I didn't want to jump in, but please start a thread or something with a discussion on the following, some points which perplex me.
I think we have spoken a bit about the possible authors of the Gospels, I don't remember it ending properly, or it being much of a discussion, I think it mainly fizzled out under the broad topic of threads. So I'd like some reasons why you truly feel the apostles wrote the Gospels and why that is a more probable position than any other.
Also please cite some evidence for the death of any of the disciples of Jesus, which can be said to be historically probable.
hola Al Habeshi,
the textual 'Gospels' are different (but related) from what Christians, especially Catholics, call 'the Gospel.' 'the Gospel' refers to the original traditions and oral teachings of Jesus passed on from Jesus to the disciples and then to the first generations of the Church, collectively referred to as 'the apostles.' at that point two things happened, the received 'Gospel' was written down by various apostles (some of whom included the original disciples) according to how they had recieved them, thus becomming 'the Gospels' and simultaneously the living tradition 'the Gospel' continued to grow within the confines of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church guided by the Holy Spirit and collectively stewarded by the five Patriarchs, the prince of whom is the Pope.
so think of the text gospels as snapshots of the living tradition that was begun by Jesus and carried into the present day. the importance for us (especially Catholics) is the chain of transmission, what you might call an 'isnad,' which traces one of the written gospels back to an apostolic source. if it does not then that is proof that gospel does not come from the living tradition called 'the Gospel.' the early Church, which is the living tradition and second half of 'the Gospel' painstakingly reviewed the validity of these chains to determine actual apostolic origin, their determinations ruled out some texts as false and others as true.
obviously not everything that claims to be a legitimate Gospel purporting to trace back to an actual apostle is truthful in this regard.
the work of modern scholars is questionable at best, looking back from 2000 years at a movement which by secular accounts was not worthy of comment (thus providing little to no data), without inheriting the rich oral traditions and history that the Church Fathers held at that time, and religiously without guidance by the Holy Spirit, these modern authors lack both the authority and the context to 'double check' the work of the Holy Fathers. i've seen some rather ridiculous attempts to assert the validity of 'other Gospels' like that of 'Barnabas' which was clearly a medieval forgery, or the supposed existance of 'Q documents' which amount to nothing more than a totally unfounded myth that the similarities of Luke and Mark are not the result of their shared oral tradition but rather a written account of proverbs and phrases attributed to Jesus and from a much earlier time period, ie the apocryphal 'gospel of Thomas' in disguise.
these misguided attempts reflect the western secular agenda of tearing down the agreed upon opinion regarding the origins and beginnings of Christianity, merely because these opinions are completely in sync with the early Christian accounts... something which rings alarm bells for secular 'scholars,' or other opportunists desiring to profit from their lies.
Jayda you raised a point in post #1 concerning what one might assume something as true and reject something as false.
Would you agree that, above all, any writings, Islamic or Christian, to be considered true, they MUST conform to earlier true scripture, or at the very least to not deny other true scripture?
Grace Seeker, just to nit pick a bit, Jesus wrote words in the dust when he was asked to stone the adulteress woman.
MustafaMc “The NT clearly is not an accurate [verbatim] record of words spoken directly by Jesus”, I have never seen this disputed by anyone. That leaves me wanting to reply to your point with…. So?
MustafaMc “The NT clearly is not an accurate [verbatim] record of words spoken directly by Jesus”, I have never seen this disputed by anyone. That leaves me wanting to reply to your point with…. So?
The point is that “The Quran clearly is an accurate [verbatim] record of words spoken directly by Muhammad.” We accept Jesus (as) as a Messenger of Allah and accept the message that he brought as True; however, the fact that we don't have an accurate and comprehensive record of his words and actions casts doubts on the Divine authenticity of the NT.
MustafaMC, I think you may have missed my point. Court records are full of accurate verbatim testimony. The testimony itself may be true or it maybe false. The fact it was recorded accurately is not a determination of truthfulness of it.
A comparison of any given testimony to other testimony or known facts is what is needed. Even then there may be a lot of dispute as to what the truth is. (I seem to recall such a dispute being recently in the news. It concerned the Armenians and the Turks killing each other.)
Then we have a whole other category of subjects, such as this thread was start over. Religion and pre-modern history is one of these categories. More times than not the “truthfulness” is in the eye of the beholder.
Objectivity is of the utmost importance when trying to determine the probability of truthfulness of recorded events. An example might be seen in examining records of Jesus being in Heaven laughing over the fact that another was crucified in his place and everyone had been fooled (I believe it was recorded in the Book of Barnabas, I will have to go back and review it to be sure.). I can objectively reject the record of Jesus being in Heaven laughing over the crucifixion because Jesus doing such a thing is so out of character when compared to any other records of Jesus. The simple fact that the Book of Barnabas may still exist in its original form/text (not saying that it does) would be a poor basis for declaring it true or not.
Contrarily rejecting recorded events as likely to be false simply because of minor differences in the records is not very objective. An example can be seen in some of the records of Jesus healing the blind.
Some records of certain events record one blind man being healed and other records of the same event record two men being healed. We can now offer the argument that since there are recorded differences of the same event we can objectively reject Jesus healing the blind. That, to me, seems to be your argument. I reject the objectivity of that argument.
For me I find the records of boy-Jesus making clay birds come to life much more doubtful simply because there is no logical reason for that event to have not been recorded in the Christian records. It matters not that the original record of the clay birds being made alive may have been perfectly recorded and perfectly preserved or not.
My point “any writings, Islamic or Christian, to be considered true, they MUST conform to earlier true scripture” is seen in the following:
The instruction to remove hands and feet as a form of punishment for thievery, as divine, in my opinion, should be objectively rejected due to it being contrary to any Jewish or Christian writings.
It matters not that the instruction to remove hands and feet has been perfectly recorded and preserved, that doesn’t make it divine or even to have likely to been divinely inspired.
MustafaMC, I think you may have missed my point. Court records are full of accurate verbatim testimony. The testimony itself may be true or it maybe false. The fact it was recorded accurately is not a determination of truthfulness of it.
I was not making a case for truth or falsehood. I was making a case for authenticity. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Qur'an is an authentic and accurate record of what the Companions heard Prophet Muhammad (saaws) recite as revelation. No one even claims that even the NT gospels are equivalent to the Qur'an in this sense. The 4 gospels have bits and pieces of what Jesus (as) is claimed to have said, but there is no doubt whatsoever that they are not accurate nor complete. Even the "Lord's Prayer" is not quoted identically between the gospels.
A comparison of any given testimony to other testimony or known facts is what is needed. Even then there may be a lot of dispute as to what the truth is. (I seem to recall such a dispute being recently in the news. It concerned the Armenians and the Turks killing each other.)
No, this is not a dependable means of ascertaining Truth. For one thing, there is no doubt that the Bible is not "known facts". Since Christians don't even claim that the NT Bible is an accurate and complete record of Jesus' (as) teachings and actions, the Bible is not a dependable standard to judge against.
Contrarily rejecting recorded events as likely to be false simply because of minor differences in the records is not very objective. An example can be seen in some of the records of Jesus healing the blind.
Some records of certain events record one blind man being healed and other records of the same event record two men being healed. We can now offer the argument that since there are recorded differences of the same event we can objectively reject Jesus healing the blind. That, to me, seems to be your argument. I reject the objectivity of that argument.
No, your argument is not even logical. Just because there are differences between accounts does not mean that it didn't happen; however, it does clearly illustrate that the records are not accurate and complete.
For me I find the records of boy-Jesus making clay birds come to life much more doubtful simply because there is no logical reason for that event to have not been recorded in the Christian records. It matters not that the original record of the clay birds being made alive may have been perfectly recorded and perfectly preserved or not.
Just because an event is not recorded in the NT, does not mean that it didn't happen. There is nothing written in the gospels about Jesus' life between his family visiting the temple when he was 12 (I think) and when he started his public ministry with his baptism and calling of the disciples.
My point “any writings, Islamic or Christian, to be considered true, they MUST conform to earlier true scripture” is seen in the following:
The instruction to remove hands and feet as a form of punishment for thievery, as divine, in my opinion, should be objectively rejected due to it being contrary to any Jewish or Christian writings.
It matters not that the instruction to remove hands and feet has been perfectly recorded and preserved, that doesn’t make it divine or even to have likely to been divinely inspired.
Just because a law differs from what is known about previous revelations, it does not mean that the law is not Divine. Although Allah (swt) does not change, man's understanding definitely changes over time. Even the Bible tells us that the disciples were not ready for the full message that was to come latter with the coming of "the Spirit of truth" that we Muslims believe prophesied the coming of Prophet Muhammad (saaws). John 16:12-14 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, [these] shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall take of mine, and shall declare [it] unto you.
I have not seen Grace Seeker or Jayda around, I had forgot about this thread, just wondering if yall still here?
Eesa
I continue to receive notifications for old threads that I subscribed to, and sometimes I read them. But I haven't felt comfortable in participating in many weeks; hence my absence.
I continue to receive notifications for old threads that I subscribed to, and sometimes I read them. But I haven't felt comfortable in participating in many weeks; hence my absence.
See, I noticed
How comes, why you aint felt comfortable?
The path is long but I hope we meet,
After the grave and the Day, in paradise in bliss upon a reclined seat.
A traveler traveling - travelled from shirk to tawheed,
If I'm remembered for anything - let it be the Mercy I seek.
I continue to receive notifications for old threads that I subscribed to, and sometimes I read them. But I haven't felt comfortable in participating in many weeks; hence my absence.
Hugs and hugs and hugs and hugsHugs and hugs and hugs and hugsHugs and hugs and hugs and hugsHugs and hugs and hugs and hugsHugs and hugs and hugs and hugs Graceseeker. but in a manly way.
Hai dude. Miss ya on the boards
Occupation: The term of control of a territory by foreign military forces: Iraq 2003-2005 Liberation:when something or someone is freed: Operation Telic 2003
I continue to receive notifications for old threads that I subscribed to, and sometimes I read them. But I haven't felt comfortable in participating in many weeks; hence my absence.
Good to see you around, Grace Seeker.
I am missing your knowledgeable posts, but I understand what you mean.
Hope all is well in your neck of the woods.
Peace glo
Here I stand.
I can do no other.
May God help me.
Amen.
Come, let us worship and bow down •
and kneel before the Lord our Maker
[Psalm 95]
Hugs and hugs and hugs and hugsHugs and hugs and hugs and hugsHugs and hugs and hugs and hugsHugs and hugs and hugs and hugsHugs and hugs and hugs and hugs Graceseeker. but in a manly way.
Hai dude. Miss ya on the boards
You are a big softie, really ... aren't you, Barney?
Peace glo
Here I stand.
I can do no other.
May God help me.
Amen.
Come, let us worship and bow down •
and kneel before the Lord our Maker
[Psalm 95]
I continue to receive notifications for old threads that I subscribed to, and sometimes I read them. But I haven't felt comfortable in participating in many weeks; hence my absence.
Peace, GraceSeeker. I hope that all is well with you and your family.
Hey there! 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. Sign Up
Quote
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Bookmarks