrote 100 years after the death of the last apostle and was not, himself, an apostle.

• “universal”
All Christians? I think this should be changed to all ‘orthodox’ Christians. Since according to orthodox writers there were ‘heretics’ (Eusibus against heresy) out there which didn’t accept ‘your’ theology or books. Of course, though, they saw themselves as ‘orthodox’, the right ones and ‘you’ as the ‘heretic’, the deviant.

no, universal, the fullness of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is found in the Roman Catholic Church and those Churches in full communion with the See of Rome.

• Barnabas:-
Not accepted universally: of course, just as some of your books were not accepted by others. This is the battle between, perceived, heretics and orthodox.

no not accepted at all. the assertion that the 'gospel' of Barnabas is legitimate is patently absurd. it's a battle between reality and those attempting to substantiate their religious views against Christianity.

Tradition: Well how would we find out of there was any apostolic tradition? If there was one it would have been dismissed as false by those you deem Orthodox because the apostles could not have said such a thing, it would be theologically wrong according to your theology. If the chain was considered false, due to the theological implications of the book, then can we really expect that chain to reach us? I mean, even Papia’s work, which is used for his witness about the gospels, even his book was lost, only surviving parts are here because they were quoted by later Christians! So how can we expect the chains or even mentions of such books to come down to us?

it's a living tradition, it is here today because it was there yesterday and we can look behind us and see it. it will be there tomorrow as well... it is true that we have lost writings and theologians to time and destruction, we do not try to speculate, we only preserve what remained after them in the knowledge that nothing important was lost.

• Acts
How accurate is it? Who wrote it, and how can we trust it? Who were his, or her sources? How is all the above verified?

they had no sources, the author was an apostle, a primary source, luke. he wrote around 15 years after the death and resurrection of Christ speaking to and about his community, the early Christians.

• On Q
With regards to not being any tradition, should we expect some?

“a collection of sayings…” the author of any possible Q document would be difficult, impossible, I would say, to be traced. I do not know who has presupposed an apostolic authorship as definite, I have only seen hypothesis with regards to such things.

Q would need to have been included in tradition for its veracity to be decided. in this case tradition = primary source. if there is no apostle present... it didn't come from a primary source. but the most important thing is that this would have been the single most important document in early christianity (it wasn't, the acts and didache were), and it is not mentioned anywhere in Church or secular history. it's a ghost...

No evidence? Have you seen the statistics of common verses between Matt and Luke, which are not in Mark? I think Q is the most probable and best explanation for such evidence.

why? Q is an unnecessary middleman. all the common verses between matt and luke prove is that they come from a singular source... the gospels themselves answer that question 'i got this from eyewitness accounts.' why is it so hard to believe the eyewitnesses who followed around a man they believed to be God would have very good memories of the things he said and did?

instead these people install a fictional and unprovable document in between the gospel writers and the original events... where is their evidence that specifically proves Q and not 'Q or something else'?

Existing manuscripts/fragments

A document which is absorbed by others and then the latter is copied out and used more often usually renders the former document to be lost or cast aside. Why would people copy Q if they could copy Matt or Luke? And if people did copy Q, then those that came later would only disregard it anyway.

Not mentioned, well then we would have to look at when things are normally mentioned and by whom, did these people mention every book or did they only speak of some? Did they mention only what interested them or not? Etc.

right, but we are talking about a lack of manuscripts or fragments... ever... nor even a fragment of an evolving text from which to extrapolate Q. furthermore we don't have any record of anyone referencing anything that even resembles a Q - the very name 'Q' comes from a german word to describe a concept rather than a thing because the thing has yet to prove its existance.

• maintained the highest level of scrutiny
I have to disagree, I have not seen any evidence of that, please show us. What I have read, although I cannot remember where, is that a lot of the variants and changes occurred early on. Also guarding them from heresy could actually be translated as guarding them from orthodoxy, depending on what theological view you personally subscribe to. Changes made so as to not provide adoptionists with any evidence from scripture are, according to those adoptionists, changes not to guard against heresy but rather to corrupt the message, and so on.

I do agree that secular scrutiny should not be assumed as being objective, but we should all try to be as objective as possible, just as some scholars from a faith background are bias, some secular ones are too, but this should not, always, cause us to reject all their work, and definitely not lead us to stop research our self in an objective manner, as much as possible.

Well the discoveries are discoveries of writings which you might see as heretical, and these should aid to see what Christianity was like in the early days, or at least how diverse it was. And it might not change what the fathers knew, but it can change just how reliable we view these fathers, how unique their claims were, amongst other things.

Whether we believe the Fathers are trustworthy and reliable and have transmitted things unchanged or whether we believe the opposite we should have reasons for doing so.

unfortunately if you are going to say that they did not employ the highest levels of scrutiny you are going to need to qualify that with something better than 'i read it once in an unnamed book i forgot about somewhere.'

what we have today is the result of the trustworthy Church Fathers gave to us... nothing more. secular sources are almost completely non existant from the first three centuries, although they are interesting in that they only support the tradition of our Church, Josephus is such a person even with Testimonium Flavianum set aside.

more contemporary secular sources would be great, however they simply don't exist... and we cannot manufacture them in the 21st century, so the Church history is all we have, and for believers it is all that we need.

que Dios te bendiga

[Malaikah]

Grace Seeker was not saying the Qu'ran was from the Devil. He was making a point about those who believe the Bible has dubious origins. I actually concur with Grace Seeker on that point. As a Christian I find the origins of the Qu'ran to be much more dubious than the Gospels, which were written by different men telling the same story. That doesn't mean I believe the Qu'ran to be from the Devil, to be corrupted, etc. Only that it takes just as much if not more faith to accept that Muhammed was given the Qu'ran by an angel.

I takes even more faith to believe that Jesus is the son of God than to believe that Muhammad was given a book from God- which is actually supported by the fact that is is not something new- God sent other Propehts and also gave other Prophets a book, such as Moses.

You are comparing the Quran and Gospels- it is pointless, you can't compare them, they are two different things.

The Islamic equivalent of the Gospels are the hadiths, not the Quran. The Christians have nothing that compares to the Quran (except for perhaps the few chapters in the OT that are believed to be the Word of God to Moses).

The Quran is the message that Muhammad pbuh came with- and it was preserved for us. It is a part of believing that he is the Messenger of God.

The Gospels are the events that occurred in the life of Jesus and snippets of his message which he claimed to be from God.

If you want to compare Jesus and Muhammad, you need to look past the Gospels as a whole and look at the claims that Jesus makes according to the Gospels, such as that he was sent by God, that he is God.

That is where the comparison needs to be made, and that is where it becomes clear that Jesus came with a message as extraordinary and as Muhammad (if not more extraordinary from a Christian perspective as according to you he claimed he was the son of God, not simply a messenger) and there is no more proof for the honesty of Jesus as their is for Muhammad.

That is, of course, excluding the miraculous nature of the Quran and the miracles performed by both Jesus and Muhammad, peace be upon them both.

[Keltoi]

I takes even more faith to believe that Jesus is the son of God than to believe that Muhammad was given a book from God- which is actually supported by the fact that is is not something new- God sent other Propehts and also gave other Prophets a book, such as Moses.

You are comparing the Quran and Gospels- it is pointless, you can't compare them, they are two different things.

The Islamic equivalent of the Gospels are the hadiths, not the Quran. The Christians have nothing that compares to the Quran (except for perhaps the few chapters in the OT that are believed to be the Word of God to Moses).

The Quran is the message that Muhammad pbuh came with- and it was preserved for us. It is a part of believing that he is the Messenger of God.

The Gospels are the events that occurred in the life of Jesus and snippets of his message which he claimed to be from God.

If you want to compare Jesus and Muhammad, you need to look past the Gospels as a whole and look at the claims that Jesus makes according to the Gospels, such as that he was sent by God, that he is God.

That is where the comparison needs to be made, and that is where it becomes clear that Jesus came with a message as extraordinary and as Muhammad (if not more extraordinary from a Christian perspective as according to you he claimed he was the son of God, not simply a messenger) and there is no more proof for the honesty of Jesus as their is for Muhammad.

That is, of course, excluding the miraculous nature of the Quran and the miracles performed by both Jesus and Muhammad, peace be upon them both.

Firstly, my entire point was that the Qu'ran and the Gospels are two different things.

Secondly, the Gospel is a record of Christ's message, absolutely, but even beyond that it is a record of His death and Resurrection. What Christ said is obviously important, but the "honesty"(as you put it) of Christ boils down to His death and Resurrection. That is why the Gospel accounts are considered so important to Christians. The truth of Christ lies in his crucifixion, death, and Resurrection.

[Malaikah]

Firstly, my entire point was that the Qu'ran and the Gospels are two different things.

Well, I obviously must have missed that! :D

:hiding:

[MustafaMc]

Secondly, the Gospel is a record of Christ's message, absolutely, but even beyond that it is a record of His death and Resurrection. What Christ said is obviously important, but the "honesty"(as you put it) of Christ boils down to His death and Resurrection. That is why the Gospel accounts are considered so important to Christians. The truth of Christ lies in his crucifixion, death, and Resurrection.

The Muslim point of view is that "The truth of Christ lies in his crucifixion, death, and Resurrection" is a red herring that misleads from the message brought by Jesus during his time on earth. That is why it is completely irrelevant to Christians that the primary proponent of Christianity to the gentiles, Paul, was not a follower of Jesus during his life on earth and is completely unlikely to have heard first-hand even a single parable spoken by him.

[Keltoi]

The Muslim point of view is that "The truth of Christ lies in his crucifixion, death, and Resurrection" is a red herring that misleads from the message brought by Jesus during his time on earth. That is why it is completely irrelevant to Christians that the primary proponent of Christianity to the gentiles, Paul, was not a follower of Jesus during his life on earth and is completely unlikely to have heard first-hand even a single parable spoken by him.

Well, no offense intended of course, but if Muslims believe Christ's Resurrection to be a "red herring", then they are obviously missing the heart of where the Christian faith comes from. The most important message that Christ brought was salvation through Him, as the Son of God. His death and Resurrection sealed the deal(so to speak). This event was the catalyst for how quickly Christianity spread and how devoted the early Church was in spreading the message of salvation.

As to Paul, no he was not a follower of Christ in the beginning. Neither were thousands of others. I'm not sure why that even matters, as Paul taught the same message as the rest of the early Church, which was salvation through Jesus Christ. Much of Paul's time was spent lecturing the church at Corinth about their apparent lack of progress.

Just for the sake of any interest, there is only one Latin novel to survive to the modern day, and that is the The Golden Ass by Apuleius, which was written in 170 to 190 A.D. This is an excellent description of Roman society at the time, and it adds alot of context to how difficult it was for Christians to live and minister amongst Gentiles. It also explains why Paul was so strict with the Corinthians, leading to the !st and 2nd Corinthians in the NT.

[Grace Seeker]

I takes even more faith to believe that Jesus is the son of God than to believe that Muhammad was given a book from God- which is actually supported by the fact that is is not something new- God sent other Propehts and also gave other Prophets a book, such as Moses.

I'll grant you that. It doesn't change that what you say it takes even more faith to believe is exactly what I do believe.

You are comparing the Quran and Gospels- it is pointless, you can't compare them, they are two different things.

The Islamic equivalent of the Gospels are the hadiths, not the Quran. The Christians have nothing that compares to the Quran (except for perhaps the few chapters in the OT that are believed to be the Word of God to Moses).

Again, no argument. The Qur'an compares with nothing in Christianity except perhaps, as you suggest, select portions of the Torah. Likewise the Gospels have no true parrallel in Islam, the closest being the hadiths.

The Quran is the message that Muhammad pbuh came with- and it was preserved for us. It is a part of believing that he is the Messenger of God.

I accept that as your understanding of the Qur'an. And I have no desire to challenge that at the present time.

The Gospels are the events that occurred in the life of Jesus and snippets of his message which he claimed to be from God.

While that may be your understanding of the Gospels, it is not mine. The record of Jesus' parables, his miracles, the narrative of his birth and baptism are not really essential to the Gospels. Notice that only two of them even bother to tell of his birth. What is essential is the message of God's gift of himself. It is the cross and Christ's resurrection that is the kerygma message proclaimed by Peter, John, and others long before Paul was even a Christian. It is this same message which Paul, Barnabas, and others spread throughout the Mediterrean basin. In the larger sense of the term, anything that includes this story is Gospel (whether it includes a single word Jesus spoke or not) and anything that does not include this story is not Gospel (even if it should include a video recording of all that Jesus ever said or did).

If you want to compare Jesus and Muhammad, you need to look past the Gospels as a whole and look at the claims that Jesus makes according to the Gospels, such as that he was sent by God, that he is God.

That statement only makes sense when using your understanding of the Gospel. It makes no sense whatsoever using my understanding. Rather, I would say that you simply can't compare Jesus and Muhammad, it is like comparing apples and ardvarks, beyond both being living things they don't have a whole lot in common. Certainly, from the Christian point of view Jesus is not understood to simply be a messenger in the way that this identifies Muhammad's role in Islam.

That is where the comparison needs to be made, and that is where it becomes clear that Jesus came with a message as extraordinary and as Muhammad (if not more extraordinary from a Christian perspective as according to you he claimed he was the son of God, not simply a messenger) and there is no more proof for the honesty of Jesus as their is for Muhammad.

Again, I assert to you that even if neither Jesus nor any Gospel writer had never made a reference to Jesus being the son of God, that the essence of the Gospel message would remain unchanged, for it is tied only tangentially to those claims and primarily to Christ's substitutionary death on the cross.

The Muslim point of view is that "The truth of Christ lies in his crucifixion, death, and Resurrection" is a red herring that misleads from the message brought by Jesus during his time on earth. That is why it is completely irrelevant to Christians that the primary proponent of Christianity to the gentiles, Paul, was not a follower of Jesus during his life on earth and is completely unlikely to have heard first-hand even a single parable spoken by him.

One more time for good measure...
While you may perceive this as a red herring, that is as you say seeing the events from the Muslim point of view. Christians do not offer it as a red herring to steer the conversation to something else. In fact we see the red herring to be Muslim concern over having the exact words that Jesus spoke. Such emphasis diverts one from the important understanding of Christ's work to focus only on his message. While we would love to have all his teachings, strangely they are not as relevant to Christians as they are to Muslims. What is important for us is to know the veracity of the testimony with regard to Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection.

[MustafaMc]

While that may be your understanding of the Gospels, it is not mine. The record of Jesus' parables, his miracles, the narrative of his birth and baptism are not really essential to the Gospels. Notice that only two of them even bother to tell of his birth. What is essential is the message of God's gift of himself. It is the cross and Christ's resurrection that is the kerygma message proclaimed by Peter, John, and others long before Paul was even a Christian.

....

While you may perceive this as a red herring, that is as you say seeing the events from the Muslim point of view. Christians do not offering it as a red herring to steer the conversation to something else. In fact we see the red herring to be Muslim concern over having the exact words that Jesus spoke. Such emphasis diverts one from the important understanding of Christ's work to focus only on his message. While we would love to have all his teachings, strangely they are not as relevant to Christians as they are to Muslims. What is important for us is to know the veracity of the testimony with regard to Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection.

Perhaps, you misunderstood my reference to a red herring (something to divert attention from the real message) was with regards to Paul in the 1st century and not to modern day Christians. You quite aptly illustrated my point. To Muslims what is relevant and of paramount importance is the Injeel or message that Jesus brought and taught. Unfortunately that message has been essentially lost and substitued with the Pauline "plan of salvation". Of course this is looking through Islamic glasses - so to speak.

[Grace Seeker]

Perhaps, you misunderstood my reference to a red herring (something to divert attention from the real message) was with regards to Paul in the 1st century and not to modern day Christians. You quite aptly illustrated my point. To Muslims what is relevant and of paramount importance is the Injeel or message that Jesus brought and taught. Unfortunately that message has been essentially lost and substitued with the Pauline "plan of salvation". Of course this is looking through Islamic glasses - so to speak.

Yep, I did miss your point. But I would still say that Paul was not the first person to suggest that the essential message is a plan of salvation centered on the cross. I refer you to non-Pauline texts:

from the opening lines of the book of Acts

Acts 1

1In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen. 3After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days and spoke about the kingdom of God.

from the first recorded sermon in the Church's history, delivered by Peter


Acts 2

14Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: "Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say. 15These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It's only nine in the morning! 16No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
17" 'In the last days, God says,
I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
Your sons and daughters will prophesy,
your young men will see visions,
your old men will dream dreams.
18Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days,
and they will prophesy.
19I will show wonders in the heaven above
and signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and billows of smoke.
20The sun will be turned to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.
21And everyone who calls
on the name of the Lord will be saved.'
22"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 23This man was handed over to you by God's set purpose and foreknowledge; and you, with the help of wicked men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross. 24But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. 25David said about him:
" 'I saw the Lord always before me.
Because he is at my right hand,
I will not be shaken.
26Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices;
my body also will live in hope,
27because you will not abandon me to the grave,
nor will you let your Holy One see decay.
28You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will fill me with joy in your presence.'

29"Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. 30But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. 31Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. 32God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. 33Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear. 34For David did not ascend to heaven, and yet he said,
" 'The Lord said to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
35until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet." '

36"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"

38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

And Peter speaks, this time with John at his side, after healing a cripple.


Acts 3

11While the beggar held on to Peter and John, all the people were astonished and came running to them in the place called Solomon's Colonnade. 12When Peter saw this, he said to them: "Men of Israel, why does this surprise you? Why do you stare at us as if by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk? 13The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. 14You disowned the Holy and Righteous One and asked that a murderer be released to you. 15You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this. 16By faith in the name of Jesus, this man whom you see and know was made strong. It is Jesus' name and the faith that comes through him that has given this complete healing to him, as you can all see.

17"Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders. 18But this is how God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, saying that his Christ would suffer. 19Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord, 20and that he may send the Christ, who has been appointed for you—even Jesus. 21He must remain in heaven until the time comes for God to restore everything, as he promised long ago through his holy prophets. 22For Moses said, 'The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own people; you must listen to everything he tells you. 23Anyone who does not listen to him will be completely cut off from among his people.'

24"Indeed, all the prophets from Samuel on, as many as have spoken, have foretold these days. 25And you are heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your fathers. He said to Abraham, 'Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.' 26When God raised up his servant, he sent him first to you to bless you by turning each of you from your wicked ways."

And when Peter and John are taken before the Sanhedrin because of their actions, the message is more of the same:


Acts 4

8Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: "Rulers and elders of the people! 9If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, 10then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed. 11He is
" 'the stone you builders rejected,
which has become the capstone.' 12Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved."

When the apostles are told to quit proclaiming their message, this is how they respond:


Acts 5

29Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men! 30The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. 31God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. 32We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him."

Where do we first meet Paul (Saul) in the scriptures? In the 7th chapter of the Acts. And what is Paul doing? He is standing holding the cloaks of those who stone Stephen to death for preaching the very same message that you claim Paul invented: The charge against Stephen (Acts 6) was that he preached against the law and Moses. The exact charge Muslims level against Paul. Stephen's response was:

Acts 7

52Was there ever a prophet your fathers did not persecute? They even killed those who predicted the coming of the Righteous One. And now you have betrayed and murdered him {Christ] — 53you who have received the law that was put into effect through angels but have not obeyed it."

54When they heard this, they were furious and gnashed their teeth at him. 55But Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, looked up to heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. 56"Look," he said, "I see heaven open and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God."

57At this they covered their ears and, yelling at the top of their voices, they all rushed at him, 58dragged him out of the city and began to stone him. Meanwhile, the witnesses laid their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul.

So, at least 5 times before Paul comes on the scene we have the apostles preaching a message about Jesus being both crucified and raised from the dead. For preaching it Stephen is murdered, and Saul (Paul) witnesses it and (Acts 8:1) gives approval to it.

Now, though other disciples are present, it is Peter who speaks, so you might think that this is really just Peter's message. But in Acts 8 we see that Philip also has the same message:

Acts 8

30Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked.

31"How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.

32The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture:
"He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before the shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
33In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth."

34The eunuch asked Philip, "Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?" 35Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

Philip's message is not the good news spoken by Jesus, but about Jesus. Namely about what he did, the one who Philip sees as being the sheep led to the slaughter in Isaiah.


And this is not found just in Acts. Notice how Peter makes reference to Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection in his letters:

1 Peter 1

1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To God's elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, 2who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood:
Grace and peace be yours in abundance.

3Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,....


18For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed from the empty way of life handed down to you from your forefathers, 19but [you were redeemed] with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect. 20He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake. 21Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.



1 Peter 3:

18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, 22who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.

John also testifies to the crucifixion and resurrection, and finds in it a plan of salvation:

1 John 1

5This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. 7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.



1 John 2

1My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. 2He [Jesus] is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.



1 John 3

16This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers.

Notice how not only do Peter and John affirm the events of the crucifixion and resurrection as having occurred in the life of Jesus, but they also use those events as teaching points for how Christians are supposed to respond to and bear up under suffering. It isn't some message that Jesus gave that they refer to, but Jesus' model that they reference.



Even Jude, who does not mention either the crucifixion or resurrection in his short letter, does make a faith statement that others want to erroneously project as uniquely Pauline in character. Jude proclaims Jesus Christ to be "our only Sovereign and Lord." (Jude 1:4) Well, of course, only God is Sovereign, so Jude is proclaiming Jesus as God.


I understand that Muslims don't believe any of these things are true. What I don't understand is why Muslims want to say that all of these beliefs originated in the mind of Paul. That simply isn't true, and there is no evidence to even hint at that idea.

[MustafaMc]

Yes, I see your point. Actually, I was reading in Acts this evening even before reading your post and I did observe what you detailed so well. Another thing that I noticed was that "Son of God" was mentioned only twice in Acts - 8:37 by the Ethiopian eunuch and 9:20 by Paul. The first verse had a footnote that the verse is not in the earliest manuscripts.

[YusufNoor]

Yep, I did miss your point. But I would still say that Paul was not the first person to suggest that the essential message is a plan of salvation centered on the cross.


I understand that Muslims don't believe any of these things are true. What I don't understand is why Muslims want to say that all of these beliefs originated in the mind of Paul. That simply isn't true, and there is no evidence to even hint at that idea.

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

Greetings Gene,

i would point out what one of our more learned Christians ( :D) pointed out concerning the NT:

Originally posted by dougsmr Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.


Acts 28:30 Then Paul dwelt two whole years in his own rented house, and received all who came to him, 31 preaching the kingdom of God and teaching the things which concern the Lord Jesus Christ with all confidence, no one forbidding him.

This seems to imply that the term Christian was around when Acts was written. Since Acts ends without discussing Paul's demise, it would probably mean that Paul heard the term Christian used.

All the Apostles were Jews.


Originally posted by Grace Seeker:

Not only that but this event at Antioch was before any of the New Testament was written.

The first books of the New Testament to be written were probably some of Paul's letters to churches he had visited. Paul was most certainly born a Jew. And he appears to have valued his Jewish heritage his whole life. However, he found his identity in Christ. As an apostle to the Gentiles (Paul's nickname) he did not try to convert them to Judaism in order to become Christians. For Paul it was sufficient that they come to faith in Jesus without having to convert fully to Judaism. So, my guess is that as a missionary he saw himself more as a Christian than a Jew .

if EVERY Book of the NT was written AFTER Paul began his mission, then one could easilly assume that his writings influenced EVERY Book so written and that only Books in line with Paul's "New Religion" would be included. :happy:

:w:

[Grace Seeker]

if EVERY Book of the NT was written AFTER Paul began his mission, then one could easilly assume that his writings influenced EVERY Book so written and that only Books in line with Paul's "New Religion" would be included. :happy:

:w:

Yes, one could argue that, and adding to that is that Luke (the assumed author of Acts) writes of himself as a companion in Paul's missionary journeys.


Yet even books excluded from the canon of the Bible, books like the Gospel of Peter and the Letter of Barnabas, tell the same story.

There is only one which nearly all account about Jesus of Nazareth, whether written by persons hostile or devoted to him, agree: that, by order of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate, he was condemned and crucified (c. 30).

The Gnostic Gospels, by Elaine Pagels, copyright 1979, Random House, p. 84.

I think it is worth noting that this comment was made in a book, not about the Bible, but about the gnostic writings that certainly were not part of Paul's "New Religion", and a book that was taken seriously enough to win the National Book Critics Circle Award in the year of its publication. Even among Nag Hammadi texts, those that Muslims often tell me were intended to be burned by the Church because they did not reflect the "accepted" teaching (and there is some truth to that point of view), even as they disagree from the Biblical interpretation of it, still agree on the basic facts of Jesus' execution (Pagles, p. 86) --

According to the Treatise on the Resurrection [interesting title], discovered a Nag Hammadi, insofar as Jesus was the "Son of Man," being human, he suffered and died like the rest of humanity. But since he was also "Son of God," the divine spirit within him could not die: in that sense he transcended suffering and death.

But even more to the point is that while I expect that every book of the New Testament was written after Paul, not every bit of Christian writing was written after Paul. Indeed, the idea of a pre-Markan passion narrative continues to seem probable to a majority of scholars. One recent study is presented by Gerd Theissen in The Gospels in Context (copyright 2004, T&T Clark), on which I am dependent for the following observations.

Theissen begins his discussion by observing that there lies behind Mark a narrative that presupposes a chronology that corresponds to the one found in John, in which Jesus dies on the preparation day before the Passover. Theissen states (pp. 166-167):

In my opinion, in Mark we can discern behind the text as we now have it a connected narrative that presupposes a certain chronology. According to Mark, Jesus died on the day of Passover, but the tradition supposes it was the preparation day before Passover: in 14:1-2 the Sanhedrin decided to kill Jesus before the feast in order to prevent unrest among the people on the day of the feast. This fits with the circumstance that in 15:21 Simon of Cyrene is coming in from the fields, which can be understood to mean he was coming from his work. It would be hard to imagine any author's using a formulation so subject to misunderstanding in an account that describes events on the day of Passover, since no work was done on that day. Moreover, in 15:42 Jesus' burial is said to be on the "preparation day," but a relative clause is added to make it the preparation day for the Sabbath. Originally, it was probably the preparation day for the Passover (cf. Jn 19:42). The motive for removing Jesus from the cross and burying him before sundown would probably have been to have this work done before the beginning of the feast day, which would not make sense if it were already the day of Passover. Finally, the "trial" before the Sanhedrin presupposes that this was not a feast day, since no judicial proceedings could be held on that day. It would have been a breach of the legal code that the narrator could scarcely have ignored, because the point of the narrative is to represent the proceeding against Jesus as an unfair trial with contradictory witnesses and a verdict decided in advance by the high priests.

Notice the debate is when the crucifixion took place, not about whether it did. The inspiration for the discussion comes from the suggestion of R. Pesch that the passion narrative must have been written before 37 CE, which would have been before Paul's missionary ministry commenced.


One other thought, might it also be the Paul received this message which was already being taught and continued it and that is why his message was so accepted by other Christians? Remember it wasn't Edison who invented the light-bulb, he just perfected the distribution of electricity so that it could reach a mass audience.

[Keltoi]

On the issue of Paul, I would even agee that he "changed" Christianity. How? He pushed the early Church to become more universal. Many Hellenist converts to Christianity refused to abide by Jewish law, as it was a foreign law. Paul took the position that Gentiles were not required to follow Jewish dietary laws or to follow the custom of circumcision. This was indeed a change, and it was these decisions that changed the world as we know it. So I don't downplay Paul's effect on Christianity, I simply don't buy into the proposition that Paul somehow changed any fundamental doctrine. The idea of salvation through Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was already well established.

[Grace Seeker]

On the issue of Paul, I would even agee that he "changed" Christianity. How? He pushed the early Church to become more universal. Many Hellenist converts to Christianity refused to abide by Jewish law, as it was a foreign law. Paul took the position that Gentiles were not required to follow Jewish dietary laws or to follow the custom of circumcision. This was indeed a change, and it was these decisions that changed the world as we know it. So I don't downplay Paul's effect on Christianity, I simply don't buy into the proposition that Paul somehow changed any fundamental doctrine. The idea of salvation through Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was already well established.

I agree with you in large part, accept that the issue of the universal nature of the church was raised even before Paul by Peter's encounter with Cornelius in Acts 10. And the actually decision regarding how the church would receive non-Jews was made at a Council overseen by James (Acts 15). Thus Paul's contribution was that he pushed this issue more than anyone else. But, again, Paul is not the one who forumlated it.

[Keltoi]

I agree with you in large part, accept that the issue of the universal nature of the church was raised even before Paul by Peter's encounter with Cornelius in Acts 10. And the actually decision regarding how the church would receive non-Jews was made at a Council overseen by James (Acts 15). Thus Paul's contribution was that he pushed this issue more than anyone else. But, again, Paul is not the one who forumlated it.

Yes, you are correct. Perhaps I should have said Paul was instrumental in putting the more universal model of Christianity into effect amongst the Gentiles. Paul's policy seemed to be that accepting salvation through Christ didn't require communities to give up the cultural norms of their society.

[MustafaMc]

On the issue of Paul, I would even agee that he "changed" Christianity. How? He pushed the early Church to become more universal. Many Hellenist converts to Christianity refused to abide by Jewish law, as it was a foreign law. Paul took the position that Gentiles were not required to follow Jewish dietary laws or to follow the custom of circumcision. This was indeed a change, and it was these decisions that changed the world as we know it. So I don't downplay Paul's effect on Christianity, I simply don't buy into the proposition that Paul somehow changed any fundamental doctrine. The idea of salvation through Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was already well established.

However, Jesus did not teach the abandonment of the Jewish law.

Matthew 19:16-21 And behold, one came to him and said, Teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he said unto him, Why askest thou me concerning that which is good? One there is who is good: but if thou wouldest enter into life, keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? And Jesus said, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honor thy father and mother; and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. The young man saith unto him, All these things have I observed: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wouldest be perfect, go, sell that which thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

Jesus did not reply to the rich young man with the "Gospel plan of salvation", rather the following of the law. Furthermore, to achieve perfection he was instructed to sell all of his possesions and give it to the poor. This is how the early Christians lived as illustrated in Acts 4:34-35 For neither was there among them any that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto each, according as any one had need.

[Grace Seeker]

However, Jesus did not teach the abandonment of the Jewish law.

To say that Jesus did not teach the abandonment of Jewish law is quite true. However, that is not to say that what Jesus came for was to bring a message about how one should keep the Jewish law.

From a Christian point of view, Jesus wasn't calling people back to the truth. Jesus never said that the teachings of Moses were wrong. (BTW, nor did Paul.) What he offered was a brand new covenant with God that did not require keeping a set of laws at all, but was based on trust in God's grace and God's righteousness rather than our own failed righteousness.

The acts that Jesus called for his disciples to do, i.e. "love one another", where born not out of the law (though certainly the law does command people to love as well), but out of their relationship to him, i.e. "as I have loved you", and again "I am the vine and you are the branches...abide in me". It wouldn't be enough for the rich man to sell all of his possession, he had to come and follow Jesus as well. It is the connection the Jesus makes with us that is the means of salvation. The Chrsit's act of a sinless sacrificial offering of himself in our place on the cross, rather than our sinless keeping of the law, is simply God's plan on how to establish that connection.

[MustafaMc]

My understanding of Jesus' message was one of mercy, humility, charity, and love that was lacking in the mainstream Jewish community of his time. The Good Samaritan, mercy shown to the adulterous woman, healing on the Sabbath and Jesus washing the disciples feet illustrate this perspective. The Jews were following the letter of the Judaic law, but they were missing the spirit of serving God by serving others.

[Grace Seeker]

My understanding of Jesus' message was one of mercy, humility, charity, and love that was lacking in the mainstream Jewish community of his time. The Good Samaritan, mercy shown to the adulterous woman, healing on the Sabbath and Jesus washing the disciples feet illustrate this perspective. The Jews were following the letter of the Judaic law, but they were missing the spirit of serving God by serving others.

Yes. Again all of that is true. But it misses the essential essence of who and what Jesus was about, at least that picture presented to us by the Gospel writers.

Just look at the number of pages that the gospels give to Jesus preaching and miracles, and look at the number of pages that the gospels give to Jesus passion and resurrection. While a few more pages are given to his teaching ministry, that was a period covering some 3 years time, compare that with the amount of space it taken to tell us of Jesus' passion and resurrection. So, which message do you think was most important to the gospel writers -- the 3 years of ministry they related in 125 pages (in my Bible) or the Passion (less than one week of Jesus' life starting on Palm Sunday's entry into Jerusalem through the Crucifixion) and Resurrection to which they devoted 63 pages? Basically a full third of the Gospel is devoted to the final week and act of Jesus' life. If it was Jesus' message that was so important why wasn't more attention paid to it? Why is the focus on this event that Muslims say never even happened?

Jesus' real message wasn't delivered with words at all. The message IS the cross.

[MustafaMc]

Yes. Again all of that is true. But it misses the essential essence of who and what Jesus was about, at least that picture presented to us by the Gospel writers.

Just look at the number of pages that the gospels give to Jesus preaching and miracles, and look at the number of pages that the gospels give to Jesus passion and resurrection. ... If it was Jesus' message that was so important why wasn't more attention paid to it? Why is the focus on this event that Muslims say never even happened?

Jesus' real message wasn't delivered with words at all. The message IS the cross.

If the death, burial and ressurrection is Jesus' real Message, why did the 11 disciples set other criteria for the one replacing Judas? Acts 1:21-23 Of the men therefore that have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us, beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us, of these must one become a witness with us of his resurrection. And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.

Again this illustrates the shift in focus from Jesus' life and ministry as a pattern for one's life to the calim of his Divine being and his act of sacrifice as a means to achieve salvation. In the first, the focus is on serving God through serving others, while the focus of the latter is on Jesus, the "Son of God" hanging on the cross, as the object of worship.

Matthew 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. This is further illustrated by the greatest commandment Matthew 22:36-40 Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law? And he said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second like [unto it] is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments the whole law hangeth, and the prophets. Note that the focus in the first part is on the worship of God - he did not say "Thou shalt love me, the Lord thy God." The object is on another - that I interpret as the Father - the One God.

Yes, the focus of the NT gospels is on the death, burial and ressurrection. The question is whether this was by God's design or by man's. We Muslims say that it didn't happen, because the Qur'an says so in 4:157 They even say: "We have killed the Messiah, Isa (Jesus), son of Maryam, the Rasool of Allah." Whereas in fact, neither did they kill him nor did they crucify him but they thought they did because the matter was made dubious for them. Those who differ therein are only in doubt. They have no real knowledge, they follow nothing but merely a conjecture, certainly they did not kill him (Jesus).

[Keltoi]

When it comes to the issue of the early Church and the mission to the Gentiles, one must also use a little practicality. Romans would not follow a foreign law, especially not a law that required them to circumsize. I believe that the early Church stated that Romans could become Christians without circumcision and without following the Jewish dietary law, as long as they did not drink blood, did not involve themselves in pagan worship, and did not break the laws of sexual morality. There is the law, and then there is the "spirit" of the law. I would think Paul and the other early Church leaders felt it was more important for the Romans to accept Christ as their Savior than it was for the Romans to embrace circumcision.

[MustafaMc]

When it comes to the issue of the early Church and the mission to the Gentiles, one must also use a little practicality. Romans would not follow a foreign law, especially not a law that required them to circumsize. I believe that the early Church stated that Romans could become Christians without circumcision and without following the Jewish dietary law, as long as they did not drink blood, did not involve themselves in pagan worship, and did not break the laws of sexual morality. There is the law, and then there is the "spirit" of the law. I would think Paul and the other early Church leaders felt it was more important for the Romans to accept Christ as their Savior than it was for the Romans to embrace circumcision.

This all seems quite reasonable, but how does one establish Divine direction to make these adaptations as opposed to human practicality? I see less and less Divine origin for the NT and for the ministry to Gentiles than Christians generally believe.

This illustrates a fundamental difference that I see between Christianity and Islam. We Muslims take prophethood and Divine revelation very seriously. Since we accept Prophet Muhammad (saaws) as the Last Messenger of Allah, our sources of Divine knowledge are primarily the Qur'an (direct revelation) and secondarily the Sunnah (practical application) of Muhammad (saaws).

How would you fill in the blanks? Since Christians accept _________ as Messengers of God, their sources of Divine knowledge are primarily the ________ (direct revelation) and secondarily the _______ (practical application).

[Grace Seeker]

This all seems quite reasonable, but how does one establish Divine direction to make these adaptations as opposed to human practicality? I see less and less Divine origin for the NT and for the ministry to Gentiles than Christians generally believe.

This illustrates a fundamental difference that I see between Christianity and Islam. We Muslims take prophethood and Divine revelation very seriously. Since we accept Prophet Muhammad (saaws) as the Last Messenger of Allah, our sources of Divine knowledge are primarily the Qur'an (direct revelation) and secondarily the Sunnah (practical application) of Muhammad (saaws).

How would you fill in the blanks? Since Christians accept _________ as Messengers of God, their sources of Divine knowledge are primarily the ________ (direct revelation) and secondarily the _______ (practical application).

I wouldn't even use that sentence as a starting point. As you said, one of the fundamental differences between Christianity and Islam. Rather it is more like:
Since Christians experience the divine leading of the Holy Spirit, we recognize this same experience took place in the lives of the apostles and others who wrote under such inspiration. This same Holy Spirit then led the church to accept these writings a guides for faith and practice at the time of their receiving, and the witness of this same Spirit continues to affirm them as true and valid for us still today.

[Keltoi]

Adding to that, Christ set up the guidelines quite clearly as to who would be blessed with salvation. Those who accepted Him as their Savior. That acceptance is a way of life. Paul and the others did not go easy on the Romans, as they were still expected to follow this way of life. Anyone familiar with Roman society during this period will understand the major change this would bring to a Roman's life.

As another example of Paul and Timothy's outlook on spreading the "Good News", when Timothy planned to travel to a Hellenisitic Jewish community to preach, he was circumsized in order to follow the cultural norms of that community. So it went both ways. It wasn't that Paul was against circumcision, it was all about getting the message out without alienating those to whom you were bringing the promise of salvation.

[YusufNoor]

I wouldn't even use that sentence as a starting point. As you said, one of the fundamental differences between Christianity and Islam. Rather it is more like:
Since Christians experience the divine leading of the Holy Spirit, we recognize this same experience took place in the lives of the apostles and others who wrote under such inspiration. This same Holy Spirit then led the church to accept these writings a guides for faith and practice at the time of their receiving, and the witness of this same Spirit continues to affirm them as true and valid for us still today.

:sl:

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

Greeting Gene,

i just want to see if i can make sense of the last bit here: this same Holy Spirit then led ALL THE DIFFERENT churches to accept these writings EXCEPT THOSE THAT WE CAN'T AGREE ON for faith and practice OF COURSE LEAVING ROOM FOR ALL THE DIFFERENT FAITHS AND PRACTICES an the time of their receiving, and the witness of the same Spirit continues to affirm as true and valid for us today EXCEPT THOSE IN WHICH WE DIFFER AS BEING TRUE AND VALID..

one would think that there would be a little less confusion when one is lead by one third of God, unless of course one doesn't give credence to a trinity...

:w:

[Grace Seeker]

:sl:

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

Greeting Gene,

i just want to see if i can make sense of the last bit here: this same Holy Spirit then led ALL THE DIFFERENT churches to accept these writings EXCEPT THOSE THAT WE CAN'T AGREE ON for faith and practice OF COURSE LEAVING ROOM FOR ALL THE DIFFERENT FAITHS AND PRACTICES an the time of their receiving, and the witness of the same Spirit continues to affirm as true and valid for us today EXCEPT THOSE IN WHICH WE DIFFER AS BEING TRUE AND VALID..

one would think that there would be a little less confusion when one is lead by one third of God, unless of course one doesn't give credence to a trinity...

:w:

You are the one who interjected the line, "except for those that we can't agree on," not I. Care to specify which ones it is that you are saying the church was unable to agree on?

[YusufNoor]

You are the one who interjected the line, "except for those that we can't agree on," not I. Care to specify which ones it is that you are saying the church was unable to agree on?

:sl:

perhaps we can start with the apocrypha! :thankyou:

is the Holy Spirit with the denominations that accept them or with those that don't? ^o)

unless there has been some mass meeting where "Christians" now agree on all Scripture! :ooh:

:w:

[MustafaMc]

Since Christians experience the divine leading of the Holy Spirit, we recognize this same experience took place in the lives of the apostles and others who wrote under such inspiration. This same Holy Spirit then led the church to accept these writings a guides for faith and practice at the time of their receiving, and the witness of this same Spirit continues to affirm them as true and valid for us still today.

I agree that this is an accurate statement regarding Christian claims of Divine origin for their Scripture and their religion through the agency of the Holy Spirit. It remains a fundamental point of contention between Muslims and Christians regarding the foundations for our respective religions. We Muslims accept Muhammad (saaws) as the human agent through which Allah established Islam through the spiritual agency of the Angel Jibra'il. Quran 5:3 ...Today the unbelievers have given up all their hope of vanquishing your religion. Have no fear of them, fear Me. Today I have perfected your religion for you, completed my favor upon you and approved Al-Islam as a Deen (way of life for you).... Our religion was firmly established by the death of Prophet Muhammad (saaws) and any changes in Islam are seen as unacceptable bida or innovation. We believe that the Qur'an and our means of worship remain essentially identical with what Muhammad (saaws) recited and practiced in the 7th century C.E. The Christian Bible and forms of worship have less well defined origins, but faith in the Divine origins for our respective religions is an intangible that can't be transmitted to unbelievers. We both agree that guidance comes but from God.

[Grace Seeker]

:sl:

perhaps we can start with the apocrypha! :thankyou:

is the Holy Spirit with the denominations that accept them or with those that don't? ^o)

unless there has been some mass meeting where "Christians" now agree on all Scripture! :ooh:

Rather than listing the books of the apocrypha, I'm just going to reference this article from the New Advent Encyclopedia, Apocrypha. Now recall my words:

This same Holy Spirit then led the church to accept these writings a guides for faith and practice at the time of their receiving

The Holy Spirit never led the church to accept these writings. They were never received by any denomination, that small fact renders the rest of your questions moot.


Perhaps you were meaning to refer to the Deuterocanon -- those books accepted by Catholics and Orthodox but not seen as canonical by protestants?

And again, I would say when they were received, it was just as I previously said, the church understood that the Holy Spirit led them to accept these writings a guides for faith and practice. So, the obvious question becomes, "Why, if the Holy Spirit had led them to be received, did some see fit to remove them later and other still retained them?" Or as you put it:

is the Holy Spirit with the denominations that accept them or with those that don't? ^o)

Well, I think that the Holy Spirit is with all the denominations, both those that accept them and those that do not. But I will grant you that sometimes we humans are not the best interpreters of the Holy Spirit. Hence, one group of us has it wrong. Which? I don't know. I guess I'm betting my money on those that don't include the Deuterocanon, but if I'm wrong, I am prepared to lean on God's grace with regard to that mistake, just as I will have to with regard to many others I have made in my life.

[barney]

Hey.
I was thinking about going christian.
In order to prepare, Ive followed jesus's teachings and sold all my possessions and im sitting in a field with no clothes or food or anything.. (this 'putor belongs to a Heathen mates).
The only thing I havnt sold yet is the Wife (Exodus 20:17
17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

I Know she's my possession and I'm trying to flog her off, so I was wondering what the going price was. She's about 40 and a bit dishonouring of husbands.

Any ideas?

[Grace Seeker]

Hey.
I was thinking about going christian.
In order to prepare, Ive followed jesus's teachings and sold all my possessions and im sitting in a field with no clothes or food or anything.. (this 'putor belongs to a Heathen mates).
The only thing I havnt sold yet is the Wife (Exodus 20:17
17 "You shall not covet your neighbor's house. You shall not covet your neighbor's wife, or his manservant or maidservant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor."

I Know she's my possession and I'm trying to flog her off, so I was wondering what the going price was. She's about 40 and a bit dishonouring of husbands.

Any ideas?

First you're gonna have to move to a country where wife selling is legal. But once you get there I suggesting putting a very soft bit in her mouth (don't want to damage the teeth, you know), and see how good she is at plowing. If she's no good at that, even though she's already 40, you might see how many children she can still bear you. Then you can sell them off as they come of age. I know that the time element involved can be quite an investment, but in the long run while you won't get anything for her, you can reap quite a reward from her progeny. Now, if she's past her prime on that, about all that's left that she might be good for is cooking and cleaning and things like that. Personally, I find that people are hardly willing to give you anything for those types of services, so you might as well just keep her at home and love her and cherish her till death do you part.

[YusufNoor]

Rather than listing the books of the apocrypha, I'm just going to reference this article from the New Advent Encyclopedia, Apocrypha. Now recall my words: The Holy Spirit never led the church to accept these writings. They were never received by any denomination, that small fact renders the rest of your questions moot.


Perhaps you were meaning to refer to the Deuterocanon -- those books accepted by Catholics and Orthodox but not seen as canonical by protestants?

yes, those would be the ones...

And again, I would say when they were received, it was just as I previously said, the church understood that the Holy Spirit led them to accept these writings a guides for faith and practice. So, the obvious question becomes, "Why, if the Holy Spirit had led them to be received, did some see fit to remove them later and other still retained them?" Or as you put it:

Well, I think that the Holy Spirit is with all the denominations, both those that accept them and those that do not. But I will grant you that sometimes we humans are not the best interpreters of the Holy Spirit.

you would think it would be different, eh?

Hence, one group of us has it wrong.

which kinda proves "The Church" wrong, unless the Protestant Groups were first...

Which? I don't know. I guess I'm betting my money on those that don't include the Deuterocanon, but if I'm wrong, I am prepared to lean on God's grace with regard to that mistake, just as I will have to with regard to many others I have made in my life.

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

Greetings Gene,

i saw that you were dealing with this in another thread, but i gotta ask:

what about the verse about the 3 witnesses in heaven? how could it go in AND out? how could "one of those witnesses" mislead us or be wrong? one WOULD think that it would be something that it would be absolutely clear on...

unless folks are just "guessing"!

and quit trying to render my questions moot!!
:giggling:


:w:

[Grace Seeker]

what about the verse about the 3 witnesses in heaven? how could it go in AND out? how could "one of those witnesses" mislead us or be wrong? one WOULD think that it would be something that it would be absolutely clear on...

I assume the verse you are referring to is 1 John 5:6-8: This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement." But I am not sure how that applies to this discussion. I said that we humans are sometimes poor interpreters of the Spirit. Haven't you ever been someplace where two people heard exactly the same thing, but had two completely different understandings from it? Much communication depends on the receptivity of the hearer, not just the one who testifies.

unless folks are just "guessing"!

Wouldn't put anything past a human being.

BTW, I suspect that the Catholic church is in error in considering the Deuterocanon as scripture, but I can understand how they came to that determination.

Try this crazy idea on for size. If an authenticated copy of something that Jesus had written about himself was to suddenly become available today, should the canon of scripture be reopened and said document included?

Some would say, "Obviously, YES!"

But many would say, "Not so fast. If it is true that the present scriptures already contain, as we have professed for centuries, enough to be sufficient and all that is necessary for salvation and faith and practice, then nothing else is needed, and that would hence include something produced even by Jesus himself. If the Holy Spirit had truly wanted the Church to have access to it for the purpose of being considered as Scripture, it would have been made known before.

You see, the Christian understanding of what makes for scripture is very, VERY different from that understanding used within Islam.

[YusufNoor]

I assume the verse you are referring to is 1 John 5:6-8: This is the one who came by water and blood—Jesus Christ. He did not come by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement." But I am not sure how that applies to this discussion. I said that we humans are sometimes poor interpreters of the Spirit. Haven't you ever been someplace where two people heard exactly the same thing, but had two completely different understandings from it? Much communication depends on the receptivity of the hearer, not just the one who testifies.

Yes, but those folks don't claim to be led by the Holy Spirit.


Wouldn't put anything past a human being.

BTW, I suspect that the Catholic church is in error in considering the Deuterocanon as scripture, but I can understand how they came to that determination.

BUT, and IF, they are the "original" church, how could there be error? unless...

Try this crazy idea on for size. If an authenticated copy of something that Jesus had written about himself was to suddenly become available today, should the canon of scripture be reopened and said document included?

Some would say, "Obviously, YES!"

But many would say, "Not so fast. If it is true that the present scriptures already contain, as we have professed for centuries, enough to be sufficient and all that is necessary for salvation and faith and practice, then nothing else is needed, and that would hence include something produced even by Jesus himself. If the Holy Spirit had truly wanted the Church to have access to it for the purpose of being considered as Scripture, it would have been made known before.

You see, the Christian understanding of what makes for scripture is very, VERY different from that understanding used within Islam.

Peace be upon those that follow the guidance,

Greetings Gene,

of course you know that my thoughts about these matters predates my Islam.

btw, i found a wonderful little sentiment in a Mesorah Publications book, The Rubin Edition of The Early Prophets with a Commentary Anthologized From The Rabbinic Writings I&II Kings by Rabbi Nosson Scherman [you should check these out along with the "Stone" Chumash, quite incredible works!]

after a note on I Kings 12:33 where Jeroboam offers the service for his "new" holiday, the Rabbii offers this little jewell: How could this happen so quickly? At first glance, it seems unfathomable that large numbers of the people of God could discard their heritage so quickly and easily. There were so many factors; a popular norther king and an unpopular southern king, the rationalizations mentioned above(erm sorry, other notes), royal coercion, and the typical human attraction toward novel ideads and rituals. To this one must add the Satan's powerful effort to drag Israel down from its noble calling. Less than six weeks after receiving the Ten Commandents, the nation toppled from its lofty spiritual pinacle. The same thing happened when Adan and Eve were enticed to eat from the Tree of Knowledge. The power of evil fights mightily when it is in danger of extinction. .

The power of evil fights mightily when it is in danger of extinction. i love that line! [remember me when you use it]

just some food for thought...

:thankyou:

:w:

[Grace Seeker]

BTW, I suspect that the Catholic church is in error in considering the Deuterocanon as scripture, but I can understand how they came to that determination.

BUT, and IF, they are the "original" church, how could there be error? unless...

Unless.... Unless what?

While the Catholic church like to teach that they were without error. I don't believe that any human institution is without error. And the Church (be it the New Testament Church, the present day Roman Catholic Church, or my local United Methodist Church is a divine/human institution. It is blessed by the guidance of the Holy Spirit and cursed by that guidance being interpreted by fallible human beings. I don't think we even have to introduce the concept of the the intervention of Satan to arrive at that. Now, surely there will be plenty of Christians who disagree with me on that sort of view of the Church. But my answer to you remains that the Holy Spirit guided the Church. On the whole I believe we got it right because of that guidance. But I don't claim that we got it perfect and that no errors have been made in transmission. Among them most assuredly is either that the protestants use 7 books too few or the Catholics and Orthodox use 7 books too many. I've made my call on that, others have made theirs. I would say that we'll find out in heaven, but I have a feeling when we get there, that we will suddenly no longer be concerned with that question and may fail to even ask as at that time all truth will be revealed to us going so far beyond that which is made known to us now as to render such discussion not just moot, but superflous.

[Umar001]

Sorry for the late reply I am still writing a reply and insha'Allah one will be given soon.

Regards,

Eesa.

[jd7]

Jayda you raised a point in post #1 concerning what one might assume something as true and reject something as false.

Would you agree that, above all, any writings, Islamic or Christian, to be considered true, they MUST conform to earlier true scripture, or at the very least to not deny other true scripture?

Grace Seeker, just to nit pick a bit, Jesus wrote words in the dust when he was asked to stone the adulteress woman.

MustafaMc “The NT clearly is not an accurate [verbatim] record of words spoken directly by Jesus”, I have never seen this disputed by anyone. That leaves me wanting to reply to your point with…. So?

Just reading along

[MustafaMc]

MustafaMc “The NT clearly is not an accurate [verbatim] record of words spoken directly by Jesus”, I have never seen this disputed by anyone. That leaves me wanting to reply to your point with…. So?

The point is that “The Quran clearly is an accurate [verbatim] record of words spoken directly by Muhammad.” We accept Jesus (as) as a Messenger of Allah and accept the message that he brought as True; however, the fact that we don't have an accurate and comprehensive record of his words and actions casts doubts on the Divine authenticity of the NT.

[jd7]

MustafaMC, I think you may have missed my point. Court records are full of accurate verbatim testimony. The testimony itself may be true or it maybe false. The fact it was recorded accurately is not a determination of truthfulness of it.

A comparison of any given testimony to other testimony or known facts is what is needed. Even then there may be a lot of dispute as to what the truth is. (I seem to recall such a dispute being recently in the news. It concerned the Armenians and the Turks killing each other.)

Then we have a whole other category of subjects, such as this thread was start over. Religion and pre-modern history is one of these categories. More times than not the “truthfulness” is in the eye of the beholder.

Objectivity is of the utmost importance when trying to determine the probability of truthfulness of recorded events. An example might be seen in examining records of Jesus being in Heaven laughing over the fact that another was crucified in his place and everyone had been fooled (I believe it was recorded in the Book of Barnabas, I will have to go back and review it to be sure.). I can objectively reject the record of Jesus being in Heaven laughing over the crucifixion because Jesus doing such a thing is so out of character when compared to any other records of Jesus. The simple fact that the Book of Barnabas may still exist in its original form/text (not saying that it does) would be a poor basis for declaring it true or not.

Contrarily rejecting recorded events as likely to be false simply because of minor differences in the records is not very objective. An example can be seen in some of the records of Jesus healing the blind.

Some records of certain events record one blind man being healed and other records of the same event record two men being healed. We can now offer the argument that since there are recorded differences of the same event we can objectively reject Jesus healing the blind. That, to me, seems to be your argument. I reject the objectivity of that argument.

For me I find the records of boy-Jesus making clay birds come to life much more doubtful simply because there is no logical reason for that event to have not been recorded in the Christian records. It matters not that the original record of the clay birds being made alive may have been perfectly recorded and perfectly preserved or not.

My point “any writings, Islamic or Christian, to be considered true, they MUST conform to earlier true scripture” is seen in the following:

The instruction to remove hands and feet as a form of punishment for thievery, as divine, in my opinion, should be objectively rejected due to it being contrary to any Jewish or Christian writings.

It matters not that the instruction to remove hands and feet has been perfectly recorded and preserved, that doesn’t make it divine or even to have likely to been divinely inspired.

Peace

[MustafaMc]

MustafaMC, I think you may have missed my point. Court records are full of accurate verbatim testimony. The testimony itself may be true or it maybe false. The fact it was recorded accurately is not a determination of truthfulness of it.

I was not making a case for truth or falsehood. I was making a case for authenticity. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Qur'an is an authentic and accurate record of what the Companions heard Prophet Muhammad (saaws) recite as revelation. No one even claims that even the NT gospels are equivalent to the Qur'an in this sense. The 4 gospels have bits and pieces of what Jesus (as) is claimed to have said, but there is no doubt whatsoever that they are not accurate nor complete. Even the "Lord's Prayer" is not quoted identically between the gospels.

A comparison of any given testimony to other testimony or known facts is what is needed. Even then there may be a lot of dispute as to what the truth is. (I seem to recall such a dispute being recently in the news. It concerned the Armenians and the Turks killing each other.)

No, this is not a dependable means of ascertaining Truth. For one thing, there is no doubt that the Bible is not "known facts". Since Christians don't even claim that the NT Bible is an accurate and complete record of Jesus' (as) teachings and actions, the Bible is not a dependable standard to judge against.

Contrarily rejecting recorded events as likely to be false simply because of minor differences in the records is not very objective. An example can be seen in some of the records of Jesus healing the blind.

Some records of certain events record one blind man being healed and other records of the same event record two men being healed. We can now offer the argument that since there are recorded differences of the same event we can objectively reject Jesus healing the blind. That, to me, seems to be your argument. I reject the objectivity of that argument.

No, your argument is not even logical. Just because there are differences between accounts does not mean that it didn't happen; however, it does clearly illustrate that the records are not accurate and complete.

For me I find the records of boy-Jesus making clay birds come to life much more doubtful simply because there is no logical reason for that event to have not been recorded in the Christian records. It matters not that the original record of the clay birds being made alive may have been perfectly recorded and perfectly preserved or not.

Just because an event is not recorded in the NT, does not mean that it didn't happen. There is nothing written in the gospels about Jesus' life between his family visiting the temple when he was 12 (I think) and when he started his public ministry with his baptism and calling of the disciples.

My point “any writings, Islamic or Christian, to be considered true, they MUST conform to earlier true scripture” is seen in the following:

The instruction to remove hands and feet as a form of punishment for thievery, as divine, in my opinion, should be objectively rejected due to it being contrary to any Jewish or Christian writings.

It matters not that the instruction to remove hands and feet has been perfectly recorded and preserved, that doesn’t make it divine or even to have likely to been divinely inspired.

Just because a law differs from what is known about previous revelations, it does not mean that the law is not Divine. Although Allah (swt) does not change, man's understanding definitely changes over time. Even the Bible tells us that the disciples were not ready for the full message that was to come latter with the coming of "the Spirit of truth" that we Muslims believe prophesied the coming of Prophet Muhammad (saaws). John 16:12-14 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, [these] shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall take of mine, and shall declare [it] unto you.

[Umar001]

As Salaam Alaykum Wa Rahmatullah,

I have not seen Grace Seeker or Jayda around, I had forgot about this thread, just wondering if yall still here?

Eesa

[Grace Seeker]

As Salaam Alaykum Wa Rahmatullah,

I have not seen Grace Seeker or Jayda around, I had forgot about this thread, just wondering if yall still here?

Eesa

I continue to receive notifications for old threads that I subscribed to, and sometimes I read them. But I haven't felt comfortable in participating in many weeks; hence my absence.

[Umar001]

I continue to receive notifications for old threads that I subscribed to, and sometimes I read them. But I haven't felt comfortable in participating in many weeks; hence my absence.

See, I noticed ;)

How comes, why you aint felt comfortable?

[barney]

I continue to receive notifications for old threads that I subscribed to, and sometimes I read them. But I haven't felt comfortable in participating in many weeks; hence my absence.

Hugs and hugs and hugs and hugsHugs and hugs and hugs and hugsHugs and hugs and hugs and hugsHugs and hugs and hugs and hugsHugs and hugs and hugs and hugs Graceseeker. but in a manly way.

Hai dude. Miss ya on the boards

[snakelegs]

hey grace seeker - nice to see you're still Out There! :sunny:

[glo]

I continue to receive notifications for old threads that I subscribed to, and sometimes I read them. But I haven't felt comfortable in participating in many weeks; hence my absence.

Good to see you around, Grace Seeker.
I am missing your knowledgeable posts, but I understand what you mean.
Hope all is well in your neck of the woods. :)

[glo]

Hugs and hugs and hugs and hugsHugs and hugs and hugs and hugsHugs and hugs and hugs and hugsHugs and hugs and hugs and hugsHugs and hugs and hugs and hugs Graceseeker. but in a manly way.

Hai dude. Miss ya on the boards

You are a big softie, really ... aren't you, Barney? :D

[MustafaMc]

I continue to receive notifications for old threads that I subscribed to, and sometimes I read them. But I haven't felt comfortable in participating in many weeks; hence my absence.

Peace, GraceSeeker. I hope that all is well with you and your family.