Ibn Taymiya : the Church belief

[inJESUS]

Jesus’ peace be with all.

On another thread, Ibn Taymiya, our new Muslim participant, asked about the church belief, as this is what we base our belief on, being a continuation to the tradition passed down by the apostles, beside the Bible.

Ibn Taymiya says, when i asked him to pick a topic in order to refer to the Church fathers so see what was/is their faith, said:

Begin with anything you like, but don’t cite any source, unless you have its manuscripts dating to the first century (giving a link to it) and having evidence that the writer was really a follower of Jesus, or that you have a continuous external evidence from contemporary eyewitnesses known of their orthodoxy belief and have good skills to make sure that they weren’t illused and that their narrators have also the same specs and all chain is continuous (each narrator was proven to have seen his successor and predecessor).

I opened this thread because i would like others to contribute. He did not chose a topic so far, but since the crucifixion of Jesus is a major point of difference between Christianity and Islam, i suggest it to be the topic, unless Ibn Taymiya signals otherwise. Ibn Taymiya suggests that Allah put the appearance of someone else on Jesus and hence Jesus was not crucified.

Please do not go off topic. This thread is not about Muhammad’s morality, nor violence in Islam nor even about all the Church’s beliefs. This thread is specific for beliefs that are a major difference to what Islam teaches, like for example the crucifixion to see what the early church believed compared to what Muhammad taught.

 

[swariffin]

There are thousands of writings about what Ibn would like to know in the Vatican library. There was also a center of Christian believe in Alexandria, called the Sinaiticus. I don’t know that the library of Alexandria still keep that. Historical documents are not to be kept by ordinary people like us. So, it is unfair if we must present that kind of documents such as the writings of the early church father in this forum.

 

[Ruthie]

I’m up with a toothache, so my brain isn’t working all that well, but I know Copland’s website has a chart of the Early Fathers that connects them in a timeline, so you can see who studied with who.

Off to take narcotics and go to bed,

Ruthie

 

[Ibn_Taymiya]

Well, I have no problems in talking about anything, but we must first put the conversation on the right base. You said:

Please do not go off topic. This thread is not about Muhammad’s morality, nor violence in Islam nor even about all the Church’s beliefs. This thread is specific for beliefs that are a major difference to what Islam teaches, like for example the crucifixion to see what the early church believed compared to what Muhammad taught.

So you began this topic by talking generally about the church beliefs, then you now retreat to the differences between Islam and Christianity only. NO, you are the one who opened the subject, and generalized it with all the church beliefs, don’t come now and restrict it to differences between Islam and Christianity, you said:

In other words, Muslims can attack whatver they want in the Bible or it’s canonization or translation, but Muslims cannot attack the faith of the apostles and their disciples throughout the different churches they established. In other words, Muslims must attack the belief of the Church before the Bible because the Church gave us the preserved teachings, it was not the Bible that gave us the church.

What you say clearly means that anything we find in the Bible was present within the Church which is supposed to be the apostolic one, so I have the right to ask you about anything present in the Bible and you should prove it was found in the apostolic church within the first century. This is what you said from the beginning, and you should be responsible of what you say, otherwise, you should tell that this is not what you meant.

 

[inJESUS]

yes of course you have the right to ask about anything you want but i was trying to narrow the subject because it can be too broad, and since you are Muslim, it is logical to compare the church belief to the Islamic one since Muslims think that if they attack/twist the Bible they will “prove” Christianity wrong and maybe “teach” Christians that Jesus is not this or that, did not do this or that “based on the Bible” .

 

[Ibn_Taymiya]

yes of course you have the right to ask about anything you want but i was trying to narrow the subject because it can be too broad, and since you are Muslim, it is logical to compare the church belief to the Islamic one since Muslims think that if they attack/twist the Bible they will “prove” Christianity wrong and maybe “teach” Christians that Jesus is not this or that, did not do this or that “based on the Bible” .

Well, no need to narrow the subject, you have already opened a specific thread for that. Anyway, you can try to prove that your church is self standing and that you don’t need the Bible. Begin with crucifixion as you wished, but give me what I asked when I said:

Begin with anything you like, but don’t cite any source, unless you have its manuscripts dating to the first century (giving a link to it) and having evidence that the writer was really a follower of Jesus, or that you have a continuous external evidence from contemporary eyewitnesses known of their orthodoxy belief and have good skills to make sure that they weren’t illused and that their narrators have also the same specs and all chain is continuous (each narrator was proven to have seen his successor and predecessor).

 

[swariffin]

Well, no need to narrow the subject, you have already opened a specific thread for that. Anyway, you can try to prove that your church is self standing and that you don’t need the Bible. Begin with crucifixion as you wished, but give me what I asked when I said:

Nope, you are not talking about religion then. You are talking of scientific issue. Don’t mix up religion with science/history. The same thing apply to Quran too.

 

[inJESUS]

Nope, you are not talking about religion then. You are talking of scientific issue. Don’t mix up religion with science/history. The same thing apply to Quran too.

this is correct as he is asking about scientific issues and not the belief. If we apply the same criteria to the Islamic tradition, we do not find manuscripts dating to the first century of Islam and the evidence that the writer was really a follower of Muhammad or knew a follower of Muhammad is based on “i heard x saying he heard y” which can all be fabricated if we are obsessed with conspiracy theories like Muslims but no, we believe that their tradition is what they claim it is because this is the normal expansion of any religion even if we do not have the writers’ ID.

, or that you have a continuous external evidence from contemporary eyewitnesses known of their orthodoxy belief and have good skills to make sure that they weren’t illused and that their narrators have also the same specs and all chain is continuous (each narrator was proven to have seen his successor and predecessor).

this is achievable, but who guaranties we did not “invent” them all? after all conspiracy theories have no limits. Yet to suggest that only Muslims will preserve the tradition of Muhammad and his followers, but when it comes to Christianity, Christians couldn’t care less, is simply hysteria and wishful thinking not based on reality or the natural expansion of belief specifically that the belief of the church existed in different lands on different planets each established by an apostle. To argue that these churches could not maintain the apostolic tradition is an insult to geography, history, human instinct and common sense and no Muslim can swallow it that the sunna of Muhammad can be corrupted as if there were no Muslims back then in thousands to stand up for their belief.

So no, we do not have the IDs of the church fathers, nor any *scientific *proof that they knew the apostles, no videos, no cameras, no finger prints, except their writings and the writings of those who knew them and the whole succeeding chain, and the same applies to the Islamic hadith. One can simply mistrust anything , even that i am writing on this forum but things do not happen that way historically since all believers in any religion will preserve their belief. People even preserve legends, let alone belief that will affect ones life and death. One can take a look at this board, none of us knew Jesus personally or any of his apostles, yet we are defending our apostolic faith, so imagine what would have been the case with the apostles, their successors and all the eyewitnesses and faithful in all the churches they established.

 

[Ibn_Taymiya]

Nope, you are not talking about religion then. You are talking of scientific issue. Don’t mix up religion with science/history. The same thing apply to Quran too.

Belief needs history to be proved, that it refers really to Jesus (Peace be upon him). That’s what I am talking about.

 

[Ibn_Taymiya]

this is correct as he is asking about scientific issues and not the belief. If we apply the same criteria to the Islamic tradition, we do not find manuscripts dating to the first century of Islam and the evidence that the writer was really a follower of Muhammad or knew a follower of Muhammad is based on “i heard x saying he heard y” which can all be fabricated if we are obsessed with conspiracy theories like Muslims but no, we believe that their tradition is what they claim it is because this is the normal expansion of any religion even if we do not have the writers’ ID.

As I said, belief needs history to be proved that it really refers to Jesus (Peace be upon him), I actually said either manuscripts or Isnad where its 2 terminals refer to 2 main points, for example Bukhari and the Prophet (Peace be upon him), we examine the way between them whether they are really continuous or that there is a cut between them, and when you see the science of hadith, you will clearly know that it is not that easy to be fabricated, and it can be explained more as we are going into the conversation, which is not the case with many books in your Bible that your scholars don’t even know who wrote them.

So no, we do not have the IDs of the church fathers, nor any *scientific *proof that they knew the apostles, no videos, no cameras, no finger prints, except their writings and the writings of those who knew them and the whole succeeding chain, and the same applies to the Islamic hadith.

And this is the exact proof I need from you, to prove to me that your tradition has the same succeeding chain of narrations connecting between two main points as the hadith is.

Begin with crucifixion as you wanted.

 

[inJESUS]

Belief needs history to be proved, that it refers really to Jesus (Peace be upon him). That’s what I am talking about.

Actually the Christian belief is based on history, the history of the different churches and church fathers.

Polycarp (~70-156A.D.) - Bishop of Smyrna and martyred in Smyrna: Disciple of apostle John and a contemporary and friend of Ignatius.

Irenaeus (~177 A.D.) - Bishop of Lyons
Disciple of Polycarp

Ignatius (~55 A.D. – 115 A.D.) - Bishop of Antioch , he wrote letters to Plycarps John’s disciple and to the apostle John, and was martyred in Rome after professing belief in the “crucified”.

Here are three apostolic and contemporay church fathers who wrote to each others and to other churchmen, talking about meeting with the apostles and Mary for example.

Ignatius to St. John:
Ignatius, and the brethren who are with him, to John the holy presbyter.
We are deeply grieved at thy delay in strengthening us by thy addresses and consolations. If thy absence be prolonged, it will disappoint many of us. Hasten then to come, for we believe that it is expedient. There are also many of our women here, who are desirous to see Mary [the mother] of Jesus, and wish day by day to run off from us to you, that they may meet with her, and touch those breasts of hers which nourished the Lord Jesus, and may inquire of her respecting some rather secret matters. But Salome also, [the daughter of Anna,] whom thou lovest, who stayed with her five months at Jerusalem, and some other well-known persons, relate that she is full of all graces and all virtues, after the manner of a virgin, fruitful in virtue and grace

Is this the kind of historical evidence you are looking for?

 

[Eucharisted]

I suggest the book Jesus of Nazareth by Pope Benedict XVI to our new Muslim friend. It is a bit dry in its reading, very slow paced, but it really delves into the life of Jesus and asks many, many good questions about the Catholic Church and about Jesus which a lot of non-Catholics always ask us about. So I highly recommend it as reading!

The Pope is also making a sequel to his book, so be sure to look out for that too

Now, onto the crucifixion. The best sources we have, historically, are the four gospels.
The gospel of Mark was written by St. Mark, a disciple of Jesus and son of the Apostle Peter.
The gospel of Luke was written by St. Luke, a disciple of Jesus and companion of St. Paul.
The gospel of John was written by St. John, a disciple of Jesus and friend of the Apostle John (these two Johns are commonly mixed up by scholars)
The gospel of Matthew was written by St. Matthew, an Apostle of Jesus or - as some scholars believe - a friend of an Apostle.

No one on CAF has the resources or scholaristic skills to tell you about the gospels’ originality, and that’s why I ask you to read Jesus of Nazareth, which delves into the historicity of the gospels.

But I will make one quick historical note: In Jesus’ time, writing books was very uncommon. The way you had to make sure a story, account, novel, or event was remembered was by word of mouth, passing it down the generations. So the Gospel was not written by the Apostles but was passed down by word of mouth, and than, when the Apostles became old and people begged them to write down the Gospel, the gospels were written (it is well known that the Apostle John dictated to St. John, who wrote down all his words). The gospel of St. Mark was written around 60-70 AD, making it the earliest written gospel.

Another historic note: there were hundreds of false gospels being circulated around the Church by heretics and schismatics, so the Church had to shift through all these gospels and figure out, by the power of God, which ones were authentic gospels and which ones were false. Four were found to be authentic out of the hundreds. It can be considered a miracle that the Church was able to find the gospels.

But like I said, I can’t delve into the historicity of the gospels, I’m not a biblical scholar or an expert on history. The Pope is very well learned in history and theology - he loves to read and learn - so I would say you coud trust his words. But it would also be a good idea to read the cited works at the end of Jesus of Nazareth, because the more you learn, the better

 

[Eucharisted]

The gospels are very much like a mosaic; they each tell different details of the same events, which, far from being contradicting, give us the whole picture when put together. For example, in the gospel of John we read that the Mother of Jesus was at the foot of the cross, but the other gosels don’t tell us this. All the details are meant to tell us something about Jesus, not just act as pieces of history; for example, when Jesus was born, He was placed in a manager. But this is not just a piece of history; the manger is meant to be a symbol and foreshadowment, in God’s plan, of the crucifixon and burial of Christ.

Now, in the gospel of John we read that the Apostle John was with Mary at the foot of the cross. He is also known as the “beloved disciple”, the “one whom Jesus loved very much,” and he is the one who inclined his head on Jesus’ breast at the Passover meal. So we know, since he was at the scene of the crucifixion, that he is an eyewitness of Jesus’ death. He also followed Jesus through His whole Passion, from the scourging to the trials to Calvary, never leaving the Lord’s side; he left Him when He was arrested, but than he followed Him (why he followed Jesus, I don’t know, but most likely he wanted to see if Jesus would really be killed, because he believed Jesus was the Messiah and a lot of Jews believed the Messiah was suppose to be immortal). So since he followed Jesus, he could not have possibly been disceived by another man who looked like Jesus.

Neither could the Roman soldiers be decieved, who made sure Jesus was killed - not just because it was their duty, nor because they did not want to be punished, but also because they hated the Jews and wanted their Messiah to suffer and die the most gruesome and humiliating death in the ancient world. In fact, in the gospels we read that the soliders gave Jesus’ cross to a man named Simeon; and than at Calvary, the cross was laid down and Jesus was nailed to it. Now, how could the soldiers have mistaken Simeon for Jesus? Or how could Jesus have escaped if there were soldiers, as well as Pharisees, and many of His enemies around Calvary, waiting for Him to die?

Again, in the gospel of John we read that Jesus was crucified. Crucifixation was a very slow and painful death, often lasting days (the Romans made sure their prisoners suffered, just to make an example of them). But Jesus’ crucifixon only lasted three hours, which very much astonished the Romans and everyone at Calvary. But He was meant to die at 3:00 PM, the exact hour when the paschal lambs were sacrificed to God in the temple, since He is the Lamb of God. (Sorry if I trail off into theology)

Once more in the gospel of John we read that Jesus died before the two prisoners. The Sabbath was coming, and according to Jewish law, no one could be hung on a tree (or cross) on the Sabbath, or else the land would be cursed. So if the prisoners and Jesus were left hanging on Sabbath, Israel would be cursed. Thus, to speed up the two prisoners’ death (who hung on either side with Jesus), the soldeirs broke their leg bones, and they more than likely died within the hour. But Jesus was already dead, when the soliders came to break His bones, and since He was already dead, His bones weren’t broken. But one soldier wanted to make sure Jesus was dead, so he took his lance and piecred Jesus’ side, piercing His heart, and from the side wound - from the heart itself - came a flow of blood and water. According to medical science, loss of all blood and water - such as in Jesus’ case - means death. When you lose all your blood and water, you are dead, period. The gospel notes that the solider was an eyewitness of Jesus’ piercing, becuase he had converted after being sprayed with Jesus’ blood and warer (which are the Fountain of Mercy; the Water which purifies the soul from sin and the Blood which gives the soul life). The solider’s lance is now a relic of Jesus, which I believe is kept either at the Vatican or in Jerusalem.

 

[swariffin]

Belief needs history to be proved, that it refers really to Jesus (Peace be upon him). That’s what I am talking about.

Good, then you can as well provide that Quran as of today really coming from Muhammad or from Uthsman, scientifically please?

 

[swariffin]

Is this the kind of historical evidence you are looking for?

He is going to apply Islamic standard on Bible, sister. Later on, he will never believe anything unless written in Arabic.

 

[Reuben_J]

Isn’t this very familiar case? Apply the Islamic standard to critique the Bible but not the Quran. It is exercise in futility to disprove the authenticity of the Bible with the so-called Islamic standard. To put it bluntly, Muslims ARE ignorant of how the Church works. If our separate brethrens the Protestants know very little about the Church what more can be said of Muslims who are truly alien to it.

Some commentators believe that as late as the tenth century, about three hundred year after the Quran was complied, Muslims did not know about the Bible accurately. Only later that Muslim scholars discovered that some writings of the Bible actually contradicted the Quran that Muslims started to revise their approach vis-à-vis it. Today generally Muslims would say, what does not conform to the Quran in the Bible are corrupt. However, the Quran itself never says the Bible was corrupt. Mohammad was quite certain he quoted the Bible correctly and there was no attempt to say which parts of the Bible was corrupted.

In any case, if we want to critique the Quran in similar manner, it would not pass the test either. The simple fact that Uthman burned all other copies of the original manuscripts available of the Quran is sufficient to discredit its originality. Never mind about the excuse that these were of different dialects but not in content. If you burned the evidence then you cannot anymore substantiate your claim of originality. If you have nothing in your hand to compare the present Quran with the copies that were being burnt, then you don’t have any avenue to verify it.

So the Quran itself it not fool proof of its originality as the revelation to Mohammad. It will take faith too for the Muslims to believe it and that what Muslims do.

 

[Reuben_J]

And honestly I am wary when conditions are made for a discussion to proceed. The forum has enough rules for that. If there is restriction in the flow of idea, participants will not get the best out of the discussion.

 

[Ibn_Taymiya]

Ignatius to St. John:

Is this the kind of historical evidence you are looking for?

Is this what you are going to start with ? A spurious epistle?
There are, in all, fifteen Epistles which bear the name of Ignatius. These are the following: One to the Virgin Mary, two to the Apostle John, one to Mary of Cassobelae, one to the Tarsians, one to the Antiochians, one to Hero, a deacon of Antioch, one to the Philippians; one to the Ephesians, one to the Magnesians, one to the Trallians, one to the Romans, one to the Philadelphians, one to the Smyrnaeans, and one to Polycarp. The first three exist only in Latin: all the rest are extant also in Greek.
It is now the universal opinion of critics, that the first eight of these professedly Ignatian letters are spurious. They bear in themselves indubitable proofs of being the production of a later age than that in which Ignatius lived. Neither Eusebius nor Jerome makes the least reference to them; and they are now by common consent set aside as forgeries, which were at various dates, and to serve special purposes, put forth under the name of the celebrated Bishop of Antioch.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.v.i.html

I haven’t said anything yet. These are Christians who say so. Are forgeries and spurious epistles your outstanding historical sources that your belief is apostolic?

 

[Ibn_Taymiya]

Good, then you can as well provide that Quran as of today really coming from Muhammad or from Uthsman, scientifically please?

The extensive (mutawatir) Isnads. This is a great different issue and may be I tell more about it in that thread, but it is not our topic now.

 

[Ibn_Taymiya]

Eucharisted and Reuben J
We are not talking about the Bible now, but the case is that InJesus was the one who suggested to open that thread to prove that Christians don’t need the Bible since they had already a church before the Bible was written. So she is trying to prove that the tradition is a stand alone source for the church with no need to the Bible.