Corpus of Church Traditions

[RebeccaJ]

.

a primary source is for all times.

Why would you think a primary source changes into a secondary source? Either someone witnesses an event, or they don’t.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The original narrator is also considered a primary source, since he is a companion of the Prophet Muhammad (S). Not only that, but anyone who provides verifiable sources can be considered a primary source. The scholars had various ways of knowing whether someone was reliable or not. One example, was testing the memory of the living narrators, by asking them to repeat the narration and its chain multiple times on different occasions to see whether there was any slight contradition.

The latter is an example of oral tradition. ALL oral traditions use repetition and recitation to maintain the accuracy of the tradition.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

But again, you cannot verify that this authority was actually instituted by Isa ibn Maryam (A) or his disciples.

There is historical evidence that the authority of the Catholic Pope comes down nearly two thousand years from Peter. There is no real dispute that Peter was the chief apostle to Jesus. The early records of the Church, including the NT show that Peter was the man appointed by Jesus as the earthly leader of the Church. I’m not sure why you think this is insufficient evidence that the authority of the Church is traceable to Jesus. Are you suggesting the whole thing is just made up fiction? If so, I think it is your burden to show us at what point in history a lie (i.e. Christianity as you contend) was substituted for the truth (i.e. Islam as you contend)? When, where, and how, did the early Church go so far astray?

Peace,
Robert

 

[SalamKhan]

There is historical evidence that the authority of the Catholic Pope comes down nearly two thousand years from Peter. There is no real dispute that Peter was the chief apostle to Jesus. The early records of the Church, including the NT show that Peter was the man appointed by Jesus as the earthly leader of the Church. I’m not sure why you think this is insufficient evidence that the authority of the Church is traceable to Jesus. Are you suggesting the whole thing is just made up fiction? If so, I think it is your burden to show us at what point in history a lie (i.e. Christianity as you contend) was substituted for the truth (i.e. Islam as you contend)? When, where, and how, did the early Church go so far astray?

Peace,
Robert

Robert, this thread is disputing sources from the early church and the NT as secondary sources at best. Even so, clearly the Roman Catholic doctrines of Indefectability, Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility, which refer back to the See of Rome and its Bishop by extension, were unknown to the early Church Fathers. According to Church Tradition, Peter did not only establish a See in Rome, but in Antioch also; why then did that See not receive the special prerogatives of Rome?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Robert, this thread is disputing sources from the early church and the NT as secondary sources at best.

I’m still not sure I’m following you. Do you mean you are questioning the accuracy of witnesses and authors because they are not Jesus and/or one of the 12 Apostles? Or are you saying that if someone is not Jesus, or an Apostle, their testimony/teaching/writing must be rejected? Or are you saying that persons who claim to have been instructed by Jesus or an Apostle cannot be relied upon unless there is some additional evidence proving their connection to an original teacher (Jesus or an Apostle)? You’re really not being clear here. Plus, in my earlier posts I’ve explained that there is a distinction between the accuracy of a writing and the passing on of Tradition like the sacraments. So, again, I think you’re measuring the truth of Sacred Tradition with the wrong tool here.

SalamKhan:

Even so, clearly the Roman Catholic doctrines of Indefectability, Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility, which refer back to the See of Rome and its Bishop by extension, were unknown to the early Church Fathers.

That’s simply not true. Here is a short article that quotes some of the early Fathers’ comments about the primacy of Peter.

SalamKhan:

According to Church Tradition, Peter did not only establish a See in Rome, but in Antioch also; why then did that See not receive the special prerogatives of Rome?

It’s a good question, with a good answer. Rome is where Peter lived, where he died, and where his succession occurred. Peter founded the Church in Antioch, but he left it to travel on to Rome where he and St. Paul were martyred.Here is another article with early Church Father quotes showing that Rome was the seat of the Church’s authority from early times.

Peace,
Robert

 

[ffg]

No offense, but the truth is not based on whether it makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside. But the truth is the truth, regardless of how people feel.

**If Allah had a motive for creating His creation, once again, that would make him dependent on His creation, which would mean He was lacking or deficient prior to creating His creation; which is impossible. **If Allah was deficient, then contingent things would never come into existence, and it is self evident that is not the case. Allah was perfect prior to creating His creation, and always will be perfect.

Allah is the creator of good and evil. Evil is contingent and therefore created, and all contingencies are within the Power and Will of Allah. For it is impossible for something to come into existence outside of His Power and Will, nothing is equal to or greater than His Power and Will, as that would make His Power and Will deficient; and that is impossible, for nothing contingent would ever come into existence, and it is self evident that is not the case. The creator of evil, Allah, is necessary and uncreated, therefore He is not evil nor does He become evil after creating evil, just as He is not contingent nor does He become contingent after bringing every other contingency into existence.

I have heard of Mario Joseph, and you are incorrect in stating that the Prophet (S) never performed inimitable miracles.

In bold - So God sneezed and things came to be? Just total accident?

BUT - moving to the next paragraph - God creates Good and Evil, but didn’t intend to, because of course, no motive, but then without a motive, God knows Evil is Evil and Good is Good?

Do you also apply the ‘God is not Evil’ logic, to Good?

Which ends in a Neutral God…Why would a neutral God give prophets prophecies?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

The account of the Isra is Mutawatir, therefore authentic.

What do you mean when you say “authentic?” Do you mean that the story is true, or that the translation is correct, or both?

Proof that a writing has been accurately translated or passed on is not proof that what it states is true or false. There are accurate translations of J.R.R. Tolkien’s stories, but proof of accuracy does not make the stories true. The proof establishes only that there is reason to believe the present document is an accurate copy of the original. The question of the story’s truth or falsity is an altogether different question.
SalamKahn:

In reality, the teachings of Prophets Isa ibn Maryam (A) and Muhammad (S) were congruent with each other and not contradictory.

Again, I’m not sure what it is you are asserting. Are you saying that the original documents of the New Testament actually taught Islam but later translations corrupted or altered those teachings? Or do you mean that the New Testament translations of today and the Qur’an can be harmonized doctrinally if they are properly understood. Because I’ve seen no evidence of the former. And the latter is demonstrably not the case because there are central fact claims in the New Testament (e.g. the crucifixion, divinity of Jesus, the existence of the Holy Spirit) that are contradicted by the latter writings of Islam.
SalamKahn:

You do not understand the verses of the Qur’an, so do not claim it teaches that which it does not. Islam is the religion of Ibrahim (A), Ismail (A), Ishaq (A) and Yaqub (A). As you can see in the Old Testament, Ibrahim (A) and Yaqub (A) practiced polygamy, and Yaqub (A) even venerated a stone and used it as a marker for Bet El (House of God).

Polygamy may have been practiced by some in the Old Testament, but it was never divinely commanded or even commended. At best it was tolerated by God. Be that as it may.

It is your claim that Islam is the religion of Abraham, Ismael, Isaac, and Jacob. Where is your evidence of the five pillars of Islam in ancient Jewish culture? Or any other practice unique to Islam that existed in early Jewish culture before Christ? If Islam has its roots in the faith of Abraham, Isaac, and Ismael, where is the evidence of their Muslim practices?

I am guessing that my Jewish friends would dispute your claim, citing to a Jewish history much older than Christianity and Islam to support their own claim. What do you point to in support of Islam’s claim to be the religion of Abraham, etc. With respect, I would say you have the burden of proof on this point, since it is your religion’s claim. But I think that goes beyond the scope of the original post.

Peace,
Robert

 

[willymonfrete]

The apostolic fathers knew the apostles and they were trinitarian Christians.the early church had a hierarchical structure.the gospels are all written up to 80 ad by the apostles.catholics have direct apostolic succession .the Holy Spirit guides the church through magisterium.jesus said the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail over his church yet all those heretical groups died out like Gnosticism and Ebionites.

 

[willymonfrete]

youtube.com/watch?v=dcoMB8nJWmw there are 26 qurans but only one gospel

 

[MartinJordan]

Robert, this thread is disputing sources from the early church and the NT as secondary sources at best.

And from Islamic sources about the early church, this comes to basically zero proof right? The burden is on you the OP to provide this.

My earlier post:forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14592333&postcount=27

I asked any Islamic sources/references about the Gnostics? And specifically how the Gnostics also claim Jesus followers. As you implied in your post #22. Please reply with the Islamic references for this proof.

MJ

 

[SalamKhan]

I’m still not sure I’m following you. Do you mean you are questioning the accuracy of witnesses and authors because they are not Jesus and/or one of the 12 Apostles? Or are you saying that if someone is not Jesus, or an Apostle, their testimony/teaching/writing must be rejected? Or are you saying that persons who claim to have been instructed by Jesus or an Apostle cannot be relied upon unless there is some additional evidence proving their connection to an original teacher (Jesus or an Apostle)?

I’m taking all three into consideration. They tie in together.

You’re really not being clear here. Plus, in my earlier posts I’ve explained that there is a distinction between the accuracy of a writing and the passing on of Tradition like the sacraments. So, again, I think you’re measuring the truth of Sacred Tradition with the wrong tool here.

Robert, in Islam we have the Sunnah, which is similar to the Sacred Tradition you are talking about; but it doesn’t mean we deny Hadith, because that is a way to verify the authentic Sunnah.

That’s simply not true. Here is a short article that quotes some of the early Fathers’ comments about the primacy of Peter.

Robert, I’m not unfamiliar with Patristic quotes on the Primacy of Peter. Nonetheless, as the Eastern Orthodox point out, Primacy of Peter is not the same as Roman Indefectability, Papal Supremacy, Papal Infallibility, etc.

In bold - So God sneezed and things came to be? Just total accident?

BUT - moving to the next paragraph - God creates Good and Evil, but didn’t intend to, because of course, no motive, but then without a motive, God knows Evil is Evil and Good is Good?

I’m not sure how you came to those conclusions from my statement that we do not say that Allah has a motive.

Nonetheless, explain to me then, why did God create us? To love Him? Was He without love prior to creation? Christians would say no, as they assert the Son was with the Father for all eternity. So why did He create us?

Proof that a writing has been accurately translated or passed on is not proof that what it states is true or false.

I know, which is why I didn’t say that. If you’re going to reply to my posts which were not directed towards you, at least check what exactly it was I was replying to. Kathleen claimed that the Isra and Miraj accounts were made up by the Umayyads after Muhammad (S) passed away.

It is your claim that Islam is the religion of Abraham, Ismael, Isaac, and Jacob. Where is your evidence of the five pillars of Islam in ancient Jewish culture? Or any other practice unique to Islam that existed in early Jewish culture before Christ? If Islam has its roots in the faith of Abraham, Isaac, and Ismael, where is the evidence of their Muslim practices?

This is an odd conclusion, where did I say that the ancient Prophets had the five pillars? I didn’t. Of course, Jews would be hesitant to say that Islam is the religion of Ibrahim (A), Ishaq (A), and Yaqub (A). At the very least, there are some Jewish Rabbis who assert that Islam is the religion of Adam (A) and Nuh (A). The Catholic scholar of Islam, Louis Massignon, believed Islam to be a return to the “natural religion” of Ibrahim (A).

And from Islamic sources about the early church, this comes to basically zero proof right? The burden is on you the OP to provide this.

My earlier post:forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14592333&postcount=27

I asked any Islamic sources/references about the Gnostics? And specifically how the Gnostics also claim Jesus followers. As you implied in your post #22. Please reply with the Islamic references for this proof.

MJ

I don’t even know why you’re asking for this. Are you trying to say that if there are no references to Gnostics in Islamic sources, I cannot believe they ever existed? If so, how strange.

If your Church Fathers lied about the Gnostics, it wouldn’t affect me, but it would affect you, for your Church Fathers would be liars. It’s not like the Church Fathers are only proof of the existence of early Gnostics, anyway. The writings of Gnostics exist, and although they are falsely attributed to the disciples of Isa ibn Maryam (A), they are proof nonetheless that someone or some group most likely held the same views as what was written down.

 

[ffg]

Thanks for asking SalamKhan. First I’ll answer your question, then I’ll finish this post with further analysis of what I see as a logical mess.

What I replied to here yesterday, was something you (assumingly) believe. That’s a good thing, now people can 1) know where you are, and 2) discuss with at least a hint of common understanding.

To answer your question directly - The CC teaches that we were made to know, love, and serve God - in order to be with Him in paradise.

• Many people memorize the first half and forget the bold, which gives a little more foundation.

See paragraph 1721 on this page of the catechism:

ccc.usccb.org/flipbooks/catechism/index.html#446/z

There is much detail of which one can dig and learn. The surrounding paragraphs are a start.

Shortly, and for example: If God is love (He is), and love is act (it is, as opposed to feeling), then God acts lovingly - always.

If God acts lovingly always, then God gives freely and constantly. Thus you, a gift from God to all of creation, were gifted with life (constant gifting from The Great Giver).

Think of it this way, God gives. (period. Not gave, not will give, constantly gives, It’s His nature and the nature of what we’ve come to understand as ‘love’) Gives. Always present, always happening with God.

Ok enough about what I confess - let’s dig a little deeper into what you confess and why I replied -

If God is the source of Evil, then God is the source of that which conflicts with God. You wrote that God is not Evil, so does that mean God is Good? That has motive.

Or does that mean that God is not Good or Evil. Indifference? Not sure of a purpose to serve an indifferent master.

Here’s the problem I am seeing - You and I can be good and bad in essentially the same instance -

I see your logic as creation applying to God that which creation is familiar.

If God is always true, he will not create lies, contradict Himself, create chaos (both G&E).

You and I are not always true, but that’s why we have hope!

 

[SalamKhan]

Thanks for asking SalamKhan. First I’ll answer your question, then I’ll finish this post with further analysis of what I see as a logical mess.

What I replied to here yesterday, was something you (assumingly) believe. That’s a good thing, now people can 1) know where you are, and 2) discuss with at least a hint of common understanding.

To answer your question directly - The CC teaches that we were made to know, love, and serve God - in order to be with Him in paradise.

• Many people memorize the first half and forget the bold, which gives a little more foundation.

See paragraph 1721 on this page of the catechism:

ccc.usccb.org/flipbooks/catechism/index.html#446/z

There is much detail of which one can dig and learn. The surrounding paragraphs are a start.

Shortly, and for example: If God is love (He is), and love is act (it is, as opposed to feeling), then God acts lovingly - always.

If God acts lovingly always, then God gives freely and constantly. Thus you, a gift from God to all of creation, were gifted with life (constant gifting from The Great Giver).

Think of it this way, God gives. (period. Not gave, not will give, constantly gives, It’s His nature and the nature of what we’ve come to understand as ‘love’) Gives. Always present, always happening with God.

Ok enough about what I confess - let’s dig a little deeper into what you confess and why I replied -

If God is the source of Evil, then God is the source of that which conflicts with God. You wrote that God is not Evil, so does that mean God is Good? That has motive.

Or does that mean that God is not Good or Evil. Indifference? Not sure of a purpose to serve an indifferent master.

Here’s the problem I am seeing - You and I can be good and bad in essentially the same instance -

I see your logic as creation applying to God that which creation is familiar.

If God is always true, he will not create lies, contradict Himself, create chaos (both G&E).

You and I are not always true, but that’s why we have hope!

We believe that our purpose is to serve and worship Allah, but that does not mean He is in need of being served or worshiped. Allah is neither benefited nor harmed by good and evil. Paradise is also created, so therefore your post didn’t really answer anything.

I have already explained why Allah is not evil for creating evil. However, allow me to simplify what I said, in case you didn’t understand. You must first remember that Allah transcends His creation. Then you must remember that Allah is necessary, whilst evil is contingent, that Allah is uncreated, whilst evil is uncreated; what is necessary and uncreated is not and does not at any point become contingent and created. Allah is not an animal for creating animals, Allah is not human for creating humanity, Allah is not a substance nor an accident for creating substances and accidents, etc. and Allah is not evil for creating evil. Once again, we do not say that He has a motive, as Allah is self sufficient, but we say He has a wisdom for everything He does.

 

[ffg]

We believe that our purpose is to serve and worship Allah, but that does not mean He is in need of being served or worshiped. Allah is neither benefited nor harmed by good and evil. Paradise is also created, so therefore your post didn’t really answer anything.

I have already explained why Allah is not evil for creating evil. However, allow me to simplify what I said, in case you didn’t understand. You must first remember that Allah transcends His creation. Then you must remember that Allah is necessary, whilst evil is contingent, that Allah is uncreated, whilst evil is uncreated; what is necessary and uncreated is not and does not at any point become contingent and created. Allah is not an animal for creating animals, Allah is not human for creating humanity, Allah is not a substance nor an accident for creating substances and accidents, etc. and Allah is not evil for creating evil. Once again, we do not say that He has a motive, as Allah is self sufficient, but we say He has a wisdom for everything He does.

First Bold - Agree. The difference here is in the relationship that we think have with God…

I know God doesn’t need me, I think He wants me and He wants me to be happy with Him.

You asked “why did God create us?”

I gave the straight answer right from the source to which I confess. The inability to understand is not with me on what I confess.

I also provided a source for you to do a little digging.

With regard to your second paragraph, I’m guessing the bold is a typo?

I’m not a lego house for creating a lego house. A lego house is not in conflict with who I am.

Evil is in conflict with God (and His laws).

Creating evil and allowing evil are two very different things.

 

[SalamKhan]

First Bold - Agree. The difference here is in the relationship that we think have with God…

I know God doesn’t need me, I think He wants me and He wants me to be happy with Him.

You asked “why did God create us?”

I gave the straight answer right from the source to which I confess. The inability to understand is not with me on what I confess.

I also provided a source for you to do a little digging.

With regard to your second paragraph, I’m guessing the bold is a typo?

I’m not a lego house for creating a lego house, and a lego house is not in conflict with who I am.

Evil is in conflict with God as it is a rejection of Him and His laws.

Creating evil and allowing evil are two very different things.

So you agree that God doesn’t have a motive, if He is not in need of anything?

Yes, that was a typo. Thank you.

No, that is dualism. Evil does not harm Allah nor does it diminish Him or subtract from Him in any way.

 

[ffg]

So you agree that God doesn’t have a motive, if He is not in need of anything?

Yes, that was a typo. Thank you.

No, that is dualism. Evil does not harm Allah nor does it diminish Him or subtract from Him in any way.

God not being in need of anything does not eliminate a motive for God ‘acting’.

Acts have purposes (motives).

^^^This is a clear stake - which may need to be hashed out.

I said I believe God desires me (wants, to be exact), I explained His motivation flows from who He is -

Love desires giving.

In your case and mine, that’s our lives.

BUT - like a good deal on TV - there’s more!

Not only life, but Happiness with Him!

God is Good!

 

[Robert_in_SD]

So you agree that God doesn’t have a motive, if He is not in need of anything?

Perhaps you should define what you mean by “motive.” If by that term you mean God is not trying to gain anything, then I agree. If by that term you mean God has no purpose, then I would have to disagree.

SalamKhan:

No, that is dualism. Evil does not harm Allah nor does it diminish Him or subtract from Him in any way.

Why is it dualism to say that evil is in conflict with God. Evil is by its nature an absence of good. From the Catholic Encyclopedia’s explanation of evil:

Christian philosophy has, like the Hebrew, uniformly attributed moral and physical evil to the action of created free will. Man has himself brought about the evil from which he suffers by transgressing the law of God, on obedience to which his happiness depended. Evil is in created things under the aspect of mutability, and possibility of defect, not as existing per se : and the errors of mankind, mistaking the true conditions of its own well-being, have been the cause of moral and physical evil (Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite, De Div. Nom., iv, 31; St. Augustine, City of God XII). The evil from which man suffers is, however, the condition of good, for the sake of which it is permitted. Thus, “God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist” (St. Aug., Enchirid., xxvii). Evil contributes to the perfection of the universe, as shadows to the perfection of a picture, or harmony to that of music (City of God 11). Again, the excellence of God’s works in nature is insisted on as evidence of the Divine wisdom, power, and goodness, by which no evil can be directly caused. (Greg. Nyss., De. opif. hom.) Thus Boethius asks (De Consol. Phil., I, iv) Who can be the author of good, if God is the author of evil? As darkness is nothing but the absence of light, and is not produced by creation, so evil is merely the defect of goodness. (St. Aug., In Gen. as lit.) St. Basil (Hexaem., Hom. ii) points out the educative purposes served by evil; and St. Augustine, holding evil to be permitted for the punishment of the wicked and the trial of the good, shows that it has, under this aspect, the nature of good, and is pleasing to God, not because of what it is, but because of where it is; i.e. as the penal and just consequence of sin (City of God XI.12, De Vera Relig. xliv). Lactantius uses similar arguments to oppose the dilemma, as to the omnipotence and goodness of God, which he puts into the mouth of Epicurus (De Ira Dei, xiii). St. Anselm (Monologium) connects evil with the partial manifestation of good by creation; its fullness being in God alone.

The features which stand out in the earlier Christian explanation of evil, as compared with non-Christian dualistic theories are thus

•the definite attribution to God of absolute omnipotence and goodness, notwithstanding His permission of the existence of evil;

•the assignment of a moral and retributive cause for suffering in the sin of mankind; and

•the unhesitating assertion of the beneficence of God’s purpose in permitting evil, together with the full admission that He could, had He so chosen, have prevented it (City of God XIV).

How God’s permission of the evil which He foreknew and could have prevented is to be reconciled with His goodness, is not fully considered; St. Augustine states the question in forcible terms, but is content by way of answer to follow St. Paul, in his reference to the unsearchableness of the Divine judgments (Contra Julianum, I, 48).

The full text can be read here. While there are certainly distinctions between Islamic and Christian perceptions of the nature of evil, I think it’s simply incorrect to suggest that Christianity teaches dualism when it is quite evident that it does not.

Perhaps it is best to say there are different emphases in Islamic and Christian thought when it comes to the nature of evil. Islam emphasizes the sovereignty and omnipotence of God and posits that God does directly cause evil, BUT that there is a divine reason for it that we simply cannot perceive. (Please correct me if this is not entirely accurate SK, no intent to mislead but I am trying to simplify a very complex topic.) Christianity teaches that God does not directly cause evil, but allows it to happen to bring about a greater good, while also acknowledging that God, being omnipotent, has the power to prevent all evil. Ultimately, I don’t think there’s a practical difference between the two. Whether God is said to “cause” evil or “permit” it, under the theories set forth above, we’re still ultimately conceding that we have no idea why God does (or “does not”) what He does. Personally, I think the **most **difficult question to ask is, “Why does God allow evil to exist?” We can struggle with it, but in the end I don’t think we’ll know the full answer this side of the veil.

Peace (and Salam) my friend,
Robert

 

[SalamKhan]

Perhaps you should define what you mean by “motive.” If by that term you mean God is not trying to gain anything, then I agree. If by that term you mean God has no purpose, then I would have to disagree.

Why is it dualism to say that evil is in conflict with God. Evil is by its nature an absence of good. From the Catholic Encyclopedia’s explanation of evil:

The full text can be read here. While there are certainly distinctions between Islamic and Christian perceptions of the nature of evil, I think it’s simply incorrect to suggest that Christianity teaches dualism when it is quite evident that it does not.

Perhaps it is best to say there are different emphases in Islamic and Christian thought when it comes to the nature of evil. Islam emphasizes the sovereignty and omnipotence of God and posits that God does directly cause evil, BUT that there is a divine reason for it that we simply cannot perceive. (Please correct me if this is not entirely accurate SK, no intent to mislead but I am trying to simplify a very complex topic.) Christianity teaches that God does not directly cause evil, but allows it to happen to bring about a greater good, while also acknowledging that God, being omnipotent, has the power to prevent all evil. Ultimately, I don’t think there’s a practical difference between the two. Whether God is said to “cause” evil or “permit” it, under the theories set forth above, we’re still ultimately conceding that we have no idea why God does (or “does not”) what He does. Personally, I think the **most **difficult question to ask is, “Why does God allow evil to exist?” We can struggle with it, but in the end I don’t think we’ll know the full answer this side of the veil.

Peace (and Salam) my friend,
Robert

As I have said, Allah has a wisdom for everything thing He does, so we are not really in disagreement over the motive issue.

Dualism is the view that good and evil are both equally and eternally conflicting forces; they are in opposition with each other because they are complete opposites. This could lead to dangerous conclusions, if God is goodness and His creation is opposite to Him, would that make creation evil in itself, and therefore in opposition to God and not created by Him? This is what the early Gnostics concluded.

However, you hit the nail right on the head when you said that evil is the absence of good. It’s also important to note, that the very meaning of tyranny or opression is infringing on the rights and ownership of others, this cannot be attributed to Allah, as He has dominion and ownership over all things, therefore He has the right to take what He owns. All contingencies are within the Power and Will of Allah, for a wisdom that may or may not be clear to us.

 

[MartinJordan]

I don’t even know why you’re asking for this. Are you trying to say that if there are no references to Gnostics in Islamic sources, I cannot believe they ever existed? If so, how strange.

You’ve made an allegation in your post #22 That the Gnostics also claimed to receive their teachings from the disciples. Show me the Islamic proof of this.

If your Church Fathers lied about the Gnostics, it wouldn’t affect me, but it would affect you, for your Church Fathers would be liars. It’s not like the Church Fathers are only proof of the existence of early Gnostics, anyway. The writings of Gnostics exist, and although they are falsely attributed to the disciples of Isa ibn Maryam (A), they are proof nonetheless that someone or some group most likely held the same views as what was written down.

Where are the Islamic references that show that the Gnostics are falsely attributed to the Disciples of Isa?

Show it please.

Peace be with you,

MJ

 

[MartinJordan]

Secondly your New Testament isn’t the only source for the names of the disciples. I’ve mentioned several times that the Gnostics and so called ‘Judaizers’ also claimed to receive their teachings from the disciples. .

You need to show Islamic proof of who the Gnostics were and what they believed, so that you can clear the matter that some group claims are false about “attributing to the disciples of Isa ibn Maryam (A)” as you say **they **have.

And also Islamic proof who are these “Judaisers” were on top of that.

MJ