The Injil

[GreyKode]

Becoming a Christian has nothing to do with knowledge - it's about being "born again": receiving God's gift of a new, transformed life. This gift only comes by God's grace - it cannot be earned by anything we think or say or do.

Although we don't have the concept of being born again in Islam, but we believe that though a human can come to Islam through studying it, it is ultimately ALLAH's guidance that led him to Islam.

Anyway, I undersyand from your previous post that you were looking for objective evidence for Islam's truth.

 

[Euthyphro]

Anyway, I undersyand from your previous post that you were looking for objective evidence for Islam's truth.

Yes, specifically that the Qur'an is Allah's Word, since this has a direct bearing on what the Injil would have been like (if it actually existed) and on the Historical Jesus.

 

[GreyKode]

Yes, specifically that the Qur'an is Allah's Word, since this has a direct bearing on what the Injil would have been like (if it actually existed) and on the Historical Jesus.

What makes you think there was no Injil? your answer: The bible doesn't talk about it therefore there was no Injil.

What makes think the bible is GOD's word?

In short, you are saying that the Qur'an is wrong about the Injil because the bible says so, see the flaw in your argument.

 

[Euthyphro]

What makes you think there was no Injil? your answer: The bible doesn't talk about it therefore there was no Injil.

What makes think the bible is GOD's word?

In short, you are saying that the Qur'an is wrong about the Injil because the bible says so, see the flaw in your argument.

I don't think there was an Injil (i.e. a complete Book which Jesus either wrote or recited in full to his disciples) because there is no reliable evidence (i.e. from within 100 years, to be generous, of Jesus' death) that there was one, biblical or otherwise. And given the disciples' dedication to Jesus' teaching and actions, it seems bizarre that they would have completely missed this. Moreover, if a sovereign God had wished for this Book to be revealed, it seems even more bizarre that He would have allowed it to be corrupted.

 

[Woodrow]

I don't think there was an Injil (i.e. a complete Book which Jesus either wrote or recited in full to his disciples) because there is no reliable evidence (i.e. from within 100 years, to be generous, of Jesus' death) that there was one, biblical or otherwise. And given the disciples' dedication to Jesus' teaching and actions, it seems bizarre that they would have completely missed this. Moreover, if a sovereign God had wished for this Book to be revealed, it seems even more bizarre that He would have allowed it to be corrupted.

Does the Bible contain every word Jesus(as) preached during his 3 years of public ministry? I believe he had a large following during the time of his public ministry. Yet, when we read the Godspels we see very little of what he said. What we do see is a record of Jesus(as) and not the word of God(swt) that was given to him. We do know that e was often called Rabbi(Teacher) yet where are the words of what he taught. Very little of this as preserved, beyond the beautiful "Sermon on the Mount" which possibly was from the Injil.

At some point the history of the Messenger was preserved, but the people ignored the Message. It does seem that the people hearing the words of God(swt) would have preserved them in there minds and hearts and Grasped them with a tenacity that was as strong as a grip of steel. But, for some reason when the Greeks wrote down the Gospels they ignored the Gospels and kept the history of thE Mesenger. It seems the early Christians did follow the Godspel (God's word) (Injil in Arabic) but the Paulists Chose to keep the "Good Word" (Gospel) the accounts of Jesus's life.

The Injil was what Jesus(as) said, the Greek Author's saved very little of this, instead they kept a short history of Jesus(as). At some point The Injil became less important then the Messenger to the people and they ignored what had been given to them. With the advent of Paulism the worship of God(swt) was replaced by worship of the Prophet(PBUH)

 

[Al-manar]

Wasn't Judas the one who betrayed Jesus peace be upon him? I read somewhere that before the Jews reached Jesus that he came to his 12 apostles and asked them who will be on his place to be caught by Jews and he will be rewarded to be at the same level as Jesus will be in the afterlife. There was one young man among the twelve apostles accepted that.
Could it be that this young man is Judas who betrayed Jesus?

Dear sister ,

you have just provided one of the problems which make such gnostic based stories to be rejected entirely ,was Jesus betrayed by a disciple or had asked a disciple for a favor in return of a heavenly reward ! ?

in other words

a man betrayed jesus or a man helped him!!?

such narrations would not only make some wonder why would Allah if wanted to save jesus put someone else in his place ? what was the rationale for doing this?,but also it seems offenesive to one of the disciples (may Allah bless their souls) accusing him of being a traitor !!!

Such blessed disciples who been praised all without exception in the holy Quran:

[005:111] "And behold! I inspired the disciples to have faith in Me and Mine Apostle: they said, 'We have faith, and do thou bear witness that we bow to God as Muslims'".

[003:052] When Jesus found Unbelief on their part He said: "Who will be My helpers to (the work of) God?" Said the disciples: "We are God's helpers: We believe in God, and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims.

[061:014] O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of God: As said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) God?" Said the disciples, "We are God's helpers!"


As I have learned from reflecting the Glorious Quran,and have stated in one thread before.....
narrations could either elaborate the verse,or build a wall between the reader and the verse...

It is high time for the Quran reflectors to skip such Gnostic wall and go directly to the verse which is very clear ....... any information been circulated after the departure of Jesus was mere a conjecture ,which been in every kind and color......

one last question:

would the believe in such conjecture (whether, been killed,substituted,travelled and married etcc )harm the message of jesus or the faith of his followers?

in other words

suppose someone been taught the gospel and the law ,and once he listened to conjecture that Jesus been killed,would he no longer considered to be a believer ?
the answer is absolutely not...

It is the believe in the teacher and his message is one thing and the misinformation about the way his mission terminated is another..

disciple X believed in the gospel and kept the law,till he died

disciple X kept believing in true Monotheism till he died.

disciple X believed that jesus been killed,but his death just as other
prophets has no significance. .

disciple X will go to heaven inshaAllah.


peace

 

[Al-manar]

I don't think there was an Injil (i.e. a complete Book which Jesus either wrote or recited in full to his disciples) because there is no reliable evidence (i.e. from within 100 years, to be generous, of Jesus' death) that there was one, biblical or otherwise. .

Mark 10 Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee. 29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, 30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

Matthew 11:5

The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.


what is that gospel been preached to the poor? is it Jesus giving copies of a written work to his disciples to distribute among the people?

And given the disciples' dedication to Jesus' teaching and actions, it seems bizarre that they would have completely missed this.

missed what?preaching what he taught them?

if so, I don't think so. If not ,what do you mean?

if a sovereign God had wished for this Book to be revealed, it seems even more bizarre that He would have allowed it to be corrupted

God is sovereign and man has free will

I don't find the question why God allowed the bible to be corrupted by man,to be wise ,cause it would lead to other questions

Why would the sovereign God allow the man X (who has free will) to steal?

Why would the sovereign God allow the man X (who has free will)to produce cigarettes, harming himself and the others?

Why would the sovereign God created the man with free will,if he knows in advance that it will get man harm more than benefit?

Etc... Etc..............................

many questions from this kind ,while it is expected questions from agnostic ,atheist .... but I don't think it would be wise if a christian to ask a muslim such kind of questions.....

Don't get me into predestination,free will discussion from Islamic point of view....
;D
I don't have time to translate the proper rational Islamic works related(which none Available in English so far)....

Regards

 

[Euthyphro]

Does the Bible contain every word Jesus(as) preached during his 3 years of public ministry? I believe he had a large following during the time of his public ministry. Yet, when we read the Godspels we see very little of what he said. What we do see is a record of Jesus(as) and not the word of God(swt) that was given to him. We do know that e was often called Rabbi(Teacher) yet where are the words of what he taught. Very little of this as preserved, beyond the beautiful "Sermon on the Mount" which possibly was from the Injil.

At some point the history of the Messenger was preserved, but the people ignored the Message. It does seem that the people hearing the words of God(swt) would have preserved them in there minds and hearts and Grasped them with a tenacity that was as strong as a grip of steel. But, for some reason when the Greeks wrote down the Gospels they ignored the Gospels and kept the history of thE Mesenger. It seems the early Christians did follow the Godspel (God's word) (Injil in Arabic) but the Paulists Chose to keep the "Good Word" (Gospel) the accounts of Jesus's life.

The Injil was what Jesus(as) said, the Greek Author's saved very little of this, instead they kept a short history of Jesus(as). At some point The Injil became less important then the Messenger to the people and they ignored what had been given to them. With the advent of Paulism the worship of God(swt) was replaced by worship of the Prophet(PBUH)

I don't really know where to begin here. No, the gospels don't contain every word Jesus spoke - that would be ridiculous. But to say that we have very little of the message Jesus gave is equally ridiculous. It is clear from the gospels that Jesus preached the kingdom of God not just by speaking to different people (and there is plenty of that), but through miracles of healing and exorcism, and serving the poor and the lost - all of it is part of the gospel, the message which Jesus lived out on a daily basis. To suggest that he was just a mere Rabbi, and that the disciples distorted his teaching by making "The Injil less important than the Messenger" given the miracles Jesus did is to completely flatten the message. In Christianity, you see, Jesus is the message: he began the restoration of the Kingdom of God, and instructed his disciples to preach this "to the ends of the earth".

Which is exactly what Paul does in his ministry! Somehow you attempt to separate the "Paulists" from the early Christians, even though Paul's letters are the earliest Christian documents we have. And what is the gospel for Paul ? It's all about who Jesus is, and what he achieved in his ministry, death and resurrection!

This is what we get from a clear reading of the gospels and Paul. You haven't been able to say what it was Jesus actually talked about (The Injil), or given any historical reasons why we should disbelieve the gospels. Do you disagree that Jesus preached about the Kingdom of God? Do you disagree that his miracles and service to the poor are all to do with the message?

 

[Euthyphro]

Mark 10 Then Peter began to say unto him, Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee. 29 And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, 30 But he shall receive an hundredfold now in this time, houses, and brethren, and sisters, and mothers, and children, and lands, with persecutions; and in the world to come eternal life.

Matthew 11:5

The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them.


what is that gospel been preached to the poor? is it Jesus giving copies of a written work to his disciples to distribute among the people?

I'm a bit confused as to what you're trying to argue. Are you saying that "a gospel = a Book"? Gospel means "good news" - it is a message.

missed what?preaching what he taught them?

if so, I don't think so. If not ,what do you mean?

Missed the fact that Jesus was given a Book from God, or that Jesus claimed that he had been.

God is sovereign and man has free will

I don't find the question why God allowed the bible to be corrupted by man,to be wise ,cause it would lead to other questions

Why would the sovereign God allow the man X (who has free will) to steal?

Why would the sovereign God allow the man X (who has free will)to produce cigarettes, harming himself and the others?

Why would the sovereign God created the man with free will,if he knows in advance that it will get man harm more than benefit?

Etc... Etc..............................

many questions from this kind ,while it is expected questions from agnostic ,atheist .... but I don't think it would be wise if a christian to ask a muslim such kind of questions.....

Don't get me into predestination,free will discussion from Islamic point of view....
;D
I don't have time to translate the proper rational Islamic works related(which none Available in English so far)....

Regards

So you're saying that Qur'anic preservation isn't actually due to Allah, and it was just pure luck that this revelation managed to stay uncorrupted (unlike all the other Books that Allah revealed to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon...)?

My question is, essentially, why did Allah give Jesus a Book when He knew that Jesus' disciples would just mess it all up (just like all the Books before)? Why not choose a better way of revealing his message?

 

[Woodrow]

I don't really know where to begin here. No, the gospels don't contain every word Jesus spoke - that would be ridiculous. But to say that we have very little of the message Jesus gave is equally ridiculous. It is clear from the gospels that Jesus preached the kingdom of God not just by speaking to different people (and there is plenty of that), but through miracles of healing and exorcism, and serving the poor and the lost - all of it is part of the gospel, the message which Jesus lived out on a daily basis. To suggest that he was just a mere Rabbi, and that the disciples distorted his teaching by making "The Injil less important than the Messenger" given the miracles Jesus did is to completely flatten the message. In Christianity, you see, Jesus is the message: he began the restoration of the Kingdom of God, and instructed his disciples to preach this "to the ends of the earth".

Which is exactly what Paul does in his ministry! Somehow you attempt to separate the "Paulists" from the early Christians, even though Paul's letters are the earliest Christian documents we have. And what is the gospel for Paul ? It's all about who Jesus is, and what he achieved in his ministry, death and resurrection!

This is what we get from a clear reading of the gospels and Paul. You haven't been able to say what it was Jesus actually talked about (The Injil), or given any historical reasons why we should disbelieve the gospels. Do you disagree that Jesus preached about the Kingdom of God? Do you disagree that his miracles and service to the poor are all to do with the message?


Which is exactly what Paul does in his ministry! Somehow you attempt to separate the "Paulists" from the early Christians, even though Paul's letters are the earliest Christian documents we have. And what is the gospel for Paul ? It's all about who Jesus is, and what he achieved in his ministry, death and resurrection!

Peace Euthyphro,

even though Paul's letters are the earliest Christian documents we have

That is what I see as the problem.

I don't really know where to begin here. No, the gospels don't contain every word Jesus spoke - that would be ridiculous. But to say that we have very little of the message Jesus gave is equally ridiculous. It is clear from the gospels that Jesus preached the kingdom of God not just by speaking to different people (and there is plenty of that), but through miracles of healing and exorcism, and serving the poor and the lost - all of it is part of the gospel, the message which Jesus lived out on a daily basis. To suggest that he was just a mere Rabbi, and that the disciples distorted his teaching by making "The Injil less important than the Messenger" given the miracles Jesus did is to completely flatten the message. In Christianity, you see, Jesus is the message: he began the restoration of the Kingdom of God, and instructed his disciples to preach this "to the ends of the earth".

We do know that Jesus(as) did send his Disciples out to spread the word. We call that the Injil. Keep in mind the Gospels of Mark, Matthew Luke and John had yet to be written during the life of Jesus(as)'
No Jesus (as) not a mere Rabbi (teacher) he was a true Prophet as evidenced by his many miracles perfomed through him by God(swt)

Jesus(as) and all Prophets(PBUH) were not the messege. He did spread the true Injil, but sadly after he ascended into heaven, Paul spread a message about Jesus(as) and neglected the message Jesus(as) had spread.

 

[Al-manar]

It is clear from the gospels that Jesus preached the kingdom of God not just by speaking to different people (and there is plenty of that), but through miracles of healing and exorcism, and serving the poor and the lost - all of it is part of the gospel, the message which Jesus lived out on a daily basis.

Jesus as all other messenegers sent by God ,
had a message to convey (gospel) and God would provide his messenegers by tools(miracels) to give them religious legitimacy among people .
...

and again Jesus' actions eg, serving the poor and the lost ,are not gospel inspired from God but applying what he already been taught by God through the torah and the Injil.......
why to mix our cards here?!

To suggest that he was just a mere Rabbi, and that the disciples distorted his teaching

We don't know who his disciples are, to begin with.......

by making "The Injil less important than the Messenger" given the miracles Jesus did is to completely flatten the message.

That is if we assume that the gospel writers are disciples.....

In Christianity, you see, Jesus is the message: he began the restoration of the Kingdom of God

What is that (Kingdom of God) ? and how Jesus fulfilled his role ,according to the old testament?


Regards

 

[Al-manar]

I'm a bit confused as to what you're trying to argue. Are you saying that "a gospel = a Book"? Gospel means "good news" - it is a message.

A gospel ,for me is , good news for the believers and bad news for the disbelievers....

Missed the fact that Jesus was given a Book from God, or that Jesus claimed that he had been.

again that is assuming that they are authors of the gospels,or they put their signatures under what the writers of New Testament wrote !...

So you're saying that Qur'anic preservation isn't actually due to Allah, and it was just pure luck that this revelation managed to stay uncorrupted

It was preserved by God through us.......

God doesn't get a first class message that he protects from corruption and second class message that he let to be corrupted..
but he has two types of humans,those who undertake the trust and those not...


Regards

 

[Jenell]

What do Muslims believe about the Injil, the book revealed to Jesus? What was its general message? What language was it revealed in? How much of it is preserved in the gospels we have today, and is it possible to know what was originally in the Injil and what is later corruption?

ASA. It is not for us to guess and ponder over what was or what could have been (coulda, woulda, shoulda); it is for us to believe that Allah (SWT) sent the Injil, Torah, Zabur and Quran, to believe the books before the Quran did indeed exist. We are not held responsible for what was written in the Books prior to the Quran, so we should not try to make things harder for ourselves. There is Hadith in Al-Bukhari that talks about Umar (R.A.) reading the Torah so that he could argue with the Jews and the Prophet (SWS) told him to stop. Prophet (SWS) explained that if Moses (May Allah Be Pleased with Him) was alive during his time, Moses would have to follow the Prophet (SWS).
I hope this was helpful and not harmful.
ASA

"Our bodies has rights over us, treat them well."

 

[Euthyphro]

Peace Euthyphro,

even though Paul's letters are the earliest Christian documents we have

That is what I see as the problem.

I can see why that's a problem for people trying to argue that earliest Christian wasn't based around Jesus' identity, death and resurrection...but not for the Christian.

We do know that Jesus(as) did send his Disciples out to spread the word. We call that the Injil. Keep in mind the Gospels of Mark, Matthew Luke and John had yet to be written during the life of Jesus(as)'
No Jesus (as) not a mere Rabbi (teacher) he was a true Prophet as evidenced by his many miracles perfomed through him by God(swt)

Jesus(as) and all Prophets(PBUH) were not the messege. He did spread the true Injil, but sadly after he ascended into heaven, Paul spread a message about Jesus(as) and neglected the message Jesus(as) had spread.

How do we know that Jesus sent his Disciples to spread the Word (i.e. the gospel message) and that Jesus performed miracles other than the four gospels? Why should we trust their witness if they made up so much other garbage about dying, resurrection and distorting the true message?

You haven't given any historical evidence that shows the gospel message changed when Paul got his hands on it (since you have been unable to define what the true message was). Why should we disbelieve what the gospels say? Why do you think they are unreliable? And you haven't defended your radical claims about the Talmud Jmmanuel.

 

[Euthyphro]

*I meant "earliest Christians"*

 

[Euthyphro]

A gospel ,for me is , good news for the believers and bad news for the disbelievers....

OK, but what does "gospel" mean for a first-century Hellenistic Jew? And what were you trying to argue with the two passages you quoted?

again that is assuming that they are authors of the gospels,or they put their signatures under what the writers of New Testament wrote !...

Whoever wrote the New Testament is a moot point, as the NT is the only (possibly) reliable evidence we have about the disciples as well (apart from some Early Church Fathers, who don't help your case). My point is that absence of evidence, in this case, is evidence of absence, because we would expect some evidence if what you are claiming was true. All evidence points to the complete devotion of the disciples to Jesus and the message he preached, yet they seem blissfully unaware of anything to do with a Book.




[/QUOTE]
It was preserved by God through us.......

God doesn't get a first class message that he protects from corruption and second class message that he let to be corrupted..
but he has two types of humans,those who undertake the trust and those not...


Regards[/QUOTE]
So it was really down to who Allah gave the messages to as to whether the messages were preserved, right? But Allah chose those people, so why did he choose Jesus when he knew his disciples would mess up? Basically, why reveal His Word to people who can't be trusted to preserve it, causing all who follow in their footsteps to believe a corrupted message?

 

[Euthyphro]

* Apologies for messing up the quotes there...tiredness *

 

[Danah]

Dear sister ,

you have just provided one of the problems which make such gnostic based stories to be rejected entirely ,was Jesus betrayed by a disciple or had asked a disciple for a favor in return of a heavenly reward ! ?

in other words

a man betrayed jesus or a man helped him!!?

such narrations would not only make some wonder why would Allah if wanted to save jesus put someone else in his place ? what was the rationale for doing this?,but also it seems offenesive to one of the disciples (may Allah bless their souls) accusing him of being a traitor !!!

Such blessed disciples who been praised all without exception in the holy Quran:

[005:111] "And behold! I inspired the disciples to have faith in Me and Mine Apostle: they said, 'We have faith, and do thou bear witness that we bow to God as Muslims'".

[003:052] When Jesus found Unbelief on their part He said: "Who will be My helpers to (the work of) God?" Said the disciples: "We are God's helpers: We believe in God, and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims.

[061:014] O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of God: As said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) God?" Said the disciples, "We are God's helpers!"


As I have learned from reflecting the Glorious Quran,and have stated in one thread before.....
narrations could either elaborate the verse,or build a wall between the reader and the verse...

It is high time for the Quran reflectors to skip such Gnostic wall and go directly to the verse which is very clear ....... any information been circulated after the departure of Jesus was mere a conjecture ,which been in every kind and color......






one last question:

would the believe in such conjecture (whether, been killed,substituted,travelled and married etcc )harm the message of jesus or the faith of his followers?

in other words

suppose someone been taught the gospel and the law ,and once he listened to conjecture that Jesus been killed,would he no longer considered to be a believer ?
the answer is absolutely not...

Of course NOT!
but its just a narration I read in a book called (The Sahih of Quran stories) and that narration was for Ibn Kathir May Allah have mercy on his soul that Jesus peace be upon him asked one of his disciple to be at his place.

As for the disciple who betrayed Jesus peace be upon him that was not from the Quran but from the bible "its my mistake I am sorry I should state that at my previous post" so I just wanted to know how far the two sources agreed upon that matter "IF" there is any similarity.


I wonder if you can read Arabic but here is the narration of Ibn Kathir if not I will try to find an English translation inshaAllah:

قال ابن أبي حاتم: حدثنا أحمد بن سنان، حدثنا أبو معاوية، عن المنهال بن عمرو، عن سعيد بن جبير، عن ابن عباس، قال: لما أراد الله أن يرفع عيسى إلى السماء خرج على أصحابه وفي البيت اثنا عشر رجلاً منهم من الحواريين، يعني فخرج عليهم من عين في البيت ورأسه يقطر ماء فقال: إن منكم من يكفر بي اثني عشرة مرة بعد أن آمن بي، ثم قال: أيكم يُلقى عليه شبهي فيقتل مكاني فيكون معي في درجتي؟ فقام شاب من أحدثهم سناً فقال له: اجلس. ثم أعاد عليهم فقام الشاب فقال: أنا، فقال: أنت هو ذاك. فأُلقي عليه شبه عيسى، ورُفع عيسى من روزنة في البيت إلى السماء.
قال: وجاء الطلب من اليهود فأخذوا الشبه فقتلوه ثم صلبوه فكفر به بعضهم اثنتي عشرة مرة بعد أن آمن به وافترقوا ثلاث فرق، فقالت طائفة: كان الله فينا ما شاء ثم صعد إلى السماء. وهؤلاء اليعقوبية. وقالت فرقة: كان فينا ابن الله ما شاء الله ثم رفعه الله إليه وهؤلاء النسطورية. وقالت فرقة: كان فينا عبد الله ورسوله ما شاء الله ثم رفعه الله إليه. وهؤلاء المسلمون، فتظاهرت الكافرتان على المسلمة فقتلوها فلم يزل الإسلام طامساً حتى بُعث الله محمداً صلى الله عليه وسلم.
​

I just wanted to know more about that matter

 

[Woodrow]

I can see why that's a problem for people trying to argue that earliest Christian wasn't based around Jesus' identity, death and resurrection...but not for the Christian.

Peace Euthyphro,

This will probably an area that our only recourse is to agree to disagree peacefully. If we both believed the same apout Paul, this debate would be non-existent. You have your reasons and justifications to believe that Paul preached Christianity. I have my reasons and justifications to believe that what he preached was not what Jesus(as) taught. I doubt if I can sway you from your view anymore than you can sway me from mine.

How do we know that Jesus sent his Disciples to spread the Word (i.e. the gospel message) and that Jesus performed miracles other than the four gospels? Why should we trust their witness if they made up so much other garbage about dying, resurrection and distorting the true message?

To begin with we do not claim the NT is all wrong it does consider much that is in agreement with the Qur'an and we do believe those parts although we do prefer/should use the Qur'an rather then the NT, much the same as you would prefer to quote from the NT rather than what is said in the Qur'an.

We do not question the eyewitness accounts. There is no reason they spoke of what they saw. We do say that while they saw a person crucified, and did believe it to be Jesus(as) however, the person was not Jesus(as).

As far as Jesus(as) and his followers we do believe Jesus(as) was a true Prophet(PBUH) and that his followers were True Believers. The fact that they were true believers it is logical they would have gone out to spread the word.

You haven't given any historical evidence that shows the gospel message changed when Paul got his hands on it (since you have been unable to define what the true message was). Why should we disbelieve what the gospels say? Why do you think they are unreliable? And you haven't defended your radical claims about the Talmud Jmmanuel.

The reason we find the present day Gospels to be unreliable is because we do not see any evidence that places them as having been what was originally written. The oldest known writtings are in Greek. Since most of the People Jesus(as) spoke to were Jews and Aramaic was the colloqual language the Jews used the original should have been in Aramaic. What it appears to us anyhow, is that when the council of Nicea convened and decided to select what was to be in the NT they based their selection to only that which was in agreement of Paul and all other works were labeled as Gnostic and either destroyed or hidden from the common people.

The TJ turned out to be a poor choice for me to use as the oldest example of the Lord's prayer in Aramaic. I do have to agree I can not show any valid proof of it's authenticity.

 

[Euthyphro]

Salaam Woodrow, and thanks for your generous giving of reps!

Peace Euthyphro,

This will probably an area that our only recourse is to agree to disagree peacefully. If we both believed the same apout Paul, this debate would be non-existent. You have your reasons and justifications to believe that Paul preached Christianity. I have my reasons and justifications to believe that what he preached was not what Jesus(as) taught. I doubt if I can sway you from your view anymore than you can sway me from mine.

The problem is that the only reason you've given is that the Qur'an says otherwise. And you've only given subjective reasons to believe the massive claim that it is Allah's final revelation. I am very willing to be swayed when I see the appropriate evidence (either for the Qur'an or for an earlier version of Christianity that didn't proclaim Jesus' death and resurrection).

To begin with we do not claim the NT is all wrong it does consider much that is in agreement with the Qur'an and we do believe those parts although we do prefer/should use the Qur'an rather then the NT, much the same as you would prefer to quote from the NT rather than what is said in the Qur'an.

We do not question the eyewitness accounts. There is no reason they spoke of what they saw. We do say that while they saw a person crucified, and did believe it to be Jesus(as) however, the person was not Jesus(as).

As far as Jesus(as) and his followers we do believe Jesus(as) was a true Prophet(PBUH) and that his followers were True Believers. The fact that they were true believers it is logical they would have gone out to spread the word.

Italics: no it's not the same, really. As the Qur'an was written six hundred years ago, and contains legendary accounts of Jesus speaking as a baby and turning birds into clay, it cannot be considered a reliable source (not to mention that it denies the crucifixion, the most well-attested fact we know about Jesus' life). I don't pick and choose what I like from different sources (unless I have good reason to).

You don't question the eyewitness accounts, yet you readily reinterpret them when they are inconvenient (eg the crucifixion). What happens to the way we see history when we can say "Oh, it only appeared to the eyewitnesses that such and such happened" - is it historically valid for me to say "Oh, it only appeared to the eyewitnesses that Jerusalem was sacked in 70 A.D., but they were actually just confused or hallucinating" or "Oh, it only sounded to the listeners like Mohammed was speaking ayats of the Qur'an to them, but actually they were all just imagining". As a way of approaching history, I'm afraid to say it's pure nonsense.

The reason we find the present day Gospels to be unreliable is because we do not see any evidence that places them as having been what was originally written. The oldest known writtings are in Greek. Since most of the People Jesus(as) spoke to were Jews and Aramaic was the colloqual language the Jews used the original should have been in Aramaic. What it appears to us anyhow, is that when the council of Nicea convened and decided to select what was to be in the NT they based their selection to only that which was in agreement of Paul and all other works were labeled as Gnostic and either destroyed or hidden from the common people.

The TJ turned out to be a poor choice for me to use as the oldest example of the Lord's prayer in Aramaic. I do have to agree I can not show any valid proof of it's authenticity.

Italics: this is a bit of a sneaky sentence. Can reliable French biographies be written about Englishmen? Can they reliably record what an Englishman says despite not quoting them in their original language?

In fact, when we examine the gospels, much of the Greek put in Jesus' mouth can be readily translated back to Aramaic (which is not true of Greek normally). We see Hebraic idioms being translated into Greek (and often causing much confusion later, I might add, because of the gospel authors devotion to Jesus' actual words!). Of course there is some paraphrasing and summarising - because of the limitations of writing on papyri.

As for the stuff about the Council of Nicea, you need to read up a bit on your history and get away from hearsay. Despite popular myth (have you been reading Dan Brown by any chance?), the Council of Nicea had nothing to do with the Canon. And there are loads of extant Gnostic writings, many of which had fairly large numbers of adherents in the first few centuries. I invite you to reference any sources which show that the Church destroyed Gnostic manuscripts.

[There is a useful sourced article about these kinds of book-burning claims at http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qburnbx.html]

I'm glad you've decided to steer away from the TJ. I look forward to discussing with you about the authentic contemporary sources.

Yours,
Euthyphro