The Apostles & Islam

[inJESUS]

Point is that Mohammed made all of that up. There is no proof that he got it from any angel and your continued belief in that rubbish is simply an exercise in blind faith in Mohammed.

for heaven’s sake what angel? it was known before Muhammad. It was taught by Gnostics. The “it appeared” is a key Gnostic terminology. No angel, no God no nothing, it’s simply history but how much history do Muslims know beside their own writings? when you mention about gnostics they get surprised and start giving absurd replies that show they got no clue that what they were taught is from God is simply words taught by Gnostics.

 

[inJESUS]

Strange, in message 100 you seem to be saying that you believe in the substitution, read your words below:

we really can’t blame him…the “best scholars” before him got no answer. Some even went to say that Jesus asked someone else to take His place go figure. When it comes to Jesus’ crucifixion, no Muslim can give you an answer that does not defy either history or logic or human intellligence. Never were able, never will be, unless they admit, to themselves before others, that the answer is in gnosticism.

 

[De_Maria]

Your understanding of ‘isnad’ and the ‘Science of Hadith’ is very limited indeed.

You need to refer to my earlier post and click on the links.

You never answered my question, but here’s another. What good is isnad if the Quran itself forbids the hadith (or sunna)?

 **QURAN - ONLY ACCEPTABLE HADITH/SUNNAH**     
 
 Both the words Hadith & Sunnah are in the Quran. Both of them refer to     God's Sunnah and God's Hadith. There is no such thing as prophet Muhammad's     Hadith or prophet Muhammad's Sunnah. Most the Muslims fail to realize that     following words other than that of God is defined in the Quran as idolatry     (6:19).     
 
 **SOME VERSES IN THE QURAN PROCLAIMING THE QURAN TO     BE THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE HADITH**     
 
 *"Have they not looked at the dominion of the heavens     and the earth, and all the things God has created? Does it ever occur to     them that the end of their life may be near?     Which **hadith**, besides this do     they believe in?" 7:185*     
 
 *"Among the people, there are those who uphold     baseless **Hadith**, and thus divert     others from the path of God without knowledge, and take it in vain. These     have incurred a shameful retribution." 31:6*     
 
 *"God has revealed herein the best Hadith; a book that is consistent and     points out both ways (to heaven and hell). The skins of those who reverence     their Lord cringe therefrom, then their skins and their hearts soften up     for God's message. Such is God's guidance; he bestows it upon whomever He     wills. As for those sent astray by God, nothing can guide them." 39:23*     
 
 *"These are God's revelations that we recite to you     truthfully. In which **hadith** other     than God and His revelations do they believe?" 45:6*     
 
 *"Let them produce a     **hadith **like this if they are truthful." 52:34*     
 
 *"Therefore, let Me deal with those who reject     this **Hadith**; we will lead them     on whence they never perceive." 68:44*     
 
 *"Which     **Hadith** other than this do they uphold?" 77:50*

*submission.org/quran/hadith.html
*

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[hamba2han]

So, answer the question, why are you telling us to believe in the nonQuranic material you presented SINCE YOU DON’T BELIEVE IN ANYTHING BUT THE QURAN.

Regarding the Apocalypse of Peter and the Acts of John, the eye-witnesses to this alleged crucifixion are none other than Peter and John, the disciples of Jesus (pbuh).

Looking at it objectively, I tend to place a lot more credence to the writings of the disciples who did witness the event than the alleged accounts (remember that none of them actually wrote the canonical gospels) of those who did not witness the crucifixion.

However, since there is no ‘isnad’ for these early Christian writings, I cannot accept the veracity of their contents regardless of how much I want to believe them.

Christians however are under no such theological restrictions and they do indeed have a choice of whether to believe either the canonical texts or the various apocrypha writings like the Apocalypse of Peter and the Acts of John.

BTW, www.submission.org is not really the right place to learn about Islam.

It is somewhat like vegetarians asking the people at McDonalds for nutritional advice.

 

[inJESUS]

Hamba, you will have to deal with. NO apocrypha denies Jesus’ crucfixion. So whether we accept it or not is irrelevant so far.

 

[De_Maria]

Regarding the Apocalypse of Peter and the Acts of John, the eye-witnesses to this alleged crucifixion are none other than Peter and John, the disciples of Jesus (pbuh).

Apparently, you believe that because the title of these documents bear Peter and John’s names they are actually written by Peter and John. But history has proven that they weren’t written by either.

Why do you insist that they were? Have you certain evidence of which the Church is not privy?

Looking at it objectively,

In what sense? The Church has proven that these documents were not written by either Peter or John. It seems to me you are looking at this entirely subjectively.

tend to place a lot more credence to the writings of the disciples who did witness the event

I guess all you need to do is prove that the writers of the Apocalypse of Peter and the Acts of John actually are the Apostles Peter and John.

than the alleged accounts (remember that none of them actually wrote the canonical gospels)

Where did you get that information?

The Apostle John wrote the Gospel according to John.
The Apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel according to Matthew.
The Physiciaon, Luke a disciple of Jesus and of Paul’s wrote the Gospel according to Luke.
The disciple John Mark wrote the teachings of the Apostle Peter in the Gospel according to Mark.

So what are you talking about?

of those who did not witness the crucifixion.

Except for St.Luke, the other three lived and moved with Jesus Christ, witnessed His miracles, received His teachings, witnessed His passion and saw Him after the Resurrection.

St. John was at the foot of the Cross. Although the other Apostles aren’t mentioned at the foot of the Cross there is no evidence that they didn’t observe His Crucifixion at a distance.

And St. Luke, although we can’t prove that he lived and moved with Jesus Christ, we do know that he interviewd Jesus’ companions and that he was a companion of the Apostles after the Resurrection, especially a companion of St. Paul’s. In addition, there is strong evidence to sugges that he knew about and followed Jesus activities before the Crucifixion and so was possibly also a witness to the event. At the very least, there is no proof that he wasn’t.
CONT’D

 

[De_Maria]

CONT’D

However, since there is no ‘isnad’ for these early Christian writings,

Isnad only arrives at possiblity. Not at truth. It is what Americans are wont to call, “he say, she say”. It simply records alleged conversations with people who can’t confirm they actually said anything and without independent corroboration.

I cannot accept the veracity of their contents regardless of how much I want to believe them.

You need to compare isnad to the true science of evidence gathering:

1. Eyewitness reports are very reliable.
2. If two eyewitnesses report something separately but with consistent details, their report is superior to the single witness reporting something different.
3. Testimony which is attested in writing and before a legal court is very strong.
4. It is stronger if it is corroborated. The more corroboration by independent witnesses the better. See #2 above.
5. Hearsay evidence is the poorest form of evidence but is not necessarily false.
6. Corrobaration of hearsay evidence also makes it stronger.

This is how evidence is weighed everywhere except in the search of truth of Mohammed’s words. Isnad does nothing to establish truth. It simply establishes a genealogy of “he said, she said” without any effort to verify that he or she actually said what they were alleged to say.

Christians however are under no such theological restrictions

That is true. Our obligation is to believe the truth. The Church teaches the truth and even if we can’t understand a teaching, her doctrines are based on so much independently corroborated evidence that we must accept that She can’t be proven wrong.

and they do indeed have a choice of whether to believe either the canonical texts or the various apocrypha writings like the Apocalypse of Peter and the Acts of John.

That is true. The Church has proven trustworthy. So for those who don’t have the time to research the evidence on their own, simply believing the Church is a valid option.

But for those, like myself, who have a wonderful job where I get 2 weeks off per month, I can research the evidence and I’ve found that the Church has provided enough evidence to prove that the Apocalypse of Peter and the Acts of John were not written by Peter or John. Since the Church’s main criteria for accepting Scriptural material was wheter they were written by Apostles or disciples, that is all that matters.

BTW, www.submission.org is not really the right place to learn about Islam.

Because…you say so, or what? Any particular reason?

It is somewhat like vegetarians asking the people at McDonalds for nutritional advice.

McDonald’s has a pretty good fast food vegetarian option. Haven’t you seen the menu?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[inJESUS]

from the same acts of John to which our Muslim friend refers, thinking it has more truth than the gospels, i quote:

O Christ; now is the time for us who are sick to have the help that is of thee, O physician who healest freely; keep thou mine entering in hither safe from derision. I beseech thee, Jesu, succour this great multitude that it may come to thee who art Lord of all things:

even Jesus, who knoweth the shapes and appearances and postures and dispositions and types of our souls.

But John spread forth his hands, and being uplifted in soul, said unto the Lord: Glory be to thee, my Jesus, the only God of truth, for that thou dost gain (receive) thy servants by divers devices.

Oh my oh my…am sure our Muslim friend will not say that John wrote it now since John was a Muslim who believed Jesus to be a mere prophet. Even the apocrypha bears witness against Muhammad.

 

[hamba2han]

Where did you get that information?

The Apostle John wrote the Gospel according to John.
The Apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel according to Matthew.
The Physiciaon, Luke a disciple of Jesus and of Paul’s wrote the Gospel according to Luke.
The disciple John Mark wrote the teachings of the Apostle Peter in the Gospel according to Mark.

So what are you talking about?

You need to watch this video.

It was researched and presented by a Christian theologian and it asks some very relevant questions which Christians really should try to answer for their own sake and not for anyone else.

 

[porkscratchings]

You need to watch this video.

It was researched and presented by a Christian theologian and it asks some very relevant questions which Christians really should try to answer for their own sake and not for anyone else.

And u should read Ibn Warraq’s ‘What the Koran really says’ and ‘Why I am not a muslim’. These two books write in a lot of detail about the contradictions of the Koran, presenting arguments that the prophet mohammed did not write the whole of the Koran, the bits added and altered by successive muslim leaders to justify certain political policies, and how the koran is derived from corruptions of jewish and christian beliefs.

I dare u go give it a try.

 

[inJESUS]

My commection does not help me watch 1hour videos but i got a question. Obviously there was a “valid” Bible at Muhammad’s time. Where is it? where has it been for 1400 year? did the sahara camels eat all the copies of our planet?

 

[hamba2han]

My commection does not help me watch 1hour videos but i got a question. Obviously there was a “valid” Bible at Muhammad’s time. Where is it? where has it been for 1400 year? did the sahara camels eat all the copies of our planet?

There was no valid Bible at the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)… and for that matter, even at the time of Prophet Jesus (pbuh).

Muslims believe in the Gospel of Jesus.

 

[inJESUS]

There was no valid Bible at the time of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)… and for that matter, even at the time of Prophet Jesus (pbuh).

QUOTE]
are you 100% sure you understand your scripture? quote to me from the Quran please. Quote to me ONE verse that says the Bible is corrupt and must NOT be read neither by Jews nor by Christians.

Do not quote about what “some” Jews did, quote about whether the Bible can be read or should be rejected as the Word of God.

 

[hamba2han]

are you 100% sure you understand your scripture? quote to me from the Quran please. Quote to me ONE verse that says the Bible is corrupt and must NOT be read neither by Jews nor by Christians.

Do not quote about what “some” Jews did, quote about whether the Bible can be read or should be rejected as the Word of God.

Muslims actually have a simple philosophy when it comes to the Bible.

The Bible does NOT contradict the Qur’an… except in the places where the Bible contradicts itself.

 

[inJESUS]

Here some lesson for yu Hamba2han:

So the term “Father of the Church” finally came to** refer to **important Christian writers after the New Testament era who, because of closeness to that era, witness to the authentically apostolic way of interpreting the Scriptures handed on to them by the Catholic Tradition.

Ignatius of Antioch, for example, along with Polycarp, were John’s disciples:

**Ignatius **was the bishop of Antioch, the place where the followers of Jesus were called Christians for the first time (Acts 11:26; Eusebius Eccl. Hist. 3.22.36 and Origen, Hom. 6 In Luc). The importance of Antioch as a center of apostolic Christianity cannot be overestimated. Antioch was the first center of outreach to the Gentiles (Acts 11:20) and the base from which **Paul **and **Barnabas **were sent out on their missionary journeys (Acts 13:2-3; 15: 35-41; 18:22-23). Peter, too, spent some time in Antioch prior to relocating in Rome (Gal 2:11). **Ignatius is therefore an important testimony to the way in which the **teaching of these apostles was remembered by this eminent Church./**B] Yet his letters reflect not only the apostolic tradition as preserved by Antioch; **many of the churches to which he wrote, such as that of Ephesus, were also founded by those of the apos*tolic generation. ** So the letters witness to a common apostolic patrimony as understood and lived probably only a decade or two after the writing of John’s Gospel.

In his day there existed heretics called “Docetists” who believed Jesus’ body to have been a phantasm and his death therefore only an appearance. Against them Ignatius vigorously affirms the material reality of Jesus’ human flesh and the truth of his suffering and death (e.g., Symr. 1; Tral 9).

Do i believe him who witnessed the teachings of the apostles or Muhammad who claimed to see an angel that taught him heresies? answer is clear.

So unlike your Hadith based on Isnad and which is still contradictory in many instances, our Isnad is not based on “he said, she said” , but on CHURCHES and disciples and bishops in different countries and who wrote the same things.**

 

[inJESUS]

Muslims actually have a simple philosophy when it comes to the Bible.

The Bible does NOT contradict the Qur’an… except in the places where the Bible contradicts itself.

1-All cults base their teachings on falsifying the word of God. After all, satan’s FIRST attempt to delude humanity is saying " God did not say that"…rings a bell?

2-kindly provide what i asked for.

 

[inJESUS]

Here another lesson for you:

Tertullian (160 - 221) Of Carthage in North Africa. He says of the NT Scriptures "I hold sure title deeds from the original owners themselves … I am the heir of the apostles. Just as they carefully prepared their will and testament, and committed to a trust … even so I hold it. "

Around the year 208, he urged the heretics to - “Run over [to] the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read. **Achaia **is very near you, in which you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonian you have **Philip **… and the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority of the apostle themselves.”

Our Isnad is whole churches who had apostolic teachings, not some members who heard this and that.

 

[porkscratchings]

Looking at it objectively, I tend to place a lot more credence to the writings of the disciples who did witness the event than the alleged accounts (remember that none of them actually wrote the canonical gospels) of those who did not witness the crucifixion.

If the above is true, then u can’t accept the Koran’s account of Jesus’ life because it was written 600 yrs later, by people who are not Jews and have never known Jesus or the apostles or anyone directly related to the events around the crucifixion. Whereas the NT was written by the apostles (or at least people who knew them), within a time frame that is inside one generation of Jesus’ lifetime.

 

[hamba2han]

If the above is true, then u can’t accept the Koran’s account of Jesus’ life because it was written 600 yrs later, by people who are not Jews and have never known Jesus or the apostles or anyone directly related to the events around the crucifixion. Whereas the NT was written by the apostles (or at least people who knew them), within a time frame that is inside one generation of Jesus’ lifetime.

The Qur’an is the literal Word of God.

Since God was indeed there when this alleged crucifixion took place, Muslims therefore have no problem at all accepting His own account of it as written in the Qur’an.

 

[porkscratchings]

The Qur’an is the literal Word of God.

Since God was indeed there when this alleged crucifixion took place, Muslims therefore have no problem at all accepting His own account of it as written in the Qur’an.

God may be present at the crucifixion but neither Mohammed nor any of his followers has been anywhere near the event. I have only YOUR word that the Koran is the literal word of God - there is no evidence - based on linguistic study of the Koran, or historical accounts or archeological evidence - that backs u up. So do I take your word for it?

I find it interesting that u cannot accept the NT which can be historically dated back to within 1 generation of Jesus’ life time, by historical records, linguistic study of the language of the NT, and by archeological evidence as a valid account of Jesus’ life and death. Yet u can accept the Koran’s account despite the fact that it is written 600 yrs later, by people located nowhere near Jerusalem or at any time close to Jesus’s lifetime or the lifetime of the apostles.

U accept hearsay from the prophet mohammed but not an historical account written by people who knew Jesus, written in a language that is the same language spoken by Jesus and his apostles.

To me, your testimony is biased and neither u or the Koran can be accepted as a true account of Jesus’ life.

If u assert that the Koran is the literal word of God, on what evidence do u based this belief? And why should I believe u, based on the fact u are biased in favour of the Koran despite having no evidence to back up your beliefs?