WHAT DOES QURAN SAY ABOUT BIBLICAL CORRUPTION
-
By Jesus of the Gospels I obviously meant the interpretation of Jesus as his followers of the Gospels portray. Our own interpretation of the Gospels is another matter all together.
Then be also humble when by the Islam of Qur'an the majority of the world "obviously means" the interpretation of Qur'an as the majority of followers of Qur'an portray (or the official Islamic Clergy portray). Our own interpretation of the Qur'an is another matter all together.
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Regards,
Arman -
Is that your choice of course of action, Freedomstands?
Certainly! It is always my choice to kick butt!
-
Salam OnlyOneGod.
Sorry for poking my nose in this discussion. Could you please share with me any verse from the canonized Gospels which proclaim
- Jesus is one of a trinity.
- God is one of a trinity.
- God is Jesus.
- God has taken a child.
Seriously, I may be carrying a misconception about the Gospels. Do correct me if you find any statement in the Gospels supporting any of the above claims.
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Regards,
ArmanWhen I say Jesus of the Gospels , I meant what the adherents of that faith believe in. Not how we interpret those very same Gospels.
-
OnlyOneGod,
Because you ask so nicely I will explain.
Arman gave your answer quite well already.
Jesus said "I am in the Father and the Father in me", not that he actually was the Father, who is our Sustainer. It is like comparing it to the "umbrella-effect" I have been using as a parable on the forum.
The 'Old Testament' is a mix of falsehood, truth, and a lot of bad interpretations just like Quran. One should not forget a lot of the 'Old Testament' is written in Aramaic, a relative to Arabic, not to mention the strange "Hebrew". There is one point in the 'Old Testament' in the beginning of Exodus that is worth paying attention to however, and that is when the Sustainer says to Moses that "I AM THAT I AM" and go to the Children of Israel and tell "I AM has sent me to you".
That goes together with the elaboration I made to you about the nature of the word allah, but you did not heed my explanation. Not my fault, but the point is that there is no separate god to be looking for, it is all symbiotic. No need for worship either, but it is always good to do the will of the Father which means to be grow into perfection. The Sustainer is looking for prospective rulers in the Spirit.
The decree and teachings that Jesus taught are based on the so-called 'Ten Commandments'.
They were as follows prior to distortion of the interpretation of them
- Be attached to your Sustainer in union.
- Do not make any image of anything in Heaven or Earth and worship it.
- No vain talk
- Keep the Sabbath (contemplate, use the mind to reflect)
- Treat thy neighbor as thyself, honor your parents
- You should not murder
- You should not steal
- You should not commit illicit sex
- You should not carry false testimony
- You should not covet your neighbors property
Jesus elaborated on some of them, without changing their fundamental meaning
- You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.
- Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God
- Moses said that you should care for your neighbor and hate your enemy, but I say do also care for your enemy
- Moses said you should not murder, but I say do not even be angry with your neighbor
- Moses said that you should not commit adultery, but I say one who looks upon another woman with desire has already committed adultery in their mind.
He did also talk about every other commandment, but this is what he elaborated upon the most. Notice that the first commandment's word is "love", but love means attachment.
That is not really altering these "guidelines", but doing even better than the basic law, yielding better spiritual results. It was not Jesus' fault that the clerics had corrupted the instructions, so he had serious problems with the clergy when he talked about the two first commandments.
I see no inconsistency, except what is generated due to poor interpretations. Jesus is written in Arabic.
Yes. You should kill them unless they perform salat. And it incites hatred towards everyone who is a mushrik or kafar and may increase pride and arrogance. But that is not because it REALLY says so, but because of the hypocrites who fabricated a language on top of the real one.
Because underneath the dirt I found a treasure, and I am excavating more until it is completely revealed.
I know it is the word of "GOD", but the fabricated language is not. The dirt. It is just someone or some people who shoveled a mound of dirt on top of it.
Be well
"Arman gave your answer quite well already."
And I have given him my nice answer as well.
"The 'Old Testament' is a mix of falsehood, truth, and a lot of bad interpretations just like Quran. One should not forget a lot of the 'Old Testament' is written in Aramaic, a relative to Arabic, not to mention the strange "Hebrew"."
You believe that and yet still talk about comparing your re-interpretation of the Quran to the versions of the Torah. Should you not start by re-interpreting the older texts to assertain their authenticity before moving on to the "newer" texts to make you claims?
"Jesus said "I am in the Father and the Father in me", not that he actually was the Father, who is our Sustainer. It is like comparing it to the "umbrella-effect" I have been using as a parable on the forum."
Which aramaic text did you use to get this meaning from?
"There is one point in the 'Old Testament' in the beginning of Exodus that is worth paying attention to however, and that is when the Sustainer says to Moses that "I AM THAT I AM" and go to the Children of Israel and tell "I AM has sent me to you"."
Kindly share that original aramaic text with us so we can also check the existence of "I AM THAT I AM" etc.
"No need for worship either, but it is always good to do the will of the Father which means to be grow into perfection."
And which part of the Torah told you that there is no need for worship. We cannot discuss if you do not reference your claims.
"Jesus elaborated on some of them, without changing their fundamental meaning"
So would it be acceptable to you if Muhammad (PBUH) elaborated on many more of these things without changing their fundamental meanings?
-
References!? YOU WANT REFERENCES?! YOU SHALL NOT TEST THE LORD YOUR GHOD!
Haha.
Here, I'll help to make it easier for people to go and find these things maybe
1411
Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the works themselves.What!? Mention of "evidence"? Uh oh!
"Aramaic Bible in Plain English
?Believe that I am in my Father and my Father in me, otherwise believe because of the works.?Exodus 314
"God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites 'I AM has sent me to you.'"John 858
"Very truly I tell you," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"http//biblehub.com/lexicon/exodus/3-14.htm
-
Freedomstands,
The Father is also in me and I am in the Father. No big deal. Such is the result of "separating the spirit from the flesh".
Be well
-
Freedomstands,
The Father is also in me and I am in the Father. No big deal. Such is the result of "separating the spirit from the flesh".
Be well
Yeah, it is no big deal to me either.
-
When I say Jesus of the Gospels , I meant what the adherents of that faith believe in. Not how we interpret those very same Gospels.
Salamun Alaikum.
-
Are you absolutely sure that all the adherents of Christian faith interpret the Gospels the same way? That all the adherents of Christian faith imagine Jesus to be a biological child of an entity named "God"? Or that Christians believe in 3 Gods? Did you get a chance to study the writings of Mother Terresa? Or those of Father Desmond Tutu?
-
If you are referring to how the majority of the Christians interpret the Gospels - then ask yourself do you interpret the Qur'an the same way that the majority of the Muslims interpret the Qur'an?
-
If you do not follow the majority interpretation of Qur'an then ask yourself are you being fair and consistent to apply your best interpretation to Qur'an and by pushing the other scriptures aside to be read only in the light of how majority of their followers understand them?
-
If you are not being fair and consistent on your treatment of the scriptures, then ask yourself are you not differentiating among the messengers?
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Regards,
Arman -
-
Salamun Alaikum.
-
Are you absolutely sure that all the adherents of Christian faith interpret the Gospels the same way? That all the adherents of Christian faith imagine Jesus to be a biological child of an entity named "God"? Or that Christians believe in 3 Gods? Did you get a chance to study the writings of Mother Terresa? Or those of Father Desmond Tutu?
-
If you are referring to how the majority of the Christians interpret the Gospels - then ask yourself do you interpret the Qur'an the same way that the majority of the Muslims interpret the Qur'an?
-
If you do not follow the majority interpretation of Qur'an then ask yourself are you being fair and consistent to apply your best interpretation to Qur'an and by pushing the other scriptures aside to be read only in the light of how majority of their followers understand them?
-
If you are not being fair and consistent on your treatment of the scriptures, then ask yourself are you not differentiating among the messengers?
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Regards,
ArmanW/Salaam,
"1. Are you absolutely sure that all the adherents of Christian faith interpret the Gospels the same way? That all the adherents of Christian faith imagine Jesus to be a biological child of an entity named "God"? Or that Christians believe in 3 Gods? Did you get a chance to study the writings of Mother Terresa? Or those of Father Desmond Tutu?"
I don't know about their beliefs but are you talking about biblical unitarianism?
"2. If you are referring to how the majority of the Christians interpret the Gospels - then ask yourself do you interpret the Qur'an the same way that the majority of the Muslims interpret the Qur'an?"
The Christian interpretation of the Gospel is only one aspect of the issue for me. The other major one is that I believe that the Gospel (in its current form) constitutes 5% teachings of Jesus and 95% christian "Hadith" literature written by people other than the Prophet Jesus (PBUH). If I am going to start believing in Christian Hadith then why deny the Muslim hadith which has comparatively much greater credibility in its preservation?
"3. If you do not follow the majority interpretation of Qur'an then ask yourself are you being fair and consistent to apply your best interpretation to Qur'an and by pushing the other scriptures aside to be read only in the light of how majority of their followers understand them?"
I would give the bible the very same scrutiny if I believed that the bible had been preserved in its original form. Right now it is near impossible to judge what is original and what is a later addition. The only yardstick I have is the Quran. If the verses of the bible match what the Quran says then I have no issue in following both. However, when things like, Jesus dieng on the cross for our sins show up in the bible, or God wrestling with Jacob etc then I set it aside and consider it be a faulty book.
"4. If you are not being fair and consistent on your treatment of the scriptures, then ask yourself are you not differentiating among the messengers?"
This has nothing to do with differentiating between the Messengers. All messengers were great men of God and brought us the same message. The last message i.e. the Quran is the only one in its complete and unaltered form. Hence, we use it to determine the right and the wrong within the scripture books of the Jews and the Christians.
-
-
The Christian interpretation of the Gospel is only one aspect of the issue for me. The other major one is that I believe that the Gospel (in its current form) constitutes 5% teachings of Jesus and 95% christian "Hadith" literature written by people other than the Prophet Jesus (PBUH). If I am going to start believing in Christian Hadith then why deny the Muslim hadith which has comparatively much greater credibility in its preservation?
Salam UserOnlyOneGod and others.
546 And We made Jesus son of Mary follow their footsteps - confirming what was up until him (literally between his hands) of the Torah, and We gave him the Gospel ? in it guidance and light, and confirming what was up until it (literally between its hands) of the Torah and guidance and instruction for the conscious.
547 And let the fraternity of the Gospel judge with what Allah has sent down in it. And whoever does not judge with what Allah has sent down then they are the ones ? they are willfully disobeying.
(My personal translation, cross checking is recommended.)
The Gospels we have with us today were canonized in third and fourth century before Qur'an was sent down. So per my humble understanding Qur'an does not support the idea of wholesale rejection of the Gospels.
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Regards,
Arman -
The Biblical Gospels are of higher integrity than 5%. It is quite thorough actually, but the translations are poor and definitions misinterpreted.
Son of God is entirely on spiritual level where God is the "Father" of the Spirit inherent in every human soul. And only those who "separate the Spirit from the flesh" (its delusional effect) can see the Father and Spirit. Father does not imply any gender but the word stems from the Semitic languages and would mean that you are an initiator of life.
Be well
Emanuel -
Yes thankyou .. somehow some people here don't understand the difference between the two. Denying the authenticity of the bible in its current form has nothing to do with denying the prophethood or the validity of Jesus (pbuh) or Moses (pbuh).
-
You say they were canonized in the 3rd and 4th centuries. Do you then accept that they were written by people other than Jesus? Is this not their "hadith" literature?
Is this the unaltered injil mentioned in the Quran?
-
Although the word Gospel means similar to Injeel, plus in some languages you say Evangelicum, for example, in Swedish which is a form of the original Injeel. Ev - enjeel - icum.
Be well
Emanuel -
The words mae mean whatever they mean, but the question is what is being spoken of when they are used. The injil given to Isa cannot be the four books of the gospel writers which are comprised the New testament together with many other writings from different authors. They might be coments to the injil some collection of quotes from the injil without any quotation marks...
but they are not the injil.
Salaam
-
Well, the message Eisua came with is what people call Enjeel. The Biblical Gospels are testimonies written by his followers, and the four canonical ones are not the best ones. There are unofficial versions that convey a better account.
But there is no real Enjeel just as no Torateh. People could look forever. The Ten Commandments could be regarded as Torateh.
People always look for religious rules but there simply is no more than the decree of ten statutes. Quran is just a compilation with Wisdom on how to deal with the Ten Commandments, just as what Eisua came with. Plus Quran explains the nature of "God" very well, to the point that what Eisua said about God comes forth very well. I consider the translation of the word Quran to be 'The Testament'.
And Eisua's name means something like Dispenser (of knowledge).
And what I think Injeel refers to is the announcement "Reform, the Kingdom is at hand" and that he showed the way. He elaborated on the ancient decree.
Be well
Emanuel -
The Qur'an calls injil, not the people. Qe are talking about qhat the Qur'an says, not about what the people call or anything like that.
So in the gospels of the four collected authors in the bible (there are many more gospels) there are wise things which could have been handed down by some fisciples or something. So there we are again, why hadith on gospels is virtuous but hadith on the Qur'an is not?
Not that I want to certify the hadith, but why that thirst to certify hadith on some things and hate to certify hadith on others.
If the gospels are good, so be it, be they the inyil or be they not, be they written by anybody if they are good they are good and if not the are not, but what is the need to "authenticate" them?
Salaam
-
You say they were canonized in the 3rd and 4th centuries. Do you then accept that they were written by people other than Jesus? Is this not their "hadith" literature?
Is this the unaltered injil mentioned in the Quran?
I accept and recognize that the Canonized Gospels we have today were written by people other than Jesus. For all possible likelihood they were written by unnamed scribes based on narrations from certain disciples of Jesus.
"Is this not their Hadith literature?" - depends on how you define "hadith". In pure linguistic sense "Hadith" means a narrative. Yes, from that sense Gospels are hadith and the Qur'an is also hadith (Q 487).
If you are asking how I evaluate the reliability of the Gospels - I do not take the comments of the authors in the Bible as authoritative or infallible. However, I believe the stories of Jesus and the statements attributed to Jesus that we find in the Gospels are what left of the "Injil" with us today.
Based on verses 547 and 568 of the Qur'an it is my understanding that at least at the time of Qur'an being revealed the "Injil" was protected to the extent that it included right guidance sufficient to guide their communities. And based on the historical accounts, the Gospels that we have today are pretty much similar to what Christians had at the time of Qur'an being revealed.
There is of course the other hypothesis that Qur'an is talking about a different Jesus and different Gospel / Injil from the Jesus and Gospel that Christians follow today. The authentic Jesus and Gospel are apparently all lost in time. Should that have been the case, it makes very little sense to me why an All-Knowing God would make the statement "Let the fraternity of Gospels Judge with it ..." (Q 547) as an standing instruction in Qur'an to be followed by the followers of the Qur'an till the end of time.
I am rather convinced that just like the "reminder (Dhikr)" in Qur'an enjoys divine protection, the key accounts and teaching of the Christ also enjoys divine protection (as part of God's promise to the Christ as we can see in Q 355). In the same manner, the commandments / law (Torah) sent upon Moses also enjoy divine protection - within what's left of Torah with us today; although the books named "Old Testament" include lots of fictional stories in addition to the Torah. Whoever follows the messenger in good faith and due sincerity not compromising his/her God gifted sense of right and wrong, nor taking the scribes and story tellers as infallible partners to God - are equally entitled to right guidance and salvation. That is the standard that I follow in not differentiating between the messengers.
That is of course a matter of belief / understanding. We are all accountable for sincere application of our own understanding.
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Best regards,
Arman -
I accept and recognize that the Canonized Gospels we have today were written by people other than Jesus. For all possible likelihood they were written by unnamed scribes based on narrations from certain disciples of Jesus.
"Is this not their Hadith literature?" - depends on how you define "hadith". In pure linguistic sense "Hadith" means a narrative. Yes, from that sense Gospels are hadith and the Qur'an is also hadith (Q 487).
If you are asking how I evaluate the reliability of the Gospels - I do not take the comments of the authors in the Bible as authoritative or infallible. However, I believe the stories of Jesus and the statements attributed to Jesus that we find in the Gospels are what left of the "Injil" with us today.
Based on verses 547 and 568 of the Qur'an it is my understanding that at least at the time of Qur'an being revealed the "Injil" was protected to the extent that it included right guidance sufficient to guide their communities. And based on the historical accounts, the Gospels that we have today are pretty much similar to what Christians had at the time of Qur'an being revealed.
There is of course the other hypothesis that Qur'an is talking about a different Jesus and different Gospel / Injil from the Jesus and Gospel that Christians follow today. The authentic Jesus and Gospel are apparently all lost in time. Should that have been the case, it makes very little sense to me why an All-Knowing God would make the statement "Let the fraternity of Gospels Judge with it ..." (Q 547) as an standing instruction in Qur'an to be followed by the followers of the Qur'an till the end of time.
I am rather convinced that just like the "reminder (Dhikr)" in Qur'an enjoys divine protection, the key accounts and teaching of the Christ also enjoys divine protection (as part of God's promise to the Christ as we can see in Q 355). In the same manner, the commandments / law (Torah) sent upon Moses also enjoy divine protection - within what's left of Torah with us today; although the books named "Old Testament" include lots of fictional stories in addition to the Torah. Whoever follows the messenger in good faith and due sincerity not compromising his/her God gifted sense of right and wrong, nor taking the scribes and story tellers as infallible partners to God - are equally entitled to right guidance and salvation. That is the standard that I follow in not differentiating between the messengers.
That is of course a matter of belief / understanding. We are all accountable for sincere application of our own understanding.
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Best regards,
ArmanThe Gospels we know today are not the Gospels mentioned in the Quran
Several Pali and Chinese manuscripts from the first centuries of our age suggest a total of ? 42 soutra-s.? No one can say for sure what this number represents. But it could very well refer to the -as yet- little known collection of Aramean-Christian holy scriptures in existence during the first century. The word we use today to designate the text of the Gospel only applied to its content then (literally, it meant the Proclamation). Moreover, today?s ?gospels ? didn?t exist as such no specific term designated the memory aids or transcriptions of the twelve Apostles? preaching, whose only prescriptive value rested on oral teaching. According to the Judeo-Aramean way of counting, what we call today the ?Old Testament ? consisted of thirty books (the ?other writings ? being left aside), namely the five books of the Torah, the Psalms (=1 book), the six ?major prophets ? (i.e. Joshua, who is believed to have written the book of Joshua; Samuel, the presumed author of the books of Judges and Samuel; Jeremiah, the presumed author of the books of Kings and Jeremiah; Isaiah; Ezekiel, and the twelve ?minor prophets ?, from Hosea to Malachi), giving a total of 30. If one adds the twelve ?Memoirs of the Apostles ? mentioned by Papias and several oral Eastern traditions, one arrives at 42 texts. All these ?books ? must have been referred to as ?writings ? / ir? ?s in first-century Aramean. To be continued
.Quoted from my post http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607731.0 on the origins of the term surah.