What the Bible Says About Muhammad(PBUH!!!!)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mikayeel
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 77
  • Views Views 10K
Another site

http://barnabas.net/

The Gospel of Barnabas was accepted as a Canonical Gospel in the Churches of Alexandria till 325 C.E. In 325 C.E., the Nicene Council was held, where it was ordered that all original Gospels in Hebrew script should be destroyed. An Edict was issued that any one in possession of these Gospels will be put to death. The article, How the Gospel Survived, gives a brief narrative on the text's survival.

An Islamic perspective and commentary are added to some chapters of the Gospel. The commentary highlights any differences or commonalities which exist between the Gospel and the primary Islamic texts, especially the Holy Quran.

It should be noted that while presenting the Gospel, chapter headings have been added by us and are not part of the Gospel's text.
Click to expand...
 
:sl:
Shouldn't we concentrate more on proving Islam is the best rather than proving Christianity is wrong? A car company makes millions, but never puts down another company by name...

PS: AvarAllahNoor, you ruined my conquests!! :D
:w:
 
Good analogy there dude. But it's good to debate isn't it. Passes the time for some folk...(me inc)
 
AvarAllahNoor said:
Good analogy there dude. But it's good to debate isn't it. Passes the time for some folk...(me inc)
Click to expand...
:sl:
Yup, it certainly does. But for Muslims it is certainly clear that Jesus (pbuh) prophisesed Muhammad (Peace be upon him), even though it does not say this in the Bible itself. So for a Muslim this debating is rather pointless, as if the Bible does not mention Muhammad (peace be upon him) then nothing is lost.

PS: I completed my conquests!
gloriousconquestsgd0.jpg

:w:
 
PurestAmbrosia said:
Another site

http://barnabas.net/
Click to expand...

Site sponsored by the Sabr Foundation, a "Not-for-profit educational and religious foundation offering information on the Islamic faith." Right. At least try and play.

The site presents a wonderful piece of fiction under the title "how the Gospel of Barnabas survived" (taken from a book published by 'The Quran Council of Pakistan') as an attempt to explain the incredibly inconvenient fact that the earliest known copy of the 'Gospel of Barnabas' we have dates from the 16th century. It is a total fairy story, unreferenced and academically unsupportable. There may even have been a 'Gospel of Barnabus' of some description but there absolutely no evidence that it has survived and much that what is today presented as a book of that name was actually written 1500 years or so later.

The reason the Gospel of Barnabus has been jumped on by some muslims is that is content happens to be rather more in tune with the Qur'an than the canonical gospels. Hardly surprising as it is quite possible it was muslims who forged it. It is totally incorrect to to suggest that the "consensus among scholars and historians with academic integrity" is that the document is genuine. It is not. I know it, you know it, so I can only assume you are, for reasons best known to yourself, trying to fool the more gullible among other posters.

Or maybe just yourself. Think about it. You are quite happy, seemingly, to believe that there was an original Gospel of Barnabas that survived for 1200 years (presumably via some or all of Aramaic, Greek, Coptic, Latin, Arabic, Italian and Spanish) effectively unaltered from an original which may never have existed anyway. According to you, the NT on the other hand, was hopelessly distorted from the moment one word of the Aramaic version (which probably never existed in the first place) was transliterated in Koine Greek! One says what you want, the other doesn't; any actual evidence is an irrelevance.

I'll let anyone else interested research the matter themselves and judge the reliability of the sources they find, so just one link; http://www.google.co.uk/.
 
We all know that the trinity is always explained as an EGG (yolk, whites, shell without all three the egg doesn't exist,

well god isn't a yolk or the whites neither the shell,

God is unique which means NONE OTHER LIKE HIM

why is that so confusing?
 
PurestAmbrosia said:
The one biblical passage where Jesus is supposed to have told his disciples to 'Go and preach unto all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.' (Matthew 28:19), commonly quoted to prove the Gentile mission as well as the Trinity, is not found in any pre-sixteenth century manuscript and is thus considered 'a pious fraud'.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia article on Codex Fuldensis
The Codex Fuldensis is a manuscript based on the Latin Vulgate made between 541 and 546. It contains the 27 canonical books of the New Testament, the Epistle to the Laodiceans, and a copy of Jerome's Prologue to the Canonical Gospels. The gospels are in the form of Tatian's Diatessaron.
Click to expand...
Gospel of Matthew from the Codex Fuldensis (pdf)
 
ummsara1108 said:
We all know that the trinity is always explained as an EGG (yolk, whites, shell without all three the egg doesn't exist,
Click to expand...
You can picture it as a triangle, composed of three equally sized triangles. When one is gone the remaining two still form a triangle, different in shape and size though...
 
Last edited:
glo said:
I must admit that I have wondered about this too.

The general message by Muslims seems to be that the Bible has been corrupted and that therefore its message cannot be trusted ... yet that doesn't seem to stop many Muslims from using Bible quotes which apparently support the 'Muslim argument'.

Seems to me that either something is trustworthy, or it isn't ... you can't pick and choose and have it both ways ... :?
Click to expand...

We Muslims do not believe that the whole bible is corrupted, some parts may be and some parts may not be.
 
Trumble said:
Site .uk/[/URL].
Click to expand...

Forgery is more in concert with Christian practice than Islamic one.. the bible is its own testimony of how far the extent, and I have already listed tons of errors that they can't reconcile from one book to the next.. we are quite content with our religion and don't need to resort to lowely games the likes which the church has gauged for centuries. Anyone with keen intellect and reason will arrive to the same conclusion..
seeing as your attempts are just as pathetic as the church's I'll leave it to discerning minds to evaluate for themselves..

cheers
 
PurestAmbrosia said:
I am sorry what should this mean to me?
I have probably one of the oldest bibles here in Arabic/Aramaic, and the passage is indeed missing from it..
other than that, I don't use wiki for reliable info.. it is very contracted to begin with, and I am not sure what to make of it...

cheers
Click to expand...
Any Arabic Bible would have to be much older than the Codex Fuldensis. I guess the Aramic translation would be younger but that does not change the fact that the passage can be found in a 5th century manuscript.
 
Whatsthepoint said:
Any Arabic Bible would have to be much older than the Codex Fuldensis. I guess the Aramic translation would be younger but that does not change the fact that the passage can be found in a 5th century manuscript.
Click to expand...

This is actually what it says

Matt 28:19-20
8. In Shem-Tob's Hebrew Matthew, the "Great Commission" becomes: "Go and teach them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever." No mention is made of "making disciples of all nations," nor does Jesus promise to be "with you always, even unto the end of the world."
Click to expand...
this was taken from

http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol03/Petersen1998a.html

not an Islamic website, as others like to use for a psychological crutch!

unless you have the actual original manuscript from that bible for us to browse, it will remain what it is a 'pious fraud'


cheers
 
You said the passage first appeared in the 16th century mansucript. I provided a 5th century manuscript containing the passage, if you want, you can ave more.

I'm not saying the passage is not a fraud, I'm just saying it is much older than you said it was.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top