How can we be sure that Jesus did not die on the cross?
-
Peace Pvb,
This is amazing to me... Christians look at this verse, and many of them openly and boldly declare that this passage is about JESUS, even though it clearly says MUHAMMAD. ) So, how do you know this passage is about Jesus? The Hebrew scriptures were defined by comparison and prophetic analogies. It doesn't necessarily have to mention a prophet's name to be referring to him. However, in this case, the prophet's name IS clearly mentioned; yet you still reject it... The Hebrew name "YESHUA" means "salvation", and it can also be translated to mean "the Lord is salvation". Yet, I can guarantee that if this passage said, "I am seeking my Lord for 'yoshia'/salvation," Christians would IMMEDIATELY say this is a direct mention of Jesus (Yeshua). That doesn't seem hypocritical to you?
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Are you referrng to?
http//www.menorah.org/yeshname.htmlBut Jesus is salvation- His actions of laying His life down for us earns Him the spot. So not only is His name mentioned but His actions also are recorded. All of the Holy Bible leads to Jesus.
One small word points to what you think is Mohammad's name, but the whole chapter does not point to Mohammad. Mohammad has never been a beloved of Jerusalem.
Sorry it just isn't there. I know how desparately Muslims want Mohammad to be in the Holy Bible, it would validate them and their religion.
This has actually been a funny discussion for me- on another forum a Muslim accused the Bible of supporting pornography - Song of Solomon was the Book sited as being pornographic!! LOL!
-
Peace Pvb,
This is amazing to me... Christians look at this verse, and many of them openly and boldly declare that this passage is about JESUS, even though it clearly says MUHAMMAD. ) So, how do you know this passage is about Jesus? The Hebrew scriptures were defined by comparison and prophetic analogies. It doesn't necessarily have to mention a prophet's name to be referring to him. However, in this case, the prophet's name IS clearly mentioned; yet you still reject it... The Hebrew name "YESHUA" means "salvation", and it can also be translated to mean "the Lord is salvation". Yet, I can guarantee that if this passage said, "I am seeking my Lord for 'yoshia'/salvation," Christians would IMMEDIATELY say this is a direct mention of Jesus (Yeshua). That doesn't seem hypocritical to you?
Peace,
Ahmad
I am not taking sides here but, for info;
Once a sort of freind , a sometimes drugy character, saw me standing in a shop and walked in and said "Br .......,you don't know me at all", and i started wondering what the hell is talking about "You don't know how great a person i am" , "Did you know that i am even mentioned in the quran by name" hypno
God Almighty what is the world coming to........
God Bless.
-
Peace Pvb,
But Jesus is salvation- His actions of laying His life down for us earns Him the spot. So not only is His name mentioned but His actions also are recorded. All of the Holy Bible leads to Jesus.
So, despite this same Bible saying that God is THE ONLY SAVIOR ('beside Him there is no other', you are still content with saying that Jesus is a savior too? What blasphemy! )
The Hebrew scriptures mention Muhammad several times. I already pointed out several examples for you. What about the countless number of times he's mentioned in the Biblical book of Isaiah, where it depicts him spreading the message to the gentiles? Jesus never preached to the gentiles, and he said his message was for the Jews only. Muhammad is the one who preached to the gentiles...
I know how desparately Muslims want Mohammad to be in the Holy Bible, it would validate them and their religion.
This statement is HILARIOUS! The Christian Bible was admittedly constructed at the Council of Nicea, a historical fact, which was orchestrated by a man who WASN'T EVEN CHRISTIAN OR JEWISH! It is a completely forged document which contains a few documents of authenticity, like an ear of corn with only one good kernel. laugh How can the Bible "validate" anything? It isn't even validated itself...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace,
This dispute is expected and it will not go away. This is because the scriptures are fundamentally different. Even the name of God is different. The Quran's Torah and Injeel have no relation to the Bible whatsoever. Maybe some of the true teachings echo through the Jewish and Christian literature. But the Quran quotes the Book of Moses, the Torah and the Injeel and these quotes are not found in the KJV Bible. Thats was one of the reasons the Quranic revelations were mandatory as a mercy to mankind.
981 Those who rejected amongst the people of the Scripture and those who set up partners would not leave until proof came to them.
982 A messenger from God reciting purified scripts.
983 In them are valuable books. (all the initialed verses that clear common disputes eg. truth of Mary)Peace.
-
Peace Rami,
This dispute is expected and it will not go away. This is because the scriptures are fundamentally different. Even the name of God is different. The Quran's Torah and Injeel have no relation to the Bible whatsoever. Maybe some of the true teachings echo through the Jewish and Christian literature. But the Quran quotes the Book of Moses, the Torah and the Injeel and these quotes are not found in the KJV Bible. Thats was one of the reasons the Quranic revelations were mandatory as a mercy to mankind.
Perhaps you are correct, at least to an extent... The Bible has definately been changed, and there's literally no disputing that; it's been historically verified plenty of times. However, in the original Hebrew and Aramaic texts, they may have been very similar (if not identical) to the Arabic qur'an. For a fact, the qur'an echoes many of the stories mentioned in the Legends of the Jews and in the oral traditions; so perhaps this was the real Torah. As of right now, regarding these concepts, we don't know if they're true or not... For a certainty, though, the Injeel (or "Gospel" is not the same script as the 4 Gospels in the Bible cannon today, and the Taawrah (or "Torah" is not the same as the Biblical Hebrew scriptures. Still, I think parts of these scriptures may possibly be contained within the Bible, especially in the original texts and in the original languages...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Sorry but the Gospels John, Mark, Matthew and Luke have not been changed- your Quran validates the very Gospel we have today as the Scripture send down by GOD. Does GOD allow His scripture to be altered? Muslims say no!! LOL!! If the Gospel has been changed then so has the Quran and that is why Uthmann burned the various renderings.
Look up the Peshitta written in aramaic- the language of Jesus. The Gospels in use today are the very same used by the earliest Christian church.
It is only your interpretation of the Quran that makes it seem so alien to the Holy Bible.
Rami- I have been told that Muslims do not have the person name of GOD mentioned in the Quran- it is the generic word for the God. Yes the personal name of GOD is in the Bible.
You are correct until Muslims interprete the Quran correctly they will never see the truth that is in the Gospel.
LOL!! The Quran even mentions the truth of the resurrection of Jesus.
019.033
YUSUFALI "So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life"!
PICKTHAL Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive!
SHAKIR And peace on me on the day I was born, and on the day I die, and on the day I am raised to life.This next verse could be a prophecy about Muslims themselves!
019.034
YUSUFALI Such Jesus the son of Mary a statement of truth, about which they dispute.
PICKTHAL Such was Jesus, son of Mary a statement of the truth concerning which they doubt.
SHAKIR Such is Isa, son of Marium; the saying of truth about which they disputeJesus is the WORD of GOD made flesh!! A manifestation of GOD.
019.035
YUSUFALI It is not befitting to Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.
PICKTHAL It befitteth not Allah that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him! When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only Be! and it is.
SHAKIR It beseems not Allah that He should take to Himself a ! son, glory to be Him; when He has decreed a matter He only says to it "Be," and it is.How many Messsiah's are mentioned in the Quran?
-
Hi everyone. How can we be sure that Jesus (pbuh) did not die on the cross when even secular historians attest to the idea that he did? ???
There is no sectarian hostorian that attest that he did lol, Josephus and other "accounts" have been proven false and josephus was admittedly forged by the catholic church
-
Sigh Wow your contradicting yourself This should be easy, GOD willing.
Sorry but the Gospels John, Mark, Matthew and Luke have not been changed- your Quran validates the very Gospel we have today as the Scripture send down by GOD.
Typical response of a christian that hasn't even studied origin of bible
The following is quoted from "Text, NT," from the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, 2nd edition, (Abingdon, 1962), p. 595-598
"A study of 150 Greek MSS (manuscripts) of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings...It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS (manuscript) tradition is wholly uniform...But there are many thousands which have a definite effect upon the meaning of the text...It is equally true that many of them do have theological significance and were introduced into the text intentionally...Many thousands of variants which are found in the MSS of the NT were put there deliberately. They are not merely the result of error or of careless handling of the text. Many were created for theological or dogmatic reasons. It is because the books of the NT are religious books, sacred books, canonical books, that they were changed to conform to what the copyist believed to be the true reading. His interest was not in the "original reading" but in the "true reading"- as perceived by the Roman goyim (Gentiles), Christian redactors, or course".
Make sure not to miss the bold. As you can see scribes would change the meaning of verse depending on their religious stance. Admitted in your BIBLE
Does GOD allow His scripture to be altered? Muslims say no!! LOL!! If the Gospel has been changed then so has the Quran and that is why Uthmann burned the various renderings.
Modern day Gospels aren't GOD's scriptures, they are a result of oral transition for about 10-20 years. There were many Gospels running around, some which even said Jesus wasn't GOD. Jesus and his disciples were dead by the time they started writing new testament manuscripts(which weren't even thought of as a divine revelation!) so there was noone to verify which was true or not. The gospel of jesus in the quran is the words of jesus spoke to his disciples. Considering we don't even have any proof of what jesus actually said to his disciples(Gospels weren't written by disciples the author is annonymous) yeah, we can't say the christian Gospel is Jesus word's. Nice try.
Look up the Peshitta written in aramaic- the language of Jesus. The Gospels in use today are the very same used by the earliest Christian church.
It is only your interpretation of the Quran that makes it seem so alien to the Holy Bible.
What does that have to do about anything, you just proved the invalidity of the gospels. Jesus spoke aramaic and our oldest gospels(Except a VERY few) are all written in greek. And are found after his death and his disciples. Why exactly can't we find a gospel written in Aramaic? Ironically, Peshitta isn't written till around what 6th century? That is about 500 years after jesus died, that's not accuracy at all.
Rami- I have been told that Muslims do not have the person name of GOD mentioned in the Quran- it is the generic word for the God. Yes the personal name of GOD is in the Bible.
If your refering to YHWH, your totally wrong. First of all, YHWH doesn't mean "I am", which is proven by scholars in this subject. I'll link you with an article that proves YHWH doesn't mean "I am" and the real definition of it is in the quran surah 32, In your new testament it doesn't have the correct definition of YHWH.
http//www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=52&letter=N&search=YHWH#164
ExcerptIn appearance, Yhwh () is the third person singular imperfect "al" of the verb ("to be", meaning, therefore, "He is," or "He will be," or, perhaps, "He lives," the root idea of the word being,probably, "to blow," "to breathe," and hence, "to live." With this explanation agrees the meaning of the name given in Ex. iii. 14, where God is represented as speaking, and hence as using the first person?"I am" (, from , the later equivalent of the archaic stem ). The meaning would, therefore, be "He who is self-existing, self-sufficient," or, more concretely, "He who lives," the abstract conception of pure existence being foreign to Hebrew thought. There is no doubt that the idea of life was intimately connected with the name Yhwh from early times. He is the living God, as contrasted with the lifeless gods of the heathen, and He is the source and author of life (comp. I Kings xviii.; Isa. xli. 26-29, xliv. 6-20; Jer. x. 10, 14; Gen. ii. 7; etc.). So familiar is this conception of God to the Hebrew mind that it appears in the common formula of an oath, "ai Yhwh" (= "as Yhwh lives"; Ruth iii. 13; I Sam. xiv. 45; etc.).
Don't miss the bold
You are correct until Muslims interprete the Quran correctly they will never see the truth that is in the Gospel.
LOL!! The Quran even mentions the truth of the resurrection of Jesus.
I have proven above the gospel is no means a true representation of what jesus said or taught, and early christians didn't believe it was divinely inspired.
"With the exception of Papias, who speaks of a narrative by Mark, and a collection of sayings of Yeshua, no Christian writer of the first half of the second century (i.e., up to 150 C.E.) quotes the Gospels or their reputed authors." Orpheus, Reinach, p. 218
"It is certain that they (the early Christians) believed the Old Testament books to be a divine and infallible guide. But the New Testament was not so considered. The latter collection was not called Scripture, or put on a par with the Old Testament as sacred and inspired, till the time of Theophilus of Antioch (180 A.D.)" (Ibid. 5).
The new testament wasn't even considered divien until 180 A.D. That's 150 years after christ died.
Nowhere in the quran does it say jesus got crucified
019.033
YUSUFALI "So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life"!
PICKTHAL Peace on me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive!
SHAKIR And peace on me on the day I was born, and on the day I die, and on the day I am raised to life.This next verse could be a prophecy about Muslims themselves!
019.034
YUSUFALI Such Jesus the son of Mary a statement of truth, about which they dispute.
PICKTHAL Such was Jesus, son of Mary a statement of the truth concerning which they doubt.
SHAKIR Such is Isa, son of Marium; the saying of truth about which they disputeJesus is the WORD of GOD made flesh!! A manifestation of GOD.
019.035
YUSUFALI It is not befitting to Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.
PICKTHAL It befitteth not Allah that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him! When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only Be! and it is.
SHAKIR It beseems not Allah that He should take to Himself a ! son, glory to be Him; when He has decreed a matter He only says to it "Be," and it is.Yes jesus is the word of GOD, GOD said "be" and jesus was made, jesus isn't GOD, so you can try to stop twisting the scriptures.
How many Messsiah's are mentioned in the Quran?
The question is How many messiahs are in the bible, I can name 4 off the top of my head, King Cyrus, Solomon, King David, Jesus
If anything you've proven the quran superior to bible
-
But don't believe me let's see what scholars have to say about the new testament
"In the Twentieth Century it is astounding to hear Christian people declare that the Bible and particularly the New Testament , says so-and-so, and that therefore it must be true. Do they not understand that the New Testament is a collection of books of varying credibility only in the Fourth Century A.D., by clergy having the limited mentality of that very uncritical age?" (Authur Weigall, The Paganism in Our Christianity, G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1928, p. 34).
"The Scriptures were in the hands of the clergy only, and they had every opportunity to insert whatsoever they pleased; thus we find them (New Testament) full of interpolations. Johann Solomo Semler, one of the most influential theologians of the eighteenth century, speaking of this, says " The Christian doctors never brought their sacred books before the common people; although people in general have been wont to think otherwise; during the first ages, they were in the hands of the clergy only" (Robert Taylor, Diegesis, p. 4.
"All the earliest external evidences points to the conclusion that thy synoptic gospels are non-apostolic digesis of spoken and written apostolic tradition, and that the arrangement of the earlier material in orderly form took place only gradually and by many essays..." (T. W. Doane, Bible Myth And Their Parallels In Other Religions, The Truth Seeker Co., New York, 1882, p. 463.).
-
Peace,
wow With no intention of sounding biased, Real Truth hit the nail right on the head, and he's definately done a sufficient amount of research on this subject...
bravo Very good information, RT, and great post. Welcome to the forum...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Hi everyone. How can we be sure that Jesus (pbuh) did not die on the cross when even secular historians attest to the idea that he did? ???
salaam pg & all,
strange as it may, we can actually ask jesus (isha) about it.
ponder on this verse
2200. Fa-itha qadaytum manasikakum faothkuroo Allaha kathikrikum abaakum aw ashadda thikran famina alnnasi man yaqoolu rabbana atina fee alddunya wama lahu fee al-akhirati min khalaqin
2200. So when you (pl.) have determined your solitude, remember God like you remember your forefathers, or a better remembrance. But some people say, ?Our Lord, accomplish us in this world,? and in the Hereafter, none to him any share!then, this verse
2154. Wala taqooloo liman yuqtalu fee sabeeli Allahi amwatun bal ahyaon walakin la tashAAuroona
2154. And don?t you (pl.) say about anyone killed in the path of God as dead. They are alive rather, even though you do not perceive them.when we remember jesus (among our forefathers. so too are abraham, muhammad, jacob, joseph, solomon, etc. we are all of the same mould and origin.), and ask him, insha-Allah he will talk to us. read the second part of 2154 with extra care, please. insha-Allah, God will allow us to attain a perception beyond imagination, for God is the Lord of comprehension. He is the Merciful Compassion.
but if asking jesus is beyond your courage, then ask God Himself.
also ponder on these verses
2152. Faothkuroonee athkurkum waoshkuroo lee wala takfurooni
2152. Therefore, you (pl.) remember Me, I shall remember you, and be grateful to Me, and don?t you disbelieve.-
Wa-itha saalaka AAibadee AAannee fa-innee qareebun ojeebu daAAwata alddaAAi itha daAAani falyastajeeboo lee walyu/minoo bee laAAallahum yarshudoona
-
And when My servants ask you (s) about Me, verily I am close. I shall answer pleas of support when one pleads to Me, so let them answer My call, and have faith in Me, so that they follow the right way.
-
Wa-in jahadaka AAala an tushrika bee ma laysa laka bihi AAilmun fala tutiAAhuma wasahibhuma fee alddunya maAAroofan waittabiAA sabeela man anaba ilayya thumma ilayya marjiAAukum faonabbi-okum bima kuntum taAAmaloona
-
Even if they compel you to compare Me, of which you have no knowledge, then do not obey them, and socialize amicably with them in this world, while you pursue the way of one who frequently turns to Me. Moreover, your (pl.) recourse is with Me, therefore I am advising you what you should be doing.
and of course, please ponder on the verses quoted by TheNabi (joe).
our wish is that we spend much more time 'entertaining' (dedicated to; engrossing ourselves in) God, rather than ideas diametrically opposed to the lessons contained in the Qur'an. please revert to God, as indicated by emboldened red of 3115 above.
may God guide us all. insha-Allah.
peace
mohammed noh -
-
LOL!! I don't think you want to use arguments against the Holy Bible that are exactly the type that can be found against the Quran. You would learn much if you used the effort of discrediting the Bible to find out the truth.
Read the following, Paul was referencing the Scripture in his Epistles.
1 Corinthians 15
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.When did Paul live, ca 5 - 67 AD. So the Gospels that we have today actually existed before 67AD.
Cool - an internal reference to the truth of that Bible. Does anything like that exist in the Quran? So much is made on the number of Books accepted by the different Christian groups- that doesn't matter!! What does- the 4 Gospels were always considered the GOSPEL Truth.
Have you ever read anything about Polycarp or the students of the original disciples?
Oh and don't make the mistake of combining the Gospel and New Testament into one entity- LOL! I know how you like the number 1!! The Gospel is a part of the New Testament.
-
Offering no proof and your trying to argue against the best scholars, with proof you don't have, Please answer me this, if what you say is true, WHY haven't we found Gospels written in the dates you say, you follow nothing but a sad conjecture and trying to use that as proof
LOL!! I don't think you want to use arguments against the Holy Bible that are exactly the type that can be found against the Quran. You would learn much if you used the effort of discrediting the Bible to find out the truth.
I've already discredited the bible with a series of quotes from scholars, did you happen to miss my 2 posts above O0? But let's see what most scholars have to say
The following is the verdict of the world's greatest Bible critic, Baur
"These Gospels are spurious, and were written in the second century."
"After having exhausted the literature and the testimony bearing on the point, we have not found a single distinct trace of any of those Gospels during the first century and a half after the death of Jesus" (Supernatural Religion, Vol. II, p. 24.
Fifteen hundred years ago, Bishop Faustus, a heretical Christian theologian, referring to this so-called Gospel history, wrote
"It is allowed not to have been written by the son himself nor by his apostles, but long after by some unknown men who, lest they should be suspected of writing things they knew nothing of, gave to their books the names of the Apostles."
But of course you know more than theologians? But yet you bring no proof?
Read the following, Paul was referencing the Scripture in his Epistles.
1 Corinthians 15
3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.If you did research, you would have realised until ad.180 the new testament wasn't considered "inspired"
"The conception of a Catholic canon was realized about the same time as that of a Catholic Church. One hundred and seventy years from the coming of Christ elapsed before the collection of the New Testament books assumed a form that carried with it the idea of holy and inspired" (Ibid., 136).
During the first half of the second century "the New Testament writing did not stand on the same level with the Old, and were not yet esteemed sacred and inspired like the Jewish Scriptures" (Ibid., 122).
Paul could easily be referring to the torah, remember in the gospel supposedly the "scriptures" prophecy jesus dying on the cross for 3 days and saving our sins(Christians believe isaiah 53 and the story of jonah refer to "christ death" which I will provide a link with refutes that clearly)
http//www.jewsforjudaism.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=48&Itemid=373
You probably still believe the gospels were written by disciples of jesus!
"The author, indeed, must ever remain unknown" (Introduction to New Testament, p. 72).
I'll provide proof on the bottom that even christian church fathers never called the nt "scriptures", paul could also be referring to an oral transmitting.
Our oldest gospels are in greek, jesus spoke aramaic and so did his disciples, they were poor I doubt they could speak two languages.
When did Paul live, ca 5 - 67 AD. So the Gospels that we have today actually existed before 67AD.
Scholars have something different to say, and there is no historical proof of what you just said, that's a conjecture, Paul probably existed around that time, but like I showed above the new testament wasn't considered "inspired" until much later.
Cool - an internal reference to the truth of that Bible. Does anything like that exist in the Quran? So much is made on the number of Books accepted by the different Christian groups- that doesn't matter!! What does- the 4 Gospels were always considered the GOSPEL Truth.
They can't all be "God's inspired book", I guess the holy spirit forgot to leave a sheet behind to tell them which were the true gospels or not.
Have you ever read anything about Polycarp or the students of the original disciples?
Oh and don't make the mistake of combining the Gospel and New Testament into one entity- LOL! I know how you like the number 1!! The Gospel is a part of the New Testament.
Noone denies that there was a gospel, what muslims deny is that the gospel of jesus is the true one, would you like to talk about apocalypse of peter where it denies jesus resurection and many christians believed in it in the 2nd century? So how do you know the gospel of peter was wrong and your gospel is right, when we don't have proof from the words of jesus.
"No certain trace of existence of the Fourth Gospel can be found till after Justin Martyr, ie., till after the middle of the second century" (Intro. New Test., ii. 520).
Of course, if it were not written till 140 or 150 A.D., the Apostle John could not have been its author, for he was dead long before that. I will have to do more research on Polycarp, but when he lived, there is no proof that new testament started to be cannonized, of course there were people that believed jesus was god and some that said he wasn't. That matter would be settled at council of nicea
In the same period, Polycarp wrote a letter which cites "Jesus" for certain sayings a hundred times, and the sayings match closely those appearing in the Gospels (and even things written in numerous Epistles, which were not originally attributed to Jesus), but he does not name any sources (M 59-61). We see the authority of oral tradition is again elevated above the written--like all the previous authors, no NT text is called scripture, though many OT texts are, and the only cited source for NT information is the report of 'unnamed' evangelists (Epistle of Polycarp, 4.3). Him being disciple of John is debated and actually there were many Johns.
"Textual criticism has been employed to discredit the true dates of the present Gospels (i.e., to make them earlier than they really were), and the most exaggerated descriptions have been given of the frequent transcriptions of the text and its great corruption in the second century (i.e., the believers say the evidence of the late dates are corruptions of the second century)?But the evidence in favor of the authors traditionally assigned to the Gospels and some of the Epistles, is still uncertain. A wide gap intervenes between eye-witnesses of the apostles or apostolic men that wrote the sacred books, and the earliest Fathers who assert such authorship. The traditional bridge between them is a precarious one" (Canon, 159)
-
LOL! the proof is in the Holy Bible. Check it out instead of following what some "scholars" from the 1800's have said LOL!! The knowledge of the history of the Bible has grown hugely in the past 200 years!
You are confusing the spurious books with the Gospels. All spurious books have been proven to not be from GOD. They were forgeries, written much later, or could not be proven to be the inspired Word of GOD the way the true Gospel can be proved.
Remember the Gospel is just a part of the New Testament- It is the Gospel that the Quran validates. So you believe that the Quran is a lying? Interesting. I am not questioning the Quran the way you are, simply saying it is in the interpretation of the Quran that is suspect. The only way you can defend the Quran is attacking the Holy Bible? Lacking the knowledge of the truth of the Bible there is nothing else you can do.
I understand that you and all Muslims maybe unnerved by my interpretation of the Quran. You have learned the teaching through a very narrow view. LOL!! the word for the day conjecture!! Exactly!!
-
LOL! the proof is in the Holy Bible. Check it out instead of following what some "scholars" from the 1800's have said LOL!! The knowledge of the history of the Bible has grown hugely in the past 200 years!
Actually many people doubted the church authority before the 1800s, but they got killed and their written testimony was destroyed by the catholic church.
Actually I'll link you to thread where it shows church fathers accusing each other of forgery from the 2nd-3rd century. How is this not "proof"http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9597721.0
Even the validity of the bible in the first few centuries was in question as you can see!
You are confusing the spurious books with the Gospels. All spurious books have been proven to not be from GOD. They were forgeries, written much later, or could not be proven to be the inspired Word of GOD the way the true Gospel can be proved.
The only thing that is a forgery is the gospels itself, sir. You still haven't prove to me that they were written during jesus time or by his gospels, can you explain to me why the oldest fragments are in greek when jesus and his disciples spoke Aramaic?Remember the Gospel is just a part of the New Testament- It is the Gospel that the Quran validates. So you believe that the Quran is a lying? Interesting. I am not questioning the Quran the way you are, simply saying it is in the interpretation of the Quran that is suspect. The only way you can defend the Quran is attacking the Holy Bible? Lacking the knowledge of the truth of the Bible there is nothing else you can do
I agree gospel is just part of new testament, yes the qu'ran shows what was change in the bible and what wasn't. I'm saying the gospel in the bible isn't the words jesus taught and the qu'ran doesn't say it is the words jesus taught. We lost the true words jesus taught due to none of it being written down. Your mad at me by attacking the bible, you should be mad at the church fathers who attacked the bible in the 2nd century! By the way, I was a christian before I read the quran and I had read the bible fully, it's because of the type of inaccuracy and inconsistency in the cannonization of the bible which I have shown in the above few posts which is why I converted to the qu'ran.
I understand that you and all Muslims maybe unnerved by my interpretation of the Quran. You have learned the teaching through a very narrow view. LOL!! the word for the day conjecture!! Exactly!!
You have no interpretation of the qu'ran you thought it said jesus died on the cross! The rest of your statement has no weight because I have read the bible. I'm still waiting for you to show me proof that the gospels were written during jesus time or maybe some more scholar quotes may help?
-
LOL! again using arguments that your Quran can not stand up to.
http//www.aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtools/peshitta_interlinear.htm
LOL!! The disciples spoke and wrote in aramaic and greek! A few of the disciples were very learned men, Luke was a physician. LOL!!
http//www.biblestudy.org/basicart/unique-phrase-confirms-historical-accuracy-of-bible.html
How does unique Greek phrase confirm the historical accuracy of the Bible?
On one of their missionary journeys, Paul and Silas came to Thessalonica in Macedonia (part of Northern Greece). We read in the book of Acts that,"As his custom was, Paul went into the synagogue, and on three Sabbath days he reasoned with them from the Scriptures" (Acts 172, NIV).
His preaching, with God's blessing, was so successful that,"Some of the Jews were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a large number of God-fearing Greeks and not a few prominent women" (Acts 174 NIV).
However, the Jews of the city were not happy about this and stirred up a mob, that attacked the house of Jason while looking for Paul and Silas. When they failed to find them, they dragged Jason and other followers of Christ before the 'city officials' (Acts 176, NIV; Strong's Concordance #G4173).The interesting thing here is that the Greek word used for 'city officials' is politarchs, which means rulers of a city. It is not found anywhere else in the Greek literature that survives. Therefore we have this Greek word politarch, used to describe these 'city officials' that is unique to the Biblical record.
The remarkable fact is that in 1835 an inscription was found with this very word on it. It was built into a Roman arch that spanned the Egnatian Way on the western side of Thessalonica. The arch was destroyed in 1867, but the block of marble with the inscription on it was saved and is now in the British Museum. The inscription shows that in Paul's time Thessalonica was indeed governed by rulers called politarchs, and the names of six of these 'city rulers' are shown on this stone.
The use of this word by Luke, the writer of The Acts of the Apostles, was unique in referring to the city rulers in the area of Macedonia at that time. For those who love the Bible, the research of the archaeologist and other scholars, has resulted in another amazing confirmation of the historical accuracy of God's Word.
I already did- we know when St. Paul lived, he references the Scripture mentioning Jesus' death, so we know the Gospels were written before 67Ad when Paul died.
LOL!! No I am not mad at you. I am surprised how Muslims attack the Bible when the Quran validates it. Muslims when they first recieved the Quran never said the Bible was corrupt until around the year 1,000 , so the 2 scriptures jived. LOL! fast forward to today and all of a sudden our Bible is corrupted when the Quran NEVER says such a hideous thing.
-
There is no reason for a Muslims to attack the Bible.
005.046
YUSUFALI 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.
PICKTHAL And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil).
SHAKIR And We sent after them in their footsteps Isa, son of Marium, verifying what was before him of the Taurat and We gave him the Injeel in which was guidance and light, and verifying what was before it of Taurat and a guidance and an admonition for those who guard (against evil).005.047
YUSUFALI Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.
PICKTHAL Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed such are evil-livers.
SHAKIR And the followers of the Injeel should have judged by what Allah revealed in it; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the transgressors.005.048
YUSUFALI To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If Allah had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;
PICKTHAL And unto thee have We revealed the Scripture with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee. For each We have appointed a divine law and a traced-out way. Had Allah willed He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which He hath given you (He hath made you as ye are). So vie one with another in good works. Unto Allah ye will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ.
SHAKIR And We have revealed to you the Book with the truth, verifying what is before it of the Book and a guardian over it, therefore judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their low desires (to turn away) from the truth that has come to you; for every one of you did We appoint a law and a way, and if Allah had pleased He would have made you (all) a single people, but that He might try you in what He gave you, therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you