The Qur'an or the Gospels: Which is more authentic?

[Dawnofhope]

The Qur'an or the Gospels: Which is more authentic?

In other words what is a more authentic representation of the actual words Muhammad or Jesus really spoke? Authenticity (for this thread) is not to be confused with whether or not Muhammad or Jesus were who they claimed to be. We are simply considering to what extent the Qur'an reflects what Muhammad actually taught or the Gospels reflect Christ's true teachings.

What are your reasons?

 

[Ingledsva]

Things have been added or changed in both over time.

Interestingly, if we remove Christianity from the original Tanakh, and discard the Hadiths and other writings of human men telling us the meaning of the Qur'an, both become much more authentic to their authors meaning.

*

 

[lukethethird]

Which one weighs more?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Things have been added or changed in both over time.

Interestingly, if we remove Christianity from the original Tanakh, and discard the Hadiths and other writings of human men telling us the meaning of the Qur'an, both become much more authentic to their authors meaning.

*

The question I'm asking specifically concerns the Gospels and Qur'an. The Tanakh of course is even more unrelaible, especially if we want to consider what it says in regards Moses Teaching. No one is claiming the Hadiths to have reliability anywhere near like the Quran. So I have deliberately asked us to consider the reliability of only the Qur'an and only the Gospels.

Of course the Hadith and Tanakh can be used to argue for and against the reliability of both books respectively as they can be used to consider different meanings within each book.

Both the Qur'an and Gospels may or may not be products of Divine revelation but that is not the question either.

Welcome back btw. I haven't see you around for a while.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The New Testament wasn't decided on until the 4th century AD. The version of the Qur'an currently in use was decided by the 3rd Caliphate Uthman within two decades of Muhammad's passing.

What commends it (Quran) so powerfully to the historian is its authenticity, not as the Word of God, of course, as the Muslims believe but as the secular historian cannot and should not, but rather as a document attesting to what Muhammad said at that time and place, early seventh-century Mecca. It is not a transcript, however; our present Quran is the result of an edition prepared under the orders of Uthman... but the search for significant variants in the partial versions extant before Uthman's standard edition, what can be called the sources behind our text, has not yielded any differences of great significance. Those Uthmanic clues are fragmentary, however, and large 'invented' portions might well have been added to our Quran or authentic material deleted. So it has been charged in fact by some Muslims who failed to find in the present Quran any explicit reference to the designation of a successor to the Prophet and so have alleged tampering with the original texts. But the argument is so patently tendentious and the evidence adduced for the fact so exiguous that few have failed to be convinced that what is in our copy of the Quran is in fact what Muhammad taught, and is expressed in his own words.

Criticism of the Quran - Wikipedia

The earliest version of the Quran is the Sana'a Manuscript. We have that lower text where radiocarbon dating places it between 578 and 669 based on 95%confidence intervals with radiocarbon dating. 669 is only 37 years after the prophet Muhammad passed away in 632!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana'a_manuscript

Compare that to the earliest fragment of the New Testament:

The earliest manuscript of a New Testament text is a business-card-sized fragment from the Gospel of John, Rylands Library Papyrus P52, which may be as early as the first half of the 2nd century.

Biblical manuscript - Wikipedia

A tiny fragment in the second century compared to all we have available in the first century of the Islamic calendar. The Bible is never going to beat the Quran for authenticity regardless of the existence of God.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Which one weighs more?

Are you joking?

The Qur'an has nearly 78,000 words whereas the gospels has just over 65,000. Why would you think that would be revelant to authenticity?

 

[Ingledsva]

The question I'm asking specifically concerns the Gospels and Qur'an. The Tanakh of course is even more unrelaible, especially if we want to consider what it says in regards Moses Teaching. No one is claiming the Hadiths to have reliability anywhere near like the Quran. So I have deliberately asked us to consider the reliability of only the Qur'an and only the Gospels.

Of course the Hadith and Tanakh can be used to argue for and against the reliability of both books respectively as they can be used to consider different meanings within each book.

Both the Qur'an and Gospels may or may not be products of Divine revelation but that is not the question either.

Welcome back btw. I haven't see you around for a while.

I don't agree that Tanakh is "more" unreliable in relation to it's authors' intent.

I find Christianity unreliable. They took another religion's text, changed it, and added their own meanings. The Jewish Messiah was supposed to be a special human, not a God. No trinity, - period.

As to the question, Gospels, or Qur'an? The Qur'an is probably closer to original intent. It has been pointed out by biblical scholars that much of the Qur'an matches more closely with Tanakh, and ancient Jewish writings.

Thanks for the welcome back. It is summer here, and the sunny weather has been in the 80"s and 90's. I've been hiking, boating, camping, four-wheeling, etc.

I'm just checking in, and then back to fun until our colder weather descends.

*

 

[Faithofchristian]

The Qur'an or the Gospels: Which is more authentic?

In other words what is a more authentic representation of the actual words Muhammad or Jesus really spoke? Authenticity (for this thread) is not to be confused with whether or not Muhammad or Jesus were who they claimed to be. We are simply considering to what extent the Qur'an reflects what Muhammad actually taught or the Gospels reflect Christ's true teachings.

What are your reasons?

Well seeing Muhammad copied from the Gospels and old testament scriptures.

What do you suppose is more authentic ?

The 4 Gospels themselves out date the Qu'ran by about 600 years. So who's Authentic?

And the old testament scriptures, out date the Qu'ran by about, 3000 years, So who's Authentic
So Who copied who ?

Not only that, in the old testament scriptures, God has given, that out of the mouth of two or three witnesses shall the matter be established.
Throughout the old testament scriptures there are many witnesses.

In the Qu'ran you have only one witness,
Muhammad.
so where is Muhammad's witnesses, to give witness on what he said?

Or are we, to take the word of only one man, and no one to backup what he said.

As for me, I would rather take the word of two or three people, than the word of one person.
But yet if you were to listen to the Muslims, they will try and tell you, that the bible copied from the Qu'ran, But yet the Bible out dates the Qu'ran by far. So how does this work?

So who's Authentic ?

 

[LuisDantas]

The Qur'an or the Gospels: Which is more authentic?

Easily the Gospels, if we are going by actual religious merit.

Which you apparently are not proposing as the criteria to be used:

In other words what is a more authentic representation of the actual words Muhammad or Jesus really spoke?

By that measure, easily the Qur'an. The Gospels are not very likely to even refer to a literal Jesus.

Authenticity (for this thread) is not to be confused with whether or not Muhammad or Jesus were who they claimed to be. We are simply considering to what extent the Qur'an reflects what Muhammad actually taught or the Gospels reflect Christ's true teachings.

What are your reasons?

That is yet a third choice of criteria, however. The Gospels are IMO not meant to rely on the existence of a literal Jesus, while the Qur'an quite explicitly depends on and assures the existence of a historical Muhammad.

For what it is worth, I voted for the Gospels, although it is clear that we are not seeing eye to eye on what would make either scripture authentic.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Well seeing Muhammad copied from the Gospels and old testament scriptures.

What do you suppose is more authentic ?

Muhammad was illiterate and came from a tribe of pagans on the Arabian Penisula. Unlike the Christian Bible that simply attaches the Hebrew Bible and claims it as it’s own, we have no such thing with the Quran. Although about 50 Biblical characters are mentioned in the Quran, none of the books are a straight cut and paste from the Christian Bible.

As the next in an illustrious line of prophets extending from Adam and including Moses and Jesus it’s only fitting that Muhammad would educate His followers about those who had gone before Him.

The 4 Gospels themselves out date the Qu'ran by about 600 years. So who's Authentic?

And the old testament scriptures, out date the Qu'ran by about, 3000 years, So who's Authentic
So Who copied who ?

Unfortunately that’s not saying a lot. Just because something is old doesn’t mean it’s Divinely Revealed and just because it’s newer doesn’t mean it wasn’t.

So by that reasoning the Gospels were only valid hundreds of years after they were written.

Not only that, in the old testament scriptures, God has given, that out of the mouth of two or three witnesses shall the matter be established.
Throughout the old testament scriptures there are many witnesses.

In the Qu'ran you have only one witness,
Muhammad.
so where is Muhammad's witnesses, to give witness on what he said?

Having multiple authors isn’t proof of authenticity if you think about.

Both Uthman and Ali were Caliphates when the final version of the Quran was agreed upon, and both were contemporaries to Muhammad. This gives weight to the Quran being reflective of what Muhammad taught.

Or are we, to take the word of only one man, and no one to backup what he said.

We have many accounts from many people with the Hadiths and Sirat.

As for me, I would rather take the word of two or three people, than the word of one person.
But yet if you were to listen to the Muslims, they will try and tell you, that the bible copied from the Qu'ran, But yet the Bible out dates the Qu'ran by far. So how does this work?

So who's Authentic ?

It depends on what Muslims you talk to. Imagining the Bible outdating the Quran constitutes any measure of proof just makes me wonder if you have actually understood the question.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Muhammad was illiterate and came from a tribe of pagans on the Arabian Penisula. Unlike the Christian Bible that simply attaches the Hebrew Bible and claims it as it’s own, we have no such thing with the Quran. Although about 50 Biblical characters are mentioned in the Quran, none of the books are a straight cut and paste from the Christian Bible.

As the next in an illustrious line of prophets extending from Adam and including Moses and Jesus it’s only fitting that Muhammad would educate His followers about those who had gone before Him.



Unfortunately that’s not saying a lot. Just because something is old doesn’t mean it’s Divinely Revealed and just because it’s newer doesn’t mean it wasn’t.

So by that reasoning the Gospels were only valid hundreds of years after they were written.



Having multiple authors isn’t proof of authenticity if you think about.

Both Uthman and Ali were Caliphates when the final version of the Quran was agreed upon, and both were contemporaries to Muhammad. This gives weight to the Quran being reflective of what Muhammad taught.



We have many accounts from many people with the Hadiths and Sirat.



It depends on what Muslims you talk to. Imagining the Bible outdating the Quran constitutes any measure of proof just makes me wonder if you have actually understood the question.

Your right about Muhammad being illiterate, couldn't read or write. But had his wife to write for him. So how would Muhammad know for sure what his wife may haved wrote down.
Seeing he couldn't read or write.

Now as for your saying ( unlike the christian bible that simply attaches the Hebrew bible and claims it as it's own)

Had you any idea, Who most Christians are, which alot of Christians have no idea either as to who they are. which is quite sad on their part.
All they would have to do is trace the ancestry down in the bible.

I've known who I am since I was a child who I am.
I'm of the tribe of Asher, of Israel.
Which Ten tribes of Israel broke off from Israel, leaving only two tribes over in Israel, the tribe of Benjamin and Israel.
The other 10 tribes are found in alot of the European countries. Which some migrated to the United States, back before the United States were called the United States. Back when they were called the 13 colonies and some before this.

My Grandparents were here before the 13 colonies came to be.

So when you say, the Christians attached the Hebrew bible and claim it as their own.
I guess I can call the Hebrew bible my own, seeing I am of Israel of the tribe of Asher.
I am also Christian and seeing Christ Jesus was born of the tribe of Judah of Israel, that makes Christ Jesus my older brother.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Easily the Gospels, if we are going by actual religious merit.

Which you apparently are not proposing as the criteria to be used:


By that measure, easily the Qur'an. The Gospels are not very likely to even refer to a literal Jesus.




That is yet a third choice of criteria, however. The Gospels are IMO not meant to rely on the existence of a literal Jesus, while the Qur'an quite explicitly depends on and assures the existence of a historical Muhammad.

For what it is worth, I voted for the Gospels, although it is clear that we are not seeing eye to eye on what would make either scripture authentic.

The Abrahamic Faiths do place emphasis on what their respective Founders actually taught, so this thread explores how well those Teachings are reflected in Sacred scripture. Clearly the Dharmic Faiths don’t have the same degree of concern for textural criticism with regards what Buddha, Krishna or whoever else taught.

The Gospels were probably written by second or third generation Christians whose concern was to meet the needs of some of the Churches at the time and to encourage the Faithful. They weren’t written as historic accounts of what happened. The resurrection narrative is most likely an adaptation of Paul’s preaching to the Greeks. Christians get themselves in trouble when they insist the Gospels to be written by historians. They weren’t.

The intense antipathy felt towards Islam by some on RF is pretty obvious really and at times acutely felt. We’re all human beings at the end of the day regardless of our beliefs.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Your right about Muhammad being illiterate, couldn't read or write. But had his wife to write for him. So how would Muhammad know for sure what his wife may haved wrote down.
Seeing he couldn't read or write.

Now as for your saying ( unlike the christian bible that simply attaches the Hebrew bible and claims it as it's own)

Had you any idea, Who most Christians are, which alot of Christians have no idea either as to who they are. which is quite sad on their part.
All they would have to do is trace the ancestry down in the bible.

I've known who I am since I was a child who I am.
I'm of the tribe of Asher, of Israel.
Which Ten tribes of Israel broke off from Israel, leaving only two tribes over in Israel, the tribe of Benjamin and Israel.
The other 10 tribes are found in alot of the European countries. Which some migrated to the United States, back before the United States were called the United States. Back when they were called the 13 colonies and some before this.

My Grandparents were here before the 13 colonies came to be.

So when you say, the Christians attached the Hebrew bible and claim it as their own.
I guess I can call the Hebrew bible my own, seeing I am of Israel of the tribe of Asher.
I am also Christian and seeing Christ Jesus was born of the tribe of Judah of Israel, that makes Christ Jesus my older brother.

It’s great you know your ancestry and it must feel special to connect up with your Jewish roots. My ancestors were Christians but I don’t have the inclination to go back more than a few hundred years. I have no problem with the Hebrew Bible as part of the Christian Bible. Part of what Christ achieved was to bring a New Covenant but also to share the Old Covenant and it’s story with the rest of the world.

Of course the Arabs weren’t Jews and had no such history. Christianity had become corrupt by the seventh century when Muhammad emerged on the scene. Most peoples of that time were illiterate and tribalism often relied on oral traditions passed down through the generations. Once Muhammad’s followers realised the significance of Muhammad’s Message as being from God they placed great emphasis on memorising His Teachings and fortunately they were written down early on. So you could argue that the Quran is all plagiarised from the Bible, but that’s not what I’m asking. I’m asking if the Quran was truly reflective of what Muhammad taught. There’s solid evidence it was. Whether or not it’s worth the time to reflect on its contents is an entirely different question.

Thanks for dropping by, all the same.

 

[LuisDantas]

The Abrahamic Faiths do place emphasis on what their respective Founders actually taught, so this thread explores how well those Teachings are reflected in Sacred scripture.

I understand. And it is my sincere intent to cooperate with that goal to the best of my ability, by describing my grasp of what those teachings seen to have been at their respective origins.

The Qur'an and the Gospels have differences in origin, nature and purpose that are very significant indeed in this regard.

Clearly the Dharmic Faiths don’t have the same degree of concern for textural criticism with regards what Buddha, Krishna or whoever else taught.

More like they do not emphasize original texts anywhere near as much. There is more of a sense of living doctrines and caring for what our predecessors gave us in ways that do not necessarilyresemble blind, impotent submission.

The Gospels were probably written by second or third generation Christians whose concern was to meet the needs of some of the Churches at the time and to encourage the Faithful. They weren’t written as historic accounts of what happened. The resurrection narrative is most likely an adaptation of Paul’s preaching to the Greeks. Christians get themselves in trouble when they insist the Gospels to be written by historians. They weren’t.

I quite agree. That is the basis of my account of their authenticity and relevance.

The intense antipathy felt towards Islam by some on RF is pretty obvious really and at times acutely felt.

As well it should. I for one would hope it to be felt clearly and unambiguously. Islaam is something to be repudiated and the reasons why should be well widespread. The sooner, the better, so that the unavoidable damage and pain do not grow even further.

I am sorry if that causes disconfort, as well as if it troubles your polling efforts. But would it be any better to provide misleading information? To say that the Qur'an is very authentic and to omit that it is utterly misguided in its authenticity of fanatic purpose?

I just don't think that could serve any constructive purpose. Do you?

We’re all human beings at the end of the day regardless of our beliefs.

Indeed. And that is one of several good reasons why we should care for the quality and consequences of those beliefs.

 

[Ingledsva]

Well seeing Muhammad copied from the Gospels and old testament scriptures.

What do you suppose is more authentic ?

The 4 Gospels themselves out date the Qu'ran by about 600 years. So who's Authentic?

And the old testament scriptures, out date the Qu'ran by about, 3000 years, So who's Authentic
So Who copied who ?

... So who's Authentic ?

LOL! And the Christians hijacked, copied, and changed, Torah meanings to create their new religion! And mixed them with Pagan ideas such as an evil "Satan" character, and Hell.

Scholars have noted that the Qur'an is closer to Tanakh and old Jewish writings concerning such. Old school STRICT version (as in KILL gays.)

They do not accept Christian teachings, they accept Jesus - a Jew whom taught TANAKH.- only as a prophet (not a God, not part of any trinity.)

Interestingly their version of Mary and Jesus matches some of the texts not accepted by later Christians teachings. Such as Mary being a Temple woman.

*

 

[lukethethird]

Are you joking?

The Qur'an has nearly 78,000 words whereas the gospels has just over 65,000. Why would you think that would be revelant to authenticity?

This thread is a joke, hence my question.

 

[Faithofchristian]

LOL! And the Christians hijacked, copied, and changed, Torah meanings to create their new religion! And mixed them with Pagan ideas such as an evil "Satan" character, and Hell.

Scholars have noted that the Qur'an is closer to Tanakh and old Jewish writings concerning such. Old school STRICT version (as in KILL gays.)

They do not accept Christian teachings, they accept Jesus - a Jew whom taught TANAKH.- only as a prophet (not a God, not part of any trinity.)

Interestingly their version of Mary and Jesus matches some of the texts not accepted by later Christians teachings. Such as Mary being a Temple woman.

*

Seeing how you didn't make any mention of it.

Can you explain exactly who a Christian is and from where Christians came from ?

Why do you suppose the Qu'ran is closer to the Tanakh, Why is that ?

Could it be, muhammd tried to memorized verses from the Tanakh, When hearing people talk about the Tanakh and then had his wife or someone to write things down as he told them what to write down, Seeing Muhammad couldn't read or write.
But was illiterate when it came to reading and writing.

 

[Faithofchristian]

LOL! And the Christians hijacked, copied, and changed, Torah meanings to create their new religion! And mixed them with Pagan ideas such as an evil "Satan" character, and Hell.

Scholars have noted that the Qur'an is closer to Tanakh and old Jewish writings concerning such. Old school STRICT version (as in KILL gays.)

They do not accept Christian teachings, they accept Jesus - a Jew whom taught TANAKH.- only as a prophet (not a God, not part of any trinity.)

Interestingly their version of Mary and Jesus matches some of the texts not accepted by later Christians teachings. Such as Mary being a Temple woman.

*

In reading the Tanakh, I found things that are quite amazing, here I will give you an example what I found.

In the Christian bible Genesis 6:4---"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, When the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown"

Tanakh 6:4---"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of the nobles would come to the daughters of man, and they would bear for them; they are the mighty men, who were of old, the men of renown"

That's quite amazing, that how in the Tanakh everything is made more clear. No trying to figure it out, who the Giants are. No guessing. Just plain and simple.

The Nephilim. Are the Giants that are being made mention of in Genesis 6:4 of the Christian bible.
Have you any idea as to who are the
( Nobles ) ?
It's quite easy, if you understand about the first earth age.
also who are the mighty men, who were of old ?
This to is quite easy to understand. If you understand about the first earth age.

But I want to thank you, in brining up to me about the Tanakh which is also called the Torah. Which is the first five books of Moses.
It's been alot of years, but now thanks to you, I can compare my Christian bible with the Tanakh. Which brings out things clearly.
I can't knock those who in the translation of the Hebrew and Greek into English, did the best they could, with what limited tools they had at that time.
They probably without a doubt, didn't understand what the Nephilim were so they just put giants in their place.

The Nephilim were as tall as 36 feet and some 50 to 60 feet tall. That means their new born babies would be as big as full grown adult.
But anyway you gave me something to start looking at and reading upon.
To look at both my Christian bible and the Tanakh. Both seem to be saying the same thing, but in different ways.
Again Thank you

 

[Twilight Hue]

Which one weighs more?

Sounds like no contest.

Have you ever seen some of those Christian Bibles? They're HUGE! :0)

 

[Dawnofhope]

I understand. And it is my sincere intent to cooperate with that goal to the best of my ability, by describing my grasp of what those teachings seen to have been at their respective origins.

The Qur'an and the Gospels have differences in origin, nature and purpose that are very significant indeed in this regard.

I appreciate your input into this thread. The title may have been worded a less ambiguously as clear some will have a major aversion to associating authenticity to Islam. Perhaps the question would be better phrased 'To what extend did the Qur'an and Gospels reflect the original Teachings of Muhammad and Christ respectively?'

More like they do not emphasize original texts anywhere near as much. There is more of a sense of living doctrines and caring for what our predecessors gave us in ways that do not necessarilyresemble blind, impotent submission.

Once I've finished studying Islam, I do intend to examine Buddhism and Hinduism more closely. I don't see the Abrahamic Faiths as being about blind, impotent submission at all, but that can be a danger with any religion whether Abrahamic or from Asia.

As well it should. I for one would hope it to be felt clearly and unambiguously. Islaam is something to be repudiated and the reasons why should be well widespread. The sooner, the better, so that the unavoidable damage and pain do not grow even further.

I am sorry if that causes disconfort, as well as if it troubles your polling efforts. But would it be any better to provide misleading information? To say that the Qur'an is very authentic and to omit that it is utterly misguided in its authenticity of fanatic purpose?

I just don't think that could serve any constructive purpose. Do you?

It doesn't bother me in the slightest about the polling, but it does concern me the lack of participation from Muslims. Where are they? They form a quarter of the worlds population yet they are poorly represented on this forum.

Islam arouses strong feelings in many people as clearly it does for you. I'm not a Muslim of course and my background before becoming a Baha'i was Christian. However, there is an urgent need IMHO to better understand Islam and build bridges of mutual tolerance and understanding. I had thought this religious forum had those goals in mind or am I mistaken?