Are the following passages "corrupted"?

[gmcbroom]

No book was given to Jesus, Zafran. That would have been mentioned in the New Testament and it clearly wasn't. If you say he was given a book show me where in the New Testament not the Koran.

Peace be with you

 

[Zafran]

No book was given to Jesus, Zafran. That would have been mentioned in the New Testament and it clearly wasn't. If you say he was given a book show me where in the New Testament not the Koran.

Peace be with you

How do you know no book was given to Jesus pbuh??? what do you mean it would have mentioned in NT by who Paul??? did he actaully meet christ

and if you actaully read the NT you will see that every "gospel" starts "the gospel ACCORDING TO"...... - what gospel are they refering to I wonder.

as I said before the NT is in a intresting book with people and Pauls work - but the gospel/injeel of christ is with christ pbuh - the NT is more like hadith.

 

[Flame of Hope]

Second passage is when Jesus started preaching:

1Now when Jesus saw the crowds, he went up on a mountainside and sat down. His disciples came to him, 2and he began to teach them. He said:
3'Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4Blessed are those who mourn, for they will be comforted.
5Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.
6Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled.
7Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
8Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.
10Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11'Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

I got no problem with any of those passages except for number 9: Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

We are not children of God. I don't understand how we can be children of God. In my opinion, this is definitely a corruption.....a mistranslation perhaps?

 

[Zafran]

I got no problem with any of those passages except for number 9: Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God.

We are not children of God. I don't understand how we can be children of God. In my opinion, this is definitely a corruption.....a mistranslation perhaps?

Salaam

children of God metaphorically - there realy is no problems with the prayer that Islam actually disagrees with.

Peace

 

[gmcbroom]

Zafran, that book doesn't exist. there would have traces fragments but there is nothing. No, what we have is the New Testament by those that wrote it, who were there the Early Church which was built on Peter by Jesus himself. The fact that many don't want to believe it doesn't make it less true. As for Paul meeting Jesus. I would say yes though not quite in the flesh and definately after his ascension. I still don't understand why people have such a problem with Paul? What he wrote and taught is sound christian doctrine. If its because he wasn't with the Apostles first commisioned by Jesus then that doesn't mean anything. Because there were actually more than 12 apostles. The twelve that were singled out were simply given more authority to help guide the fledgling Church during its beginning.

Peace be with you

 

[Zafran]

Zafran, that book doesn't exist. there would have traces fragments but there is nothing. No, what we have is the New Testament by those that wrote it, who were there the Early Church which was built on Peter by Jesus himself. The fact that many don't want to believe it doesn't make it less true. As for Paul meeting Jesus. I would say yes though not quite in the flesh and definately after his ascension. I still don't understand why people have such a problem with Paul? What he wrote and taught is sound christian doctrine. If its because he wasn't with the Apostles first commisioned by Jesus then that doesn't mean anything. Because there were actually more than 12 apostles. The twelve that were singled out were simply given more authority to help guide the fledgling Church during its beginning.

Peace be with you

Ofcourse it did - its the gospel of christ - not accrding to versions thats what you have left as I said more like hadiths then the actually thing.

Paul never met christ thats the problem.

Yes and by your logic many people dont want to believe in hinduism it doesnt make it less true either?

peace be with you as well.

 

[Tyrion]

No book was given to Jesus, Zafran. That would have been mentioned in the New Testament and it clearly wasn't. If you say he was given a book show me where in the New Testament not the Koran.

Here's my very basic (and possibly wrong) understanding of the matter... The Quran makes it very clear that the books the Christians and the Jews are in possession of are corrupted. While they may contain some truth, they cannot be trusted as being completely from God. When the Quran speaks of the books of Jesus or Moses, it seems to be talking about a book similar to the Quran (Which, if you've read anything about Islam, was revealed as inspiration to the Prophet's (pbuh) heart. NOT in the form of a physical book) Especially in Moses' case, the word book could, and seems to, mean law. So I've heard, and I think it's fair to say, that many times when those books are mentioned in the Quran, it's speaking about the uncorrupted truth/message/laws of those particular prophets.

I'm not sure if any of that was accurate, since I'm running on about 3 hours of sleep and studying for finals. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[gmcbroom]

Tyrion,
The problems as I see it. Just my opinion but hey here it is. Jesus is real I'd say was; but in reality is, is more accurate from the Christian standpoint anyway as he's God. Now in those days there were crazy people just like there are today. I'm sure some thought they were God as well. The difference is Jesus's Virgin birth (no prophet can say that...just him). His miracles that had multiple witnesses; some as little as 2, to as many as 3,000 people witnesses In those days everything needed witnesses to be legally binding and he had them in droves. Lastly, his message and that fact that he clearly fufilled jewish prophecy, doubt me just look at the Old Testament Psalms 21, 22, and 23 thats what happened at the crucifixtion and he knew it as he started to say the very first line of psalm 22 before he gave up his spirit.

Now I know muslims rever the Koran as their Holy Book. I can understand that. But I have to admit that I'm bothered by a few things. The first is how come you needed witnesses to do anything legally binding in Jesus's day but not in Mohammeds. In essence he spoke what Gabriel told him and that is the Koran thats written down. But no one saw Gabriel. That seems strange that Gabriel appeared to people yet not to Mohammed he just squeezed him and told him what to say. It makes me think one of 2 things.

1) It wasn't Gabriel but Lucifer (remember he can appear as angel of light and make anything beautiful even prose). The prayers you say and how you worship, are truly beautiful and draws many to Islam even priests (I did see Naidamars youtubes he posted). I can admit that.

2) It was a lie by a clever man that preyed on those around him to gain power which he did. (I know it sounds stupid but how else can you explain his Abrogation of texts and how he seemed exempt from things his followers couldn't do and lastly if he was a prophet how come he wasn't allowed to speak at the end of his life we'll knever know what his last words were do to someone interevening that doesn't strike me as something God to happen to his prophet would allow. I know many have said its not just a religion but a way to govern ones life but its too much like a political powewr grab to me complete with corruption at the top.

Again these are just my opinions but I figure there important as they explain why I couldn't become a muslim.

peace be with you

 

[Perseveranze]

Nice, I think some extremists should be shown this verse instead of giving muslims a bad name in the press.

Thanks Siam for these Surahs.

Not really that easy to convince someone who lives in a worn torn country, who's wife/sister have been raped and children/family murdered.

 

[Perseveranze]

2) It was a lie by a clever man that preyed on those around him to gain power which he did. (I know it sounds stupid but how else can you explain his Abrogation of texts and how he seemed exempt from things his followers couldn't do and lastly if he was a prophet how come he wasn't allowed to speak at the end of his life we'll knever know what his last words were do to someone interevening that doesn't strike me as something God to happen to his prophet would allow. I know many have said its not just a religion but a way to govern ones life but its too much like a political powewr grab to me complete with corruption at the top.

By saying "lie" your going against what some very very clever people in the modern era would find hard to believe. Let me break down to you how difficult it is to find an "alternative possibility" to Muhammad(pbuh)'s case other than the divine intervention scenario -

William Montgomery Watt states: “ Only a profound belief in himself and his mission explains Muhammad's readiness to endure hardship and persecution during the Meccan period when from a secular point of view there was no prospect of success. Without sincerity how could he have won the allegiance and even devotion of men of strong and upright character like Abu-Bakr and 'Umar ? ... There is thus a strong case for holding that Muhammad was sincere. If in some respects he was mistaken, his mistakes were not due to deliberate lying or imposture[72] ....the important point is that the message was not the product of Muhammad's conscious mind. He believed that he could easily distinguish between his own thinking and these revelations. His sincerity in this belief must be accepted by the modern historian, for this alone makes credible the development of a great religion. The further question, however, whether the messages came from Muhammad's unconscious, or the collective unconscious functioning in him, or from some divine source, is beyond the competence of the historian.[

You see the issue with the whole "deciept" theory? Even the "mad man" theory is extremely flawed and it doesn't need a Muslim or even a Genius who has studied the Prophet's life to have to say this. The issue Non-Muslim Intellects have with Prophet Muhammad(pbuh)'s character, is that they really can't give an explanation that would come anywhere near close to logical.

They face the same issue with the Quran anyone who actually learns arabic and then takes a deep study in the Quran would again find some inconsistency when trying to explain where the Prophet(pbuh) had his source from.

The famous Arabist H. Gibb comments:

“Though, to be sure, the question of the literary merit is one not to be judged on a priori grounds but in relation to the genius of Arabic language; and no man in fifteen hundred years has ever played on that deep toned instrument with such power, such boldness, and such range of emotional effect as Mohammad did.”

Dawood, an Iraqi Jewish Scholar in his translation of the Qur’an comments on the sum effect of these and numerous other literary qualities of the Quran, describing it as a ‘literary masterpiece’:

“The Koran is the earliest and by far the finest work of Classical Arabic prose… It is acknowledged that the Koran is not only one of the most influential books of prophetic literature but also a literary masterpiece in its own right… translations have, in my opinion, practically failed to convey both the meaning and the rhetorical grandeur of the original.”

The Qur’anic choice of words coupled with the power of sound, conveys meanings in a unique way. This feature of the Qur’an produces images and describes events as though they were happening in front of the reader. Johns explains,

“It is the language itself which constitutes the iconic tradition. Not a single word can be taken or heard in isolation. All represent nuclei of meaning that are cumulative and cohere, serving as triggers to activate the profoundest depths of religious consciousness.”

The rhetorical and cohesive components of the Qur’anic text cannot be divorced from each other. If the Qur’anic text were stripped of these elements, the remaining text would cease to be the Qur’an and neither would it not sound like the Qur’an. Arbuthnot states:

“…the Koran is regarded as a specimen of the purest Arabic, written in half poetry and half prose. It has been said that in some cases grammarians have adopted their rules to agree with certain phrases and expressions used in it, and that though several attempts have been made to produce a work equal to it as far as elegant writing is concerned, none has as yet succeeded.”


Montet in his translation of the Qur’an explains this unique Qur’anic feature,

“All those who are acquainted with the Qur’an in Arabic agree in praising the beauty of this religious book; its grandeur of form is so sublime that no translation into any European language can allow us to appreciate it.

This has rested at the core of many historical studies of the Qur’an, as many have attempted to answer the central question of authorship. For Bucaille,

“The above observation makes the hypothesis advanced by those who see Muhammad as the author of the Qur’an untenable. How could a man, from being illiterate, become the most important author, in terms of literary merits, in the whole of Arabic literature?”

The following section taken from Draz’s book “An Eternal Challenge” probes this point further,


“When we consider carefully the timing of the revelation of the Qur’anic passages and surahs and their arrangement, we are profoundly astonished. We almost belie what we see and hear. We then begin to ask ourselves for an explanation of this highly improbable phenomenon: is it not true that this new passage of revelation has just been heard as new, addressing a particular event which is its only concern? Yet it sounds as though it is neither new nor separate from the rest. It seems as if it has been, along with the rest of the Qur’an, perfectly impressed on this man’s mind long before he has recited it to us. It has been fully engraved on his heart before its composition in the words he recites. How else can it unite so perfectly and harmoniously parts and pieces that do not naturally come together?… Is it as result of an experiment that follows a spontaneous thought? That could not be the case. When each part was put in its position, the one who placed them never had a new thought or introduced any modification or re-arrangement.


How then could he have determined his plan? And how could he have made his intention so clear in advance?… When we consider such detailed instructions on the arrangement of passages and surahs we are bound to conclude that there is a complete and detailed plan assigning the position of each passage before they are all revealed. Indeed the arrangement is made before the reasons leading to the revelation of any passage occur, and even before the start of the preliminary causes of such events… Such are the plain facts about the arrangement of the Qur’an as it was revealed in separate verses, passages and surahs over a period of 23 years. What does that tell us about its source?”

So you see my Christian brother, forget Muslims who already know this stuff, even the Non-Muslim intellects, even the Arab one's attest to the mysterious wonder of this Book. And this is the greatest problem people will have with Islam, the haters atleast, if you don't believe it then disapprove it? And none will be able to, none has been able to, even these amatuer anti-islam sites struggle despite twisting and changing the meaning, having extremely little knowledge on the Arabic and the manner of each revelation, even the life of the Prophet(pbuh) do they struggle to answer the ultimate question regarding his Prophethood.

“If you are in doubt of what We have revealed to Our messenger, then produce one chapter like it. Call upon all your helpers, besides Allah, if you are truthful” [Qur'an 2: 23]

 

[Woodrow]

Zafran, that book doesn't exist. there would have traces fragments but there is nothing. No, what we have is the New Testament by those that wrote it, who were there the Early Church which was built on Peter by Jesus himself. The fact that many don't want to believe it doesn't make it less true. As for Paul meeting Jesus. I would say yes though not quite in the flesh and definately after his ascension. I still don't understand why people have such a problem with Paul? What he wrote and taught is sound christian doctrine. If its because he wasn't with the Apostles first commisioned by Jesus then that doesn't mean anything. Because there were actually more than 12 apostles. The twelve that were singled out were simply given more authority to help guide the fledgling Church during its beginning.

Peace be with you

Actually fragments of the Injil do exist. But in a place you would least expect them and that is in the NT most likely in the gospels of John, Luke, Mark, and Matthew. these are the words directly attributed to being spoken by Jesus(as) the problem is since no original Aramaic of Jesus(as)'s words have been found we do not know how accurate the translations are. Neither do we know if all of his words or just some came from the Injil. For some reason it seems nobody saw any value of saving Jesus(as)'s words in their original language and as a separate compilation. That would have been the Injil. The Apostles seem to have placed greater emphasis on his surroundings and who he was speaking to, then on the value of His words.

If you take all of His words found in the 4 gospels and remove the duplicates keeping only the earliest, you will find there are very few words preserved. You will also find they only come from a handful of events. Jesus(as) had his public ministry for 3 years. In that time he must have said many things of great importance. Yet nobody saved his words. where did his words go? Because we can not find any trace of them does that mean they did not exist? Surly he must have said more than the few words that were saved although only the Greek translation seems to have been saved.