When was the New Testament corrupted?

[mattityahu]

Does the Qur'an say the New Testament was corrupted? If not, what is the first Islamic source that claims the New Testament was corrupted? When was the New Testament corrupted?

Yours,
M

 

[YusufNoor]

Does the Qur'an say the New Testament was corrupted? If not, what is the first Islamic source that claims the New Testament was corrupted? When was the New Testament corrupted?

Yours,
M

why don't you just show us some CONTEMPORANEOUS writings about Jesus the son of Mary[ May Allah's Peace and Blessings be upon both of them]. show us something from about 30 AD, and we'll examine it.

THEN, we can compare them to documents [allegedly] written decades later.
deal?

 

[mattityahu]

why don't you just show us some CONTEMPORANEOUS writings about Jesus the son of Mary[ May Allah's Peace and Blessings be upon both of them]. show us something from about 30 AD, and we'll examine it.

THEN, we can compare them to documents [allegedly] written decades later.
deal?

I am not claiming anything for the New Testament. I am simply asking what people's views are on the three questions I asked. There is no need for shouty capitals.

Peace,
M

 

[YusufNoor]

I am not claiming anything for the New Testament. I am simply asking what people's views are on the three questions I asked. There is no need for shouty capitals.

Peace,
M

you ask us WHEN was the "New Testament" corrupted, did you not? so bring us a "New Testament" from AD 30 and we'll compare it to the one we now have.

when shall you provide such a thing, eh?

we can wait!

 

[glo]

you ask us WHEN was the "New Testament" corrupted, did you not? so bring us a "New Testament" from AD 30 and we'll compare it to the one we now have.

when shall you provide such a thing, eh?

we can wait!

Forgive my interruption, Yusuf, but why are you reacting so unpleasantly?
From what I see mattityahu is asking a simple question, namely which Islamic source first stated that the New Testament had been corrupted, and when this corruption is thought to have taken place.

I see nothing in mattityahu's behaviour or question which would warrant your annoyed response.

Your request to 'bring a "New Testament" from AD 30' to compare it to the present one does not offer us an answer to the question.

Perhaps it would be wiser to leave replying to the OP's question to somebody who has the required information ...

Salaam

 

[جوري]

The first Islamic source to say the NT is corrupted is the Quran.. I believe the Jews concur by mere fact they are still Jews-- I don't think a 'man/God' is what they were waiting for!

all the best

 

[جوري]

I don't find br. Yusuf's response to evoke the notion of 'annoyed', Rather he prefers to avoid the circuitous long route and cut the chase... I think it is direct to the point, given the nature of the question and undoubtedly the direction it is seeking!

all the best

 

[The_Prince]

from the Quran:

surah 4:157

and surah 2:79

 

[glo]

I don't find br. Yusuf's response to evoke the notion of 'annoyed', Rather he prefers to avoid the circuitous long route and cut the chase... I think it is direct to the point, given the nature of the question and undoubtedly the direction it is seeking!

all the best

I see nothing remotely like 'circuitous long routes' in mattityahu's questioning style ... it's a while since I have seen anybody ask such precise, brief and clear questions.
Rather Yusuf's attempt to divert the conversation to the origins of the New Testament is what I would call a 'long route' ... do precise questions not deserve precise answers?
Since we are in the 'Clarifications about Islam' section it would be great to find the Islamic information which was asked for.
Anything else would be better placed in the 'Comparative Religions' section and doesn't belong here at all.

Anyway, I found the question the OP asked a very interesting one, and I am looking forward to reading and learning more as this thread progresses.

Peace

 

[جوري]

I see nothing remotely like 'circuitous long routes' in mattityahu's questioning style ... it's a while since I have seen anybody ask such precise, brief and clear questions.
Rather Yusuf's attempt to divert the conversation to the origins of the New Testament is what I would call a 'long route' ... do precise questions not deserve precise answers?
Since we are in the 'Clarifications about Islam' section it would be great to find the Islamic information which was asked for.
Anything else would be better placed in the 'Comparative Religions' section and doesn't belong here at all.

Anyway, I found the question the OP asked a very interesting one, and I am looking forward to reading and learning more as this thread progresses.

Peace

Br. Yusuf did what we call 'hat min il'akhir' -- it is an intuitive thing as 'qalb almoslim daleelo'
other than that I believe Br. Prince and myself already gave a very concise reply to earliest Islamic literature pointing out the corruption in the bible.


I really don't know what belong where, and I am not sure I'd care one way or the other.. once I am subscribed or un-subscribed

all the best

 

[doorster]

I don't find br. Yusuf's response to evoke the notion of 'annoyed', Rather he prefers to avoid the circuitous long route and cut the chase... I think it is direct to the point, given the nature of the question and undoubtedly the direction it is seeking!

all the best

neither do I but it (act of playing the victim) will help when eliciting help from some of these mods

Edit:
The way I see it as follows:

Br. Yusuf tried to cut through the chase while you and Br. Prince pointed to the very source of Muslim evidence (i.e The Quran)

End of argument!

 

[glo]

from the Quran:

surah 4:157

and surah 2:79

Thanks Prince.

Here are the verses in question (from 'The Meanings Of The Holy Qur'an' by Abdullah Yusufali). Please add other translations if you feel this is not the most reliable source. It just happens to be the one I have available online.

Surah 2:79. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.

Surah 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:-

 

[جوري]

neither do I but it (act of playing the victim) will help when eliciting help from some of these mods

thing with me, is I have been blogging for yrs, and I know I am doing without the body language and the tone of voice, but can pretty much tell a great deal about a poster from two posts or so (being generous for benefit of the doubt)...and I can also tell when they travel with a posse but come days apart.. after reading the stealth crusade and a few of their own confessionals on the christian forums I find myself running on zero tolerance....

 

[YusufNoor]

Forgive my interruption, Yusuf, but why are you reacting so unpleasantly?
:rollseyes

From what I see mattityahu is asking a simple question, namely which Islamic source first stated that the New Testament had been corrupted, and when this corruption is thought to have taken place.

:rollseyes

I see nothing in mattityahu's behaviour or question which would warrant your annoyed response.
:rollseyes

Your request to 'bring a "New Testament" from AD 30' to compare it to the present one does not offer us an answer to the question.

Perhaps it would be wiser to leave replying to the OP's question to somebody who has the required information ...
:rollseyes

Salaam

if one REALLY wants to know WHEN the "New Testament" was corrupted, we should start with the "ORIGINAL" and work our way up. THEN we might perhaps see when the corruption took place. sounds simple enough, eh?

in other words let's start at the beginning!

!he, sdrawkcab gnikrow naht retteb eb dluow taht

as for whatever you [mis]read into anything, i'm not responsible for your motives, you are.

have a nice day!

 

[mattityahu]

Surah 2:78-79: Among them are gentiles who do not know the scripture, except through hearsay, then assume that they know it. Therefore, woe to those who distort the scripture with their own hands, then say, "This is what GOD has revealed," seeking a cheap material gain. Woe to them for such distortion, and woe to them for their illicit gains.

It seems that this verse is referring to those who do not know the scripture. Then they can't have corrupted it, as they didn't have it in the first place.

Surah 4:157 And for claiming that they killed the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, the messenger of GOD. In fact, they never killed him, they never crucified him - they were made to think that they did. All factions who are disputing in this matter are full of doubt concerning this issue. They possess no knowledge; they only conjecture. For certain, they never killed him.

Again, it is clear that those claiming the Jesus was killed had no knowledge of uncorrupted NT. So they certainly didn't corrupt it. Also, the verse is only claiming that "they" (whoever they were) didn't kill him. It doesn't say that Jesus wasn't killed at all. I accept that the Qur'an does teach things contrary to the New Testament (as we currently have it) in other places, so it implicitly claims that the New Testament is no longer free from error. The question then is which Islamic sources explicitly state when the documents were altered. Was it before or after the Qur'an was written, for example?

The first Islamic source to say the NT is corrupted is the Quran.. I believe the Jews concur by mere fact they are still Jews-- I don't think a 'man/God' is what they were waiting for!

all the best

Could you now answer the question above? Thanks.

if one REALLY wants to know WHEN the "New Testament" was corrupted, we should start with the "ORIGINAL" and work our way up. THEN we might perhaps see when the corruption took place. sounds simple enough, eh?

in other words let's start at the beginning!

As with the Qur'an, the documents no longer exist. As such, the method is impossible. My questions are to do with what Islamic sources say about the matter.

Yours,
M

 

[doorster]

It seems that this verse is referring to those who do not know the scripture. Then they can't have corrupted it, as they didn't have it in the first place.

so they constructed one or four from scratch based on hearsay?

well done!

now it is not corrupt but made-up, I suppose I can live with that idea

thanx, salam!

 

[mattityahu]

so they constructed one or four from scratch based on hearsay?

well done!

now it is not corrupt but made-up, I suppose I can live with that idea

thanx, salam!

I thought the Injil was from Allah, and that the original copy wasn't corrupted? Feel free to correct me on this.

Yours,
M

 

[doorster]

make-up your mind first, if you want to talk about Injil, then bring forth a copy and if you are talking about the new testament, then do not paste quranic ayats as you will surely confuse me.

 

[mattityahu]

make-up your mind first, if you want to talk about Injil, then bring forth a copy and if you are talking about the new testament, then do not paste quranic ayats as you will surely confuse me.

I thought that, according to Islam, the New Testament was the corrupted version of the Injil. If not, could you explain the difference?

Thanks,
M

 

[doorster]

I think you are too clever and sharp for me so I am bowing out suffice it to say that According to (my version or understanding of) Islam New Testament is indeed the corrupted version of the Gospel.

However, according to Christianity, it is perfect word of God aka Jesus

so why can we not leave it at that? you say He is God, I say he is Messenger of God and a Prophet, so are we going to or do we need to start a holy cyberwar over it

instead of that why not just you stick with your belief and let us get on with ours?

to you your way, to me mine!