Jesus in Islam

[budda]

I am curious as to the source of Mohammed's thought on Jesus? If you read the gospels written down by his followers they do not really go in line with what Mohammad writes. Such stories as Jesus saving the adulteress from stoning and Jesus forgiving the criminal crucified next to him tend to contradict Sharia law. Secondly he did refer to himself as the son of god or the messiah on several occasions, it was after all the reason the Jews wanted him dead. These are verified in texts that predate the birth of the prophet by 500+ years.
Any answers would be greatly appreciated. thank you

 

[Woodrow]

The source of the revelation to Muhammad(PBUH) is the word of Allah(swt) dictated to Muhammad(PBUH) by the Angel Gabriel.

26:190. Verily in that is a Sign: but most of them do not believe. S P
26:191. And verily thy Lord is He, the Exalted in Might, Most Merciful. S P C
26:192. Verily this is a Revelation from the Lord of the Worlds: S P C
26:193. With it came down the spirit of Faith and Truth- S P C

26:194. To thy heart and mind, that thou mayest admonish. S P C
26:195. In the perspicuous Arabic tongue. S P
26:196. Without doubt it is (announced) in the mystic Books of former peoples. S P C
26:197. Is it not a Sign to them that the Learned of the Children of Israel knew it (as true)?

Yusuf Ali's Quran Translation


Of course they are not in line with the scriptures. The Gospel as revealed to Isa(as) was lost and altered shortly after it's revelation. If it had remained true and intact, there never would have beeen any reason for Allah(swt) to have sent His final Prophet(PBUH)

The Qur'an reveals many of the Miracles performed by Isa(as) some of which have been lost in the Bible and are long forgotten by Christians.

Isa(as) did not forgive the thief crucified next to him, because Isa(as) was never crucified.

4:156. That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge; S P C
4:157. That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- S P C

4:158. Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;- S P C


Yusuf Ali's Quran Translation


Isa(as) never said he was God(swt) Isa(as) was a noble and trusted Prophet(PBUH) he never would have uttered such blasphemy.


5:116. And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah'?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden. S P C

Yusuf Ali's Quran Translation

 

[budda]

Many people have claimed to speak for God but few have been able to challenge the authorities of there day such that Jesus did. In fact the Jews were quite adept at picking out blasphemers by the time Jesus was born. Jesus was never known to write down his own teaching's. He instead taught through oral tradition and it was only written down by his disciples after his death, you are correct on that subject. But you then must ask why was Jesus so controversial in Israel and why would so many people lie about his death? The Romans, Jews, and Christians alike never denied he was executed for his teachings. The Romans did it to quell unrest in Judea, the Jews did it because they believed him a blasphemer, and Jesus never fought it as he was fulfilling his own prophecy(according to the gospels). Even the dozens of Gospels not included in the Bible generally agree upon his teachings and his death, some do question his divinity though. These are writings of first hand witnesses and instead I am supposed to believe someone who lived 650 years later? New teachings from "prophets" should never be accepted at face value as this is blind faith. It is how we end up with such things as Mormons who believe in an alternate history that has near zero evidence to support it.
thank you for the response and good day to you.

 

[- Qatada -]

Hey.

The people of the Scripture (Jews) ask you to cause a book to descend upon them from heaven. Indeed they asked Musa (Moses) for even greater than that, when they said: "Show us Allah in public," but they were struck with thunder clap and lightning for their wickedness. Then they worshipped the calf even after clear proofs, evidences, and signs had come to them. (Even) so We forgave them. And We gave Musa (Moses) a clear proof of authority.


And for their covenant, We raised over them the Mount and (on the other occasion) We said: "Enter the gate prostrating (or bowing) with humility;" and We commanded them: "Transgress not (by doing worldly works on) the Sabbath (Saturday)." And We took from them a firm covenant.


Because of their breaking the covenant, and of their rejecting the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of Allah, and of their killing the Prophets unjustly, and of their saying: "Our hearts are wrapped (with coverings, i.e. we do not understand what the Messengers say)" - nay, Allah has set a seal upon their hearts because of their disbelief, so they believe not but a little.




And because of their (Jews) disbelief and uttering against Maryam (Mary ا ) a grave false charge (that she has committed illegal sexual intercourse);


: And because of their saying (in boast), "We killed Messiah 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), the Messenger of Allah," - but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but the resemblance of 'Iesa (Jesus) was put over another man (and they killed that man), and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) ]:


But Allah raised him ['Iesa (Jesus)] up (with his body and soul) unto Himself (and he is in the heavens). And Allah is Ever All*Powerful, All*Wise.



[Qur'an 4:153-158 - Muhsin Khan translation]


​

Jesus was a messenger of Allaah/God, who was sent to the children of Isra'eel to call them to the worship of God without no associates, like all the previous prophets called to [i.e. Moses, David, Solomon, John the Baptist etc.]

Every prophet faced an enemy and opposition when he called people to worship God Alone, and Jesus faced similar situations. He was then imprisoned and although the people thought he was killed on the cross, he was taken up by God/Allaah Almighty to the heavens.


The people never killed him, rather there was someone else who was given the resemblance of Jesus (peace be upon him) [according to a scholarly opinion.] And this man was killed, hence this explains why alot of these people may have thought that they actually killed Jesus (peace be upon him.)


If you feel that it's unjust of God to allow someone to resemble Jesus (peace be upon him) and be killed, then you have to ask yourself why you believe that an honorable messenger of God, should be killed if he is guilty of no crime whatsoever?


Jesus was taught the gospel and the torah, and he called the people to worship God without no associates. All the previous prophets came with the same message, hence the same can be said about Jesus (peace be upon him.) According to christians, if one doesn't believe in the salvation - they can't be 'saved' - so what about the previous prophets, they had passed away before the 'salvation' took place, does that mean they can't gain no salvation either?!



According to christians, the earliest scripture after Jesus (peace be upon him) left this world, can only be linked back 350 years after he left this world. So how can we actually believe in its authenticity when 1) its not even in the language Jesus (peace be upon him) spoke [Aramaic], 2) It's 350yrs after Jesus left this world? We know that the Romans actually tried to get rid of the monotheistic aspects of the religion of Jesus [the true message of worshipping God Alone] because the Romans were polytheists themselves. Hence how can we believe in its authenticity? How can we accept if there is no solid proof for what Jesus (peace be upon him) actually said?



In islaam, we have both proof and faith and they both work hand in hand. So we have the Qur'an [the word of God revealed to His final servant & messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him.)] Muhammad (peace be upon him) was illiterate and couldn't read or write, yet the Qur'an is a miracle and was written by his companions. The copy written by his companions is in the museum of turkey and any copy of the Qur'an you see today is the same, there aren't different 'versions' - rather we all have one copy and agree on its authenticity.

The Prophetic sayings are also a science where the whole chain of narrators of the Prophetic sayings are recorded, and the biographies of these people are written to verify the prophetic sayings authenticity. This is a whole science called the sciences of hadith.



The message revealed to Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the same message of all the previous prophets, to worship God Alone without no associates. If you wonder why God is Allaah in arabic, know that in spanish they call God - Dios, the French - Dieux, similarly in arabic it is Allaah, which even the christian arabs call God by.

We believe in God, His prophets, and the day when we will be brought back to life again and be judged on all that we do. Those who worship God without no associates will enter the eternal paradise through the Mercy of God, and those who reject God's worship, and associate partners with God [i.e. idols, other ways of life etc.] will be punished for turning away from the truth.


This has been the same message of all the prophets, and we will all die and be raised back to life. If God can create us out of nothing, its easy for Him to create us again, and He is Kind and Merciful to those who turn towards Him in obedience.



Just read the bible yourself and try to understand it to the above concepts, pray to God to guide you and us all to the true path. You'll come to know that God will guide, if we turn to Him in full sincerety.


If you got any questions, please ask.


Peace.

​

 

[mariam.]

peace be upon who follow the truth and seek for it:
thank for this question .. that touch my heart
maybe becouse it's about one of my examples in this life ..
I know exactly how much you love him… in other side you didn't know how much we love him ……... God said in his holy book:
"relate in the Book (The story of) Mary, when she withdrew from her family To a place in the east.
* She placed a screen (To screen herself) from them; then we sent to her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects.
* She said: I seek refuge from thee to (God) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear God.
* He said: Nay, I am only A messenger from thy Lord, (To announce) to thee the gift of a holy son.
* She said: how shall I Have a son, seeing that non man has touched me and I am not unchaste?
* He said: So (it will be): Thy Lord saith, That is easy for Me: and (we wish) to appoint him as a sign unto men and a Mercy from Us: It is a matter (so) decreed.
* So she conceived him, And she retired with him to a remote place.
* And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk Of a palm tree: She cried (in her anguish): Ah! would that I had died before this! would that I had been a thing forgotten and out of sight!
*but (a voice) cried to her from beneath the (palm tree): grieve not! for thy Lord hath provided a rivulet beneath thee;
* And shake towards thyself The trunk of the palm tree: It will let fall fresh ripe dates upon thee
*So eat and drink And cool (thine) eye. And if thou dost see Any man, say, I have Vowed a fast to (God) Most Gracious, and this day Will I enter into no talk With any human being
* At length she brought The (babe) to her people, carrying him (in her arms). they said: O Mary! Truly an amazing thing hast thou brought!
* O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not A man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!
* But she pointed to the babe. They said: How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?
* He said: I am indeed A servant of God: He hath given me revelation and made me A prophet;
* And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, And hath enjoined on me prayer and Charity as long As I live;
*(He) hath made me kind To my mother, and not overbearing or miserable;
* So peace is on me The day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)
* Such (was) Jesus the son Of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute.
* It is not befitting To (the majesty of) God that He should beget a son. Glory be to him! when he determines a matter, He only says To it, be, and it is.
* Verily God is my Lord And your Lord: him therefore serve ye: this is a way that is straight"
Our love to him make us follow the straight way that he follow befor ..
in islam jesus is'not a God .. he is prophet but that doesn't reduce his high standing in our hearts
"O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector.
The Messiah does by no means disdain that he should be a servant of Allah, nor do the angels who are near to Him, and whoever disdains His service and is proud, He will gather them all together to Himself."
may Allah lead you and us to the staright way .. peace

 

[Umar001]

Hi Budda,

I am curious as to the source of Mohammed's thought on Jesus?

The source for Muhammad's, thoughts on Jesus, peace be upon them both is given in the Qu'ran, the recital given onto Muhammad for mankind, within many verses, here are some,

By the star when it goes down, (or vanishes). (An-Najm 53:1)

Your companion (Muhammad SAW) has neither gone astray nor has erred. (An-Najm 53:2)

Nor does he speak of (his own) desire. (An-Najm 53:3)

It is only an Inspiration that is inspired. (An-Najm 53:4)

He has been taught (this Qur'an) by one mighty in power [Jibrael (Gabriel)]. (An-Najm 53:5)​

This is the translation of the meaning of the direct word of G-d, according to Islamic belief, in the first verse you witness Almighty G-d swearing by his creation, i.e. the star, then adressing the people that Muhammad, their companion is not gone astray, i.e. on a wrong path, nor has he made a mistake, in what he claims, nor does he speak of what he wishes, but that it is only an inspiration, inspired.

So the source behind Muhammad's thoughts in religious matters is Almighty G-d, who revealed to him what He wished, according to the Qu'ran.

If you read the gospels written down by his followers they do not really go in line with what Mohammad writes. Such stories as Jesus saving the adulteress from stoning and Jesus forgiving the criminal crucified next to him tend to contradict Sharia law.

It is interesting you quote those two things, if you will allow me, I will post my personal findings on those aspects of the Canocial Gospels, I hope you are not offended by a non Christian quoting passages and if you feel I am stating something wrong please feel free to correct me here and in pm.

To proceed,

The Story of the Adulteress

According to the King James Version there appears a story of a woman who is taken to Jesus after having been accused of commiting adultery, the famous and often quoted passage is found here 'let ye of no sin cast the first stone'.

Other versions also report the story with silence, but there are version which claim other things.

The English Standard Version

States, [The earliest manuscripts do not include John 7:53-8:11]

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 7-8;&version=47;


The New Internation Version

States, ((The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.))

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John 7-8;&version=31;​

Having said that, your claim was that, 'do not really go in line with what Mohammad writes' and the story of the lady being set free is shown as an act of great mercy which is not apparently shown in the Shariah of Muhammad.

I will briefly touch on this, the Woman was brought to Jesus, peace be upon him, being accused of being caught commiting the act of adultery, we are not told of any court procedings or the likes, rather we are told people brought her, told him this, and tried to trap Jesus, Jesus replied that those with no sin should cast the stone, this can be interpreted in multiple ways, most say that 'This means that because the men had sinned at one or another point in their lives they cannot then judge others' or we could say that, since there was no evidence of a court proceding, and since, we are told that these people tried to 'trap' and use his answer as an accusation against him, it is concieveable that they could have lied to see how Jesus would deal with the issue of having witnesses and so forth, or whether he would make the mistake of just saying 'Kill her' in which case he would be doing wrong, so in that case, if the men had lied, then the 'let ye of no sin cast the first stone' could be an indication that Jesus knew of their plan, to trap him through his descion, and so the men who had lied and tried to trap him, left the scene. Furthermore Jesus then let the lady go, since he himself did not see anything nor had any witnesses. In my view either interpretation is valid.

Now, the question is, does the Shariah, allow stoning because of some people's accusation?

The Qu'ran states:

Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And those who accuse chaste women, and produce not four witnesses, flog them with eighty stripes, and reject their testimony forever. They indeed are the Faasiqoon (liars, rebellious, disobedient to Allaah)”

[al-Noor 24:4]​

So if a person was to be brought to Muhammad, by some people, and said 'she was caught in adultery' they would be demanded to produce witnesses, if those who accuse do not produce the such then they have SINNED, so 'let ye of no sin cast the first stone' would be valid in this case, implyin that the speaker knows those who have accused are lying.

So in Islam, if people just brought a woman, they would have to produce witnesses and so forth. It is therefore possible that what Jesus is reported said, Muhammad could have, peace be upon them both.

Anyhow, to move on to forgiveness,

In Islam forgiveness is emphesised over retribution,

Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“The recompense for an evil is an evil like thereof; but whoever forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is with Allaah. Verily, He likes not the Zaalimoon (oppressors, polytheists, and wrongdoers).

And indeed whosoever takes revenge after he has suffered wrong, for such there is no way (of blame) against them.

The way (of blame) is only against those who oppress men and rebel in the earth without justification; for such there will be a painful torment.

And verily, whosoever shows patience and forgives, that would truly be from the things recommended by Allaah”

[al-Shoora 42:40-43]​

So we see, that if someone is wronged, then that person is allowed to have justice if they chose it, but if they want they can opt to forgive, for verily forgiveness is from the things recommended by Allah.

Secondly he did refer to himself as the son of god or the messiah on several occasions, it was after all the reason the Jews wanted him dead.

That is again your interpretation, you feel that this is the reason the Jews wanted Jesus dead, well, maybe not, maybe this was an escuse they used, because even when they confronted Jesus, according to the Gospel of John, Jesus explained to them that he was not making himself one with God.

So some ask, 'well if Jesus was not making himself God and so on, why would the Jews want to kill him?'

The answer is simple, in fact I have answered it here before, I was asked,

If your simple answer is correct and complete, then why did the "Teachers of the Law" believe Jesus had blasphemed?​

Simple, just read the Bible, first we see the teaching method of Jesus according to the Bible is a very stern method and a method used by someone who claims to have authority.
Examples that I can find include:

Matthew 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Matthew 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Show the authority, where as teachers would say The Law says this and that, Jesus taught, "you heard this but I tell you that" and people quite naturally would have thought whose this geezer, and the hypocrites who wanted power would have been angry at this show of Authority.

Also, Jesus condemned the acts of many people, such as the comments of ‘When you pray do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others…’ (Matthew 6:5) It seems clear who Jesus is condemning, he went further on to say ‘..If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and now am here. I have not come on my own; but he sent me. Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and want to carry out your father’s desire...’ (John 8:42-44)

So from this point of anger it is clear that any chance came to get Jesus killed, so when Jesus says I and the father are one, the enemies jumped to the conclusion of claiming divinity just like a lot of Christians do, and when Jesus called himself son and so on they claimed he was making himself one with God. Yet if taken into context and from an unbiased party they would have seen differently.

Many people have claimed to speak for God but few have been able to challenge the authorities of there day such that Jesus did. In fact the Jews were quite adept at picking out blasphemers by the time Jesus was born.

I believe that totally about Jesus, peace be upon him, and I also believe it about Muhammad, peace be upon him.

Jesus was never known to write down his own teaching's. He instead taught through oral tradition and it was only written down by his disciples after his death, you are correct on that subject.

Again this is not concrete, we do not know the authors of the Cannonised Gospels, we do not know their sources. There are theories on who they are but no conclusive evidence, if there is then please pm me the info so I may retract my statement.

Even the dozens of Gospels not included in the Bible generally agree upon his teachings and his death, some do question his divinity though.

This gives the impression that you are stating that all the Gospels of the time agreed on the death of Jesus, I find that hard to believe, there are gospels we do not know the content of, also does the Gospel of Thomas say such a thing. Furthermore in this case the quantity is not an indication of validity, since we do not know the quality.

These are writings of first hand witnesses.

Again I disagree, and it is amazing that you say this with full conviction, would be interesting in knowing your source for such a firm belief that the Gospels are written by people who witnessed the events.

and instead I am supposed to believe someone who lived 650 years later?

Let me ask you, if you believed someone is inspired by God Almighty, then whether they come 100 years, or 1000 years or even before the events, then you will believe that person right?

Then, I guess the task is not to establish whether we should believe someone from 650 years later as a historian, rather, we should ask, should we believe that this man, Muhammad, peace be upon him, is correct in his claim of prophethood.

New teachings from "prophets" should never be accepted at face value as this is blind faith.

I could not agree more, and I hope that you yourself practice a similar attitude and do not believe in the Bible through blind faith but rather through objective study.

It will be interesting to see how you derive your views.

Regards,

Eesa Abdullah.

 

[SeekingOne]

These are writings of first hand witnesses and instead I am supposed to believe someone who lived 650 years later? New teachings from "prophets" should never be accepted at face value as this is blind faith. It is how we end up with such things as Mormons who believe in an alternate history that has near zero evidence to support it.

Respectfully, I must question your understanding of the Synoptic Gospels as being written by first hand witnesses. For instance, the authorship of the Gospel of Luke is questionable, as the author never identifies himself. This Gospel account is assumed to be written by the same author as the Book of Acts, because the two accounts share a common writing style and are both addressed to Theophilus. But that does not allow us to overlook that the author of these two books never identifies himself. When authorship cannot be proven, then it stands to reason that we cannot prove that an author was a first hand witness of anything.

I've actually seen quite credible arguments presented that the Gospel of John was not written by the disciple John. Again, there is no clear-cut evidence that can prove or disprove anything, but why does the author of the Gospel of John always refer to "himself" in the third-person? Why is the Gospel of John considered to be the most beautifully written account, when the author of the Book of Acts comments that the people of Jerusalem recognized John as being an uneducated man?

To prove anything requires evidence, whereas the introduction of reasonable doubt does not.

If you feel that Prophet Muhammad must be in error or must be discounted because he lived some 650 years after Jesus, then how can you reconcile belief in Abraham, who died approximately 3990+ years ago with your belief in Moses who lived some 400 years after Abraham, or your belief in David, who lived 900+ years after Abraham? Jesus lived nearly 2000 years after Abraham and you do not seem to question his prophethood.

All things happen in God's time and that does not permit us to develop ideas or theories about God's decisions, just because of the number of years involved.

Please accept I am not trying to "pile on" here, I am merely trying to point out what I learned in my years as a former Christian pastor who has since reverted to Islam. Alhumdulillah!

Kindest Regards,
Mikaa'il

 

[mansaf]

These are writings of first hand witnesses and instead I am supposed to believe someone who lived 650 years later? New teachings from "prophets" should never be accepted at face value as this is blind faith. It is how we end up with such things as Mormons who believe in an alternate history that has near zero evidence to support it.
thank you for the response and good day to


What blind faith are you talking about!!! You run away from the challenge and say "blind faith"!!!


Say: "If the mankind and the jinns were together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they helped one another." [Qur'an 17:88]

And if you (Arab pagans, Jews, and Christians) are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down (i.e. the Qur'an) to Our slave (Muhammad Peace be upon him ), then produce a surah (chapter) of the like thereof and call your witnesses (supporters and helpers) besides Allah, if you are truthful. [Qur'an 2:23]

And this Qur'an is not such as could ever be produced by other than Allah (Lord of the heavens and the earth), but it is a confirmation of (the revelation) which was before it [i.e. the Taurat (Torah), and the Injeel (Gospel), etc.], and a full explanation of the Book (i.e. laws and orders, etc, decreed for mankind) - wherein there is no doubt from the the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns,and all that exists).

Or do they say: "He (Muhammad(P)) has forged it?" Say: "Bring then a surah (chapter) like unto it, and call upon whomsoever you can, besides Allah, if you are truthful!" [Qur'an 10:37-38]

Or they say, "He (Prophet Muhammad(P)) forged it (the Qur'an)." Say: "Bring you then ten forged surah (chapters) like unto it, and call whomsoever you can, other than Allah (to your help), if you speak the truth!" [Qur'an 11:13]

Or do they say: "He (Muhammad(P)) has forged it (this Qur'an)?" Nay! They believe not! Let them then produce a recital like unto it (the Qur'an) if they are truthful. [Qur'an 52:33-34]


If you do not believe in Islam then accept the challenge and prove that Quran is not the word of God. Win the challenge and you shall win the heart of all muslims because the challenge is the MIRACLE OF QURAN. You are free to believe in whatever you want.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Respectfully, I must question your understanding of the Synoptic Gospels as being written by first hand witnesses. For instance, the authorship of the Gospel of Luke is questionable, as the author never identifies himself. This Gospel account is assumed to be written by the same author as the Book of Acts, because the two accounts share a common writing style and are both addressed to Theophilus. But that does not allow us to overlook that the author of these two books never identifies himself. When authorship cannot be proven, then it stands to reason that we cannot prove that an author was a first hand witness of anything.

You are quite correct in asserting that Luke was not an likely first hand witness of the life of Jesus. The opening passage of the Gospel pretty much tells us that:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.

As Luke is getting other people's eye-witness accounts, it seems unlikely that he himself was an eye-witness. But if he is getting eye-witness accounts, then this is not some late 2nd century writing like many suppose. Also, Luke does speak in the first person plural in the introduction to his gospe, so it also seems likely that he was among a group of which saw himself very much a part. When writing Acts the narrative is in third person until the middle of chapter 16, at which point it swithces to first person plural again, to recount Paul's journey to Troas and after that. So it is very likely that Luke was a companion of Paul and a first-hand participant in this part of his narrative.

I've actually seen quite credible arguments presented that the Gospel of John was not written by the disciple John. Again, there is no clear-cut evidence that can prove or disprove anything, but why does the author of the Gospel of John always refer to "himself" in the third-person? Why is the Gospel of John considered to be the most beautifully written account, when the author of the Book of Acts comments that the people of Jerusalem recognized John as being an uneducated man?

Uneducated does not mean that one is not a bright, articulate, intelligent person. What does it mean that Muhammad was illilerate? Nothing. John could have written by dictation, just as Muhammad recited the Quran. In addition we have the testimony of Iraneous who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John that John did indeed write the Gospel.

To prove anything requires evidence, whereas the introduction of reasonable doubt does not.

Well you are the one attempting cast doubt on the authorship of John. Whereas I have provided a chain of witnesses that, correct me if I am wrong, would be considered pretty reliable if one was seeking to establish the validity of a hadith -- the pupil of one who knew the prophet personally.


Now, I do not say these things merely because I am Christian, but because I am seeking truth. And these are things that I know to be true. On other points brought up throughout this thread I must agree with some of the points of view of my Islamic brothers. One notable mistake made earlier was a reference to the story of a woman caught in adultery as a testimony to Jesus' character. It does seem in line with what we read in the rest of the gospel accounts regarding Jesus, but this particular story is most likely not original to the gospel. It is highly disputed in the ancient texts, and cannot be found any copies that are older than the 6th century.