Friday 2 October 2009

Evidences for the Qur'an: a reply to Ethesham

My dear brother Ehtesham has listed a number of evidences for Islam on his website. I will just list them here and lightly respond to them. God-willing when he provides a detailed description of all these points I will respond to them also.

Ethesham wrote:

1.) The Quran says the Bible (Both the Old and New Testaments) is corrupt. Today Scholars of the Bible say the same exact thing-- Both the Old and New Testaments(especially the New Testament) have been badly edited, corrupted and distorted over time.

Elijah replies:

The first problem with this statement is the fact that the Qur'an does not imply that the Injeel is corrupted.

Secondly, the scholars who imply this are secular and humanists who apply certain methods to exclude the supernatural aspect of the Bible. These methods are philosophical in nature not historical; furthermore, these methodologies will equally debunk the Qur'an and hence the religion of Islam.

Thirdly, Christians who apply e.g. textual criticism or redaction criticism often apply the words critic, problem, corruption (I myself do that), however these words are not meant in a way to imply the nature or extent of corruption, which the Muslim is in need of to protect his own Qur'an from the reliability of the previous revelations.

Ethesham wrote:

2.) Scienctific Miracles from the Quran. Nobody has been able to refute many Scientific claims of the Quran. This is the biggest evidence that the Quran is not from a human
rather from Allah-- the God of All.

Elijah replies:

This claims seems very odd to me. I have done extensive studies on science also in relation to Islam and Greek philosophy. The fact is that most of the science described in the Qur'an is wrong. Furthermore, these claims were also common knowledge among the ancient intellectuals who preceeded Islam.

Ethesham wrote:

3). The Miracles of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Prophet Muhammad was able to perform miracles, something a false prophet can't do or an ordinary human
can do-- there was something supernatural in him where he was able to do miracles.

Elijah replies:

Firstly I disagree with the statement that a false prophet cannot perform miracles. Many hindu holy men, satanists and spiritists perform miracles.

Secondly, the Qur'an nowhere ascribes any miracles to Muhammad, quite the opposite it claims that the only miracle of Muhammad was revelation of the Qur'an, a book whose integrity has been refuted both historically, logically, scientifically and textually.

Thirdly, even though the Hadiths records miracles ascribed to Muhammad, Ethesham and other Muslims have to agree that based upon their own methodology these are human writings and ideas that were passed on from person to person for hundreds of years. If these traditions are to be considered reliable why does Ethesham distrust the succession, transmission and preservation of the Gospel material in the first century?

Ethesham wrote:

4.) True Prophcies of the Quran. More evidence its from the divine.

Elijah replies:

I am at loss as to what prophesies we are dealing with here.

Ethesham wrote:

5). True Prophcies of Prophet Muhammad-- more evidence he is a Prophet of God.

Elijah replies:

Again, I which which prophesies we are dealing with here.

Ethesham wrote:

6) Perservation of the Quran-- Allah said he would protect the Quran (Quran 15:9). This is another miracle of the Quran.

Elijah replies:

An assessment of the Islamic material shows that Muhammad was indeed dependent upon his followers in the writing or creation of the Qur'an; hence the Qur'an seems to be more of a fabrication. The number of Greek scientific ideas, Jewish fables, and Gnostic ideas simply confirms this.

Secondly, the Hadiths reveal that Muslims and even Muhammad in Muhammad's time were unable to preserve the Qur'an. When Muhammad died the situation of the Qur'an was chaotic and much of its content had been lost.

Thirdly, when the Qur'an was compiled after Muhammad's death, a civil war almost broke out since the variaty Qur'an versions were not matching.

Forthly, the Muslim rulers decided to favour only one Qur'anic version (the one of Zaid) an inferior version and burn the remaining ones. Those who had proved themselves to the most of reciters within Muhammad's time were literally forced to hand over their qur'ans to be burned.
Sounds to me like an organised and enforced corruption, of political nature. The fact is, there is no reason to trust a trustful transmission of the Qur'an before we see the varity of these Qur'an's that existed prior to Uthman's destruction and corruption of the Qur'an and we can compare these.

Fifthly, we know that even the manuscript of Hafsa, which Uthaman utilized for the corruption of the Qur'an was later destroyed to cover up errors.

Ethesham wrote:

7) Prophet Muhammad was foretold in the Old Testament. He may have also been foretold in the New Testament as well.

Elijah replies:

There not a single reference to Muhammad in the Bible, neither in the Old or New Testament.

The prophet in the Torah is Israelite and does not apply to Muhammad neither in nature or action.

The paraclete in John's Gospel does not apply either and neither can it since Muslims claim that John's Gospel is a complete corruption and fabrication and total embellishment of primitive Christianity.

Furthermore, from a Christian point of view, the only mention of Muhammad in the New Testament is categorized under the variaty of warnings of future false prophets, who do not meet the standard or doctrine of Jesus' or apostolic doctrine.

25 comments:

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Thanks Hogan FOR reading my website.

How are you by the way?

Inshallah I will give detailed explanations to you adessing my issues.

But I want to respond to some of them:

We already talked about this and yes, the Quran says the Bible both the Old and New Testaments are corrupt:

http://www.answering-christian-claims.com/The_Quran_1.html

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_islam_endorse_the_bible__

Also the Quran 4:157---

2) Scince in the Quran is one of the miracles of the Quran. I recommend you see this debate, Hogan bro:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y1XgzzHglQg&feature=related

Zakir Naik already refuted these allegations which you make,

3) Miracles of Prophet Muhamamd--- the hadith were perfectly perserved-- and written down by trustworhty people. Also I find this a bit of a double standard, you believe in Jesus-- you believe he did miracles-- so why Can't he be a false prophet who did miracles by Satan? Also many people saw the miracles of Prophet Muhammad.

Also notice the inconsistency. Christian apologists accept some hadith which support your case then reject the rest which don't support your case. So how do we know what hadith are true and not?

Also the Quran did not say that Prophet Muhammad can't perform miracles:

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_the_quran_say_that_prophet_muhammad__peace_be_upon_him__did_not_perform_any_miracles_

4) prophesies, as in "And proclaim the Pilgrimage among men: they will come to thee on foot and (mounted) on every kind of camel, lean on account of journeys through deep and distant mountain highways; (Quran 22:27)

This verse is saying that men from all over will come for the Hajj.
Today we see many Muslims from all over the world coming to do Hajj not just Arabs.

There are other prophcies which I will do later. Also does the O.T. make any prophcies about Jesus? This Jewish Website: http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Prairie/1551/contents.htm
Begs to differ.

5) In the hadith: "....When the shepherds of black camels start boasting and competing with others in the construction of higher buildings. And the Hour is one of five things which nobody knows except Allah..... " Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 47

Furfillment: Today the United Arab Emirates has the highest building, and they are competing to bulid bigger buildings.

There are more, but I'll cover it on my website later. But The Bible also has many unfurfilled Prophcies which I will also get to later.

6) I'll point you to this debate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWK1xv0Bt-A&feature=player_embedded

Bassam Zawadi proves that the Quran has been Preserved. Again I'll comment more later, since I have exams to study for.

7). Prophet Muhammad was foretold in the Old Testament. He may have also been foretold in the New Testament as well.

All I want you to see is this article written By Bassam Zawadi:

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_david_wood_s_article__muhammad_in_the_bible___an_analysis_of_the_muslim_appeal_to_biblical_prophecy_

Thanks
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

(referring to crucifixion) and those who differ therein are full of doubts. They have no (certain) knowledge, they follow nothing but conjecture. For surely; they killed him not [i.e. 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) ]: (An-Nisa 4:157)

The point was made that the Christians follow the New Testament (including the Gospels, etc) in which they get the story crucifixion, and the Quran calls it conjecture (corruption).

So the Quran indirectly says the New Testament is corrupt.

Also The verse is making it clear that the crucifixion of Jesus is conjecture or corruption. The crucifixion of Jesus is clearly taught in the Gospels that we have today, thus the Qur'an is clearly in an indirect way saying that this is corrupted.

It is hilarious how some Christians try to argue back that the author of the Qur'an probably did not know that the crucifixion was mentioned in the Gospel and if he had then he probably would not have denied it.

Are Christians seriously asking us to believe that none of the Muslims during the Prophet's time knew that the gospels taught that Jesus was crucified yet at the same time believed that Islam told them to believe that the gospels in the possession of the Christians were pure and undistorted? Couldn't the Prophet have easily been exposed by Christian converts to Islam such as Salmaan al Faarisi or Maryam the Coptic slave girl sent from Egypt to the Prophet peace be upon him who would have known that the gospels taught the crucifixion while at the same time believed that Islam taught them that the gospels were undistorted? How about being exposed Christians and Jews at the time who knew what the gospels contained and should have known that Islam taught their scriptures are uncorrupted (assuming Islam teaches this) and then go expose the Prophet? Why don't we have any of these accusations from the Prophet's enemies at that time? This is something truly ridiculous to believe and requires evidence by Christian missionaries who would issue such a response.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Etheshaam wrote:

The point was made that the Christians follow the New Testament (including the Gospels, etc) in which they get the story crucifixion, and the Quran calls it conjecture (corruption).

So the Quran indirectly says the New Testament is corrupt.

Also The verse is making it clear that the crucifixion of Jesus is conjecture or corruption. The crucifixion of Jesus is clearly taught in the Gospels that we have today, thus the Qur'an is clearly in an indirect way saying that this is corrupted.

Elijah replies:

Firstly, I will need some direct evidence rather than indirect evidence of such an important topic as the corruption of the Injeel.

I have already posted a number of passages that provide excellent proof that the author of the Qur'an considered the Injeel to be preserved in Muhammad's time. All you are giving me now is one passage that supposedly provides a indirect evidence.

Furthermore the passage does not even indicate that the Injeel is corrupted but merely that Christians followed conjecture. This is only proposes that the author of the Qur'an was unaware that the supposed conjecture was part of the divinely inspired content.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Etheshaam wrote:

It is hilarious how some Christians try to argue back that the author of the Qur'an probably did not know that the crucifixion was mentioned in the Gospel and if he had then he probably would not have denied it.

Are Christians seriously asking us to believe that none of the Muslims during the Prophet's time knew that the gospels taught that Jesus was crucified yet at the same time believed that Islam told them to believe that the gospels in the possession of the Christians were pure and undistorted? Couldn't the Prophet have easily been exposed by Christian converts to Islam such as Salmaan al Faarisi or Maryam the Coptic slave girl sent from Egypt to the Prophet peace be upon him who would have known that the gospels taught the crucifixion while at the same time believed that Islam taught them that the gospels were undistorted? How about being exposed Christians and Jews at the time who knew what the gospels contained and should have known that Islam taught their scriptures are uncorrupted (assuming Islam teaches this) and then go expose the Prophet? Why don't we have any of these accusations from the Prophet's enemies at that time? This is something truly ridiculous to believe and requires evidence by Christian missionaries who would issue such a response.

Elijah replies:

There are a number of pointers here. Firstly, the four gospels did not exist in the Arabic language in Muhammad's time. Hence at least among Arabic speakers this would not be very obvious. Secondly, the dessert people had been greatly effected by Gnosticism. In fact Muhammad's brother in law translated gnostic gospels in to Arabic, these were probably not orthodox gospels. Thirdly, there was a leaning toward docetism in many places, even among Christians. Among the Gnostics this meant that Jesus was not revealed in flesh, he was fully spiritual and divine; hence he could not die; this is were the idea originates. Among Christians the idea created problems as to defining the nature of Jesus, he was God and human but how were these substances mixed? According docetists Jesus was crucifed but only appeared to suffer. In fact this idea flourished in Egypt from where Muhammmad received the slave girl you mentioned. What I am saying is, that Muhammad would not have a problem convincing or forcing these people to take a step further into believing that Jesus not only escaped suffering he even escaped his death. Most of these would not have the ability to expose Jesus due to locality and inability to read. You also assume wrongly here that every Christian, which Muhammad came into contact with was an expert into the gospel writings. While the fact is that most Christians in this area could not read or write.

So why did these not expose Muhammad, well they did. But you need to be consistent with the circumstances. You do not have the Christians in Arabia converting in their masses and the Syriac Christians are not converting to Islam. Most of these would consider Muhammad a fool, and we know that these interacted, and we know the response of the Christians. Later their lands were attacked and invaded by the Muslims and the entire population supressed; there is little point in assuming that these Christians were meant to have exposed Muhammad or the later Muslims as this would cost them their life.

Another point worth considering is the fact that Muhammad needs a doctrine that can combine both Christianity and Judaism; at least Muhammed leaned toward Judaism. But Jews despised Jesus and boasted that they killed him. The only way for Muhammad to solve this matter was to claim that Jesus did not actually die.

It is obvious here as you see that it is the Qur'an that follows conjecture and indeed fabrication of a political nature.

How more obvious can it be.

The fact you have not a shred of evidence that Jesus did not die. So far you have only the Qur'an, which came 600 years later and is a refuted book. In addition you have Gnostic doctrine which then supposes that Jesus was fully divine; so you can see the confusion.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Etheshaam, I don't have the time at the moment to read all those articles you are posting. If I were to refute article, I like to do so when my website is up and running.

But Let me just refer to some of your points.

As I have already pointed out, sura 4: 157 does provide proof that the Injeel is corrupted, and if it did it would contradict the Qur'an severely.

As to science in the Qur'an, I have read and heard Zakir Naik on the matter, all his assertations and refutations have been refuted and are easily refuted if you simply know your homework. Zakir Naik has proven to be a good speaker and debater but not a very good scholar.

Etheshaam wrote:

3) Miracles of Prophet Muhamamd--- the hadith were perfectly perserved-- and written down by trustworhty people.

Elijah replies:

So was the gospel account, but not merely by people but apostles.

Furthermore, what evidence do you have that the hadits were preserved. When are the names and Iznad attached to them. And if they were so well preserved how come so many are rejected.

Ethesham wrote:

Also I find this a bit of a double standard, you believe in Jesus-- you believe he did miracles-- so why Can't he be a false prophet who did miracles by Satan? Also many people saw the miracles of Prophet Muhammad.

Elijah replies:

I only responded to your wording that miracles prove an individual to come from God. That is often the case but not always.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Etheshaam wrote:

Also notice the inconsistency. Christian apologists accept some hadith which support your case then reject the rest which don't support your case. So how do we know what hadith are true and not?

Elijah wrote:

But is this not exactly are doing. We only refer to the Hadiths to make a point. Generally in scholarly methodology, what is reliable is the information that proved negative, such as the satanic verses, Muhammad forgetting the revelation, or a follower leaving Islam and exposing Muhammad. These would only be included since they were too obvious.

Etheshaam wrote:

prophesies, as in "And proclaim the Pilgrimage among men: they will come to thee on foot and (mounted) on every kind of camel, lean on account of journeys through deep and distant mountain highways; (Quran 22:27)

This verse is saying that men from all over will come for the Hajj.
Today we see many Muslims from all over the world coming to do Hajj not just Arabs.

Elijah replies:

But this does not even imply that followers of Islam will come from every global distance to the hajj. It mentions only mountains, camels and highways. Furthermore, global veneration was already an idea among the Jews with whom Muhammad was greatly aquainted.

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Also what about the New Testament?

Early church tradition"is not reliable. There are no signed COPIES of any gospel. NONE ZIP ZERO! What we have are COPIES of COPIES.

Thanks
Ehteshaam Gulam

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

I agree Ethesham, but that is the same with the Qur'an, there is not one original manuscript. What you have are copies.

However, let me point something out. The Qur'an was written in the sixth century, a time in which manuscripts could be preserved. In the first century the difficulty in preserving a manuscript was almost inevitable.

Mind also that the Hadith material is primarily oral transmission. The material of the church fathers was not, they are writings. Furthermore, church fathers such as Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp were aquainted with the apostles. Papias was aquainted with John the Elder also an eyewitness of Jesus. Others such as Irenaeus was aquainted with Polycarp and others who met the apostolic successors. This information is based upon written manuscripts not oral transmission that could be so easily corrupted.
If I am not entirely wrong there is a fragment of Irenaes in existence from the third century.

Notice also that there is not reference to corruption of the gospel or gospels on a universal bases as we find happening to the Qur'an in the Islamic sources.

That is what makes it interesting. Corruption of sources written or oral do not occur within seventy years, unless there is a organised attempt to corrupt it and the reason for doing so.

Such an organised attempt and the reason for executing it is described in the Islamic sources themselves, yet this corruption occurred with the Qur'an not the Injeel.

Hence it is ridicolous when Muslims blame corruption on the Gospel (a claim only exclaimed by the naturalists), when Islamic sources enforce the reality of corruption on the Qur'an.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Do you have any comment to my preceeding article on science in the Qur'an?

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

You also may want to look at this:

http://answering-christian-claims.com/WhyIBelieveChristianityisFalse.html

All I can say about your comments from the Quran and science is that you need to do more research on this topic. Because no offensive man, but the scholarship isn't good. In order to disprove science in the Quran you would have to:

* Prove that Prophet Muhammad had sources which talked about science.

* Prove those sources were written in Arabic

*Provide a lot of proof that Prophet Muhammad learned these various sciencific claims from scientists outside of Arabia.

* Prove that these sources were in Arabia.

If you don't prove these things, then I am sorry, your arguement is very weak and unsound.

As for the miracles-- the hadith are very trustworthy since we have chains of tranmissions for them, we don't have any of the sources for the N.T. Gospels.

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

and we don't know who wrote any of the Gospels-- they are all annoymous.

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

There are 8 possiblites to de bunk Science in the Quran:

if a statement in a book, whether it is the Qur'an or any other book, agrees with modern scientific fact, then it can be one or more of the eight following possibilities:

1. Perhaps the author of the Qur'an was a genius - he was like Albert Einstein or something, and he discovered these scientific statements.
2. Perhaps the author of the Qur'an guessed; he just guessed "I wonder what this could be" and he got it right.
3. The author of the statement was a great scientist; so basically he had a laboratory in his backyard, he conducted experiments and that is how he came to the conclusion of these modern scientific facts.
4. Maybe it is just a coincidence, like a poetic statement which just happens to match up with science. Now let me look at this option (D). What that means is that the author had no intention of talking about modern science. He had no intention, and it was a pure accident, and out of accident the statement agrees with modern science.
5. Let's look at (F,(this is mistake,should be E)) here. If the link doesn't work, please write something inside the box so I can manually cut and paste all this stuff. Anyway,
6. Perhaps the scientific fact is observable, like for example to say 'bees have a leader'. Well I think if you observe the bee hive, you will see that it is something observable; there is nothing really miraculous about that. Let's look at
7. Information already pre-existed in history. So what this basically says right over here is that the author of the Qur'an basically plagiarized from another source, maybe Aristotle or something like that. So that is another possibility. And then finally…
8. Which is a source greater than man the author of these statements.

If you honestly examine the Quran and science, you'll reach number 8. d

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

Narrated Ibn 'Umar:

The Prophet said, "We are an illiterate nation; we neither write, nor know accounts. The month is like this and this, i.e. sometimes of 29 days and sometimes of thirty days."
(Bukhari Volume 3, Book 31, Number 137)

So there were no written sources of Islam

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

If the science information in the Quran already pre-existed in history and the author of the Qur'an simply plagiarized from another source, well then what we are going to have to find - you'll have to also show us many of the scientific fallacies that the author of the Qur'an also copied. Because how did he know what to copy and what not to? There are many Scientific errors in the Old Testament and Talmud which Prophet Muhammad "mysteriously" left out. Hmmmm. So that's my point here; that's the only way we can entertain this particular objection or this particular possible scenario. If you going to say he copied from the book, then show us other things that he copied from that book.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Gulam wrote:

You also may want to look at this:

http://answering-christian-claims.com/WhyIBelieveChristianityisFalse.html

All I can say about your comments from the Quran and science is that you need to do more research on this topic. Because no offensive man, but the scholarship isn't good.

Elijah replies:

I hope you realise that I completed an entire dissertation on the scientific sources of the Qur'an.

Furthermore, do you know the scholarship I utilized?

Simply claiming that the scholarship you use on the NT is good since it supports your case and undermining my scholarship since it refutes your case is not good an honest way to determine what truth and what is distortation.

Gulam wrote:

In order to disprove science in the Quran you would have to:

* Prove that Prophet Muhammad had sources which talked about science.

* Prove those sources were written in Arabic

*Provide a lot of proof that Prophet Muhammad learned these various sciencific claims from scientists outside of Arabia.

* Prove that these sources were in Arabia.

If you don't prove these things, then I am sorry, your arguement is very weak and unsound.

Elijah replies:

I think you need read my article again, I provided evidences for each of these points.

Gulam wrote:

As for the miracles-- the hadith are very trustworthy since we have chains of tranmissions for them, we don't have any of the sources for the N.T. Gospels.

Elijah wrote:

We have several transmissions of the gospel tradition.

Such as Jesus to Peter, Peter to Mark

Jesus to Matthew

Jesus to John

Jesus to Peter, Matthew and the other apostles, and these to Luke

If you are interested in contemporaries of the apostles and after who externally could confirm all this we have:

Jesus and the apostles to John the Elder and John the Elder to Papias

And Jesus to John and John to Polycarp to Irenaeus.

If you wanna prove the Islamic traditions that match the evidence you are requiring, you need to show me written evidence with names on from every narrator dated from Muhammads' time and onward.

You can't!!!

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

You may want to see this, this deals with your sources (with the Greek sources, etc):

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2006/cosmology-and-the-holy-quran-a-response-to-richard-carrier/


You said: I have already posted a number of passages that provide excellent proof that the author of the Qur'an considered the Injeel to be preserved in Muhammad's time.

My Response: Yes we Muslims believe the Gospel given to Jesus. WE BELIEVE THE GOSPEL OF JESUS. We certainly DON'T believe the N.T. To be the GOSPEL OF JESUS WHICH THE QURAN SPEAKS ABOUT (See Quran 3:3). The N.T. according to the Quran is corruption and conjecture-- since it mentions the crucifixion and supposed "Resurrection" of Jesus. So again let me repeat what I said:

The verse is making it clear that the crucifixion of Jesus is conjecture or corruption. The crucifixion of Jesus is clearly taught in the Gospels that we have today, thus the Qur'an is clearly in an indirect way saying that this is corrupted.

I rest my case.

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.
(Quran 5:46)

Notice the Quran says that a Gospel was given to Jesus, so we know from the Quran that Jesus had a Gospel with him, in fact the Bible even testifies to this:

And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people. (Matthew 4:23)

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. (Mark 16:15)

And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where. (Luke 9:6)


So as you can see, Jesus was given a Gospel, however so WHERE IS THIS GOSPEL TODAY? What we have today is not a Gospel but GospelS, we do not have the Gospel of Jesus, rather we have the Gospel of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John! Hence the Christians have invented their own books with their hands and claim that these books that were written by men such as Mark and Matthew are from God! Yet we know they are not from God, and we know they are a corrupted distorted version of the true Gospel which was the Gospel of Jesus. The four Gospels we have today were written after Jesus, which were based on many false interpretations and guess-work, which was then written down in ink, and then many claimed that these Gospels were from God.

As for Bukhari's chain of Tranmissions and the church fathers chain of tranmissions, we KNOW the sources of Islam yet WE DON'T know the sources of The Church fathers.

Also your Church Fathers were not historically reliable.Take Justin Matyer for example:

Justin Martyr was not known for his historical accuracy. For example, in his Apology (1.31), Justin incorrectly claimed that the Ptolemy who had the Septuagint translated was a contemporary of Herod; he has also been caught referring to documents which ostensibly support his exaggerated claims but in fact do not.

Polycarp, in turn, is said to have converted around 109. While he may have had access to one or more sources independent of the New Testament, our knowledge of his sources is uncertain. As for Ignatius, there is no evidence that he had any sources other than the New Testament and so he cannot be used as an independent source.Finally, we have already noted that Justin Martyr was not known for his historical accuracy and that his reference to an 'Acts of Pilate' is dubious. While he certainly may have had sources other than the New Testament, this is unknown.

Therefore, the church fathers cannot be used as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

While we do have a manuscript of the Quran which exists from the 1 century after Hijra,

No book of the New Testament survives in the original autograph copy. What we have then come from copies, and copies of copies, of questionalbe originals (if the stories came piecemeal over time, as it appears it has, then there may never have existed an original). The earliest copies we have came more than a century later than the autographs, and these exist on fragments of papyrus.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Gulam wrote:

You may want to see this, this deals with your sources (with the Greek sources, etc):

http://www.bismikaallahuma.org/archives/2006/cosmology-and-the-holy-quran-a-response-to-richard-carrier/

Elijah replies:

Why do you go against Richard Carrier here, when you virtually agree with his ideas on a overall basis?

Do you see the inconsistency?

Gulam wrote:

You said: I have already posted a number of passages that provide excellent proof that the author of the Qur'an considered the Injeel to be preserved in Muhammad's time.

My Response: Yes we Muslims believe the Gospel given to Jesus. WE BELIEVE THE GOSPEL OF JESUS. We certainly DON'T believe the N.T. To be the GOSPEL OF JESUS WHICH THE QURAN SPEAKS ABOUT (See Quran 3:3). The N.T. according to the Quran is corruption and conjecture-

Elijah replies:

You have not addressed these passages that prove that the author did not consider the Injeel to be corrupted.

You claim that Muslims believe in the Injeel revealed to Jesus, not the present Gospel, yet you simply ignore the point that these passage talk about the Injeel as it appeared in Muhammad's time, which is the Injeel we possess today.

Gulam wrote:

- since it mentions the crucifixion and supposed "Resurrection" of Jesus. So again let me repeat what I said:

The verse is making it clear that the crucifixion of Jesus is conjecture or corruption. The crucifixion of Jesus is clearly taught in the Gospels that we have today, thus the Qur'an is clearly in an indirect way saying that this is corrupted.

Elijah replies:

As I have said before this is not a reference to the Injeel. Firstly because there is no reference to the previous books in the passage. Also this would contradict a number of other passages. It seems that the author of the Qur'an wrongly assumes that this doctrine was not included in the Gospel, hence in only reveals that the author of the Qur'an was limited in his knowledge, and therefore that the Qur'an is a fabricated book.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Gulam posted

And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.
(Quran 5:46)

Notice the Quran says that a Gospel was given to Jesus, so we know from the Quran that Jesus had a Gospel with him, in fact the Bible even testifies to this:

And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people. (Matthew 4:23)

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. (Mark 16:15)

And they departed, and went through the towns, preaching the gospel, and healing every where. (Luke 9:6)

Elijah replies:

There is no evidence from the Gospels, or the church fathers or history that Jesus had a book with him. Only the Qur'an claims this, and this is wrong. Jesus was however a teacher and received revelations from the Father. This is nevertheless stated in the Gospel of John which the Qur'an favours but which Muslims hate, ironic isn't it? Furthermore, these passages in John which declare this are highly Trinitarian and hence not very Islamic in their nature.
What we learn from history is what was normal and logical that he taught his disciples who preserved the teaching and the narrative and transmitted it.

As to your passage of 5: 46 not prove your wrong, since in the Gospel there is guidance and light. I agree, and it does confirm the previous Scripture, but not the Qur'an.

As to your references to the Gospel and Jesus proclaiming the Gospel, this is not a book. Can you show me from the passage where the author refers to a book. Gospel simply means good news, and Jesus was proclaiming the good news of the Kingdom. Namely that the Kingdom is near.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Gulam wrote:

So as you can see, Jesus was given a Gospel, however so WHERE IS THIS GOSPEL TODAY? What we have today is not a Gospel but GospelS, we do not have the Gospel of Jesus, rather we have the Gospel of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John! Hence the Christians have invented their own books with their hands and claim that these books that were written by men such as Mark and Matthew are from God!

Elijah wrote:

The Gospel, or Good News of Jesus is what you find in the Gospel, namely what his apostles transmitted to us.

That is why I provided you a number of transmission:

Jesus to Peter, Peter to Mark

Jesus to Matthew

Jesus to John

Jesus to Peter, Mark and others and these to Luke

You cannot have it more simple

Notice that these never burned each others books, like early Muslims did with the Qur'an; the apostles who were victorious according to the Qur'an, but failed according to you, did not exclude each other, they had nothing to hide, Uthman had, and Muslims succeeding him had.

Notice also that these transmission were written down fairly quickly under the control of an apostle. The hadiths went through more than a century of oral corruption.

Gulam wrote:

Yet we know they are not from God, and we know they are a corrupted distorted version of the true Gospel which was the Gospel of Jesus. The four Gospels we have today were written after Jesus, which were based on many false interpretations and guess-work, which was then written down in ink, and then many claimed that these Gospels were from God.

Elijah wrote:

The problem is Gulam, you have made at least ten claims here, which are based upon atheist logic and philosophy, and funny you just rejected Carrier earlier. Also I would like you to show me actual primary sources to prove all your points, and you can't. On the other hand I can show you primary sources that this did not occur. Furthermore, I can prove from the Qur'an that this did not happen.

As I have said before the apostles controlled and transmitted the gospel in their written gospels, they did not corrupt it. If they did, the Qur'an itself is wrong as it testifies to their faithfulness and success. But according to you they utterly failed.

You may refer to a number of critical scholars here, but remember you are taking a stand with atheists on something that contradicts your own holy book.

This is why I cannot take you muslims seriously.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Gulam wrote:

Justin Martyr was not known for his historical accuracy. For example, in his Apology (1.31), Justin incorrectly claimed that the Ptolemy who had the Septuagint translated was a contemporary of Herod; he has also been caught referring to documents which ostensibly support his exaggerated claims but in fact do not.

Elijah replies:

Justin Martyr was not an apostolic successor.

Justin Martyr did some historical errors, it does imply however, that the material on the Christian community was was quainted is dubious.

You also find errors in the Hadiths and the Qur'an.

Gulam wrote:

Polycarp, in turn, is said to have converted around 109. While he may have had access to one or more sources independent of the New Testament, our knowledge of his sources is uncertain.

Elijah wrote:

Ethesham you need to get your facts straight. Ignatius wrote to Polycarp in 110 revealing that Polycarp was a thriving popular bishop at the time, which dates his conversion to somewhere 70-80 AD.

As for you sources, have your ever read Polycarp.? I heard a similar claim when scholars used the Didache to rule out the idea that Jesus was God, have you ever read the Didache? Do you think that these scholars had ever read the Didache,? Or do I simply possess more knowledge than these world-renown scholars? I guess you are again merely quoting something you read in a book without the necessary research. Read Polycarp, and you will get an answer to your claim.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Gulam wrote:

As for Ignatius, there is no evidence that he had any sources other than the New Testament and so he cannot be used as an independent source.

Elijah wrote:

Honestly Ethesham,

I don't understand your point here, I assume you are merely quoting something from a book, which to you sounds like an argument, which to me only sounds like a pointer. That is why I say do your own research.

Ignatius died as a martyr when he was approximatley 80 years old.

This individual knew the apostles, he knew other eyewitnesses, his successor was an apostolic successor, he grew up in a apostolic church. This man was an effective witnesses to the apostolic doctrine and the gospels and their testimony!

This is actually sufficient evidence to blow Islam of the map.

Gulam wrote:

Finally, we have already noted that Justin Martyr was not known for his historical accuracy and that his reference to an 'Acts of Pilate' is dubious. While he certainly may have had sources other than the New Testament, this is unknown.

Elijah wrote:

There were many acts and epistles in the Second century, no need to believe the Acts of Pilate was dubious.

In fact there is one such book with the title in existence:

http://folk.uio.no/lukeb/books/apocrypha/Gospel_of_Nicodemus.pdf

I suspect however that Justin Martyr is not referring to a apocryphical book but a report on Pilate's accomplishments.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Gulam wrote:

While we do have a manuscript of the Quran which exists from the 1 century after Hijra,

Elijah replies:

I would like to see these manuscripts. I am aware that some of the material derives from this time, but not the writing on it.

Gulam wrote:

No book of the New Testament survives in the original autograph copy.

Elijah replies:

And you don't have an original copy of the Qur'an, that is the point here.

Gulam wrote:

What we have then come from copies, and copies of copies, of questionalbe originals (if the stories came piecemeal over time, as it appears it has, then there may never have existed an original).

Elijah replies:

You seem to mix textual criticism and form-redaction criticism here. That is why I say do your homework, stop quoting material that you have no insight into.

That we can trace something back to an original is form criticism and redaction criticism. However, if the theory is accurate, then in all logic neither you or I can exist. Furthermore, it reveals that Jesus did die, but he was not a prophet; you can just imagine how this back fires against you.

If you refer to textual criticism, we are talking about a very different picture. That is, if you even apply the most notorious Bible critics they will admit that about 95 procent of the New Testament is intact. I don't need to go further here, because even at this point this is enough to prove Islam and the Qur'an wrong.

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Gulam wrote:

The earliest copies we have came more than a century later than the autographs, and these exist on fragments of papyrus.

Elijah replies:

In fact John Rylands dates no more than 30-40 years after John's original Gospel.

Also the four-fold Gospel collection of Chester Betty, there is not full agreement among scholars, some date it 150 AD.

Also you somehow get the idea that the gospels would have to get corrupted after 100 year copying. This is very naive.

Christianity possessed good copyists, the last apostle John lived until 90 AD and John the Elder to 110 AD, they had their successors, and the other apostles had their successors. These controlled the transmission and writing, there were infact apostolic centres that practiced this. Furthermore, the Christians memorized the materail alongside it. And then again, this idea of corruption is it really historically logical? No! Some scholars make this claim without evidence since they have to to protect their own philosophical opinion and you somehow reside with them.

A response and challenge to those who oppose the Christian faith.