Things in Islam I am curious about...

[Talha777]

1) "When we said to the angels..." Who is the "we" that is speaking here?

WE is referring to Allah.

2) "...chose to disobey the command of his Rabb." Are there other Rabbs?

There is only One Rabb and He is everyone's Rabb (including the devil's), this is why Iblis calls Allah as "my Lord"

(Iblis) said: "O my Lord! give me then respite till the Day the (dead) are raised." (15:36)

3) "Would you then take him and his children...." Does Ibless (Shaitan) have children? If so, how does he reproduce, is it more akin to human reproduce or more akin to that of an amoeba, or what? If not, then to whom is it referring as "his children"?

Iblis is the progenitor of the Jinn, just like Adam (alaihi salaam) is the progenitor of man. Iblis is the Satan, but there are many smaller satans besides him, especially among the jinn. Many people take these jinn, or evil spirits, as protectors and counsellors besides Allah, particularly those influenced by astrology and mediums or in general the occult. These jinn even sometimes possess people.

In another sense, the children of Satan are those who follow him, by sinning for example and rebelling against the command of God. Like the Bible says:

He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work. No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are (1 John 3:8-10)

 

[MustafaMc]

A few questions:
1) "When we said to the angels..." Who is the "we" that is speaking here?

From commentary in Yusuf Ali translation 2:38 "Note the transition from the plural "We" at the beginning of the verse to the singular "Me" later in the same verse, Allah speaks of Himself usually in the first person plural "We"; it is the plural of respect and honor and is used in human language in Royal proclamations and decrees. But where a special personal relationship is expressed the singular, "I" or "Me" is used."

2) "...chose to disobey the command of his Rabb." Are there other Rabbs?

No, there is only one Rabb or Lord, Allah. The use is like "his mother".

3) "Would you then take him and his children...." Does Ibless (Shaitan) have children? If so, how does he reproduce, is it more akin to human reproduce or more akin to that of an amoeba, or what? If not, then to whom is it referring as "his children"?

Sorry, I have no knowledge to answer this question.

 

[Talha777]

Sorry, I have no knowledge to answer this question.

The answer is that Iblis did have children, because he is the progenitor of the jinn, just like Adam (alaihi salaam) is the progenitor of humanity. How the jinn reproduce and have children is not known to us.

 

[InToTheRain]

“When your Lord said to the angels: I will create a vicegerent/successor on earth.” They said, “Will You place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood? And we do praise You and glorify your name? He said: “I know what you know not” Qur'an 2:30

Some scholars have said that Jinns may have inhabited earth before us, and Iblis was saved by as he was a child. The angels who punished the jinns for exceeding the limits on earth. This is why Iblis used to be amongst Angels as he was a survivor. And this why the Angels knew Humans would shed blood as Jinns once did on earth. He used to be amongst Angels, he was not an Angel.

This is just an interesting opinion I have heard regarding Iblis, although I do not think there is a concensus amongst the Ulema to say it did happen, rather it is an opinion amongst some scholars.

[PIE]There are old traditions about the angels before the creation of Adam. According to Ibn Qatadah, it was said that the angels were informed about the creation of Adam and his progency by the jinn who lived before Adam. Abdullah Ibn Umar said that the jinn had existed for about 2000 years before Adam and then shed blood. Therefore Allah sent on them an army of angels that drove them out to the depths of the seas.
Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from Ali jafar Al Baqer that the angels were informed that man would cause wickedness and shed blood on earth. It was also said that they knew that no one would be created on earth who would not be wicked and shed blood.

Whether or not these traditions are correct, the angels did understand that Allah would create a vicegerent on earth. Allah the Almighty announced that HE was going to create a human being out of clay, that HE would mold him and blow His spirit into him and then the angels should prostrate before him.

Abi Musa al Sha'arai narrated that the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said: "Allah created Adam from a handful of dust taken from different lands, so the children of Adam havebeen created according to the composition of the land. Therefore from mankind we have white,red, black and yellow ones; we have good and evil, ease and sorrow, and what comes in between them." (Sahih al Bukhari). -Ibn Kathir[/PIE]

 

[believer]

From commentary in Yusuf Ali translation 2:38 "Note the transition from the plural "We" at the beginning of the verse to the singular "Me" later in the same verse, Allah speaks of Himself usually in the first person plural "We"; it is the plural of respect and honor and is used in human language in Royal proclamations and decrees. But where a special personal relationship is expressed the singular, "I" or "Me" is used."
No, there is only one Rabb or Lord, Allah. The use is like "his mother".

Sorry, I have no knowledge to answer this question.

Salaamu alaikum...

Just my two cents...

Could Allah(SWT) be refferring also to all his angels and arch angels when he is using "WE" to indicate His plural form? and sometimes "I" or "ME" to indicate and emphasize his singular form without the angels?...

Salaam

 

[believer]

I agree with what Br. Talha777 wrote in that a strict interpretation of "children of God" contradicts Surah Ikhlas. To get at the issue of the brotherhood of humanity, I prefer to use the term "children of Adam" for Adam is indeed a father to us all and not just through a play on words.

Salaamualaikum brothers...

Can I add also that... those who transliterated or compiled the Bible in the early times could have had some long range plan of incorporating their heirarchy as men superior to other men by simply injecting the the concept of trinity with a simple switching of words?

for example... Instead of using Allah... they have replaced it as The Holy Spirit, or Our Father... and instead of "Son of Man" - "Son of God".

By doing so; we have immediately changed the position of God/ Allah SWT from a highly superior entity or being ABOVE and BEYOND human atributes to a Lower form of divinity who is subjected to the need of human attributes... At the same time... immediately and automatically raises up the position of men like... say; priests, popes, pastors into a level above other men... (useful for controlling governments of nations)

If there was a long range plan... it did seem to work.

Hoever, just my 2 cents...

In Islam, there is no heirarchy... anyone who can master the Qur'an by Heart can be the Prayer Imam at any time... or Anyone who can wake up early to go to the Mosque can become Muazzin or Imam since his deen is stronger at that particular time... i.e., Equality of men... not so with other religion.

what do you think?... everyone can answer.

 

[MustafaMc]

Salaamu alaikum...

Just my two cents...

Could Allah(SWT) be refferring also to all his angels and arch angels when he is using "WE" to indicate His plural form? and sometimes "I" or "ME" to indicate and emphasize his singular form without the angels?...

Salaam

Wa Alaikum Salaam, wa Rahmatullahi, wa Barakatu,

I have often thought that as well, but I don't think applies in this case because Allah (swt) was addressing the angels, unless some angels such as Jibrail were excluded from the command.

When We said to the angels: "Prostrate yourself before Adam," ....

 

[Grace Seeker]

Salaamualaikum brothers...

Can I add also that... those who transliterated or compiled the Bible in the early times could have had some long range plan of incorporating their heirarchy as men superior to other men by simply injecting the the concept of trinity with a simple switching of words?

for example... Instead of using Allah... they have replaced it as The Holy Spirit, or Our Father... and instead of "Son of Man" - "Son of God".

By doing so; we have immediately changed the position of God/ Allah SWT from a highly superior entity or being ABOVE and BEYOND human atributes to a Lower form of divinity who is subjected to the need of human attributes... At the same time... immediately and automatically raises up the position of men like... say; priests, popes, pastors into a level above other men... (useful for controlling governments of nations)

If there was a long range plan... it did seem to work.

Hoever, just my 2 cents...

In Islam, there is no heirarchy... anyone who can master the Qur'an by Heart can be the Prayer Imam at any time... or Anyone who can wake up early to go to the Mosque can become Muazzin or Imam since his deen is stronger at that particular time... i.e., Equality of men... not so with other religion.

what do you think?... everyone can answer.

Given that you have, I guess it is obvious that you can. However, I don't think your argument holds much water. The use of terms like "Son of God" were among the titles used to refer to the Messiah even 200 years before the time of Christ, before any of those that would have been interested in the heirarchies you presuppose would have been around to make the changes you suggest.

And the concept of the Trinity, which you suggest was developed in order to substantiate the heirarchy of priests and popes, was not formally declared until after such a heirarchy was already well established. You need to show these things emerging contemporaneously to support your view, yet the things you speak of were already present well before, or did not occur until well after the events you say that they are intended to support.

 

[believer]

Given that you have, I guess it is obvious that you can. However, I don't think your argument holds much water. The use of terms like "Son of God" were among the titles used to refer to the Messiah even 200 years before the time of Christ, before any of those that would have been interested in the heirarchies you presuppose would have been around to make the changes you suggest.

And the concept of the Trinity, which you suggest was developed in order to substantiate the heirarchy of priests and popes, was not formally declared until after such a heirarchy was already well established. You need to show these things emerging contemporaneously to support your view, yet the things you speak of were already present well before, or did not occur until well after the events you say that they are intended to support.

Hi Grace seeker,

It's always a pleasure crossing paths with you... regarding the term "son of God" - you mentioned it was being used 200 years before Christ the Messiah 9pbuh) arrived.... who were using it? or claiming it? whose authority?....

Regarding the heirarchy of men in the church incorporated in the divinity or trinity concept I am presssuposing... I cna't help but be reminded of this old Christian Joke...

Have you heard about the PRIEST and the PILOT story? ... anyway, here's a short version of it...

"both the priest and airline pilot was in front of St. Peter just before the pearly gates of Heaven... Pilot approached St. Peter... Peter asked his name, then browsed his long list... shortly after, Peter said to the pilot: Take that golden staff and that Silk Robe, you may proceed.

Priests' turn... St. Peter browsed for his name in the list... then shortlyafter, told the priest to take the wooden staff and that cotton robe.

Priest - a bit confussed and complained... exclaiming "Wait a minute! why that guy has better privelege than me? I was a priest in Pasadena for more than 40 years! and I have many parishioners!"

St. Peter said.. O it's simple... Everytime you preached your sermon... people slept... and regarding the Pilot, everytime He flew his plane... People prayed."

I still think this is funny even though its an old joke.

But my point is... how can a heirarchy in the church help in making the faithfuls be nearer to God?

May Allah bless us brothers....

 

[Muslim Woman]

, but I don't think applies in this case because Allah (swt) was addressing the angels, unless some angels such as Jibrail were excluded from the command.

When We said to the angels: "Prostrate yourself before Adam," ....

thanks for sharing this view...very logical ......He is all alone....no one is like Him or equal to Him. Angels can not be part of God .



In a book author suggested that angels helped God in creating the world ...i don't think it's correct . Allah does not need help of any angels to create anything ...He just say , Be & it's done.


Yes , Allah orders Angels to do some work like bring revealation to Prophets ( pbut ) etc.


I think , translators must avoid using we in other languages as it creates confusion. Arabic Royal we & in other languages we are different.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Hi Grace seeker,

It's always a pleasure crossing paths with you... regarding the term "son of God" - you mentioned it was being used 200 years before Christ the Messiah 9pbuh) arrived.... who were using it? or claiming it? whose authority?....

The rabbinical Jews used it as a title for the Messiah. Which is how Jesus and his disciples are recorded to have used it in the Gospels. Of course, Christians understand that Jesus meant more than just the son of God, but was actually claiming divinity. But that's for the other thread.

Regarding the heirarchy of men in the church incorporated in the divinity or trinity concept I am presssuposing... I cna't help but be reminded of this old Christian Joke...

Have you heard about the PRIEST and the PILOT story? ... anyway, here's a short version of it...

"both the priest and airline pilot was in front of St. Peter just before the pearly gates of Heaven... Pilot approached St. Peter... Peter asked his name, then browsed his long list... shortly after, Peter said to the pilot: Take that golden staff and that Silk Robe, you may proceed.

Priests' turn... St. Peter browsed for his name in the list... then shortlyafter, told the priest to take the wooden staff and that cotton robe.

Priest - a bit confussed and complained... exclaiming "Wait a minute! why that guy has better privelege than me? I was a priest in Pasadena for more than 40 years! and I have many parishioners!"

St. Peter said.. O it's simple... Everytime you preached your sermon... people slept... and regarding the Pilot, everytime He flew his plane... People prayed."

I still think this is funny even though its an old joke.

But my point is... how can a heirarchy in the church help in making the faithfuls be nearer to God?

May Allah bless us brothers....

I'm familiar with the old joke (though sometimes it is told of a taxi driver), but not sure how it relates to church heirarchy, other than that you might have a priest in both.

To your question, there are lots of ways that people in the church heirarchy can help people grow closer to good. However, simply having a heirarchy for a church's governmental system wouldn't do anything if the right people weren't involved. I also don't see how that relates to your original point.

This is a question for other Muslims: Is it common for Muslims to think as it appears that Believer does, that it was the 4th and 5th century church that corrupted Christianity? Or do most think it became corrupted from much closer to the beginning with the actual writing of the books that became part of the New Testament?


I guess I'm asking a question abour first cause:

1) Did a few power hungry and corrupt church leaders perpetuate a myth and corruption on the rest of Christianity, editing the sacred scriptures and devising new doctrines in order to perserve their own place in the system? So, it was the Church that corrupted the scriptures.

or

2) Did the church get seriously off track from near close to the beginning and thuse it was set to go down the wrong road because it was working from a mistaken and corrupted view of itself and even of Jesus from the outset? So, it was the scriptures that corrupted the Church.

 

[believer]

To your question, there are lots of ways that people in the church heirarchy can help people grow closer to good. However, simply having a heirarchy for a church's governmental system wouldn't do anything if the right people weren't involved. I also don't see how that relates to your original point.

This is a question for other Muslims: Is it common for Muslims to think as it appears that Believer does, that it was the 4th and 5th century church that corrupted Christianity? Or do most think it became corrupted from much closer to the beginning with the actual writing of the books that became part of the New Testament?


I guess I'm asking a question abour first cause:

1) Did a few power hungry and corrupt church leaders perpetuate a myth and corruption on the rest of Christianity, editing the sacred scriptures and devising new doctrines in order to perserve their own place in the system? So, it was the Church that corrupted the scriptures.

or

2) Did the church get seriously off track from near close to the beginning and thuse it was set to go down the wrong road because it was working from a mistaken and corrupted view of itself and even of Jesus from the outset? So, it was the scriptures that corrupted the Church.

Before we explore that... there is a need to define the word "Church"....

...you mean the Roman Empire? ...or the (the fellowship of the original believers).... because, I thought that church was long gone since they were placed in the arena to be devoured by Lions... ???

 

[believer]

thanks for sharing this view...very logical ......He is all alone....no one is like Him or equal to Him. Angels can not be part of God .


In a book author suggested that angels helped God in creating the world ...i don't think it's correct . Allah does not need help of any angels to create anything ...He just say , Be & it's done.

Yes , Allah orders Angels to do some work like bring revealation to Prophets ( pbut ) etc.


I think , translators must avoid using we in other languages as it creates confusion. Arabic Royal we & in other languages we are different.

I TOTALLY AGREE 1000%!

Something is revealing here.... ever noticed why most translations use WE from time to time?... you are right - it does create confussion (sign of the devil)... and not only that it confuses... it also pressumes that God is not ONE... maybe THREE?

This is what can be called - subliminal programming... there was a seminar I attended long time ago called Science of Mind. They are using ancient techniques to create changes in your life according to the way you want it. The use and manipulation of words in any sentence can and does actually have subtle but definite effects on individuals... they claim it can be used for effecting changes in a country or government... even the whole world. They claimed that most of these knowledge orginated from Egypt... Anyway, I believe - translators should use the Big "I", whenever referring to GOD in the first person tenses... there is actually a verse from the Bible that God said that he is "I AM". but, I think this calls for another topic?

 

[YusufNoor]

The rabbinical Jews used it as a title for the Messiah. Which is how Jesus and his disciples are recorded to have used it in the Gospels. Of course, Christians understand that Jesus meant more than just the son of God, but was actually claiming divinity. But that's for the other thread.

I'm familiar with the old joke (though sometimes it is told of a taxi driver), but not sure how it relates to church heirarchy, other than that you might have a priest in both.

To your question, there are lots of ways that people in the church heirarchy can help people grow closer to good. However, simply having a heirarchy for a church's governmental system wouldn't do anything if the right people weren't involved. I also don't see how that relates to your original point.

This is a question for other Muslims: Is it common for Muslims to think as it appears that Believer does, that it was the 4th and 5th century church that corrupted Christianity? Or do most think it became corrupted from much closer to the beginning with the actual writing of the books that became part of the New Testament?


I guess I'm asking a question abour first cause:

1) Did a few power hungry and corrupt church leaders perpetuate a myth and corruption on the rest of Christianity, editing the sacred scriptures and devising new doctrines in order to perserve their own place in the system? So, it was the Church that corrupted the scriptures.

or

2) Did the church get seriously off track from near close to the beginning and thuse it was set to go down the wrong road because it was working from a mistaken and corrupted view of itself and even of Jesus from the outset? So, it was the scriptures that corrupted the Church.

Peace be upon those who follow guidance,

Hey Gene,

i reckon most Muslims, especially those born into Islam just accept that Christianity is corrupt, but they have way too much to learn about Islam to bother with WHERE or WHEN the corrutption took place. seeing Christians call Jesus(as) God or the Son of God is all they know that's all they need to know to justify the claim that the corruption is there.


here's a cute vid that one of the brothers posted in the media section.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xk1pgUmpnpM

it might help!

 

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

Is it common for Muslims to think as it appears that Believer does, that it was the 4th and 5th century church that corrupted Christianity? .

i reckon most Muslims, especially those born into Islam just accept that Christianity is corrupt,

......


I agree with bro Yusuf N ....ordinary Muslim like me don't bother about time or exactly who did that .

may be u will like to read some scholarly ans ....here is link

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+3]God[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+3] (or Gods)?

[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+4][FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+2]"How Did 1 - Become 3?"

[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]Excerpts and Quotes - From The Catholic Church History

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+4][FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+2]http://islamtomorrow.com/bible/Arianism.asp

[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Introduction


[/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]My purpose for writing this book


"Bible - A Closer Look!"


[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Chapter 1



[/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Is the King James Version the Actual Bible?"



[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Chapter 2


[/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Are There Contradictions in the Bible?"



[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Chapter 3


[/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Who is the God of the Bible?"[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Chapter 4


[/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"Does the Bible Say 'Jesus is Son of God'?"



[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Chapter 5


[/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] "What Does it all Mean?"


[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Chapter 6


[/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"What to do Now?"[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif][SIZE=+4][FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+2]
http://islamtomorrow.com/bible/bible_closer_look.asp
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

 

[Grace Seeker]

Before we explore that... there is a need to define the word "Church"....

...you mean the Roman Empire? ...or the (the fellowship of the original believers).... because, I thought that church was long gone since they were placed in the arena to be devoured by Lions... ???

I find it hard to talk with you. I rarely know how to best receive your comments. I am not sure whether you are being inquisitive, facetious, sarcastic, argumentative, or if you really are that completely in the dark. I have trouble believing that you are truly ignorant of these things as you say that at one time you were in seminary preparing for the priesthood. Though, based on what you express as a lack of understanding, perhaps this was just the very brief sortie of a young man not yet mature in his own thinking; if so, that would explain a lot of things in your posts.

By "church" I mean all the people of God from all of human history who belong to him by virtue of their faith in Jesus Christ. I do not mean the Roman Catholic definition of just those who belong to the Catholic church. If you believe that the Church evolved over time then the term would apply to what ever group existed at that particular point of time in history.

I am sure you realize not all of the fellowship of original believers were devoured by lions. Many of then died from natural cause, but all are of coure dead today. In that sense I suppose the original church is gone, but that doesn't mean they were unable to pass on their faith to others. Did you know that the church actually grew in size during the time of the persecution? More people converted to become Christians than the Romans were able to feed to the lions or kill by all the other means they tried.

 

[Grace Seeker]

YusufNoor and Muslim Woman, you make a good point. Probably few people anywhere care much about the specifics of beliefs they don't hold to themselves. However, that hardly seems to hold true to those of us who participate in this "Comparative Religion" section of the LI boards. So, perhaps the two of you, even though you can't speak for all of Islam, could help me to understand how you see it.

The reason I think it is important is that if one views the corruption to be an occurance that took place three, four, or five centuries later, perhaps it is possible to go back and get behind the point in time when that corruption occurred. Afterall, this was actually the whole point of Luther's Reformation, that the Church as he knew it was corrupted, it had corrupted the true teaching and was at that time in history promoting things that he saw as outside of the Christian faith. So, he challenged it. Of course he got excommunicated by the powers that be for his efforts. But he also was able to effect some reforms in his own life and practice that others picked up on. Now you may assert that Luther didn't go back far enough, or reform enough things. Or it may be that you believe it isn't possible to go back, because there is nothing left to go back to. But this is why it is important for me to understand the where and when that you see the corruption occuring. For instance, if one objects to Nicea as a corruption, and I can get back to Christian truth that existed before Nicea, then perhaps we can find some common ground. Or, it may be that we find that those things which Muslims object to have always been in the teaching of the Church from the very beginning. Then it may be that you have to quit labeling it as corruption, for if what Christianity teaches now is what Christiansity has always taught, then it is no more correct to say that Christianity is corrupted than it is to say that Hinduism is Wicca is corrupted. They aren't corruptions, they are just (in my opinion) wrong, and you may wish to say the same with regard to Christianity. But saying that Christianity is corrupted and saying that it is wrong are, IMO, saying two different things and I like to make the distinction.

 

[YusufNoor]

Peace be upon those who follow guidance,

Greetings Gene,

it's been hard to post with the beautiful wife around asking questions, but FIRST, did you watch the vid???

if not, give it a shot as it does express a commonly held Muslim perspective.

YusufNoor and Muslim Woman, you make a good point. Probably few people anywhere care much about the specifics of beliefs they don't hold to themselves. However, that hardly seems to hold true to those of us who participate in this "Comparative Religion" section of the LI boards. So, perhaps the two of you, even though you can't speak for all of Islam, could help me to understand how you see it.

Natural born Muslims get most of their belief in this matter from the Qur'an. they KNOW that the Qur'an is the Revealed word of God (Allah(swt)), ergo, no other facts could be as credible as what God Almighty(Allah(SWT)) has spoken!

reverts, however can be different and some say it is "our job" to speak on the matter. not so sure i agree with that! but, hey...

2 points, the 1st: can we assume that by 620 AD that the "corruption" existed? if so, then the NEW Revelation, FULLY PRESERVED, is all that we need. sounds simple, i know...

2nd. MY OWN view on the matter is that the VAST majority if not ALL of the early Christians were martyred, eliminating the "missing link" in our search. heck, i researched the issue on and off for nearly 20 years and don't have conclusive proof on "when" the changes took place. my impression is that within a generation and especially with a "Petrine Judaic" Christianity and a "Pauline Gentile" version struggling with each other!

when i have a chance, Insha' Allah, i'll post some "Christian" Writings on the topic that support the view that our written "Gospels" are different than the oral beliefs and that the were in fact written to portray those "new views".

Prayer time, gotta go!

 

[Grace Seeker]

Peace be upon those who follow guidance,

Greetings Gene,

it's been hard to post with the beautiful wife around asking questions, but FIRST, did you watch the vid???

if not, give it a shot as it does express a commonly held Muslim perspective.



Natural born Muslims get most of their belief in this matter from the Qur'an. they KNOW that the Qur'an is the Revealed word of God (Allah(swt)), ergo, no other facts could be as credible as what God Almighty(Allah(SWT)) has spoken!

reverts, however can be different and some say it is "our job" to speak on the matter. not so sure i agree with that! but, hey...

2 points, the 1st: can we assume that by 620 AD that the "corruption" existed? if so, then the NEW Revelation, FULLY PRESERVED, is all that we need. sounds simple, i know...

2nd. MY OWN view on the matter is that the VAST majority if not ALL of the early Christians were martyred, eliminating the "missing link" in our search. heck, i researched the issue on and off for nearly 20 years and don't have conclusive proof on "when" the changes took place. my impression is that within a generation and especially with a "Petrine Judaic" Christianity and a "Pauline Gentile" version struggling with each other!

when i have a chance, Insha' Allah, i'll post some "Christian" Writings on the topic that support the view that our written "Gospels" are different than the oral beliefs and that the were in fact written to portray those "new views".

Prayer time, gotta go!

Yes, I watched the video. Love it. Very entertaining. I knew in advance all the points they were going to make, but they did do it very well. This thread is not the place for me to respond to their points. Maybe in the "When was the Bible Corrupted?" thread.

I would like to know, though, if you get my point that there needs to be a distinction made between saying that (1) the Bible correctly preserves a message that from the beginning was a corrupt or false message vs. saying that (2) the message of the Bible has been corrupted over time? They are vastly different debates and issues with regard to point #1 really have nothing to do with point #2 and vice versa.

 

[YusufNoor]

Yes, I watched the video. Love it. Very entertaining. I knew in advance all the points they were going to make, but they did do it very well. This thread is not the place for me to respond to their points. Maybe in the "When was the Bible Corrupted?" thread.

I would like to know, though, if you get my point that there needs to be a distinction made between saying that (1) the Bible correctly preserves a message that from the beginning was a corrupt or false message vs. saying that (2) the message of the Bible has been corrupted over time? They are vastly different debates and issues with regard to point #1 really have nothing to do with point #2 and vice versa.

Peace be upon those who follow guidance,

Hey Gene,

i found this interesting commentary this morning, i'll share parts of it with you:

The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible (1971) page 664:

The Gospel According To Mark by Lindsey P. Pherigo

Introduction

Relation to Mathew And Luke. Literary analysis of the agreements and differences among the first 3 gospels has established that Mark was the earliest of the 3 and was used independently by both Matthew and Luke as their major source of information about the life of Jesus…The fact that the 2 later gospels have incorporated practically all of it in their accounts indicates that they intended to replace Mark rather than simply to supplement it…


Date and Occasion. The tradition that Mark put together his gospel after the death of Peter on the one hand and the manner of its use by Matthew on the other limit the date of the writing to the period from AD 64 to ca 75…

[this was MOST interesting and revealing!]

During the whole period in which this gospel could have been written, Christianity was in transition from it’s original home in the Semitic culture of Palestinian Judaism to the Gentile culture of the Roman Empire. The older Christianity held tenaciously to the traditional Jewish customs (such as circumcision and the food laws), but the newer (Gentile) version abandoned these entirely. More significantly, the older Christianity understood Jesus mainly under the Jewish concept of the Messiah, whereas the newer found more meaning in him as a divine being, the Son of God, Lord and Savior. The older view clung to the Semitic concept of religion as obedience to God’s Will, whereas the newer openly abandoned this as hopeless by man’s own effort and espoused a religion which redeemed man from his slavery to sin by and act of God’s Grace( the Christ event).

so, i'm guessing sometime between "Q"[the source] and Mark! :happy:

i checked to see if this was written by Muslims, but the cover says:

“Seven years of planning and research, the most up-to-date archaeological information, and the latest technological developments have been used in preparing this one-volume commentary.

Seventy scholars-Protestant, Roman Catholic and Jewish-have contributed fresh, new interpretations of the ageless truths of the Bible.
The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary on the Bible is designed for use by laypersons, ministers, librarians, college and seminary professors and students – anyone who enjoys studying the Bible.”

so...i guess not!