Quran VS Bible , a thoroughly comparative study,arranged by items

[Grace Seeker]

Philo's Logos was co-eternal with God. The Logos of John's gospel however was not.

I strongly disagree. John 1:3 tells us that all things were made through him (i.e., the Logos). For the Logos to NOT be co-eternal, would mean that the Logos had a beginning and was a part of creation. But 1:3 declares the Logos to be the agent of creation, not the resultant. According to 1:1, he was there in the beginning. That means that when the beginning occurred that he was already there just as when Genesis 1:1 speaks of God being present in the beginning it does not mean that God has a beginning, but that God was present before the beginning. So, just as God is eternal (Genesis 1:1), so too the Logos is eternal (John 1:1).

Proverbs 8:22, Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14 all show Jesus as having a beginning. Also, John 1:1 does not identify the Logos as "God". Rather the verse states that the Logos was with God. This important observation is repeated in verse 2.

John 1:1 means that the Logos was a divine being of some kind but not the same God that the Logos was with. That is why Moffatt's translation of John 1:1 reads: "the Logos was divine" rather than "the Logos was God".

You might guess that I disagree with most of your interpretation here as well. But even if one were to grant it, your original premise that John presents a Logos that is NOT co-eternal with God fails in the very first verse. And from that, I think you have to rethink the rest of what you propose in this other material as well.

 

[Hiroshi]

I strongly disagree. John 1:3 tells us that all things were made through him (i.e., the Logos).

John 1:3 KJV reads: "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." But the wording of this verse had been changed to combat Arianism. The last three words: "that was made" or "what was made" are really the beginning of a new sentence and properly belong to verse 4: "What was made by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men."

I once had a link to a whole article about this but I can't find it now.

 

[Al-manar]

would you go so far as to suggest that perhaps not just John's prologue, but even Jesus' own message was influenced by these rabbinic writings?

let's rewrite the Question :Was the New Testament influenced by some rabbinic writings? ?I think so (details coming soon)...

............................

I think the muslim readers got the posts of Hiroshi and Grace seeker ,and their arguments regarding John 1:1 .....

What should be the muslim position in such controversy?

it should be neutral ...... as the results of such controversy should by no means be taken by a muslim seriously ...

1- what if the understanding of Grace seeker proved convincing? well, that doesn't prove Jesus to be God ...just proves that John etc believed in Jesus as God hence including the writer(s) of John with the people mentioned in the following verse Holy Quran 4: 169.They misbelieve who say, "Verily God is the Messiah the son of Mary.


2- If the understanding of Hiroshi proved convincing? well, that doesn't prove Jesus to be such divine being eg, angelic figure that other than God and his first creature,that everything else was created by means of him ,as that is again against Islam's view of Jesus .....

in other words both of the two understandings proved to be against Islam , the fact that the whole prologue of John is un-Islamic from A to Z,and has to be excluded from Islam's Definition of the true message revealed to Jesus ,preached by him and his disciples.......


till next post...

 

[Grace Seeker]

John 1:3 KJV reads: "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." But the wording of this verse had been changed to combat Arianism. The last three words: "that was made" or "what was made" are really the beginning of a new sentence and properly belong to verse 4: "What was made by means of him was life, and the life was the light of men."

I once had a link to a whole article about this but I can't find it now.

That's hardly possible, as Koine Greek was written without the benefit of punctuation. So, where to put that period today is a reflection of one's exegesis of the passage as a whole, not something that can be based on textual evidence, even if one had the original autograph.

From Bruce Metzger's A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament:

A majority of the Committee was impressed by the consensus of ante-Nicene writers (orthodox and heretical alike) who took ho gegonen with what follows. When, however, in the fourth century Arians and the Macedonian heretics began to appeal to the passage to prove that the Holy Spirit is to be regarded as one of the created things, orthodox writers preferred to take ho gegonen with the preceding sentence, thus removing the possibility of heretical use of the passage.

That's basically what you are saying Hiroshi. I don't think it changes the point I was making however. We still have the verse saying: "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made."

 

[Grace Seeker]

let's rewrite the Question :Was the New Testament influenced by some rabbinic writings? ?I think so (details coming soon)...

............................

I think the muslim readers got the posts of Hiroshi and Grace seeker ,and their arguments regarding John 1:1 .....

What should be the muslim position in such controversy?

it should be neutral ...... as the results of such controversy should by no means be taken by a muslim seriously ...

... both of the two understandings proved to be against Islam , the fact that the whole prologue of John is un-Islamic from A to Z,and has to be excluded from Islam's Definition of the true message revealed to Jesus ,preached by him and his disciples.......


till next post...

I appreciate this approach. For you are letting the Bible speak for itself rather than trying to force an outside view upon it. The question should be, what does the Bible actually say. Only after we understand what it actually says is the person in a position to accept or reject it. If we reject a view before it even has the opportunity to be expressed, or read it in such a way that we set it up for being rejected, we aren't really even listening to what is being said. Such an action would be unbecoming a religion that is rationale, for it would be to read the book prejudicially. But, if after understanding what the Bible says, you then (because of another belief you also have) reject it, well, at least it got a fair hearing. And that is all that is being asked.

 

[FollowerOfChrist]

I thought you didn't want to start another debate about Christianity... hmmm Tilmeez

 

[جوري]

Where is Tilmeez in all of this? although admittedly I am amused to see two sects of christianity out to prove the other a heretic ..opcorn:opcorn:

all the best

 

[IAmZamzam]

Bear in mind that the opening to John, whatever it says and means, is only a personal commentary and statement of belief from the author, and not a recording of any of these witnessed(?) events. To automatically trust it even if you think you have good reason to believe in the accounts of the supposedly humanly witnessed events is like automatically trusting a newscaster's introductory personal commentary on the story they're reporting because you trust the sources of that news corporation.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Bear in mind that the opening to John, whatever it says and means, is only a personal commentary and statement of belief from the author, and not a recording of any of these witnessed(?) events. To automatically trust it even if you think you have good reason to believe in the accounts of the supposedly humanly witnessed events is like automatically trusting a newscaster's introductory personal commentary on the story they're reporting because you trust the sources of that news corporation.

Yahya, you've hit on the BIGGEST difference between the Bible and the Qur'an. While parts of the Bible are presented as "God says....", the majority of it is reflection or editorial. If you believe the newscaster is particularly insightful (we might say "inspired") when he makes his comments, then there is value in them. If you believe that he wasn't, then there isn't. With the Qur'an it is a book that purports itself to be the very words of God. If you believe that the conduit of that message faithfully delivered that message, bearing witness (the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth) then you've got a book you can trust as being God's literal word. And if you think that the conduit was imperfect, then there is room to question the message as well.

 

[Hiroshi]

That's hardly possible, as Koine Greek was written without the benefit of punctuation. So, where to put that period today is a reflection of one's exegesis of the passage as a whole, not something that can be based on textual evidence, even if one had the original autograph.

In the opening verses of his gospel John uses a kind of poetical device where the last word or thought of one phrase or sentence is repeated to make the opening word or thought of the next phrase or sentence:

1εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος 2ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον
3παντα δι αυτου εγενετο και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδε εν ο γεγονεν
4εν αυτω ζωη ην και η ζωη ην το φως των ανθρωπων
5και το φως εν τη σκοτια φαινει και η σκοτια αυτο ου κατελαβεν

This is why "ho gegonen" (ο γεγονεν) should not be moved to the preceding sentence. In the statement: "all things were made by him" the "all things" obviously excludes God himself and Jesus. But Jesus was made by God. However, if you add the words thus: "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made, that was made" then it follows that Jesus could not be a "made" or "created" being.

 

[Al-manar]

Bear in mind that the opening to John, whatever it says and means, is only a personal commentary and statement of belief from the author, and not a recording of any of these witnessed(?) events.

John's prologue is not to be trusted ,why?

cause the work proved to be flawed in areas of issues that can be verified

eg;comparing its accounts with other gospels'accounts and its flawed Exegesis to the old testament (details soon)...

once, we highlighted just one of these shortcomings right here.....
http://www.islamicboard.com/compara...tive-study-arranged-items-11.html#post1343689

if the work can't be trusted in the resurrection account , prophecies claimed to be fulfilled (matters could be verified),how could it be trusted in his talking about word was with God and word was God(matters of the un-seen that couldn't be verified)?

If John (besides the other NT writers) erred regarding Jesus believing in him as the Old testament long awaited Jewish messiah(The Non-Metaphysical,easily to be verfied issue) , then it doesn't require great deal of wisdom to realize that he,they erred believing him as God ( The Metaphysical,where it cannot be tested).....



If the biblical record can be proved fallible in areas of fact that can be verified, then it is hardly to be trusted in areas where it cannot be tested. As a witness for God, the Bible would be discredited as untrustworthy. What solid truth it may contain would be left as a matter of mere conjecture, subject to the intuition or canons of likelihood of each individual. An attitude of sentimental attachment to traditional religion may incline one person to accept nearly all the substantive teachings of Scripture as probably true. But someone else with equal justification may pick and chose whatever teachings in the Bible happen to appeal to him and lay equal claim to legitimacy. One opinion is as good as another. All things are possible, but nothing is certain if indeed the Bible contains mistakes or errors of any kind (Gleason Archer ,Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties pp. 23-24).

"... But how do you know Jesus except as he is presented to you in the Bible? If the Bible is not God's Word and does not present a picture of Jesus Christ that can be trusted, how do you know it is the true Christ you are following? You may be worshipping a Christ of your own imagination." (Does Errancy Matter by James Boice, page 24)


till next post

 

[Grace Seeker]

In the opening verses of his gospel John uses a kind of poetical device where the last word or thought of one phrase or sentence is repeated to make the opening word or thought of the next phrase or sentence:

1εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος 2ουτος ην εν αρχη προς τον θεον
3παντα δι αυτου εγενετο και χωρις αυτου εγενετο ουδε εν ο γεγονεν
4εν αυτω ζωη ην και η ζωη ην το φως των ανθρωπων
5και το φως εν τη σκοτια φαινει και η σκοτια αυτο ου κατελαβεν

I'll grant you the above to have been the way the NT church read this passage of scripture. And probably for the reason you cite. But I don't see how that leads you to the following conclusion:

This is why "ho gegonen" (ο γεγονεν) should not be moved to the preceding sentence. In the statement: "all things were made by him" the "all things" obviously excludes God himself and Jesus. But Jesus was made by God. However, if you add the words thus: "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made, that was made" then it follows that Jesus could not be a "made" or "created" being.

I think the verse means the same thing, namely that the LOGOS is the creator and not a part of creation, with or without the phrase "that was made" being part of the preceeding sentence.

 

[Hiroshi]

I think the verse means the same thing, namely that the LOGOS is the creator and not a part of creation, with or without the phrase "that was made" being part of the preceeding sentence.

In John 1:3 it says "All (Greek: "panta") [things] came into existence through him [Jesus]".

This same Greek word "panta" appears at 1 Corinthians 15:25 where it says (NIV): "For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ."

So this word meaning "all things" or "everything" can still allow for exceptions that are not to be included. In 1 Corinthians 15:25 it should be understood to exclude God and Jesus. And it can be understood the same way at John 1:3. Everything created, except for Jesus, came into existence through Jesus. No problem there.

But if the words "that was made" are added at the end of the sentence in John 1:3 then it gives the thought that there is nothing created that did not come into existence through Jesus. This would necessarily mean that Jesus was uncreated.

 

[Grace Seeker]

But if the words "that was made" are added at the end of the sentence in John 1:3 then it gives the thought that there is nothing created that did not come into existence through Jesus. This would necessarily mean that Jesus was uncreated.

It would indeed. But that doesn't mean that reading them as the beginning of the next sentence excludes that idea.

If we read the first 5 verses of John the way it was written, without any punctuation, I still think that it is referencing the Word as the creator:

in the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word was god he was with god in the beginning through him all things were made without him nothing was made that has been made in him was life and that life was the light of men the light shines in the darkness but the darkness has not understood it

 

[Grace Seeker]

This same Greek word "panta" appears at 1 Corinthians 15:25 where it says (NIV): "For he "has put everything under his feet." Now when it says that "everything" has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ."

So this word meaning "all things" or "everything" can still allow for exceptions that are not to be included. In 1 Corinthians 15:25 it should be understood to exclude God and Jesus. And it can be understood the same way at John 1:3. Everything created, except for Jesus, came into existence through Jesus. No problem there.

I thought we were examining John's understanding of the Logos. If we are going to start referencing Pauline passages as well, I'm also prepared to dispute your understanding of Colossians 1.


A side note for the interested observer of this conversation between me and Hiroshi. I respect Hiroshi's willingness to wrestle with the Biblical text in looking for truth, and indeed find that he is often a very fine scholar. However, we obviously have different interpretations as to what that truth is in this particular passage. I'll let the observe decide whether we bring those interpretations to the text and read into them what we already each individually believe, or if we end up believing differently because on reading the text we have different interpretations of what it is in fact saying. Now often Christians will in fact have differences of opinions on the meaning of a particular text. But that is not what you have going on here. This difference is significant enough that while we respect each other as individuals, neither of us is prepared to use the term Christian to describe the other one. The differences in our beliefs are just that significant that if I am a Christian then Hiroshi is not, and if he is then I am not. I understand that Hiroshi considers my beliefs to be apostate. And he understands that I consider his to be heretical. Doesn't mean we hate each other, but it does mean that there is no more room for middle ground between the two of us than there is between Islam and Christianity. I imagine we would both prefer is the other one didn't self-identify as Christian on these forums, just like I am sure that there are some who have self-identified as Muslim on the forum that perhaps some of the Sunni brothers and sisters have (at least quietly in their own mind) questioned the authenticity of that self-identification based on some of their expressed beliefs.

 

[Hiroshi]

John's prologue is not to be trusted ,why?

cause the work proved to be flawed in areas of issues that can be verified

eg;comparing its accounts with other gospels'accounts and its flawed Exegesis to the old testament (details soon)...

once, we highlighted just one of these shortcomings right here.....
http://www.islamicboard.com/compara...tive-study-arranged-items-11.html#post1343689

Matthew 28

1And on the eve of the sabbaths, at the dawn, toward the first of the sabbaths, came Mary the Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre, 2and lo, there came a great earthquake, for a messenger of the Lord, having come down out of heaven, having come, did roll away the stone from the door, and was sitting upon it, 3and his countenance was as lightning, and his clothing white as snow, 4and from the fear of him did the keepers shake, and they became as dead men. 5And the messenger answering said to the women, `Fear not ye, for I have known that Jesus, who hath been crucified, ye seek; 6he is not here, for he rose, as he said; come, see the place where the Lord was lying; 7and having gone quickly, say ye to his disciples, that he rose from the dead; and lo, he doth go before you to Galilee, there ye shall see him; lo, I have told you.' 8And having gone forth quickly from the tomb, with fear and great joy, they ran to tell to his disciples; 9and as they were going to tell to his disciples, then lo, Jesus met them, saying, `Hail!' and they having come near, laid hold of his feet, and did bow to him.



The narrative of Matthew is clear:
Sunday morning Mary Magdalena came to the tomb ,found the tomb empty, was informed that Jesus was risen ,then while going to tell the disciples she met Jesus ,talked to him,touched him .....

Now get a look at the narrative of John that throws the table on Matthew's narrative:


John 20

1And on the first of the sabbaths, Mary the Magdalene doth come early there being yet darkness to the tomb, and she seeth the stone having been taken away out of the tomb, 2she runneth, therefore, and cometh unto Simon Peter, and unto the other disciple whom Jesus was loving, and saith to them, `They took away the Lord out of the tomb, and we have not known where they laid him.'


Did you get the problem? I talk about the contradictory and you resort to the complementary!!!!
My English is not that perfect but I think I provided the problem in clear,direct terms....

I didn't say the problem ,is that Matthew says something that John decided to skip (which is another kind of problem) or vice versa.....

plainly put it, why Matthew says Mary was informed that jesus was risen and met him before going to the disciples ,contradicts John saying that she neither been informed nor met jesus before going to the disciples?

solution ??????

John's gospel records that Mary came to the tomb twice. The first time was at John 20:1 after which she went to John and Peter saying that she did not know where Jesus body had been taken. The second time was at John 20:11 when she returned after John and Peter had left the scene. It was at this time that she saw angels and met Jesus. And it was after this that she went back to report to Jesus' disciples that Jesus had risen from the dead (John 20:18) exactly as Matthew's gospel says (Matthew 28:10).

 

[Al-manar]

peace

let's re-visit that issue(resurrection narratives) again,for a while, before we continue our discussion....

John's gospel records that Mary came to the tomb twice. .

I'm afriad to tell you ,that such theory (Synoptic gospels skipping a first visit of Mary Magdalene) won't work either ....

In John's narrative, the stone was removed before Mary Magdalene's first visit.

John 20:1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.

But have you read the other accounts?

Mark 16 :1 When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. 2And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. 3And they were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?" !

if that was the first visit (John 1:2) ,then how on earth Mary which saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance,knew the body was missing,in her supposed first visit , would be worried about who will roll away the stone for them in the supposed second visit (Mark 16 :1) ?!!!!!!


Regards

 

[Hiroshi]

peace

let's re-visit that issue(resurrection narratives) again,for a while, before we continue our discussion....



I'm afriad to tell you ,that such theory (Synoptic gospels skipping a first visit of Mary Magdalene) won't work either ....

In John's narrative, the stone was removed before Mary Magdalene's first visit.

John 20:1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.

But have you read the other accounts?

Mark 16 :1 When the Sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome bought spices, so that they might go and anoint him. 2And very early on the first day of the week, when the sun had risen, they went to the tomb. 3And they were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?" !

if that was the first visit (John 1:2) ,then how on earth Mary which saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance,knew the body was missing,in her supposed first visit , would be worried about who will roll away the stone for them in the supposed second visit (Mark 16 :1) ?!!!!!!


Regards

Well, okay. But the next verse in Mark's account (Mark 16:4) says that when the women looked they saw that the stone had already been moved. They were only worried about how the stone could be moved before they had seen this.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Al-manar, are you suggesting that because each of the 4 gospel recount the story of the discovery of the empty tomb and Jesus' resurrection differently that it there could not have happened? did not happen? or that we simply can't determine which of them is most accurate in telling the story?

 

[Al-manar]

Well, okay. But the next verse in Mark's account (Mark 16:4) says that when the women looked they saw that the stone had already been moved. They were only worried about how the stone could be moved before they had seen this.

They asked each others "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"

A question reveals total ignorance of the questioners regarding what had happened(the stone removed) on the scene by the tomb ,yet Mary before (according to that theory) is said to have found the stone removed and the body missing and informed the disciples about that ..and that gets no hope for that theory to work.....

Mary in her first visit found the stone removed and the body missing and informed the disciples about that

John 20:1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"

yet in her second visit with the women

Mark 16:1 they ( Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome ) were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?" !