Sacred Scriptures Corrupted? Give the Details

[UnworthySoul]

“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.”

If you are a follower of Islam you are doing EXACTLY that. You have taken the gloves off with that remark, bub. You are following the word of an illiterate, cruel, vagabond who married a child. You are staking your eternal salvation on taking a sotry as fact told by a guy who heard something about Judaism, heard some other stuff about Catholicism, mixed the two together, gave it his own spin and created a bastardized religion to replace the pagan religion that gave him no avenue to power. Ah, but as a “prophet” of God! Well, he could have some serious power there! Pretty smart to figure out that with his new found religion (the 4th Great Heresy) he could apply the sword evenly with it, and then conquer. His own friends admit to his ability to seemingly put aside what he taught if it was an impediment to him in certain situations. Real moral fiber there. Pffft.

You say these people “obviously had no clue what actually happened” but you have nothing to support that. You claim your Quran says so, but I submit to you that your Quran was slapped together by a guy who married a pre-pubescent child when he was fifty and was in fact quite mad. In fact, history is more supportive of Christianity’s claims then you are willing to accept. The earliest recovered manuscripts and pieces of manuscripts, when translated, reveal an almost startling degree of accuracy to our present texts.

Now call me mean spirited or intolertant, report me to the moderators if you will, but I will not sit idle while you come here, to a CATHOLIC website and bash the founders of my faith as you did above. A faith by the way, that has more historical proof on one page of the Bible than you have in all of your Quran.

 

[Shenango]

jjwilkman:

why all the endless arguments? i don’t care to participate…i don’t understand. what is the point of these endless (to be polite) discussions/arguments?

That’s an excellent point, and that’s why I’m bowing out of this thread (and eventually this site). Nobody here has really answered my arguments; it’s just degraded into a bunch of personal insults against me (it’s a lot easier to do that, than to answer my charges, isn’t it?). I was asked why I say the Bible is corrupted. I gave my answer. People don’t have to agree with it, much less like it. I mean you are all believers in the Bible for God’s sake…so I’d be crazy to believe that I could justify myself to you guys. I realize that’s just not happening. As you said, we’re not going to convince each other in any case. But then again, that’s not what I set out to do.

I was asked my opinion, and I gave it. Case closed. It’s time to move on. What this thread has degenerated to is the fault of Catholics asking me to prove my case by trying to convince them of something they themselves knew ahead of time they could never be convinced of. They should have just swallowed my answer and left it at that.

 

[hlgomez]

I was asked my opinion, and I gave it. Case closed. It’s time to move on. What this thread has degenerated to is the fault of Catholics asking me to prove my case by trying to convince them of something they themselves knew ahead of time they could never be convinced of. They should have just swallowed my answer and left it at that.

Shenango,

That’s the nature of a debate/argument. You also have to prove your point. If you can’t prove your point by answering the counter-argument, then how can you bolster your accusations?

Most of the time, muslims don’t have the time to answer when they are faced with questions they couldn’t answer. Is it hard for you to say; “I don’t know” or “I don’t have the answer”? It’s simple as that.

Pio

 

[adventistnomore]

Hmmm, I decided to surf the net on Muslim apologetics websites… I do that from time to time.

Yawn

All of them love to bring up passages of the Bible that may have been later additions as proof of the Bible’s corruption. Funny though… we know all the texts that are in question, and all the issues behind them. And they dont change one iota of the faith.

Instead, the Muslim apologists go on to exploit every last one of these documented examples to make the untenable/unprovable claim that the Bible as been further corrupted. They offer no additional evidence that would be admissibe in the scholarly world. (No textual criticism of the texts they reject, no manuscript comparisons, just a general claim)

Yawn

 

[LtTony]

Shenango: I ask that you reconsider leaving the site. I always enjoy reading your posts here and whyislam.org; you are one of the few Muslims I can connect with. Yeah, I think you got roughed up by a couple of replies. Ignore them.

But in all fairness, you did ask a lot of questions: “how about the following example? Or did he trip and fall accidentally to his death? the chief priests, or Judas? Judas’ entrails were spilled onto it? the Bible might be untrue? from his sources? which account is true? What if neither is? who is right…John, or the Synoptics?”
**
So you should expect replies.
And hlgomez did state “we will try to answer them one at a time.”

A suggestion: after the first reply, don’t reply back, or just say “OK, but I’m not willing to concede that.” Takes two to have an argument.
I have found that after one or two exchanges, most negotiators/posters start to get on each others nerves. I have observed this in several different situations in life. Exception is when two very accepting people hook up; a dialogue ensues that finds areas of agreement.

Jim

 

[ahmadjoyia]

hlgomez:

Muslims claim that Sacred Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments are corrupted. In order for us to clear up these allegations of our muslims brothers and sisters, i want them to post those particular allegations on this thread and we will try to answer them one at a time.

Pio

My dear brother, first of all I must appreciate the candidness of the question you have asked. Since I am new on this forum, kindly do excuse me if any thing you find inappropriate. Secondly, since my native language is not English, therefore, I would require some passionate consideration from you on that account too.
Now coming to the discussion, after going through this thread, I realized that people are all the same wheather they are on one part of the world or the other. Hence, I would not be surprised if I get “roughed up” by the same class of people on this forum. Nevertheless, since the world is much balanced, I would certainly expect equally opposite kind of people on this forum who would argue logically than emotionally. Having said that, coming to the topic of this thread, I would begin with rather questioning the question itself. With that, I mean to say, it is not logically correct to ask where or what the corruption in the Bible exists. Simply because, to ask such question, one must have the Bible in its original language which can be compared with the translated one that we commonly encounter nowadays. So it will be little naive to argue upon the translations where the original itself is lost for ever.
For some, they can bring the Hebrew bible as original, but to that account, I shall rather divide the Bible into its proper category i.e. NT and OT. Even though for OT this statement is quite debateable, but for NT it is clearly not related. Isn’t it? So, for the time being, lets concentrate on the original NT Bible and its whereabouts? Hope to hear some good discussion. Till then, may God, to whom Jesus also used to pray, give all of us peace and guidance. Amen.

 

[adventistnomore]

ahmadjoyia:

My dear brother, first of all I must appreciate the candidness of the question you have asked. Since I am new on this forum, kindly do excuse me if any thing you find inappropriate. Secondly, since my native language is not English, therefore, I would require some passionate consideration from you on that account too.
Now coming to the discussion, after going through this thread, I realized that people are all the same wheather they are on one part of the world or the other. Hence, I would not be surprised if I get “roughed up” by the same class of people on this forum. Nevertheless, since the world is much balanced, I would certainly expect equally opposite kind of people on this forum who would argue logically than emotionally. Having said that, coming to the topic of this thread, I would begin with rather questioning the question itself. With that, I mean to say, it is not logically correct to ask where or what the corruption in the Bible exists. Simply because, to ask such question, one must have the Bible in its original language which can be compared with the translated one that we commonly encounter nowadays. So it will be little naive to argue upon the translations where the original itself is lost for ever.
For some, they can bring the Hebrew bible as original, but to that account, I shall rather divide the Bible into its proper category i.e. NT and OT. Even though for OT this statement is quite debateable, but for NT it is clearly not related. Isn’t it? So, for the time being, lets concentrate on the original NT Bible and its whereabouts? Hope to hear some good discussion. Till then, may God, to whom Jesus also used to pray, give all of us peace and guidance. Amen.

Welcome to the forums.

First off, I appreciate you kid tone of voice… my post earlier on this thread was a bit arrogant, so I thank you for being a “corrective.” P.S. for someone who’s native language isn’t English, you sure do a great job.

No one posseses the originals of either the Old and New Testament (or of the Qu’ran for that matter). We do, however, posses many ancient manuscripts of each, written in their original languages, (Hebrew, Greek or Arabic) or in other languages, from which we can trace the development of these texts (possible changes, etc.) through time.

The original question on this thread noted that Muslims claim that the OT& NT were corrupted in later ages. As I understand the claim, for Muslims this corruption is not simply a matter of small textual changes/minor insertions, but of a radical theological corruption that tranformed what were (allegedly) Muslim texts into the (erroneous) Hebrew and Christian Bibles of today. The modern Bible endorses doctrines in both faiths which Muslims believe are corruptions of the original deposit of faith in both groups: corruptions the Qu’ran (allegedly) corrects.

The original poster on this thread challenged Muslims to name specific passages or texts which may have undergone such radical corruption. As this claim is made by Muslims, it is proper that they be prepared to substantiate their position by referencing key passages and texts that have been altered, and demonstrating that development through the succession of ancient texts & manuscripts available to us today.

Though a few Muslim posters did cite a few minor passages they felt were inconsistent or contradictory (almost all of which were matters of historical detail), and at least one questioned the authorship of Genesis, they have not yet demonstrated an example of theological* corruption in the New Testament, nor have they referenced any of the more than 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the NT (the earliest dating to about the year 120 CE) in their discussions (implying a lack of knowledge within the field of NT Textual Criticism).

… As Christians we find the claims of Muslims untenable if they cannot provide the solid evidence required to make such a claim. Modern scholarship demads certain standards of evidence to substantiate any hypothesis… Thus, Muslims who claim that the Bible has been radically corrupted are not taken seriously by Christians.

 

[Shenango]

To adventistnomore: what do you mean the examples cited by Muslims of Bible corruption don’t change one iota of doctrine? Would you care to assert that about the forgery of John 7:53-8:11, the famous passage of “the Adultress”?

To LtTony: thank you for your kind comments, and I agree wholeheartedly with what you said. I think things just got a little heated, but at the same time, I do get the feeling like most of this back-and-foth debate goes nowhere. As you suggested, the answer truly may lie in finding common ground.

 

[adventistnomore]

Shenango:

To adventistnomore: what do you mean the examples cited by Muslims of Bible corruption don’t change one iota of doctrine? Would you care to assert that about the forgery of John 7:53-8:11, the famous passage of “the Adultress”?

Hi Shenango

Imagine a Bible without John 7:53-8:11. I pose a question: How has Christian theology/soteriology been altered by the addition of that story? Or, put in a different light, how has Christian theology been corrupted* by the addition of that one story? How does that story subtract from, or add to, the essential (and unIslamic) teachings of the New Testament: specifically, justfication by faith in the atoning sacrifice of Christ, or the sacramental life?

… It dosen’t.

I’m not a regular on the Islam forum, nor do I intend to be. But I will submit: we KNOW which isolated passages/texts may have been later additions to the Bible. That is why you can point them out, and that is why modern translations fo the Bible note the later date of those passages in commentary notes, or exclude the verses altogether. (Jn 7:53-8:11 is usually bracketed in modern translations wth a disclaimer, one of only 2 or 3 such passages) Now, what about the rest of the material, which I may add, is the overwhelming majority of the New Testament text? What do Muslims make of all this material that IS considered authentic? What about the very foundational texts of Christian doctrine, without which we would not recognize Christian theology?

The story of the woman caught in adultery? …that passage is the least of Islam’s disagreements with the text of the New Testament.

 

[ahmadjoyia]

…No one posseses the originals of either the Old and New Testament (or of the Qu’ran for that matter). We do, however, posses many ancient manuscripts of each, written in their original languages, (Hebrew, Greek or Arabic) or in other languages, from which we can trace the development of these texts (possible changes, etc.) through time…

Thanks bro for your kind and elaboraed response. However, it must be noted that Quran exists only in its original language and not in its translations. Similarly, I would expect the true teachings of Jesus to exist in his language i.e. Aramic and not in Hebrew, Greek or Latin etc. Isn’t it? In the absence of the manuscript in original language, is there any notary who can attest the tranlations? However, if you claim that original language of NT is Greek, then one has to provide the evidence, that Jesus indeed preached in Greek and not in Aramic. On the contrary, it is of general accepted scholarship among Christian theologist that indeed Jesus’s mother tongue was Aramic and he spoke in that language none other than this.

 

[adventistnomore]

ahmadjoyia:

Thanks bro for your kind and elaboraed response. However, it must be noted that Quran exists only in its original language and not in its translations. Similarly, I would expect the true teachings of Jesus to exist in his language i.e. Aramic and not in Hebrew, Greek or Latin etc. Isn’t it? In the absence of the manuscript in original language, is there any notary who can attest the tranlations? However, if you claim that original language of NT is Greek, then one has to provide the evidence, that Jesus indeed preached in Greek and not in Aramic. On the contrary, it is of general accepted scholarship among Christian theologist that indeed Jesus’s mother tongue was Aramic and he spoke in that language none other than this.

Hello

I understand your line of reasoning, and I appreciate your thoughts. At the same time, I think you’re forgetting two things:

** 1) The majority of the New Testament does not quote Christ. **

Although it is speculated that Christ might have spoken some Greek (Galilee was heavily gentile), all scholars would agree that Chist spoke mostly in Aramaic. No Christian would deny this. But the words of Christ make up only a (sizeable) fraction of the total New testament material:

• Gospels: about 45% of the New Testament. Largely made of the words of Christ, but includes much narrative material that (with the possible exception of Matthew) was no doubt was originaly dictated/written in Greek.

-Acts, Epistles, Revelation: the majority of the New Testament material. Most of these books (Acts, Pauline epistles) were almost definitely written by authors (and their scribes) who were fluent in Greek, and spoke it natively. The rest were writen by the scrbes of authors who, while fluent in Aramaic, dictated their words in rough Greek whichwas later polished.

… So in one sense, a little over half of the New Testment can be traced to writers who spoke Aramaic. Even still, most of this material was dictated in Greek, and simultaneously polished by scribes. The rest was natively written in Greek. Christ’s words were natively spoken in Aramaic, but they do not make up most of the New Testament material. In other words: most scholars, undoubtedy sure that Jesus spoke Aramaic, are also sure that the majority of the materal in the New Testament was dictated and written in Greek.

** 2. Christianity (and Islam to some*** degree) trusts translation. **

While it is certainly true that one may lose some dimension of the meaning through translation (I study languages, I should know), one cannot claim that translations change the essential meaning of the text.

An example from Islam: Muslims believe that any translation of the the Qu’ran is not sacred, and I unequivocably respect that conviction. And yet, translations of the Qu’ran are printed. While they are not considered inspired (beause the perfect purity of the Arabic Qu’ran is comprimised) they are considered essentially* true to the original words of the Qu’ran. Hence, while not used liturgicaly, they are used in personal study or dissminated for those who have no yet mastered Arabic. Therefore, most Muslims would not claim that translation substantialy alters the meaning of a text though they believe that the Qu’ran is perfect only in Arabic.

Christians have never made the claim that Scripture must be in a particular language to be perfect. Christians believe that the teachings of Scripture are divine, though they are incarnated in imperfect human languages. And truly, translation, while comprimising some accents present in the original langauges, does not alter the concepts presented. Pick up a Bible in Afrikaans, and one in Tagalog, and you should have no problem discerning the same (unIslamic) teachings of Christanity in either.

Best wishes!

 

[ahmadjoyia]

Thanks for your reply. The answer I got from your reply suggests, in a nutshell, that though not the original but the translations are sufficient to provide any level of validation in faith. Yes, this may be true for a blind believer in a faith, but once it comes to attestation of a translation, hardly any notary (logically faithful) would be found to do this job. Since the sensitivity of the problem is so high, that even with a small words (such as ‘not’, ‘Is’, “son”, “only”, “begotten” or for that matter simply hyphenation some times works wonder in this), whole meanings of the text can be made to appear 180 degree opposite of actual. Isn’t it? Therefore, in the absence of the original, it is futile to ask for the attestation of a translation. Having said this, I would yet like to address each of your point raised in your reply.

Hello

I understand your line of reasoning, and I appreciate your thoughts. At the same time, I think you’re forgetting two things:

1. The majority of the New Testament does not quote Christ.

Although it is speculated that Christ might have spoken some Greek (Galilee was heavily gentile), all scholars would agree that Chist spoke mostly in Aramaic. No Christian would deny this. But the words of Christ make up only a (sizeable) fraction of the total New testament material:

Thanks again bro for your candid remarks. However, it must be remembered that though, with most respect for the disciples of Jesus Christ, Quran specifically reminds us the teachings of Jesus only, and not of his disciples. Therefore, if the present day Bible contain only “(sizeable) fraction” of the teachings of Jesus, then one must ask as what happened to the gospel according to Jesus and not gospels according to others? In this case as well, we are left with no option but to say that it has also been lost (probably the Q-gospel as the scholars say about for the common source of all 4 gospels). Therefore finding ‘as what went wrong’ in the gospels according to people other than Jesus, is also not a logical step either.

• Gospels: about 45% of the New Testament. Largely made of the words of Christ, but includes much narrative material that (with the possible exception of Matthew) was no doubt was originaly dictated/written in Greek.

So you mean, except Matthew, all other three were written in Greek and hence retain their original language? Can you elaborate your exception for “Matthew” gospel? Nevertheless, it is now clear that at least three out of four gospels are “no doubt” in languages other than what Jesus taught. Given the sensitivity of the issue, as I discussed above, can we say that translational errors (from Aramaic to Greek) can be the source of the problem that we are looking at; especially once the originals are lost forever?

-Acts, Epistles, Revelation: the majority of the New Testament material. Most of these books (Acts, Pauline epistles) were almost definitely written by authors (and their scribes) who were fluent in Greek, and spoke it natively.

Now, here, I would like to remind my brother, that, though these are the only source of material with authenticity of some original language, but fact remain that this is the work of those authors who never ever met Jesus in his whole life. I really don’t understand how such material gets more spiritual than anyone bringing similar text later in the history, if only vision is the criteria for meeting Jesus. Then probably one may look at LDS as Joseph Smith also claimed the same thing, if not less. His followers, similarly, claim his death as a martyr. Isn’t it?

The rest were writen by the scrbes of authors who, while fluent in Aramaic, dictated their words in rough Greek which was later polished.

I really don’t know about which other authors are you referring to, if not the anonymous ones? Though “anonymous authorship” is another big area, but for present, I have delayed it for some other befitting occasion, when it would be more prudent to look into that aspect as well.

 

[ahmadjoyia]

… So in one sense, a little over half of the New Testment can be traced to writers who spoke Aramaic.

Oh, really? Can you please provide some examples of them? And whether did they write in Aramic as well?

Even still, most of this material was dictated in Greek, and simultaneously polished by scribes.

When you refer to “simultaneously polished by scribes”, can you specifically pin point; (i) Who these scribes were?, (ii) for whom they wrote? and, (iii) what they wrote?

The rest was natively written in Greek. Christ’s words were natively spoken in Aramaic, but they do not make up most of the New Testament material. In other words: most scholars, undoubtedy sure that Jesus spoke Aramaic, are also sure that the majority of the materal in the New Testament was dictated and written in Greek.

Ok, now that one concludes that the majority of the NT material is written in Greek and hence not by Jesus, therefore, the question of asking for variation in Jesus teachings is not logical. However, for the completion purposes, lets continue and see as how one can establish any link between these Greek writers and the living Jesus on earth. Can you provide any such relation? I mean to ask about as who these Greek authors were in relation with Jesus? Were these the disciples or the disciples of the disciples or scribes or what?

1. Christianity (and Islam to some*** degree) trusts translation.

While it is certainly true that one may lose some dimension of the meaning through translation (I study languages, I should know), one cannot claim that translations change the essential meaning of the text.

Though this may be a true statement, but given the sensitivity of the issue, with only slight variation of simple words, the whole meaning of the text can be altered exactly opposite to the original. This becomes even more problematic when the books that are included in the NT have been “pick and choose” on the name of canonization by people under the influence of pagan culture.

An example from Islam: Muslims believe that any translation of the the Qu’ran is not sacred, and I unequivocably respect that conviction. And yet, translations of the Qu’ran are printed. While they are not considered inspired (beause the perfect purity of the Arabic Qu’ran is comprimised) they are considered essentially* true to the original words of the Qu’ran. Hence, while not used liturgicaly, they are used in personal study or dissminated for those who have no yet mastered Arabic. Therefore, most Muslims would not claim that translation substantialy alters the meaning of a text though they believe that the Qu’ran is perfect only in Arabic.

Christians have never made the claim that Scripture must be in a particular language to be perfect. Christians believe that the teachings of Scripture are divine, though they are incarnated in imperfect human languages. And truly, translation, while comprimising some accents present in the original langauges, does not alter the concepts presented. Pick up a Bible in Afrikaans, and one in Tagalog, and you should have no problem discerning the same (unIslamic) teachings of Christanity in either.

Best wishes!

Thanks for your well wishes; I really appreciate it. Anyhow, regarding translations, as you have already alluded, these always carry inherent errors with them based upon the human limitation in understanding of the translator. However, with the availability of the original, one can always refer back to reduce these errors to a minimum. Without the original, I don’t understand a way as how such errors could ever be discernible what to talk of reduction. Hence, it would be doubtful if the answer to your question of asking differences in between the two teachings of Jesus would ever be found. Otherwise, barring few arrogant, wouldn’t all my Christian brothers have automatically been converted to Islam? However, I would always pray to our God, the same God to whom Jesus Messiah also used to pray, to provide us the guidance to find the right path that leads directly to Him. Amin.

 

[hlgomez]

Ok, now that one concludes that the majority of the NT material is written in Greek and hence not by Jesus, therefore, the question of asking for variation in Jesus teachings is not logical. However, for the completion purposes, lets continue and see as how one can establish any link between these Greek writers and the living Jesus on earth. Can you provide any such relation? I mean to ask about as who these Greek authors were in relation with Jesus? Were these the disciples or the disciples of the disciples or scribes or what?

Ahmadjoyia,

In order for you to understand the relationship of the NT writings, you should study the facts of how it came to be. You are making so many assumptions as to the integrity of the writings themselves without scrutinizing the historical facts. The NT came into writing, especially the Gospels, at the request of the Christians themselves, during the time when there was a counter-Gospel writings circulating among the faithful and thus misleading some of them. So presummably, they asked the apostle John and the other disciples to write the Gospels to counter the misleading writings, aside from the oral teachings.

Jesus did not command his disciples to write what he had spoken. All his teachings were orally transmitted, and the guarantee of the oral techings being transmitted to be true lies on the fact that the Holy Spirit guided the persons who faithfully preached the Gospels after the Pentecost. In other words, the Holy Spirit who is God Himself animates the faithful. The church from its early centuries taught the same doctrines, and it is the same even until now. It maintained both the oral and written traditions of the Good News.

Now, I will throw your questions back to you. How can you establish a link between Muhammad’s claim about Jesus when he was in fact born 600 plus years later? Does it make sense to you that what he claims is the truth when he was not even there when Jesus was speaking the words of the Good News or even heard from the very apostles words at least?

Alahu Akbar! Praise be Isa Ibnu Allah!

Pio

 

[ahmadjoyia]

My dear brother hlgomez, thanks for not replying to my refutation. Hence, as far as this topic is concerned, I think it has been most appropriately been answered, though you may ask many others as you may wish. But, if I am not wrong, wouldn’t it voilate the rules of this forum? So, I would rather like to respond to such questions on another thread than being kicked out of this forum for voilating its rules. However, before I leave this topic, I would yet like to respond to your closing comments pertaining to this topic.

hlgomez:

Ahmadjoyia,

In order for you to understand the relationship of the NT writings, you should study the facts of how it came to be. You are making so many assumptions as to the integrity of the writings themselves without scrutinizing the historical facts.

Thanks for your advice, I shall definitely look more deeper than I already have done so far, but this is no logical reply to my arguments. Isn’t it? Kindly pin point or highlight any thing you think is merely “presumptous” and I shall see if I can provide relevent evidence to it, none other than but from Chritstian scholars.

The NT came into writing, especially the Gospels, at the request of the Christians themselves, during the time when there was a counter-Gospel writings circulating among the faithful and thus misleading some of them. So presummably, they asked the apostle John and the other disciples to write the Gospels to counter the misleading writings, aside from the oral teachings.

What? Brother what is this “**presumably/B]” mean when relating so called facts? Can you please clarify as why one has to rely on presumptions if they are “known facts”.

Jesus did not command his disciples to write what he had spoken.

How do you know this? If not mentioned in gospel, doesn’t imply that he never commanded as you yourself admit that “But the words of Christ make up only a (sizeable) fraction of the total New testament material”.

All his teachings were orally transmitted, and the guarantee of the oral techings being transmitted to be true lies on the fact that the Holy Spirit guided the persons who faithfully preached the Gospels after the Pentecost.

Though not to argue upon the oral tradation of Jesus being preached, one definitely can’t make it a fact that they all were under some guidance of “Holy Spirit”; as it is only a faith based condition. One can’t claim it to be a fact as its not humanly observable by others except as what individual alone make claim of it. Isn’t it?

In other words, the Holy Spirit who is God Himself animates the faithful.

This is indeed another interesting topic that I would like to listen more about it from my christian brothers, but ofcourse on another thread. To give a start on this, is it not logical to ask my brothers that if ‘Holy Spirit’ guided the authors to put pen to the oral tradtions, why can’t this ‘Holy Spirit’ do the same thing to bring the original scritpures back to peopel, especially once many of my christain brother do claim to have communication with "Holy Spirit’?

The church from its early centuries taught the same doctrines, and it is the same even until now. It maintained both the oral and written traditions of the Good News.

Now, my brother do give me a break here. I don’t want to go into the church history as what they taught and what was true and what not. Simply because most of it, if not all, is faith based and I am no one here to have discussion over it. This would lead to emotional arguments than logical and I would be the least to go into that situation.

Now, I will throw your questions back to you. How can you establish a link between Muhammad’s claim about Jesus when he was in fact born 600 plus years later? Does it make sense to you that what he claims is the truth when he was not even there when Jesus was speaking the words of the Good News or even heard from the very apostles words at least?

Well, my brother, this is an interesting question. But again this is a matter of faith. So, if you want answer, kindly open up another thread and I shall see how can I develop a relation that you are looking for. Do come back and paste your link in your reply here so that all readers of this thread, if interested, may go and continue in that thread as well.

Alahu Akbar!

Yes. Indeed God is the Greatest of all, as what Jesus also said it. Hence all praises are due to Him and Him alone. Isn’t it?

I think my Christian brother must not be hesitant, if we pray to God, the same one God to whom Jesus also used to pray by bowing down (as per NT). Isn’t this a common ground between us without negating each other?**

 

[hlgomez]

Well, my brother, this is an interesting question. But again this is a matter of faith. So, if you want answer, kindly open up another thread and I shall see how can I develop a relation that you are looking for. Do come back and paste your link in your reply here so that all readers of this thread, if interested, may go and continue in that thread as well.

My muslim friend,

We don’t need another thread just to answer the above simple question which already came from you and I just threw it back to you.

Now, as far as the word “presummably” is concerned, this is my opinion. However, it doesn’t change the fact that indeed there was a false gospel, like those writings that didn’t get into the complete list of the inspired books of the New Testament, circulating and the reaction of the faithful Christians was to ask the apostles to write the Gospel to counteract the false ones.

Peace,

Pio

 

[ahmadjoyia]

My muslim friend,

We don’t need another thread just to answer the above simple question which already came from you and I just threw it back to you.

Well, this is totally off the topic and hence no relation with the topic under discussion, though I have already provided you the brief reply. This is a matter of faith. We, the Muslims, have belief in the Prophethood of Mohammad. Isn’t it so simple?

Now, as far as the word “presummably” is concerned, this is my opinion. However, it doesn’t change the fact that indeed there was a false gospel, like those writings that didn’t get into the complete list of the inspired books of the New Testament, circulating and the reaction of the faithful Christians was to ask the apostles to write the Gospel to counteract the false ones.

My dear brother, your explanation for the use of word “presummably” doesn’t seem to addres the same issue where you used it. Here is your own quotation where this word is used to explain the request by the people to “apostle John” for writting down his own account and not for the existence of “false Bibles”. We all know there were many, and not just one, scriptures floating around in the community at that time and it was only through pick and choose process of canonization, almost 4 centuries later, that this gospel became compulsory part of Christian literature. Here is your own quote:

So presummably, they asked the apostle John and the other disciples to write the Gospels to counter the misleading writings, aside from the oral teachings.

It is this understanding that forced me to ask specifically since it has a direct relation with the authorship of the fourth gospel. I hope one would be more precise before presenting such “sweeping” statements.

 

[hlgomez]

Well, this is totally off the topic and hence no relation with the topic under discussion, though I have already provided you the brief reply. This is a matter of faith. We, the Muslims, have belief in the Prophethood of Mohammad. Isn’t it so simple?

Then you should avoid this kind of questions in the first place. Be patient, brother.

If you can’t answer the question why you would believe in Muhammad’s recitations talking about Jesus’ life and who he is when he just came 600 years later, then just say you can’t. What I would like to point out is–we Christians believe more in the apostles that were present and heard what Jesus have spoken and have written them down, and to add the least were the disciples who heard the apostles preached and have written them down–we don’t believe in Muhammad who wanted to “witness” what happened to Jesus where in fact he came 600 years later and didn’t even heard even a whisper nor see even the shadow of the Lord Jesus. :nope: Your “prophet” is not a good “witness.”

Pio

 

[hlgomez]

We all know there were many, and not just one, scriptures floating around in the community at that time and it was only through pick and choose process of canonization, almost 4 centuries later, that this gospel became compulsory part of Christian literature.

ahmadjoyia,

Your statement above is the one that is a “sweeping” statement–pure and simple. It seems to me that you don’t know Christian history on how we got the canon of Scriptures. I suggest that you be true to yourself. Read the accounts of the Council of Hippo in the year 393 AD, and the other important councils. You will find much much more than just pick and choose process in those councils.

Praise be Isa Ibnu Allah!

Pio

 

[ahmadjoyia]

hlgomez:

Then you should avoid this kind of questions in the first place. Be patient, brother.

If you can’t answer the question why you would believe in Muhammad’s recitations talking about Jesus’ life and who he is when he just came 600 years later, then just say you can’t. What I would like to point out is–we Christians believe more in the apostles that were present and heard what Jesus have spoken and have written them down, and to add the least were the disciples who heard the apostles preached and have written them down–we don’t believe in Muhammad who wanted to “witness” what happened to Jesus where in fact he came 600 years later and didn’t even heard even a whisper nor see even the shadow of the Lord Jesus. :nope: Your “prophet” is not a good “witness.”

Pio

My dear brother thanks for your reply, though incomplete.Though I did answer your question fully and not avoided it at all, but it seems someone didn’t understand it. So, I shall repeat it again. Yes, its my believe in the **Prophethood ** of Mohammad. I hope one would understand this word “Prophethood” when it comes to knowing about things not known through ordinary human resources. On the more, the Quran is the word of God, sent to us through Prophet Mohammad. Therefore, all that Quran contains, is nothing from Mohammad but from the God alone. Hence with this belief, I say, history of not just 600 years but many thousands of year before is also narrated in it.
Now coming to your argument of “…we Christians believe more in the apostles that were present and heard what Jesus have spoken …”. It would be interesting to know as which of the disciples of Jesus do you consider them “apostle”? On the more interesting note, which book of NT is considered to be authored by these apostles?