S
Stephen0
Guest
Forgive me if I am redundant with this post, but I would like to inquire why Muslim scholars consider the New Testament a corrupt work…First we know that in Muhammad’s time (circa 650 AD) that he accepted the New Testament as valid and its truths could be read and studied by his followers. However, as time passed and Muslim scholars found that the teachings of Jesus as shown in the NT presented them with a problem. For if you take out the passages that deal with Jesus’s proclaiming himself as God, or his fleshing out the dogma of the three persons in one God, or that he died on the cross for our sins and his subsequent Resurrection, then you are left with a very thin book indeed. What is left is probably a book only 1/3 the original size that would fall over if it stood alone.
Unfortunately anyone who takes the view that the NT has some how been corrupted after Muhammad’s death has a problem to deal with. Over the last 200 years researchers from our faith and other non-Christian beliefs have been able to find complete New Testament bibles that date something like this: The Vaticanus (325-350 AD), the Sinaiticus(340-350 AD), Alexandrinus (450 AD), the Athanasius (367 AD), and the Codex Sinai (325 AD). Then there is one the Peshitta Syriac that I have seen listed as either 150-250 AD or as 375-400 AD. Anyhow, as Catholics, (but not those who profess the Protestant faith) we don’t need to use these works to prove that the NT was ever corrupted. For we don’t need to look any further than the Apostolic Fathers who lived from between 100 AD to 300 AD. You see, we have their letters and writings and these early real Christians had a habit of quoting large sections of the New Testament verbatim. In fact, we can reconstruct over 4/5ths of the New Testament from their collective writings.
So we Catholics have two authentic sources to draw on whereas Muslim scholars have to accept the word of Muhammid that the NT bible of his time was true and authentic but much later was somehow tampered with. How can this NT bible be corrupted if we can take it back to the time of an Apostolic Father like St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp, (who both knew St. John and St. Peter personally) or Justin Martyr to name but a few.
I would say that a Catholic has a shorter distance to travel between the writings of the original authors and their final publishing of Christ word than a Muslim has to go between Muhammid’s teachings and the final publication of the Qu’ran. This implies that the shorter the time distance from the source to the finished publication, the less likely that any later confusion or errors can seep into a text no matter if it is the word of God. Which of your Caliphs collected all the sacred writings to establish a complete and reliable work then burnt the source material so that there would never be any confusion concerning the earlier sources? So time does matter if you want to avoid confusion. Would anyone of our helpful and informative Muslim posters like to correct me if I am ignorant of their position? Thanks.
Unfortunately anyone who takes the view that the NT has some how been corrupted after Muhammad’s death has a problem to deal with. Over the last 200 years researchers from our faith and other non-Christian beliefs have been able to find complete New Testament bibles that date something like this: The Vaticanus (325-350 AD), the Sinaiticus(340-350 AD), Alexandrinus (450 AD), the Athanasius (367 AD), and the Codex Sinai (325 AD). Then there is one the Peshitta Syriac that I have seen listed as either 150-250 AD or as 375-400 AD. Anyhow, as Catholics, (but not those who profess the Protestant faith) we don’t need to use these works to prove that the NT was ever corrupted. For we don’t need to look any further than the Apostolic Fathers who lived from between 100 AD to 300 AD. You see, we have their letters and writings and these early real Christians had a habit of quoting large sections of the New Testament verbatim. In fact, we can reconstruct over 4/5ths of the New Testament from their collective writings.
So we Catholics have two authentic sources to draw on whereas Muslim scholars have to accept the word of Muhammid that the NT bible of his time was true and authentic but much later was somehow tampered with. How can this NT bible be corrupted if we can take it back to the time of an Apostolic Father like St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Polycarp, (who both knew St. John and St. Peter personally) or Justin Martyr to name but a few.
I would say that a Catholic has a shorter distance to travel between the writings of the original authors and their final publishing of Christ word than a Muslim has to go between Muhammid’s teachings and the final publication of the Qu’ran. This implies that the shorter the time distance from the source to the finished publication, the less likely that any later confusion or errors can seep into a text no matter if it is the word of God. Which of your Caliphs collected all the sacred writings to establish a complete and reliable work then burnt the source material so that there would never be any confusion concerning the earlier sources? So time does matter if you want to avoid confusion. Would anyone of our helpful and informative Muslim posters like to correct me if I am ignorant of their position? Thanks.
