What the Bible Says About Muhammad(PBUH!!!!)

[Mikayeel]

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله تعالى وبركاته

This might of been discussed before!!

Since the bible state that there is another prophet upcoming. Why don't the christians follow the prophet mentioned in the bible, that is supposed to follow after Moses (On whom be peace)?

''According to the Bible, God said to Moses (on whom be peace): I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. (The Holy Bible, New International Version, Deuteronomy ch 18, verse 18).

The Prophet described in the above verse must have the following three characteristics;

1) He will be like Moses 2) will come from the brothers of the Israelites, ie the Ishmaelites. 3) God will put His words in the mouth of that prophet and he will declare what God commanded him. Let us see which prophet God was speaking of.

I. The Prophet like Moses-> Some people feel that this prophecy refers to the prophet Jesus, (on whom be peace). But, although Jesus (on whom be peace) was truly a prophet of God, he is not the prophet spoken of here. He was born miraculously. On the other hand, Muhammad (peace be upon him) is more like Moses (on whom be peace); both were born in a natural way and both died natural deaths.

2. From among the Ishmaelites -> Abraham (on whom be peace) had two sons, Ishmael (on whom be peace) and Isaac (on whom be peace) (genesis, ch 21). Ishmael (on whom be peace) became the grandfather of the Arab nation, and Isaac became the grandfather of the Jewish nation. The prophet spoken of was to come not from among the Jews themselves, but from among their brothers, the Ishmaelites. Muhammad (peace be upon him) a descendant of Ishmael, is indeed that prophet.

3. God will put His words in his mouth- "Neither the content of the revelation, nor its form, were of Muhammad's devising. Both were given by the angel and Mohammad's task was only to repeat what he heard." (World Religions from Ancient History to the Present, by Geoffrey Parrinder, p. 472). God sent the angel Gabriel (on whom be peace) to teach Muhammad (peace be upon him) the exact words that he should repeat to the people. The words are therefore not his own; they did not come from his own thoughts, but were put into his mouth by the angel. These are written down in the Qur'an word for word exactly as they came from God. Now that we know thaat prophet we must listen to him, for, according to the Bible, God says: "I will punish anyone who refuses to obey him" (Good News Bible, Deut. 18:19).''

Do you christians believe that prophet is Jesus(on whom be peace)?? Or are you waiting for another prophet the of the description to appear?

peace

[Mikayeel]

hmm this been approved late? anyway i would like some comments:)

[Amadeus85]

There is the same topic in refutations :)

[Jayda]

hola Hamada,

the verse you are referring to is part of a larger narrative about how the early Israelite community would be governed in their covenant with God. they are told God's laws, and then they are told that God will continue to speak through prophets to them.

that specific verse deals with the latter issue. the word is not 'brethren' in the fraternal sense but rather with the connotation of 'countrymen,' so prophets would be raised within the nation of israel and not outside of it. furthermore, muslim scholars seem to make too much of the relationship between ishmael and isaac. they two were brothers... their descendants are not. while the bible talks occasionally about arab peoples and indicates that the israelites have a distant relationship to them (just like the canaanites, children of Ham) they are not considered brothers in any sense of the word.

the prophet spoken of in that passage was actually Joshua, who was raised to lead Israel immediately following Moses (who acknowledged him as his successor). Joshua was a great leader from among the Israelites, a very similar man to Moses (which is why he completed his work) who conquered Canaan and lead the people of Israel into the land promised them by God.

following Joshua there were many prophets (Nevi) raised up by God in like manner, from among the people and very similar in purpose and manner to the prophets who came before them, they include but are not limited to the judges, samuel, isaiah, jeremiah, ezekiel, hosea, joel, amos, obadiah, jonah, micah, nahum, habakkuk, zephaniah, haggai, zecheriah, malachi, john the baptist.

we are not awaiting another prophet. there is no new public revelation after the death of the last apostle, Jesus said on the cross that it had been accomplished. we now only wait for his return.

que Dios te bendiga

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

[Mikayeel]

hola Hamada,

the verse you are referring to is part of a larger narrative about how the early Israelite community would be governed in their covenant with God. they are told God's laws, and then they are told that God will continue to speak through prophets to them.

that specific verse deals with the latter issue. the word is not 'brethren' in the fraternal sense but rather with the connotation of 'countrymen,' so prophets would be raised within the nation of israel and not outside of it. furthermore, muslim scholars seem to make too much of the relationship between ishmael and isaac. they two were brothers... their descendants are not. while the bible talks occasionally about arab peoples and indicates that the israelites have a distant relationship to them (just like the canaanites, children of Ham) they are not considered brothers in any sense of the word.

the prophet spoken of in that passage was actually Joshua, who was raised to lead Israel immediately following Moses (who acknowledged him as his successor). Joshua was a great leader from among the Israelites, a very similar man to Moses (which is why he completed his work) who conquered Canaan and lead the people of Israel into the land promised them by God.

following Joshua there were many prophets (Nevi) raised up by God in like manner, from among the people and very similar in purpose and manner to the prophets who came before them, they include but are not limited to the judges, samuel, isaiah, jeremiah, ezekiel, hosea, joel, amos, obadiah, jonah, micah, nahum, habakkuk, zephaniah, haggai, zecheriah, malachi, john the baptist.

we are not awaiting another prophet. there is no new public revelation after the death of the last apostle, Jesus said on the cross that it had been accomplished. we now only wait for his return.

que Dios te bendiga

Hola Jayda :)

thanks for the extended answer, it answered my question of the christian view of these verses, thanks for ur effort

que Dios te bendiga:)

[Jayda]

de nada Hamada,

gracias for your interest :)

[john316]

السلام عليكم ورحمة الله تعالى وبركاته

This might of been discussed before!!

Since the bible state that there is another prophet upcoming. Why don't the christians follow the prophet mentioned in the bible, that is supposed to follow after Moses (On whom be peace)?

''According to the Bible, God said to Moses (on whom be peace): I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers; I will put my words in his mouth, and he will tell them everything I command him. (The Holy Bible, New International Version, Deuteronomy ch 18, verse 18).

The Prophet described in the above verse must have the following three characteristics;

1) He will be like Moses 2) will come from the brothers of the Israelites, ie the Ishmaelites. 3) God will put His words in the mouth of that prophet and he will declare what God commanded him. Let us see which prophet God was speaking of.

I. The Prophet like Moses-> Some people feel that this prophecy refers to the prophet Jesus, (on whom be peace). But, although Jesus (on whom be peace) was truly a prophet of God, he is not the prophet spoken of here. He was born miraculously. On the other hand, Muhammad (peace be upon him) is more like Moses (on whom be peace); both were born in a natural way and both died natural deaths.

2. From among the Ishmaelites -> Abraham (on whom be peace) had two sons, Ishmael (on whom be peace) and Isaac (on whom be peace) (genesis, ch 21). Ishmael (on whom be peace) became the grandfather of the Arab nation, and Isaac became the grandfather of the Jewish nation. The prophet spoken of was to come not from among the Jews themselves, but from among their brothers, the Ishmaelites. Muhammad (peace be upon him) a descendant of Ishmael, is indeed that prophet.

3. God will put His words in his mouth- "Neither the content of the revelation, nor its form, were of Muhammad's devising. Both were given by the angel and Mohammad's task was only to repeat what he heard." (World Religions from Ancient History to the Present, by Geoffrey Parrinder, p. 472). God sent the angel Gabriel (on whom be peace) to teach Muhammad (peace be upon him) the exact words that he should repeat to the people. The words are therefore not his own; they did not come from his own thoughts, but were put into his mouth by the angel. These are written down in the Qur'an word for word exactly as they came from God. Now that we know thaat prophet we must listen to him, for, according to the Bible, God says: "I will punish anyone who refuses to obey him" (Good News Bible, Deut. 18:19).''

Do you christians believe that prophet is Jesus(on whom be peace)?? Or are you waiting for another prophet the of the description to appear?

peace

Duet 17:14-15
14 “When you come to the land which the LORD your God is giving you, and possess it and dwell in it, and say, ‘I will set a king over me like all the nations that are around me,’ 15 you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother

So the brother of the levites are the Israelites they are not going to pick an Ishamelite.

Jesus is like Moses. Both gave covenents. Moses gave the law . Jesus gave us grace.
When both were small both had kings that were chasing them,

It was God who put words into Jesus' (john 14:9)

[Mikayeel]

Oke thanks for your answer... I dont understand what do you mean by it was god who put words into jesus(peace be upon him) i thought u believe god was Jeses him self?

[john316]

The pinnacle or apex of a cone or a pyramid is lenght breath & height at same time. The height is the pinnacle, the lenght is the pinnacle and the width is the pinnacle. The pinnacle is lenght, the pinnacle is breath, the pinncale us height.

God is the Father, God is Jesus and God is te Holy Spirit. The Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God.

Hope this helps.

[john316]

The pinnacle or apex of a cone or a pyramid is lenght breath & height at same time. The height is the pinnacle, the lenght is the pinnacle and the width is the pinnacle. The pinnacle is lenght, the pinnacle is breath, the pinncale us height.

God is the Father, God is Jesus and God is te Holy Spirit. The Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God.

Hope this helps.

If you connect John 14:9 to John 10:30 it shows you that Jesus and God are one.

John 8:57-58
57 Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”
58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

Exodus 3:14
God said to Moses, "I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "

[AvarAllahNoor]

I tell you what confuses me, Muslims say the Bible is corrupted, yet you seem to find quotes which would point to Mohammed being mentioned, can somebody shed light on this please? :¬S

[glo]

I tell you what confuses me, Muslims say the Bible is corrupted, yet you seem to find quotes which would point to Mohammed being mentioned, can somebody shed light on this please? :¬S

I must admit that I have wondered about this too.

The general message by Muslims seems to be that the Bible has been corrupted and that therefore its message cannot be trusted ... yet that doesn't seem to stop many Muslims from using Bible quotes which apparently support the 'Muslim argument'.

Seems to me that either something is trustworthy, or it isn't ... you can't pick and choose and have it both ways ... :?

[truemuslim]

how are jesus and god one when u say jesus is the son of god...?...
gosh christianity is confuuusing.

[Mikayeel]

how are jesus and god one when u say jesus is the son of god...?...
gosh christianity is confuuusing.

that which is obvs for me nd u, isnt for others :(, but hmm i hope more people will come towards the path of the truth..

The same path that lead many to the light..

If most but knew:(

[truemuslim]

^^^ yeah...inshallah they open there heart to the truth...

[جوري]

Muslims believe the Original bible of Barnbas, (Barnbas) being an actual companion of christ to be the most correct version.. With christianity as it should be. Jesus never wanted christianity for man kind he was merely sent to his people (jews)
'I have not been sent except to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.' (Matthew 15:24)[1]1]. Hence every one of the famous twelve disciples of Jesus was an Israelite Jew. The one biblical passage where Jesus is supposed to have told his disciples to 'Go and preach unto all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.' (Matthew 28:19), commonly quoted to prove the Gentile mission as well as the Trinity, is not found in any pre-sixteenth century manuscript and is thus considered 'a pious fraud'.
whereas prophet Mohammed SAS was sent to all of man-kind!
anyhow I have extracted these from another forum, as I am not in the mood for a long winded debate and believe both are exquisite and do a fine job

cheers

My degree is in (Christian) Theology and Religious Studies. I graduated in 1992. Back then, this was the general gist of textual scholarship on the New Testament. As far as I know, it hasn't changed radically.

The Hebrew Bible is a much larger corpus, and more varied, so I'll leave that for another time.

The four gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, etc - the fourth gospel, John, for example, dates from around 90CE. In fact, each of the gospels is most probably derived from a number of oral sources. Christians who concur with this still claim that the gospels are valid revelations because they were written by people inspired by the Holy Spirit. But as we have no idea precisely who authored them - that claim is a matter of faith.

Around half the letters attributed to Paul were not written by him. They might be, perhaps, rewrites based on original letters.

The oldest copy of the New Testament (or parts of) date from about the 4th century.

Here is an example of fundamental discrepancy in the Bible. If the Bible wasn’t corrupt then these mistakes would not be in the Bible. There are numerous amounts of discrepancies in the Bible which I do not have time to explain or write. But I shall try and give an outlook to many flaws as possible. The following material may offend or upset some but they are contained in the Bible.

CONTRADICTIONS IN THE BIBLE
Compiled By; Donald Morgan

1. Error in the Book of God?
[Isaiah 37] and [2 Kings 19] are identical word for word. Yet they have been attributed to two different authors, centuries apart, and it is claimed to have been inspired by God. How is this possible?

2. God repents or not?
How can Num. 23:19, which says God doesn't repent, be reconciled with Ex. 32:14, which clearly says he does?

3. Can man see God or not?
How can Ex. 33:20, which says no man can see God's face and live, be squared with Gen. 32:30, which says a man saw God's face and his life was preserved?

4. All sins or not?
Rom. 3:23 says "all have sinned." All means all. Yet, Gen. 6:9 says Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations. Job 1:1 & 1 :8 say Job was perfect. How could these men have been perfect if all have sinned?

5. God or the Devil?
"And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah." [2 Samuel 24:1]

"And SATAN stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel." [1 Chronicles 21:1]

How could Moses have written the first five books in the Bible (the Pentateuch) when his own death and burial are described in Deut. 34:5-6 ("So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab ... and he buried him in a valley. ...")?

BIBLICAL VULGARITIES & OBSCENITIES

Note: What is and what is not vulgar or obscene is, of course, an individual matter. By current Christian standards, however, the verses that follow would likely be considered inappropriate, if not vulgar or obscene, were they in any setting other than the Bible.

Graphic description of sex
"Yet she multiplied her *****doms, in calling to remembrance the days of her youth, wherein she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt. For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses." (Ezekiel 23: 19-21)

"and lusted after her paramours there, whose members were like those of donkeys, and whose emission was like that of stallions." (Ezekiel 23: 21, NRSV)

Comment: The story of the sister *****s, Aholah and Aholibah gives a moral lesson against the sins of the flesh. But why does god have to describe their adventures in such pornographic detail? What parent would want their children reading verse 21 about comparing the size of men's penis?

DT 28:15, 30 If you do not obey the voice of the Lord, the Lord will cause another man to "lie with" your wife-to-be.

IS 20:2-4 The Lord himself apparently commands his servant to go naked for three years.

JG 19:22-29 A group of sexual depraved men beat on the door of an old man's house demanding that he turn over to them a male house guest. Instead, the old man offers his virgin daughter and his guest's concubine (or wife): "Behold, here are my virgin daughter and his concubine; let me bring them out now. Ravish them and do with them what seems good to you; but against this man do not do so vile a thing." The man's concubine is ravished and dies. The man then cuts her body into twelve pieces and sends one piece to each of the twelve tribes of Israel.

Eat Human Feces!
(Ezekie14:12-13) "And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight. And the LORD said, Even thus shall the children of Israel eat their defiled bread among the Gentiles, whither I will drive them."

Comment: One wonders what value, nutritional or moral, it would serve the people to eat human feces with their bread, as God ordered. Note, God here has also ordered, the voyeuristic-like observation of the faeces coming out man. How many Christians and Jews realize that these verses are in the Bible.

Eating Dung And Drinking Piss

(II Kings 18:27) "But Rabshakeh said unto them, Hath my master sent me to thy master, and to thee, to speak these words? Hath he not sent me to the men who sit on the wall, that they may eat their own dung, and drink their own piss with you?"

[Trumble]

Muslims believe the Original bible of Barnbas, (Barnbas) being an actual companion of christ to be the most correct version..

If you mean the "Gospel of Barnabas" the general consensus among scholars, including muslim ones, is that it is a (late) medieval forgery. Its chances of being the most "correct" are therefore remote.

[جوري]

If you mean the "Gospel of Barnabas" the general consensus among scholars, including muslim ones, is that it is a (late) medieval forgery. Its chances of being the most "correct" are therefore remote.

Yes that is the one... it is only a forgery to those who need it to be!
One of the brothers who started Al-ahram newspaper Beshara and Saleem Teqla, both maronite catholics by the way, has written quite an interesting article about the fraud in the church trying to cover up the origin of that bible...I commend him for not losing his reporter integrity in the face of what could undermine his entire religion .. thus, I say, try not to write in that authoritative and magisterial manner on matters that are completely over your head again, at least keep them as far as 'christians' are concerned and don't speak on behalf of the Muslim scholars!

p.s: I truly am not in the mood for you today...


cheers

[Trumble]

Yes that is the one... it is only a forgery to those who need it to be!

The overwhelming weight of evidence and of informed scholastic opinion is that it is a medieval forgery, as I said. I'm afraid "it is only genuine for those who need it to be" is rather nearer the mark.

thus, I say, try not to write in that authoritative and magisterial manner on matters that are completely over your head again, at least keep them as far as 'christians' are concerned and don't speak on behalf of the Muslim scholars!

Is that really the best you can do? :D I wasn't talking about "the Muslim scholars" by the way, I was talking about scholars in the field who happen to be muslim but don't let the fact compromise their academic judgement. Not the same thing at all. The only serious academic debate is whether the Italian or Spanish version came first.

p.s: I truly am not in the mood for you today...

Oh, dear. Well, just ignore me, then. :)

[جوري]

^^ ignoring you is a good idea..

here is the truth about the gospel for those interested, and there is a consensus among scholars and historians with academic integrity, that the church only kept with its old tricks of burning books that don't agree with its Grecian fairy tales...

Barnabas was a highly decorated missionary in the Sect of the
Nazarenes, and he had been appointed by the Elders in Jerusalem to head a branch of the Movement in Antioch. Since he was an old good friend of Paul's, he went to Tarsus looking for Paul to come over to Antioch to help Barnabas with the job in the Nazarene Synagogue of Antioch. This was about 30 years after Jesus' death. After a year only in Antioch
the disciples started being called Christians because Paul was preaching that Jesus was Christ, had resurrected and would return. (Acts 11:26) Barnabas, in spite of his friendship with Paul did
not agree with Paul's gospel. Therefore, Barnabas wrote also
a gospel about the real Jesus of Nazareth without all the Pauline paraphernalia about Jesus. So, in 325 of our common era, at the Council of Nicene banned the Gospel of Barnabas

and here is an interesting read though I have only skimmed through it..

http://books.google.com/books?id=CrD...CqOdtQ#PPP1,M1


:w:

[جوري]

Another site

http://barnabas.net/

The Gospel of Barnabas was accepted as a Canonical Gospel in the Churches of Alexandria till 325 C.E. In 325 C.E., the Nicene Council was held, where it was ordered that all original Gospels in Hebrew script should be destroyed. An Edict was issued that any one in possession of these Gospels will be put to death. The article, How the Gospel Survived, gives a brief narrative on the text's survival.

An Islamic perspective and commentary are added to some chapters of the Gospel. The commentary highlights any differences or commonalities which exist between the Gospel and the primary Islamic texts, especially the Holy Quran.

It should be noted that while presenting the Gospel, chapter headings have been added by us and are not part of the Gospel's text.

[AvarAllahNoor]

Another site

http://barnabas.net/

This seems like a good read, shall read it after. Had no idea of a Gospel of Barnabas. :statisfie

[Fishman]

:sl:
Shouldn't we concentrate more on proving Islam is the best rather than proving Christianity is wrong? A car company makes millions, but never puts down another company by name...

PS: AvarAllahNoor, you ruined my conquests!! :D
:w:

[AvarAllahNoor]

Good analogy there dude. But it's good to debate isn't it. Passes the time for some folk...(me inc)

[AvarAllahNoor]

PS: AvarAllahNoor, you ruined my conquests!! :D
:w:

Don't you mean crusade....? :p

[Fishman]

Good analogy there dude. But it's good to debate isn't it. Passes the time for some folk...(me inc)

:sl:
Yup, it certainly does. But for Muslims it is certainly clear that Jesus (pbuh) prophisesed Muhammad (Peace be upon him), even though it does not say this in the Bible itself. So for a Muslim this debating is rather pointless, as if the Bible does not mention Muhammad (peace be upon him) then nothing is lost.

PS: I completed my conquests!

:w:

[AvarAllahNoor]

Ah I get ya! - Here, have biscuit....

[Trumble]

Another site

http://barnabas.net/

Site sponsored by the Sabr Foundation, a "Not-for-profit educational and religious foundation offering information on the Islamic faith." Right. At least try and play.

The site presents a wonderful piece of fiction under the title "how the Gospel of Barnabas survived" (taken from a book published by 'The Quran Council of Pakistan') as an attempt to explain the incredibly inconvenient fact that the earliest known copy of the 'Gospel of Barnabas' we have dates from the 16th century. It is a total fairy story, unreferenced and academically unsupportable. There may even have been a 'Gospel of Barnabus' of some description but there absolutely no evidence that it has survived and much that what is today presented as a book of that name was actually written 1500 years or so later.

The reason the Gospel of Barnabus has been jumped on by some muslims is that is content happens to be rather more in tune with the Qur'an than the canonical gospels. Hardly surprising as it is quite possible it was muslims who forged it. It is totally incorrect to to suggest that the "consensus among scholars and historians with academic integrity" is that the document is genuine. It is not. I know it, you know it, so I can only assume you are, for reasons best known to yourself, trying to fool the more gullible among other posters.

Or maybe just yourself. Think about it. You are quite happy, seemingly, to believe that there was an original Gospel of Barnabas that survived for 1200 years (presumably via some or all of Aramaic, Greek, Coptic, Latin, Arabic, Italian and Spanish) effectively unaltered from an original which may never have existed anyway. According to you, the NT on the other hand, was hopelessly distorted from the moment one word of the Aramaic version (which probably never existed in the first place) was transliterated in Koine Greek! One says what you want, the other doesn't; any actual evidence is an irrelevance.

I'll let anyone else interested research the matter themselves and judge the reliability of the sources they find, so just one link; http://www.google.co.uk/.

[Whatsthepoint]

What does the Quran say about the reasons Jesus was sentenced to death?

[ummsara1108]

We all know that the trinity is always explained as an EGG (yolk, whites, shell without all three the egg doesn't exist,

well god isn't a yolk or the whites neither the shell,

God is unique which means NONE OTHER LIKE HIM

why is that so confusing?

[Whatsthepoint]

The one biblical passage where Jesus is supposed to have told his disciples to 'Go and preach unto all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.' (Matthew 28:19), commonly quoted to prove the Gentile mission as well as the Trinity, is not found in any pre-sixteenth century manuscript and is thus considered 'a pious fraud'.

Wikipedia article on Codex Fuldensis

The Codex Fuldensis is a manuscript based on the Latin Vulgate made between 541 and 546. It contains the 27 canonical books of the New Testament, the Epistle to the Laodiceans, and a copy of Jerome's Prologue to the Canonical Gospels. The gospels are in the form of Tatian's Diatessaron.

Gospel of Matthew from the Codex Fuldensis (pdf)

[Whatsthepoint]

We all know that the trinity is always explained as an EGG (yolk, whites, shell without all three the egg doesn't exist,

You can picture it as a triangle, composed of three equally sized triangles. When one is gone the remaining two still form a triangle, different in shape and size though...

[جوري]

Wikipedia article on Codex Fuldensis

Gospel of Matthew from the Codex Fuldensis (pdf)

I am sorry what should this mean to me?
I have probably one of the oldest bibles here in Arabic/Aramaic, and the passage is indeed missing from it..
other than that, I don't use wiki for reliable info.. it is very contracted to begin with, and I am not sure what to make of it...

cheers

[m102313]

I must admit that I have wondered about this too.

The general message by Muslims seems to be that the Bible has been corrupted and that therefore its message cannot be trusted ... yet that doesn't seem to stop many Muslims from using Bible quotes which apparently support the 'Muslim argument'.

Seems to me that either something is trustworthy, or it isn't ... you can't pick and choose and have it both ways ... :?

We Muslims do not believe that the whole bible is corrupted, some parts may be and some parts may not be.

[جوري]

Site .uk/[/URL].

Forgery is more in concert with Christian practice than Islamic one.. the bible is its own testimony of how far the extent, and I have already listed tons of errors that they can't reconcile from one book to the next.. we are quite content with our religion and don't need to resort to lowely games the likes which the church has gauged for centuries. Anyone with keen intellect and reason will arrive to the same conclusion..
seeing as your attempts are just as pathetic as the church's I'll leave it to discerning minds to evaluate for themselves..

cheers

[Whatsthepoint]

I am sorry what should this mean to me?
I have probably one of the oldest bibles here in Arabic/Aramaic, and the passage is indeed missing from it..
other than that, I don't use wiki for reliable info.. it is very contracted to begin with, and I am not sure what to make of it...

cheers

Any Arabic Bible would have to be much older than the Codex Fuldensis. I guess the Aramic translation would be younger but that does not change the fact that the passage can be found in a 5th century manuscript.

[Whatsthepoint]

What does the Quran say about the reasons Jesus was sentenced to death?

Anyone?

[جوري]

Any Arabic Bible would have to be much older than the Codex Fuldensis. I guess the Aramic translation would be younger but that does not change the fact that the passage can be found in a 5th century manuscript.

This is actually what it says

Matt 28:19-20
8. In Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew, the "Great Commission" becomes: "Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever." No mention is made of "making disciples of all nations," nor does Jesus promise to be "with you always, even unto the end of the world."

this was taken from

http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol03/Petersen1998a.html

not an Islamic website, as others like to use for a psychological crutch!

unless you have the actual original manuscript from that bible for us to browse, it will remain what it is a 'pious fraud'


cheers

[جوري]

Anyone?

Jesus didn't die, he has risen, to come back at the end tofulfill the prophecies and die like all men do!


peace

[Whatsthepoint]

You said the passage first appeared in the 16th century mansucript. I provided a 5th century manuscript containing the passage, if you want, you can ave more.

I'm not saying the passage is not a fraud, I'm just saying it is much older than you said it was.

[Whatsthepoint]

Jesus didn't die, he has risen, to come back at the end tofulfill the prophecies and die like all men do!


peace

I asked what do you believe was the reason he was sentenced. Do you even believe he was sentenced to death (by crucifiction)? I heard you believe Allah took him of the cross and replaced him with another man.

[جوري]

You said the passage first appeared in the 16th century mansucript. I provided a 5th century manuscript containing the passage, if you want, you can ave more.

I'm not saying the passage is not a fraud, I'm just saying it is much older than you said it was.

And I have just shown you what it actually says, the version you have is printed and circulated when? Again, unless you have the original 5th century version for us to verify that there are no scribal 'additions' or errors, it will remain what it is.. Also makes perfect sense since Gutenberg made his first printing press in 1450.. I am pretty sure the PDF copy you have on line isn't the 'original' --

peace

[جوري]

I asked what do you believe was the reason he was sentenced. Do you even believe he was sentenced to death (by crucifiction)? I heard you believe Allah took him of the cross and replaced him with another man.

Some believe it was Judas who was in his stead, some believe it was a pious man who resembled him.. I don't know...

he was sentenced because, they simply didn't like what he had to say..
I refrence you to the Quran

وَلَقَدْ آتَيْنَا مُوسَى الْكِتَابَ وَقَفَّيْنَا مِن بَعْدِهِ بِالرُّسُلِ وَآتَيْنَا عِيسَى ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ الْبَيِّنَاتِ وَأَيَّدْنَاهُ بِرُوحِ الْقُدُسِ أَفَكُلَّمَا جَاءكُمْ رَسُولٌ بِمَا لاَ تَهْوَى أَنفُسُكُمُ اسْتَكْبَرْتُمْ فَفَرِيقاً كَذَّبْتُمْ وَفَرِيقاً تَقْتُلُونَ {87}

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

the folks back then had a history of being refractory, although it doesn't differ much from what they are today..

peace

[Whatsthepoint]

And I have just shown you what it actually says, the version you have is printed and circulated when? Again, unless you have the original 5th century version for us to verify that there are no scribal 'additions' or errors, it will remain what it is.. Also makes perfect sense since Gutenberg made his first printing press in 1450.. I am pretty sure the PDF copy you have on line isn't the 'original' --

peace

Here's one:
http://alpha.reltech.org/cgi-bin/Ebi...MSS/U5?seq=201
if the site asks you for a username/password just type "any" in bothe fields.

[Whatsthepoint]

And I have just shown you what it actually says

No, you haven't. You have shown an option of what it says, nothing more.
Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew was written in the middle ages, by a Jew (which would explain the lack of preach-to-the-gentiles passage). Most Bible scholars agree taht it is a translation of greek or latin texts, however some do say it may have been a re-write of early hebrew texts, hence you may be right.

[جوري]

Here's one:
http://alpha.reltech.org/cgi-bin/Ebi...MSS/U5?seq=201
if the site asks you for a username/password just type "any" in bothe fields.

I am not seeing anything? what is this? and I have indeed typed 'any' in both fields..

Authorization Required
This server could not verify that you are authorized to access the document requested. Either you supplied the wrong credentials (e.g., bad password), or your browser doesn't understand how to supply the credentials required.

I just saw a great effort between Russia/Egypt and England to have on display a few known excerpts from a 5th century bible the oldest in circulation... this wouldn't by chance be it? because that would be a gem, even more so if this were the passage that survived..

cheers

[Whatsthepoint]

I am not seeing anything? what is this? and I have indeed typed 'any' in both fields..

Try this:
http://alpha.reltech.org/cgi-bin/Ebind2html/BibleMSS/U5

I just saw a great effort between Russia/Egypt and England to have on display a few known excerpts from a 5th century bible the oldest in circulation... this wouldn't by chance be it? because that would be a gem, even more so if this were the passage that survived..

This one is from the 6th century.

[Whatsthepoint]

he was sentenced because, they simply didn't like what he had to say..
the folks back then had a history of being refractory, although it doesn't differ much from what they are today..
peace

Hmmm, let's say Jesus did preach the Islamic faith. It is monotheistic, it's morals are very similar to those of the Jews, the faith as a whole is quite similar to Judaism.
I don't think the Jews would have wanted to kill a person preaching Islam. There's nothing really blasphemous in it, from a jewish standpoint, whereas claims about God having a son, the very son being god etc etc, are.

[Keltoi]

Hmmm, let's say Jesus did preach the Islamic faith. It is monotheistic, it's morals are very similar to those of the Jews, the faith as a whole is quite similar to Judaism.
I don't think the Jews would have wanted to kill a person preaching Islam. There's nothing really blasphemous in it, from a jewish standpoint, whereas claims about God having a son, the very son being god etc etc, are.

Which is actually recorded in the Gospel accounts. "For you a mere man claim to be God". That was their reasoning for His crucifixion.

[جوري]

No, you haven't. You have shown an option of what it says, nothing more.
Shem Tov's Hebrew Matthew was written in the middle ages, by a Jew (which would explain the lack of preach-to-the-gentiles passage). Most Bible scholars agree taht it is a translation of greek or latin texts, however some do say it may have been a re-write of early hebrew texts, hence you may be right.

The amazing thing is that every version is existence is wrong so long as it doesn't agree with main-stream Evangelists who can't even seem to agree with the rest of the denominations, please tell me how many bibles are in cirulations and why there is a bazillion denomination if God's supereme word is 'unchanged'? you don't have two bibles that echo the same sentiment, yet some members here who propound the idea that all the other bibles are correct except for the one that puts all the rest to shame as the fraud.. please man give me a break!
The Amish
The Brethren
Catholic Church (Roman Catholic)
Children of God
Christadelphians
Christian Science
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons)
Community of Christ: Formerly the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints:
Eastern Orthodox churches
The Family (David Berg), (a.k.a. Family of Love)
Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Polygynists in Bountiful, British Columbia, Canada

The "Garbage Eaters": common derogatory name for The Brethren
Gnosticism
Jehovah's Witnesses
LDS Restorationists: a group of denominations who link their history to Joseph Smith's church
Messianic Judaism & "Jews for Jesus"
Mormons (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)
Orthodox churches
The Process
Progressive Christianity
Quakers (Society of Friends)
Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: Now called the Community of Christ
Roman Catholic Church
Seventh-Day Adventist Church
Society of Friends (Quakers)
Two by Twos ("The Jesus Way", "The Church with no Name", etc)
Unification Church
Unitarian-Universalism (About 10% of UU members consider themselves to be Christian)
United Pentecostal Church International
Unity Church in Canada
Unity School of Christianity
Urantia Book
Worldwide Church of God

bible versions
NASB
KJII
KJ21
KJ2000
LITV
MKJV
TMB
RSV
NRSV
NKJV

Moderately literal

NAB
NIV
NET
ISV
NJB
REB

Moderately idiomatic

NLT
GW

Idiomatic (highly meaning-based)

NCV
CEV
TM

to name a few.. but the Barnbas epistle is the fraud and indeed Jesus' the man God was sent to all of man-kind..

each is to his own..

peace

[Whatsthepoint]

To Purest's long post:

I don't think the Bible is the word of God, the number of denominations being one of the reasons.
I don't think the Quran is the word of God.
I don't think the Bible ever had an Islamic message.
I don't think Jesus preached Islam.
I don't think the Bible was changed to an extent muslims believe.
IMHO Jesus wanted his disciples to evangelize all nations.

This is an Islamic forum, so I try to argue with muslims not Chrstians.

[Whatsthepoint]

Did you manage to see the manuscript, Purest?

[جوري]

To Purest's long post:

I don't think the Bible is the word of God, the number of denominations being one of the reasons.

true dat!

I don't think the Quran is the word of God.

prove it!

I don't think the Bible ever had an Islamic message.

Not the bible indeed, but the injeel!

I don't think Jesus preached Islam.

prove it

I don't think the Bible was changed to an extent muslims believe.

Prove it

IMHO Jesus wanted his disciples to evangelize all nations.

prove it

This is an Islamic forum, so I try to argue with muslims not Chrstians.

true dat...

each man is held in pledge of his own deeds and beliefs... whatever logical conclusions you've reached on your own terms is probably what makes you, you..
and like wise, others the same courtesy..

I'll simply quote this verse from the Quran as a good closure to this topic

(57) an act of thy Sustainer’s favour: [I.e., by His having offered them guidance, of which they availed themselves: thus, the attainment of ultimate felicity is the result of an interaction between God and man, and of man’s communion with Him.] and that, that will be the triumph supreme! (58) THUS, THEN, [O Prophet,] have We made this [divine writ] easy to understand, in thine own [human] tongue, so that men might take it to heart.

[See note on 19: 97.] (59) So wait thou [for what the future will bring]: behold, they, too, are waiting. [I.e., whether they know it or not, God’s will shall be done.]

the end from suret ad-dukhan 44

peace

[Whatsthepoint]

http://www.itsee.bham.ac.uk/vetuslatina/GospelMss.htm

If you're interested, there's plenty of old, pre-16th-century latin manuscripts of the gospels, no passwords needed.

[جوري]

http://www.itsee.bham.ac.uk/vetuslatina/GospelMss.htm

If you're interested, there's plenty of old, pre-16th-century latin manuscripts of the gospels, no passwords needed.

very nice.. thank you I do appreciate that..

peace

[Whatsthepoint]

prove it

Prove it

prove it

the burden of proof is on the person making a positive assertion

I don't think you can prove your claims, and I don't think anyone can prove their negations.
There's evidence and arguments on both sides, however I am more fond of the christian ones. They make more sense.

[جوري]

I don't think you can prove your claims, and I don't think anyone can prove their negations.
There's evidence and arguments on both sides, however I am more fond of the christian ones. They make more sense.

indeed, hence I closed with the Quran-- 'wait, for they too are in waiting'..
you might not realize the significance or implication of that right now.. but one day...

peace

[InToTheRain]

http://www.islam.tc/prophecies/jesus.html

^ You can find verses here also which talk about the coming of Mohammad(SAW), the Islamic perspective of Jesus(AS) and also the 2nd coming of Jesus(AS) when he will fulfill many of the tasks he couldn't before.

It also talks of the Dajjal AKA anti-christ. The Christians and Jews especially will fall for him as they both expect a prophet to come soon. Dajjal will claim to be a prophet and later claim to be a God. He is a liar, a fraud and the greatest tribulation upon mankind.

[Grace Seeker]

Muslims believe the Original bible of Barnbas, (Barnbas) being an actual companion of christ to be the most correct version.. With christianity as it should be. Jesus never wanted christianity for man kind he was merely sent to his people (jews)
'I have not been sent except to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.' (Matthew 15:24)[1]1]. Hence every one of the famous twelve disciples of Jesus was an Israelite Jew. The one biblical passage where Jesus is supposed to have told his disciples to 'Go and preach unto all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.' (Matthew 28:19), commonly quoted to prove the Gentile mission as well as the Trinity, is not found in any pre-sixteenth century manuscript and is thus considered 'a pious fraud'.
whereas prophet Mohammed SAS was sent to all of man-kind!
anyhow I have extracted these from another forum, as I am not in the mood for a long winded debate and believe both are exquisite and do a fine job

cheers

Purest, I believe we have a good relationship, so I hope you understand it isn't personal but simply a question of scholarship when I say that I have to take exception with some of what you have presented as facts here.

First, I don't have any idea what original Bible of Barnabas you are talking about. Perhaps you are referring to the Epistle of Barnabas, an early document (probably early second century), probably not written by the Barnabas mentioned in scripture, but still a respected letter circulated among the early church and accepted by a few as worthy of inclusion in the New Testament canon? Perhaps you are referring to the supposed Gospel of Barnabas? According to western scholarship, it is a fourteenth-century forgery, extant now only in Spanish and Italian manuscripts, though I will admit that even among scholars there is disagreement as to whether or not some some of the material contained in the book is older. Still, there is no support for it being old enough to have been considered the authentic work of any 1st century Jew. It is very interesting that a first century book, in telling the story of Adam would basically have Adam say that "Muhammad is Messenger ;of God." That alone makes it sound like a book written much later in time. And while there are many heretical books that have surviced from the first couple of centuries of the early church, why is this one the only one to even mention Muhammad's name if it was known to such a key figure as the genuine Barnabas and threrefore assumedly taught by all of the first generation of Apostles? For me, a much more rational answer is that this book simply was written later, after the time of Muhammad.

Second, I also am surprised that you think it is correct in any way, for some of the things that it teaches are very much contrary to not just to what I think is true of Christianity, but what Muslims say is supposed to have been the original teachings of Christ. For instance, this supposed Gospel, puts in the mouth of Jesus the following declaration: "I am not the Messiah." Do you really think that is correct? This supposed Gospel also affirms that God is to be known as "the Father". I know you don't think that is correct? In fact, there is a lot of this document this is incorrect by both Muslim and Christian understanding. I personally think that whole thing is a fraud.


Third you asserted: "Jesus never wanted christianity for man kind he was merely sent to his people (jews)." And while I agree that Jesus himself was sent to the Jews, that does not mean that it substantiates the other half of your statement -- that Jesus never wanted Christianity for mankind. In fact, not is there the biblical passage you recognized where Jesus sent his disciples to "Go and preach unto all nations" (Matthew 28:19), but there is also Acts 1:8 in which Jesus told his disciples "you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

I don't know where you get your information that Matthew 28:19 is not found in any pre-16th century manuscripts. But according to the Greek New Testament I have in my hand, that passage is found in both the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts which date to the 4th century. There are no textual variants cited for that particular portion of it either. And it is quoted by Chysostom who lived from 347 to 407. And the passage from Acts is also found in these 4th century codexes. These documents are even now in the process of being photographed for wide distribution on the web.

That, by the way, doesn't mean that the author of Matthew or some copyist between the time of the Gospel's writing and the production of these codexes couldn't have themselves inserted the Trinitarian formula and put it on Jesus' lips even if Jesus never said such a thing. But here are two early sources not one that have Jesus sending his disciples out to all men. And the second of them has nothing to do with promoting some theological construct.

Later you quote another source with the following statement:

a gospel about the real Jesus of Nazareth without all the Pauline paraphernalia about Jesus. So, in 325 of our common era, at the Council of Nicene banned the Gospel of Barnabas

I fear that your source has confused the supposed Gospel of Barnabas with the Epistle of Barnabas. As I said above, for a time some thought that the Epistle of Barnabas should have been included as part of the New Testament canon. Indeed it is actually a part of the Codex Sinaiticus that I mention above. But by the time of the Council of Nicea it was not generally thought of this way, and the existing canon was affirmed by the council. Nonetheless this Epistle and another called the Shepherd of Hermas both were part of some copies made after Nicea. However, the supposed Gospel of Barnabas was not even known of by the Council, so they couldn't very well ban it.

The Islamic website http://barnabas.net/ (I call it Islamic because it says this it is "brought to by the Sabr Foundation") claims that this Gospel of Barnabas was quoted by "Iranaeus". I assume they meant Irenaeus, but their carelessness with regard to the spelling of such an influential church leader and one who would be key for their case leaves me questioning whether they have the rest of their facts straight, especially as I have seen nothing in Irenaeus that would lead me to that conclusion. The only things in Irenaeus that are also in the Gospel of Barnabas are passages that the Gospel of Barnabas shares in common with the genuine Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John -- at least not that I have picked up on. If they would care to cite what they claim are said quotations I and others would, I am sure, be glad to examine them. But they only make the assertion without giving any actual examples. Now I can understand that for a brief summary page online, but there is also no link to other references which would be nice for a claim of that nature.

I really don't mind your critique of Matthew for the Trinitarian formulary is in some sense just a little too convenient. But if that is true for Matthew, and it's authenticity is cast in doubt for such reasons, what hope can there be for the integrity of the supposed Gospel of Barnabas? It is as if was written by someone trying to integrate Islam and Christianity into one teaching. Yet if this were so, how is it the only such available? And how is it that not even one such as Arius refers to Muhammad or the teachings found in this work in his arguments with Athanasius? I believe it stretches creduality to believe it to be anything other than a medieval creation.

You say:

there is a consensus among scholars and historians with academic integrity, that the church only kept with its old tricks of burning books that don't agree with its Grecian fairy tales...

Yes it did do that at times. Don't Muslims burn any imperfect copy of the Qur'an? The principle is the same. That which is believed to be true is kept; that which is believe to be imperfect is burned to keep from being in circulation. However, obviously the Church didn't do a very good or consistent job of burning as there are many surviving documents aside from the canonical ones.


Finally, you have said before that you have an old Aramaic/Arabic Bible. I'm guessing you mean a copy, not the original manuscript. But can you tell me how old is the manuscript that it is based on. From my information, the earliest syriac versions of the Bible were translation from Greek to syriac (some call this Aramaic) in the fourth through seventh centuries. Then there are those like this group -- Syriac Orthodox Resources which suggest it might have been earlier, but still speak of it as a translation from Greek to Aramaic. I know that some like to cite the Peshi-tta and the Peshi-tto as having been originally written in Aramaic and not Greek. But looking them up online, every translation I found had the line about "going to all nations" in it. So I am curious as to the manuscript's name and its dating for the Bible you are referring to.

[Yerpon]

... some of the things that it teaches are very much contrary to not just to what I think is true of Christianity, but what Muslims say is supposed to have been the original teachings of Christ. For instance, this supposed Gospel, puts in the mouth of Jesus the following declaration: "I am not the Messiah." Do you really think that is correct?

That is true. Jesus (may peace be upon him) was not a Messiah at that time. In Gospel, Jesus (may peace be upon him) was considered a prophet of God for Israelites, and Muhammad (may peace be upon him) was considered a Messiah in the future. When Jesus (may peace be upon him) will descend, he will then be a Messiah and a Muslim.

This supposed Gospel also affirms that God is to be known as "the Father". I know you don't think that is correct?

God loves us more than a father or a mother. I think that is correct too.

[chosen]

wow.....firstly the "gospel of Barnabas has already been proven to be fake"..if you read it..and I mean really read it and study it, you will find the geographic referneces in it to be impossible..saying one city is west of another when it is in fact east...saying one travel in one direction to the sea when he would have had to travel the opposite direction...I could go and google it..but quite frankly so can everyone else here and well, I have a headache (smile)....so please feel free to do research on your own...secondly Jesus was crucified because the jews at the time thought he was blasphmous..(lord knows I didnt spell that right!!!)....He claimed to be god..which is mention quite a few times..this is the reason he was killed.....make a deal..I wont make believe I know more about the quran than muslims..if they promise not to make believe they know more about the bible..peace

[جوري]

Purest, I believe we have a good relationship, so I hope you understand it isn't personal but simply a question of scholarship when I say that I have to take exception with some of what you have presented as facts here.

to.

Indeed we do, and I'll take advantage of this kinship and respect that we have, to say, I am not ignoring your post, but I am in my entirety and with the witness of God,completely under the weather, so I hope you'll forgive that I'll have to postpond a thoughtful reply to such a time when I am out of convalescence..

thank you

Peace

[جوري]

First, I don't have any idea what original Bible of Barnabas you are talking about. Perhaps you are referring to the Epistle of Barnabas, an early document (probably early second century), probably not written by the Barnabas mentioned in scripture, but still a respected letter circulated among the early church and accepted by a few as worthy of inclusion in the New Testament canon? Perhaps you are referring to the supposed Gospel of Barnabas? According to western scholarship, it is a fourteenth-century forgery, extant now only in Spanish and Italian manuscripts, though I will admit that even among scholars there is disagreement as to whether or not some some of the material contained in the book is older. Still, there is no support for it being old enough to have been considered the authentic work of any 1st century Jew. It is very interesting that a first century book, in telling the story of Adam would basically have Adam say that "Muhammad is Messenger ;of God." That alone makes it sound like a book written much later in time. And while there are many heretical books that have surviced from the first couple of centuries of the early church, why is this one the only one to even mention Muhammad's name if it was known to such a key figure as the genuine Barnabas and threrefore assumedly taught by all of the first generation of Apostles? For me, a much more rational answer is that this book simply was written later, after the time of Muhammad.

The word Muhammad and Muslim, have been mentioned in previous scriptures by name, let me bring your attention to
Song of Solomon 5:16

"HIKKOMAMITTAQIM VIKULLO MAHAMADDIM ZEHDUDIVEZEH RAAI BENUTS YARUSHALAM."

and we have dedicated an entire thread to
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...uran-only.html

so frankly, I see a non point to dismiss that bible on the account it mentions something that christians don't want to see in there for reasons obvious!

Second, I also am surprised that you think it is correct in any way, for some of the things that it teaches are very much contrary to not just to what I think is true of Christianity, but what Muslims say is supposed to have been the original teachings of Christ. For instance, this supposed Gospel, puts in the mouth of Jesus the following declaration: "I am not the Messiah." Do you really think that is correct? This supposed Gospel also affirms that God is to be known as "the Father". I know you don't think that is correct? In fact, there is a lot of this document this is incorrect by both Muslim and Christian understanding. I personally think that whole thing is a fraud.

The original bible of barnbas that I have here, says no such thing, the copy I have is in Arabic, I saw no such thing in there! I'll upload a picture of the book at some point!

Third you asserted: "Jesus never wanted christianity for man kind he was merely sent to his people (jews)." And while I agree that Jesus himself was sent to the Jews, that does not mean that it substantiates the other half of your statement -- that Jesus never wanted Christianity for mankind. In fact, not is there the biblical passage you recognized where Jesus sent his disciples to "Go and preach unto all nations" (Matthew 28:19), but there is also Acts 1:8 in which Jesus told his disciples "you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

It seems you have many bibles out there with opposing views, one which I have included on just the previous page. But I actually agree with that passage somewhat, I believe it has to do with his second return..

The Qur'an explicitly declares the return of Jesus (pbuh) to earth. Many verses contain explicit statements regarding this matter. The proofs revealed in the Qur'an take this form:

When Allah said, "'Isa, I will take you back and raise you up to Me and purify you of those who are disbelievers. And I will place the people who follow you above those who are disbelievers until the Day of Rising. Then you will all return to Me, and I will judge between you regarding the things about which you differed. (The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 3, Verse 55)




The statement in the verse, "And I will place the people who follow you above those who are disbelievers until the Day of Rising" is important. Here, there is reference to a group strictly adhering to Jesus (pbuh) and who will be kept above the disbelievers until the Day of Judgement. Well, who are these adherents, then? Are they the disciples who lived in the time of Jesus or are they the Christians of today?

Before he was raised up to Allah, the followers of Jesus (pbuh) were few. After his ascension, the essence of the religion degenerated rapidly. Furthermore, the people known as the disciples faced serious pressure throughout their lives. During the succeeding two centuries, having no political power, those Christians having faith in Jesus (pbuh) were also oppressed. In this case, it is not possible to say that early Christians or their successors during these periods were physically superior to the disbelievers in the world. We might logically think that this verse does not refer to them.

When we look at the Christians of today, on the other hand, we notice that the essence of Christianity has changed a lot and it is quite different from what Jesus (pbuh) originally brought to mankind. Christians embraced the perverted belief that suggests that Jesus (pbuh) is the son of God and similarly held the doctrine of the trinity (The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit). In this case, it is flawed to accept the Christians of today as the adherents of Jesus (pbuh). In many verses of the Qur'an Allah states that those having faith in the trinity certainly are disbelievers:

Those who say that the Messiah, son of Maryam, is the third of three are disbelievers. There is no god but One God. (The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 5, Verse 73)
In this case, the commentary of the statement, "And I will place the people who follow you above those who are disbelievers until the Day of Rising" is as follows: first, it is said that these people are the Muslims who are the only true followers of the authentic teachings of Jesus (pbuh); second, it is said that these people are the Christians, whether or not they hold idolatrous beliefs, and that could be seen to be confirmed by the dominant position that nominal Christians hold on the earth today. However, both positions will be unified by the arrival of Jesus (pbuh), since he will abolish the jizyah, meaning that he will not accept that Christians and Jews live with any other religion than Islam, and so will unite all the believers as Muslims.

The Prophet and last Messenger of Allah (pbuh), has also given the glad tidings of the return of Jesus (pbuh). The scholars of hadith (reports and traditions on the sayings and doings of the Prophet Muhammad) say that the hadiths on this subject, in which Allah's Messenger (pbuh) said that the Prophet Jesus (pbuh) will descend amongst people as a leader before the Day of Judgement have reached the status of mutawatir. That means that they have been narrated by so many people from each generation from such a large group of the Companions that there can be no possible doubt of their authenticity. For example:

Abu Hurairah (ra) narrated that Allah's Messenger, peace be upon him, said, "By the One in Whose hand is my self, definitely the son of Maryam will soon descend among you as a just judge, and he will break the cross, kill the pig and abolish the jizyah, and wealth will be so abundant that no one will accept it, until a single prostration will be better than the world and everything in it. (Sahih al-Bukhari)

Jabir ibn 'Abdullah said, "I heard the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, saying, 'A party of my ummah will never stop fighting for the truth victoriously until the Day of Rising.' He said, 'Then 'Isa ibn Maryam, peace be upon him, will descend and their amir will say, "Come and lead us in prayer," but he will say, "No! some of you are amirs over others," as Allah's showing honour to this ummah.'" (Sahih Muslim)

Abu Hurairah (ra) narrated, "The Prophet, peace be upon him, said: 'There is no prophet between me and him, that is, 'Isa, peace be upon him. He will descend (to the earth). When you see him, recognise him: a man of medium height, reddish fair, wearing two light yellow garments, looking as if drops were falling down from his head though it will not be wet. He will fight the people for the cause of Islam. He will break the cross, kill the pig, and abolish the jizyah. Allah will cause to perish all religions except Islam. He will destroy the Dajjal and will live on the earth for forty years and then he will die. The Muslims will pray over him.'" (Abu Dawud)

(2)
Earlier in this section, we analysed verses 157-158 of The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 4. Just after these verses Allah states the following in The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 4, Verse 159: There is not one of the People of the Book who will not believe in him before he dies; and on the Day of Rising he will be a witness against them. (The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 4, Verse: 159)

The statement above "who will not believe in him before he dies" is important. The Arabic text of this sentence reads: Wa-in min ahli'l-kitabi illa la yuminanna bihi qabla mawtihi.
Some scholars stated that the "him/it" in this verse is used for the Qur'an and thus made the following interpretation: There will be no one from the people of the Book who will not have faith in the Qur'an before he (a person from the people of the Book) dies.
Nevertheless, in verses 157 and 158, which are the two verses preceding this verse, the same "him" is undoubtedly used for Jesus (pbuh). The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 4, Verse 157:

And (on account of) their saying, "We killed the Messiah, 'Isa son of Maryam, Messenger of Allah." They did not kill him and they did not crucify him but it was made to seem so to them. Those who argue about him are in doubt about it. They have no real knowledge of it, just conjecture. But they certainly did not kill him. The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 4, Verse 158: Allah raised him up to Himself. Allah is Almighty, All-Wise.

Just after these verses in The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 4, Verse 159, there is no evidence indicating that "him" is used to imply someone other than Jesus (pbuh). The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 4, Verse 159: There is not one of the People of the Book who will not believe in him before he dies; and on the Day of Rising he will be a witness against them.

In the Qur'an, Allah informs us that on the Day of Judgement, the "tongues and hands and feet will testify against them about what they were doing" (The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 24, Verse 24 and The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 36, Verse 65). From The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 41, Verses 20-23, we learn that "hearing, sight and skin will testify against us." In none of the verses however, is there reference to "the Qur'an as a witness". If we accept that the "him" or "it" in the first sentence refers to the Qur'an – though grammatically or logically we have no evidence whatsoever – then we should also accept that the "he" in the second statement also refers to the Qur'an. To accept this however, there should be an explicit verse confirming this view. However, the commentator Ibn Juzayy does not mention the possibility of the Qur'an being the "him" referred to, and Ibn Juzayy transmitted the views of all the major commentators in his work.

When we refer to the Qur'an, we see that when the same personal pronoun is used for the Qur'an, there is generally mention of the Qur'an before and after that specific verse as in the cases of The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 27, Verse 77 and The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 42, Verse 192-196. The verse straightforwardly defines that People of the Book will have faith in Jesus (pbuh) and that he (Jesus (pbuh)) will be a witness against them. The second point is about the interpretation of the expression "before he dies." Some think this is "having faith in Jesus (pbuh) before their own death." According to this interpretation everyone from the people of the Book will definitely believe in Jesus (pbuh) before he/she faces their own death. In Jesus' time however, Jews who are defined as the people of the Book not only did not have faith in Jesus but also attempted to kill him. On the other hand, it would be unreasonable to say that Jews and Christians who lived and died after the time of Jesus had faith – the type of faith described in the Qur'an – in him.

To conclude, when we make a careful evaluation of the verse, we arrive at the following conclusion: Before Jesus' (pbuh) death, all the People of the Book will have faith in him. (Tafsir of Omer Nasuhi Bilmen) In its real sense, the verse reveals plain facts, which are:

Firstly, it is evident that the verse refers to the future because there is mention of the death of Jesus (pbuh). Yet, Jesus (pbuh) did not die but was raised up to the presence of Allah. Jesus (pbuh) will come to earth again, he will live for a specified time and then die. Secondly, all the people of the Book will have faith in him. This is an event which has yet not occurred, but which will definitely happen in the future.

Consequently, by the expression "before he dies", there is a reference to Jesus (pbuh). The People of the Book will see him, know him and obey him while he is alive. Meanwhile, Jesus (pbuh) will bear witness against them on the Last Day. Allah surely knows best.


(3)
That Jesus (pbuh) will come back to earth towards the end of time is related in another verse in The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 43, Verse 61. Starting from The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 43, Verse 57, there is reference to Jesus (pbuh):

When an example is made of the son of Maryam ('Isa) your people laugh uproariously. They retort, "Who is better then, our gods or him?" They only say this to you for argument's sake. They are indeed a disputatious people. He is only a slave on whom We bestowed Our blessing and whom We made an example for the tribe of Israel. If We wished, We could appoint angels in exchange for you to succeed you on the earth. (The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 43, Verses 57-60)

Just after these verses, Allah declares that Jesus (pbuh) is a sign of the Day of Judgement.
He is a Sign of the Hour. Have no doubt about it. But follow me. This is a straight path. (The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 43, Verse 61)

Ibn Juzayy says that the first meaning of this verse is that Jesus (pbuh) is a sign or a precondition of the Last Hour. We can say that this verse is a clear indication that Jesus (pbuh) will come back to earth at the end times. That is because Jesus (pbuh) lived approximately six centuries before the revelation of the Qur'an. Consequently, we cannot interpret his first coming as a sign of the Day of Judgement. What this verse actually indicates is that Jesus (pbuh) will come back to earth towards the end of time, that is to say, during the last period of time before the Day of Judgement and this will be a sign for the Day of Judgement. Allah surely knows the best. The Arabic of the verse "He is a Sign of the Hour" is Innahu la 'ilmun li's-sa'ati… Some people interpret the pronoun hu (he) in this verse as the Qur'an. However, the preceding verses explicitly indicate that Jesus (pbuh) is mentioned in the verse: "He is only a slave on whom We bestowed Our blessing and whom We made an example for the tribe of Israel." (Prof. Suleyman Ates, Yuce Kur'an'in Cagdas Tefsiri (The Contemporary Tafsir of the Holy Qur'an), vol. 6, p. 4281) Those who cite this pronoun as referring to the Qur'an go on to quote the next part of the verse "Have no doubt about it. But follow me" as evidence. However, the verses preceding this one refer totally to Jesus (pbuh). For this reason, it appears that the pronoun hu is linked to those preceding verses and also refers to Jesus (pbuh). In fact, great Islamic scholars declare that to be the case, based on the use of the pronoun both in the Qur'an and in the hadith. Muhammad Hamdi Yazir of Elmali offers the following explanation in his commentary:

The statement in the verse, "He is a sign of the hour" is an indication that the Hour will come and the dead will be resurrected and stand up. Jesus, both with his return to earth and his miracle of resurrecting the dead and also with his prophesying the rise of the dead is a sign of the Hour. It is also reported in the hadith that he is a sign of the Last Day.

In Sahih Muslim, it is also stated that the hadiths in which it is said that the Prophet Jesus (pbuh) will descend amongst people at the end of time have reached the degree of being mutawatir, i.e. narrated by so many people in each generation that it is not possible to have any doubt of their authenticity, and that it is counted as one of the major signs of the Day of Rising. (Sahih Muslim, 2/58)

Hudhayfah ibn Usayd al-Ghifari said, "The Messenger of Allah (pbuh) came to us all of a sudden as we were (busy in a discussion). He said: 'What are you discussing?' We said: 'We are discussing the Last Hour.' Thereupon he said: 'It will not come until you see ten signs before it' – and (in this connection) he made mention of the smoke, the Dajjal, the beast, the rising of the sun from the west, the descent of 'Isa the son of Maryam (pbuh), Yajuj and Majuj, and landslides in three places, one in the east, one in the west and one in Arabia at the end of which fire will burn forth from the Yemen, and drive people to the place of their assembly." (Sahih Muslim)

(4)
Other verses indicating the second coming of the Jesus (pbuh) are the following;

When the angels said, "Maryam, your Lord gives you good news of a Word from Him. His name is the Messiah, 'Isa, son of Maryam of high esteem in this world and the hereafter, and one of those brought near. He will speak to people in the cradle, and also when fully grown, and will be one of the righteous," she said, "My Lord! How can I have a son when no man has ever touched me?" He said, "It will be so. Allah creates whatever He wills. When He decides on something He just says to it, 'Be!' and it is. He will teach him the Book and Wisdom, and the Torah and the Injil…" (The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 3, Verse 45-48)

In the verse, it is heralded that Allah would instruct Jesus (pbuh) about the Injil, the Torah and the "Book." No doubt, this book in question is very important. We come across the same expression in The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 5, Verse 110:

Remember when Allah said: "'Isa, son of Maryam, remember My blessing to you and to your mother when I reinforced you with the Purest Spirit so that you could speak to people in the cradle and when you were fully grown; and when I taught you the Book and Wisdom, and the Torah and the Injil; and when you created a bird-shape out of clay by My permission…"(The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 5, Verse 110)

When we analyse the "Book" in both of the verses, we see that it may indicate the Qur'an. In the verses, it is stated that the Qur'an is the last divine book sent apart from the Torah, the Zabur and the Injil. Besides, in another verse in the Qur'an, next to the Torah and the Injil, the word "Book" is used to indicate the Qur'an.

Allah, there is no god but Him, the Living, the Self-Sustaining. He has sent down the Book to you with truth, confirming what has there before it. And He sent down the Torah and the Injil, previously... (The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 3, Verse 2-3) Other verses in which "book" refers to the Qur'an reads: When a Book does come to them from Allah, confirming what is with them – even though before that they were praying for victory over the unbelievers – yet when what they recognise does come to them, they reject it. Allah's curse is on the unbelievers. (The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 2, Verse 89) For this We sent a Messenger to you from among you to recite Our Signs to you and purify you and teach you the Book and Wisdom and teach you things you did not know before. (The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 2, Verse 151)

In this case, we may well consider that the third book that will be taught to Jesus (pbuh) will be the Qur'an and we could assume that this will be possible only if he comes to earth at the end of time. Jesus (pbuh) lived approximately 600 years before the revelation of the Qur'an. When we look at the hadiths of our Prophet (pbuh), we understand that when the Prophet Jesus (pbuh) comes for the second time, he will command with the Qur'an, not the Injil. This indeed conforms exactly with the meaning in the verse. Surely Allah knows the best. This is also explained in a hadith:

Abu Hurairah (ra) narrated that Allah's Messenger, peace be upon him, said, "By the One in Whose hand is my self, definitely the son of Maryam will soon descend among you as a just judge, and he will break the cross, kill the pig and abolish the jizyah, and wealth will be so abundant that no one will accept it, until a single prostration will be better than the world and everything in it. (Sahih al-Bukhari) The 'ulama (Islamic scholars) say that the meaning in this hadith of his acting as a just judge/ruler is that he will judge by the shari'ah of Islam, i.e. by the judgements in the Book of Allah, the Qur'an, and in the Sunnah of the Last Messenger of Allah, Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. Allah surely knows best.

(5)
Allah tells about the death of Jesus (pbuh) in one verse in The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 19 as follows: ('Isa said,) Peace be upon me the day I was born, and the day I die and the day I am raised up again alive. (The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 19, Verse 33)

When we consider this verse together with The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 3, Verse 55, it indicates a very important truth. In the verse in The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 3, it is stated that Jesus (pbuh) was raised up to the presence of Allah. No information is given in this verse about death or killing. Yet in The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 19, Verse 33 information is given about the day when Jesus (pbuh) will die. That death can only be possible if Jesus (pbuh) dies after returning to and living on earth. Only Allah knows for certain.

(6)
Another piece of evidence about Jesus (pbuh) returning to earth appears in verse 110 in The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 5 and in The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 3, Verse 46 in the form of the word kahlan. The verses say:

Remember when Allah said, " 'Isa, son of Maryam, remember My blessing to you and to your mother when I reinforced you with the Purest Ruh (Spirit) so that you could speak to people in the cradle and when you were fully grown (kahlan)... (The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 5, Verse 110) He will speak to people in the cradle, and also when fully grown (kahlan), and will be one of the righteous. (The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 3, Verse 46)

This word appears only in the above two verses in the Qur'an, and only in reference to Jesus (pbuh). The meaning of the word kahlan used to refer to Jesus' adult state is along the lines of, between 30 and 50 years old, someone who is no longer young, someone who has reached the perfect age. Islamic scholars agree on translating this word as indicating the period after 35 years of age. Based on a hadith reported by Ibn 'Abbas to the effect that Jesus (pbuh) ascended to heaven in his early 30s, at a young age, and will stay another 40 years when he returns, Islamic scholars say that Jesus' old age will be after he returns to earth. (Muhammed Khalil Herras, Fasl al-maqal fi raf'i 'Isa hayyan wa nuzulihi wa qatlihi'd-Dajjal, Makatabat as-Sunnah, Cairo, 1990, page 20)

Close study of the verses in question easily shows how right Islamic scholars are on this question. In looking at the verses of the Qur'an, we see that this statement is only used for Jesus (pbuh). All the prophets spoke to people and called them to the true path. They all communicated their message in maturity. Yet there is no such statement in the Qur'an about any other prophet. The statement is only used to refer to Jesus (pbuh) and his miraculous situation. That is because the words "in the cradle" and "when fully grown" that follow each other in the verses are stressing two miraculous periods. In fact, in his work The Commentary of at-Tabari, Imam at-Tabari gives the following explanation of these verses:

These statements (The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 5, Verse 110) indicate that in order to complete his lifespan and speak to people when fully grown Jesus (pbuh) will come down from heaven. That is because he was raised to heaven when still young. In this verse (The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 3, Verse 46) there is evidence that Jesus is living, and Ahl al-Sunnah share that view. That is because in this verse it is stated that he will speak to people when fully grown. He will only be able to grow fully when he returns to earth from heaven. (Imam at-Tabari, The Commentary of at-Tabari, Vol. 2, page 528, Vol. 1, page 247).

Some people however, interpret the word "when fully grown" in a manner far removed from its true meaning and do not analyse it in the context of the general logic of the Qur'an. These people maintain that prophets have always been mature adults, for which reason the expression refers to all the lives of the prophets. Of course the prophets were mature adults whom Allah raised. Yet in Surat al-Ahqaf Allah reveals that the age of full maturity is forty. It is revealed in this verse that:

We have instructed man to be good to his parents. His mother bore him with difficulty and with difficulty gave birth to him; and his bearing and weaning take thirty months. Then when he achieves his full strength and reaches forty, he says, "My Lord, keep me thankful for the blessing You bestowed on me and on my parents, and keep me acting rightly, pleasing You. And make my descendants righteous. I have repented to You and I am truly one of the Muslims." (The Holy Qur'an, Chapter 46, Verse 15)

The word kahlan, therefore, also points to Jesus' return to earth just like all the other information given in the Qur'an. Only Allah knows for certain. As seen, verses on Jesus' (pbuh) return to the earth are very explicit. Similar expressions to these are not used in the Qur'an regarding other prophets. All these expressions, however, are used about the Prophet Jesus (pbuh). The significance of this is clear.

I don't know where you get your information that Matthew 28:19 is not found in any pre-16th century manuscripts. But according to the Greek New Testament I have in my hand, that passage is found in both the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts which date to the 4th century. There are no textual variants cited for that particular portion of it either. And it is quoted by Chysostom who lived from 347 to 407. And the passage from Acts is also found in these 4th century codexes. These documents are even now in the process of being photographed for wide distribution on the web.

I'll have to wait until they are photographed, but I find it troubling, you are citing documents of which the most ancient dates, some 400 years after christ.. I mean honestly, between, Arius, Athanasius and Paul so many centuries down, you don't think there will be additions and subtractions, multiplications and divisions by chinese whispers?

Should we kill?
Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill."
Leviticus 24:17 "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death."
vs.


Exodus 32:27 "Thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, . . . and slay every man his brother, . . . companion, . . . neighbor."
I Samuel 6:19 " . . . and the people lamented because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."
I Samuel 15:2,3,7,8 "Thus saith the Lord . . . Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. . . . And Saul smote the Amalekites . . . and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword."
Numbers 15:36 "And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses."
Hosea 13:16 "they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with children shall be ripped up."
For a discussion of the defense that the Commandments prohibit only murder, see "Murder, He Wrote", chapter 27 (Losing Faith In Faith: From Preacher To Atheist).

Should we tell lies?
Exodus 20:16 "Thou shalt not bear false witness."
Proverbs 12:22 "Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord."
vs.


I Kings 22:23 "The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee."
II Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."
Also, compare Joshua 2:4-6 with James 2:25.

Should we steal?
Exodus 20:15 "Thou shalt not steal."
Leviticus 19:13 "Thou shalt not defraud thy neighbor, neither rob him."
vs.


Exodus 3:22 "And ye shall spoil the Egyptians."
Exodus 12:35-36 "And they spoiled [plundered, NRSV] the Egyptians."
Luke 19:29-34 "[Jesus] sent two of his disciples, Saying, Go ye into the village . . . ye shall find a colt tied, whereon yet never man sat: loose him, and bring him hither. And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him. . . . And as they were loosing the colt, the owners thereof said unto them, Why loose ye the colt? And they said, The Lord hath need of him."
I was taught as a child that when you take something without asking for it, that is stealing.

Shall we keep the sabbath?
Exodus 20:8 "Remember the sabbath day to keep it holy."
Exodus 31:15 "Whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death."
Numbers 15:32,36 "And while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the sabbath day. . . . And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses."
vs.


Isaiah 1:13 "The new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity."
John 5:16 "And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day."
Colossians 2:16 "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy-day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days."
Shall we make graven images?
Exodus 20:4 "Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven . . . earth . . . water."
Leviticus 26:1 "Ye shall make ye no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone."
Deuteronomy 27:15 "Cursed be the man that maketh any graven or molten image."
vs.


Exodus 25:18 "And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them."
I Kings 7:15,16,23,25 "For he [Solomon] cast two pillars of brass . . . and two chapiters of molten brass . . . And he made a molten sea . . . it stood upon twelve oxen . . . [and so on]"
Are we saved through works?
Ephesians 2:8,9 "For by grace are ye saved through faith . . . not of works."
Romans 3:20,28 "Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight."
Galatians 2:16 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ."
vs.


James 2:24 "Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only."
Matthew 19:16-21 "And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And he [Jesus] said unto him . . . keep the commandments. . . . The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven."
The common defense here is that "we are saved by faith and works." But Paul said "not of works."

Should good works be seen?
Matthew 5:16 "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good works."
I Peter 2:12 "Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that . . . they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation."
vs.


Matthew 6:1-4 "Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them . . . that thine alms may be in secret."
Matthew 23:3,5 "Do not ye after their [Pharisees'] works. . . . all their works they do for to be seen of men."
Should we own slaves?
Leviticus 25:45-46 "Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, . . . and they shall be your possession . . . they shall be your bondmen forever."
Genesis 9:25 "And he [Noah] said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren."
Exodus 21:2,7 "If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. . . . And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the manservants do."
Joel 3:8 "And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hand of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people far off: for the Lord hath spoken it."
Luke 12:47,48 [Jesus speaking] "And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes."
Colossians 3:22 "Servants, obey in all things your masters."
vs.


Isaiah 58:6 "Undo the heavy burdens . . . let the oppressed go free, . . . break every yoke."
Matthew 23:10 "Neither be ye called Masters: for one is your Master, even Christ."
Pro-slavery bible verses were cited by many churches in the South during the Civil War, and were used by some theologians in the Dutch Reformed Church to justify apartheid in South Africa. There are more pro-slavery verses than cited here.

Does God change his mind?
Malachi 3:6 "For I am the Lord; I change not."
Numbers 23:19 "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent."
Ezekiel 24:14 "I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent."
James 1:17 " . . . the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."
vs.


Exodus 32:14 "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."
Genesis 6:6,7 "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth . . . And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth . . . for it repenteth me that I have made him."
Jonah 3:10 ". . . and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not."
See also II Kings 20:1-7, Numbers 16:20-35, Numbers 16:44-50.

See Genesis 18:23-33, where Abraham gets God to change his mind about the minimum number of righteous people in Sodom required to avoid destruction, bargaining down from fifty to ten. (An omniscient God must have known that he was playing with Abraham's hopes for mercy--he destroyed the city anyway.)

Are we punished for our parents' sins?
Exodus 20:5 "For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation." (Repeated in Deuteronomy 5:9)
Exodus 34:6-7 " . . . The Lord God, merciful and gracious, . . . that will by no means clear the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children, unto the third and to the fourth generation."
I Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, . . ."
vs.


Ezekiel 18:20 "The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father."
Deuteronomy 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin."
Is God good or evil?
Psalm 145:9 "The Lord is good to all."
Deuteronomy 32:4 "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he."
vs.


Isaiah 45:7 "I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things." See "Out of Context" for more on Isaiah 45:7.
Lamentations 3:38 "Out of the mouth of the most High proceedeth not evil and good?"
Jeremiah 18:11 "Thus saith the Lord; Behold, I frame evil against you, and devise a device against you."
Ezekiel 20:25,26 "I gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgments whereby they should not live. And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to pass through the fire all that openeth the womb, that I might make them desolate, to the end that they might know that I am the Lord."
Does God tempt people?
James 1:13 "Let no man say . . . I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."
vs.


Genesis 22:1 "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham."
Is God peaceable?
Romans 15:33 "The God of peace."
Isaiah 2:4 ". . . and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."
vs.


Exodus 15:3 "The Lord is a man of war."
Joel 3:9-10 "Prepare war, wake up the mighty men, let all the men of war draw near; let them come up: Beat your plowshares into swords, and your pruninghooks into spears: let the weak say, I am strong."
Was Jesus peaceable?
John 14:27 "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you."
Acts 10:36 "The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ."
Luke 2:14 " . . . on earth peace, good will toward men."
vs.


Matthew 10:34 "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household."
Luke 22:36 "Then said he unto them, . . . he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
Was Jesus trustworthy?
John 8:14 "Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true."
vs.


John 5:31 "If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true."
"Record" and "witness" in the above verses are the same Greek word (martyria).

Shall we call people names?
Matthew 5:22 "Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire." [Jesus speaking]
vs.


Matthew 23:17 "Ye fools and blind." [Jesus speaking]
Psalm 14:1 "The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God."
Has anyone seen God?
John 1:18 "No man hath seen God at any time."
Exodus 33:20 "Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live."
John 6:46 "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God [Jesus], he hath seen the Father."
I John 4:12 "No man hath seen God at any time."
vs.


Genesis 32:30 "For I have seen God face to face."
Exodus 33:11 "And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend."
Isaiah 6:1 "In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple."
Job 42:5 "I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee."
How many Gods are there?
Deuteronomy 6:4 "The Lord our God is one Lord."
vs.


Genesis 1:26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image."
Genesis 3:22 "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil."
I John 5:7 "And there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
It does no good to claim that "Let us" is the magisterial "we." Such usage implies inclusivity of all authorities under a king's leadership. Invoking the Trinity solves nothing because such an idea is more contradictory than the problem it attempts to solve.

Are we all sinners?
Romans 3:23 "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God."
Romans 3:10 "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one."
Psalm 14:3 "There is none that doeth good, no, not one."
vs.


Job 1:1 "There was a man . . . who name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright."
Genesis 7:1 "And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation."
Luke 1:6 "And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless."
How old was Ahaziah?
II Kings 8:26 "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign."
vs.


II Chronicles 22:2 "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign."
Should we swear an oath?
Numbers 30:2 "If a man vow a vow unto the Lord, or swear an oath . . . he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth."
Genesis 21:22-24,31 " . . . swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal falsely with me . . . And Abraham said, I will swear. . . . Wherefore he called that place Beersheba ["well of the oath"]; because there they sware both of them."
Hebrews 6:13-17 "For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself . . . for men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath."
See also Genesis 22:15-19, Genesis 31:53, and Judges 11:30-39.

vs.


Matthew 5:34-37 "But I say unto you, swear not at all; neither by heaven . . . nor by the earth . . . . Neither shalt thou swear by thy head . . . . But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil."
James 5:12 ". . . swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your yea be yea; and your nay, nay; lest ye fall into condemnation."
When was Jesus crucified?
Mark 15:25 "And it was the third hour, and they crucified him."
vs.


John 19:14-15 "And about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out . . . crucify him."
It is an ad hoc defense to claim that there are two methods of reckoning time here. It has never been shown that this is the case.

Shall we obey the law?
I Peter 2:13 "Submit yourself to every ordinance of man . . . to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors."
Matthew 22:21 "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's." See also Romans 13:1,7 and Titus 3:1.
vs.


Acts 5:29 "We ought to obey God rather then men."
How many animals on the ark?
Genesis 6:19 "And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark."
Genesis 7:8-9 "Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah."
Genesis 7:15 "And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life."
vs.


Genesis 7:2 "Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female."
Were women and men created equal?
Genesis 1:27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
vs.


Genesis 2:18,23 "And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. . . . And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man."
Were trees created before humans?
Genesis 1:12-31 "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: . . . And the evening and the morning were the third day. . . . And God said, Let us make man in our image . . . And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."
vs.


Genesis 2:5-9 "And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. .Ê.ÊAnd the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground . . . And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food."
Did Michal have children?
II Samuel 6:23 "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death."
vs.


II Samuel 21:8 "But the king took the two sons of Rizpah . . . and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul."
How many stalls did Solomon have?
I Kings 4:26 "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen."
vs.


II Chronicles 9:25 "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen."
Did Paul's men hear a voice?
Acts 9:7 "And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man."
vs.


Acts 22:9 "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me."
(For more detail on this contradiction, with a linguistic analysis of the Greek words, see "Did Paul's Men Hear A Voice?" by Dan Barker, published in the The Skeptical Review, 1994 #1)

Is God omnipotent?
Jeremiah 32:27 "Behold, I am the Lord, the God of all flesh: is there anything too hard for me?
Matthew 19:26 "But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible."
vs.


Judges 1:19 "And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."
Does God live in light?
I Timothy 6:15-16 " . . . the King of kings, and Lord of lords; Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach . . ."
James 1:17 " . . . the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."
John 12:35 "Then Jesus saith unto them, . . . he that walketh in darkness knoweth not wither he goeth."
Job 18:18 "He [the wicked] shall be driven from light into darkness, and chased out of the world."
Daniel 2:22 "He [God] knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him." See also Psalm 143:3, II Corinthians 6:14, and Hebrews 12:18-22.
vs.


I Kings 8:12 "Then spake Solomon, The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness." (Repeated in II Chronicles 6:1)
II Samuel 22:12 "And he made darkness pavilions round about him, dark waters, and thick clouds of the skies."
Psalm 18:11 "He made darkness his secret place; his pavilion round about him were dark waters and thick clouds of the skies."
Psalm 97:1-2 "The Lord reigneth; let the earth rejoice . . . clouds and darkness are round about him."
Does God accept human sacrifice?
Deuteronomy 12:31 "Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods."
vs.


Genesis 22:2 "And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of."
Exodus 22:29 "For thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors; the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me."
Judges 11:30-39 "And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hand, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering. So Jephthah passed over unto the children of Ammon . . . and the Lord delivered them into his hands. . . . And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: . . . And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed."
II Samuel 21:8-14 "But the king [David] took the two sons of Rizpah . . . and the five sons of Michal . . . and he delivered them into the hands of the Gibeonites, and they hanged them in the hill before the Lord: and they fell all seven together, and were put to death in the days of harvest . . . And after that God was intreated for the land."
Hebrews 10:10-12 " . . . we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ . . . But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God."
I Corinthians 5:7 " . . . For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us."
Who was Joseph's father?
Matthew 1:16 "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus."
vs.


Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli."

I haven't quoted the above to be difficult or to be disrespectful but honestly, how could you cite one copy as supreme when it is wrought with errors that you can't reconcile.. Does God repent or doesn't he? does God feel remorse of Doesn't he? Is he a 'man of war' or is he not? etc etc

That, by the way, doesn't mean that the author of Matthew or some copyist between the time of the Gospel's writing and the production of these codexes couldn't have themselves inserted the Trinitarian formula and put it on Jesus' lips even if Jesus never said such a thing. But here are two early sources not one that have Jesus sending his disciples out to all men. And the second of them has nothing to do with promoting some theological construct.

Be honest here.. did Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John write the bible? if so when? How long after Jesus 'died'?

You say: Yes it did do that at times. Don't Muslims burn any imperfect copy of the Qur'an? The principle is the same. That which is believed to be true is kept; that which is believe to be imperfect is burned to keep from being in circulation. However, obviously the Church didn't do a very good or consistent job of burning as there are many surviving documents aside from the canonical ones.

No they didn't do a very good job...
The Quran wasn't scribed some 300-400 years after Mohammed P, for references on the process of memorization and preservation you may visit many threads that are here dedicated to the topic, can hardly be an object of comparison to that of the bible.. if anything you can compare at all, although even that process was very punctilious is perhaps the hadith whether tawater or ohad as compiled by Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim,Sunan Abu-Dawud, Malik's Muwatta but the process of scribing the Quran isn't even a contender here.

Finally, you have said before that you have an old Aramaic/Arabic Bible. I'm guessing you mean a copy, not the original manuscript. But can you tell me how old is the manuscript that it is based on. From my information, the earliest syriac versions of the Bible were translation from Greek to syriac (some call this Aramaic) in the fourth through seventh centuries. Then there are those like this group -- Syriac Orthodox Resources which suggest it might have been earlier, but still speak of it as a translation from Greek to Aramaic. I know that some like to cite the Peshi-tta and the Peshi-tto as having been originally written in Aramaic and not Greek. But looking them up online, every translation I found had the line about "going to all nations" in it. So I am curious as to the manuscript's name and its dating for the Bible you are referring to.

The copy I have is from Egypt, it has no ISBN but bought from a place called dar al-ma3arif cairo.

peace

[Grace Seeker]

That is true. Jesus (may peace be upon him) was not a Messiah at that time. In Gospel, Jesus (may peace be upon him) was considered a prophet of God for Israelites, and Muhammad (may peace be upon him) was considered a Messiah in the future. When Jesus (may peace be upon him) will descend, he will then be a Messiah and a Muslim.

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that Jesus was not the Messiah when he was on earth, and is not presently the Messiah, but only will become the Messiah in the future. Yet that is not what the Qur'an teaches:

PICKTHAL: O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is only One Allah. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender. (4:171)

The Qur'an claims to quote Jesus and in doing so says it was the Messiah speaking (not one who was going to become the Messiah in the future): "The Messiah (himself) said..." (5:72)

Though I don't agree with the theology expressed by the Qur'an here, I would think that as a Muslim you would have a hard time reconciling your beliefs regarding the Messiahship of Jesus that you express above as being only in the future and how the Qur'an sees it as already being true:

PICKTHAL: The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how We make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away! (5:72)

The other thing I noted in what you have written is that you choose to use an indefinite article "a" before the term "Messiah", while both the Qur'an and I used a definite article "the". While it would be correct that the Hebrew term means anointed and there are many people who might qualify as God's anointed, it is also generally agreeded in Judaism, Christians, and I thought Islam, that when using the term "Messiah" as a title and not an adjective that there are not many messiahs, but only one Messiah. Hence, I think that if you remain in agreement with the supposed Gospel of Barnabas on these matters then you are out of agreement with Islam.

[جوري]

The word CHRIST is derived from the Hebrew word Messiah, Arabic-Masih. Root word m-a-s-a-h-a, meaning to rub, to massage, to anoint. Priests and kings were anointed when being consecrated to their offices. But in its translated, Grecian form "CHRIST", it seems unique:befitting Jesus only. The Christian has a knack of transmuting baser metals into shining gold. What he is wont to do is to translate names into his own language like "cephas" to Peter, "messiah" to Christ. How does he do that? Very easily MESSIAH in Hebrew means anointed. The Greek word for anointed is "christos". Just lop off the 'os' from christos and you are left with christ. Now change the little 'c' to a capital 'C', and "hey, presto!" he has created a unique (?) name! Christos means ANOINTED, and anointed means APPOINTED in its religious connotation. Jesus (pbuh) was appointed (anointed) at his baptism by John the Baptist, as God's Messenger.Every Prophet of God is so anointed or appointed. The Holy Bible is replete with the "anointed" ones. In the original Hebrew - made a "messiah". Let us keep to the English translation - "anointed." Not only were prophets and priests and kings anointed (christos-ed), but borns, and cherubs and lamp-posts also.

I am the God of Beth-el, where you ANOINTED a pillar.....

Genesis 31:13

If the priest that is ANOINTED do sin....

Leviticus 4:3

And Moses....ANOINTED the tabernacle and all things that was therein...

Leviticus 8:10

...THE LORD SHALL....EXALT THE HORN OF HIS ANOINTED

1 Samuel 2:10

Thus saith the Lord to his ANOINTED to Cyrus....

Isaiah 45:1

Thou art the ANOINTED cherub....

Ezekiel 28:14




There are a hundred more such references in the Holy Bible. Everytime you come across the word ANOINTED in your English Bible, you can take it that that word would be christos in the Greek translations, and if you take the same liberty with the word that the Christians have done, you will have - Christ Cherub, Christ Cyrus, Christ Priest and Christ Pillar, etc.

SOME TITLES EXCLUSIVE
Although, every prophet of God is an ANOINTED one of God - a Messiah, the title "Masih" or "Messiah" or its translation "CHRIST" is exclusively reserved for Jesus, the son of Mary, in both Islam and in Christianity. This is not unusual in religion. There are certain other honorific title which may be applied to more than one prophet, yet being made exclusive to one by usage: like "Rasul-lullah", meaning Messenger of God, which title is applied to both Moses (19:51) and Jesus (61:6) in the Holy Quran. Yet "Rasul-lullah" has become synonymous only with the Prophet of Islam among Muslims.

Every prophet is indeed a FRIEND OF GOD, but its Arabic equivalent "Kha- lil-lullah" is exclusively associated with Father Abraham. This does not mean that the others are not God's friends. "Kalimul-lah" (One who spoke with God) is never used for anyone other than Moses, yet we believe that God spoke with all His Messengers, including Jesus and Muhummed (May the Peace and Blessings of God be upon all His servants). Associating certain titles with certain personages only, does not make them exclusive or unique in any way. We honour all in varying terms.



By Dr. Deedat.. no one is arguing that Jesus was the Messiah.. but here we clearely have defined what it means..

peace

[Grace Seeker]

The word CHRIST is derived from the Hebrew word Messiah, Arabic-Masih. Root word m-a-s-a-h-a, meaning to rub, to massage, to anoint. Priests and kings were anointed when being consecrated to their offices. But in its translated, Grecian form "CHRIST", it seems unique:befitting Jesus only. The Christian has a knack of transmuting baser metals into shining gold. What he is wont to do is to translate names into his own language like "cephas" to Peter, "messiah" to Christ. How does he do that? Very easily MESSIAH in Hebrew means anointed. The Greek word for anointed is "christos". Just lop off the 'os' from christos and you are left with christ. Now change the little 'c' to a capital 'C', and "hey, presto!" he has created a unique (?) name! Christos means ANOINTED, and anointed means APPOINTED in its religious connotation. Jesus (pbuh) was appointed (anointed) at his baptism by John the Baptist, as God's Messenger.Every Prophet of God is so anointed or appointed. The Holy Bible is replete with the "anointed" ones. In the original Hebrew - made a "messiah". Let us keep to the English translation - "anointed." Not only were prophets and priests and kings anointed (christos-ed), but borns, and cherubs and lamp-posts also.

I am the God of Beth-el, where you ANOINTED a pillar.....

Genesis 31:13

If the priest that is ANOINTED do sin....

Leviticus 4:3

And Moses....ANOINTED the tabernacle and all things that was therein...

Leviticus 8:10

...THE LORD SHALL....EXALT THE HORN OF HIS ANOINTED

1 Samuel 2:10

Thus saith the Lord to his ANOINTED to Cyrus....

Isaiah 45:1

Thou art the ANOINTED cherub....

Ezekiel 28:14




There are a hundred more such references in the Holy Bible. Everytime you come across the word ANOINTED in your English Bible, you can take it that that word would be christos in the Greek translations, and if you take the same liberty with the word that the Christians have done, you will have - Christ Cherub, Christ Cyrus, Christ Priest and Christ Pillar, etc.

SOME TITLES EXCLUSIVE
Although, every prophet of God is an ANOINTED one of God - a Messiah, the title "Masih" or "Messiah" or its translation "CHRIST" is exclusively reserved for Jesus, the son of Mary, in both Islam and in Christianity. This is not unusual in religion. There are certain other honorific title which may be applied to more than one prophet, yet being made exclusive to one by usage: like "Rasul-lullah", meaning Messenger of God, which title is applied to both Moses (19:51) and Jesus (61:6) in the Holy Quran. Yet "Rasul-lullah" has become synonymous only with the Prophet of Islam among Muslims.

Every prophet is indeed a FRIEND OF GOD, but its Arabic equivalent "Kha- lil-lullah" is exclusively associated with Father Abraham. This does not mean that the others are not God's friends. "Kalimul-lah" (One who spoke with God) is never used for anyone other than Moses, yet we believe that God spoke with all His Messengers, including Jesus and Muhummed (May the Peace and Blessings of God be upon all His servants). Associating certain titles with certain personages only, does not make them exclusive or unique in any way. We honour all in varying terms.



By Dr. Deedat.. no one is arguing that Jesus was the Messiah.. but here we clearely have defined what it means..

peace

I'm confused by your post. I understand fully the origin of the word Christ. And, yes, Ahmad Deedat has that right. What I don't understand is what this has to do with the passage I quoted from the supposed Gospel of Barnabas where it puts in the mouth of Jesus the phrase, "I am not the Messiah." See chapter 42: I am not the Messiah.

If the Qur'an calls Jesus the Messiah, as I have shown in the above interpretations from it, and yet this book has Jesus claiming that he is not, then one of the two books must be wrong. You said that you thought that your "bible of barnabas" was a more correct version, closer to original Christianity. If it is, and if it correct reports the words of Jesus, then either Jesus was lying and not speaking truly (something I highly doubt occurred) or the Qur'an is in error (something you surely would dispute) or the document is in fact not as correct as you first assumed it was. At least those are the three options I see. I guess there is a fouth, that they are all frauds, but while others may choose to entertain that option, I don't think that either you or I would. So, do you see any other possibilities that I am missing?


Also, I am still awaiting clarification by what you mean by the "original bible of barnbas". I've been assuming you really meant the supposed "Gospel of Barnabas" that you can find at http://barnabas.net/. If it is, I think it is worth noting that The Muslim scholar Cyril Glassé states:

As regards the "Gospel of Barnabas" itself, there is no question that it is a medieval forgery. A complete Italian manuscript exists which appears to be a translation from a Spanish original (which exists in part), written to curry favor with Muslims of the time. It contains anachronisms which can date only from the Middle Ages and not before, and shows a garbled comprehension of Islamic doctrines, calling the Prophet "the Messiah", which Islam does not claim for him. Besides its farcical notion of sacred history, stylistically it is a mediocre parody of the Gospels, as the writings of Baha'Allah are of the Koran.

source, The Concise Encyclopedia of Islam, Harper & Row, 1989, p. 64

[جوري]

I'm confused by your post. I understand fully the origin of the word Christ. And, yes, Ahmad Deedat has that right. What I don't understand is what this has to do with the passage I quoted from the supposed Gospel of Barnabas where it puts in the mouth of Jesus the phrase, "I am not the Messiah." See chapter 42: I am not the Messiah.

Why confused? You can have a King James Bible and a revised King James Bible with several different editions and revisions. The one that I have doesn't have your 'I am not the messiah" I suggest you simply invest in one than browse random ones on line! It seems like a non-point. If the council of Nicea affirms Christ's divinity against Arians, or was at some point confused to whether he is a man or an angel, why is it difficult that others around christ to be as confused over whether or not he is a 'Messiah'? I have already explained what a "messiah" is, seems really insignificant to make that a focal point for discussion. If you can annoint lamps and Tabernacles, I don't see the significance of annointment as the crux of this argument!

If the Qur'an calls Jesus the Messiah, as I have shown in the above interpretations from it, and yet this book has Jesus claiming that he is not, then one of the two books must be wrong. You said that you thought that your "bible of barnabas" was a more correct version, closer to original Christianity. If it is, and if it correct reports the words of Jesus, then either Jesus was lying and not speaking truly (something I highly doubt occurred) or the Qur'an is in error (something you surely would dispute) or the document is in fact not as correct as you first assumed it was. At least those are the three options I see. I guess there is a fouth, that they are all frauds, but while others may choose to entertain that option, I don't think that either you or I would. So, do you see any other possibilities that I am missing?

Well it would certainly leave me in major doubt as to my faith, if I couldn't trust any version, if from one to the next I found such great discrepancy, from denomination to the next I found disagreement and browsing and measuring it against itself I found erroneousness.. so I don't know, what are you missing? Maybe as an outsider I am seeing something you are not..

Also, I am still awaiting clarification by what you mean by the "original bible of barnbas". I've been assuming you really meant the supposed "Gospel of Barnabas" that you can find at http://barnabas.net/. If it is, I think it is worth noting that The Muslim scholar Cyril Glassé state

that is the name of the one I have 'the original bible of barnbas' hence I often refer to it as such, not to confuse or annoy.. sort of like you saying the king James or the Jefferson Bible or Judaica Press bible - or the LITV - Literal Translation of the Bible, or Mormon bible or the New American Standard Bible etc etc you get the pic.. mine is simply called 'the original bible of barnbas'
Do I think it is a fake? I don't think it is the 'injeel that was given Jesus (p)' but I believe it is the closest thing to it.. I'll accept a couple of errors over 50,000

peace

[Grace Seeker]

The word Muhammad and Muslim, have been mentioned in previous scriptures by name, let me bring your attention to
Song of Solomon 5:16

"HIKKOMAMITTAQIM VIKULLO MAHAMADDIM ZEHDUDIVEZEH RAAI BENUTS YARUSHALAM."

and we have dedicated an entire thread to
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...uran-only.html

so frankly, I see a non point to dismiss that bible on the account it mentions something that christians don't want to see in there for reasons obvious!

"that bible"??? What bible are you referring to? I don't know that I am dismissing any Bible. I am dismissing the supposed Gospel of Barnabas, but it is just a single document. It is not the Bible. Nor is it now, nor has it ever been included as part of any Bible that I know of. And I'm not dismissing the supposed Gospel of Barnabas because there are things in it that I disagree with. There are things in the Bible that I disagree with, but I certainly don't dismiss them. I dismiss the Gospel of Barnabas simply because all the evidence that I can find regarding it dates it as being a very late mediveal document, produced by some unknown author.

The original bible of barnbas that I have here, says no such thing, the copy I have is in Arabic, I saw no such thing in there! I'll upload a picture of the book at some point!

The copy of the "Bible?" of Barnabas you have is in Arabic? Or the copy of the Bible you have is in Arabic?

Again, I am confused by your use of the phrase, the "bible of barnabas". I have never heard of such a book. I have heard of the Epistle of Barnabas -- an early 2nd century book, written in Greek, in much favor with the early church. And I have heard of the Gospel of Barnabas -- a mediveal document, with copies available in Spanish and Latin, for which there is much mythology, but no real history.

It seems you have many bibles out there with opposing views, one which I have included on just the previous page. But I actually agree with that passage somewhat, I believe it has to do with his second return..

You think that this statement of Jesus (Acts 1:8) that he made as he departed his disciples was about his eventual return. That they were to be his witnesses first to Jerusalem, and then to Samaria, and then to the ends of the earth refers not to what they are to begin to do as he takes leave of them, but what they will eventually do on his return? You ask me to answer you honestly...tell me, do you honestly think that is the understanding that the apostles would have been left with once Jesus was gone?

I'll have to wait until they are photographed, but I find it troubling, you are citing documents of which the most ancient dates, some 400 years after christ.. I mean honestly, between, Arius, Athanasius and Paul so many centuries down, you don't think there will be additions and subtractions, multiplications and divisions by chinese whispers?

Sure, there were indeed notes written into the margins, and even scribbled in between the lines of text. Sometimes in later copies these were mistakenly copied into the newly produced copies made from it later. But I was just responding to your statement that no pre-16th century manuscript even had Matthew 28:19 in it. There are many in existence. And this is one of them.

I haven't quoted the above to be difficult or to be disrespectful but honestly, how could you cite one copy as supreme when it is wrought with errors that you can't reconcile.. Does God repent or doesn't he? does God feel remorse of Doesn't he? Is he a 'man of war' or is he not? etc etc

I don't cite one particular manuscript, say the Sinaiticus, as being supreme over another manuscript, say the Vaticanus. And let us not forget there are literally thousands of others: the Alexandrius Codex, the Ephraemi Rescriptus, the Bezae Cantabrigiensis, the Claromontanus, the Basel, and many, many others: 46 codexes, 250 unicals, maybe 2700 miniscules, and more. Just as you have a "science" for determining valid hadiths, so we have a science of textual criticism by which our scholars help us to work our way back in time through all the copies and conflicting variant readings to what was the most likely original manuscript, and then they share with us the degree of confidence with which they are willing to assert that a certain passage is indeed the original in light of those variant readings, if any, in existence. I wouldn't trust any single manuscript as being 100% in the way that you trust a copy of the Qur'an. But, I do believe that we can get back to what was the mostly likely original form by this process of comparing manuscripts with one another, just as parents compare their children's conflicting stories to figure out what really happened while they were out of the room.

Be honest here.. did Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John write the bible? if so when? How long after Jesus 'died'?

Yes, I think they did. I think that they were all completed sometime before 90 AD, so that would have a little less than 60 years after Jesus' death. John would have been an old man. But some old men of his day lived to be 80, 90 years of age, even 100. John would have been younger than this. The others were probably written between 25-40 years after Jesus' death, though if those who believe that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew are correct, then it is probable that is was written maybe 10-15 years after Jesus' death.

The copy I have is from Egypt, it has no ISBN but bought from a place called dar al-ma3arif cairo.

This is your Arabic/Aramaic Bible you are talking about now, I trust. Does it say in it someplace, perhaps a preface or an introduction, anything about the original manuscripts used that it was based on either for producing the translation or from which it was itself copied?

peace

And with you as well, I bid you peace.:sl:

[جوري]

lol Gene.. you just keep em coming?.. it is 2:32AM.. I don't know if the previous reply will suffice http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post905080 I am dead tired, maybe Br. Woodrow can take over.. I need some rest..


peace

[Grace Seeker]

lol Gene.. you just keep em coming?.. it is 2:32AM.. I don't know if the previous reply will suffice http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post905080 I am dead tired, maybe Br. Woodrow can take over.. I need some rest..


peace

Well, go to bed. This stuff will wait till tomorrow. I'm going to be up all night because I have some stuff I have to get finished before my secretary comes into the office in the morning. But, in truth, I'm also not really into it what I need to get done, and so this conversation is making a real handy distraction helping me to avoid it. I'll just have to get some real work done, instead of playing with my friends. :(

that is the name of the one I have 'the original bible of barnbas' hence I often refer to it as such, not to confuse or annoy.. sort of like you saying the king James or the Jefferson Bible or Judaica Press bible - or the LITV - Literal Translation of the Bible, or Mormon bible or the New American Standard Bible etc etc you get the pic.. mine is simply called 'the original bible of barnbas'
Do I think it is a fake? I don't think it is the 'injeel that was given Jesus (p)' but I believe it is the closest thing to it.. I'll accept a couple of errors over 50,000

peace

OK. Well that helps a little. I guess if that is what is on the cover, then that is what I would call it too.

I know it might be some work, but is it divided into chapters? This is what I find given as chapter 42 of the book I am referring to online:

Chapter 42

Then the disciples wept after this discourse, and Jesus was weeping, when they saw many who came to find him, for the chiefs of the priests took counsel among themselves to catch him in his talk. Wherefore they sent the Levites and some of the scribes to question him, saying: "Who are you?"

Jesus confessed, and said the truth: "I am not the Messiah." They said: "Are you Elijah or Jeremiah, or any of the ancient prophets?" Jesus answered: "No." Then said they: "Who are you? Say, in order that we may give testimony to those who sent us." Then Jesus said: "I am a voice that cries through all Judea, and cries: "Prepare you the way for the messenger of the Lord," even as it is written in Esaias;."

They said: "If you be not the Messiah nor Elijah, or any prophet, wherefore do you preach new doctrine, and make yourself of more account than the Messiah?" Jesus answered: "The miracles which God works by my hands show that I speak that which God wills; nor indeed do I make myself to be accounted as him of whom you speak. For I am not worthy to unloose the ties of the hosen or the ratchets of the shoes of the Messenger of God whom you call "Messiah," who was made before me, and shall come after me, and shall bring the words of truth, so that his faith shall have no end."

The Levites and scribes departed in confusion, and recounted all to the chiefs of the priests, who said: "He has the devil on his back who recounts all to him." Then Jesus said to his disciples: "Truly I say to you, that the chiefs and the elders of our people seek occasion against me." Then said Peter: "Therefore go not you any more into Jerusalem." Therefore said Jesus to him: "You are foolish, and know not what you say, for it is necessary that I should suffer many persecutions, because so have suffered all the prophets and holy one of God. But fear not, for there be that are with us and there be that are against us."

And having said this, Jesus departed and went to the mount Tabor, and there ascended with him Peter ;and James ;and John ;his brother, with him who writes this. Whereupon there shone a great light above him, and his garments became white like snow and his face glistened as the sun;, and lo! there came Moses and Elijah; speaking with Jesus concerning all that needs must come upon our race and upon the holy city.

Peter spoke, saying: "Lord, it is good to be here. Therefore, if you will, we will make here three tabernacles, one for you and one for Moses and the other for Elijah." And while he spoke they were covered with a white cloud, and they heard a voice saying: "Behold my servant, in whom I am well pleased; hear you him."

The disciples were filled with fear, and fell with their face upon the earth as dead. Jesus went down and raised up his disciples, saying: "Fear not, for God loves you, and has done this in order that you may believe on my words."

How does that compare with what you have?

[جوري]

How does that compare with what you have?

I found two in my dad's library one indeed runs along the one you have just posted with capter 42 stating (I am not the Messiah) and it is printed inMinnesota the other one in Arabic, contains both 'dead sea scrolls' and runs in verses rather than chapters with commentaries after each, one of the commentators is Saleem Teqla .. it is old, and coming apart, I suspect a copy that dates back to forties or fifties, with the pages taken apart by a letter opener :embarrass
lol.. I'll try to read and translate some or upload a few photos of it..

peace and hope you got all your other work done..
don't stay up too late, it ain't good for your health.. :coolious:

[Grace Seeker]

I found two in my dad's library one indeed runs along the one you have just posted with capter 42 stating (I am not the Messiah) and it is printed inMinnesota the other one in Arabic, contains both 'dead sea scrolls' and runs in verses rather than chapters with commentaries after each, one of the commentators is Saleem Teqla .. it is old, and coming apart, I suspect a copy that dates back to forties or fifties, with the pages taken apart by a letter opener :embarrass
lol.. I'll try to read and translate some or upload a few photos of it..

peace and hope you got all your other work done..
don't stay up too late, it ain't good for your health.. :coolious:

The one that you have that is printed in Arabic, how does it begin?
Here is what I am finding:

True Gospel of Jesus, called Christ, a new prophet sent by God to the world: according to the description of Barnabas his apostle.

Barnabas, apostle of Jesus the Nazarene, called Christ, to all them that dwell upon the earth desireth peace and consolation.

Dearly beloved the great and wonderful God hath during these past days visited us by his prophet Jesus Christ in great mercy of teaching and miracles, by reason whereof many, being deceived of Satan, under presence of piety, are preaching most impious doctrine, calling Jesus son of God, repudiating the circumcision ordained of God for ever, and permitting every unclean meat: among whom also Paul hath been deceived, whereof I speak not without grief; for which cause I am writing that truth which I have seen and heard, in the intercourse that I have had with Jesus, in order that ye may be saved, and not be deceived of Satan and perish in the judgment of God. Therefore beware of every one that preacheth unto you new doctrine contrary to that which I write, that ye may be saved eternally.

The great God be with you and guard you from Satan and and from every evil. Amen.

I know you said it is Arabic, but you read Arabic. You don't have to translate it for me, just tell me whether it is saying the same as this online version?

Plus, now I am also curious by your comment that it contains, "both Dead Sea scrolls." To my knowledge there were more than just 2 Dead Sea Scrolls. There were actually hundreds of different documents found in the caves near Qumran. And the first discoveries were made in 1947, which was around the time when you think this book was published. That would be a quick turn around for a publisher. Of course, I know that you are not saying that it contains all of the Dead Sea scrolls because there are some of them that even still are not published and haven't even been made fully available to the scholarly community. But by 1956 all of the stuff in cave #1 was published and available to the general public, so maybe it is some of that material that is included in the book.

Was it not Beshara and Saleem Teqla who founded the newspaper Al-Ahram at the end of the 19th century. If Saleem Teqla is one of the commentators it might be even older than you think.

Now, one other thing Purest. I must ask you to be careful what you call "old". Stuff that dates back to the 40's -- it is OK to call that stuff old. But stuff that comes from the 50's -- ouch! that hurts. I was born in 1956.

[جوري]

The one that you have that is printed in Arabic, how does it begin?
Here is what I am finding:
I know you said it is Arabic, but you read Arabic. You don't have to translate it for me, just tell me whether it is saying the same as this online version?

Plus, now I am also curious by your comment that it contains, "both Dead Sea scrolls." To my knowledge there were more than just 2 Dead Sea Scrolls. There were actually hundreds of different documents found in the caves near Qumran. And the first discoveries were made in 1947, which was around the time when you think this book was published. That would be a quick turn around for a publisher. Of course, I know that you are not saying that it contains all of the Dead Sea scrolls because there are some of them that even still are not published and haven't even been made fully available to the scholarly community. But by 1956 all of the stuff in cave #1 was published and available to the general public, so maybe it is some of that material that is included in the book.

Was it not Beshara and Saleem Teqla who founded the newspaper Al-Ahram at the end of the 19th century. If Saleem Teqla is one of the commentators it might be even older than you think.

Now, one other thing Purest. I must ask you to be careful what you call "old". Stuff that dates back to the 40's -- it is OK to call that stuff old. But stuff that comes from the 50's -- ouch! that hurts. I was born in 1956.

you are too funny.. what it says in Arabic is 'ikhtalafat alaf a'nosakh min al anajeel shata'...

wa kan injeel barnaba -------- '

basically saying that there were many Versions of the bible, goes a bit into early church history into the middle ages, a bit into the 12 disciples chosen by Jesus (p) of whom barnbas was one, and toward the bottom states that the injeel of barnbas accepted as a canonical bible in the church of Alexandria until 325 C.E..

and if you ask me to read more I'll hurt you lol... no Just kidding, I don't know how many of the scrolls are in there it is a fat book and I am not about to study it, it talks about some of them.. and the tight control in their release since their discovery, how its contents disagree completely with the way the 'catholic church' is run.. I really didn't dwell much in them (skimmed).. let's just say, it isn't on my list of to do things right now.. the book examines random passages and documents than reads like an actual bible, hence all the commentaries..

As for the 'age' thing well 40's anf 50's that is certainly not old :embarrass.. just from the time of king farouq hence there is no ISBN to give you :p

peace

[Grace Seeker]

lol, I've never spoken a word of Arabic in my life, but I guess I've been on this forum too long, I actually recognized the first word of عإكهتلفت الأف اعنسكه من الأنجيل سهتاع...


So, I think I have a better understanding of what you have now. Would it be fair to say that it is a reference book that discusses the Gospel of Barnabas (and other religious antiquities) and that the first page you mentioned above is not the opening of the Gospel of Barnabas, but a preface to the book? My guess is if you kept reading it would finally get around to the passage I quoted above, which is where the document itself starts.

I'm thinking that since yours has verse references and I can find that have numbered chapters, and some even have numbered chapters and paragraphs, that surely there must exist some sort of way whereby we can connect them to each other, that we might ascertain the degree to which the online English versions I am reading are in concert with your Arabic version -- for all of the online English versions I find thus far appear to be the same regardless the source:
http://barnabas.net/
http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/gbar/index.htm
http://answering-islam.com/barnabas.htm
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/arts/barnabas/Entry.html

(My guess is that if I was to buy a copy today, that it would be the same as that which is available online.)

And then perhaps, from what you have said, it appears that the book goes on to discuss other books. The title of the book itself is, my guess, not the title of the document, but merely of the modern book given to it by its modern authors.

[جوري]

lol, I've never spoken a word of Arabic in my life, but I guess I've been on this forum too long, I actually recognized the first word of عإكهتلفت الأف اعنسكه من الأنجيل سهتاع...


So, I think I have a better understanding of what you have now. Would it be fair to say that it is a reference book that discusses the Gospel of Barnabas (and other religious antiquities) and that the first page you mentioned above is not the opening of the Gospel of Barnabas, but a preface to the book? My guess is if you kept reading it would finally get around to the passage I quoted above, which is where the document itself starts.

I'm thinking that since yours has verse references and I can find that have numbered chapters, and some even have numbered chapters and paragraphs, that surely there must exist some sort of way whereby we can connect them to each other, that we might ascertain the degree to which the online English versions I am reading are in concert with your Arabic version -- for all of the online English versions I find thus far appear to be the same regardless the source:
http://barnabas.net/
http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/gbar/index.htm
http://answering-islam.com/barnabas.htm
http://www.latrobe.edu.au/arts/barnabas/Entry.html

(My guess is that if I was to buy a copy today, that it would be the same as that which is available online.)

And then perhaps, from what you have said, it appears that the book goes on to discuss other books. The title of the book itself is, my guess, not the title of the document, but merely of the modern book given to it by its modern authors.

lol.. who wrote that Arabic for you? did you do it yourself? it is quasi good and deserves reps. I went to 'chapter 42' but it doesn't run like that, I do have one very much like the online version which is in English and does run by where chapter 42 states he isn't.. the Arabic book is more a critical analysis of church history old and new, bibles out there, plus famous errors or divergence between the many books plus schisms and factions of the church, if anything it is very critical of Roman catholicism.. it is fat and pink, I don't know if that helps?.. If I go on vacation, I'll try to see if they have any more copies of it and send you one.. leave me your address by PM if you are interested?. I actually think it is the sort of book you'd like :p

peace

[Grace Seeker]

lol.. who wrote that Arabic for you? did you do it yourself? it is quasi good and deserves reps. I went to 'chapter 42' but it doesn't run like that, I do have one very much like the online version which is in English and does run by where chapter 42 states he isn't.. the Arabic book is more a critical analysis of church history old and new, bibles out there, plus famous errors or divergence between the many books plus schisms and factions of the church, if anything it is very critical of Roman catholicism.. it is fat and pink, I don't know if that helps?.. If I go on vacation, I'll try to see if they have any more copies of it and send you one.. leave me your address by PM if you are interested?. I actually think it is the sort of book you'd like :p

peace

Believe it or not I wrote that Arabic myself, but of course I used all sorts of little tricks to come up with it. No way I could ever read it if I ran into it somewhere apart from this context.

Is the book in English? I thought it was in Arabic? If it is in English, I probably would find it interesting. If it is in Arabic, it would just be something interesting to look at, but I don't think I'm ever likely to learn Arabic. (At least not till I get to heaven, I understand that everyone in heaven speaks Arabic, just like God. :D )

[جوري]

Believe it or not I wrote that Arabic myself, but of course I used all sorts of little tricks to come up with it. No way I could ever read it if I ran into it somewhere apart from this context.

Is the book in English? I thought it was in Arabic? If it is in English, I probably would find it interesting. If it is in Arabic, it would just be something interesting to look at, but I don't think I'm ever likely to learn Arabic. (At least not till I get to heaven, I understand that everyone in heaven speaks Arabic, just like God. :D )

Arabic, but it is easy once you learn the alphabet.. there is no reason to wait until heaven.. you can get a headstart now :p
just imagine how amazing it would be, once you get there and get to listen to Prophet Daoud (David) recite suret Ar Rahman...:statisfie

:w:

[thirdwatch512]

There is the so called "Gospel of Barnabas" that is no doubt a mid evil forgery that no credible scholar accepts as being true. When one tells me they believe that Muhammad was predicted, and they cite this book, they lose ALL credibility in my book.

Now there WAS an EPISTLE OF BARNABAS but it is not the same as this mid evil forgery that predicts Muhammad. Had it been, we would have loads of manuscripts, and the way it is worded would be different.

Early Christianity had the 4 Canonical Gospels, Acts, and 10 Pauline Gospels. Those have never been disputed. (Of course, the "apostolic epistles" have always been disputed, but still.)

But there were also many offshoot sects of Christianity.. Mainly gnosticsm. and these people wrote a ton of different books. Many of them had the same, or similar names, but they were different books. (Such as Apocalypse of Peter, there are two!)

The "Gospel of Barnabas" that Muslims quote, as predicting Muhammad.. Nothing but probably Spanish Muslims trying to convert the Catholic Spanish to Islam. The vast majority of scholars do not believe it was written shortly after Jesus, etc.

Clement of Alexandria accepted this Epistle of Barnabas.. But they also accepted a VERY liberal canon in general.. Didache, Shephard of Hermas, Gospel of the Egyptians and the Hebrews, Traditions of Matthias, Preaching of Peter, and 1 Clement were other books they accepted.

But Councils/people before Clement of Alexandria did not accept Epistle of Barnabas(which either way is different then "Gospel of Barnabas" anyways!!)

Such examples are: Irenious, Justin Martyr, Valentinious, Marcion, Polycarp, etc.

The Epistle of Barnabas can be seen here: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0124.htm
Very beautiful piece of writing indeed.. But certainly no Muhammad in this book!!