Concerning the prophet in John 1: 19-28
1) Do you believe this passage is authentic?
2) If it is authentic do you believe it was a part of the original Injeel?
3) If you believe that John's Gospel is simply a corruption but you are merely making a point from what you believe to be corrupted or fabricated material, are you not then wasting your time?
4) If you believe some words or phrases in the passage are authentic or even revelatory how do you differentiate between these and the fabricated part?
28 comments:
Hey Hogan,
I answer the questions you bring up here about the original injeel here:
http://answering-christian-claims.com/What_the_Quran_says_about_the_Bible.html
We Muslims believe that the New Testament Gospels are not authentic or reliable.
I have see (I guess) all you have to say about Bible corruption.
As far as I can say I have refuted all your points on various threads.
Furthermore, your assertions which are primarily based upon atheist or naturalist scholarship does not provide the historical strenght you assume and if it did it would debunk the Qur'an equally.
I am just gona ask you one question related to your assertion that the Injeel is unreliable and not authentic:
Can you show me the particular verse in the Qur'an that explicitly states: the earliest Christians corrupted the Injeel by writing?
I would very much like to see that verse. Until then you have not even prove that the corruption of the Injeel is a view even considered by the author of the Qur'an nor Muhammad.
Can you otherwise elaborate on the questions I have raised in this thread which Yahya Snow so far has refrained from answering.
Is John 1: 19-28 authentic or part of the original Injeel?
Or let me make it even more easy: the paraclete in John 14, is he part of the original Injeel? Then based upon what do you differentiate the paraclete from what you otherwise perceive as corruption?
I would however appreciate it if Yahya Snow would answer my questions, which are significant for his debate with David Wood and the rest of the team.
And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, BUT ONLY FOLLOW CONJECTURE, and they killed him not for sure. (Quran 4:157)
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.
Etheshaam,
Sura 4: 157 is not about the Injeel!
This particular passage only reveals that the author of the Qur'an failed to understand that the particular narrative and doctrine related to the death of Jesus was included in the original and existing Gospel.
But when the Quran is talking about the Gospel its talking about the Gospel of Jesus-- Where is this gospel? Who knows-- its lost. According to Islamic scholars-- the New Testament has been corrupted (Quran 4:157) and there are several verses in the Quran that say the Bible is corrupt, See Quran 2:75,79, etc. BTW These verses say both the Old and New Testaments are corrupt.
Etheshaam wrote:
But when the Quran is talking about the Gospel its talking about the Gospel of Jesus-- Where is this gospel? Who knows-- its lost.
Elijah replies:
The Gospel of Jesus is what you find in the Gospels. Read Matthew 28, Luke 24, John 14-15, Acts 1; Jesus commands his apostles to preserve and transmit his sayings and the narrative (which is the gospel, he ordered to be transmitted to us).
The Gospels were short after written down by apostles (Matthew and John) or written apostolic disciples from dictation (Mark writing from the dictation of Peter the apostle) or written based upon the writings of eyewitnesses (see Luke 1: 1-2).
These were all written in the first century within the time of the eyewitnesses (There is an apostolic summit in Jerusalem in 65-70 AD, John the apostle lives until 90 and John the Elder and Aristion live even longer).
I guess you assume then that the apostles of Jesus failed, but in that case you disagree with the Qur'an
So to stress, this the Gospel of Jesus is not lost its found within the Gospels.
Etheshaam wrote:
According to Islamic scholars-- the New Testament has been corrupted (Quran 4:157)
Elijah replies:
Hold it right there, Sura 4: 157 does not speak about the written Injeel. And I don't care what Islamic scholars have to say---can you show me from the Qur'an or the words of Muhammad himself that the Injeel is corrupted?
Etheshaam wrote:
and there are several verses in the Quran that say the Bible is corrupt, See Quran 2:75,79, etc. BTW These verses say both the Old and New Testaments are corrupt.
Elijah replies:
bro, now you are insulting my intellegence. The particular context here is about Jews not Christians. Hence this passage is not stating that the NT is corrupt. Furthermore, read verse: 75: 'a party of them heard the Word of Allah and perverted it'
Notice a number of points here: 1) these are Jews, 2) only a party of them resort to corruption, 3) they copy what they hear, not what is written, 4) the question then remains: in this context what do they corrupt the what they hear from the Torah or the Talmud or what they hear from Muhammad, I dont find this clearly explained in the context, 5) are they perverting the word by writing? No! the next verse which Ethesham left out clearly reveals that they corrupted what they heard orally: 'Behold when they meet the men of faith, they say: "we believe" but when they meet each other in private, they say "Shall you tell them what Allah has revealed to you, that they may engage you in argument about it before your Lord"' (verse 76). Furthermore, in verse 77 they conceal and reveal. This is not about corrupting the Torah and even less the NT by writing, 6) the incident is in Muhammad's time and it is local; it does not reveal corruption on a large scale going back to the time of Jesus or Moses; 7) in verse 79 there are some who do write the book with their hands and corrupt it, but notice: a) they are illiterate, b) it is a local occurance not universal; c) this was committed by Jews not Christians; d) this was committed only by a party of the Jews in Muhammad's proximity. I could do the very same thing with the Qur'an right now, and you based upon your approach would have to reject the entire Qur'an even the earlier copies as untrusthworty---sound logical right?
Hence this reveals nothing about the Bible corruption, and certainly nothing about the corruption of the Injeel.
I am amazed that I have to educate Muslims about their own book, unless they willingly commit the same sin as the Jews in this passage were trying to commit, mainly to deceive their opponents by corruptiong the meaning.
Hogan Said: "And I don't care what Islamic scholars have to say-"
My Response: I don't care what Christian scholars say, the Gospels were written by annoymous Greek Authors who had nothing to do with Jesus. The Gospels are full of myths and legends and are not biographies.
From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done. (Quran 5:14)
The above verse is clear proof that the Christians forgot a good part of the message that was given to them-- What is the Christian message? The New Testament. and The Quran is saying the New Testament is corrupt. Heck, even modern scholars say the same thing, the Gospels were not written by eye witnesses, they contain fictional forms, they are based off unreliable oral traditions, etc. Case closed.
Ok. Al-Kithab was given to Jesus. The Gospel was given to Jesus. Yet the New Testament was written decades after. So ‘the Book’ and the ‘Injeel’ that was given to Jesus simply can not be the New Testament of the Bible. This is sufficient evidence which proves the fact that Muslims are not required to accept the Bible.
This is what Nadir Ahmed had to say:
(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 Bible in which they get the story crucifixion, and the Quran calls it conjecture (corruption).
Etheshaam wrote:
Hogan Said: "And I don't care what Islamic scholars have to say-"
My Response: I don't care what Christian scholars say, the Gospels were written by annoymous Greek Authors who had nothing to do with Jesus. The Gospels are full of myths and legends and are not biographies.
Elijah replies:
Funny on your own website you demonize the orientialists because they have no respect for Islamic scholarship and now you show the same attitude toward Christian scholarship.
You see it is this continous inconsistency that makes it difficult for me to take you seriosly.
The other problem here is you reject the theists does who believe in God, revelations, miracles and side with the atheists and agnostics and their like and their theories, such as: the apostles did not write the gospels, nor were they written in their life time.
You are fighting the cause of the atheist here, which is why I even doubt your sincerity about God in the first place. Firstly these are all theories, and I challenge you to provide me with the evidence for these claims. There are in fact evidences that the gospels were written by the apostles and that these writings were not anonymous.
Hence you do adhere to scholarship, but the atheist scholarship.
I reject muslim scholarship in this particular matter if misrepresents the writings of the Qur'an, I do at least not reject muslims scholarship as a whole, just because they are muslims.
As to your myths in the Gospels, yeah the atheist believe that the virgin birth and the miracles of Jesus are myths---do you agree?
Etheshaam wrote:
From those, too, who call themselves Christians, We did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them: so we estranged them, with enmity and hatred between the one and the other, to the day of judgment. And soon will Allah show them what it is they have done. (Quran 5:14)
The above verse is clear proof that the Christians forgot a good part of the message that was given to them--
Elijah replies:
Forgetting part of something is not corrupting it. This passage does not refer to corruption, but that the Christians forgot part of the message, hence if we are honest to this passage and its meaning, the remainng part of the gospel is still intact, and hence the Qur'an since it contradicts the remaining part is proven to be a book of fabrication.
Furthermore, if forgetting is corruption, then the Qur'an is corrupt:
By degrees shall we teach thee (Muhammad) to declare (the message), so thou shalt not forget, except as God wills ... (Sura 87:6-7)
Hence based upon your conclusion here, the Qur'an itself is corrupted (that is if forgetting is corrupting).
Etheshaam wrote:
What is the Christian message? The New Testament. and The Quran is saying the New Testament is corrupt. Heck, even modern scholars say the same thing, the Gospels were not written by eye witnesses, they contain fictional forms, they are based off unreliable oral traditions, etc. Case closed.
Elijah replies:
case closed??? Are you out of your mind. To answer you arguments here, the Qur'an does no where teach that the Injeel is corrupt!
I have asked you continually to provide me with the evidence, and you fail every time.
Furthermore, your atheist scholars whose theories are founded mainly to disprove Jesus' supernatural nature have not proven anything either.
You keep arguing that the Jesus' deeds and life is a myth based upon what these scholars are claiming---hence Etheshaam I hereby derive at a verdict, namely that you cannot be a muslim.
Do you wanna debate me on naturalism or engage in a theist debate between two religions. Exactly, I know the problem, whatever method of your choice, you are bound to loose; yet do not sink to the level to utilize atheist scholarship.
The oral sources of the first century are indeed fully reliable. The gospels were written by eyewitnesses and their disciples, and these writings were not anonymous; again can you provide the actual historical details to refute me on these matters?
Etheshaam wrote:
Ok. Al-Kithab was given to Jesus. The Gospel was given to Jesus. Yet the New Testament was written decades after. So ‘the Book’ and the ‘Injeel’ that was given to Jesus simply can not be the New Testament of the Bible. This is sufficient evidence which proves the fact that Muslims are not required to accept the Bible.
Elijah replies:
This is getting to easy! The Christians in the first century utilized rabbinic type methods of memorization, such methods would safeguard the information for two centuries or more if necessary. It matters nothing if it was written down decades later or not. In fact in 50-55 AD when Mark was written down (at least according to early Christian tradition), most of the apostles and eyewitnesses and their disciples were alive, that is 20 years after Jesus' death, resurrection and ascension.
Furthermore, there is not reason to reject the possibility that much of what Jesus said was not written down while he was alive.
But again, even the Qur'an was not compiled or fully written down in Muhammad's time. It was done after and was considered to be almost an impossible task which, as we see from early islamic tradition left Islam with a bulk of variant Qur'ans' so variant that the evidence had to be burned.
Again I would like to see some inconsistency bro.
Etheshaam wrote:
This is what Nadir Ahmed had to say:
(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 Bible in which they get the story crucifixion, and the Quran calls it conjecture (corruption).
Elijah replies:
I have already refuted this! And if I reject the misinterpretation of Muslim scholars on this passage, I will certainly not let myself be educated by Nadir, that must be a joke.
Hogan, man, listen carefully.
The Gospel of Jesus is what the Quran is talking about when it's speaking about the Injeel. Where is this gospel? It doesn't exist. Rather what we have is the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John-- not the Gospel of Jesus. Unless the Quran says "The Four Gospels which the Christians have with them" I reject the New Testament and the Quran rejects the New Testament.
Ehteshaam wrote:
Hogan, man, listen carefully.
The Gospel of Jesus is what the Quran is talking about when it's speaking about the Injeel. Where is this gospel? It doesn't exist. Rather what we have is the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John-- not the Gospel of Jesus. Unless the Quran says "The Four Gospels which the Christians have with them" I reject the New Testament and the Quran rejects the New Testament.
Elijah replies:
Actually it is the other way round; the burden of proof is upon you. So far both history and the Qur'an supports the view I adhere to.
The Qur'an clearly states that the gospel of Jesus exists in Muhammad's time. I makes no reference to its corruption.
Furthermore, the Qur'an explicitly states that the Christians read it. The Qur'an event commands Christians and Muslims to believe in it and Muhammad to consult its message in Muhammad's time.
In 600 AD the Gospel utilized by the Christians world-wide was a collection that contained the four Gospels, entitle the Gospel, the Syriac Christians referred to it as the Injeel. We possess a lot of Gospel manuscripts of the four Gospels prior to Muhammad's time. We also possess Gnostic Gospels and the history behind these Gospels.
However, there is no historical indication what so ever of the Gospel you are proposing.
In this matter the burden of proof is upon you. I have provided evidences from the Qur'an that the author of the Qur'an believed in the gospels utilized by the Christians in Muhammad's time. History will support this fact as well.
The burden off proof is upon you, can you provide me with evidences for the Gospel you presume Jesus received and which was so widely used by the Christians in 600 AD?
That the author of the Qur'an confuses these matters, due to his human inability, is your problem, not mine. Your demand for me to find evidence for a gospel that never existed is handing me a difficulty islam is to solve.
The very fact that the Qur'an urges you to believe in the Scripture the Christians used and read in Muhammad's requires you to respect these scriptures and believe in them; so far you have disobeyed the Qur'an.
The Qur'an never insults the Christian scripture by describing it as corrupt or mytological; how come you Etheshaam, a mere human possesses the authority to do something Allah himself never resorted to?
The Qur'an never insults the Christian scripture by describing it as corrupt or mytological; how come you Etheshaam, a mere human possesses the authority to do something Allah himself never resorted to?
I don't know how many times I have to say it. The Quran speaks about the Gospel of Jesus. Again where is this gospel? No it ain't the N.T. The N.T. is the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. This is not the Injeel, the Gospel the Quran is talking about.
My Response: Read the Quran 5:14. The Quran attacks the Christians and says they forgot a good part of the message they were given. The Christians made up doctrines such as
The Physical Resurrection of Jesus
The Divinity of Jesus, etc.
And what does the N.T. teach? These things. The Quran never talks about the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Prophet Muhammad never said that the New Testament is inspired by God. I don't know where your getting this stuff, Hogan. My guess is Sam Shamoun (a polemists nobody takes seriously).
Anyways I recommend this link:
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_islam_endorse_the_bible__
Thanks
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com
Etheshaam wrote:
I don't know how many times I have to say it. The Quran speaks about the Gospel of Jesus. Again where is this gospel? No it ain't the N.T. The N.T. is the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. This is not the Injeel, the Gospel the Quran is talking about.
Elijah replies:
bro, you are committing the same blunder as in your debate, which is: 1) bring up some arguments, 2) your arguments are totally dismantled and refuted with excellent points, 3) you ignore the refutation and simply reiterate your argument.
All I can say here is: look at my refutation to your point in this thread and other threads and deal with those details.
You are not arguing or debating you are simply reiterating the same claims.
At least deal with the details and arguments I have brought up.
Etheshaam wrote:
My Response: Read the Quran 5:14. The Quran attacks the Christians and says they forgot a good part of the message they were given.
Elijah replies:
Again I have dealt with this numerous times:
1) The passage does not refer to the written Injeel; 2) forgetting is not corruption; 3) even though the Christians forgot part of the message the remaining part we possess still remains intact and is sufficent to prove that the Qur'an is a false message; 4) if forgetting is corrupting then the Qur'an describes itself as a corruption, as parts of the Qur'an were forgotten according to the Qur'an.
Etheshaam wrote:
The Christians made up doctrines such as
The Physical Resurrection of Jesus
The Divinity of Jesus, etc.
Elijah replies:
The scholars you adhere to which are atheists view these are myths, but how about Jesus' miracles why do you not remain consistent and view these are myths too.
Furthermore, to deny e.g. the resurrection as a myth, based upon what historical credibility and authority do you do so? You reject it mainly because it contradicts your view. I could equally point of elements in the Qur'an which I view as a myth, such as Jews being turned into pigs and monkeys or Allah separating the heaven and earth and the sun and moon swimming out in space which are the ideas of the ancient Greeks.
Hey Hogan...
I have only just noticed this...do you still want me to answer these questions my friend?
Also...you say these are "additional questions"...where are the other questions? (if any)
You really should have just mailed me to let meknow of these questions...it would have been quicker and wouldhave saved confusion
But do let me know if you still require answers. Thanks
PS...could you have aword with D.Wood...he does not approve my comments on his forum:(
Peace
May Allah guide us all. Ameen.
Also...brother Hogan...I live in London too...
Do you want to meet for coffee?
My treat:)
Yahya wrote:
I have only just noticed this...do you still want me to answer these questions my friend?
Also...you say these are "additional questions"...where are the other questions? (if any)
Elijah replies:
Yeah, I would appreciate if you answered these questions, it would add more foundational details for this debate.
As to the earlier questions, I guess you are referring to the thread further down, dealing with Muslim methodology on the gospels.
Yahya wrote:
You really should have just mailed me to let meknow of these questions...it would have been quicker and wouldhave saved confusion.
Elijah replies:
Oh but there is no real confusion; I merely thought that you came on these blogs regularly, sorry, my mistake; but do get on these blogs regularly, at least if you are responding to the issue we bring up.
Yahya wrote:
But do let me know if you still require answers. Thanks
Elijah replies:
please
Yahya wrote:
PS...could you have aword with D.Wood...he does not approve my comments on his forum:(
Elijah replies:
I will send him a email
Unfortunately I am not living in London at the moment. I have been living in Birmingham for a while, but I am on the move again.
God bless bro
But I would love to meet you.
Are you ever on speakers corner?
As far as I am aware of, various Jewish sects in the first century, expected the arrival of a variaty of apocalyptic figures, such as the Christ, who whould reign, Elijah and the Prophet, including a Priest. In the OT Christ is the and and the priest, since he presents people to God; he is certainly a prophet since he present God to people. I should write an essay on this for my: Christian Origins blog.
I guess however, you need to consider some of the arguments that have already been brought up by my Christian brothers in which these titles are combined in John to describe one person Jesus.
In any case the prophet of Deuteronomy is first and most Joshua and from him and onward every prophet intermediates between God and the nation of Israel.
Hence the prophet role in this case is ultimately a matter related to Israel and has to be excercised by a member of the Israel community.
Jesus being the last of these prophets, fills that role.
Brother Hogan..
You seem like a nice guy...thanks for your respectful replies
Personally, if we do meet (which I hope will happen) we do not have to meet up in such a theologically confrontational environment.
I was kind of thinking...starbucks:)
I moved from the North and used to know a Pastor and we used to chat so I am up for an meeting which leads to friendship.
Hogan, as I like your style I will try to rush out a response to you (but please realise this is not a guarantee...i will try for you:))....as you may know....I am always pushedfor time. You will like Brum...they are nice friendly people
Thanks
Merry Christmas
Same to you bro, oh I guess now is happy new year.
Sorry I did not get back to you earlier I have suffered the worst flue I could ever imagine the last 5 days; unfortunately in my case it was not a very pleasent Christmas.
God bless
Elijah
Post a Comment