The Gospels in Islam: Authentic or Corrupted?

wizanda said:

It isn't a copy, if we read the prophets, a true prophet paraphrases the others by definition, if we study both text this is very clear.

This is also paraphrasing as true prophets do.

The ideas are the same, else it is stating the Quran is fake... It is a confirmation of the message.

21:105 paraphrases the Psalms, it has a word that can mean the Psalms within it...

Sorry this is really stupid, the Psalms confirm what is in the Quran; only someone who isn't reading any of it, and is in state of denial of the things of God could reject all of it.

David was a prophet speaking for God; the problem with the comprehension is a prophet foretells the future.

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.

In my opinion.

Click to expand...

Peace.

j1i said:

I just want to take note that when the Qur'an criticizes the Jews, it criticizes the sect only and not everyone

Click to expand...

Now tho agree the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Levites corrupted the original teachings, and created oral traditions during the Babylonian exile, etc...

When Yeshua came along, he said they'd basically done away with the Torah in Mark 7:1-13.

Yet when the Quran refers to the people of the book, and what is defined by all prophetic contexts, modern day Rabbinic Jews are a collection of all 3 sects, which has then become Zionism...

So when the Quran says the Jews are the ones who have changed the book, we should state it is the Pharisees (Gospel of Paul), and Sanhedrin (Gospel of John), with the Sanhedrin being a collection of all 3 sects that were destined to be cut off in Zechariah 11; yet they re-established, and denied that any of it ever happened...

Which is where Muhammad was given the message to the Gentiles that they've changed the prophecies, and denied the Curse was placed on them.

j1i said:

I want to know what is the fate of Abraham and the prophets and the righteous before the coming of Christ

Click to expand...

I've known since being an infant I've got the new name of Christ, and have been sent from Heaven in secret before Armageddon, to see if we can fix your religious arguments, before you all destroy each other.

Abraham, the prophets, and the righteous enlightened saints will all be put back by the Source after Judgement Day, and live in a new infinite creation without disease or death.

j1i said:

You know that the Trinity was not mentioned before the coming of Christ

Click to expand...

The Trinity was to make Catholic ideologies fit with Druidism; as within its Trinity it has a deity called Esus, who'd have people sacrificed to him on a tree.

j1i said:

I want to know how they will be held accountable on the Day of Judgment according to the Christian concept

Click to expand...

Currently anyone who rejects the Mighty Work of the Lord in all the religious texts globally, will no longer exist after Judgement Day...

Yet personally think most humans are not smart enough to comprehend all of it, as there are so many lies, and people are too much accusers (satanic) before being pragmatic (which means to deal with the case logically in steps).

j1i said:

The first message says that God is one without a Trinity
The Christian message says that God is three

Click to expand...

This is a simple point to fix... The God Most High in Hebrew is El Elyon, in Arabic Ala Ilah; the God Most High has Archangels that were the ones who actually were seen creating reality in many ancient religions.

There is a Hebrew language problem after the Babylonian Exile, that El = Source of our reality, add a H to it, and it becomes a Being Breathed into existence by the Source...

So Eloh is a Divine Being, and Elohim is plural Divine Beings.

Thus the Divine Council in the Quran and Bible are Elohim, they are the Archangels that interacted with reality; the Source El/Allah has never been seen by man, as it is beyond human comprehension...

Like being in a giant computer system, and the Source is like a very advanced CPU beyond form, that manifests all quantum physics.

The CPU can not come into the reality, as it continually makes it; yet the Source can make applications to interact with mankind, and the Quran confirms this:

42:51 And it is not for any human being that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a partition or that He sends a messenger to reveal, by His permission, what He wills. Indeed, He is Most High and Wise.

In my opinion.

Niblo said:

First example of NT corruption:

The King James Bible (including the American Version); the King James 2000 Bible; the Jubilee Bible 2000; the Douay-Rheims Bible; the Webster’s Bible Translation; and the Young’s Literal Translation contain what is known as the ‘Comma Ioanneum’. This is shown below in capitals:

‘For there are three that bear record IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. AND THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR WITNESS IN EARTH, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.’

Anthony and Richard Hanson write: ‘It (the ‘Comma Ioanneum’) was added by some enterprising person or persons in the ancient Church who felt that the New Testament was sadly deficient in direct witness to the kind of doctrine of the Trinity which he favoured and who determined to remedy that defect . . . It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament.’ (‘Reasonable Belief: A Survey of the Christian Faith; page 171).

The ‘Comma Ioanneum’ is spurious, and yet for centuries the Church insisted it be included in 1 John 5: 7-8; on the grounds that it had become official Church teaching.

In 1927, the Holy Office (Guardian of Catholic orthodoxy; and once named the ‘Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Roman and Universal Inquisition’) declared: ‘After careful examination of the whole circumstances that its genuineness could be denied’ (Ludwig Ott: ‘Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma’, page 56).

This is why one of my Bibles (the Jerusalem Bible - a Catholic version) reads: ‘So there are three witnesses, the Spirit, water and blood; and the three of them coincide.’ Another Catholic version of mine – the Douay-Rheims – does contain the ‘Comma Ioanneum’. So which of these two is the uncorrupted: the former or the latter?

Click to expand...

This certainly is the clearest example of interpolation or addition to the Biblical text.

I agree the evidence for the doctrine of the Trinity is weak based on the Biblical text along and this appears to have been the motivation for its addition.

The other examples provided are well known to any serious student of the Bible.

The ‘extent’ to which they represent a corruption of the Bible as a whole is where we would differ.

Goodman John said:

Don't use a modern Bible to compare with the Qur'an- use a version of the Bible that was in use in the late 7th century. That would be the Vulgate, written in Latin. Don't use the NIV or the KJV or the New Upreach Bible for Teens or some such.

Learn Qur'anic Arabic, and then learn Latin. Then compare the two texts and see what happens, and let the chips fall as they may.

Click to expand...

The vulgate is not a very good translation to use brother. I suggest use of greek bibles from earlier dates since we have them.

adrian009 said:

Further, modern scholars agree on the close collaboration of the Gospel authors, particularly the Synoptics. If there is a case for conflicting theologies between the Gospel writers the strongest case would be how John contradicts the Synoptics. I don’t believe they really do however. What conflicts do you see between the Gospel writers?

Click to expand...

I don't think that it is correct to say that scholars agree that the synoptic writers cooperated.
The four main writers of the gospel stories held quite diverse ideas about what the mission of Jesus was about.
The connection between the synoptic gospels is that later synoptic gospel authors would have read the work of earlier synoptic gospel writers and would have reworked parts from those texts as well as from the text of Q-light (words of Jesus) and integrated these into their own narratives.

Perhaps the Quoran is with 'Injil' referring to the teachings ("gospel") of Jesus rather than the whole NT gospel texts. The original collection of teachings of Jesus would have not been available to the author of te Quoran.

The teachings of Jesus in Q-lite may go back to the original mainly tantric teachings of the historical Jesus.
Although the Quoran also contains tantric teachings, these weren't produced by the author or initiator of the Quoran himself. So Jesus falls into a different category than the initiator of the Quoran.
What the initiator of the Quoran did with the idea of the gospel of Jesus is somewhat comparable to what the author of the gospel of John did with the gospel story, he felt free to reshape it drastically and to let go of earlier frames.

wizanda said:

Now tho agree the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Levites corrupted the original teachings, and created oral traditions during the Babylonian exile, etc...

When Yeshua came along, he said they'd basically done away with the Torah in Mark 7:1-13.

Yet when the Quran refers to the people of the book, and what is defined by all prophetic contexts, modern day Rabbinic Jews are a collection of all 3 sects, which has then become Zionism...

So when the Quran says the Jews are the ones who have changed the book, we should state it is the Pharisees (Gospel of Paul), and Sanhedrin (Gospel of John), with the Sanhedrin being a collection of all 3 sects that were destined to be cut off in Zechariah 11; yet they re-established, and denied that any of it ever happened...

Which is where Muhammad was given the message to the Gentiles that they've changed the prophecies, and denied the Curse was placed on them.

I've known since being an infant I've got the new name of Christ, and have been sent from Heaven in secret before Armageddon, to see if we can fix your religious arguments, before you all destroy each other.

Abraham, the prophets, and the righteous enlightened saints will all be put back by the Source after Judgement Day, and live in a new infinite creation without disease or death.

The Trinity was to make Catholic ideologies fit with Druidism; as within its Trinity it has a deity called Esus, who'd have people sacrificed to him on a tree.

Currently anyone who rejects the Mighty Work of the Lord in all the religious texts globally, will no longer exist after Judgement Day...

Yet personally think most humans are not smart enough to comprehend all of it, as there are so many lies, and people are too much accusers (satanic) before being pragmatic (which means to deal with the case logically in steps).

This is a simple point to fix... The God Most High in Hebrew is El Elyon, in Arabic Ala Ilah; the God Most High has Archangels that were the ones who actually were seen creating reality in many ancient religions.

There is a Hebrew language problem after the Babylonian Exile, that El = Source of our reality, add a H to it, and it becomes a Being Breathed into existence by the Source...

So Eloh is a Divine Being, and Elohim is plural Divine Beings.

Thus the Divine Council in the Quran and Bible are Elohim, they are the Archangels that interacted with reality; the Source El/Allah has never been seen by man, as it is beyond human comprehension...

Like being in a giant computer system, and the Source is like a very advanced CPU beyond form, that manifests all quantum physics.

The CPU can not come into the reality, as it continually makes it; yet the Source can make applications to interact with mankind, and the Quran confirms this:

42:51 And it is not for any human being that Allah should speak to him except by revelation or from behind a partition or that He sends a messenger to reveal, by His permission, what He wills. Indeed, He is Most High and Wise.

In my opinion.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your diligence charity my friend
But I will participate in the form of light flashes

The earth revolves around the sun and God does not revolve around the sun
I don't want to worship a god controlled by a magnet from the sun and rotation around it

i love my brothers Christians

HUGGS

j1i said:

The earth revolves around the sun and God does not revolve around the sun
I don't want to worship a god controlled by a magnet from the sun and rotation around it

Click to expand...

There is only one Source to reality, and all religion is one understanding of what reality is; it is mankind that divides it, and rejects that all angels, and prophets accept the same Oneness.

In my opinion.

I am content that there are many paths to God (or Ultimate Truth, or however one wants to name he/she/it) and mine is only one of them. Or it may not be- but like so many others, I'm doing the best I can with what I have to work with and my poor human understanding of faith is a blunt hammer where a surgeon's scalpel would be much more useful.

Goodman John said:

a blunt hammer where a surgeon's scalpel would be much more useful.

Click to expand...

Having been debating using the same word's today of using a hammer as a tool, and in reference to Biblical software as a sharp tool...

Where in this reality nothing happens by chance, as it is all manifest by the God Most High...

Found when we compare Logos ($$$) to Esword (free) Bible software, where we can use a KJV+, Hebrew+, Greek+ (which allows us to check all languages), Strongs concordance, and numbering system+, the more expensive is useless in comparison.

In my opinion.

Marcion said:

What the initiator of the Quoran did with the idea of the gospel of Jesus is somewhat comparable to what the author of the gospel of John did with the gospel story, he felt free to reshape it drastically and to let go of earlier frames.

Click to expand...

I tend to think Muhammad tried to keep it original to His perception of Gospel theology but was hounded by His own illiteracy and the pressure of being expected to be able to reveal hidden knowledge to make up the details He forgot.

danieldemol said:

His own illiteracy

Click to expand...

Amazingly in this same thread, I just learned it doesn't say he was 'illiterate in the Quran; the word originally implied 'unlettered, which is referring to 'Gentiles'...

Later traditions compounded the mistake by referring to him as illiterate, yet he cited the Talmud, the Psalms, etc in the Quran...

It was silly of us to believe that someone could have such an advanced knowledge of the Biblical prophecies, correlate complex poetic structures, and then be illiterate as suggested, it literally made no sense.

In my opinion.

wizanda said:

Amazingly in this same thread, I just learned it doesn't say he was 'illiterate in the Quran; the word originally implied 'unlettered, which is referring to 'Gentiles'...

Later traditions compounded the mistake by referring to him as illiterate, yet he cited the Talmud, the Psalms, etc in the Quran...

It was silly of us to believe that someone could have such an advanced knowledge of the Biblical prophecies, correlate complex poetic structures, and then be illiterate as suggested, it literally made no sense.

In my opinion.

Click to expand...

I think it could be that Muhammad was familiar with oral traditions, you can learn poetry and other things orally, and that would explain why basic mistakes were made, such as Jesus being born under a date palm tree in a remote place, which could easily have been cross referenced by a literate person who could go off what was written not relying on memory of what was said.

I can argue for or against the gospels, Acts, the epistles and Revelation, but this thread should be moved to the joke forum.

Some of the posts here (and I have only managed only to read just the 1st page), including the OP, and their belief in the Injil, as authentic gospel are just downright absurd.

Seriously, is Baha’i scholarship so pitiful and pathetic?

gnostic said:

I can argue for or against the gospels, Acts, the epistles and Revelation, but this thread should be moved to the joke forum.

Some of the posts here (and I have only managed only to read just the 1st page), including the OP, and their belief in the Injil, as authentic gospel are just downright absurd.

Seriously, is Baha’i scholarship so pitiful and pathetic?

Click to expand...

If ad hominem is all you have to offer, maybe you don’t have much, have you read this article written by non-Baha’is?

Corruption of Previous Scriptures (Qur'an 2:79) - WikiIslam

Or this one listing all the Muslim scholars which reject the charge of corruption of the Bible
Qur'an, Hadith and Scholars:Corruption of Previous Scriptures - WikiIslam

danieldemol said:

I think it could be that Muhammad was familiar with oral traditions, you can learn poetry and other things orally, and that would explain why basic mistakes were made, such as Jesus being born under a date palm tree in a remote place, which could easily have been cross referenced by a literate person who could go off what was written not relying on memory of what was said.

Click to expand...

There is a misunderstanding brother of the word Ummi which is translated unlettered.

1. Traditionally Muslims believed that (as you know already) he was illiterate (didnt know how to write or read). But there are conflicting reports of him writing certain things although others argue that he narrated, someone else wrote, so he is illiterate. Thus, it is a miracle that he narrated the Quran being an illiterate.

2. Gentile. As you know, this traditionally referred to "non-jewish" by jews.

3. Ummi is referred to people who are not literate in scripture (This is according to the Quran). e.g. "2:78 And among them are Ummi (unlettered/gentile) who do not know the Book except by hearsay, and they only conjecture". This is speaking of people who have only heard of the book. Hearsay. They are not leaned of the scripture so they make assumptions. Conjecture. This idea is prevalent throughout the Quran. Take 3:20. It clearly differentiates between those who have received the scripture/know the scripture (Oothul Kithaaba) and the ummi or those who are unlettered. One word does not represent the real meaning.

Give it the 'maybe' that Muhammed was one of those who was not knowledgeable of the scripture. Rasool an Nabiyil ummiy. The messenger who was not knowledgeable in scripture. Which means he does not come from a religious background of scripture.

This does not at all mean that he is the only one ever (according to the Quran). This is just a statement. A description. Thats it.

The Quran as a book has particular personalities given to these descriptions. If you study citings of a particular word or a phrase that repeats in the book you can come to a lot of insight.

adrian009 said:

Injil is the Arabic name for the Gospel of Jesus. This Injil is described by the Quran as one of the Holy books revealed by God, Including the Tawrat (Torah) and the Quran itself. The word Injil is also used in the Quran, the Hadith and early Muslim documents to refer to both a book and revelations made by God to Jesus.

However Muslim scholars have resisted identifying the Injil with the New Testament Gospels. Some have suggested the Injil may be the Gospel of Barnabas or the Gospel of Thomas. More commonly, Muslim scholars have argued that the Injil refers to a text now lost or hopelessly corrupted.

For example, Abdullah Yusuf Ali wrote:

The Injil spoken of by the Quran is not the New Testament. It is not the four Gospels now received as canonical. It is the single Gospel which, Islam teaches, was revealed to Jesus, and which he taught. Fragments of it survive in the received canonical Gospels and in some others, of which traces survive (e.g., the Gospel of Childhood or the Nativity, the Gospel of St.Barnabas, etc.)

The following verse is often interpreted as implying that the Injil is preserved, but instead many Muslim scholars interpret it as Allah warning the Christians not to enforce the law contrary to the law sent by Allah:

And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel [Injil] wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah ] - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil). Let the People of the Gospel [Injil] judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein....".
 Quran 5:46-47

Scholars such as Gabriel Said Reynolds have maintained Injil refers specifically to the Gospel of the New Testament in the possession of the Christians being addressed in such passages, which is none other than the Gospels of the Bible as known today and in copies that predate the lifetime of Muhammad.

Adapted from: Gospel in Islam - Wikipedia

So is the Gospel of Jesus referred to in the Quran the New Testament Gospels? Or does it refer to a Gospel that is now hopelessly lost, meaning the New Testament Gospels are corrupted? What evidence would support your conclusion?

Click to expand...

I'm confused. Are you referring to their claim the Jewish and Christian gospel is corrupt? Because it's largely unchanged. Or are you saying their notion of what the Gospel says is corrupt? Because it definitely is (they for instance believe Mary to be part of the Trinity).

Samantha Rinne said:

I'm confused. Are you referring to their claim the Jewish and Christian gospel is corrupt? Because it's largely unchanged. Or are you saying their notion of what the Gospel says is corrupt? Because it definitely is (they for instance believe Mary to be part of the Trinity).

Click to expand...

If you think accusing someone of taking Mary and Jesus as lord is making her one of the trinity, then children, money, desire, are all part of the trinity.

You have heard an evangelists apologetics and adopted it without analysing the accused scripture in detail. Like some.

Marcion said:

I don't think that it is correct to say that scholars agree that the synoptic writers cooperated.
The four main writers of the gospel stories held quite diverse ideas about what the mission of Jesus was about.
The connection between the synoptic gospels is that later synoptic gospel authors would have read the work of earlier synoptic gospel writers and would have reworked parts from those texts as well as from the text of Q-light (words of Jesus) and integrated these into their own narratives.

Perhaps the Quoran is with 'Injil' referring to the teachings ("gospel") of Jesus rather than the whole NT gospel texts. The original collection of teachings of Jesus would have not been available to the author of te Quoran.

The teachings of Jesus in Q-lite may go back to the original mainly tantric teachings of the historical Jesus.
Although the Quoran also contains tantric teachings, these weren't produced by the author or initiator of the Quoran himself. So Jesus falls into a different category than the initiator of the Quoran.
What the initiator of the Quoran did with the idea of the gospel of Jesus is somewhat comparable to what the author of the gospel of John did with the gospel story, he felt free to reshape it drastically and to let go of earlier frames.

Click to expand...

Mainstream Biblical scholarship certainly supports collaboration with the Synoptics and considers the use of a Q source as opposed to Q-lite. The order they were written was most likely Mark, Luke and then Matthew, Luke and Matthew drawing on available material from the earlier Gospel(s). They may well have diverse ideas about Who Jesus was. Regardless, even the sharing let alone verbatim quoting of common material is evidence of collaboration.

Samantha Rinne said:

I'm confused. Are you referring to their claim the Jewish and Christian gospel is corrupt? Because it's largely unchanged. Or are you saying their notion of what the Gospel says is corrupt? Because it definitely is (they for instance believe Mary to be part of the Trinity).

Click to expand...

I’m referring to what Muslims claim about Christian scripture based on their understanding of the Quran. The best counter argument for Christians is simply the high likelihood of the Canonical Gospels accurately record what Jesus really taught as they were written within six to seven decades after His crucifixion.

Another approach for Christians is to question the authenticity of the Quran itself. However if you suggest the Quran teaches the trinity when it clearly rejects it, your understanding of the Quran will be rightly called into question.

Hope that helps.

adrian009 said:

Regardless, even the sharing let alone verbatim quoting of common material is evidence of collaboration.

Click to expand...

If we study the Greek, which we can do with Esword Bible Software, a KJV+, Greek Apostolic+, it is clear they use totally different language skills...

Tho scholarship questions a Q-Source, as it is possible of partial plagiarism, for all we know this could have happened after it was canonized as the parts that are plagiarized are word for word the same, and most isn't.

The parables are not repeated in all 3, there are only a few which are in all, and these are literally what the whole Bible rests upon especially the Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen; which is also in the Gospel of Thomas independently.

In other words if we're logical, as we'd do in a police trial, we look for similitude in the testimonies to build up a case of what possibly happened; on exact phrase matching this is often forged in some way, yet we don't even have that on the important bits...

So to question a Q-Source that everyone copied from, isn't dealing with the data (as it would be far more precisely copied); it is dealing with a hypothesis to debunk it being a real account.

In my opinion.