B
Booklover
Guest
I think that instead of saying that our scriptures are corrupted, Muslims should provide concrete proof that the Qur’an is indeed the word of God! I’ve asked many times and am still waiting for an answer!
- Status
H
hlgomez
Guest
It’s just a matter of analysing whose money it was. The answer is–it was Judas’ money. The chief priests just picked it up BUT didn’t say “This is now ours.” Even if they say; “Judas, wait pick-up your money!” they will still not be able to do so because Judas doesn’t want them anymore. But the money still belonged to Judas.
So the priest, instead of keeping the money to the temple treasury, bought a field. This only proves that the money doesn’t belong to them. Had it belonged to them they would have kept it in the treasury as a sign of their acceptance.
Pio
S
Shenango
Guest
First of all, in response to iamrefreshed:
- My post was not a cut-and-paste. The known contradictions in the Bible are on the Net for all to see, and yes, this was one that was pointed out to me by such pages. However, I confirmed it on my own, by reading and consideration. But this entire post was my own work. Actually, the part about how Judas died was originally a post I made on Why Islam to a Christian, which recieved no answer. I did paste it here…but it was entirely my own work the first time around, and the other stuff in my post was original too.
- Regarding the doctrine of abrogation, you’re abusing it by understanding it as implemented to reconcile contradictions. This is not the case. The doctrine of abrogation is for things that were a progressive revelation, such as the ban on drinking alcohol. As it takes time for people to get used to revolutionary changes, drinking in the Qur’an was outlawed in steps. This is why the latter verses outlawing drinking completely abrogate earlier ones that, for instance, banned it only for purposes of concentrating on prayer.
There is a difference between an ethical teaching progressing in stages and an accounting of a historical event/s long come-and-gone. Take-home point: abrogation doctrine would not cure the contradictions I listed in the Bible.
To hlgomez: Whose money the Field of Blood was ultimately bought with is a red herring, it throws us off course without really answering the question. The true question is not whose money it was, but who bought the Field of Blood. For all intents and purposes, it could have been my money that bought the field of blood. But the question is: was the transaction conducted by Judas or the Chief Priests? Unless Judas is also one of the Chief Priests, we clearly have a problem on our hands, as Matthew explicitly says it was the priests who bought the field, while the Acts explicitly says it was Judas.
You also failed to address my two other points, the two differing Great Flood accounts in Genesis, and the fact that John painfully bangs heads with the Synoptics on the issue of what day Jesus (PBUH) was crucified.
H
hlgomez
Guest
*****1. ***(Category: the texts are compatible with a little thought)
**
**This alleged contradiction is related to the fact that Matthew in his Gospel speaks of Judas hanging himself but in Acts 1:18 Luke speaks about Judas falling headlong and his innards gushing out. However both of these statements are true.
**
**Matthew 27:1-10 mentioned the fact that Judas died by hanging himself in order to be strictly factual. Luke, however in his report in Acts1:18-19 wants to cause the feeling of revulsion among his readers, for the field spoken about and for Judas, and nowhere denies that Judas died by hanging. According to tradition, it would seem that Judas hanged himself on the edge of a cliff, above the Valley of Hinnom. Eventually the rope snapped, was cut or untied and Judas fell upon the field below as described by Luke.
**2. **(Category: misunderstood the author’s intent)
**
**This apparent contradiction asks, ‘What did Judas do with the blood money he received for betraying Jesus?’ In Acts 1:18 it is claimed that Judas bought a field. In Matthew 27:5 it was thrown into the Temple from where the priests used it to buy a field. However, upon closer scrutiny it appears one passage is just a summary of the other.
**
**Matthew 27:1-10 describes in detail the events that happened in regard to Judas betrayal of Jesus, and their significance in terms of the fulfillment of the Scriptures. In particular he quotes from the prophet Zechariah 11:12-13 which many think are clarifications of the prophecies found in Jeremiah 19:1-13 and 32:6-9.
**
**In the Acts 1:18-19 passage however, Luke is making a short resume of something that people already knew, as a point of clarification to the speech of Peter, among the believers (the same situation as we found in question number 57 earlier). This is illustrated by the fact that in verse 19 he says, “Everyone in Jerusalem heard about this”. Also it is more than probable that the Gospel record was already being circulated amongst the believers at the time of Luke’s writing. Luke, therefore, was not required to go into detail about the facts of Judas’ death.
***3. ***(Category: misunderstood the wording)
**
*Both passages agree that it was due to it being bought by blood-money. Acts 1:18-19 starts by saying, “With the reward he got for his wickedness, Judas bought a field”. So it begins with the assumption that the field was bought by the blood-money, and then the author intending to cause revulsion for what had happened describes Judas bloody end on that piece of real estate. *
(from 101 cleared up contradictions in the Bible)
Pio
E
exoflare
Guest
Thanks, hlgomez, I was about to reply to this myself before I saw yours. I guess the idea that different literary conventions ever existed on this earth is unthinkable to this guy. Heaven forbid it ever kept him from finding more of his precious Bible contradictions. 
S
Shenango
Guest
Hlgomez,
Thanks for conceding the point I was trying to make!
Thanks for conceding the point I was trying to make!
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Greetings,
I can’t speak for other Muslims, but I just don’t frequent this forum as often as I did in the last few weeks, so it’s not the fact that I’ve been shy…
By Bible corruption, Muslims mean to say that the Bible was compiled from a series of oral traditions, that, with time became embellished and corrupted before they were finally laid to paper in what we currently know as the Bible’s manuscripts.
For us, what counts is the text in its canonical form or forms: not the history of its formation before it was canonised, nor that of the traditions which were the seed of the text - important as it is to know of these things. Form-criticism is important and valid, as is tradition-history - but neither of these is the canonical text. Proto-Luke and Ur-Marcus and Q may or may not have existed: even if they did, they are not what we mean by the gospels, but documents with a bearing on their formation - not the gospels themselves.
The J source and the P source are telling of a great flood from different POVs - both tell us something about the significance of the story as it was known in Israel. I recommend Claus Westermann’s commentary on Genesis, volume 1 - it is just what a commentary on this book should be
The presence of doublets in this part of Scripture is both notable and probably significant ##Both - Joachim Jeremias deals with this point in his book “The Eucharistic Words of Jesus”. And he was not even engaging in apologetic - which makes his comments all the more valuable, IMO
How is having more than one version of an event a corruption ?
All this shows is that there were two traditions or interpretations of the death of Judas - it doesn’t show that one was wrong and the other right, or that there was any corruption of the text.I have an idea or two about this, if I can find the post I was working on
##
B
Booklover
Guest
Gottle of Geer said:## For us, what counts is the text in its canonical form or forms: not the history of its formation before it was canonised, nor that of the traditions which were the seed of the text - important as it is to know of these things. Form-criticism is important and valid, as is tradition-history - but neither of these is the canonical text. Proto-Luke and Ur-Marcus and Q may or may not have existed: even if they did, they are not what we mean by the gospels, but documents with a bearing on their formation - not the gospels themselves. ##
The J source and the P source are telling of a great flood from different POVs - both tell us something about the significance of the story as it was known in Israel. I recommend Claus Westermann’s commentary on Genesis, volume 1 - it is just what a commentary on this book should be
The presence of doublets in this part of Scripture is both notable and probably significant
Both - Joachim Jeremias deals with this point in his book “The Eucharistic Words of Jesus”. And he was not even engaging in apologetic - which makes his comments all the more valuable, IMO
How is having more than one version of an event a corruption ?
All this shows is that there were two traditions or interpretations of the death of Judas - it doesn’t show that one was wrong and the other right, or that there was any corruption of the text.
I have an idea or two about this, if I can find the post I was working on
Great post, Michael! Couldn’t have said it better myself!They pick on all these little things to prove their point, because they can’t prove it otherwise!:clapping:
U
un_dhimmi
Guest
The only way muslims can prove this claim is to say the Quran says it is so.
This is the classic circular reasoning argument.
Of course, the Quran would have to disagree with the Bible on several issues, or else, it would be, THE BIBLE.
This is the classic circular reasoning argument.
Of course, the Quran would have to disagree with the Bible on several issues, or else, it would be, THE BIBLE.
S
Shenango
Guest
Gottle of Geer said:
You’re missing the point, my friend. No, the oral traditions are not important because they are not the canonical text itself, but the corrupt oral traditions were used to write the canonical text, and hence the corruption in those traditions is now what Christians call Scripture.
Is it really just a matter of points of view? So the fact that Noah took animals onto the Ark by sevens in one version of the story, and by twos in another is just different “points of view”, and the Scripture that contains both is inspired by God?
If you believe that, then you’ve got quite a liberal take on the Scriptures. I doubt most Catholics would agree with you.
Yes, there were two traditions, but since they can’t be reconciled–honestly, and without jumping over all kinds of bounds of reason–that is, that throws into grave doubt the claim that the Scriptures were inspired by God. How could God inspire two different and irreconcilable tellings of the same story?
Strictly speaking, neither Luke’s or Matthew’s account has to be wrong, and the other right. In fact, both could be wrong. I mentioned this in my post. But since both cannot be right, it’s a question of reliability. What is the true story, in other words? And if both are taken to be reliable because they’re “inspired”, what else in the New Testament is an “inspired” story that’s also not correct. Maybe even the Crucifixion and Resurrection story itself?
John would have us believe that Jesus (PBUH) was crucified on the “day of preparation of the Passover”, while the Synoptics say it was the day of Passover itself. And Matthew would have us believe there are “three days and three nights” between Good Friday night and Easter Sunday morning.
Sorry, I don’t know about Catholics, but I’m not willing to stake my eternal salvation on taking a story as fact told by people who obviously had no clue what actually happened, and were just making it up however they liked.
J
jjwilkman
Guest
why all the endless arguments? i don’t care to participate. i have a closed mind. i am catholic until i die! so nobody is going to convert me. nobody has any right to try! when you try to change someone, you violate their dignity and personal space. ie (what do i have to do to MAKE you stop drinking?) by the same token, i suspect the muslims that are on this forum are also not about to convert to catholic.
i don’t understand. what is the point of these endless (to be polite) discussions/arguments?
i don’t understand. what is the point of these endless (to be polite) discussions/arguments?
S
steve99
Guest
I have a book written jointly by a Muslim who converted to Catholicism and a man who has previously written books on Islam (so presumably has studied the subject). They say that “According to Islamic belief the ‘original’ and ‘uncorrupted’ Torah and Gospel fortold the coming of Muhammad as the final prophet. Muslims do not believe that any copy of this ‘true Bible’ exists today”
They continue:
“Muslims believe that ancient Jewish and Christian scholars long ago conspired to collect every copy of their Sacred Scripture. They believe that scholars then altered the ancient scriptures deleting the name of Muhammad and the prophecies indicating that Allah would send the final prophet”
B
Booklover
Guest
You’re accusing us of making things up as we go along?
That’s a laugh!
B
Booklover
Guest
All I can say is that Mohammed sure worked hard to discredit Christianity! He made sure he covered all the bases! What a consummate fraud and liar he was! :bigyikes:
H
hlgomez
Guest
Shenango,Thanks for conceding the point I was trying to make!
What conceding are you talking about? I’m clarifying my point, not conceding.
There’s a big difference between inconsistency and contradiction. I was explaining the reason for the inconsistency–not contradiction. For both particular accounts in question points to the same outcome.
Pio
H
hlgomez
Guest
Shenango,
Here we go with your old reasoning trying to make logic which makes no logic at all.
The Christian oral tradition that you are talking about is the same as saying as “oral testimony.” What makes it different from the written testimony? The only difference is the way it is being conveyed. Oral testimony is received thru the sense of hearing, while written testimony is received thru the sense of eyes by reading.
If one doesn’t know to read texts, he can still understand thru hearing what is being testified for. In any case, oral testimony is both beneficial to those who can read and who cannot read, while written testimony is not beneficial to those who can’t read. SEE the BIG difference?
Your lousy logic doesn’t fit here and it is an indefensible argument at best.
Pio
H
hlgomez
Guest
Shenango,
The reason why your mathematics is in trouble is because you are reading ancient texts which has a different way of counting days and nights. If you are to equate it with our modern day of counting by basing it with a 24 hour=1 day, then you throw your mind into more confusion.
So my advice for you is this: Read the Scriptures in the light of what the customs, observances and practices of those periods, especially at how Jewish people reckons the counting of a day as 1 day, and night as 1 night, and apply it on that particular passage of John and elsewhere of the Gospels. The Scriptures were not written, and surely the events didn’t happen in our times, and so with the people, they were not modern people.
So if you keep equating ancient people and modern people as having the same level of understanding things, then you should take up subjects on how to read and understand ancient texts not in the light of the modern ways. That’s the best advice I could offer before you make feiry arguments of things of ancient origin by applying modern day perspectives.
God bless,
Pio
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
Who says they are corrupt ? Divergence is not corruption: it can perfectly well be a literary technique. If you want corruption, the text of 1 Samuel 13. 1 is corrupt - it yields no clear sense.
Some change is corruption; some is re-interpretation; there are different POVs about various matters in the Bible (the activities of Jehu, for instance). There are obscurities arising from ambiguities in Greek or Hebrew grammar and syntax; but while corruption in a pre-textual tradition can be suggested, showing it is a fact, is harder.Where are these corruptions in the tradition ? They may be complementary but not identical POVs; or developments in ideas or structures. ISTM that much of the talk about corruption, even in the Tradition, arises from looking at the NT as though it were a Muslim book. That may be excellent sense for a Muslim POV - but it needs to be shown, not taken as self-evident, if only because we are not Muslims. We arer not measuring the NT or its tradition by the Koran - you, I take it, are. If so, this needs to be made fully explicit.
But as for the tradition-history of Genesis, to say it is that “corrupt” is as easily denied as asserted, since the assertion of corruption, however convenient it may be, can’t be proved: for editing a tradition for one’s purposes is not, of itself, corruption; and neither is editing a text. So - the burden of proof is on you
##Yes - two traditions, both kept by the editor of Genesis. Why not ? There is more than one pair of doublets in the early part of Genesis, and the ancients knew what they were doing when they composed texts. Why must there be a single, linear story ? Why can’t there be two texts, each with something to say about God? That is what these do - they give us two POVs, within the one book.
If you believe that, then you’ve got quite a liberal take on the Scriptures. I doubt most Catholics would agree with you.I’ll explain later - suffice it to say that I am doing nothing the Church does not encourage
I’ll get back to you on the rest later ##
U
UnworthySoul
Guest
Especially from a religion based upon the things Mohammed liked about the Judeo-Christian beliefs but left out what he didn’t like. Belloc was dead on about Islam being the 4th Great Heresy.You’re accusing us of making things up as we go along?
That’s a laugh!
H
hlgomez
Guest
Muhammad is called the arch-heretic worst than Arius.
Pio
- Status