Islam's Plagiarized Christian Origins

[sedonaman]

**
sedonaman, we do not deny that the Quran was written by men.
**

Then why do you say the Bible is not the word of God because it was written by men? If the Qur’an was written by men, then it is corrupt also.

**But remember who dictated it.
**

Mohammed, a man, and a charlatan at that.

**
Thos emen did not write out of their own mind or memory. Those men wrote whatever was dictated to them.
**

By a man, and a charlatan at that. Although it would be hard for any of them to forget that you can get more with a smile, a kind word, and a sword than you can with just a smile and kind word.

**
The Prophet of God received the words (revelation) and got it written down.
**

He might have been a prophet of Allah; he certainly wasn’t any prophet of God.

**
… had Jesus done something similar, nobody would have raised any objection to the bible…
**

On the contrary, Jesus would have had the same problem of self-proclamation.

**
Did you want that Muhammad should have taken to grave himself whatever he received from Allah??
**

The world would be have been much better off without all his war, conquest, and death.

 

[Lisa44]

Here we have a post by Christos, a Muslim:

So who wrote down the Qur’an ? Men! Who said it was “written correctly” ? A man! And he did it for his own self-aggrandizement. Why did the apostles write down the Gospels? It would have been much easier for them to forget the whole Jesus thing and not be martyrs.

The only way you can reconcile what you say is if you already believe Mohammed is Allah’s perfect messenger, which Christians reject most vehemently, along with the Qur’an as some sort of holy scripture. So you can abandon the arguments that he is and that the Qur’an is the word of God. It might be the word of Allah, but it is not the word of God. Period.

 

[DeusVult09]

They are actually fragments and not a full Quran. I repeat not an actual full copy of the Quran, but fragments. They may not have been single page manuscripts, but are those the ones that are different? Do you have the proof for that? You have no proof that it wasnt. We are at a stalement then. Still you have ignored my comments on the Bible, still consisted in the posts 185-191. Only a small portion of 185 was relating to the Sana Manuscripts. Your original post has already been discussed many times, you are unwilling to agree with us, is that our fault?

No, no Muslims has answered how Christian hymns and a Christian martyrs tale got into the Koran no Muslim has gone near answering that question. Your arguments is absolutely ludicrous. Some of them are tiny fragments some of them are full pages all from the koran.

We are at no stalemate I have proven your Koran is corrupted and you have been able to do nothing but say ohh it was Just some scribes writing out Koran verses. That is pure garbage it is the earliest copy of Uthman’s koran

Why did this Koran have all of its original text washed off and the original text reordered that is what is at stake?

If it was just some scribes mucking around , the original would not posses an altered form. You cannot get around that in anyway and have no proof to back up your assertion that it wasjsut caused by scribes copying the Koran out. This is not what the manuscripts indicate but that the text of the current koran had been tampered with since the original text was so vastly different in form.

They were a single manuscript because the original text possesed the current form of the koran (though it was written without vowel markins) so obviously they follow an order like asingle manuscript.

where is your proof they werent a single manuscript? whereis your proof it was jsut soem scribes messing around? why was the original text so different ? Furthermore where is your proof that Dr Puin is Prejudiced when eh said that the koran is a “cocktail of texts”

You have answered nothing. If one word has changed then the Koran falls down and more than that has been changed. You cant get around it no matter how you try and your argument that its not really a Koran is absurd. you dot know what you are talking about again.

 

[DeusVult09]

Just because it does not suit your liking it was ruled that it was not written by Peter. Further, I am talking about the Apocalypse of Peter and NOT that of the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter. I clearly stated that in my post. Are you really reading them, or just skimming through?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse_of_Peter

I’m finding this hilarious now, your telling me that im thinking of another, when i clearly told you that i am not.

My god!you are so ignorant what you quoted is from the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter not from the Apocalypse of Peter a different text. You really don’t kno what you are
talking about. That why I posted a link when you can examine the text of the Gnostic apocalypse of peter and see it is the same as quotes you gave. I have proven that you got these texts confused and that you don’t know what your talking about. It wasn’t written by peter because at the earliest it was written in the middle of the 2nd century. Please research this tuff before you make claims. And if this came from allah then you have to accept every single Gnostic doctrine in existence as being from allah to.

As I said all this proves is that Islam is a Plagiarised Christian Heresy. Something I already knew. Islam was heavily influenced by Gnosticism and Nestorianism.

I find it hilarious that you don’t even know what text you are talking about because you were so badly misinformed by your Islamic sites

 

[DeusVult09]

Yes i believe many verses in the Apocrypha were heretical, that because it too had many verses added into. But they were changed too far to ever be reversed, where as the others were just a few here and there. That is why even in the 20th century interpolations were being removed from the Bible. Which for centuries before, those same verses were thought to be that from God. So, even now you cannot say that it is fool-proof, when there is still a chance of having interpolations. There were many versions of the Apocrypha, some much more heretical than the other. One found in 1886-1887, and another version found in 1910 was the Apocalypse of Peter, which is different from the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter, which was obviously much more heretical. Further, this Apocalypse is dated to the end of the second century AD. This was not removed from the Canon in First Council of Nicea because it was not widespread at that time, so therfore how can you say it is part of the Bible many many years later.

Again you make the same mistake. The Aapocrypha and the NT Apocrypha are completely different groups of texts. Please learn the difference. The Apocrypha isnot heretical whilst many texts in the NT Apocrypha are.

It does not matter what you think only what you can prove . Hahah changed too far?
Typical unsubstantiated Muslim argument. They were unreliable to begin with again I have shown you really don’t know what you are talking about. Please read about the NT apocrypha .

Again you are confusing the Gnostic Apocalypse Peter which you quoted from with the other Apocolypse of Peter which you didn’t. The Ngostic Apocoplypse of Peter which you quoted from was never in the Canon can you please understand that?

Your text was found at Nag Hamadi with all the other Gnostic texts and if you think Allah revealed this text then you have to accept All other Gnostic doctrines as coming from Allah. I enclosed a site containing the Gnostic Apocolypse of peter so you can see it’s the text you mentioned. Hopefully now you will stop this misinformation. Its pathetic really. Islam is a plagiarized Christian heresy as I have proven time and time again on this post and all you did by Posting the Gnostic Apocolypse of Peter is further reveal that helping my arguemnt. Thanks for that

jacksonsnyder.com/sss/pages/A…%20Gnostic.htm

 

[DeusVult09]

**Deus, your penultimate post was too long. So I cannot quote it. You have rightly said that bible was written in some Greek language. that is bad enough. Jews had nothing to do with Greek. Why your bible was in Greek?

Further, you are right that your book was in Greek. So that was not from Jesus. That was from some one who took your religion to Greece and modified everything.

Your word Christ is also Greek word. What Greeks had to do with Judaism or Jesus. They were pagans believing in sons and daughters of God and goddess of Beauty etc. Every one knows that Greeks were pagans. The Monotheistic faith of Jesus had nothing to do with Greece.

That is where your religion was developed and spoiled. It is also well known that it was done by Saul of Tarsus who took off to Greece and developed the new religion which you are following now. Still you do not have any real bible, nothing original. Most of the bible is from Paul and not from Jesus who was the real base of the faith, founder of the faith. Paul had been an anti-christ.**

Wrong! Jews had a lot to do with Greek ever since Alexander the Great captured Jerusalem and there was an infusion of Greek language and culture.

Israel was ruled by the Roman Empire at the time of Jesus which used Greek as its main trading language not Latin. Greek was a very important language at the time a Lingua Franca becauseit was so widely spoken. Greek was an important common language for the spread ideas in like English today.This is why the NT documents were written in Greek.

The word Christ comes from Χριστος (christos) meaning anointed one from the word
Χρισμα (chrisma) meaning an anointing. This is what messiah means in hebrew an anointed one. All Christ is, is a greek translation of the Hebrew word messiah meaning anointed one.

Paul didn’t invent Christianity show 1 verse from his episltes where he ever admits to doing so! where is your proof? Furthermore not 1 single biblical scholar thinks he wrote the gospels. Your original Koran doesn’t exist either so please stop the hypocrisy. Mohammad was the anti-christ not paul. You are the one with nothing.

 

[DeusVult09]

Christos since you are so confused over these different texts you can read the Apocalypse of Peter here.
wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/apoc/apcpete.htm

And the Gnostic Apocolypse of Peter from Nag Hamadi here
wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/noncanon/apoc/fgapcpt.htm

(you’ll see it says from the Nag Hamadi Library at the bottom)

You can see for yourself which one was the one you quoted, it wasn’t the Apocalypse of Peter but the Gnostic Apocolypse of Peter. Please learn the difference.

 

[Hadi]

Deus, how are they different (the original text and the new one),please explain in detail

 

[DeusVult09]

Im not that well read on the Dead Sea scrolls but this is from an article I read on the subject

" Most of the biblical manuscripts found at Qumran belong to the MT tradition or family. This is especially true of the Pentateuch and some of the Prophets. The well-preserved Isaiah scroll from Cave 1 illustrates the tender care with which these sacred texts were copied. Since about 1700 years separated Isaiah in the MT from its original source, textual critics assumed that centuries of copying and recopying this book must have introduced scribal errors into the document that obscured the original message of the author.

The Isaiah scrolls found at Qumran closed that gap to within 500 years of the original manuscript. Interestingly, when scholars compared the MT of Isaiah to the Isaiah scroll of Qumran, the correspondence was astounding. The texts from Qumran proved to be word-for-word identical to our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5 percent of variation consisted primarily of obvious slips of the pen and spelling alterations (Archer, 1974, p. 25). Further, there were no major doctrinal differences between the accepted and Qumran texts (see Table 1 below). This forcibly demonstrated the accuracy with which scribes copied sacred texts, and bolstered our confidence in the Bible’s textual integrity (see Yamauchi, 1972, p. 130). The Dead Sea Scrolls have increased our confidence that faithful scribal transcription substantially has preserved the original content of Isaiah. "

TABLE 1. QUMRAN VS. THE MASORETES

---

Of the 166 Hebrew words in Isaiah 53, only
seventeen letters in Dead Sea Scroll 1QIsb
differ from the Masoretic Text (Geisler and
Nix, 1986, p. 382).

10 letters = spelling differences

4 letters = stylistic changes

3 letters = added word for “light” (vs. 11)

---

17 letters = no affect on biblical teaching

apologeticspress.org/articles/266

my point was that we don’t make the claims that Islam does. We don’t think our book materialized out of thin air like Muslims think about the Koran did but that it is divinely inspired. If there are some minor variants caused by scribal errors it is not the end of the world for us We think god was behind the overall message of the bible.

but for the Islamic claim that Allah came down and dictated every single word as it is to Mohammad as it currently is, is proven false if so much as 1 word as changed.
That’s the difference. I don’t feel you answered the Sana manuscripts you tried to advance a weak argument with no proof and supposition which answered nothing. Not to mention the aspersions you cast on DrPuin for no reason other than you didn’t like his findings. You did not explain n the huge alterations from the original text other than trying to claim it was never a Koran. I wont waste my time on such absurdities if that is all you have to offer bye.

 

[ZAKI]

And which gender is converting to islam the fastest? WOMEN!

wasalam

 

[DeusVult09]

Deus, how are they different (the original text and the new one),please explain in detail

No they are two different texts both with the name the Apocalypse of Peter. Scholars just named the One from the Gnostic Nag Hamadi Library “The Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter” so people would be able to differentiate between them because if you don’t know then you can confuse them easily because they are completely different texts. So therefore if You if you are referring to the Gnostic one from Nag Hamadi you have to call it the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter as that is its proper name now otherwise you are referring to the other one which has nothing to do with Jesus not really being crucified. This is what christos was doing without knowing it.

 

[Hadi]

No they are two different texts both with the name the Apocalypse of Peter. Scholars just named the One from the Gnostic Nag Hamadi Library “The Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter” so people would be able to differentiate between them because if you don’t know then you can confuse them easily because they are completely different texts. So therefore if You if you are referring to the Gnostic one from Nag Hamadi you have to call it the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter as that is its proper name now otherwise you are referring to the other one which has nothing to do with Jesus not really being crucified. This is what christos was doing without knowing it.

oh sorry for the misunderstanding,I meant San’a MS

 

[DeusVult09]

oh sorry for the misunderstanding,I meant San’a MS

Ohh. Well the Sana manuscripts, the earliest copy of the Koran had it original text removed and when it was examined forensically by Dr Puin he discovered that the original text had been altered, reordered and edited from the current form of the Koran. This is what I was talking to christos about who think it never was a koran and was just a bunch of paper Muslims used to record quran verses. But this doesn’t explain why if this is the case the original text was washed off and why it was so jumbled. Neither does it explain why a later Koran was written over it. and if it not a quran neither does it explain why there were delicately illustrated pictures of Mosques at the front of it. In short Christos’ argument is laughable and no serious scholar would even contemplate it for a second.

 

[Hadi]

Ohh. Well the Sana manuscripts, the earliest copy of the Koran had it original text removed and when it was examined forensically by Dr Puin he discovered that the original text had been altered, reordered and edited from the current form of the Koran. This is what I was talking to christos about who think it never was a koran and was just a bunch of paper Muslims used to record quran verses. But this doesn’t explain why if this is the case the original text was washed off and why it was so jumbled. Neither does it explain why a later Koran was written over it. and if it not a quran neither does it explain why there were delicately illustrated pictures of Mosques at the front of it. In short Christos’ argument is laughable and no serious scholar would even contemplate it for a second.

how is it altered , can you give us examples , (examples of different wording or added passages)

 

[planten]

Wrong! Jews had a lot to do with Greek ever since Alexander the Great captured Jerusalem and there was an infusion of Greek language and culture.

Israel was ruled by the Roman Empire at the time of Jesus which used Greek as its main trading language not Latin. Greek was a very important language at the time a Lingua Franca becauseit was so widely spoken. Greek was an important common language for the spread ideas in like English today.This is why the NT documents were written in Greek.

The word Christ comes from Χριστος (christos) meaning anointed one from the word
Χρισμα (chrisma) meaning an anointing. This is what messiah means in hebrew an anointed one. All Christ is, is a greek translation of the Hebrew word messiah meaning anointed one.

Paul didn’t invent Christianity show 1 verse from his episltes where he ever admits to doing so! where is your proof? Furthermore not 1 single biblical scholar thinks he wrote the gospels. Your original Koran doesn’t exist either so please stop the hypocrisy. Mohammad was the anti-christ not paul. You are the one with nothing.

**Deus, you are trying very hard to avoid the issue of original language in use at the time of Jesus by jesus and his friends. You are wrong in bringing Greek into it. Please tell me why did Jesus cry out on the cross in the words:

“Eli, Eli, lama sabaqatani?**” O My Lord, O my Lord, why have you forsaken me?

Was that greek?? You do not know what you are talking about. The case of Greekising the christianity is very clear. There is a hell of a difference in the teachings of Jesus and the words of Paul.

 

[dzheremi]

This really is a non-issue, Planten. The near east was then, as it is now, a very multi-lingual place, and learned men of the area would have known Greek, in addition to a local/maternal language (Aramaic) and possibly an ecclesiastical language (Hebrew). This is not different than the situation in that same part of the world today where, for instance, an educated person in Lebanon may speak Arabic, Assyrian (either classical Syriac in an ecclesiastical setting or perhaps one of the modern “Neo-Aramaic” dialects as a maternal or communal language), French, English, Armenian, or any number of other languages in various capacities and to different degrees.

Whether Christ himself spoke it is of little consequence. Remember, the words that you are quoting came from Christ during his crucifixion on the cross (an event you don’t think ever happened, so I am not sure why you think it can help your argument now), not from a Greek scribe.

 

[planten]

This really is a non-issue, Planten. The near east was then, as it is now, a very multi-lingual place, and learned men of the area would have known Greek, in addition to a local/maternal language (Aramaic) and possibly an ecclesiastical language (Hebrew). This is not different than the situation in that same part of the world today where, for instance, an educated person in Lebanon may speak Arabic, Assyrian (either classical Syriac in an ecclesiastical setting or perhaps one of the modern “Neo-Aramaic” dialects as a maternal or communal language), French, English, Armenian, or any number of other languages in various capacities and to different degrees.

Whether Christ himself spoke it is of little consequence. Remember, the words that you are quoting came from Christ during his crucifixion on the cross (an event you don’t think ever happened, so I am not sure why you think it can help your argument now), not from a Greek scribe.

**dzhereme, I fully believe in the trial of Jesus and his effort to face the difficult situation perfectly. It was Jesus himself on the cross.

I recently learnt from a post of elwill that it was some christian (saint) who tried to mislead the Msulims into a deceptive teaching that It was not Jesus but some one else on the cross. So we can forget about that false belief. Because you would also not support that idea. We Muslimsalso do not support that some one else was substituted for Jesus. That is an entirely false idea and impossible.

So now please let us come to the words of Jesus while on the cross. He said 'Eli, Eli, lama sabaqatani?"**

O my God, O my God, why have you forsaken me?
These are the words of Jesus on the cross and they are not the words in Greek. So wherefrom did Greek creep into the church teachings? No hard feelings. I believe that the Jews was a big nation. They had a language of their own. Their own language was not dead. Jesus used to address the crowd in their own jewish language in use at that time. Thanks for dialogue.

 

[dzheremi]

**dzhereme, I fully believe in the trial of Jesus and his effort to face the difficult situation perfectly. It was Jesus himself on the cross.

I recently learnt from a post of elwill that it was some christian (saint) who tried to mislead the Msulims into a deceptive teaching that It was not Jesus but some one else on the cross. So we can forget about that false belief. Because you would also not support that idea. We Muslimsalso do not support that some one else was substituted for Jesus. That is an entirely false idea and impossible.**

That’s fine, but that does not mean that you then believe in the crucifixion, and it is up to you to live comfortably with and explain verses like Qur’an 4:157-158, which, while not necessarily supporting the “substition” theory, do explicitly deny Jesus’ crucfixion and death (see bolded portion, emphasis mine):

“And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah’s messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain. But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise.”

So now please let us come to the words of Jesus while on the cross. He said 'Eli, Eli, lama sabaqatani?"

 

[DeusVult09]

**Deus, you are trying very hard to avoid the issue of original language in use at the time of Jesus by jesus and his friends. You are wrong in bringing Greek into it. Please tell me why did Jesus cry out on the cross in the words:

“Eli, Eli, lama sabaqatani?**” O My Lord, O my Lord, why have you forsaken me?

Was that greek?? You do not know what you are talking about. The case of Greekising the christianity is very clear. There is a hell of a difference in the teachings of Jesus and the words of Paul.

You are idiotic. You said that Greek had nothing to do with Israel during the time of Jesus which is absolutely false. As I have already said Greek had been introduced some 300 years before Jesus to the region and it was the main trading language of the roman empire of whom Israel was a dominion…

I tried to avoid nothing. Jesus spoke Aramaic and Hebrew so what? Just because its not written in Hebrew its automatically an invention of Paul?

If that the case then you have admit that the Koran is an invention of Mohammad when it talks about what the Jewish prophets said in Arabic. The Jewish prophets never spoke Qurashi Arabic. Please stop the hypocrisy Planteen.

There is no difference between the teachings of Jesus and the teachings of Paul but there is a huge difference between those of Paul and Jesus and those Of Mohammad.

Again you make weak statements without proof planteen. Bring some proof that Paul invented Christianity. You do know what proof is don’t you?

You also ignore that scholars think the Gospel of Mathew was originally written in Aramaic not Greek. Show me 1 scholar who thinks Paul wrote the gospels. Just one .

Greekising is not even a word! its hellenisation. The more I talk to you the more stupidities you espouse.

Dzheremi is right Greek did not creep in they were all originally written in Greek for reasons i have already explained but that you avoided.

 

[DeusVult09]

This really is a non-issue, Planten. The near east was then, as it is now, a very multi-lingual place, and learned men of the area would have known Greek, in addition to a local/maternal language (Aramaic) and possibly an ecclesiastical language (Hebrew). This is not different than the situation in that same part of the world today where, for instance, an educated person in Lebanon may speak Arabic, Assyrian (either classical Syriac in an ecclesiastical setting or perhaps one of the modern “Neo-Aramaic” dialects as a maternal or communal language), French, English, Armenian, or any number of other languages in various capacities and to different degrees.

Whether Christ himself spoke it is of little consequence. Remember, the words that you are quoting came from Christ during his crucifixion on the cross (an event you don’t think ever happened, so I am not sure why you think it can help your argument now), not from a Greek scribe.

Yes your right, obviously if the inhabitants of Israel wanted to trade at all they would have to learn Greek as I have said time and time again it was the official trade language of the Romans, not Latin. The educated scribes would haveknoen both Greek and Hebrew and of course Aramaic.

Good point about quoting from something which never happened according to Mohamamd lol. The hypocrisy never ends