The Gospels in Islam: Authentic or Corrupted?

wizanda said:

It is item specific, I'm a computer programmer, and don't deal with contexts like a Pharisee (straining out a gnat and gaining a camel)...

The statements in 2.62 define who it is talking about by name:

2:62 Indeed, those who believed and those who were Jews or Christians or Sabeans [before Prophet Muhammad] - those [among them] who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness - will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve.

Click to expand...

So you mean to say "Mumeens" were there during the times of Moses? Great. Very true. So all can attain salvation. It refers to all. Not only Jews.

wizanda said:

The Quran confirms it, and you deny that is the context.

Click to expand...

Quran speaks in general with example. It refers to me and you. Anyone.

wizanda said:

sold it for a small price

Click to expand...

Again, it's Sharaya. Sold or purchased. Exchanged for small value or mediocre value.

wizanda said:

The word "Gentile" is an item specific term in the Tanakh first, have you read all the Bible, and do you accept all the message globally as one?

Click to expand...

Again, your understanding of Gentile is wrong. Ummi doesn't mean what you think.

In that case how is Muhammed gentile. Ummi Nabi??? The gentiles you think coming from the Bible is not what the Quran refers to. You should understand.

wizanda said:

The Gentiles in the Torah are the unlearned animals of other nations, as people in the past were very barbaric, so they would refer to them as "dogs" or "swine" as they eat pig, and act like savages...

Click to expand...

Well. Thats not what the Quran means by Ummi. Again, you have not understood. Its a language problem. But you seem not to try and understand.

wizanda said:

Yet as Isaiah suggested the Talmud states the Gentiles are animals, and deserve to die, as they're not smart enough to learn.

Click to expand...

That maybe the understanding of the Talmud. Again, and again, and again, Muhammed is called the Ummi Nabi. The gentile Nabi.

Its completely different to what you understand in the bible. Dont you see? If gentiles or the Ummi deserve to die as you have pointed out, how could the prophet Muhammed in the Quran be a Ummi Nabi?

Read the Quran.

@firedragon

I think you'd be less distracted by me from your discussion with Adrian and wizanda if you simply put me on ignore. It won't hurt my feelings. You and I have sufficient irreconcilable differences, IMO, to justify discontinuing further discussion of the OP's topic.

By the way, you do realize, don't you, that wizanda is not, by his/her own admission, a Christian. See below:



Consequently, I think you have or will have your hands full trying to achieve wizanda's agreement on what the Qur'an AND the Christian scriptures say about Jesus of Nazareth's Gospel.

Trivia: The purpose of my words (crucified, entombment, resurrection, and ascension) to Muffled was to clarify what I have in mind when I say: "a traditional Christian". I specify "traditional" because there is a veritable zoo of folks here in RF and I fully expect to encounter a Christian atheist any day now.

That said, this is the stop where I get off the bus you're on. Take care.

Terry Sampson said:

@firedragon

I think you'd be less distracted by me from your discussion with Adrian and wizanda if you simply put me on ignore. It won't hurt my feelings. You and I have sufficient irreconcilable differences, IMO, to justify discontinuing further discussion of the OP's topic.

By the way, you do realize, don't you, that wizanda is not, by his/her own admission, a Christian. See below:

View attachment 32246

Consequently, I think you have or will have your hands full trying to achieve wizanda's agreement on what the Qur'an AND the Christian scriptures say about Jesus of Nazareth's Gospel.

Trivia: The purpose of my words (crucified, entombment, resurrection, and ascension) to Muffled was to clarify what I have in mind when I say: "a traditional Christian". I specify "traditional" because there is a veritable zoo of folks here in RF and I fully expect to encounter a Christian atheist any day now.

That said, this is the stop where I get off the bus you're on. Take care.

Click to expand...

Well. Your prerogative brother. I know it was irrelevant. And let buy you a coffee or a beer. Have one for the road. Cheers.

firedragon said:

So you mean to say "Mumeens" were there during the times of Moses?

Click to expand...

Of course there were believers in the past.

firedragon said:

Ummi Nabi???

Click to expand...

There is a verse that refers to Gentiles as you're stating it means in that exact contexts, as we've just explained for you from the books:

3:75 (Pickthall) Among the People of the Scripture there is he who, if thou trust him with a weight of treasure, will return it to thee. And among them there is he who, if thou trust him with a piece of gold, will not return it to thee unless thou keep standing over him. That is because they say: We have no duty to the Gentiles. They speak a lie concerning Allah knowingly.

Thank you very much for pointing this out, had not realized that the word الْأُمِّيِّينَ has become to mean 'illiterate' rather than 'Gentiles'... So can see what you're referring to is this:

62:6 It is He who has sent among the unlettered (Gentiles) a Messenger from themselves reciting to them His verses and purifying them and teaching them the Book and wisdom - although they were before in clear error -

Muhammad and illiteracy - WikiIslam

Thought it made no sense Muhammad was illiterate, as he clearly cites the Talmud, knows parts of the wording in the Bible...

There is so much corruption in this world, they've made him seem stupid, as they always do to us in debate as well; the Rabbinic Jews general way of debunking people is to make them look unknowledgable, and incapable of putting forward a logical argument, so to change the meaning suits their agenda.

firedragon said:

The gentiles you think coming from the Bible is not what the Quran refers to.

Click to expand...

It is the same thing.

firedragon said:

Its a language problem. But you seem not to try and understand.

Click to expand...

I study everything, especially if shown; kindly don't be so rude...

When you point, there are always 3 fingers pointing back; it is clear you have very little understanding on most of the additional contexts in all the world's religious texts, and Judgement day is soon.
[GALLERY=media, 7635][/GALLERY]

firedragon said:

That maybe the understanding of the Talmud.

Click to expand...

Satan means an accuser, you're not even comprehending, you're just looking to say you're wrong...

There is only one huge theological perspective all together, if we only look at parts we miss the bigger picture of everything that is taking place...

It is like a man with one jigsaw piece in a huge puzzle, saying he sees clearly, and we don't need the rest of the pieces to make it fit; try reading all the world's religious texts, rather than arguing.

firedragon said:

Its completely different to what you understand in the bible. Dont you see?

Click to expand...

It can't be completely different from the Bible, otherwise Muhammad was not informed by Gabriel, and the whole thing is fake...

Do you not see what you're saying is opposite to the Quran, and denies that the Messages are one?

firedragon said:

If gentiles or the Ummi deserve to die as you have pointed out, how could the prophet Muhammed in the Quran be a Ummi Nabi?

Click to expand...

Wow talk about not even listening, I don't want Gentiles to die, I've literally got the new name of Christ before Judgement day; where we would prefer to create peace in the world, and yet everyone has been lied to...

I'm explaining the lies to you, and you accuse us of following the lies...

Seriously go meditate on the Source of our reality, learn to remove the accuser, before proceeding to challenge us for helping others comprehend.

In my opinion.

wizanda said:

It is the same thing.

Click to expand...

No brother. Its not the same thing.

firedragon said:

Its not the same thing.

Click to expand...

Lets start by agreeing with I see what you're saying about "Ummi Nabi", being a messenger to help the Gentiles, as the Jews deny it is their responsibility.

Have you read the Bible?

Do you accept that the Quran says the Message is one or do you follow the scholars who say it is divided?

There is a continued evolving message, where for us to understand it properly, we have to accept the historical value of the word Gentiles, and how the concepts progressed, to understand what Muhammad was meaning.

In my opinion.

wizanda said:

There is a continued evolving message, where for us to understand it properly, we have to accept the historical value of the word Gentiles, and how the concepts progressed, to understand what Muhammad was meaning.

Click to expand...

It is the same message. But the Quran does not accept the message of the books you quoted. And I certainly don't.

You quote scholars.

Scholars make it that the Torah (as an example) has four different schools of thought.

Lets take the book of Deuteronomy. It has one author. But the latter part where it speaks of Moses's death and grave saying many have passed but no one knows where his grave lies, it is still one author. So the whole thing was written by someone who lived many years after Moses died.

So that book has nothing to do with Moses himself or his direct narration. So I don't accept that as a scripture of God that Quran continues in essence.

Do you understand?

I do not accept that its the Thawraath quoted in the Quran. Someone named it as such. But its just a name inherited. Not the real message. This is irrelevant to the post or the opening post but you are bringing this up.

Windwalker said:

Are you aware of any impartial, modernistic examinations of the Quran that is not denounced as a great evil to not accept the book as a perfect revelation of the divine? I would be very interested to know if Islam allows scholarship comparable to that which you find in Christianity to exist which presents challenges traditional beliefs through historical, anthropological, and other tools of modernity.

Click to expand...

Everyone approaches a religious text such as the Quran with preconceived ideas. There are schools of thought in Islam such as liberal and progressive as there are in Christianity.

Liberalism and progressivism within Islam - Wikipedia

Windwalker said:

My impression, perhaps wrongly, has been that people's lives become put at grave risk when they as Muslims do not view the Quran through the lens that traditionalism sees things through, which is the mythologized version of history (true of all religions).

Click to expand...

It would depend on the country and the extent which a nation’s laws are theocratic.

Windwalker said:

Assuming for the time that you do have the equivalent in Islam as you do in Christianity with modern scholars who examine scriptures through the impartial lens of modern tools of research, demythologizing the texts to examine them critically, would that remove or lessen the contradictions? I'm not so sure about it would lessen them. In what ways do you imagine it might show them closer together than further apart?

Click to expand...

It needs to be emphasised that the Islamic civilisation that emerged within a couple of centuries after Muhammad’s Ministry was the most advanced on the planet in all spheres of human development. The Islamic Golden Age was arguably the most important factor in igniting the European Renaissance.

Islamic Golden Age - Wikipedia

The problem within Islam has become conservatism and a tendency to be closed to new ideas.

Part of Islam’s success was the discovery of making paper from the Chinese. Europe excelled the Islamic world under the Ottomans after the invention of the Gutenberg printing press and the Easts refusal to make use of this invention for nearly three centuries.

Yasir Qadhi is an American Muslim Scholar of Pakistani descent. He provides informed, balanced and easy to understand commentary on the rise and fall of the Muslim Ummah (community).

Muffled said:

I believe the Gospel you are referring to is the gospel of Paul about Jesus. Or are you simply referring to the gospels: Matthew Mark Luke and John which are not self stled as such but are called that by theologians.

Click to expand...

The latter (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John).

Muffled said:

I believe Jesus does say that but it could not be otherwise because as God in the flesh He can only speak the words of God.

Click to expand...

I would agree but see this as a theological narrative rather than literally.

Milton Platt said:

There are no original manuscripts of any of the Christian stories, either the ones in the bible, or those left out of it.So discussions of corrupted texts are all based on copies of copies anyway.

Click to expand...

...and the original manuscripts are based on the oral traditions a few decades before they were written down. The question isn't about whether or not the text was changed but whether or not the text we have reflects the original Teachings of Christ.

firedragon said:

Quran is not about Muhammed. the prophet Muhammed is only fleetingly mentioned. Its not about any prophet. It is about the message.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

firedragon said:

I did not ask you to summarise the theology of Jesus. You have misunderstood the question.

Alright. You spoke of Christians scholars. Christian scholars believe that the Gospel of John was written by 4 different schools of thought.

What do you say about that?

Click to expand...

An important school of thought is that the Gospel of John as well as other NT texts were written by a community and their works are termed the Johannine literature.

Gospel of John - Wikipedia

Its important to realise there is no consensus about this amongst scholars.

firedragon said:

If you don't see a difference, you actually disagree with many Christian scholars though you say you agree. This is basic curriculum in New Testament studies.

Click to expand...

If you truly understand biblical scholarship you will have a good sense of the uncertainty that surrounds any theory about authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. You appear focused on work (you haven't specified what that work is) that may or may not support your views but has no clear consensus to support it as fact. You need to be more specific.

adrian009 said:

...and the original manuscripts are based on the oral traditions a few decades before they were written down. The question isn't about whether or not the text was changed but whether or not the text we have reflects the original Teachings of Christ.

Click to expand...

What do you mean original manuscripts? Which specific manuscript are you speaking of by saying "original"?

firedragon said:

But the Quran does not accept the message of the books you quoted.

Click to expand...

Sorry the Quran does accept all the messages, and your statement is directly opposed to it; as many have been led to follow the Hadiths, and Scholars, which Muhammad clearly warns us not to do.

3:84 Say: We believe in Allah and what has been revealed to us, and what was revealed to Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq and Yaqoub and the tribes, and what was given to Musa and Isa and to the prophets from their Lord; we do not make any distinction between any of them, and to Him do we submit.

4:150-151 Indeed, those who disbelieve in Allah and His messengers and wish to discriminate between Allah and His messengers and say, "We believe in some and disbelieve in others," and wish to adopt a way in between - Those are the disbelievers, truly. And We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating punishment.

4:136 O you who have believed, believe in Allah and His Messenger and the Book that He sent down upon His Messenger and the Scripture which He sent down before. And whoever disbelieves in Allah , His angels, His books, His messengers, and the Last Day has certainly gone far astray.

All religious ideologies have been corrupted globally, which is why we are to read the Messages, and not follow our forefathers, scholars, and religious leaders blindly, as everything gets corrupted down here.

2:170 And when it is said to them, "Follow what Allah has revealed," they say, "Rather, we will follow that which we found our fathers doing." Even though their fathers understood nothing, nor were they guided?

5:104 And when it is said to them, "Come to what Allah has revealed and to the Messenger," they say, "Sufficient for us is that upon which we found our fathers." Even though their fathers knew nothing, nor were they guided?

firedragon said:

You quote scholars.

Click to expand...

I've not once quoted any scholars (posted sites with them on), and do not study them; I read the religious texts and translations, I don't acknowledge commentaries as trustworthy, unless i can show it from a source text.

firedragon said:

So that book has nothing to do with Moses himself or his direct narration. So I don't accept that as a scripture of God that Quran continues in essence.

Click to expand...

The book of Deuteronomy is like computer code designed to catch out the hypocrites across the whole of time; it interlinks with the rest of the world's religious text in complex ways, that only a super computer could achieve, and you deny it is from Moses - it is beyond Moses, the Source of our reality put it together...

This whole reality is inside a giant computer system, where the Source creates everything, and you deny it as real.

firedragon said:

This is irrelevant to the post or the opening post but you are bringing this up.

Click to expand...

Nothing is irrelevant, everything is for a reason, and that lazy minded outlook is why people struggle understanding that the message is one, as they don't read it, they just assume.

Whilst you're denying that the books Muhammad is citing are false, no wonder you're unaware of the context we are referring to.

In my opinion.

adrian009 said:

Agreed.



An important school of thought is that the Gospel of John as well as other NT texts were written by a community and their works are termed the Johannine literature.

Gospel of John - Wikipedia

Its important to realise there is no consensus about this amongst scholars.



If you truly understand biblical scholarship you will have a good sense of the uncertainty that surrounds any theory about authorship of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. You appear focused on work (you haven't specified what that work is) that may or may not support your views but has no clear consensus to support it as fact. You need to be more specific.

Click to expand...

Uncertainty? Brother. It is certain that the authorship of the gospels are anonymous. there is no uncertainty in that.

wizanda said:

Sorry the Quran does accept all the messages

Click to expand...

No it doesn't.

It speaks of Thawraath, Zaboor, Injeel and Quran. And even if there were other scriptures there are no indications the Bible is one or all of the Scripture.

Again, I did not say the books cited in the Quran are false. I say that none of the books quoted in the Quran are in the Bible. None.

firedragon said:

What do you mean original manuscripts? Which specific manuscript are you speaking of by saying "original"?

Click to expand...

The first completed manuscript of any of NT books would be the original. Of course we don't have the originals of any of the NT books. The earliest fragmant from the first four NT books is a from a copy of the Gospel of John dated somewhere between the second and third century.

Biblical manuscript - Wikipedia

adrian009 said:

The first completed manuscript of any of NT books would be the original. Of course we don't have the originals of any of the NT books. The earliest fragmant from the first four NT books is a from a copy of the Gospel of John dated somewhere between the second and third century.

Biblical manuscript - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

Right. So when you say original it is the original of what we find in the Bible now. Though we don't have it, there would have been one for sure. Lets say Gospel of Mark. Mark is the earliest. John is the latest.

Why are these books different in their theologies?

firedragon said:

Uncertainty? Brother. It is certain that the authorship of the gospels are anonymous. there is no uncertainty in that.

Click to expand...

Some scholars believe that, some don't.

Authorship of the Johannine works - Wikipedia

firedragon said:

Right. So when you say original it is the original of what we find in the Bible now. Though we don't have it, there would have been one for sure. Lets say Gospel of Mark. Mark is the earliest. John is the latest.

Why are these books different in their theologies?

Click to expand...

You would need to provide specific examples as to how their theologies differ. How much time have you actually spent reading and studying Biblical texts?

You seem unaware of the close collaboration between the authors of the synoptic Gospels (Mark, Luke and Matthew).

firedragon said:

It speaks of Thawraath, Zaboor, Injeel and Quran. And even if there were other scriptures there are no indications the Bible is one or all of the Scripture.

Click to expand...

So you're saying it speaks of the exact things within the Bible (Torah, Psalms, Prophets (Tanakh), & Gospel), and you deny them as truthful, as your scholars and Imams say they're false...

You've not studied these texts, you just assume they're false, as some forefather told you...Exactly as the Quran warns people not to do.

Sorry this is like a person born blind arguing the sky is green; maybe when you're more studied we can discuss the contexts, yet currently it is pointless discussing with someone who is in denial of the things the God Most High has revealed.

Just to be clear Armageddon (Israel Vs Iran) is soon, and then Judgement day; you have very little time left to study what God has revealed through his messengers globally, as my return is the sign before it happening.

In my opinion.