Hi everyone,
I think the main problem is to know what Jesus actually did say before stating whether he said x.y.z.
i know that the present 4 gospels are not considered the original. but the term injil refers to them, and not the entire new testament? (mostly paul anyway, i believe).
The term would be speaking about what was given to Jesus, not neccesarily what Mark/Matthew/Luke/John say was given to Jesus. So for example snake, the Qur'an is what was given to Muhammad, but this, i.e. Qur'an, has been transmitted by all Muslims down throughout the ages, so, if we look at a book by a companion of Muhammad, the companion may say 'x.y.z and this is proved in the Qur'an....' now, the portion of Qur'anic quote is what the Qur'an is, the rest is different. Similarly, the Gospels have something like that, you have Jesus speaking, and then you have the authors writing. So for example:
17After he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about this parable. 18"Are you so dull?" he asked. "Don't you see that nothing that enters a man from the outside can make him 'unclean'? 19For it doesn't go into his heart but into his stomach, and then out of his body." (In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean.")
From Mark 7, what you note here is, Jesus' apparent speech, 'Are you so dull..' etc, then the author telling the story, i.e. 'after he had..' and then the author's interpretation 'In saying this , JEsus declared..'.
What may have been part of the Injeel is the direct speech/action (derived from a comman in the injeel) of Jesus. So only that would be up for scrutanisation. Now, if you look at some scholar's of the Bible's writings, they will tell you there were three stages, stage I: The actions and words of the
real Jesus. Stage II: The oral traditions from such actions, so these actions were transmitted, sometimes correctly sometimes not so. Stage III: The taking of the tradition and shaping it to form a gospel. In trying to find the
real actions/sayings of Jesus one has to try work back.
What I would say is that there may be some stage I stuff in the Gospels, but there are also other stages.
Injeel is none of the current four gospels, some contend that the original injeel was either written by the only disciple who actually hung around Jesus 'barnabas' .. some think it is a fake, whatever the case, we don't actually know who luke/mark/mat etc actually are, thus their books are actually very questionable according to Islam.. the original Injeel should be free from error as it is divinly inspired..(clearely not the case with any of the versions or the re-defined versions of what is now widely accepted)
peace
Pretty much that sister, some parts of Jesus' message may have been written or may not, some may have been written but re-interpreted in a different way, God knows best.
Actually, the Injeel was not written by any disciple.
As Salam Alaykum,
How do you know that akhi?
...only the parts that don't agree with what is already accepted...
Yep, they're all lost. the Suhuf, Zabur, Tawrat, Injil.... You really can't trust those Jews with anything right?
Well maybe not all, I mean if you understand the complexity behind the compilation of the text you'll appriciate the difficulty in knowing what is what.
Nevermind that the Qu'ran in it's current form was compiled after the death of Mohammad, and yes there were slightly different versions in the beginning.
Well although you seem to have a different view on how I understand the textual history of the Qur'an to have been. The Qur'an stands not only on texual witness, rather, one also should look at the method of memorising, the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, is a really smart man for inspiring so many of his followers, through rewards, to memorise the whole qur'an, to 'come up' with making them recite it 5 times a day at least, and make the teachers of the Qur'an the best, I mean, if you ask me that's a great way to go in making sure a message isn't lost.
On top of that, one only has to note the social differences.
And God knows best.