Christian Trinity and Muslim's Tauwheed [monotheism] = Same God? A Clarification.

[Keltoi]

why are you not as outraged when they sell a sandaled hippie God/Jesus at walmart next to bratz dolls?

Personally I never look at "bratz" dolls, so I don't even know what they are. I've also never seen the "hippie God/Jesus" you speak about. Guess I should visit the toy aisle more often. In any event, dolls manufactured to resemble Christ aren't the product of any "Christian" effort. Regardless of who they are marketed to. That is free speech and capitalism at work. My outrage wouldn't change anything. If it sells they will make them.

Yeah I agree what Christianity is and has come to is indeed offensive in the extreme!

That says more about you than it does Christianity.

 

[جوري]

here is the hippie God, and a black one too

I believe the church has been commissioning artists for centuries to depict Jesus/ God and his mother, caravaggio used a dead W H O R E to depict Mary in his famous death of the virgin.. so I'd say th a hippie or a frog God is pretty much of a christian effort ..

and no it actually says alot more about Christianity than me..

 

[جوري]

My proof is the Bible. It specifically says that Jesus died on a cross. The Qur'an says he did not. Since I know the Bible to be true, this proves the Qur'an false. You may not like my opinion, but it is every bit as valid as saying that since you know the Qur'an to be true that you know the Bible then to be corrupted. And as far as outside corroberation for either, it appears to me that there is more for the Biblical account than for the Qur'anic account:

How is the bible true?

THE BIBLE

The publishers (Collins) say in their notes on the bible, on page 10: "This bible (RSV) is the product of THIRTY-TWO SCHOLARS, assisted by an advisory committee presenting FIFTY co-operating denominations."

Preface of RSV reads "...the King James Version has with good reason been termed "THE NOBLEST MONUMENTS OF ENGLISH PROSE." its revisers in 1881 expressed admiration for "ITS SIMPLICITY, ITS DIGNITY, ITS POWER, ITS HAPPY TURNS OF EXPRESSION...THE MUSIC OF ITS CADENCES, AND THE FELICITIES OF ITS RHYTHM." It entered, as no other book has, into the making of the personal character and the public institutions of the English-speaking peoples. We owe to it an incalculable debt."

Yet In the same breath they say: "yet the King James Version has GRAVE DEFECTS. And, the these defects are so MANY AND SO SERIOUS as to call for revision?"

The Jehovah's Witnesses in their "Awake!" Magazine, dated 8 September, 1957, carried this startling headlines - "50,000 ERRORS IN THE BIBLE?". The article said that "most errors have been eliminated." If MOST are eliminated, how many remain out of 50,000? 5000? 500? 50? Even if 50 remain, do you attribute those errors to God?


Error in the Book of God?

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


God or the Devil?

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

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


What did the Lord decree, 3 years famine or 7 years famine?

"So Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, Shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or wilt thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue thee?" [2 Samuel 24:13]

"So Gad came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee Either THREE YEARS' FAMINE; or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee" [1 Chronicles 21:11,12]


How old was Jehoiachin? 8 or 18?

"Jehoiachin was EIGHT YEARS old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD." [2 Chronicles 36:9]

"Jehoiachin was EIGHTEEN YEARS old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem." [2 Kings 24:8]


700 or 7 000? Horsemen or footmen?

"And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of SEVEN HUNDRED CHARIOTS of the Syrians, and FORTY THOUSAND HORSEMEN, and smote Shobach the captain of their host, who died there." [2 Samuel 10:18]

"But the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew of the Syrians SEVEN THOUSAND MEN which fought in chariots, and FORTY THOUSAND FOOTMEN, and killed Shophach the captain of the host." [1 Chronicles 19:18]


The difference 2 000 and 3 000 is only 50% exaggeration!

"And it was an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained TWO THOUSAND baths." [1 Kings 7:26]

"And the thickness of it was an handbreadth, and the brim of it like the work of the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies; and it received and held THREE THOUSAND baths." [2 Chronicles 4:5]


The difference between 4 thousand and 40 thousand is only 36 000! (The Jews did not use the "0" (zero) in the Old Testament)

"And Solomon had FOUR THOUSAND stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem." [2 Chronicles 9:25]

"And Solomon had FORTY THOUSAND stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen." [1 Kings 4:26]


DID PROPHET JESUS PREACH THE GOSPEL ?

The "Gospel" writers often mention that Jesus going about and preaching the Gospel

"And Jesus went...preaching the GOSPEL...and healing every disease among the people." [Matthew 9:35]

"...but whosoever shall lose his life for my sake and the GOSPEL'S, the same shall save it." [Mark 8:35]

"...preached the GOSPEL..." [Luke 20:1]

The "gospel" is a frequently-used word, but what Gospel did Jesus preach? Of the 27 books of the New Testament, only a small fraction can be accepted as the words of Jesus. We talk about the Gospels according to St. Matthew, according to St. Mark, according to St. Luke and according to John, but there is not a single Gospel "according" to (St.) Jesus himself! We sincerely believe that everything Christ (May the peace and blessings of God be upon him) preached was from God. That was the Injeel, the good news and the guidance of God for the Children of Israel. In his life-time Jesus never wrote a single word, nor is there any real evidence that he instructed anyone to do so.

Do you know what Jesus looked like? is he white/black/green? how about the recording historians some x years later? did they do an autopsy on the man marred with blood whose body couldn't be found? did God have any distinguishing features, moles? dental records that set him aside from folks of the same region who look similar?

 

[جوري]

here is to addressing your other fables about the Quran
"And I [Muhammad] am commanded to be the first of those who bow to Allah in Islam," (39:12).
"When Moses came to the place appointed by Us, and his Lord addressed him, He said: "O my Lord! show (Thyself) to me, that I may look upon thee." Allah said: "By no means canst thou see Me (direct); But look upon the mount; if it abide in its place, then shalt thou see Me." When his Lord manifested His glory on the Mount, He made it as dust. And Moses fell down in a swoon. When he recovered his senses he said: "Glory be to Thee! to Thee I turn in repentance, and I am the first to believe." (7:143).
"And this was the legacy that Abraham left to his sons, and so did Jacob; "Oh my sons! Allah hath chosen the Faith for you; then die not except in the Faith of Islam," (2:132).
:http://www.submission.org/answering-Islam-3.htm#realiz,

وَلَمَّا جَاء مُوسَى لِمِيقَاتِنَا وَكَلَّمَهُ رَبُّهُ قَالَ رَبِّ أَرِنِي أَنظُرْ إِلَيْكَ قَالَ لَن تَرَانِي وَلَـكِنِ انظُرْ إِلَى الْجَبَلِ فَإِنِ اسْتَقَرَّ مَكَانَهُ فَسَوْفَ تَرَانِي فَلَمَّا تَجَلَّى رَبُّهُ لِلْجَبَلِ جَعَلَهُ دَكًّا وَخَرَّ موسَى صَعِقًا فَلَمَّا أَفَاقَ قَالَ سُبْحَانَكَ تُبْتُ إِلَيْكَ وَأَنَاْ أَوَّلُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ {143}​

[Pickthal 7:143] And when Moses came to Our appointed tryst and his Lord had spoken unto him, he said: My Lord! Show me (Thy Self), that I may gaze upon Thee. He said: Thou wilt not see Me, but gaze upon the mountain! If it stand still in its place, then thou wilt see Me. And when his Lord revealed (His) glory to the mountain He sent it crashing down. And Moses fell down senseless. And when he woke he said: Glory unto Thee! I turn unto Thee repentant, and I am the first of (true) believers.

وَوَصَّى بِهَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ بَنِيهِ وَيَعْقُوبُ يَا بَنِيَّ إِنَّ اللّهَ اصْطَفَى لَكُمُ الدِّينَ فَلاَ تَمُوتُنَّ إَلاَّ وَأَنتُم مُّسْلِمُونَ {132}​

[Pickthal 2:132] The same did Abraham enjoin upon his sons, and also Jacob, (saying): O my sons! Lo! Allah hath chosen for you the (true) religion; therefore die not save as men who have surrendered (unto Him).

وَأُمِرْتُ لِأَنْ أَكُونَ أَوَّلَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ {12}​

[Pickthal 39:12] And I am commanded to be the first of those who are muslims

straight from the Quran.. so try again reading the book itself rather than from answering Islam.. they are surprisingly desperate and often make haste in their searched and pathetic attempts..
Monotheism is the first and last religion!..

 

[Grace Seeker]

as you have a million version that all disagree with each other

I have never understood why you bring this up. It seems a meaningless point to me. As you well know those million different versions are all translations and secondary copies. And there are nearly as many translations and secondary copies of the Qur'an as there are of the Bible. The primary case to be made with regard to the Bible is not the million different translation, for the creation of them proves nothing except how diverse the views of translators are from one another. It would seem to me that the bigger issue with regard to the Bible, and the one thing that is an issue with it that is not an issue with the Qur'an, is that there is disagreement between denominations within Christendom as to whether or not to accept 7 books as canonical or not. But we don't have a million versions that disagree with each other any more than you do. You may cite the King James Version, the New International Version, the Revised Standard Version and I will cite the Pickthall translation, the Yusuf Ali translation, the M.H. Shakir translation. And just as you could go on and on with English translation after English translation of the Bible, I could do the same with the Qur'an citing the translations by Rashad Kalifa, At-Tabari, Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Laleh Bakhtiar, and on and on and on for probably as long as you could with different versions of the Bible. And as with many different translations of the Bible, no two of these translations of the Qur'an are in agreement anymore than the different translations of the Bible are in agreement with each other -- if they were, there would be no need for yet another translation of either, you could just copy the first one. So, I really don't see why this seems to be such an issue with so many?

 

[Fazl Ahmad]

I have never understood why you bring this up. It seems a meaningless point to me. As you well know those million different versions are all translations and secondary copies. And there are nearly as many translations and secondary copies of the Qur'an as there are of the Bible. The primary case to be made with regard to the Bible is not the million different translation, for the creation of them proves nothing except how diverse the views of translators are from one another. It would seem to me that the bigger issue with regard to the Bible, and the one thing that is an issue with it that is not an issue with the Qur'an, is that there is disagreement between denominations within Christendom as to whether or not to accept 7 books as canonical or not. But we don't have a million versions that disagree with each other any more than you do. You may cite the King James Version, the New International Version, the Revised Standard Version and I will cite the Pickthall translation, the Yusuf Ali translation, the M.H. Shakir translation. And just as you could go on and on with English translation after English translation of the Bible, I could do the same with the Qur'an citing the translations by Rashad Kalifa, At-Tabari, Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Laleh Bakhtiar, and on and on and on for probably as long as you could with different versions of the Bible. And as with many different translations of the Bible, no two of these translations of the Qur'an are in agreement anymore than the different translations of the Bible are in agreement with each other -- if they were, there would be no need for yet another translation of either, you could just copy the first one. So, I really don't see why this seems to be such an issue with so many?

A difference in translation of the same text is not the same thing as conflicting manuscripts for the Bible. The text of the Quran is one, and every manuscript of the Quran (in Arabic of course) since the time of the Salaf until now has been exactly the same. This is not the case with the Bible, where there are competing and conflicting versions, like the septuagint, the masoretic text. Plus there is no "original copy" of the New Testament by which you can check and confirm which of today's versions is more accurate and authentic. Unlike the Quran, there are thousands of "original copies" of the New Testament with thousands of variations, some so significant that it changes the entire meaning of a passage, having grave theological implications. So in short, there are many different interpretations of the Quran, but those interpretations and translations are at least based on one solid unchangable source, which unfortunately is not the situation with the Bible.

 

[جوري]

I have never understood why you bring this up. It seems a meaningless point to me. As you well know those million different versions are all translations and secondary copies. And there are nearly as many translations and secondary copies of the Qur'an as there are of the Bible. The primary case to be made with regard to the Bible is not the million different translation, for the creation of them proves nothing except how diverse the views of translators are from one another. It would seem to me that the bigger issue with regard to the Bible, and the one thing that is an issue with it that is not an issue with the Qur'an, is that there is disagreement between denominations within Christendom as to whether or not to accept 7 books as canonical or not. But we don't have a million versions that disagree with each other any more than you do. You may cite the King James Version, the New International Version, the Revised Standard Version and I will cite the Pickthall translation, the Yusuf Ali translation, the M.H. Shakir translation. And just as you could go on and on with English translation after English translation of the Bible, I could do the same with the Qur'an citing the translations by Rashad Kalifa, At-Tabari, Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Laleh Bakhtiar, and on and on and on for probably as long as you could with different versions of the Bible. And as with many different translations of the Bible, no two of these translations of the Qur'an are in agreement anymore than the different translations of the Bible are in agreement with each other -- if they were, there would be no need for yet another translation of either, you could just copy the first one. So, I really don't see why this seems to be such an issue with so many?

the original Quran in Arabic is always the same, UNCHANGED one can always go to the source.. where is your original bible that is written by Jesus? Who is mark and Luke? Jesus/God hung out with Luke and uttered those words to him?
I have already shown above how the verses are completely incongruous from one book to the next.. this isn't a mere difference in those who believe not, non- believers, unbelievers or disbelievers.. we are talking completely different verses. Plus, it is full of lies about the nature of God, that doesn't at all agree with those before it, not with Judaism, Mandaeans, Islam, not of any of the messengers who preached monotheism David/ Joseph/ Enoch, etc etc was the concept of a tri-God ever evident.
plus all the things listed on the previous page that are completely mind boggling.. to be christian today, you really have the imagination of a stoic and hope that it can sustain some degree of credence as people's minds advance to accept things so absurd!

 

[Grace Seeker]

here is to addressing your other fables about the Quran
"And I [Muhammad] am commanded to be the first of those who bow to Allah in Islam," (39:12).
"When Moses came to the place appointed by Us, and his Lord addressed him, He said: "O my Lord! show (Thyself) to me, that I may look upon thee." Allah said: "By no means canst thou see Me (direct); But look upon the mount; if it abide in its place, then shalt thou see Me." When his Lord manifested His glory on the Mount, He made it as dust. And Moses fell down in a swoon. When he recovered his senses he said: "Glory be to Thee! to Thee I turn in repentance, and I am the first to believe." (7:143).
"And this was the legacy that Abraham left to his sons, and so did Jacob; "Oh my sons! Allah hath chosen the Faith for you; then die not except in the Faith of Islam," (2:132).
:http://www.submission.org/answering-Islam-3.htm#realiz,

وَلَمَّا جَاء مُوسَى لِمِيقَاتِنَا وَكَلَّمَهُ رَبُّهُ قَالَ رَبِّ أَرِنِي أَنظُرْ إِلَيْكَ قَالَ لَن تَرَانِي وَلَـكِنِ انظُرْ إِلَى الْجَبَلِ فَإِنِ اسْتَقَرَّ مَكَانَهُ فَسَوْفَ تَرَانِي فَلَمَّا تَجَلَّى رَبُّهُ لِلْجَبَلِ جَعَلَهُ دَكًّا وَخَرَّ موسَى صَعِقًا فَلَمَّا أَفَاقَ قَالَ سُبْحَانَكَ تُبْتُ إِلَيْكَ وَأَنَاْ أَوَّلُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ {143}​

[Pickthal 7:143] And when Moses came to Our appointed tryst and his Lord had spoken unto him, he said: My Lord! Show me (Thy Self), that I may gaze upon Thee. He said: Thou wilt not see Me, but gaze upon the mountain! If it stand still in its place, then thou wilt see Me. And when his Lord revealed (His) glory to the mountain He sent it crashing down. And Moses fell down senseless. And when he woke he said: Glory unto Thee! I turn unto Thee repentant, and I am the first of (true) believers.

وَوَصَّى بِهَا إِبْرَاهِيمُ بَنِيهِ وَيَعْقُوبُ يَا بَنِيَّ إِنَّ اللّهَ اصْطَفَى لَكُمُ الدِّينَ فَلاَ تَمُوتُنَّ إَلاَّ وَأَنتُم مُّسْلِمُونَ {132}​

[Pickthal 2:132] The same did Abraham enjoin upon his sons, and also Jacob, (saying): O my sons! Lo! Allah hath chosen for you the (true) religion; therefore die not save as men who have surrendered (unto Him).

وَأُمِرْتُ لِأَنْ أَكُونَ أَوَّلَ الْمُسْلِمِينَ {12}​

[Pickthal 39:12] And I am commanded to be the first of those who are muslims

straight from the Quran.. so try again reading the book itself rather than from answering Islam.. they are surprisingly desperate and often make haste in their searched and pathetic attempts..
Monotheism is the first and last religion!..

Actually, I didn't get that from Answering Islam, whatever that is. But that is neither here nor there. I figured that there was most likely an simple explanation for it, and I thank you for the refernce. I don't have any problems with that interpretation. Of course, the explantion does require me to accept something different from what the Qur'an actually says. For it doesn't say that Moses was the first to believe from among his own people, it only says that he was the first of the believers. Why wouldn't God have said the fiirst from among his own people if he had meant the first from among his own people? Surely if that is what he meant he could have said that, but instead he said something different.

Now do I really have that complaint or question? No. But that is the kind of logic I run into so often with those who criticize and find fault with biblical passages.

Now, not to you personally, but a general request of the entire Islamic world as a whole, and especially the young apologists here at LI, if you are capable of using your brain to understand passages like this in the Qur'an, please use that same reason that Allah gave you when you critique the Bible. Even if you can't see it for yourself, understand that most often there are simple explanations of the apparent inconsistency with Biblical verses, just like I knew there would be for those verses from the Qur'an. Developing the attitude of a dog who can't let go of a bone doesn't help anyone learn anything.

 

[جوري]

I am going to bed Gene.. and hope this section will be closed by tomorrow.. I dislike immensely to engage in vain discourse over absurdities, jibes about the Quran and Islam so close to Ramadan.

As for as I am concerned the books aren't even in the same league.. really unfair to compare them..

bible is a collection of work by 'saints' and the only similar collection to it in Islam is the compendium of ahadith.. but even those go through a rigorous authentication process which is more than we can say of the bible...

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Skye Ephémérine;

I understand you are not responsible for creating those images of Jesus, but I also find them offensive. Whatever your beleifs about Jesus are, he is also a prophet in Islam. I am reminded of the recent outrage of some Danish cartoons.

In the spirit of praying for a greater interfaith understanding and friendship

Eric

 

[Fazl Ahmad]

Exactly, Allah revealed the Quran in Arabic, but human beings translate it into English and other languages. We assume God revealed the Old Testament in Hebrew, for the most part the Old Testament has remained the same, though there are some differences in the Masoretic text and Dead sea scolls, as well as other manuscripts (despite the fact that they are all in Hebrew!)

The New Testament is much more complicated. It is written in Greek, despite the fact Jesus didn't speak that language, and as I mentioned before there are thousands of variations, additions and deletions among the Greek manuscripts, which are the source material for the New Testament. Plus for some reason Paul's letters were added to the Gospel.

 

[Fazl Ahmad]

Greetings and peace be with you Skye Ephémérine;
I understand you are not responsible for creating those images of Jesus, but I also find them offensive.
I am reminded of the outrage after some Danish cartoons of the prophet pbuh.
In the spirit of praying for a greater interfaith understanding and friendship
Eric

The Danish cartoons were caricatures of the Prophet (alaihi salatu wa salam) mocking and ridiculing him. For example, one of the cartoons portrayed him as (God forbid) a terrorist and suicide bomber. The pictures which Skye posted are made by Christians themselves, and there is nothing really offensive in them. True, we Muslims are forbidden to make images of living things, but no Christian finds simple images of Jesus to be offensive as far as I know.

 

[Grace Seeker]

the original Quran in Arabic is always the same, UNCHANGED one can always go to the source.. where is your original bible that is written by Jesus? Who is mark and Luke? Jesus/God hung out with Luke and uttered those words to him?
I have already shown above how the verses are completely incongruous from one book to the next.. this isn't a mere difference in those who believe not, non- believers, unbelievers or disbelievers.. we are talking completely different verses. Plus, it is full of lies about the nature of God, that doesn't at all agree with those before it, not with Judaism, Mandaeans, Islam, not of any of the messengers who preached monotheism David/ Joseph/ Enoch, etc etc was the concept of a tri-God ever evident.
plus all the things listed on the previous page that are completely mind boggling.. to be christian today, you really have the imagination of a stoic and hope that it can sustain some degree of credence as people's minds advance to accept things so absurd!

The list of what you call incongruous items and where one book does not agree with another is one thing. Talking about a million different translations is another. Confusing the two and talking about them as the same thing merely confuses the issue.

 

[جوري]

I find it sacrilegious to know people have been commissioning artists for years to depict Jesus and MAry on stain glass on church walls using the lowliest of role models , and I consider him a prophet let alone God.. I have learned to divorce myself from the sacrilege committed by Christians with the solace that those images don't depict Jesus PBUH or God.. that it is the work of folks who have positively no respect for anything holy. I can walk into any church, black, white, chinese and find like Jesus only depicting the features of that community..

 

[جوري]

Actually, I didn't get that from Answering Islam, whatever that is. But that is neither here nor there. I figured that there was most likely an simple explanation for it, and I thank you for the refernce. I don't have any problems with that interpretation. Of course, the explantion does require me to accept something different from what the Qur'an actually says. For it doesn't say that Moses was the first to believe from among his own people, it only says that he was the first of the believers. Why wouldn't God have said the fiirst from among his own people if he had meant the first from among his own people? Surely if that is what he meant he could have said that, but instead he said something different.

I stuck it in google and found it, in the familiar sites.. it isn't your own read, I can tell, otherwise how remiss of you.. as for your conclusion, I have no idea what you mean.. are we splitting hair?

Now do I really have that complaint or question? No. But that is the kind of logic I run into so often with those who criticize and find fault with biblical passages.

Again, when it comes to the Quran and the bible, they are not even in the same league.. there is plenty to criticize!

Now, not to you personally, but a general request of the entire Islamic world as a whole, and especially the young apologists here at LI, if you are capable of using your brain to understand passages like this in the Qur'an, please use that same reason that Allah gave you when you critique the Bible. Even if you can't see it for yourself, understand that most often there are simple explanations of the apparent inconsistency with Biblical verses, just like I knew there would be for those verses from the Qur'an. Developing the attitude of a dog who can't let go of a bone doesn't help anyone learn anything.

There is nothing to learn in a situation like this.. you made a comparison between a Mormon loon and his book, with prophet Mohammed SAW and Islam, and I just thought to highlight where there is error..
comparison in my opinion is better suited between paul/saul and the Mormon guy..

cheers

 

[جوري]

I am tired and i am going to bed..

Eric-- I meant you no offense.. out of all the Christians here.. I believe you to have no agenda and to be the most sincere...

All the best

 

[Grace Seeker]

Exactly, Allah revealed the Quran in Arabic, but human beings translate it into English and other languages. We assume God revealed the Old Testament in Hebrew, for the most part the Old Testament has remained the same, though there are some differences in the Masoretic text and Dead sea scolls, as well as other manuscripts (despite the fact that they are all in Hebrew!)

The New Testament is much more complicated. It is written in Greek, despite the fact Jesus didn't speak that language, and as I mentioned before there are thousands of variations, additions and deletions among the Greek manuscripts, which are the source material for the New Testament. Plus for some reason Paul's letters were added to the Gospel.

You are obviously read enough to know that there is also a science of textual criticism by which we have worked our way back to what we feel confident was the original text. In doing so scholars study these texts noting all the things you identified and then in ways similar to pronouning a hadith authentic, make a determination about the authenticity of each line of text. Of course, most lay people don't know all of this, we just trust the work of the scholars to do this for us. But where those scholars are not confident you will find that most Bibles have a footnote indicating variant readings. For those who want to know more, I encourage you to get hold or a the textual apparatus that spells all of this out.

As to why Paul's letters were added to the Gospel, they weren't. If anything it was the other way around. Paul's letters were generally written first, and the churches to which he wrote them found them worthy of preserving. Later, when it became apparent that the first generation of disciples who had been able to themselves share the Gospel message of Jesus would soon be gone, then there became a realized need to put their oral witness down on paper. By that time the letters of Paul and others were already in circulation being shared between the churches, not just their original recipients. What became the canon are those writings that were found by the Church as a whole to be beneficial to ordering the faith and practice of the Church.

And of course they were written in Greek (though some speculate that Matthew's Gospel may have had a proto-Matthew edition in Hebrew prior to being written in Greek), as Greek was the shared language of the world. A Gospel that was for all nations would need to be in the universal language of its time, and not the language of just one corner of that world.

There is another issue at work here though. Muslims seem to want to take their understanding of what Muhammad did for them and transfer this over to Jesus. But just because Muhammad received a word from God to deliver, does not mean that this is what Jesus came to do. While Jesus did have a preaching ministry, the record of the church makes it clear that his primary ministry was not one of teaching, but of going to the cross. In light of this the Biblical record is not meant to be a collection of Jesus' sayings. But a testimony to his saving work. Trying to make Jesus into just a messenger, shows a lack of understanding as to what Jesus was really all about. And that would be why there is no Gospel as recorded by Jesus, for the Gospel is not good news from Jesus, but rather good news about what Jesus has done.

People ask amiss when they ask for a record of what Jesus preached, even if you had it, that wouldn't be the Gospel. The Gospel message is what he did.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Skye Ephémérine; Ramadan Mubarak to you

Sometimes I feel that it is better to pray for the other person, than to respond quickly to a post.

In order to search for that inner peace that surpasses all understanding, there is the need to forgive and to be at peace with your neighbour.

In the spirit of praying for a peace that surpasses all understanding

Eric

 

[Fazl Ahmad]

There is another issue at work here though. Muslims seem to want to take their understanding of what Muhammad did for them and transfer this over to Jesus. But just because Muhammad received a word from God to deliver, does not mean that this is what Jesus came to do. While Jesus did have a preaching ministry, the record of the church makes it clear that his primary ministry was not one of teaching, but of going to the cross. In light of this the Biblical record is not meant to be a collection of Jesus' sayings. But a testimony to his saving work. Trying to make Jesus into just a messenger, shows a lack of understanding as to what Jesus was really all about. And that would be why there is no Gospel as recorded by Jesus, for the Gospel is not good news from Jesus, but rather good news about what Jesus has done.People ask amiss when they ask for a record of what Jesus preached, even if you had it, that wouldn't be the Gospel. The Gospel message is what he did.

Yes you have summed up the main difference between Islam and Christianity viz a vis Jesus. Muslims concentrate on the message of Jesus, because he was a messenger from Allah. Christians concentrate on the person of Jesus, a field of knowledge which they call "christology". This is because Christians believe Jesus is God, and to them what Jesus is made out of is more important than the words he spoke. They debate whether Jesus is purely divine (monophysite), half divine (nestorian), simultaneously divine (orthodox), or an illusion (docetist). In Islam we cannot be bothered with such things, Jesus is nothing but a human being you like or me, but his message, the message of devotion to Allah alone, is what makes him special. I only wish Christians would see the message of Jesus and realize how important it is. Its amazing you read all the words of Jesus as you find them in your modern bibles and Jesus very rarely speaks about who he is but rather what we should do to make God happy with us. "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21)

If believing in Jesus dying on the cross is the most important thing in life, you would think it would be the most emphasized point in the bible, but rather, when Jesus was asked what is the most important commandment he said: "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One." (Mark 12:29)

Jesus was a true Muslim!

 

[Grace Seeker]

If believing in Jesus dying on the cross is the most important thing in life, you would think it would be the most emphasized point in the bible, but rather, when Jesus was asked what is the most important commandment he said: "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One." (Mark 12:29)

Jesus was a true Muslim!

We don't deny the importance of the Shema. But since you asked me to think about the most emphasized point in the Bible, I invite you to take a closer look at the Gospels. How much of them is spent reporting the message Jesus preached, and how much of them is spent reporting on the final week of his passion? For a man who supposedly spent 3 years preaching, we have a grand total of just 50 days of his life recorded. What the gospels focus on, what the writers spend 1/3 to 1/2 of their time telling us about is in fact that final week culiminating in his death and resurection. By your own way of figuring, that would seem to make the message the primary message they were trying to share with us about Jesus.

If by saying that Jesus was a true Muslim you mean that he fully submitted himself to his Father, I would unhesisitatingly agree. And I would add that he calls us to do the same. But that isn't the good news of the Gospel message.