× Register Login What's New! Contact us
In search of the Injeel
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21
  1. #1
    Isambard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Religion
    Unspecified
    Posts
    764
    Threads
    16
    Reputation
    1547
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    In search of the Injeel

    Report bad ads?

    Hello.

    In all my time studying and reading up on Islam, there has always been one thing that always bothered me, namely the refences to the Injeel.

    (From what I understand) Islam follows a line of succession meaning that it relies on something before and expands upon it or continues it. An example would God-->Adam-->Moses etc. until you reach Muhammed.

    My issues is between the period between Jesus and Muhammed. In the Qur'an, it talks about the original bible/word of God (Injeel) being corrupted by men and changed, which is why what is written in the Qur'an is so different than what is in the Christian Bible. The thing is, I can find no proof for this Injeel aside from the Qur'an and Hadiths. In my opinion, relying on any book for truth is a bad idea when said truth of that very book is in question because of an inherent bias.

    So then I as you, is there any proof for anythig close to the Injeel the Qur'an and Muhammed spoke of? Or is the proof only found in said sources?

  2. Report bad ads?
  3. #2
    alcurad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Florida, US
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    2,001
    Threads
    26
    Reputation
    27871
    Rep Power
    93
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    11

    Re: In search of the Injeel

    perhaps you should read the books included in the torah and bilbe to know?

  4. #3
    Isambard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Religion
    Unspecified
    Posts
    764
    Threads
    16
    Reputation
    1547
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Re: In search of the Injeel

    Quote Originally Posted by alcurad View Post
    perhaps you should read the books included in the torah and bilbe to know?
    I have. They seem to contradict the claims of the Qur'an in regards to an Injeel.

  5. #4
    Keltoi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Religion
    Unspecified
    Posts
    5,061
    Threads
    20
    Reputation
    9283
    Rep Power
    82
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2

    Re: In search of the Injeel

    My main issue with the Injeel question is Sura 7:155-157

    Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet,
    whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures), -
    in the Taurat and the Gospel - .... -- Sura 7:157

    Why do I have issues? Because this is God replying to a prayer from Moses. The obvious problem is that the Gospel wasn't even written until about 1,400 years after the time of Moses. I have never been given a convincing explanation of this obvious problem.
    In search of the Injeel

    "Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."

  6. Report bad ads?
  7. #5
    YusufNoor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Albuquerque
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    2,000
    Threads
    47
    Reputation
    27443
    Rep Power
    86
    Likes (Given)
    146
    Likes (Received)
    398

    Re: In search of the Injeel

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltoi View Post
    My main issue with the Injeel question is Sura 7:155-157

    Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet,
    whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures), -
    in the Taurat and the Gospel - .... -- Sura 7:157

    Why do I have issues? Because this is God replying to a prayer from Moses. The obvious problem is that the Gospel wasn't even written until about 1,400 years after the time of Moses. I have never been given a convincing explanation of this obvious problem.
    Greetings Keltoi,

    have you checked the Tafseer on that verse???

    the OBVIOUS comment would be that God(Allah) was already quite aware that Musa(as) would be followed by Eesa(as) and Muhammad(pbuh)!

    convinced????

    kay:


    will provide a link if needed!

    In search of the Injeel

    Had the non-believer known of all the Mercy which is in the Hands of Allah, he would not lose hope of entering Paradise, and had the believer known of all the punishment which is present with Allah, he would not consider himself safe from the Hell-Fire
    http://www.muftimenk.co.za/Downloads.html

  8. #6
    asadxyz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Religion
    Unspecified
    Posts
    438
    Threads
    37
    Reputation
    1261
    Rep Power
    69
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1

    Re: In search of the Injeel

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltoi View Post
    My main issue with the Injeel question is Sura 7:155-157

    Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered Prophet,
    whom they find mentioned in their own (Scriptures), -
    in the Taurat and the Gospel - .... -- Sura 7:157

    Why do I have issues? Because this is God replying to a prayer from Moses. The obvious problem is that the Gospel wasn't even written until about 1,400 years after the time of Moses. I have never been given a convincing explanation of this obvious problem.
    Peace:
    Aya number 7:157 is about the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).
    الَّذِينَ يَتَّبِعُونَ الرَّسُولَ النَّبِيَّ الأُمِّيَّ الَّذِي يَجِدُونَهُ مَكْتُوبًا عِندَهُمْ فِي التَّوْرَاةِ وَالإِنْجِيلِ يَأْمُرُهُم بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَيَنْهَاهُمْ عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ وَيُحِلُّ لَهُمُ الطَّيِّبَاتِ وَيُحَرِّمُ عَلَيْهِمُ الْخَبَآئِثَ وَيَضَعُ عَنْهُمْ إِصْرَهُمْ وَالأَغْلاَلَ الَّتِي كَانَتْ عَلَيْهِمْ فَالَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ بِهِ وَعَزَّرُوهُ وَنَصَرُوهُ وَاتَّبَعُواْ النُّورَ الَّذِيَ أُنزِلَ مَعَهُ أُوْلَـئِكَ هُمُ الْمُفْلِحُونَ﴿7:157﴾
    (7:157) [To-day this mercy is for] those who follow the ummi Prophet, *112whom they find mentioned in the Torah and the Gospel with them. *113 He enjoins upon them what is good and forbids them what is evil. He makes the clean things lawful to them and prohibits all corrupt things, *114 and removes from them their burdens and the shackles that were upon them. *115 So those who believe in him and assist him, and succour him and follow the Light which has been sent down with him, it is they who shall prosper.

    What sort of problem do you find with this aya?
    In search of the Injeel

    Who can be more irrational than those who say: Design is possible without a designer ??

  9. #7
    Isambard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Religion
    Unspecified
    Posts
    764
    Threads
    16
    Reputation
    1547
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Re: In search of the Injeel

    So...anyone any sources outside the Qur'an for a Injeel?

  10. #8
    Keltoi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Religion
    Unspecified
    Posts
    5,061
    Threads
    20
    Reputation
    9283
    Rep Power
    82
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2

    Re: In search of the Injeel

    Quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor View Post
    Greetings Keltoi,

    have you checked the Tafseer on that verse???

    the OBVIOUS comment would be that God(Allah) was already quite aware that Musa(as) would be followed by Eesa(as) and Muhammad(pbuh)!

    convinced????

    kay:


    will provide a link if needed!

    No I'm not convinced. The verse is in the present tense.
    In search of the Injeel

    "Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."

  11. #9
    - Qatada -'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    ...travelling to the hereafter..
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    11,306
    Threads
    791
    Reputation
    61939
    Rep Power
    121
    Likes (Given)
    18
    Likes (Received)
    505

    Re: In search of the Injeel

    The Christians themselves don't believe that Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him) had a Gospel/Injeel revealed to him, rather they take other men as having Gospels, so it wouldn't be surprising if it wasn't well known, if not lost till today. Allaah knows best.

  12. Report bad ads?
  13. #10
    Keltoi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Religion
    Unspecified
    Posts
    5,061
    Threads
    20
    Reputation
    9283
    Rep Power
    82
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2

    Re: In search of the Injeel

    Quote Originally Posted by - Qatada - View Post
    The Christians themselves don't believe that Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him) had a Gospel/Injeel revealed to him, rather they take other men as having Gospels, so it wouldn't be surprising if it wasn't well known, if not lost till today. Allaah knows best.
    It is far bit more than "wasn't well known", there is not a description of such a text anywhere outside of the Qu'ran.
    In search of the Injeel

    "Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."

  14. #11
    - Qatada -'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    ...travelling to the hereafter..
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    11,306
    Threads
    791
    Reputation
    61939
    Rep Power
    121
    Likes (Given)
    18
    Likes (Received)
    505

    Re: In search of the Injeel

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltoi View Post
    It is far bit more than "wasn't well known", there is not a description of such a text anywhere outside of the Qu'ran.

    Do you believe that ALL the Prophets before Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him) were humans? Among them, were they of those who received revelation/guidance/scripture? Yes.

    So we believe that Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him) also did like other Messengers'. Do we believe that Prophet Abraham received scrolls? Yes we do. Have we seen them? No. Have we seen any of the previous Prophets? No. Do we believe that they existed? Yes.


    So because we believe that Prophet Jesus existed, we also believe that Prophet Ya'qub [Jacob] existed. We haven't seen any of these Prophets. But we believe that they were true Prophets because we believe that the Qur'an is the final revelation of Allaah to humanity which He sent to His final Messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him.) Then there are further proofs from Qur'an which clarify that it is truly revelation from Allaah.





    Regards.

  15. #12
    Isambard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Religion
    Unspecified
    Posts
    764
    Threads
    16
    Reputation
    1547
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Re: In search of the Injeel

    Quote Originally Posted by - Qatada - View Post
    The Christians themselves don't believe that Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him) had a Gospel/Injeel revealed to him, rather they take other men as having Gospels, so it wouldn't be surprising if it wasn't well known, if not lost till today. Allaah knows best.
    From what I gather, Christians believe what Jesus said is already incorporated into the Gospels, so the Injeel is already preserved, thou thru the hands of men.

    Its one of the reason I ask this question as the Qur'an makes the odd claim, but I havent seen any evidence for it.

  16. #13
    - Qatada -'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    ...travelling to the hereafter..
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    11,306
    Threads
    791
    Reputation
    61939
    Rep Power
    121
    Likes (Given)
    18
    Likes (Received)
    505

    Re: In search of the Injeel

    Quote Originally Posted by Isambard View Post
    From what I gather, Christians believe what Jesus said is already incorporated into the Gospels, so the Injeel is already preserved, thou thru the hands of men.

    The interpretation of what is stated in the Bible is still open to difference of opinion, for example on another forum i had a discussion with another Christian just today. He said that when Jesus (peace be upon him) discussed the concept of hellfire, he meant it metaphorically instead of literally.

    Now it's possible that Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him) used metaphors alot within his sayings, but now i feel that ideas like this are going way too extreme. In Islam we are open to differences of opinions in regard to minor matters of daily life, yet our beliefs of the main concepts are solid and based upon clear evidences. With the interpretation of the Qur'an and Prophetic guidance clearly preserved for us without alteration.



    For us as Muslims, it isn't surprising to us that Abraham had a scripture, Dawud (David) had the Psalms, and that Moses had the Torah revealed to them. And that Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him) had the Injeel [Gospel] revealed to him. Even if we haven't seen them. The Qur'an is sufficient for us as a proof, and compared to the amount of insults given to the Prophets in the scriptures - which we believe to have been altered - then it isn't surprising to know that these have been altered, and the Qur'an, with which Allaah honors all the Prophets a great deal, is truely a revelation from the Most Compassionate.






    Regards.

  17. #14
    DAWUD_adnan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    penitentiary
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    500
    Threads
    37
    Reputation
    1577
    Rep Power
    74
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Re: In search of the Injeel

    Torah,
    Gospel
    Quran


    All of these were at one stage the literal Word of God i.e God addressing the people and prophet. The Torah and Gospel would have in their original form been quite identical to the Quran i.e the way it is captured would for instance be:

    005.120
    To Allah doth belong the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is therein, and it is He Who hath power over all things.


    NOT like this:
    (Matt :4)
    Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread."

    this is neither God nor the Prophet talking but someone else, much more as how we muslims have the Ahadith. so these words are Not the word of God or His prophet.

    You see. This is what happened to the Torah and Gospel NOT the Word of God Word for Word anymore.

    However, the Quran ONLY the Word of Allah not even His prophet's(saw) words becuase these have been recorded in the hadiths , you see what the christians are following could be seen as Ahadiths which could be and are biased for most of the time. NOT the Gospel in its true form.
    In search of the Injeel

    [/SIGPIC1][SIGPIC]

  18. Report bad ads?
  19. #15
    - Qatada -'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    ...travelling to the hereafter..
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    11,306
    Threads
    791
    Reputation
    61939
    Rep Power
    121
    Likes (Given)
    18
    Likes (Received)
    505

    Re: In search of the Injeel




    Yup, bro dawud made a good point. For the Ahadith we are given chains of narrators, if all the narrators within the chain are trustworthy - then the hadith can be classed as Saheeh [Authentic.] And then accepted by the people of knowledge. The Qur'an has been passed on throughout so many narrations (the highest degree is Tawaatir (Mutawaatir)) that all the people who narrated it could not have all lied upon it together. Maybe hundreds upon hundreds, if not thousands or more.


    In regard to the Bible being preserved in that manner, directly from the time of the companions of Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him) - i don't think this is the case. Nor is there any chain of narration to verify whether it is truly authentic or not. And Allaah knows best.

  20. #16
    YusufNoor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Albuquerque
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    2,000
    Threads
    47
    Reputation
    27443
    Rep Power
    86
    Likes (Given)
    146
    Likes (Received)
    398

    Re: In search of the Injeel

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltoi View Post
    It is far bit more than "wasn't well known", there is not a description of such a text anywhere outside of the Qu'ran.



    the Injeel that Jesus/Isa(as) brought was "his" Message! i'm sure you don't think that Jesus/Isa(as) had NO message[i know you folow Paul's message instead] ! i mean, no one says it has to be a text, could be just the message or just a letter.

    no one doubts that there were ealier, "perhaps less dubios," transcripts describing the words/life of Jesus/Isa(as)! [unless they want to refute an Ayat in the Qur'an! :rolleyes: ]

    In search of the Injeel

    Had the non-believer known of all the Mercy which is in the Hands of Allah, he would not lose hope of entering Paradise, and had the believer known of all the punishment which is present with Allah, he would not consider himself safe from the Hell-Fire
    http://www.muftimenk.co.za/Downloads.html

  21. #17
    Isambard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Religion
    Unspecified
    Posts
    764
    Threads
    16
    Reputation
    1547
    Rep Power
    0
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0

    Re: In search of the Injeel

    Quote Originally Posted by - Qatada - View Post
    The interpretation of what is stated in the Bible is still open to difference of opinion, for example on another forum i had a discussion with another Christian just today. He said that when Jesus (peace be upon him) discussed the concept of hellfire, he meant it metaphorically instead of literally.

    Now it's possible that Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him) used metaphors alot within his sayings, but now i feel that ideas like this are going way too extreme. In Islam we are open to differences of opinions in regard to minor matters of daily life, yet our beliefs of the main concepts are solid and based upon clear evidences. With the interpretation of the Qur'an and Prophetic guidance clearly preserved for us without alteration.



    For us as Muslims, it isn't surprising to us that Abraham had a scripture, Dawud (David) had the Psalms, and that Moses had the Torah revealed to them. And that Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him) had the Injeel [Gospel] revealed to him. Even if we haven't seen them. The Qur'an is sufficient for us as a proof, and compared to the amount of insults given to the Prophets in the scriptures - which we believe to have been altered - then it isn't surprising to know that these have been altered, and the Qur'an, with which Allaah honors all the Prophets a great deal, is truely a revelation from the Most Compassionate.


    Regards.
    This post is also addressed to DAWUD_adnan as the points raised are similar.

    My question how do you know the Qur'an is from God when such a central piece of succession and thus its credibility is curiously missing from all relevant texts?

    Now I admit, the bible and Torah do contain contradictions, inconsistancies in God's behavior, bizarre and unfounded claims etc. Does this mean the Qur'an is automatically correct by default?

    I would argue no. The reason is yes, both these books are evidently written by men, but without either an original maniscript of the Injeel, or anything close, then the 'corrupted texts' are no corrupt, rather thats how they always where. Either God likes toying with creations, or the entire tradition is one fabrication built ontop of another.

    This is why I feel its so important that evidence of an Injeel is so important to the authenticity of the Qur'an. As mentioned before, its a long line of succession. If what came before is inherently wrong, and the Qur'an cant prove its calims, then the Qur'an would be default be wrong to because it wouldnt be able to seperate itself from the flawed prodocessors.

  22. #18
    - Qatada -'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    ...travelling to the hereafter..
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    11,306
    Threads
    791
    Reputation
    61939
    Rep Power
    121
    Likes (Given)
    18
    Likes (Received)
    505

    Re: In search of the Injeel

    Quote Originally Posted by Isambard View Post
    This post is also addressed to DAWUD_adnan as the points raised are similar.

    My question how do you know the Qur'an is from God when such a central piece of succession and thus its credibility is curiously missing from all relevant texts?

    I think you don't understand this concept - Jesus son of Mary came to his own people, i.e. the Children of Israel (Children of Jacob/Ya'qub.) He never came to all of the world, since all the Messengers' came to their own people [Qur'an 14: 4], apart from Muhammad (peace be upon him) who came for all of the world [Qur'an 7: 158.]

    There are many evidences from the Bible itself which state that Jesus came to the 'Lost sheep of Israel.' So to say that Jesus son of Mary had the Injeel with him is perfectly logical, and to say that he had followers who had the Injeel with them after he was raised upto Allaah is also believable. These followers are known to be few (due to the great influence of the polytheistic Byzantine Romans in Greater Syria at that time), but this minority of true monotheists of Jesus son of Mary's message still existed.


    Infact, if we are to study the life of Salmaan Al Faarsi (the Persian) - a famous companion of the final Messenger of Allaah, Muhammad (peace be upon him) we see that he went to Al-Shaam [Greater Syria] to find out the true religion. He wasn't pleased with the religion of his forefathers of Zoroastrianism. So he ran away, searched and he met up with a bishop in Greater Syria, who taught him the true religion of pure monotheism which Jesus (peace be upon him) had come with. This was his journey to Islam, a well known companion of Allaah's final Messenger, and near the end of his life a just governor of all of Persia.


    Why did i narrate this? To explain that the true religion which Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him) had come with remained, although secret from the main influence of the Byzantine Romans, uptill the coming of Allaah's final Messenger. This famous companion then learnt from the pure monotheistic bishop, which led him to his journey to Allaah's final Messenger, and then he was to accept the new message. Why was he to accept the new message instead of sticking to the old one?

    Behold! Allah took the covenant of the prophets, saying: "I give you a Book and Wisdom; then comes to you a messenger, confirming what is with you; do ye believe in him and render him help." Allah said: "Do ye agree, and take this my Covenant as binding on you?" They said: "We agree." He said: "Then bear witness, and I am with you among the witnesses."

    [Qur'an 3: 81]



    So those Prophets would even accept the law revealed to Allaah's final Messenger, if this Prophet were to come within their life times. So anyone who was their follower was also responsible within this covenant.


    This is why Allaah says (translation of the meaning):
    Verily, those who disbelieve in Allâh and His Messengers and wish to make distinction between Allâh and His Messengers (by believing in Allâh and disbelieving in His Messengers) saying, "We believe in some but reject others," and wish to adopt a way in between.

    They are in truth disbelievers. And We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating torment.


    And those who believe in Allâh and His Messengers and make no distinction between any of them (Messengers), We shall give them their rewards, and Allâh is Ever Oft*Forgiving, Most Merciful.


    [Qur'an 4: 150-2]


    Anyway, the issue of the Injeel being preserved after that did not continue. Since the bishops he visited (of pure monotheism) died, the last one explained that the Prophet would be in a certain place. He explained;
    After his death, Salman attached himself to various Christian religious figures, in Mosul, Nisibis and elsewhere. The last one had told him about the appearance of a Prophet in the land of the Arabs who would have a reputation for strict honesty, one who would accept a gift but would never consume charity (sadaqah) for himself. Salman continues his story.)
    So a companion of the final Messenger of Allaah narrates to us his story, and without a doubt - after the final Messenger of Allaah there is no need for the previous revelation. Yet none will recieve divine revelation from Allaah except His final Messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him) uptill the Day of Ressurection.



    Now I admit, the bible and Torah do contain contradictions, inconsistancies in God's behavior, bizarre and unfounded claims etc. Does this mean the Qur'an is automatically correct by default?

    This means that they can't be true revelation from Allaah, and the Qur'an clarifies that there were true scriptures revealed to the Messengers' once upon a time however. Yet because the Qur'an does not have these contradictions and inconsistencies, then it is proof that it is revelation from Allaah.


    I would argue no. The reason is yes, both these books are evidently written by men, but without either an original maniscript of the Injeel, or anything close, then the 'corrupted texts' are no corrupt, rather thats how they always where.
    No, as i've explained above. They were preserved uptill the coming of Allaah's final Messenger.



    Either God likes toying with creations, or the entire tradition is one fabrication built ontop of another.

    The previous revelation is not required if the future revelation has come.



    This is why I feel its so important that evidence of an Injeel is so important to the authenticity of the Qur'an. As mentioned before, its a long line of succession. If what came before is inherently wrong, and the Qur'an cant prove its calims, then the Qur'an would be default be wrong to because it wouldnt be able to seperate itself from the flawed prodocessors.

    The Ahadith are also an authority within the religion, and because the final Messenger of Allaah (peace be upon him) approved of his companion Sulaiman Al Faarsi, and was pleased with him - this then shows that what Sulaiman said was true and not based upon falsehood. Otherwise Allaah would have informed His Messenger, the same way He did throughout many other events during His Messengers' lifetime also.




    And Allaah knows best.





    Regards.
    Last edited by - Qatada -; 08-21-2007 at 10:22 PM. Reason: sp.

  23. #19
    Keltoi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Religion
    Unspecified
    Posts
    5,061
    Threads
    20
    Reputation
    9283
    Rep Power
    82
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2

    Re: In search of the Injeel

    Quote Originally Posted by YusufNoor View Post


    the Injeel that Jesus/Isa(as) brought was "his" Message! i'm sure you don't think that Jesus/Isa(as) had NO message[i know you folow Paul's message instead] ! i mean, no one says it has to be a text, could be just the message or just a letter.

    no one doubts that there were ealier, "perhaps less dubios," transcripts describing the words/life of Jesus/Isa(as)! [unless they want to refute an Ayat in the Qur'an! :rolleyes: ]

    What an odd line of thought. Of course Christ had "His" own Message, it was Message of forgiveness for sin and the promise of eternal salvation. I realize Muslims don't believe that, but Christ's purpose and Message was described quite clearly by the Apostles.

    As for these obvious "earlier and perhaps less dubious" transcripts, I would be interested in this overwhelming evidence that makes such a claim "obvious".
    In search of the Injeel

    "Imagination was given to man to compensate him for what he is not, and a sense of humor was provided to console him for what he is."

  24. Report bad ads?
  25. #20
    YusufNoor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Albuquerque
    Gender
    Male
    Religion
    Islam
    Posts
    2,000
    Threads
    47
    Reputation
    27443
    Rep Power
    86
    Likes (Given)
    146
    Likes (Received)
    398

    Re: In search of the Injeel

    Quote Originally Posted by Keltoi View Post
    What an odd line of thought. Of course Christ had "His" own Message, it was Message of forgiveness for sin and the promise of eternal salvation. I realize Muslims don't believe that, but Christ's purpose and Message was described quite clearly by the Apostles.

    As for these obvious "earlier and perhaps less dubious" transcripts, I would be interested in this overwhelming evidence that makes such a claim "obvious".
    Yes, of course Jesus/Isa(as) had his own Message, but we have no proof that the testimony that we have comes from any of the Apostles as the majority of the NT writings come after Paul becomes the dominant force in the "Church", and of course, Paul never met Jesus/Isa(as)!

    was Jesus'/Isa's Message written down?

    NOT, according to Catholics:

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06655b.htm

    (6) The Gospels and the Oral Gospel
    All recent critics admit that the contents of our four Gospels are intimately connected with more primitive accounts of Christ's life, which may be described, in a general way, as an Oral Gospel. They are well aware that Jesus Himself did not consign to writing His own teachings, and directed His Apostles not to write, but to preach, the Gospel to their fellow-men. They regard as an undoubted fact that these first disciples of the Master, faithful to the mission which He had entrusted to them, began, from the day of Pentecost on, boldly to declare by word of mouth what they had seen and heard (cf. Acts 4:2), considering as a special duty of theirs "the ministry of the word" (Acts 6:4). It is plain, too, that those whom the Apostles immediately selected to help them in the discharge of this most important mission had to be, like the Apostles themselves, able to bear witness to the life and teachings of Christ (cf. Acts 1:21 sq.). The substance of the Evangelical narratives would thus be repeated viva voce by the early teachers of Christianity, before any one of them bethought himself to set it down in writing. It can be readily seen that such Apostolic teaching was then inculcated in words which tended to assume a stereotyped form of expression, similar to that which we find in the Synoptic Gospels. In like manner, also, one can easily realize how the Apostles would not be concerned with the exact order of events narrated, and would not aim at completeness in telling what they "had seen and heard". Thus, according to this opinion, was gradually formed what may be called the "Oral Gospel", that is, a relation of Christ's words and deeds, parallel, in respect to matter and form, to our canonical Gospels. In view of this, critics have endeavoured to find out the general contents of this Oral Gospel by means of the second part of the Book of the Acts, by a study of the doctrinal contents of the Epistles of St. Paul, and more particularly by a close comparison of the Synoptic narratives; and it may be freely said that their efforts in that direction have met with considerable success. As regards, however, the precise relation which should be admitted between our canonical Gospels and the Oral Gospel, there is still, among contemporary scholars, a variety of views which will be set forth and examined in the special articles on the individual Gospels. Suffice it to say, here, that the theory which regards the canonical Gospels as embodying, in substance, the oral teaching of the Apostles concerning the words and deeds of Christ is in distinct harmony with the Catholic position, which affirms both the historical value of these sacred records and the authoritative character of the Apostolic traditions, whether these are actually consigned to writing or simply enforced by the ever living voice of the Church.



    YET, accrding to other Christians:


    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14389b.htm

    C. Earlier Documents
    The documentary hypothesis is the prevalent theory among non-Catholics. Its general principle of solution of the Synoptic Problem is that in the composition of their writings, the first three Evangelists have all made use of earlier written material. The application of this general principle has given rise to a great number of suppositions, the principal of which may be briefly considered. Since Eichhorn (close of the eighteenth century), and especially since Resch (close of the nineteenth), attempts have been made to get behind our Greek Gospels to one or more Semitic documents used in them, and thus to account for the relationship of the Synoptics. This written source, the primitive contents and wording of which might still be detected, was Hebrew according to Resch and Abbott, Aramaic according to Marshall, Hoffmann, etc. In general, the variation in the words and clauses in our Gospels is accounted for by the different translations given to the Aramaic or Hebrew words. It is undoubted that the recent advocates of the hypothesis of a Semitic source have displayed great learning and ingenuity in pointing out the Semitic expressions which might underlie the divers readings noticeable in parallel passages of the Synoptics. It is undoubted, too, that the general background of the Gospels is Semitic in thought and forms of expression, and even that Semitic documents (for instance, Christ's genealogies) have been used by their authors.

    By itself alone, however, the theory of a Semitic source does not appear a satisfactory solution of the Synoptic Problem. It is not certain that the whole Semitic background of the Synoptics had assumed a written shape before it was utilized by the Evangelists, for countless instances of Semitic forms of thought and expression may equally well be accounted for through the direct use of oral tradition, to which source, as a matter of fact, Papias refers the origin of St. Mark's Gospel. Again, the differences between the parallel passages of the first three Gospels are very often such as to point directly to the use by the Synoptists of the same Greek sources, so that in large portions of their works, it is much more natural to account for such differences by the individual literary taste, general purpose, etc., of the Evangelists, than by an appeal to the collateral use of a Semitic original, or a multiplicity of versions of it, the very existence of which is doubtful, and the knowledge of which by the Synoptists is still more questionable.
    A more plausible form of the documentary hypothesis goes back in substance to Schleiermacher (1817). It maintains that, at an early period, many evangelical fragments, Greek as well as Aramaic, were scattered throughout the Churches, -- traditions floating about of which written accounts had been made. These the three Synoptists worked in their Gospels, together with materials which each had himself collected; and in this manner the coincidences and the differences of the Synoptics may be accounted for. This theory of a plurality of primitive documents, -- which in certain of its modifications is combined with that of a dependence of later, on earlier, canonical Gospels, -- is admitted by many scholars (Renan, Wrede, Schmiedel, Loisy, etc.). This form of the documentary hypothesis does not necessarily go against the inspired character of the Synoptic Gospels. The actual use of certain primitive documents, notably by St. Matthew and St. Luke, may also be readily granted. But tradition ascribes to St. Mark's Gospel a very different origin from the one supposed by this theory, and a careful study of the contents and the style of that Gospel has recently convinced several prominent scholars that the work is not a compilation from written sources. Again, it is not proved that because St. Matthew and St. Luke employed written documents, they exclusively confined themselves to the use of such sources. In their day, oral tradition was certainly much alive. At that time, the difference between oral tradition and a document was not great in many cases where it had easily become stereotyped by frequent repetition. And it is not a safe position to deny the use of this tradition by St. Luke, in particular, that is, by a writer who would naturally utilize every source of information at his disposal. Finally, a constant appeal to new documents, the contents, extent, and very existence of which cannot, many a time, be ascertained, gives to this theory an air of artificiality which recommends it little as an exact description of the actual manner in which the Synoptic Gospels were composed.
    The last general form of the documentary hypothesis which remains to be examined is the "Two Document theory", according to which two large works form the main sources of the Synoptics. One work like our Gospel of St. Mark, if not identical with it, is the source of the narratives common to the first three Gospels, and the other, containing the Sayings of Jesus, is the source of the didactic matter common to St. Matthew and St. Luke. Modified in various ways, this solution of the Synoptic problem has had, and has yet, numerous advocates chiefly among Protestant scholars. In the eyes of all such critics, the theory of only two main written sources is especially commendable for its simplicity and plausibility. The contents of the Synoptics comprise two classes of parallel sections: the one consists of narratives of actions and events found in all three Gospels; the other consisting of Christ's teaching appears only in St. Matthew and St. Luke. Now, as in the selection of material, the arrangement, and the language of sections parallel in all three, St. Matthew constantly agrees with St. Mark against St. Luke, and St. Luke with St. Mark against St. Matthew, but St. Matthew and St. Luke scarcely ever agree against St. Mark, the simplest supposition is that St. Matthew and St. Luke made independent use of St. Mark as we have it, or of a Gospel like it (Ur-Marcus). The freshness and power of St. Mark's narrative go also to prove its priority to that of the other two Evangelists. Thus far of the material common to the first three Gospels. The great bulk of the additional matter found only in St. Matthew and St. Luke consists mainly of the words and discourses of Jesus and although it is very differently given as to historic connexion and grouping, yet it is pervaded by such similarity of thought and expression as to suggest forcibly the hypothesis of a single main source as its natural explanation. The "Two Document theory" is also claimed to explain the peculiar phenomenon of "doublets" in St. Matthew and St. Luke. Finally, it is said to be supported by tradition rightly interpreted. Papias, speaking of books about Christ written by St. Matthew and St. Mark, says: "Mark, being the interpreter of Peter, wrote carefully, though not in order, as he remembered them, the things spoken and done by Christ". "Matthew wrote the Logia in the Hebrew language, and every one translated them as he was able". These statements seem to point to two books as the fountains of evangelical written tradition. One can be distinctly named; it is practically our second Gospel. The other, according to Harnack, Wellhausen, Stanton, can still be reconstructed; it is a record of Logia chiefly embodied in our first Gospel (Ur-Mattheus) and also utilized by St. Luke.
    The "Two Document theory" is advocated by many prominent critics (H. Holtzmann, B. Weiss, Wendt, Wernle, Soltau, Jülicher, Hawkins, etc.). Yet, is is not an adequate solution of the Synoptic problem. It leaves its defenders hopelessly divided on points of considerable importance, such as the compilatory character of St. Mark's Gospel; the extent and exact nature of the Logian document (Q) utilized by our first and third Evangelists; the manner of its use by St. Matthew and St. Luke, respectively; the question whether it was used by St. Mark also; the number of the sources employed by St. Matthew and St. Luke besides St. Mark and Q; etc. A greater difficulty sometimes urged against this theory, regards the priority of St. Mark, which its advocates treat as a point altogether settled. Tradition has it that St. Matthew's Gospel existed in a Semitic form before it was rendered into Greek, that is before it assumed the only form now available for a comparison, with St. Mark's narrative. Hence, it is claimed that St. Matthew's dependence in the Greek on our second Gospel is one arising from the fact that its Greek translation was made with the aid of our second Gospel, and leaving intact the priority of the earlier Semitic form of St. Matthew's Gospel to the composition of St. Mark's writing. Among other difficulties against the "Two Document theory" may be mentioned:
    · (1) its inherent tendency to appeal to subsidiary written sources, the extent and nature of which cannot be determined;
    · (2) its general disregard of the influence of oral tradition in the composition of the Synoptics;
    · (3) its common, but very improbable, denial of St. Luke's dependence on both St. Matthew and St. Luke.
    From the foregoing rapid survey of the attempts at solving the Synoptic Problem, it is plain that none of them has been really successful. The problem is very intricate; the historical information concerning the origin of our first three Gospels, incomplete; and every theory, one-sided. The satisfactory hypothesis, yet to be formulated, must be a combination hypothesis gathering and uniting, in due proportions, all the truths presented by the various opinions, and also a more thorough theory taking fully into account both the data of Patristic tradition and those disclosed by literary analysis. Such theory, when framed, will undoubtedly supply the fullest vindication of the historical value of our Synoptic records.

    you may remember providing that link. so either there's no written Message, so we can stop looking for it, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist. it just didn't have too. after all Jesus/Isa(as) was the "Word made flesh" and every word that he ACTUALLY spoke would have been his Message.

    or, as other seem to think, there was an earlier written document. at any rate, BOTH theories are possible within the context of the Qur'an!
    [and there was evidence of both]

    In search of the Injeel

    Had the non-believer known of all the Mercy which is in the Hands of Allah, he would not lose hope of entering Paradise, and had the believer known of all the punishment which is present with Allah, he would not consider himself safe from the Hell-Fire
    http://www.muftimenk.co.za/Downloads.html

  26. Hide
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Hey there! In search of the Injeel Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, we remember exactly what you've read, so you always come right back where you left off. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and share your thoughts. In search of the Injeel
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. why didn't Allah protect the Injeel?
    By MrKhan89 in forum General
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 12-18-2012, 12:33 PM
  2. Search IB
    By Abdul-Raouf in forum Feedback & Suggestions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-03-2011, 07:35 PM
  3. Could al-Injeel and the Q-source document be one and the same?
    By Grace Seeker in forum Comparative religion
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 12-03-2010, 01:06 PM
  4. search with yahoo or google with this search
    By Najiullah in forum Feedback & Suggestions
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-23-2006, 04:14 PM
  5. What do Muslims believe the Injeel contained?
    By Woodrow in forum Comparative religion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-21-2006, 06:47 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
create