• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Did Muhammad wish for his followers to believe in the Torah and Gospel?

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Miracles are real events in the past. Convenient for fake Prophets to make them metaphorical lol. Mohammad (s) did so much of them, that, he was constantly called possessed or a sorcerer, one or the other.

God didn't even give all of Jinn combined to do the miracles he entrusted his chosen ones with, the Devils can't, and Mohammad (s) did not throw but God threw when he threw, because the sustenance is directly from God and impossible for that power to be created by a human or a creation or a jinn.

That level of power is directly from God and they only perform such miracles by God's permission.

Of course, when the Mahdi comes, it will be miracles day all over again. And the only reason why there is a ever period God doesn't send with miracles in form of signs is because the first ones denied them and made impossible for people to accept them. A thousand miracles if witnessed by thousand people, those thousand would be accused as being liars just cause they don't like Abu Bakr and Umar lol.

Literally, Ahlulbayt (as) performed them everywhere they went, and yet, all their followers were said to be lying in that regard. But it was so much that even the Sunnis who deny their station, recorded them in their books and called them "Karimat" instead of Mujizat. They said the former is for non-Prophets and God honors his friends by them and the latter for Prophets. What a load of baloney.

There were miracles of curing the blind for example, that is a mujizah not a karimat, can't play words game like that, but they do, because historically it was impossible to deny even for them.
 

Limo

Active Member
I’m pleased you acknowledge that.
4 Gospels were there but are they the same contents like which we have today ?

There may well have been during the seventh century but they did not have anywhere near the same weight and authority as the four Gospels that were established as canonical during the fourth century.
Weight and authority !!!
What people call "Weight and authority " is just of one form of Christianity which were sometimes DIDN'T EXIST or minority.
All whatever we've today is the inheritance of the Nicene or Pauline Christianity. Pauline Christianity is just one shape of many Christianities existed in the early centuries. It was even at a certain time minor among other Christianities.
There are Jewish Chritians who I consider the true Christians who lived and acted like Almaseeh as described even in the 4 Gospels like Nazarenes, Ebionites, Essenes,,,
There are also Ante Nicene before Nicaea like Gnosticism, Marcionism, Montanism, Adoptionism, Docetism,

These other Christianities have their own authentic books that support their theology.
So, what is called authentic books is just Nicene Christians point of view.
Who are the uniterianb Christians?
Sorry for typo, They're Unitarian/Oneness Christians who don't believe in Trinity. Christians believe that Almaseeh is not a deity or God incarnate. They are 3 sects Arian, Socinian, Strict Unitarian
Unitarianism - Wikipedia



I haven’t had time to respond to your previous thoughtful post. Although there have been some alterations since the seventh century these are relatively minor and would affect less than 1% of the texts of the Gospel as they were in the seventh century.
I didn't hear about the 1% variants since 7th century. Research says it's hundreds of thousands of variants in Greek and Latin only without Coptic, Armanian, Georgian,,, scriptures. This number of variants is much higher the number of words.

The oldest scripture piece is 1X2 inches second half of second century. The first complete bible as we know today in one book is in 16th century by Erasmus.
Even modern printings/translations, every church has its own translation and recognized books, chapters, sentences, words in many cases.

However many of these variants are insignificant but some are really significant.

Not sure what you mean by that.
We believe that there is one book revealed to Almaseeh similar to Torah and Quran. This book has been forgotten/lost/shredded into peices as the Pauline Chritinity has risen the value of 4 books on the account of the original Injeel (Gospel of Almaseeh)
These 4 books have some fragments, verses, sayings from Almaseeh's Injeel but It's NOT Al-Injeel THE GOSPEL Allah told us about it in Quran.
The modern scholars identified one of the lost books as "Q Source" then later they nominated "L,M, and N. These studies are aligned with Islamic point of view.
Do you think the Quran refers to one of these non-canonical books? If so, which one(s) and why?
Quran refers to one book Al-Injeel The Gospel.
Modern scholars even believe that the original copies of the 4 books are lost and no way to get the original copy again. They believe also that these 4 books are having fragments of another books Q, L, M, and N. We Muslems believe that there is one original book that has been revealed to Almaseeh himself by Allah and he wrote it himself and taught to his followers.

There are a set of books that is called Logia (sayings) books. These books are having the Torah, Quran and may be Hadeeths style. It has only sayings. It doesn't have stories like Jesus stands, gone, said, meat, cried, crucified,,,,
The only book that I like very much is Gospel of Thomas. It's dated before the 4 books. It's assumed to be 60-140 CE. It's terrific. It doesn't have anything about Almaseeh deity, Trinity, Crucifixion, Resurrection, Salvation,,, It's compliant with the Islamic view
I believe that this book is more or less a great portion of Injeel The Gospel of Almaseeh or at least pure Almaseeh sayings bu his tongue.
That’s a huge assumption. What evidence do you have to support it?
It's well known that Almaseeh speaks Hebrew as the Torah and worshiping language. He also spoke Syriac which was the public language of Palastine. Right?

Almaseeh's book Al-Injeel The Gospel should be in one of these language not in Greek, or Latin, or Coptic, or Armenian,,,
We don't have a genuine Gospel in Hebrew, or Syriac or Aramaic.
I'm not aware about any books of Christians in Arab peninsula. We've Hadeeths that prophet Mohamed asked Osama one of the companions to learn Syriac to read and understand the people of the books (Christians and Jews) books, speech, and letters.
I assume ( I don't know about academic study) that Christians of Arab peninsula have their own books which have disappeared.
Regards[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:

Niblo

Active Member
Premium Member
................

Thank you for answering my question; and in a manner that gives us something to work on!

Concerning the ʾInjīl:

Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) says: ‘We sent Yeshua, son of Mary, in their footsteps, to confirm the Torah that had been sent before him: We gave him the ʾInjīl with guidance, light, and confirmation of the Torah already revealed – a guide and lesson for those who take heed of Allāh.’ (Al-Ma’ida: 46).

We know that the word ʾInjīl refers to a written document because Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) says: ‘I am a servant of God. He has granted me the Scripture; made me a prophet.’ (Maryam: 30).

The word ‘Scripture’ renders the Arabic ‘kitāba’. This word is derived from the root kāf tā bā, meaning to write; to record; or to inscribe. Please note that the plural of ‘Kitāb’ is ‘Kutub.’

The Arabic word ‘ʾInjīl’ is translated ‘Gospel’ by those writing in English. However, in the Qur’an the word is always in the singular, and is never used to describe the four Gospels of the New Testament.

It is quite clear from Al-Ma’ida: 46 that Yeshua was given the ʾInjīl in its completed form; how else could it have been ‘a guidance, light and confirmation of the Torah’?

Concerning the nature of the ʾInjīl:

I wonder if the ʾInjīl is the document – or else was the inspiration of the document – known as ‘Q’.

It’s important to realise, of course, that Q is a hypothetical document (in that we not longer possess it) the contents of which were absorbed into the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Tod Stiles reminds us that while most scholars continue to believe that Q did exist – and in written form – those who specialise in Q have: ‘Acknowledged that other theories about the history of the Synoptic Gospels which make Q unnecessary are possible, though the existence of a document such as Q best explains all of the Synoptic data.’ (‘Q: The Earliest Portrait of Jesus.’).

Stiles goes on: ‘ Q is not considered to be a random collection drawn from a pool of oral tradition but a carefully constructed composition that employs literary techniques characteristic of ancient sayings collections.

‘When it comes to the absence of the cross from Q, that is, the failure of Q to invoke the doctrine that Jesus died for the sins of the world, we may only suppose that if the cross was a “scandal for Jews”(1Cor 1:23 CCB) then it might well have been a scandal for Jewish-Christians as well……… Perhaps this should occasion no surprise, as the concept of a suffering, dying, resurrected Messiah finds no place in pre-Christian Jewish Messianic expectation as far as we can tell.’

In his ‘The Lost Gospel – The Book of Q and Christian Origins’ Burton L. Mack cites a number of the sayings of Jesus, as recorded in the Gospels. Here are a few:

‘I am telling you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on the cheek, offer your other cheek as well. If anyone grabs your coat, let him have your shirt as well.’

‘As you want people to treat you, do the same to them.’

‘If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even tax collectors love those who love them, do they not? And if you embrace only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Doesn’t everybody do that? If you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even wrongdoers lend to their kind because they expect to be repaid.’

‘Be merciful even as your Father is merciful. Don’t judge and you won’t be judged. For the standard you use [for judging] will be the standard used against you.’

‘How can you look for the splinter in your brother’s eye and not notice the stick in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the splinter in your eye,’ when you do not see the stick in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the stick from your own eye, and then you can see to remove the splinter that is in your brother’s eye.’

‘A good tree does not bear rotten fruit; a rotten tree does not bear good fruit. Are figs gathered from thorns, or grapes from thistles? Every tree is known by its fruit. The good man produces good things from his store of goods and treasures; and the evil man evil things. For the mouth speaks from a full heart.’

‘Everyone who hears my words and does them is like a man who built a house on rock. The rain fell, a torrent broke against the house, and it did not fall, for it had a rock foundation. But everyone who hears my words and does not do them is like a man who built a house on sand. The rain came, the torrent broke against it, and it collapsed. The ruin of that house was great.’

‘Whatever house you enter, say, ‘Peace be to this house!’ And if a child of peace is there, your greeting will be received (literally, “your peace will rest upon him”). But if not, let your peace return to you.

‘When you pray, say, “Father, may your name be holy. May your rule take place. Give us each day our daily bread. Pardon our debts, for we ourselves pardon everyone indebted to us. And do not bring us to trial”.’

‘Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened for you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks the door will be opened. What father of yours, if his son asks for a loaf of bread, will give him a stone, or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? Therefore, if you, although you are not good, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the father above give good things to those who ask him!’

“Nothing is hidden that will not be made known, or secret that will not come to light. What I tell you in the dark, speak in the light. And what you hear as a whisper, proclaim on the housetops.’

‘The land of a rich man produced in abundance, and he thought to himself, ‘What should I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?’ Then he said, ‘I will do this. I will pull down my barns and build larger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to my soul, Soul, you have ample goods stored up for many years. Take it easy. Eat, drink, and be merry.’ But God said to him, ‘Foolish man! This very night you will have to give back your soul, and the things you produced, whose will they be?’ That is what happens to the one who stores up treasure for himself and is not rich in the sight of God.’

‘I am telling you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat, or about your body, what you will wear. Isn’t life more than food, and the body more than clothing? Think of the ravens. They do not plant, harvest, or store grain in barns, and God feeds them. Aren’t you worth more than the birds? Which one of you can add a single day to your life by worrying? And why do you worry about clothing? Think of the way lilies grow. They do not work or spin. But even Solomon in all his splendor was not as magnificent. If God puts beautiful clothes on the grass that is in the field today and tomorrow is thrown into a furnace, won’t he put clothes on you, faint hearts? So don’t worry, thinking, ‘What will we eat,’ or ‘What will we drink,’ or ‘What will we wear?’ For everybody in the whole world does that, and your father knows that you need these things. Instead, make sure of his rule over you, and all these things will be yours as well.’

‘Sell your possessions and give to charity. Store up treasure for yourselves in a heavenly account, where moths and rust do not consume, and where thieves cannot break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will also be.’

‘Everyone who glorifies himself will be humiliated, and the one who humbles himself will be praised.’

As a Muslim, I believe – without reservation – that these are the words of Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla), given to Yeshua - His prophet - as 'a guidance, light and confirmation of the Torah’; the essential message of which is that we should love the Lord with all our heart, with all our soul, and with all our might; placing our trust in Him; and that we should love our neighbour as ourselves.

And maybe it is verses such as these - and others of the same nature and purpose - that Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) had in mind when He reminded Jews and Christians that they should: 'Hold fast to what We have given you and bear its contents in mind, so that you may be conscious of Allāh.’ (Al-Baqara: 63).

And the answer to your question is 'Yes'; Muslims are required to believe in the Torah and Gospels....that is, in verses such as these.
 
Last edited:

Limo

Active Member
.
I believe the Quran is more authentic than both the Gospel and Torah. However I consider all three Divinely Inspired. That is my belief as you have your belief. I don’t see that we can prove the Torah or Gospel wasn’t Divinely Inspired. To the contrary we are discussing books the Jews and Christians consider sacred and have served well as scripture from their inception to the present day.
I as a Moselm MUST beleive that:
  • Torah and Injeel are Divinely inspired otherwise I'm not a real Moslem.
  • Existing Torah has some changes , forgotten, and additions
  • The 4 Gospels are not The Injeel The Gospel of Almaseeh. These books have some of Al-Injeel but they aren't the Injeel
Why would God bless humanity with Revelations through Moses and Jesus and provide no meaningful record of that Revelation?
This is a very important question and it's an entrance of understanding Islam.

There is only one god who is Allah.
Allah has sent many prophets to humans to believe in Allah and live by Allah's Law.
Every prophet has Allah's Law that is suitable for his era and geography.
Except for prophet Mohamed who is sent to all humans and Quran is for all eras till end day.
Allah committed keep Quran as is till end day but didn't commit to keep other books as it's purpose is end.

Prophet Mosa is sent to Israelites only. Almaseeh is sent to lost sheep of Israelites. but prophet Mohamed is sen to all humans.
Allah explained all of these hought in Quran.
Nevertheless, Modend scholars even some Christians among them agrees that Torah and Gospels have changed.


There are similarities I agree. But which Hadiths are universally accepted amongst Muslims as being authentic?
As I'm sunny who are 85-90% of allgated to be Moslems, We've taken care of Hadeeths authentication from beginning. We've staudied all narrators (tens of thousands) and certified the honest and good memory people. We've about 15 sciences to define the authentication of Hadeethes. We've agreed that Al-Bukhary and Moslems books are 100% authenticated books. There are about other 4 books which has some non-authentic Hadeeths.

You are making assumptions about what the word Injil in the Quran means.
This is not an assumption. Allah in Quran said that he has revealed Quran to prophet Mohamed exactly as revealed Torah to Mosa and Injeel to Almaseeh.
So, Injeel should be revealed to Almaseeh exactly like Torah and Quran.
So, Torah, Quran, and Injeel should be Allah's words as he said exactly without human influence.

It's inconvenient at all that Allah says in Injeel "I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus" because Allah doesn't have a friend called Theophilus. Right ?
So, these are not Injeel.

I wouldn’t make that comparison as the Gospel accounts include the Teachings of Jesus.
I'll agree with you if you said "include some of the Teachings of Jesus" instead of saying "include the Teachings of Jesus"
Hadeeths also include some of the sayings of prophet Mohamed and his history.

I agree Muslims have a particular understanding of what is meant by Injil in the Quran. The question is to what extent is it correct?

"correct" according to Sunni's understanding of Quran. I don't know about others.


There is controversy about the authorship of all four Gospels. So while there is no agreement about the names of the authors there is no agreement the authors were anonymous either.
Yes, it's correct. There a lot of debate. I find in many modern research compliancey with Islamic point of view.


Christians do not require a chain of narration. I agree having a chain of narration supports historicity but isn’t necessary to authenticate Biblical Canon.
We should distinguish between Christians believe and scientific historical standards. The chain of narration is a basic requirement to authenticate a narration and relate to someone.

We Moslems invented Narrations and Narrators science that the humanity didn't know something like this before and even after.
So, the authentication of Hadeeths is much higher than the 4 books.


It is one theory amongst many. The existence of conflicting theories is part of open scholarship and study in the West. It doesn’t necessarily detract from the reliability and authenticity of Biblical canon.
I like the open scholarship and study in the west. Unfortunately apologist Islamic scholars know a little about these studies. I wish to do much effort in transforming these studies to Islamic Arabic world.

"It doesn’t necessarily detract from the reliability and authenticity of Biblical canon" only for believers.
This is not the case for non-believers and neutral who don't have believe and seeking for true religion.

Regards
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The Gospels (4) are also mostly from God or almost all from God. Disbelieving any of God's words on conjecture is tantamount to disbelief in the divine books.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Gospels were paraphrased to each disciple a version and paraphrased differently from Jesus from God. No doubt God revealed the Gospels and Muslims are blind sheep of scholars and Islam like all other religions has become a falsehood and the title "Muslim" meaningless.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The only thing Quran disagree with Gospels about is divorce and place of women in my view. All the rest it agrees as far I can see.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
As far as the supposed death, Quran is a commentary on previous books, it's saying it's not a real death but it looked like it. It was a feign death. A normal person would be dead or crucified, but God preserved Jesus and made him come back and he never really left the world and cease to be it's guide to that point as to say he was really dead.
 

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
By the way from my point of view anyone who denies anything in Quran from it's clear teachings to verify a system come up by humans is a polytheist. This is the state of Muslims. They are polytheists worshipping their scholars. The truth is Ilmel Rijaal can be useful but when taking too seriously as it is, the intention is not truth seeking but Sunnah of forefathers confirmation bias kicking in and the intention is Shirk not for God. I testify that Ilmel Rijal worshippers are the worse type of disbelievers among humans. This only because the Quran is testified by them but they misinterpret it to worship Satanic identity of themselves and their scholars.
 

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
Hi Adrian,

Help me out here...I'm an old man:

Are you suggesting that when the Qur'an uses the word Injil it is referring to the four Gospels of the New Testament?
Yes. The Injil were the teachings and knowledge that Allah had revealed to Jesus. Jesus then transmitted these knowledge and teachings to His Apostles through His words and practical application of those teachings in a real time experience. Then each apostle wrote all those sayings of Jesus, as well as Jesus encounters and prophecies about future such as Day of Judgement, as well of Muhammad, the next Messenger. When the four Gospels are read together collectively, they together completely tells us All the teachings of Injil. In addition, the Revelation of John, is also another part of Injil.

If the Christians had never received all the teachings of Christ, or their book contained false information, false teachings, and false prophecies, it means, God failed to provide them with Guidence He had intended. This is a blasphemy. It is saying God was powerless to do what He intended.
 

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
.
I
This is a very important question and it's an entrance of understanding Islam.

There is only one god who is Allah.
Allah has sent many prophets to humans to believe in Allah and live by Allah's Law.
Every prophet has Allah's Law that is suitable for his era and geography.
Except for prophet Mohamed who is sent to all humans and Quran is for all eras till end day.
Allah committed keep Quran as is till end day but didn't commit to keep other books as it's purpose is end.

Hello,

Do you know when the True Injil of Messih was lost or changed? If you propose this idea, then don't you think you need to back it up with some evidence and details? Otherwise tomorrow another prophet comes, and claims this Quran is not the real Quran that was revealed to Muhammad, because we do not see Muhammad signature on it.
Will you just believe that? Same with Injil. If you say there was another true Injil, which is not the same as the Injils Christian's have, why should Allah expect Christian's to believe it, unless Allah tells them what exactly happened to real Injil. Did He?
 

ClimbingTheLadder

Up and Down again
Do you know when the True Injil of Messih was lost or changed?

Even in Matthew Mark Luke and John within their pages speak about Jesus teaching 'the gospel' which in itself confirms there and then that Matthew Mark Luke and John are not "the gospel" that Jesus taught.
What we have with those New Testament books is a semantic evolution of a term closely associated with Jesus.
In the terms of Matthew Mark Luke and John, likewise with tendencies in Paul's writings there is a developing narrative in the writing of these later texts to turn the gospel from a teaching (what Jesus taught, or what he received by God according to Islam) into an event (the life of Jesus).

All of this stands without any reference to Islam. Islam doesn't make any unrealistic claims here. Furthermore you should study the early history of pre-Christianity more closely, it was a very intense time full of a lot of conflicting groups all trying to take their share in Jesus.
It turns out that Paul was just the loudest. The New Testament itself is a synthesis of various opposing Christologies, Paul's afterall was completely different from Mark's and Matthew's.
All four (Matthew Mark Luke and John) are also considerably different from James'.
Then there are the Johannine sect which managed to get several of their books included in the New Testament (John, two Epistles of John and Patmos' Apocalypse), they were the most prominent Gnostics as far as the early Church was concerned.

It's both not reasonable to assume that "the Gospel" is anything to do with the New Testament directly, nor is it reasonable to pass off Islam's objections (according to the claimed direct word of God in the Qur'an) on the basis on chronology alone either.
Argument from Chronology (which is the fallacy Christians love to pull), taken to it's logical extent would also disprove the Torah (via the Christian's logic), if we were to excuse it and pretend it makes a valid argument.

Islam and the Bible is quite a nuanced and very thought-provoking topic, because people want to downplay or ignore obvious facts.
 

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
Even in Matthew Mark Luke and John within their pages speak about Jesus teaching 'the gospel' which in itself confirms there and then that Matthew Mark Luke and John are not "the gospel" that Jesus taught.
What we have with those New Testament books is a semantic evolution of a term closely associated with Jesus.
In the terms of Matthew Mark Luke and John, likewise with tendencies in Paul's writings there is a developing narrative in the writing of these later texts to turn the gospel from a teaching (what Jesus taught, or what he received by God according to Islam) into an event (the life of Jesus).

All of this stands without any reference to Islam. Islam doesn't make any unrealistic claims here. Furthermore you should study the early history of pre-Christianity more closely, it was a very intense time full of a lot of conflicting groups all trying to take their share in Jesus.
It turns out that Paul was just the loudest. The New Testament itself is a synthesis of various opposing Christologies, Paul's afterall was completely different from Mark's and Matthew's.
All four (Matthew Mark Luke and John) are also considerably different from James'.
Then there are the Johannine sect which managed to get several of their books included in the New Testament (John, two Epistles of John and Patmos' Apocalypse), they were the most prominent Gnostics as far as the early Church was concerned.

It's both not reasonable to assume that "the Gospel" is anything to do with the New Testament directly, nor is it reasonable to pass off Islam's objections (according to the claimed direct word of God in the Qur'an) on the basis on chronology alone either.
Argument from Chronology (which is the fallacy Christians love to pull), taken to it's logical extent would also disprove the Torah (via the Christian's logic), if we were to excuse it and pretend it makes a valid argument.

Islam and the Bible is quite a nuanced and very thought-provoking topic, because people want to downplay or ignore obvious facts.
Islam does not make that claim. It is the Muslims that claim the Bible is altered.
The question is when was it altered? When Muslims say Bible was altered from it's original, it means, there was a time that the Injil Book existed, but some people altered its text. When did that happen?
 

Limo

Active Member
Hello,

Do you know when the True Injil of Messih was lost or changed? If you propose this idea, then don't you think you need to back it up with some evidence and details? Otherwise tomorrow another prophet comes, and claims this Quran is not the real Quran that was revealed to Muhammad, because we do not see Muhammad signature on it.
Will you just believe that? Same with Injil. If you say there was another true Injil, which is not the same as the Injils Christian's have, why should Allah expect Christian's to believe it, unless Allah tells them what exactly happened to real Injil. Did He?
As a Moslem: I knew from Quran:
  • The Injeel changed when some people wrote books having small portion of Almasseh's Injeel and many traditions then later it's called Gospel.
  • Some examples of changes are Trinity, crucifixion, resurrection, salvation, God the Son, stop practicing Mosa's law, invented the churches,,,,
As a reader modern Western history and text criticism researches:
  • The original copy of the 5 books are lost
  • The copy of the copy of the copy.., of the copy of the 4 books are lost
  • There are hundreds of thousands of variants between these copies which are much more than the number of words in the 4 books
  • There are contradictions between books like for example Jesus genuinely, crucifixion story,,,
  • There are many subjects were not in old copies, Johannine Comma, woman committed adult
There is no Prophet after Mohamed, if somebody claims that he is. Nothing related to Islam.
There are many allegations without any evidence that Quran has changed. Regardless if he claims to be prophet or not, no single evidance.
From Islamic perspective Allah doesn't ask Christians and Jews to believe in Torah and Injeel, Allah asks them to abandon practice these books and believe in Quran.
Allah asked Jews to practice Torah till Almasseh. Allah asked Jews to believe and practice Torah and Injeel till Mohamed is appointed as prophet. But since Mohamed is appointed, all should believe in him and practice Quran
 

Limo

Active Member
Hello,

Do you know when the True Injil of Messih was lost or changed? If you propose this idea, then don't you think you need to back it up with some evidence and details? Otherwise tomorrow another prophet comes, and claims this Quran is not the real Quran that was revealed to Muhammad, because we do not see Muhammad signature on it.
Will you just believe that? Same with Injil. If you say there was another true Injil, which is not the same as the Injils Christian's have, why should Allah expect Christian's to believe it, unless Allah tells them what exactly happened to real Injil. Did He?
As a Moslem: I knew from Quran:
  • The Injeel changed when some people wrote books having small portion of Almasseh's Injeel and many traditions then later it's called Gospel.
  • Some examples of changes are Trinity, crucifixion, resurrection, salvation, God the Son, stop practicing Mosa's law, invented the churches,,,,
As a reader modern Western history and text criticism researches:
  • The original copy of the 5 books are lost
  • The copy of the copy of the copy.., of the copy of the 4 books are lost
  • There are hundreds of thousands of variants between these copies which are much more than the number of words in the 4 books
  • There are contradictions between books like for example Jesus genuinely, crucifixion story,,,
  • There are many subjects were not in old copies, Johannine Comma, woman committed adult
There is no Prophet after Mohamed, if somebody claims that he is. Nothing related to Islam.
There are many allegations without any evidence that Quran has changed. Regardless if he claims to be prophet or not, no single evidance.
From Islamic perspective Allah doesn't ask Christians and Jews to believe in Torah and Injeel, Allah asks them to abandon practice these books and believe in Quran.
Allah asked Jews to practice Torah till Almasseh. Allah asked Jews to believe and practice Torah and Injeel till Mohamed is appointed as prophet. But since Mohamed is appointed, all should believe in him and practice Quran
 

ClimbingTheLadder

Up and Down again
Islam does not make that claim. It is the Muslims that claim the Bible is altered.

That is a strawman, Muslims (most ones that understand what they're talking about) don't make that claim nor does Islam.
Islam has no position on the object of the Bible, the Qur'an mentions no Bible.

When Muslims say Bible was altered from it's original, it means, there was a time that the Injil Book existed, but some people altered its text. When did that happen?

See you strawman, you start your conversation mentioning the Bible falsely presenting the view of Muslims to be that it was "altered", which is not the position they held. Such a position would be ridiculous because it doesn't mean anything.
However historically this is actually the case, nonetheless these are not the claims made by Islam or Muslims.

The Qur'an mentions the revelations given to Musa (Moses/Moshe) and Isa (Jesus/Yeshua). These revelations cannot be found in the Bible but the Bible speaks of these revelations, in various contexts.

When it comes to the Taurat, the Qur'an states:

Say: "Who revealed the Book which Musa brought, a light and a guidance to men, which you make into scattered writings which you show while you conceal much?" And you were taught what you did not know, (neither) you nor your fathers.
Say: "God!", then leave them sporting in their vain discourses. (Surah 6:91)


When it comes to the Injeel the Qur'an states:

And the followers of the Injeel should have judged by what God revealed in it; and whoever did not judge by what God revealed, those are they that are the transgressors. (Surah 5:47)

"Then We made Our apostles to follow in their footsteps, and We sent Isa son of Marium afterwards, and We gave him the Injeel" (Surah 57:27)

Matthew Mark Luke and John are all ABOUT Jesus and not given to him, so that there and then (if I didn't already explicitly tell you) cancels them out from being the Injeel spoken of.
The Injeel is no a biography, full-stop.
 

Niblo

Active Member
Premium Member
[QUOTE="InvestigateTruth, post: 6577161, member: If the Christians had never received all the teachings of Christ, or their book contained false information, false teachings, and false prophecies, it means, God failed to provide them with Guidence He had intended. This is a blasphemy. It is saying God was powerless to do what He intended.[/QUOTE]

You are familiar with the nativity narratives in both Qur'an and Gospels. They differ considerably; to the extent that if one narrative is true the other can only be a lie.

In your opinion, which narrative is true; the Qur'anic, or that of the Gospels...and what are your reasons for saying so?
 
Last edited:

InvestigateTruth

Veteran Member
[QUOTE="InvestigateTruth, post: 6577161, member: If the Christians had never received all the teachings of Christ, or their book contained false information, false teachings, and false prophecies, it means, God failed to provide them with Guidence He had intended. This is a blasphemy. It is saying God was powerless to do what He intended.

You are familiar with the nativity narratives in both Qur'an and Gospels. They differ considerably; to the extent that if one narrative is true the other can only be a lie.

In your opinion, which narrative is true; the Qur'anic, or that of the Gospels...and what are your reasons for saying so?

In my view the narratives in Quran and Bible do not contradict, but they only appear so, and there is a reason God revealed certain things in Bible to appear different than Quran.
For example, one of the most obvious apparent contradictions is the crucifixion of Jesus. In our view there is no contradiction, because when Bible is talking about crucifixion of Jesus, it is with regards to crucifying Jesus physical body. When Quran says, Jesus was not crucified, it is about His Spiritual reality.

I see scriptures, generally sometimes speak of Physical body, and sometimes speak of spirituality, without telling us which one it is. We need to think and use our logic to understand. For example scriptures speak of death, both in a physical sense, and also spiritual death. The unbelievers are spiritually dead even if they are physically alive, and the believers are spiritually alive even if they were killed physically. In brief, all apparent contredictions between Bible and Quran are reconcilable if understood correctly in my view.


But, I am interested to know your opinion about what I said in my previous post. If the Injil was never properly written, then God failed and was powerless to provide His guidance and revelation to Christians? Was not His purpose of sending Jesus and Revelation of Injil, to guide the people? If we say, the Book was never reached to people, that means God failed to even leave a proper guidance for the people of that Age.
 
Top