Question about Islamic view on the Gospel (For Christians and Muslims)

[FollowingAlhuda]

Muslims:

Do Muslims believe in the Gospel?

Do Muslims believe the Gospel has changed?

How did Allah give Isaa the Injiel? In what way?

Christian:

Do the Christians clame that the gospel has never been change?

Who wrote the gospel according to the Christians?

Do they believe in the Gospel?

I really hope someone could anwser this for me!

Thanks a lot

Peace

 

[Keltoi]

Muslims:

Do Muslims believe in the Gospel?

Do Muslims believe the Gospel has changed?

How did Allah give Isaa the Injiel? In what way?

Christian:

Do the Christians clame that the gospel has never been change?

Who wrote the gospel according to the Christians?

Do they believe in the Gospel?

I really hope someone could anwser this for me!

Thanks a lot

Peace

No, Christians do not claim the gospel has never been changed, although most of the changes involve translation and word play.

Matthew and John are the only writers of the Gospel to have actually known and lived with Jesus Christ, if I'm not mistaken. The others were written by those who committed themselves to missionary work, usually second-generation Christians. This is all coming from the top of my head, and I'm sure if I'm leaving something out a fellow Christian will correct me.

I believe in the Gospel yes

 

[brenton]

In the Christian view, "the Gospel" is different than gospels. The gospels are the four books about Jesus called Matthew, Mark, Luke & John (in English).
We don't know for sure who wrote those, but either the Bible people they are named after, or people in their churches.
The gospels were written within two generations of Jesus' resurrection. There were probably changes in them, but we have some confirmation of accuracy of at least 99% of the text. Except for the storry of the Woman Caught in Adultery in John 7-8 and the ending Mark, there are no major changes.

The Gospel is the message of Jesus' salvation for us.

I believe in both.

 

[Umar001]

Muslims:

Do Muslims believe in the Gospel?

Do Muslims believe the Gospel has changed?

How did Allah give Isaa the Injiel? In what way?

We have many threads about this, I as a Muslim hold that God Almighty gave revelation to Jesus the son of Mary, peace be upon them, and supported him, peace be upon him, with the Angel Gabriel. I believe that the Original message of Jesus has been changed over time.

I do not know for sure how Allah gave the
Gospel to Jesus, peace be upon him.

Christian:

Do the Christians clame that the gospel has never been change?

Depends what type of Christian you speak to, some claim it has not been changed, others say it has slight variations, whilst others might say that scribes felt liberal and inspired to change text in circumstance, I would advise you to read what a variaty of Christian scholars themselves say.

Who wrote the gospel according to the Christians?

Again, depending on whom you speak to you will recieve different answers, it would be intersting to go into details but this is aimed at Christians mainly so I'll leave it, but it would be interesting to ask why they hold what view they hold.

Do they believe in the Gospel?

The people who wrote the Gospels or the Christians? If the people who wrote the Gospels, then you have to ask not if they believed in it, but how they believed in it, did they think it was to be the Word of God, or a compilation of narratives they heard through their own reaserch without God's help as such. As for Christians, again, how they believe the Gospels is what matters, Muslims believe in the Gospel of Jesus the difference is how.

Peace

Wa Aleykum Salam

There were probably changes in them, but we have some confirmation of accuracy of at least 99% of the text.

May I ask who has confirmed this?

Regards, Eesa.

 

[brenton]

We have early manuscripts--one piece of John as early as 125 CE; other quotations in the second century and then manuscripts start appearing.

I enjoy text criticism--the art of looking at various manuscript evidence to hunt for the more original or older variation. I've heard Muslims have a similar art for the Hadith (or in the Sunnah) that is original to them, and would love to know it.

 

[Umar001]

We have early manuscripts--one piece of John as early as 125 CE; other quotations in the second century and then manuscripts start appearing.

Is it true that most of the earliest pieces are fragmentary though?

I enjoy text criticism--the art of looking at various manuscript evidence to hunt for the more original or older variation. I've heard Muslims have a similar art for the Hadith (or in the Sunnah) that is original to them, and would love to know it.

I'm hoping to actually go on and study the Science of Hadeeth, it is very insteresting, well it interests me, so looks like we have something in commen, maybe we can talk about it in pm some time, and I'll drop you what I've learnt, which is not much.

Regards Eesa.

 

[Malaikah]

FollowingAlhuda

Ok, this is what the information I have managed to gather on the topic...

Firstly, Allah swt revealed a Holy Book to Isa (as). This book itself, was never recorded and lost, or perhaps it was recorded but not included in the bible. However we can't really know what it is.

The bible, is different to the book that was revealed to Isa (as). The bible was written by men, and this is something well known. Christians believe it as 'inspired' by God, but they never claim that it was originally spoken by Isa or anything. It is more or less a record of the life and teachings of Isa (as).

So, the question never really was, has it been changed, because it was never the word of God to begin with... I guess what we should really be asking is how accurate is it.

 

[dougmusr]

Firstly, Allah swt revealed a Holy Book to Isa (as). This book itself, was never recorded and lost, or perhaps it was recorded but not included in the bible. However we can't really know what it is.

I'm puzzled about how a book can exist if its contents have not been recorded.

However we can't really know what it is.

The bible, is different to the book that was revealed to Isa (as). The bible was written by men, and this is something well known. Christians believe it as 'inspired' by God, but they never claim that it was originally spoken by Isa or anything. It is more or less a record of the life and teachings of Isa (as).

I still have difficulty with the steps in reasoning here.

1. Jesus was given the actual Gospel.
2. The original Gospel is lost, no one knows what it contained.
2. The Bible does not contain the actual Gospel. We know because we have compared it to something that we don't possess.

My head hurts.

 

[Grace Seeker]

To interpret for Malaikah, and she will correct me later if I misrepresent her, God wrote a book in heaven. This message is the same message whether given to Moses or Jesus or Muhammad (peace be upon them all). Of course each delivered this message in their own context. We might say that this is what we see in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and other discourses, but as Jesus never wrote these down, then we don't have Jesus Injil.

Malaikah, my question, assuming I understand you correctly above, is that how is Matthew or John writing down Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and other discourses, plus also recording his actions different than the Companions writing down Muhammads recitations and then record Sunnah about him?

Is it because we have 4 gospel narratives, not one? Is it because we don't have a record of Jesus saying write down what I say, so that the authors may have been freer to select and not select what they did or did not want to include of Jesus' teachings?

 

[Malaikah]

I'm puzzled about how a book can exist if its contents have not been recorded.

I can't tell you if it was recorded or not, and if it was recorded, how it was recorded, but what I am referring to is the revelations that Jesus received from God.

That is what we as Muslims refer to as the Injeil. Verses that were revealed to Jesus, from God.

Does something have to be written before it can be called a book?:?

1. Jesus was given the actual Gospel.

It depends on what you mean by Gospel. Does the word actually mean something?

2. The original Gospel is lost, no one knows what it contained.

Well Christians do not claim to have it, do they? Because your bible was written by men, and 'inspired' by God, not directly revealed by God.

2. The Bible does not contain the actual Gospel. We know because we have compared it to something that we don't possess.

No, it doesn't, the Gospels are a reflection and record of the life and teachings of Jesus, aren't they? That means they were never written with the intention of recording every single verse that was revealed to Jesus by God right?

That doesn't mean that parts of what was revealed by God might not be in the bible, but it doesn't mean they are either, I'm not qualified to make that kind of statement...

 

[Malaikah]

We might say that this is what we see in Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and other discourses, but as Jesus never wrote these down, then we don't have Jesus Injil.

Ah, so do your gospels contain direct quotations of things that Jesus said have been revealed by God?

Malaikah, my question, assuming I understand you correctly above, is that how is Matthew or John writing down Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and other discourses, plus also recording his actions different than the Companions writing down Muhammads recitations and then record Sunnah about him?

It is different because in Islam we have a very strict science to verify the authenticity of the records. This includes, a complete chain of narration, biography's of the narrators, just to list a few. Its a very full-on science, used to verify the narrations.

And based on that, the narrations are classified as things like: authentic, acceptable, weak, very weak, fabricated etc.

Now, from what I can tell about the bible, it wasn't verified in such a strict manner... and there is even doubt about who the writers were and whether the meet Jesus. Right?:?

 

[sameer]

Malaikah, my question, assuming I understand you correctly above, is that how is Matthew or John writing down Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and other discourses, plus also recording his actions different than the Companions writing down Muhammads recitations and then record Sunnah about him?

Peace,

When Muhammad (sallulahi aleyhi wasalaam) was repeating the quranic revelations from Allah, he would repeat the exact thing that Allah revealed. Even if Allah was addressing him to do/say something...he would repeat it in the same way as it was said to him, thus preserving Allahs words.
eg. Surah Al Ikhlas
1 Say: He is Allah the One and Only
2 Allah the Eternal Absolute
3 He begetteth not nor is He begotten
4 And there is none like unto Him

If he(muhammad) had left out the word "say" then it would have been his own words to the people and not the words of Allah. He simply could have just come and said He is Allah the One and Only, Allah the Eternal Absolute, He begetteth not nor is He begotten, And there is none like unto Him. but then that would be his own words to the ppl and not Allah's words.

Hence the difference between him saying something from himself based on inspiration (which will be part of the Sunnah and Hadith) and something that came as revelation as part of the Quran.

Now when Jesus did the sermon on the mount, did they record the exact thing he said that God said to him? as shown in the example above? or just what jesus said...... i mean if Jesus spoke the exact thing revealed to him by God (as shown in the example above) or did he speak his message based on what God's inspiration?
That would differentiate whether it is Gods word that was recorded (eg Quran) or a saying of Jesus that was recorded. Remember in islam, even though Quran and Hadith goes together, they are still separated as the word of Allah and the tradition/sayings/practices of Muhammad.

 

[Umar001]

I'm puzzled about how a book can exist if its contents have not been recorded.

Maybe your confused by the word book, i.e. something that is written down. This is something that loses meaning in translation I believe, the Qu'ran can be titled a book, but we know that the book itself is not a Qu'ran but the recitation is Qu'ran, if that makes sense.

I still have difficulty with the steps in reasoning here.

1. Jesus was given the actual Gospel.
2. The original Gospel is lost, no one knows what it contained.
2. The Bible does not contain the actual Gospel. We know because we have compared it to something that we don't possess.

1. Yes, Jesus was given revelation, i.e. his words were not his own, but of He who sent him.
2. Yes, the original 'good news' bore by Jesus is no longer with us.
3. It seems your asking, how can we know that the Bible does not contain the original Gospel since we cannot compare it with the Original Gospel since that is lost.

The answer is two fold, I will first answer from a non-Islamic view point, we can see that there were more than just the four Gospels circulating, the fact that these four Gospels have then became popularised and cannonised could be because of the influence of those who were at power, just as in history the hand of the winner records what happens, similarly, if a sect of Christianity which might have been wrong became the dominant sect then we can conclude that they would promote their sect through scripture, add onto this that the Gospel writters' identities are over shadowed and that alot of Oral Tradition was rampant, plus that the writers probably were trying to present Jesus in a special way as to accomodate for their community, we then see that the Original Message might have been lost.

Islamicly answering, Muslim hold that the Qu'ran is the Criterion, so let me put forth an example for you,

Every generation of your family's male members, i.e. your grandfather and your father and yourself, recieve a letter from a boss, who employs you to do work, say your father dies whilst your young, and you are not due to recieve your letter until the age of 25, as you get older and your father is not there no more, his letter is lost, and so you ask around, maybe your mother and aunt and so forth about what your father's letter contained, and there are various reports, some say it was of big font in blue, others say it stated your wages are 33 pounds, and some reports were conflicting, you then recieve your letter, (I should add that all the letters are the same in core, i.e. wages, fonts, only name of who is sent to changes and minor things), and in your letter you realise that it is in big red font and not blue, and that your wages is 33 pounds, and so because of your letter you can now come closer to knowing what your father's letter contained at it's core.​

Sorrry for that long example, but similarly, when the Qu'ran came, it showed the Muslims what the core message of Jesus' teachings were, so when Muslims compare the Bible with the Qu'ran, anything that agrees they say 'it might have been from Jesus' anything that disagrees they say 'this is not'. Just as you would with the accounts that your mother or aunt would give you about your father's letter, if the accounts agrred with your letter which you know is exactly the same, you would say 'maybe my mother knew for sure' and when they disagree, i.e. the font, then you can say 'well this is a mistake and not truly from the letter'.

Eesa.

 

[truthbetold]

Is it safe to assume that everywhere the word BIBLE occurs in this thread that people are referring to the New Testament as opposed to the Old Testament???

 

[Malaikah]

^yep.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Now when Jesus did the sermon on the mount, did they record the exact thing he said that God said to him? as shown in the example above? or just what jesus said...... i mean if Jesus spoke the exact thing revealed to him by God (as shown in the example above) or did he speak his message based on what God's inspiration?
That would differentiate whether it is Gods word that was recorded (eg Quran) or a saying of Jesus that was recorded. Remember in islam, even though Quran and Hadith goes together, they are still separated as the word of Allah and the tradition/sayings/practices of Muhammad.

By your definition, what we have today from Jesus would correspond to your understaning of the Sunnah.


Malaikah, I don't have the same doubts that you seem to gravitate toward regarding the identity nor the relationships of the NT writers to Jesus.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Every generation of your family's male members, i.e. your grandfather and your father and yourself, recieve a letter from a boss, who employs you to do work, say your father dies whilst your young, and you are not due to recieve your letter until the age of 25, as you get older and your father is not there no more, his letter is lost, and so you ask around, maybe your mother and aunt and so forth about what your father's letter contained, and there are various reports, some say it was of big font in blue, others say it stated your wages are 33 pounds, and some reports were conflicting, you then recieve your letter, (I should add that all the letters are the same in core, i.e. wages, fonts, only name of who is sent to changes and minor things), and in your letter you realise that it is in big red font and not blue, and that your wages is 33 pounds, and so because of your letter you can now come closer to knowing what your father's letter contained at it's core.​

Sorrry for that long example, but similarly, when the Qu'ran came, it showed the Muslims what the core message of Jesus' teachings were, so when Muslims compare the Bible with the Qu'ran, anything that agrees they say 'it might have been from Jesus' anything that disagrees they say 'this is not'. Just as you would with the accounts that your mother or aunt would give you about your father's letter, if the accounts agrred with your letter which you know is exactly the same, you would say 'maybe my mother knew for sure' and when they disagree, i.e. the font, then you can say 'well this is a mistake and not truly from the letter'.

Eesa.

Wonderful analogy, Eesa. And so, rather than trusting your mother's word. You get handed a piece of paper 700 years later by someone who never met your father, and who claims that your father spoke to him waking him from his sleep and then he tells others who never heard the one who woke this man from his sleep and they write it down and you believe it to be the true message that was in your letter as opposed to what your mother, who was married to your father and herself saw and even handled your letter, tells you to be the case. Do I understand what you are saying?

 

[dougmusr]

Sorrry for that long example, but similarly, when the Qu'ran came, it showed the Muslims what the core message of Jesus' teachings were, so when Muslims compare the Bible with the Qu'ran, anything that agrees they say 'it might have been from Jesus' anything that disagrees they say 'this is not'. Just as you would with the accounts that your mother or aunt would give you about your father's letter, if the accounts agrred with your letter which you know is exactly the same, you would say 'maybe my mother knew for sure' and when they disagree, i.e. the font, then you can say 'well this is a mistake and not truly from the letter'.

There are verses in the Quran that indicate that the Jewish and Christian scriptures were intact when the Quran was written. One such verse is:

005.068
YUSUFALI: Say: "O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord." It is the revelation that cometh to thee from thy Lord, that increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. But sorrow thou not over (these) people without Faith.

If the Gospel was corrupted at the time this verse was written, then it would be meaningless to require the possessors of the corrupt scriptures to "stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation".

010.094
PICKTHAL: And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers.

This verse indicates that the Jewish and Christian scriptrures were accurate enough when the Quran was written to be used in comparison.

In any case, the Quran would seem to indicate that in places where it disagrees with the Bible, it is the Quran that was to be questioned.

 

[Malaikah]

dougmusr, your conclusion is flawed... it does not imply what you think it does... I hope some here knows how to explain properly because I can't seem to find the words for it at the moment.