The Apostles & Islam

[Southsider433]

It seems to me that Muslims are a bit sola scripturist. I’ve seen a couple of posts insinuating that if it is not in the Quaran, it is not true Am i wrong?

 

[dolphinlove]

It seems to me that Muslims are a bit sola scripturist. I’ve seen a couple of posts insinuating that if it is not in the Quaran, it is not true Am i wrong?

Spot on, they believe the bible to be corrupt and that the quran is the world of God.
They also have the hadith, which is rules and regulations written by Mohammed, but if they hadith does not agree with the quran, it is disregarded.

PS. But as we know, the quran is corrupt, the bible is right.

 

[Montalban]

It seems to me that Muslims are a bit sola scripturist. I’ve seen a couple of posts insinuating that if it is not in the Quaran, it is not true Am i wrong?

As Dolphinlove points out they’ve also got hadith, which are the sayings/doings of Muhammed.

 

[swariffin]

Oh dear, if all that matter is isnad, then the US constitution and its laws can become a religion too. Anyway, any modern new belief can be become a true religion too, since the later somethings appear, the more it can be traced precisely. In this case, why should the Ahmadiah is not considered as Islam by most mainstream Islam? They come later right?

BTW, let me ask a simple question. If Jesus was moslem, how about his deciples? were they moslems too? what about the so-called “early christian” between 33AD until 600AD, were they moslem too?.

 

[Montalban]

BTW, let me ask a simple question. If Jesus was moslem, how about his deciples? were they moslems too? what about the so-called “early christian” between 33AD until 600AD, were they moslem too?.

If I might answer that. Jesus, Moses et al are all believed to have been Moslem - preaching Islam.

Moslems are a bit sketchy on the details; only to say somewhere along the line that Jesus was the Messiah, and that the Jews rejected him, and tried to kill him but (the deceiver) Al-lah caused it to appear that he’d been killed.

As to the Disciples, it is interesting as to when they were supposed to have mucked-up the message of Islam. Many Moslems speculate it was Paul who did this.

 

[swariffin]

Another question. Somebody will become a moslem by saying the one called syahadat. It says “I admit that there is no god but Allah”, and “I admit that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah”. It is the first Pillar of Islam (They have 5 pillars). How come anybody prior to Muhammad (Adams, Jesus, Abraham, Noah etc) be called Islam, as they definitely could not have vowed this syahadat.

 

[De_Maria]

I’m not sure how to answer this question, but I guess he’s pretty much as important as you can get. We believe that the greater part of his role will come *after *his second coming however; when he completes the reconstruction of Solomon’s Temple with a restored Ark of the Covenant and defeats the Anti-Christ, God willing.

Is this in the Quran?

We believe he was a man, but not an ordinary man.

True. Ordinary men sin. Ordinary men have a father. Ordinary men do not speak as infants. Ordinary men do not perform miracles.

Not believing someone was God incarnate doesn’t mean we must view him as just some normal man.

That is true. But it should give you some pause when it is revealed that the Seal of the Prophets is less worthy before God than the Messiah whom He sent to perform miracles in His Name and to be sinless before men.

And we don’t believe he’ll come back to judge all men, I don’t know where you got that from.

Let’s look at verse 4:156-159 “That they rejected Faith; That they uttered against Mary A grave false charge; That they said (in boast): ‘We killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messenger of Allah.’ But they killed him not, Nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. Nay, Allah raised him up Unto Himself; and Allah Is Exalted in Power, Wise. And there is none of the people of the book (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him (Jesus) Before his death; And on the Day of Judgment He (Jesus) will be a witness Against them.”

Is this not in the Quran?

answering-christianity.com/crucified.htm

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[De_Maria]

Suppose that someone claims that one of the apostles said so and so about something that Jesus (pbuh) might have said and did, can any Christian scholar then provide a chain of narration which traces precisely how this narration was transmitted from the person who finally wrote it down all the way up to the person who heard either what the said apostle said or what Jesus (pbuh) himself said?

Yes.

In Islam, Muslim scholars can indeed provide this precise chain of narration regarding not only what exactly did the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) say but also the name and personal character of every person along this chain of narration who reported this narration until it was compiled in a book of Hadiths.

So, you still have nothing.

1. For one thing, no one can even verify that Mohammed saw anything.
2. That makes every single narration hearsay evidence. In other words, all they can say is, Mohammed said this or Mohammed said that. But they can’t prove that Mohammed actually saw or experienced anything which he claims to have seen or experienced.

This is what is termed ‘isnad’.

This is what we call, blind faith. Believing in something with no evidence to substantiate it.

When you say that the apostles stopped preaching Islam, who exactly are the people that reported this?

Apparently you don’t understand what George is talking about. His point is very cogent. Since Muslims claim that Jesus taught something different than what is recorded in the Bible, why is there no record of any Apostle preaching anything different than what is in the Bible?

The answer is obviousl because what Jesus taught the Apostles is what they recorded in the New Testament of the Bible.

Let me guess… Paul perhaps??

And while we are on the subject of Paul, who exactly are the people along the chain of narration who reported what Paul himself said until it was finally written in the Bible that we have today?

Paul. Paul wrote his own epistles.

For example, what did Paul say about the Trinity… if anything at all?

Nothing. He believed it and assumed that every Christian believed in it. There was no reason to mention it until the teaching was challenged. Then the Church which Jesus established formalized the teaching in order to combat the heresy.

Do Christians have a chain of narration for Paul’s views on this particular subject?

No. Paul is in the chain of narration for Jesus’ views. Jesus is the reason for the season. That is why we are called Christians and not Paulians.

But lets investigate your claim of a chain of narration. Lets see who heard what from whom and what the circumstances were in which they wrote what they wrote or said what they said.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[George_Waters]

Apparently you don’t understand what George is talking about. His point is very cogent. Since Muslims claim that Jesus taught something different than what is recorded in the Bible, why is there no record of any Apostle preaching anything different than what is in the Bible?

God Bless You De Maria! At least I know I am making sense, even if our Muslim friends refuse to acknowledge it!

I know this is futile, but I’ll try this one more time… Please answer the below question only. Do not ask any questions about Christianity or Judism and don’t blame Paul, just answer the question.

Since Muslims claim that Jesus taught something different than what is recorded in the Bible, why is there no record of any Apostle preaching anything different than what is in the Bible?

 

[Montalban]

God Bless You De Maria! At least I know I am making sense, even if our Muslim friends refuse to acknowledge it!

Indeed. All the objections they have, have been met with patient and detailed points! Well done De Maria!

 

[De_Maria]

Indeed. All the objections they have, have been met with patient and detailed points! Well done De Maria!

  			Originally Posted by **George Waters** 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2772114#post2772114) 				
  		*God Bless You De Maria!  At least I know I am making sense, even if our Muslim friends refuse to acknowledge it!*

Aw shucks!

Thanks fellas! And keep up the good work. I’m enjoying reading your rebuttals as well.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[hamba2han]

Since Muslims claim that Jesus taught something different than what is recorded in the Bible, why is there no record of any Apostle preaching anything different than what is in the Bible?

On the contrary, I believe that there are indeed records of the apostles preaching things which are different than what is in the Bible.

The Gospel of Barnabas is one.

Another is the Apocalypse of Peter which purportedly was written by Peter himself and which clearly states that Jesus (pbuh) was not the one on the cross but instead was sitting on a tree watching and it was a substitute who was crucified.

Christians of course are loathe to accept these alternative records because they contain heavy gnostic overtones.

However, the point is that if Christians themselves do not want to accept the apocrypha i.e. the texts which were not included in the Bible canon as authentic, then this really is not the problem of Muslims.

As for myself, although I find them rather interesting, I do not however place my faith in either the Gospel of Barnabas or the Apocalypse of Peter and so I do not have any desire at all to either promote or defend the veracity of their contents.

 

[dolphinlove]

Here we go, playing the Gospel of Barnabas card AGAIN!
I think you have been told this is a forgery, several times now i believe…

 

[cascherman]

Ok, I skimmed over this thread, and all of this is very interesting. Isnad, that is an interesting idea, unfortunately it seems to me it does not work perfectly if it records just what Muhammad said and does not record his actions as first hand accounts.

Because as far as I can tell, We have Matthew’s gospel coming from Matthew a disciple, EYE WITNESS attesting to a crucifixion, we have Mark’s gospel coming from Mark (a companion with Peter, EYE WITNESS attesting to crucifixion), we have Luke (a companion with Paul, who learned from Peter and the disciples themselves, EYE WITNESSES attesting to crucifixion), and we have John, not only an eye witness but the disciple Jesus loved attesting to crucifixion.

And they have been dictated by the Christian Church as a whole until now, there is your Isnad for us. Can your Isnad provide eye witness accounts to what Muhammad did and said together?

*** edit, oh haha, I forgot to include the whole reason I was inclined to post.

I am seeing serious similarities between Islam and Mormonism when it comes to origination. Just like the Mormons, Islam states it is just a fuller continuation of an established religion (granted Christianity is aswell, but there are differences). It originated from one man (that is even to this day both called ‘Prophet’) and counts on that one mans word for all information added to the amended items.

These are all just observations that I see and decided to share, you can take it at face value. But,

It comes down to one thing to me, there is not sufficient evidence to attest to Muhammad’s trustworthiness, plain and simple, to me it’s in the same ranks as Mormonism.

 

[cascherman]

Also,

I challenge all Muslem’s to read about Christ’s (Jesus) crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension, aswell as the salvation of all of us made possible in the 700 years between Jesus and Muhammad. All kindly written down by the Early Christian fathers and believers. Needless to say you’ll be at it for a while.

 

[De_Maria]

On the contrary, I believe that there are indeed records of the apostles preaching things which are different than what is in the Bible.

The Gospel of Barnabas is one.

Well, the Gospel of Barnabas was written in the 18th century. That is when it was “discovered”. There is no record of it existing before that time. So, unless the Barnabas of Scripture lived and exceedingly long time, he couldn’t have written this document.

The Gospel of Barnabas calls Mohammed the Messiah. In contrast to the Quran which correctly calls Jesus the Messiah. So this doesn’t get you anywhere since apparently this Gospel not only teaches different from the Bible but also from the Quran.
answering-islam.org.uk/Barnabas/contra.html
bible.ca/islam/islam-judas-gospel-of-barnabas.htm

So, there remains no serious evidence of any Apostle preaching different than what is in the Bible.
CONT’D

 

[Southsider433]

No no no I just figured it out if the true religion was lost until mohammad, then “The great apostasy” did happen and the mormons were right. The more I try to understand the muslim position the more I see an argument that relies on itself to verify and sustain itself. And it just crumbles

Man its good to be cathoilc:thumbsup:

 

[De_Maria]

CONT’D

Another is the Apocalypse of Peter which purportedly was written by Peter himself

The key word being “purportedly”. There is no evidence that this work was written by the Apostle Peter.

and which clearly states that Jesus (pbuh) was not the one on the cross but instead was sitting on a tree watching and it was a substitute who was crucified.

Really? I never heard that before. Please quote that.:

earlychristianwritings.com/text/apocalypsepeter-roberts.html

Christians of course are loathe to accept these alternative records because they contain heavy gnostic overtones.

We’re loathe to accept the Gospel of Barnabas because it was a total fabrication.

The Apocalypse of Peter almost made the cut however. I’m surprised that anyone has read a portion of it with Jesus claiming that He was not crucified. Are you sure you’re talking about the Apocalypse of St. Peter?

However, the point is that if Christians themselves do not want to accept the apocrypha i.e. the texts which were not included in the Bible canon as authentic, then this really is not the problem of Muslims.

The apocrypha were precisely not accepted because they weren’t written by Apostles.

Apparently, Muslims reserve the right to decide what is true Islamic teaching, but deny the right for Catholics to determine what is truly Catholic Teaching.

As for myself, although I find them rather interesting, I do not however place my faith in either the Gospel of Barnabas

Isn’t that interesting? I find that a peculiarly Islamic point of view. I can see an honest person saying, “You should believe this, it is true.” That is the typical Christian apologetical and evangelical stance. But for a person to say, “You should believe this. I don’t, because it isn’t true, but you should believe it however.”

That is truly strange logic.

or the Apocalypse of Peter and so I do not have any desire at all to either promote or defend the veracity of their contents.

then why did you bring them up. Obviously, you know nothing about them. So I’ll tell you. They weren’t written by Apostles. Therefore, no Apostle has ever preached anything except what Jesus preached.

sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Montalban]

On the contrary, I believe that there are indeed records of the apostles preaching things which are different than what is in the Bible.

The Gospel of Barnabas is one.

That’s like saying "I believe that there are indeed records of the apostles preaching things which are different than what is in the Bible.

The Books of L Ron Hubbard are an example"

 

[inJESUS]

Is it a wonder Muslims refer to GNOSTIC texts ?