Quran and New Testament, are they the same in authorship, manuscript evidence, textual reliability?

[firedragon]

ure, I like to know why you believe in Quran and Islam
By the way, What do you mean by Islam?
How do you know the original Islam taught by Muhammad? There are various sects of Islam, each have their own understanding and interpretations. Which Islam do you believe?

Very good question really. Which Islam do I follow.

I follow my Islam. As does everyone else. Everyone will claim certain things, but inside their own little circle they will follow their own theology.

had nothing to do with Jesus and disciples is a very strong claim, which even contredict with Quran. Do you see many similarities between Quran and Bible?
Quran calls Jesus, the Word, which you can also see in John. The Quran confirms Mary, mother of Jesus, did not get pregnant by another man, and His birth was miraculous, which you can also find in Gospels. Look at prophecies in Revelation, there are many similarities with Quran.
Look at description of Day of Judgement, and you would see many similarities with Quran.
So, what do you mean Gospels has nothing with Jesus and disciples? It contains stories of Jesus and apostles.
Moreover, the Quran itself never says, the new testament has nothing with Jesus and disciples. Looks like you invented your own version of Islam.

Can you tell me how you made my personal views on the New Testament into Islam? Thats a strange position. Sis, if you have proper arguments please present it.

About your similarities matter, there are similarities in all kinds of theologies. Of course there are many similarities with the who of the Bible and the Quran. But see, the question of the thread is not that. Please read the OP and bring up a relevant question.

I can see you do have a relevant question but you are letting a lot of things interfere with your actual question. Maybe Im wrong.

 

[firedragon]

Sure, I like to know why you believe in Quran and Islam
By the way, What do you mean by Islam?
How do you know the original Islam taught by Muhammad? There are various sects of Islam, each have their own understanding and interpretations. Which Islam do you believe?



had nothing to do with Jesus and disciples is a very strong claim, which even contredict with Quran. Do you see many similarities between Quran and Bible?
Quran calls Jesus, the Word, which you can also see in John. The Quran confirms Mary, mother of Jesus, did not get pregnant by another man, and His birth was miraculous, which you can also find in Gospels. Look at prophecies in Revelation, there are many similarities with Quran.
Look at description of Day of Judgement, and you would see many similarities with Quran.
So, what do you mean Gospels has nothing with Jesus and disciples? It contains stories of Jesus and apostles.
Moreover, the Quran itself never says, the new testament has nothing with Jesus and disciples. Looks like you invented your own version of Islam.

Provide a specific question. Better.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Provide a specific question. Better.

You wrote in the other thread, you will explain why you believe in the Quran, and asked me, to bring it to this thread. It seems you try to avoid answering.

I was just interested to know why you believe in Quran. If you dont want to explain, that's fine.

So, I leave it as that.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Very good question really. Which Islam do I follow.

I follow my Islam. As does everyone else. Everyone will claim certain things, but inside their own little circle they will follow their own theology.



Can you tell me how you made my personal views on the New Testament into Islam? Thats a strange position. Sis, if you have proper arguments please present it.

About your similarities matter, there are similarities in all kinds of theologies. Of course there are many similarities with the who of the Bible and the Quran. But see, the question of the thread is not that. Please read the OP and bring up a relevant question.

I can see you do have a relevant question but you are letting a lot of things interfere with your actual question. Maybe Im wrong.

You told me, you can prove anytime, how new testament have nothing to do with Jesus and disciples. At the same time, you had told me you believe in the Quran. So, it is a valid question to ask you, how can you think New Testament have nothing to do with Jesus, and apostles, when the Quran which you believe in, clearly reminds many of the things which are already in the new testament. Again, if you dont want to answer, I leave it as that.

 

[firedragon]

You wrote in the other thread, you will explain why you believe in the Quran, and asked me, to bring it to this thread. It seems you try to avoid answering.

I was just interested to know why you believe in Quran. If you dont want to explain, that's fine.

So, I leave it as that.

The matter has to be understood by you sis. You are asking this question not because you are just interested but to find hypocrisy in me. Your question is to be "if you do that with the Quran, why not the Bible". This is another definition of the Tu Quoque fallacy. Also if I answer a question that you ask in response to a whole post of various things you have mentioned you have tended to take me wrong and then later hold me ransom for a matter. Thus, I prefer specific questions.

Anyway you wish to know why I believe in the Quran. Honestly I hate this question of "believe in". What does one mean by believing in? Its way too vague a question.

Nevertheless with respect to you I will give you my perspective about the Qur'an. I dont know if you would like this answer or not. If you wish you could compare with the New Testament and provide similar details in contrast or harmony.

1. Quran is the only book that we call scripture that has been memorised by people to such an extent. In the mid 70s a gentleman from Pakistan established a world record for this memorisation. I know how its done, I have seen it so regularly, and its demonstrable. Thus, it is highly probable that the combination of Mushaf and Hifz has gone hand in hand to keep the Quran for 1400 years without losing it.

2. I can give you a list of over 250 manuscript's dating to the 1st century AH. Maybe a bit more. And others maybe able to provide much more.

3. There are manuscripts dated to the early half of the 7th century. And if you understand statistical probability of Carbon 14 dating, this could easily be within the times of Muhammed. Which makes it much more authentic.

4. If you study the script of the Qur'an you will notice that the whole book was written and composed by one man. Try any kind of criticism on it. Show me the exercise.

Lets see if you could do that comparison. Have a good day.

 

[firedragon]

You told me, you can prove anytime, how new testament have nothing to do with Jesus and disciples. At the same time, you had told me you believe in the Quran. So, it is a valid question to ask you, how can you think New Testament have nothing to do with Jesus, and apostles, when the Quran which you believe in, clearly reminds many of the things which are already in the new testament. Again, if you dont want to answer, I leave it as that.

Okay. So you want to know why the New Testament has nothing to do with Jesus or his disciples?

1. Tell me which book calls itself by the name of the disciple of Jesus and authentically confirmed to be. I can prove that the answer is "none".
2. No one who ever wrote anything in the Bible has ever met Jesus. They dont even claim to have.
3. When you say the New Testament why dont you accept the epistle of Barnabas, the Shepard of Hermas, Epistles of Clement as part of the New Testament? They were in the early canons. So please explain. Which disciple wrote them? Was clement a disciple? Was Barnabas a disciple?
4. Every single book in the NT was written several decades after Jesus passed away. This is not based on manuscript evidence because manuscripts begin only in the 2nd century and we have only one dating to the early second century called P52, which a small manuscript of several inches. Thus, this dating that I am speaking of is based on the text of the book which dates them several decades after Jesus. e.g. John, the corner stone of NT theology, was written 70 - 80 years after Jesus.

Now you are using the Quran to affirm the NT. But the Quran does not speak anything about the NT. Quran speaks of the Gospel that Jesus was preaching. It just mentions the Gospel that Jesus preached. That is not the book called the NT. You are using a very common Christian evangelic apologetic which is good for shouting at people at speakers corner sis, but its not valid. Walk beyond this type of daily repeated false apologetics of others.

When the writer of Matthew says "peached the good news" he is not referring to his own book. He is not referring to his own book as "Gospel". He is referring to what Jesus preached. Jesus was preaching euaggelion tis basilias. The Good News of the Kingdom. The writer never intended to call his own book "the Good News of the Kingdom". He is referring to what Jesus preached which is cloven from what he is writing.

One could begin there.

 

[blü 2]

Thats called Muhkam and Muthasabih.

Where did Tom Holland speak about that?

In chapter 6 of In the Shadow of the Sword, as I mentioned above ─ where this part of our discussion started.

 

[firedragon]

In chapter 6 of In the Shadow of the Sword, as I mentioned above ─ where this part of our discussion started.

Do you know which page?

 

[blü 2]

Do you know which page?

Holland says:

The Qur’an, as it disarmingly acknowledges in one of its own verses, contains no lack of “ambiguous” material: there are contradictions, abrupt shifts in voice, topic and tone, and baffling allusions.

Page 337, about 60% of the way down the page.
​

And Sura 3:7 confirms this, as he notes and as I said,

 

[firedragon]

Holland says:

The Qur’an, as it disarmingly acknowledges in one of its own verses, contains no lack of “ambiguous” material: there are contradictions, abrupt shifts in voice, topic and tone, and baffling allusions.

Page 337, about 60% of the way down the page.
​

And Sura 3:7 confirms this, as he notes and as I said,

Hmm. Are you sure he is referring to this verse?

Anyway, maybe he does like you say which of course shows how ignorant Tom Holland is of the Quran.

He is referring to as I already said "Muthasabih" and "Muhkam" verse this verse 3:7 is referring to. This Muthasabih is from the word Subbiha used elsewhere in the Quran to say things like "Seemed to be" or "Dual". Not "ambiguous" the way he is portraying. I just wanted to see exactly what he is saying so pardon me for asking the page number.

The problem with Holland is that he does not have any scholarship on the subject. No wonder it was criticised. To understand a book one cannot approach it with shallow criticism found on the internet. Tom Holland has done the same thing.

Anyway, why was this brought up by you? Maybe I missed your point.

 

[blü 2]

Hmm. Are you sure he is referring to this verse?

Yes, I'm sure on two grounds ─ first, because he specifies in endnote 23 which is attached to the line. And second. because (as those multiple translations I set out show) sura 3.7 says just what he says it says.

He is referring to as I already said "Muthasabih" and "Muhkam" verse this verse 3:7 is referring to. This Muthasabih is from the word Subbiha used elsewhere in the Quran to say things like "Seemed to be" or "Dual". Not "ambiguous" the way he is portraying. I just wanted to see exactly what he is saying so pardon me for asking the page number.

I gave you the link to all those alternative translations of sura 3.7 and lined up the words the translators respectively chose, and if you read them, they make it more than plain that they're talking about ambiguity / unintelligibility in the Qur'an, just as Holland says.

I have no problem with your disagreeing with Holland because you have faith he's wrong, but I can't see any fault in his scholarship in this example, He simply points out what 3:7 actually says.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, I'm sure on two grounds ─ first, because he specifies in endnote 23 which is attached to the line. And second. because (as those multiple translations I set out show) sura 3.7 says just what he says it says.

Ah. Multiple translations. See, when you read a translation the issue with a translator is that he has to translate a verse without much of elaboration. So its a quick translation, always.

But an author, a scholar cannot be that lame. He is being irresponsible if this is the approach. Its good enough for layman, or just a nobody.

I gave you the link to all those alternative translations of sura 3.7 and lined up the words the translators respectively chose, and if you read them, they make it more than plain that they're talking about ambiguity / unintelligibility in the Qur'an, just as Holland says.

Well, you are doing the same mistake Holland has done.

I have no problem with your disagreeing with Holland because you have faith he's wrong, but I can't see any fault in his scholarship in this example, He simply points out what 3:7 actually says.

Nope. I am not talking from a faith perspective. I am not giving you belief stamens. Its simple language.

Though you had picked up a place where he quotes a translation and turned to belief that he is a good scholar, he absolutely lacks any level of scholarship. He doesnt even have a typical sophomore level of knowledge on the subject.

Nevertheless, whats the point of this? Why did you bring this Muthashabih verses matter up?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Okay. So you want to know why the New Testament has nothing to do with Jesus or his disciples?

1. Tell me which book calls itself by the name of the disciple of Jesus and authentically confirmed to be. I can prove that the answer is "none".
2. No one who ever wrote anything in the Bible has ever met Jesus. They dont even claim to have.
3. When you say the New Testament why dont you accept the epistle of Barnabas, the Shepard of Hermas, Epistles of Clement as part of the New Testament? They were in the early canons. So please explain. Which disciple wrote them? Was clement a disciple? Was Barnabas a disciple?
4. Every single book in the NT was written several decades after Jesus passed away. This is not based on manuscript evidence because manuscripts begin only in the 2nd century and we have only one dating to the early second century called P52, which a small manuscript of several inches. Thus, this dating that I am speaking of is based on the text of the book which dates them several decades after Jesus. e.g. John, the corner stone of NT theology, was written 70 - 80 years after Jesus.

Now you are using the Quran to affirm the NT. But the Quran does not speak anything about the NT. Quran speaks of the Gospel that Jesus was preaching. It just mentions the Gospel that Jesus preached. That is not the book called the NT. You are using a very common Christian evangelic apologetic which is good for shouting at people at speakers corner sis, but its not valid. Walk beyond this type of daily repeated false apologetics of others.

When the writer of Matthew says "peached the good news" he is not referring to his own book. He is not referring to his own book as "Gospel". He is referring to what Jesus preached. Jesus was preaching euaggelion tis basilias. The Good News of the Kingdom. The writer never intended to call his own book "the Good News of the Kingdom". He is referring to what Jesus preached which is cloven from what he is writing.

One could begin there.

That does not prove the Quran is from God, and Bible is not from God.

If an Atheist who does not believe in God, or that Jesus was a Messenger of God, says, I don't believe Bible is inspired by God, his beliefs are consistent.

But if someone, a Muslim says, I believe in God, and that Jesus was a Messenger of God, and the Messiah, but I dont believe Bible is legitimate and trustworthy, this belief is not consistent.


Remember, in Islamic theology the Book that a Messenger leaves for His followers is very important. The most important thing.

Both Sunni and Shia agree.

Here is a Hadith from Prophet:

"I have left with you two things which, if you follow them, you will never go astray: the Book of God and the sunna of His Prophet"
Shias, also agree with this Hadith, as regards to the Quran. For them Sunna, is also traditions of the Imams.

But, both Shia, and Sunni agree that, after the Messenger left, He left the Quran as an important thing, to guide them.

Now, with regards to Jesus, when He left, the mainstream Muslim, says, Jesus did not leave any legitimate Book.
From Jesus, until revelation of Quran, there are 600 years. According to such a belief, for 600 years, those people were left without a legitimate book. Was God incapable to leave a proper book for them?
This is the inconsistency in Islamic belief.

Moreover, just as you say, God created the world and human, through evolution (not by literally creating Adam from dust, with His own hand), you shouldn't have problem believing God made the Bible appear, and written legitimately, even if it was not written by the hand of Jesus or apostles.

I have raised this inconsistency, and debated with many Muslims about this belief, but never got any reply. Instead they try not to answer directly these problems. I hope you are able to see.

Good luck

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Now you are using the Quran to affirm the NT. But the Quran does not speak anything about the NT. Quran speaks of the Gospel that Jesus was preaching.

Quran spoke to people, with the language and terms, names and words people of the time and place were familiar with.

The eastern Arab Christians, called the whole New Testament, Injil. When Quran says, Injil, for its audience meant New testament. This is so obvious.


I quote from Wikipedia:


الإنجيل كلمة يونانية معناها البشارة. أي الخبر المفرح. يعرف بين المسيحيين باسم الإنجيل أو الكتاب المقدس، وهو مجموعة الكتب الموحاة من الله والمتعلقة بخلق العالم وفدائه وتقديسه وتاريخ معاملة الله لشعبه، ومجموع النبوءات عما سيكون حتى المنتهى، والنصائح الدينية والأدبية.

إنجيل - ويكيبيديا

Translation: Injil or Holy Book is known among Christians, as the collected books, given by God to the whole world.


Here are some books written by Muslim scholars confirming that the term Injil is that same term as new testament.

العهدين القديم التوراة والجديد الانجيل المحرفين ورد ايضا في الصحيحين البخاري ومسلم الذين نحن بصدد التحقيق فيهـما، فهما عندما ياتيان على ذكر الانبياء (ع) يسطران الاساطير والقصص، التي كان يرويها قصاصو اليهود وغيرهم، وينسبونها الى الانبياء (ع)، ودسوها بعد ذلك بين اوساط المسلمين بعنوان الاحاديث الصحيحة.

أضواء على الصحيحين - النجمي، الشيخ محمد صادق - کتابخانه مدرسه فقاهت


مجال العقائد والأحكام والقوانين والمسائل الاجتماعية والأخلاقية، ومقارنتها بما جاء في كتب العهدين (التوراة والإنجيل)

الأمثل في تفسير كتاب الله المنزل - مكارم الشيرازي، الشيخ ناصر - کتابخانه مدرسه فقاهت


I mean, the eastern Muslims were also familiar that, the term Injil, for eastern Arabs denotes the new testament.


Moreover, as I said, the Quran and New Testament are consistent.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

3. When you say the New Testament why dont you accept the epistle of Barnabas, the Shepard of Hermas, Epistles of Clement as part of the New Testament? They were in the early canons. So please explain. Which disciple wrote them? Was clement a disciple? Was Barnabas a disciple?
.

Why i dont accept them Clement or Barnabas as new testament?

Look, there were something like 10 or 14 Qurans, then a Khaliph burned them all and kept one. The khalif was not God, or Prophet. So, why I have to believe he selected the right version? Maybe even, non of them were or are completely the work of Muhammad?
It depends what perspective you are speaking from. If you are speaking from a secular or atheistic view, to trust or not trust in New testament is meaningless, for an Atheist does not even believe in God to begin with.
But if you are speaking from a view of a believer, then, a believer, who believes in God, would believe, since God was behind all of this, aultimately the Book which were collected were according to His Will, for God who is all powerful, can and could have make His Book be left with His creatures, so, they may be guided with.

Now, dont play the game, that you dont want to do a faith base discussion. Your question, here would be faith based question.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

When the writer of Matthew says "peached the good news" he is not referring to his own book. He is not referring to his own book as "Gospel". He is referring to what Jesus preached. Jesus was preaching euaggelion tis basilias. The Good News of the Kingdom. The writer never intended to call his own book "the Good News of the Kingdom". He is referring to what Jesus preached which is cloven from what he is writing.

One could begin there.

The term Gospel has a meaning, as you rightly noted. Likewise the word Quran has a meaning.
Again, it all depends from what perspective you look.
If your question is from a believer point of view, Jesus Himslef is called the Word. This is confirmed in both Quran and Bible.
It means, Jesus is made or created by God, through an inspiration, to represent the Word of God. In that sense, all actions of Jesus and his words, and attributes, represent the Word. The Word of GOD.
Thus, a Book, that tells about Jesus, in this sense, is the Word of God. (If Jesus is the Word, a book describing Him, represents Word of God)

According to Quran, the revelation that was sent to Jesus, was called Injil. So, Jesus Himself as the Word of God, represents the Injil. The Author of Mathew, rightly named that book Injil. Which means also the good news, as the Quran comes from the word Qara'a, to read. Why is that a problem? Why Injil which means good news, cannot be also name of His Book?

A more valid question is, why Christians called their books, New Testament. This is the name Christians came up with to show their breaking from Torah Law, which they called old testament. But theologically, all that which describes about Jesus, must be called Injil.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

2. No one who ever wrote anything in the Bible has ever met Jesus. They dont even claim to have.
.

Ok, if the historical evidences tells us with 100 percent certainty, that the authors could not possibly have met Jesus, we accept that. What about the possibility that, the Author(s) of the Bible have met the apostles who have been with Jesus. Could it be the case? Does the historical evidences reject this possibility with absolute certainty?

 

[InvestigateTruth]

4. Every single book in the NT was written several decades after Jesus passed away. This is not based on manuscript evidence because manuscripts begin only in the 2nd century and we have only one dating to the early second century called P52, which a small manuscript of several inches. Thus, this dating that I am speaking of is based on the text of the book which dates them several decades after Jesus. e.g. John, the corner stone of NT theology, was written 70 - 80 years after Jesus.
.

Ok, however this point you are mentioning here does not prove the NT is illegitimate. One can imagine, Jesus had apostles who have met Jesus. Then these apostles described their experiences to their own friends, who were very early believers. In turn those early believers, investigated the stories from those who have met the apostles, and collected the teachings and narratives and put them together to write each Gospel. Why can it not be this way?

Think of it this way too. If the authors were dishonest, they could introduce themselves as apostles to make things more believable.
But he, in Luke, with all honesty says, he has investigated, and based on his investigation is writing an orderly account.

You seem to think, that the only way, Gospels could be legitimate is, if ,they were written by Apostles themselves. Is this true?

 

[firedragon]

That does not prove the Quran is from God, and Bible is not from God.

You should know, that I did not intend this thread in anyway to prove anything is to do with God or not. So if you have any possible arguments coherent to my post as response please do pose it.

 

[firedragon]

Quran spoke to people, with the language and terms, names and words people of the time and place were familiar with.

The eastern Arab Christians, called the whole New Testament, Injil. When Quran says, Injil, for its audience meant New testament. This is so obvious.


I quote from Wikipedia:


الإنجيل كلمة يونانية معناها البشارة. أي الخبر المفرح. يعرف بين المسيحيين باسم الإنجيل أو الكتاب المقدس، وهو مجموعة الكتب الموحاة من الله والمتعلقة بخلق العالم وفدائه وتقديسه وتاريخ معاملة الله لشعبه، ومجموع النبوءات عما سيكون حتى المنتهى، والنصائح الدينية والأدبية.

إنجيل - ويكيبيديا

Translation: Injil or Holy Book is known among Christians, as the collected books, given by God to the whole world.


Here are some books written by Muslim scholars confirming that the term Injil is that same term as new testament.

العهدين القديم التوراة والجديد الانجيل المحرفين ورد ايضا في الصحيحين البخاري ومسلم الذين نحن بصدد التحقيق فيهـما، فهما عندما ياتيان على ذكر الانبياء (ع) يسطران الاساطير والقصص، التي كان يرويها قصاصو اليهود وغيرهم، وينسبونها الى الانبياء (ع)، ودسوها بعد ذلك بين اوساط المسلمين بعنوان الاحاديث الصحيحة.

أضواء على الصحيحين - النجمي، الشيخ محمد صادق - کتابخانه مدرسه فقاهت


مجال العقائد والأحكام والقوانين والمسائل الاجتماعية والأخلاقية، ومقارنتها بما جاء في كتب العهدين (التوراة والإنجيل)

الأمثل في تفسير كتاب الله المنزل - مكارم الشيرازي، الشيخ ناصر - کتابخانه مدرسه فقاهت


I mean, the eastern Muslims were also familiar that, the term Injil, for eastern Arabs denotes the new testament.


Moreover, as I said, the Quran and New Testament are consistent.

You have not responded to my post. Please go back, read the post and respond with proper evidence that would refute the points.