Catholics, Christains, Sunni, Shia, Muslims, PLEASE READ!

[OneBlanketBoss]

Now before I start I have to initially assure all of you that I did not come here to steer any confusion, to insult or offend any either one of you. I am making this thread mostly for myself to be honest, in order to see where I am standing with my faith or lack thereof. Please keep in record that I used to be Roman Catholic who practiced his faith with devotion and even attended Holy Mass on a daily occasion for quite a time. There did come a time in my life where I abandoned the Catholic Faith and converted to Sunni Islam. As a Muslim I tried with many difficulties to devote my life to this religion.

Without any further ado I would like to start

Okay first and foremost, you have to admit that if you are Catholic or not, it was the Catholic Church that canonized the books that eventually would have become the Bible we have today for the most part.
My issue with this is, Jesus is supposed to be God Almighty in the Flesh who came down to earth to save human beings from their sins, and he also came with Authority and taught the church that he supposedly established to teach what he preached, am I correct?

Few issues I have concerning history I have that deals with this matter. We know that by now we do not have one singular document that we can trace back to the any original disciples of Jesus. What do I mean by this? The 4 gospels, they were not written by Mark, Mathew, Luke, and John, nor were they names even assigned to these gospels. But even the writings after the gospels, lets exclude the writings of Paul which I will also address, that supposedly were written by peter, john, or the cousin of Jesus can not be traced to the authors themselves. From what I learned so far, the only letter of Peter that might be authentic is second peter, but scholars are divided about this claim. History tells us that, yes the teachings that Jesus is God, that the Eucharist is a fundamental doctrine, that Jesus was crucified were spread by word of mouth by some Christians BEFORE the Gospels were written. However this does not make the bible that we have today to be the original teachings of Jesus. Why? Because other teachings regarding the life and teachings of Jesus were also spread among different christian groups around the same time. For example, the Ebionites denied the divinity of Christ. Could you come with any convincing argument why I should believe what the Catholic Christians believed in instead what the Ebionites or even what the Gnostic believed in. It is well known that all three christian groups existed at the time of the second century after Jesus. Now, knowing that we do not have any document that we can trace back to the original teachings of Christ, why should I follow the Bible we have NOW by any means?

Even some of the writings of Saint Paul are not originally from the author that it is said its from. There’s a specific collection of writing somewhere in Corinthians that scholars believe have been produced by 5 different authors! All of these authors are unknown and were only compiled by somebody we don’t even know. Now let us move three hundred centuries after, and we have a organized Church that decided which book has been divinely inspired by the Almighty God of the Universe… If God can not even preserve proper documents that can we can trace the original teachings from his Divine Son, why should I believe in a Church that gave themselves authority to decide what is divinely inspired and what isn’t?

Muslims, you might think the facts I stated should be something that only benefits arguments for your faith, right? I would disagree! If you think about it, I said that we have absolutely no text that can be traced to the ORIGINAL teachings of Christ. If you’re going to use the same standards to deny the divinity of Christ because the bible can not be looked at a documented that goes back to Jesus, then what source OUTSIDE the Quran can we possibly use that confirms the teachings of Mohamed? Were there teachings that Jesus was a Prophet, that he taught people to pray, that he was a righteous being, of course there was. However, do Muslims have any document that can be traced to Jesus and the teachings that align with their faith that we can say is legitimate? Obviously the answer is no. Islam has only one book called the Quran. In the Quran it teaches NOBODY can twist the words of God Almighty, yet Muslims argue that the Quran is Gods only preserved book. Whatever happened with the Original Torah and the Original Injeel? How can God Almighty allow His own WORD to be corrupted by men? I personally believe there is a huge contradiction in the Quran regarding this matter. First, it does say that the people of the book have made writings to make it seem its from God even though it wasn’t, but then in other instances it clearly says that nobody can twist Gods word. Does this verse only refer to the Quran. If SO…then the so called original teachings of the Prophets mentioned in your holy book, were NOT the Word of God?

If I have misunderstood the Islamic position on what Muslims and the Quran teaches, could you then possibly give me only one authentic Hadith what Mohammad himself taught regarding the Torah and Injeels he knew existed in his time? Did he teach what Muslims believe about the books in the Bible? That some of it IS Gods word while some of it is corrupted? I don’t think you will be able to produce one Hadith where Mohammad clarifies any of this.

Okay I have to keep this short, please respond and I am going to try my best to engage in this thread as much as I can. I will also make other posts if I get the chance to see if I have been given the right information to make the decisions that I just made. To step out of religion and to accept reality for whatever it is.

Which I am still unsure of what that might me.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Hi.

The New Testament is a part of Catholic tradition. Therefore, only the Catholic Church knew exactly what 27 books were inspired out of the nearly 300 vying for canonical status.

If you want proof of this, read the work of the Earliest Church Fathers such as Ignatius of Antioch who quoted our NT many times. And you will notice a common theme…and that is the ECF’s OBVIOUSLY knew what was inspired since they kept quoting from it.

Early Church was a lot of word of mouth. Just like the Koran was word of mouth for quite sometime as well.

Yes, we don’t have the originals. But we do have a promise from the creator of the universe that the gates of hell will not prevail against his Church (Matt 16:18) And that’s good enough for me.

Thanks…

 

[pianistclare]

The four Evangelists most certainly were named Matthew Mark, Luke and John.

Sorry, after that I couldn’t read any further.

 

[dallas_r]

Hi.

The New Testament is a part of Catholic tradition. Therefore, only the Catholic Church knew exactly what 27 books were inspired out of the nearly 300 vying for canonical status.

If you want proof of this, read the work of the Earliest Church Fathers such as Ignatius of Antioch who quoted our NT many times. And you will notice a common theme…and that is the ECF’s OBVIOUSLY knew what was inspired since they kept quoting from it.

Early Church was a lot of word of mouth. Just like the Koran was word of mouth for quite sometime as well.

Yes, we don’t have the originals. But we do have a promise from the creator of the universe that the gates of hell will not prevail against his Church (Matt 16:18) And that’s good enough for me.

Thanks…

This

 

[adamhovey1988]

Catholics are Christian dude

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Luke is supposed to have travelled with Peter, and so presumably is a secondary source transcribing from a primary source. Mark is also supposed to have known Peter and so presumably will also be a secondary source. Matthew and John are meant to be Jesus’s apostles and so primary sources themselves. Biblical historians theorise, reimagine, conjecture and refute whatever they like - they have exactly as much authority as is placed in them. Personally, I have less and less faith in academic fidelity every year…

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Also, scores of saints continue the tradition of communication with God and thus consolidate the evangelical tradition.

It’s up to you whether you believe it or not.

As far as I know the Quran is supposed to have been written by what are essentially disciples of Mohammad, who is supposed to have been informed of an essentially corrected version of the Bible etc. Directly by God. I Think continued divine revelation is believed to continue and so consolidate this tradition also…

It’s up to you whether you believe it or not.

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

The four Evangelists most certainly were named Matthew Mark, Luke and John.

Sorry, after that I couldn’t read any further.

those names were put there many years AFTER the gospels were written.

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

Hi.

The New Testament is a part of Catholic tradition. Therefore, only the Catholic Church knew exactly what 27 books were inspired out of the nearly 300 vying for canonical status.

If you want proof of this, read the work of the Earliest Church Fathers such as Ignatius of Antioch who quoted our NT many times. And you will notice a common theme…and that is the ECF’s OBVIOUSLY knew what was inspired since they kept quoting from it.

Early Church was a lot of word of mouth. Just like the Koran was word of mouth for quite sometime as well.

Yes, we don’t have the originals. But we do have a promise from the creator of the universe that the gates of hell will not prevail against his Church (Matt 16:18) And that’s good enough for me.

Thanks…

Its good to know that you are well aware we do not have anything original that traces back to the disciples of Jesus that we can prove. Yes the earl y church was a lot of word of mouth, but not every christian agree to what Christianity is preaching now. As a matter of fact, there were many years before Islam became an organized religion that taught Jesus was a mere man and a prophet.

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

Luke is supposed to have travelled with Peter, and so presumably is a secondary source transcribing from a primary source. Mark is also supposed to have known Peter and so presumably will also be a secondary source. Matthew and John are meant to be Jesus’s apostles and so primary sources themselves. Biblical historians theorise, reimagine, conjecture and refute whatever they like - they have exactly as much authority as is placed in them. Personally, I have less and less faith in academic fidelity every year…

From what I learned there is only inconsistencies in the gospels themselves as you read from the earliest to the oldest. But what bothers me the most is that we don’t even know if the gospels we have can even be traced to any disciples of Christ.

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

Catholics are Christian dude

I know and I know I misspelled Christians as well.

But Sunnis and Shia are Muslims as well. I didn’t mean to say they are not it is just I believe these denominations are the closest to what mainstream Islam was teaching.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Its good to know that you are well aware we do not have anything original that traces back to the disciples of Jesus that we can prove. Yes the earl y church was a lot of word of mouth, but not every christian agree to what Christianity is preaching now. As a matter of fact, there were many years before Islam became an organized religion that taught Jesus was a mere man and a prophet.

Heretics existed then and they still exist now.

Nothing new under the sun.

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

Heretics existed then and they still exist now.

Nothing new under the sun.

I agree. but how should i know that the Ebionites, the Nazareens, the Gnostics and other Christians groups who also lived in the second century after Jesus were Heresies and not the Catholic Christians?

 

[SalamKhan]

Christians and Muslims are both in agreement about belief in the Prophets of old, Ibrahim (A), Ishaq (A), Ya`qub (A), Musa (A), etc. If the Christians are truthful, they will admit the doctrine taught by these Prophets is that of pure monotheism, without Trinity or Incarnation.

Now was the Messiah, Isa ibn Maryam (A) a pure monotheist like that of the Prophets of old? They must admit that he was if they do not want to include him among the condemned. Were his disciples pure monotheists like himself? They must admit that they were if they were truly his disciples. The Christians are honest enough to admit that their Gospels were written decades after Isa ibn Maryam (A) ascended into the Heavens, but will say that his disciples wrote these Gospels. But how could any pure monotheist author writings which contain blasphemous doctrines? Surely the contents cast doubt on the integrity of the writings and cannot be attributed to pure monotheists.

But, Christians will contend that the disciples did in fact write the Gospels, regardless of the questionable contents. They will ask how we know that our Mushaf (Qur’an) was transmitted by our Prophet (S) [from the Angel] to his disciples (Sahaba), and from his Sahaba to us. We should respond that we have knowledge of sanad and rijal; namely, the chain of transmission and the biographies of the men (for us to evaluate their trustworthiness) involved in the transmission. They may respond that such an excessive practice of preservation may have been sufficient for us, but it is not absolutely necessary, for the early Christians and early Muslims lived in different times and conditions.

But when asked as to how they know these Gospels are genuine, they will point to the church, and when asked who gave their church the authority to be the arbiter in such matters, they will say the Messiah, Isa ibn Maryam (S). However, when asked to provide evidence for this, they will point to their Gospels, and this is a circular argument.

You should know that the beloved of Allah, Muhammad ibn Abdullah (S), fulfilled the criteria of Prophethood, first and foremost, teaching the doctrine of pure monotheism, the message he preached is universal, is intellectually sound, and softens the hearts. Three other signs which confirm his Prophethood were his truthfulness, practicing what he preached, and performing extraordinary miracles. The wisdom behind Allah keeping the Jews and Christians in the world, rather than destroying them for their defection, is to absolve the Prophet (S) from accusations of teaching novel concepts. The Qur’an supersedes all previous revelations, and is the arbiter and corrector of them.

The Messenger of Allah (S) said, "Do not believe the People of the Book, nor reject what they say. Rather, say, `We believe in Allah and in what was sent down to us.’’

So the best method, if one were to read the scriptures belonging to the Jews and Christians (which is not necessary), is to affirm what is affirmed by the Qur’an, deny what cannot be reconciled (through Islamic interpretation that is workable within the original languages of the revealed Torah and Gospel) with the Qur’an, and to neither affirm nor deny what is neither affirmed not denied by the Qur’an.

When Allah says that His words never change, He is referring to His decree. You should also make a distinction between the uncreated speech of Allah, and the actions of His creatures, which are indeed created. Does that mean that the Mushaf (Qur’an) can be corrupted? No, because Allah promised He would preserve it, and lying is an impossibility for Allah.

And Allah knows best.

 

[johnnyc176]

I agree. but how should i know that the Ebionites, the Nazareens, the Gnostics and other Christians groups who also lived in the second century after Jesus were Heresies and not the Catholic Christians?

Because the Church that Jesus founded and gave Authority to tells us. St. Paul warns of this…

“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths” (2 Tim. 4:3–4).

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

Christians and Muslims are both in agreement about belief in the Prophets of old, Ibrahim (A), Ishaq (A), Ya`qub (A), Musa (A), etc. If the Christians are truthful, they will admit the doctrine taught by these Prophets is that of pure monotheism, without Trinity or Incarnation.

Now was the Messiah, Isa ibn Maryam (A) a pure monotheist like that of the Prophets of old? They must admit that he was if they do not want to include him among the condemned. Were his disciples pure monotheists like himself? They must admit that they were if they were truly his disciples. The Christians are honest enough to admit that their Gospels were written decades after Isa ibn Maryam (A) ascended into the Heavens, but will say that his disciples wrote these Gospels. But how could any pure monotheist author writings which contain blasphemous doctrines? Surely the contents cast doubt on the integrity of the writings and cannot be attributed to pure monotheists.

But, Christians will contend that the disciples did in fact write the Gospels, regardless of the questionable contents. They will ask how we know that our Mushaf (Qur’an) was transmitted by our Prophet (S) [from the Angel] to his disciples (Sahaba), and from his Sahaba to us. We should respond that we have knowledge of sanad and rijal; namely, the chain of transmission and the biographies of the men (for us to evaluate their trustworthiness) involved in the transmission. They may respond that such an excessive practice of preservation may have been sufficient for us, but it is not absolutely necessary, for the early Christians and early Muslims lived in different times and conditions.

But when asked as to how they know these Gospels are genuine, they will point to the church, and when asked who gave their church the authority to be the arbiter in such matters, they will say the Messiah, Isa ibn Maryam (S). However, when asked to provide evidence for this, they will point to their Gospels, and this is a circular argument.

You should know that the beloved of Allah, Muhammad ibn Abdullah (S), fulfilled the criteria of Prophethood, first and foremost, teaching the doctrine of pure monotheism, the message he preached is universal, is intellectually sound, and softens the hearts. Three other signs which confirm his Prophethood were his truthfulness, practicing what he preached, and performing extraordinary miracles. The wisdom behind Allah keeping the Jews and Christians in the world, rather than destroying them for their defection, is to absolve the Prophet (S) from accusations of teaching novel concepts. The Qur’an supersedes all previous revelations, and is the arbiter and corrector of them.

The Messenger of Allah (S) said, "Do not believe the People of the Book, nor reject what they say. Rather, say, `We believe in Allah and in what was sent down to us.’’

So the best method, if one were to read the scriptures belonging to the Jews and Christians (which is not necessary), is to affirm what is affirmed by the Qur’an, deny what cannot be reconciled (through Islamic interpretation that is workable within the original languages of the revealed Torah and Gospel) with the Qur’an, and to neither affirm nor deny what is neither affirmed not denied by the Qur’an.

When Allah says that His words never change, He is referring to His decree. You should also make a distinction between the uncreated speech of Allah, and the actions of His creatures, which are indeed created. Does that mean that the Mushaf (Qur’an) can be corrupted? No, because Allah promised He would preserve it, and lying is an impossibility for Allah.

And Allah knows best.

Okay I definitely agree with the circular argument. However why do you have the need to bring up the Catholic Christians in order to ask ‘them’ about Jesus and if they agree that he and the prophets of the old believed in the oneness of God. The reason I can not believe in Islam anymore is NOT because I don’t believe the Quran is possibly the most preserved book compared to other holy books, but its because outside the Quran, what do we find? Can we link any book to Jesus as being the Prophet that the Quran makes him out to be? Can we find a book that definitely proves Jesus talked as an infant, that he made living birds out of clay, and ect? I mean imagine if we didn’t have the Jude-Christian tradition at all! All we did is have a Prophet named Mohammad in the 6th century talking about Jesus that nobody really knew about. Do you believe that Islam would have been the 2nd biggest religion on this planet?

As far as other things in history that concerns me and which I believe contradicts one of the main teachings in Islam is the same Christian group who actually believes Jesus was JUST a Prophet ; the Ebionites. Did you know that the majority of them disbelieved in the virgin birth. Yes, they existed in the very early ages of Christianity, disagreed with the divinity status of Christ, but yet also disbelieved in the virgin birth. How could they possibly be the original disciples of Christ that the Quran talks about if they don’t believe Mary was a virgin when conceiving Jesus?

Another thing is the crucifixion itself, but i believe that topic a deserves a thread of its own which I will also try to post in a due time but first I would really love to hear more responses from Catholic Christians, and Muslims.

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

Because the Church that Jesus founded and gave Authority to tells us. St. Paul warns of this…

“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths” (2 Tim. 4:3–4).

That right that can also refer to the Catholics. Considering they disagreed with the Ebionites, the Nazarenes, the Gnostic, and who knows what other early christian group. Maybe it was the Catholics that are responsible for wandering into myths?

 

[SalamKhan]

Okay I definitely agree with the circular argument. However why do you have the need to bring up the Catholic Christians in order to ask ‘them’ about Jesus and if they agree that he and the prophets of the old believed in the oneness of God. The reason I can not believe in Islam anymore is NOT because I don’t believe the Quran is possibly the most preserved book compared to other holy books, but its because outside the Quran, what do we find? Can we link any book to Jesus as being the Prophet that the Quran makes him out to be? Can we find a book that definitely proves Jesus talked as an infant, that he made living birds out of clay, and ect? I mean imagine if we didn’t have the Jude-Christian tradition at all! All we did is have a Prophet named Mohammad in the 6th century talking about Jesus that nobody really knew about. Do you believe that Islam would have been the 2nd biggest religion on this planet?

As far as other things in history that concerns me and which I believe contradicts one of the main teachings in Islam is the same Christian group who actually believes Jesus was JUST a Prophet ; the Ebionites. Did you know that the majority of them disbelieved in the virgin birth. Yes, they existed in the very early ages of Christianity, disagreed with the divinity status of Christ, but yet also disbelieved in the virgin birth. How could they possibly be the original disciples of Christ that the Quran talks about if they don’t believe Mary was a virgin when conceiving Jesus?

Another thing is the crucifixion itself, but i believe that topic a deserves a thread of its own which I will also try to post in a due time but first I would really love to hear more responses from Catholic Christians, and Muslims.

It is quite strange, one hand, people accuse our Prophet (S) of plagiarism if there existed a writing prior to the revelation of the Qur’an, which the Qur’an affirms the content of. On the other hand, people accuse our Prophet (S) of novelty if no such writing exist.

We Muslims also believe in many Prophets besides Isa ibn Maryam (A) who came before Prophet Muhammad (S). Will you hold us to provide evidence external to the Qur’an for every single one of them? No, because you know it would be ridiculous to do so. The reason why we hold the Christians to not being able to trace their heresies back to Isa ibn Maryam (A), is because they lie that they follow Isa ibn Maryam (A). We claim to follow Prophet Muhammad (S), who supersedes all previous Prophets. We know that he was truthful, before and after him being commissioned as a Prophet, for we have an uninterrupted chain of reliable transmission back to eyewitness testimonies, just as we have an uninterrupted chain of reliable transmission back to eyewitness testimony of his extraordinary miracles. For one who is always truthful, there is no reason to doubt his testimony. As for his extraordinary miracles, this confirms his Prophethood; imagine a king sending his emissary to a group of people, and the people ask the emissary to prove that he was sent by the king, the emissary then asks his king to stand up, and after standing it is proven that the king sent the emissary. Our Prophet (S) taught a pure doctrine of monotheism, for we know that it is intellectually impossible for there to be no god. There is no lie in our Prophet (S), my friend.

As for the Ebionites, I believe I was the one who told you about them, and not only that, I also told you that some them did affirm the virgin birth; this is a fact. So, if there were Ebionites who did affirm the virgin birth, the Ebionites who denied the virgin birth does nothing to disprove the Qur’anic teaching about the disciples of Isa ibn Maryam (A). The Crucifixion is not a historical issue in Islam, it is a theological issue, if it appeared that Isa ibn Maryam (A) was crucified, then of course historians would record the apparent.

 

[dronald]

those names were put there many years AFTER the gospels were written.

Why those guys?

 

[OneBlanketBoss]

We Muslims also believe in many Prophets besides Isa ibn Maryam (A) who came before Prophet Muhammad (S). Will you hold us to provide evidence external to the Qur’an for every single one of them?

Actually as a matter of fact I would to a degree my friend. But you see I wanted to focus more on the tradition of Jesus rather then the prophets of old. We do as a matter of fact have the Jewish tradition as well. Is it reliable? Of course not. Another problem that I personally am facing because I can not just devout my whole life to one religion if it does not contain evidences. Now if I was going to be a normal believer practicing a faith when I feel I spiritually yearn for it then fine…but to put all my focus and believe there is an afterlife based on Christianity or Islam, I just cant.

The reason why we hold the Christians to not being able to trace their heresies back to Isa ibn Maryam (A), is because they lie that they follow Isa ibn Maryam (A). We claim to follow Prophet Muhammad (S), who supersedes all previous Prophets. We know that he was truthful, before and after him being commissioned as a Prophet, for we have an uninterrupted chain of reliable transmission back to eyewitness testimonies, just as we have an uninterrupted chain of reliable transmission back to eyewitness testimony of his extraordinary miracles. For one who is always truthful, there is no reason to doubt his testimony. As for his extraordinary miracles, this confirms his Prophethood; imagine a king sending his emissary to a group of people, and the people ask the emissary to prove that he was sent by the king, the emissary then asks his king to stand up, and after standing it is proven that the king sent the emissary. Our Prophet (S) taught a pure doctrine of monotheism, for we know that it is intellectually impossible for there to be no god. There is no lie in our Prophet (S), my friend.

You know I would be foolish to say that the Prophet Mohammad intentionally lied. I don’t truly think he did. But that is besides where I am getting at. If Mohammad had a vision that Jesus was a true Prophet of Allah like the rest of the Prophets that are mentioned in the Quran, I need proof. Not just from Mohammad, but from legitimate sources! Think about it, the Quran clearly says Almighty God gave Jesus the Injeel. Is there any proof to this? Do we have the injeel? Does the Injeel exist now? Or even more importantly…did it ever? I personally don’t know.

As for the Ebionites, I believe I was the one who told you about them, and not only that, I also told you that some them did affirm the virgin birth; this is a fact. So, if there were Ebionites who did affirm the virgin birth, the Ebionites who denied the virgin birth does nothing to disprove the Qur’anic teaching about the disciples of Isa ibn Maryam (A). The Crucifixion is not a historical issue in Islam, it is a theological issue, if it appeared that Isa ibn Maryam (A) was crucified, then of course historians would record the apparent.

Another valid point, but first could you (not that that I do not believe you) link me to a source that affirms that the Ebionites believed in the virgin birth. Yes I did hear this from you, but to be honest, I haven’t heard it from writers like Bart Ehrman who studied early Christianity. Perhaps he did mention it and I mistakenly have missed it. I would be grateful though, if you give me a source that I can rely on. However, I know that this isn’t going to do much because I am 99 percent sure ALL early Ebionite and Nazarene groups believed in the crucifixion. The only Christian group that denied Jesus died on the cross are the Gnostics, and we all know the Gnostic had little to nothing to do with monotheism. They were not even close to the teachings Christians and Muslims believe in.