Saint Paul and Islam

[swariffin]

Suppose you found a memo lying on the floor at your workplace, purportedly from your boss but carrying instructions which seem to be at variance with past company procedure and in addition, it is written in handwriting which looks different from that of your boss… would you then carry out the instructions on it without first checking whether or not it did come from your boss and whether the memo was meant for you?
If your answer is ‘NO’, then why is it that Christians are following the teachings of Paul?

And for the sake of argument, even if we are to accept the Paul did see a vision while on his way to Damascus and we further assume that Paul was indeed sincere in his intentions… then how are Christians so certain that the “vision” that he saw was divine in nature and not from some other source?

In a nutshell, Christianity in it’s entirety was founded on this “vision” that Paul supposedly had because Prophet Jesus (pbuh) and his early followers certainly did not call themselves Christians.

Dear Hamba2han,

Your analogy is totally incorrect.

Paul’s messages does not differ from Christ’s messages, otherwise, He would have been refuted by Jesus’ apostle still living at his time. Even the gospel of John which came quite later did not refute Paul. Even about the circumcision, Paul went to Peter to seek approval (yes, sir. Paul was seeking approval from Peter). Paul did meet Peter, and Peter gave the approval after the first counsel ever done (keep in mind “after” the counsel). Back to your analogy, we did check Paul’s teaching against the teaching of Christ. We went back to the boss, and found the letter came to us from Paul were correct. Even the boss private assistants and secretary did not refute Paul’s letter. Do we need the attorneys?

Paul’s conversion story was witnesses by Ananeas in Damascus and Paul’s followers (who heard the voice of Jesus’ conversation and Paul). Paul’s followers were many because they came with the authority to persecute the Christians in Damascus. So, Paul’s conversion were witnessed by many, as opposed to Muhammad’s story which has no witness at all. The question is why do you believe in Muhammad more than Paul by human logic? Even Muhammad required witnesses if a case brought to him by his followers, is it not?

 

[hamba2han]

Im going to revive this thread to the first page since we havent gotten any opposing responses in the past few posts.

I would like to hear how Muslims interperate this writing of St. Paul’s… Galatians 1:6-10

*6I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned! 10Am I now trying to win the approval of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ. *

I would assume Muslims reject Paul partly because of the above text, since it would clearly imply that what Muhammed preached was false.

What is the name of this “different gospel” that Paul was very likely referring to in the passage that you quoted from the Bible?

Let us examine historical evidence in order to determine the answer to this question.

The apostle Barnabas died in 61 CE and the gospel that he was widely believed to have wrote was compiled in 51 CE.

The Epistle to the Galatians was not written before 54 to 58 CE and considering that no other gospel was in existence at this time and since it is also known that Barnabas was indeed preaching some “gospel” contrary to that of Paul’s during this period, it is therefore logical to believe that the gospel that Barnabas wrote is very likely indeed to be the “other gospel” that Paul was referring to in Galatians.

Most Christians would contend that the Gospel of Barnabas is a fraud but I would submit that given the differences and subsequent parting of ways between Paul and Barnabas, the gospel that Barnabas preached was indeed the gospel that Paul warned about when he wrote his Epistle to the Galatians.

 

[inJESUS]

different gospel does not necessarily mean a different book, but different teachings. Even John talked about some people deserting the truth of what the apostles were teachings so it wasn;t only Paul.

Have you read the Barnabas gospel?Can you give us a link to Barnabas gospel written that early? I’d like to read its content.thx.

 

[hamba2han]

different gospel does not necessarily mean a different book, but different teachings. Even John talked about some people deserting the truth of what the apostles were teachings so it wasn;t only Paul.

Have you read the Barnabas gospel?Can you give us a link to Barnabas gospel written that early? I’d like to read its content.thx.

I have read parts of the book but I need to stress here that I do not place my faith in the Gospel of Barnabas and therefore I really have no desire to either defend or to promote it’s contents.

Anyhow, here is a link.

 

[AaronsStaff]

different gospel does not necessarily mean a different book, but different teachings. Even John talked about some people deserting the truth of what the apostles were teachings so it wasn;t only Paul.

Have you read the Barnabas gospel?Can you give us a link to Barnabas gospel written that early? I’d like to read its content.thx.

go to Newadvent.org its the Catholic encyclopedia, and it also has the books not included in the Bible, Baranabas’s epistle is here newadvent.org/fathers/0124.htm

 

[Rocky]

I have read parts of the book but I need to stress here that I do not place my faith in the Gospel of Barnabas and therefore I really have no desire to either defend or to promote it’s contents.

Anyhow, here is a link.

According to Wikipedia the earliest manuscripts of the Gospel of Barnabas is from the 16th century and are written in Spanish and Italian. Since there is no other evidence of a gospel of Barnabas in earlier times (such as fragments found in the in the Dead Sea Scrolls) why would we consider this an authentic gospel account? It sounds to me more like a forgery of the 16th century (to shore up the Quoran perhaps?)

 

[inJESUS]

I have read parts of the book but I need to stress here that I do not place my faith in the Gospel of Barnabas and therefore I really have no desire to either defend or to promote it’s contents.

Anyhow, here is a link.

thank you for the link. I have already read this gospel. You previously said :

The apostle Barnabas died in 61 CE and the gospel that he was widely believed to have wrote was compiled in 51 CE.

You did not need to read it all to realize it was neither written by an apostle nor by a Hebrew!

At the very start of the Gospel of Barnabas Jesus is called the Christ: **God has during these past days visited us by his prophet Jesus Christ **(p.2). However, throughout the book Jesus denies being the Messiah: Jesus confessed and said the truth, “I am not the Messiah” (chap. 42). How can Jesus be the Christ and deny being the Messiah when both words mean exactly the same thing? Whoever wrote this book did not know the Greek meaning of the word Christ is Messiah. Barnabas was a Hebrew who lived on the island of Cyprus, a Greek-speaking island, and travelled around the 1st century Greek-speaking world!. He was Hebrew and knew Greek and could not have made this mistake with such a famous word.

this is only an example to show you that a disciple of Jesus would neither deny Jesus being the Messiah, nor would he as ignorant as not knowing that Christ = Messiah.

See how easily impressed you are?

 

[AaronsStaff]

What is the name of this “different gospel” that Paul was very likely referring to in the passage that you quoted from the Bible?

Let us examine historical evidence in order to determine the answer to this question.

The apostle Barnabas died in 61 CE and the gospel that he was widely believed to have wrote was compiled in 51 CE.

The Epistle to the Galatians was not written before 54 to 58 CE and considering that no other gospel was in existence at this time and since it is also known that Barnabas was indeed preaching some “gospel” contrary to that of Paul’s during this period, it is therefore logical to believe that the gospel that Barnabas wrote is very likely indeed to be the “other gospel” that Paul was referring to in Galatians.

Most Christians would contend that the Gospel of Barnabas is a fraud but I would submit that given the differences and subsequent parting of ways between Paul and Barnabas, the gospel that Barnabas preached was indeed the gospel that Paul warned about when he wrote his Epistle to the Galatians.

Id reccomend using this link newadvent.org/fathers/0124.htm for Barnabas, because I did not see it in Hamba2han’s link.

The gospel St. Paul was talking about did not need to be specific. He meant just what he said, A gospel. St. Paul is not referring to a specific gospel, he is telling the Galatians that if anyone comes around and tries to distort the gospel, or try to preach something different or contrary, that those different teachings are false, and as he says, “no gospel at all.”

 

[hamba2han]

Here is another link concerning the Gospel of Barnabas of which the following is an excerpt:.

There is a “Catalogue of the 60 Canonical Books” (instead of the present canon of 66 books). It has given a list of 25 apocryphal books as well. “The Gospel according to Barnabas” has been recorded in it at Serial No. 24. It shows that this Gospel of Barnabas existed in the early years of Christianity and it was purposely banned by the Christian authorities.

How could some Muslim scholar have written it? It was discovered by the Christians, it was introduced to the world by the Christians, and it was published by the Christians. The Muslims knew nothing about this “Gospel of Barnabas” until George Sale (CE 1697-1736) mentioned it in the prologue (To The Reader) of his English translation of the Qur’an (CE 1734), named “Alkoran of Mohammed”. Then they got their foremost opportunity of going through it after its English translation was first published by the Clarendon Press, Oxford in 1907. Before its introduction by the Christian scholars in 1907, the Muslim scholars had no approach to it. All the Muslim literature, throughout the centuries, is void of any quotation from this Gospel. Had they known it, they must have profusely quoted from it, because it testified the Prophet of Islam by name.

Why the modern Christians do not own and accept it: simply because there is a lot in it which does not agree with their ideals and because there are in it a number of prophecies regarding the Prophet of Islam by his very name in unequivocal terms. There might be some later alterations, adulterations, and interpolations in it like almost all the other books of the Bible. There might have also been some misunderstandings or confusions of the writer himself in it. But its existence as a book written by Barnabas cannot be denied. Its subject matter, its language, its confident style, its exhaustive material on important themes which is elsewhere unavailable, and its presentation of the logical and reasonable themes are superior to the 4 Gospel of the NT of the Bible. It is unfortunate on the part of the Christians that they have deprived themselves of this valuable treasure of religious knowledge. Here are some excerpts regarding only the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad (sws), from Lonsdale & Laura Ragg’s "The Gospel of Barnabas (although there are so many other valuable themes in it which ought to be brought to light to benefit the reader of today, but it may be a theme of a separate and independent article.):

 

[AaronsStaff]

Here is another link concerning the Gospel of Barnabas of which the following is an excerpt:.

There is a “Catalogue of the 60 Canonical Books” (instead of the present canon of 66 books). It has given a list of 25 apocryphal books as well. “The Gospel according to Barnabas” has been recorded in it at Serial No. 24. It shows that this Gospel of Barnabas existed in the early years of Christianity and it was purposely banned by the Christian authorities.

How could some Muslim scholar have written it? It was discovered by the Christians, it was introduced to the world by the Christians, and it was published by the Christians. The Muslims knew nothing about this “Gospel of Barnabas” until George Sale (CE 1697-1736) mentioned it in the prologue (To The Reader) of his English translation of the Qur’an (CE 1734), named “Alkoran of Mohammed”. Then they got their foremost opportunity of going through it after its English translation was first published by the Clarendon Press, Oxford in 1907. Before its introduction by the Christian scholars in 1907, the Muslim scholars had no approach to it. All the Muslim literature, throughout the centuries, is void of any quotation from this Gospel. Had they known it, they must have profusely quoted from it, because it testified the Prophet of Islam by name.

Why the modern Christians do not own and accept it: simply because there is a lot in it which does not agree with their ideals and because there are in it a number of prophecies regarding the Prophet of Islam by his very name in unequivocal terms. There might be some later alterations, adulterations, and interpolations in it like almost all the other books of the Bible. There might have also been some misunderstandings or confusions of the writer himself in it. But its existence as a book written by Barnabas cannot be denied. Its subject matter, its language, its confident style, its exhaustive material on important themes which is elsewhere unavailable, and its presentation of the logical and reasonable themes are superior to the 4 Gospel of the NT of the Bible. It is unfortunate on the part of the Christians that they have deprived themselves of this valuable treasure of religious knowledge. Here are some excerpts regarding only the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad (sws), from Lonsdale & Laura Ragg’s "The Gospel of Barnabas (although there are so many other valuable themes in it which ought to be brought to light to benefit the reader of today, but it may be a theme of a separate and independent article.):

Just because something was written with the Gospel as its subject, does not mean it is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore it was necessary for the Church to come together and have a council (several actually) to decide which books were inspired and which were not. So if something was not put into the Bible, it was left out for good reason, and for a Christian, such books should not be looked at in the same way as Canonical books are.

 

[inJESUS]

Hamba, we Christians do not accept it first because it was not written by an apostle, and it was not quoted in tradition, and because we are not stupid to believe a writer who does not know that Messiah=Christ. This gospel is neither ancient, nor written by an apostle, nor even known to the earliest Christians. It is a MEDIAVAL forgery. If you are impressed with this idiotic gospel, no wonder you will be impressed by things on the same level just because you were told to believe. And if Islamic sites refer to it, it speaks a lot about the scholarship of Muslims. I gave but one example, but there are plenty of historical and geographical mistakes that could never be written by a Hebrew of the first century.

 

[swariffin]

I have read parts of the book but I need to stress here that I do not place my faith in the Gospel of Barnabas and therefore I really have no desire to either defend or to promote it’s contents.

Anyhow, here is a link.

Dear Hamba2han,

In posting #23 you expressly stated that you do not place your faith in the Gospel of Barnabas, but in posting #27 you highly regard such gospel. There was just the difference of only 4 postings. It is clear to us that you speak about the gospel of barnabas because it mentioned something to do about Islam, but you yourself don’t believe such gospel. Those things are contradictory. To my humble view, you should either don’t believe in gospel of barnabas (and stop using it to support your view) or take the gospel of barnabas as your other holy book, because it is clear to me that you said that the gospel of barnabas supports Islam and foretold Muhammad. You should not contradict yourself, and please don’t forget what you have posted.

 

[hamba2han]

Dear Hamba2han,

In posting #23 you expressly stated that you do not place your faith in the Gospel of Barnabas, but in posting #27 you highly regard such gospel. There was just the difference of only 4 postings. It is clear to us that you speak about the gospel of barnabas because it mentioned something to do about Islam, but you yourself don’t believe such gospel. Those things are contradictory. To my humble view, you should either don’t believe in gospel of barnabas (and stop using it to support your view) or take the gospel of barnabas as your other holy book, because it is clear to me that you said that the gospel of barnabas supports Islam and foretold Muhammad. You should not contradict yourself, and please don’t forget what you have posted.

Although I do not place my faith in the Gospel of Barnabas, nevertheless I do not discount it’s veracity altogether.

Parts of it could be true and parts of it could also be inaccurate.

However, as I have pointed out previously in another thread, the Qur’an was sent down as the Criterion which enables believers to distinguish between truth and falsehood.

And therefore, any portions of the Gospel of Barnabas which supports the Qur’an, I have no problem in accepting as true and any portions which seem to contradict the Qur’an, then I do not accept.

In other words, I place my faith entirely in the veracity of the Qur’an alone.

 

[dolphinlove]

Although I do not place my faith in the Gospel of Barnabas, nevertheless I do not discount it’s veracity altogether.

Parts of it could be true and parts of it could also be inaccurate.

However, as I have pointed out previously in another thread, the Qur’an was sent down as the Criterion which enables believers to distinguish between truth and falsehood.

And therefore, any portions of the Gospel of Barnabas which supports the Qur’an, I have no problem in accepting as true and any portions which seem to contradict the Qur’an, then I do not accept.

In other words, I place my faith entirely in the veracity of the Qur’an alone.

The Gospel of Barnabas was found to be a fraud. But i think hamba already has been told this…

 

[Reuben_J]

Although I do not place my faith in the Gospel of Barnabas, nevertheless I do not discount it’s veracity altogether.

Parts of it could be true and parts of it could also be inaccurate.

However, as I have pointed out previously in another thread, the Qur’an was sent down as the Criterion which enables believers to distinguish between truth and falsehood.

And therefore, any portions of the Gospel of Barnabas which supports the Qur’an, I have no problem in accepting as true and any portions which seem to contradict the Qur’an, then I do not accept.

In other words, I place my faith entirely in the veracity of the Qur’an alone.

In other words, because the Quran says so. I could write a Gospel, put some Quranic truth in it, and you would say that part could be true and the others that do not conform to the Quran, could be inaccurate. And I am a prophet.

ha ha ha ha …

 

[hamba2han]

In other words, because the Quran says so. I could write a Gospel, put some Quranic truth in it, and you would say that part could be true and the others that do not conform to the Quran, could be inaccurate. And I am a prophet.

ha ha ha ha …

In other words, the “different gospel” that Paul warned about is wrong and not to be trusted because… ummm… well, Paul said so and therefore it surely has to be the gospel truth.

Am I right… or… am I right?

 

[Reuben_J]

In other words, the “different gospel” that Paul warned about is wrong and not to be trusted because… ummm… well, Paul said so and therefore it surely has to be the gospel truth.

Am I right… or… am I right?

Fortunately, you are right.

Other so-called Gospels that did not conform to the teachings of the apostles were wrong.

Paul was right and his teachings were corroborated by the teachings of the othe apostles and followers. And rightly that Paul said this to prevent heresy.

 

[Reuben_J]

… you miss my sarcasm, however (which is not a nice thing, and I apologize for that).

Of course we realize that all your justifications are “… because the Quran says so”. Pertinent points to note, there is no corroboration nor witnesses whatsoever to support what are being said in the Quran. Other than Mohammad said so. Which led me to say - I, too, can be a prophet if what I write supports or taken from the Quranic verses. But does that mean I am a prophet? Certainly not. So that how I see the argument about the Quran. Sorry if this is offensive.

God bless.

 

[DLC]

TThis was quoted *If there be a true way that leads to the Everlasting Kingdom, it is most certainly that of suffering, patiently endured. – St. Colette *

Question for you. How much suffering does one have to go through before God will let that person into His Kingdom?

 

[Reuben_J]

TThis was quoted *If there be a true way that leads to the Everlasting Kingdom, it is most certainly that of suffering, patiently endured. – St. Colette *

Question for you. How much suffering does one have to go through before God will let that person into His Kingdom?

I suppose that this question is directed to me, seeing it just after my post.

Frankly, I do not know. There are many writings of the saints and I have to read the whole sayings in order to undertsand them in context.

There is much truth in that saying however, considering that in order to follow the Lord, we may have to leave many earthly things behind. Christians are not exempted from persecution too because of their faith, and suffering can be in that form. But as long as we are faithful, regardless of trials and tribulations, our faith is unchanging, God would surely honour that.

But as for your question, I do not know. Do you? If we are lucky, we can die today after repenting of our sins, and without much suffering, I’m sure we are assured of heaven too. I don’t know. I am not God. Nor the saints.

God bless.