Fundamental Principle 2: Intact Message Preserved

[جوري]

paganism and atheism are mentioned...what is your point otherwise?

 

[Sami234]

I wouldn't disagree that a reasonable assurance that no changes have occurred, as certainly seems to be the case with the Qur'an, is significant. As a 'fundamental principle' though, no, for several reasons.

Firstly, there would need to be reason to suspect that message has been significantly changed. Taking Christianity as the obvious example, I see no reason to believe it has. Sure, I've seen many lists of 'errors' in the Bible, but none are of any real importance to the actual messages within it.

Secondly, such criticism seems restricted to the Bible for no particular reason I can see. I don't see anybody suggesting that we should ignore Plato and Aristotle because of a few copying errors somewhere along the line. Looking back to your earlier thread the 'authority' of such people is not diminished in the slightest and yet there is little doubt similar errors would have occurred.

Thirdly, Christians might argue perfectly reasonably from a theist perspective that for God, being omnipotent, ensuring that any changes did not affect anything important would be trivial.

And fourthly, that although there is certainly little doubt that the Bible has been changed (albeit in ways that are probably not overly important) there are few Christians unduly perturbed by the fact, hence the absence of any such doubts cannot be 'fundamental' to belief and faith.

Hi.

Sorry, but at the beggining of Christiannity, lots and lots of different theological views were in a total war.

There is dozens and dozens of false gospels defending some various theological views. The Gospels we have in our hands are only the winners of this battle.

Secondly, we can't proove what they say has something to do with the reality of the message of the real Jesus 'aleyhi as-salam.

Also, there is absolutely NO REASONS to believe that we have in our hands as Gospels did not change in the first decades to suit a theological view of things. What I am saying has been said by numbers of biblical historians.

 

[Follower]

None of the other false Gospels were destroyed, each can decide for themselves what to believe. This is not the case with the Quran. Uthmann burned Qurans and we have no idea what was in the other Qurans- just that they needed to be burned.

Skye they are the Gospels that were available to Mohammad and that are spoken of in the Quran. Philippians validates existance of the other earlier New Testament texts.

 

[جوري]

None of the other false Gospels were destroyed, each can decide for themselves what to believe. This is not the case with the Quran. Uthmann burned Qurans and we have no idea what was in the other Qurans- just that they needed to be burned.

Skye they are the Gospels that were available to Mohammad and that are spoken of in the Quran. Philippians validates existance of the other earlier New Testament texts.

you only have false Gospels out.. the actual Injeel as brought by Jesus is lost to you, and that is why you follow Paulian/asthansaius Christianity, In lieu of what Jesus actually taught!

a few excerpts of the corruption of Christianity as per Saul/Paul amazingly enough written by another christian sect ( and they are all so happy about this factions thinking they are correct) as God (SWT) stated in the Noble Quran

فَتَقَطَّعُوا أَمْرَهُم بَيْنَهُمْ زُبُرًا كُلُّ حِزْبٍ بِمَا لَدَيْهِمْ فَرِحُونَ {53}​

[Yusufali 23:53] But people have cut off their affair (of unity), between them, into sects: each party rejoices in that which is with itself.


Jesus Said: Keep the Sabbath (Mark 2:27), circumcise male children (Luke 2:21), Paul Said: Circumcision is not necessary (Romans 2:26) that is going against what the Christ said in Luke 2:21.

In 1 Corinthians 15:1 Paul says that he was not giving them anything but what “he preached.” He explained this even further in the second book (or letter) to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 11:17). It reads - “That which I speak, I speak it not after the Lord, but as it were foolishly, in this confidence of boasting.” He's telling you plain and simple he was speaking of himself and not from or of the Lord!"


Paul Supported and demanded Adherence to Iniquity (Discrimination), Jesus said to not let it be found among us! Who's lying?



Jesus: When Yahshua confronts the Adversary, he defeats him by saying, "You shall live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of YHWH, and Him alone will you serve."

Paul: When Paul is mobbed by people who wish to stone him for preaching against the Law of YHWH, he relies on the worldly authorities as a Roman entitled to the protection of the government rulers who save him (Dt. 8:3, Mt.4:4, Acts 22:26, 23:27



Jesus: "DO NOT CALL ANYONE ON EARTH YOUR FATHER; for ONE IS YOUR FATHER, HE who is in heaven"
(Matthew 23:9)

The devil 'PAUL' BLASPEMOUSLY BOASTED

"For I BECAME YOUR FATHER"
(1 Corinthians 4:15)

" JESUS came to Galilee PREACHING THE GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM "
(Mark 1:14, Matt.4:23).
JESUS said " THIS GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM will be PREACHED, IN MY NAME in all the world
(Matt.24:14).
'PAUL' CAME preaching, by his own admission, ANOTHER GOSPEL PROMOTING LAWLESSNESS and LICENTIOUSNESS

many excerpts taken from disciplesofchrist.com

"I ('PAUL') testify to the gospel of the grace of god...ANOTHER GOSPEL...ALL THINGS ARE LAWFUL "
(Acts 20:24. 2 Corinthians 11:4. 1 Corinthians 10:23).

"PERVERTING THE GRACE OF OUR GOD INTO LAWLESSNESS EVEN DENYING THE ONLY LORD GOD (THE FATHER) AND OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST (THE FATHER'S SON)"
(Jude 4. 1 John 2:22)



'PAUL' CURSED JESUS CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES AND DISCIPLES
" If we or an angel from heaven preach ANY OTHER GOSPEL to you than what we (Paul and his followers) have preached to you LET HIM BE A CURSE"
(Gal 1:18)
There was a distinction even back then with the disciples of Jesus and Paul and "his" followers. Barnabbas and Mark both followed Paul at one time and then left him and went back to the disciples. Barnabbas was sent by the Apostle Peter to travel with Paul and teach Paul the ways and teachings of Jesus, but Paul wasn't going to play second fiddle to anyone and usurped the authority of Barnabbas and taught what he wanted to teach. How many ever knew that Paul was suppose to be subservient to Barnabbas?


"Indeed I PAUL say to you that IF ANYONE BECOME CIRCUMCISED Christ will profit you nothing " (Gal. 5:2).

too bad Paul! The circumcision was a sign of the covenant between Israel and Yahovah and you're lie was exposed for what it was! Another false "divine revelation!"

YET, despite his assertion that 'Christ will profit you nothing', 'Paul' himself, HYPOCRITICALLY " took TIMOTHY and CIRCUMCISED HIM "
(Acts 16:3).


Now Paul declares it's ok to eat meat sacrificed to idols

" For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than THESE NECESSARY THINGS:
That you ABSTAIN FROM MEATS offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled and from fornication..."
(Acts 15:28:29)
" But I (Jesus) have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a STUMBLING BLOCK before the children of Israel, TO EAT THINGS SACRIFICED TO IDOLS "
(Revelation 2:14)


" I ( PAUL ) have laid a FOUNDATION...the FOUNDATION OF APOSTLES AND PROPHETS "

( 1 Cor.3:10. Eph 2:20 The words of PSALM 68:18 read "HE (ALMIGHTY GOD) RECEIVED gifts FROM men" (Psalm 68:18)

'Paul' TOOK AWAY FROM the words of Psalm 68:18 and changed them to read "he GAVE gifts TO men" (Ephesians 4:8)

I think any thinking person can see what Christians are worshiping and it is nothing Jesus taught..

As for The Quran.. I'd refrain from topics over your head..

for those interested in the compilation of the Quran
I'd recommend reading

The preservation of the Quran

also excellent are books by M.M Azmi

It is a wonder Christianity survived at all with all its hilarious sects, dark ages and fairy tales!

 

[alcurad]

Follower, the versions that were burned were not very clear or had missing parts, for example one of the sahaba-Ibn Mas'ood- had written the explanation of verses right next to the verse themselves, as to be almost indistinguishable in writing from the verse itself, and so on.
however it was following consensus that the different version were gotten rid of-burned etc- and we do know to a general extent what was contained in them, you have to be well versed in Islamic studies to know it though.

 

[جوري]

the compilation of the Quran was punctilious, requiring two witnesses with each verse-- there is no doubt as to its preservation as Allah swt himself promised to conserve it-- and it was done during the time of the prophet PBUH not centuries later by self-proclaimed apostles
The hilarity of it, is that they take Islamic history and build all these secondary surmises and conjectures around it-- I am not sure for what reason other than to appease their own growing doubt.

 

[Follower]

alcurad - nothing really can be proved one way or the other because they are gone. I think a great misjustice was done when they were burned. It makes things look very fishy.

Who chose Uthmann to be in charge with destroying the other Qurans?

LOL!! Skye you have missed the point of all that is Jesus.

Jesus' Kingdom, the Kingdom of GOD is not in this world, it is a spiritual world.

Difference of spiritual/world focus.

Islam-If a man can not control his sexual desires, all women must be covered.

Christianity- If a man lusts in his heart, he has already sinned.

What is in a man's heart is what is important not all the rituals, outward appearances, etc.

 

[Follower]

Jesus taught:

36"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" 37Jesus replied: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

How simple:

40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Skye - Are you saying that Allah does not give gifts?

 

[جوري]

I notice that if one of you bible thumpers realizes the absurdity of Christianity s/he resorts to the asinine sophomoric observations.. Do you not think we are well read in our books.. or do you bother actually read what is in your own book?
does it not command in your religion a woman to cover up to-- or is that too ok to give up because Jesus ate their sins?

1 Corinthians 11:3-12)

The head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head,[a] since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.

indeed in ISlam 'Al a3mal be'nyat' all is measured on intent indeed not deeds, as well God's grace and mercy.. does the fact that your devil Paul broke many commandments and you all follow him senselessly without thought or intellect to the abyss give you a feeling of comfort that you can sin Carte Blanche because God ate your sins? what a miserable God you follow if he should deny billions of devotees their right to paradise in favor of those whose sin is pre-paid with an imaginary redemption card..

in fact if anyone is having a garish outward appearance it is Christians--
I fast and pray along with billions of Muslims for the pleasure of Allah swt not the pleasure of my pastor or neighbors--by what authority do you measure the deeds of others? .. and that is if the lot of you bother up keeping with any commandment to begin with -- so pls spare me your bull and hypocrisy --it won't take me more than 34 seconds to refute you, that is how pathetic your attempts..

Just go worship a man, spend money you don't have on cheap plastic from China to celebrate a pagan holidays because that is indeed less outwardly showy be happy and and leave us in peace

 

[Grace Seeker]

Jesus did recieve a Message from God, some call it the Gospel, good news, also known as 'The Kingdom of heaven' and so forth, but the difference is the format, i.e. the way the message was given and preserved, in which you are right, Christians now claim different to Muslims.

For example, if you ask a Christian, has the message of Christianity been preserved they will exclaim 'yes!' Similarly for a Muslim.

I see something implicit in the above statement that I, as a Christian, do not agree correctly represents Christianity. Namely the above seems to imply that the message of Christianity is one that Jesus would have received from God to give to humankind. That might be Islam's understanding of the Injeel, but it is not Christianity's understanding of the Gospel.

The Gospel message is NOT a message from God delivered by Jesus. Rather it is a message about God's love and plan for humankind as exemplified in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. You can have a verbatim record of everything Jesus said, and if you don't include what he did you don't have the Gospel. Conversely, if you get all of what Jesus said wrong, but you properly record and interpret what he did, then you still have the heart of the Gospel message.

Is it important that the Message that one believes may be from God, is without any substantiated doubt, intact? Meaning, that we have no doubt, i.e. we are totally sure, due to a high probability, that the message of God has been kept intact. Which neccesitates that if there is doubt about the message's preservation one would then be justified in not beliving the religion to be from God.

That would be true for some religions, but I do not believe that it holds true for all. Those that purport to primary be a message from God require this sort of assurance. Others may be satisfied in establishing merely that God exists and then searching for his revelation. They would not necessarily feel the same need for God's words as they would simply to point to items that they would assert manifests God's presence. Of course you might counter that such a religion isn't really from God, but directed to God and you would be right about that. But both are equally religions, and other than one's apriori assumptions where contradictions between them might occur, one cannot "prove" one more right or wrong than the other.

I also thought of exactly what Trumble said when I read your fundamental principle:

IAnd fourthly, that although there is certainly little doubt that the Bible has been changed (albeit in ways that are probably not overly important) there are few Christians unduly perturbed by the fact, hence the absence of any such doubts cannot be 'fundamental' to belief and faith.

Though we know that we don't have the original autographs, we see such consistency within the documents that we do have that we feel confident to their verasity. Further, for a book so large, written over such an extended period of time and with so many different human writers reflecting a number of different cultures to yet have the over-arching themes of redemption and deliverance remain so central and harmonious with each other, it tends to cause one to look past existing divergencies as being insignificant in the light of the whole.

 

[Umar001]

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem,

May God bestow guidance and peace upon those who follow His way.

Who chose Uthmann to be in charge with destroying the other Qurans?

Hope you are well, and I hope you will follow me into a thread which I hope to open entitled: The Preservation of the Qur'an a Discussion. Wherein you may express your ideas and questios in an orderly fashion.

Until then, submit yourself to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

Regards, 'Eesa 'Abdullah.

Hope you and your family are well Grace.

I see something implicit in the above statement that I, as a Christian, do not agree correctly represents Christianity. Namely the above seems to imply that the message of Christianity is one that Jesus would have received from God to give to humankind. That might be Islam's understanding of the Injeel, but it is not Christianity's understanding of the Gospel.

The Gospel message is NOT a message from God delivered by Jesus. Rather it is a message about God's love and plan for humankind as exemplified in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. You can have a verbatim record of everything Jesus said, and if you don't include what he did you don't have the Gospel. Conversely, if you get all of what Jesus said wrong, but you properly record and interpret what he did, then you still have the heart of the Gospel message.

This is exactly the point, what did Jesus do? The Message may not necesarily be the words of Jesus, but it has something to do with him and how that has been relayed unto later generations. If you claim the Gospel Message then lies in the actions/deeds of Jesus which revealed the message about God's love and plan for man then it is still important to know what Jesus did, said, etc. Otherwise how would one come to know what God wanted/planned, lest he be informed by someone who knew, i.e. his Prophet or Son.

Thus the message should be, without reasonable doubt, be preserved.

That would be true for some religions, but I do not believe that it holds true for all. Those that purport to primary be a message from God require this sort of assurance. Others may be satisfied in establishing merely that God exists and then searching for his revelation. They would not necessarily feel the same need for God's words as they would simply to point to items that they would assert manifests God's presence. Of course you might counter that such a religion isn't really from God, but directed to God and you would be right about that. But both are equally religions, and other than one's apriori assumptions where contradictions between them might occur, one cannot "prove" one more right or wrong than the other.

Various questions would then arise in the light of such ideas.

Thus even they may agree in the principle, but simply say that the theoretical instance contained in the principle, i.e. that God sent something, has not happened, yet had it happened the principle outlined would stand?

I also thought of exactly what Trumble said when I read your fundamental principle:Though we know that we don't have the original autographs, we see such consistency within the documents that we do have that we feel confident to their verasity. Further, for a book so large, written over such an extended period of time and with so many different human writers reflecting a number of different cultures to yet have the over-arching themes of redemption and deliverance remain so central and harmonious with each other, it tends to cause one to look past existing divergencies as being insignificant in the light of the whole.

Well this is another part, I don't remember if I had entertained this topic or not, but it should be in another thread. The aim of this thread is mainly to discuss the idea of such a principle. Needless to say though that I think both you and Trumble are missing the point in your statements. I will open a thred entitled something like The Biblical Message Preserved, or something.

Hope to see you there,

Br.'Eesa 'Abdullah.

 

[Follower]

Thank you alcurad - "Follower, the versions that were burned were not very clear" -the ideas or the writing, both?

 

[Follower]

According to the following the verses, Holy Scripture was already available during Pauls life:

1 Corinthians 15
The Resurrection of Christ
1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.

 

[Umar001]

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem,

Peace be upon those who follow guidance,

According to the following the verses, Holy Scripture was already available during Pauls life:

1 Corinthians 15
The Resurrection of Christ
1Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.

I don't know what this has to do with the principle. Just to let you know I am pretty sure Scholars understand Scripture in the above passage as some Old Testament type of writings.

But again, this has, in reality, nothing to do with the validity of the principle.

Br.al-Habeshi

 

[Follower]

Are you saying that - 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, Is in the Old Testament?

 

[Umar001]

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem,

Peace be upon those who follow guidance,

Are you saying that - 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, Is in the Old Testament?

It says, according to the scriptures, now, which scriptures is that according to? As I said, the author is probably reffering to the Old Testament as scripture. One reason being that most, if not all, New Testament scholars I think would agree that Paul wrote before the Gospels, therefore what other scripture would he be reffering to?

Unless you of course hold to a pre-Markan and Q type of sources and scriptures?

Br.al-Habeshi

Edit: Let us also get back on topic, do you think a Just God would allow his Message to be corrupted and then punish people because they refrained from praticing it out of caution?

 

[Zamtsa]

Narrated by Ibn Katsir that Rasulullah said "Al Qur'an was sent down by Allahu Ta'ala (through Jibril 'Alaihi Salaam) to Baitul 'Izzi in the sky."

So when Christians think that Al Qur'an was sent down gradually and arrange later, they missed this fact.

Because the news indicated that Al Qur'an was arranged and sent down in whole to Baitul 'Izzi, before being sent by Jibril ayat per ayat (verse) by Allah's command. Al Qur'an is according to Mukmin as the words of Allah through sound and letters, this view of Salafush Shalih was written by syaikh Muhammad bin Shalih Al 'Utsaimin in Rasa'il Fil 'Aqidah.


Assalamu'alaikum wa rahmatullaahi wa barakaatuh.

 

[Follower]

Al Habeshci- Jesus did not live during the time of the Old Testament, only the New Testament times. Paul is referring to the Gospel as Scripture.

Who is Baitul 'Izzi"

Why would GOD do such a thing?

Edit: Let us also get back on topic, do you think a Just God would allow his Message to be corrupted and then punish people because they refrained from praticing it out of caution?

A loving GOD would not do this - How are people to find Him if the road to Him, His Scripture is not preserved?

 

[جوري]

A loving GOD would not do this - How are people to find Him if the road to Him, His Scripture is not preserved?

Indeed the message is preserved in the last testament-- The Quran!-- and billions have found their way to the path of the righteous, the path of Abraham!

cheers

 

[Zamtsa]

Al Habeshci- Jesus did not live during the time of the Old Testament, only the New Testament times. Paul is referring to the Gospel as Scripture.

Who is Baitul 'Izzi"

Why would GOD do such a thing?

A loving GOD would not do this - How are people to find Him if the road to Him, His Scripture is not preserved?

Bismillahi I write

Baitul means house. Izzi come from the word "Izzat," means glorious and supreme. Baitul Izzi is a place in the sky, maybe in the 1st sky.

A. Yusuf Ali Quran TranslationSurah Al-Hijr Ruku 1 Surah 15Mecca (54) 99 Ayahs6 Rukus


QS.Al Hijr(15):9 We have without doubt sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).

A. Yusuf Ali Quran TranslationSurah Al-Hadid Ruku 4 Surah 57Madina (94) 29 Ayahs4 Rukus



27 Then in their wake We followed them up with (others of) Our apostles: We sent after them Jesus the son of Mary and bestowed on him the Gospel; and We ordained in the hearts of those who followed him Compassion and Mercy. But the monasticism which they invented for themselves We did not prescribe for them: (We commanded) only the seeking for the Good pleasure of Allah; but that they did not FOSTER as they should have done. Yet We bestowed on those among them who believed their (due) reward but many of them are rebellious transgressors.

The Christian monks turned to Homosexuals. How could they keep the commandments. They even do not work, how could they rule people? They even charge money from sins done by people, was that based on Injil? No.


Assalamu manit taba'al huda (may peace be upon who follow the guidance).
Assalamu'alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakaatuh.