Qu'ran: Did Jesus die?

[TashaN]

There is irrefutable proof that the Qur'an changed between the timeof Muhammad's death and the redaction.

The purpose of the redaction was to create ONE Qur'an for all Islam.

I would be like to see that so called *irrefutable* proof, if you don't mind.

 

[Popeyesays]

I would be like to see that so called *irrefutable* proof, if you don't mind.

First, the bundle of qur'an documents found in the late 1970's in the sealed dome of a Mosque in Yemen.

Second the fact that a redaction was necessary at all. If the Qur'ans that had already been disseminated were NOT faithful copies in the first place, there would have been no reason to replace those Qur'ans with the new redacted version.

That's a Q.E.D. in anyone's book.

Regards,
Scott

 

[TashaN]

First, the bundle of qur'an documents found in the late 1970's in the sealed dome of a Mosque in Yemen.

I didn't read about that before, anyway, what's your point in here?

Second the fact that a redaction was necessary at all. If the Qur'ans that had already been disseminated were NOT faithful copies in the first place, there would have been no reason to replace those Qur'ans with the new redacted version.

Huh?! sorry, but i didn't understand what you are trying to say in here!

You said something along the lines that the Quran was changed somehow and i don't know where did you get that from.

 

[Popeyesays]

I didn't read about that before, anyway, what's your point in here?



Huh?! sorry, but i didn't understand what you are trying to say in here!

You said something along the lines that the Quran was changed somehow and i don't know where did you get that from.

1) from Wikipedia:
Qur'an in the House of Manuscript in Sana'a

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search
This antique Qur'an was recently discovered in the Yemen. It is now lodged in the House of Manuscript in Sana'a. The Carbon-14 tests applied to this Qur'an date it to 790-835 AD with 95 percent accuracy. [1] Carole Hillenbrand


A specialist in Arabic calligraphy and Koranic paleography Gerd-R. Puin, based at Saarland University, in Saarbrücken, Germany. Puin has been organizing and oversee the restoration project in looking at the parchment fragments found in this Qur'an. It reveals unconventional verse orderings, minor textual variations, and rare styles of orthography and artistic embellishment. Enticing, too, were the sheets of the scripture written in the rare and early Hijazi Arabic script: pieces of the earliest Korans known to exist, they were also palimpsests -- versions very clearly written over even earlier, washed-off versions. [2]



References

1. <LI id=_note-Carole_Hillenbrand>^ Carole Hillenbrand, The New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 1, p.329
2. ^ What is the koran?. Free republic (1991). Retrieved on 2007-03-06.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an_in_the_House_of_Manuscript_in_Sana%27a"

2) Abu Bakr ordered the standardization of the Qur'an during his reign as Caliph. Uthman lived to finish the project. Why was it necessary to redact the Qur'an to establish a single source document if there were not Qur'ans that varied from the standard version? The differences in orthography and content in the Sa'ana Qur'an prove it. SOme of those Sa'ana pages are palimpsets, which means they were scrubbed clean and used again. Modern methods can read the underlying text. Maybe that will shed more light on the subject.

Regards,
Scott

 

[TashaN]

1) from Wikipedia:
References

1. <LI id=_note-Carole_Hillenbrand>^ Carole Hillenbrand, The New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 1, p.329

I definitely don't have this book.

^ What is the koran?. Free republic (1991).

I got this from the site above:

Gerd-R. Puin's current thinking about the Koran's history partakes of this contemporary revisionism. "My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad," he says. "Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants."

I would like to see any proof which state that the Quran was there before Mohammed or that there is any contradictory in the Quran. If someone changed the Quran, then there would contradictions or mistakes in it. If you have any further information about what i'm asking you then don't hesitate to post them.

2) Abu Bakr ordered the standardization of the Qur'an during his reign as Caliph. Uthman lived to finish the project. Why was it necessary to redact the Qur'an to establish a single source document if there were not Qur'ans that varied from the standard version?

The Quran is an oral book as you know, and it wasn't book who fell from the sky or something, and as you well know, the muslims at that time didn't have the money or the experince to put all the Quran in one single book until the time of Othamn. I still don't see your point.

The differences in orthography and content in the Sa'ana Qur'an prove it. SOme of those Sa'ana pages are palimpsets, which means they were scrubbed clean and used again. Modern methods can read the underlying text. Maybe that will shed more light on the subject.

Well, i'll be more interested in facts, but not some unproven assumptions. Please show me which part of the Quran is missing and which one have been changed, etc. I didn't see until now any accurate and specific information about this issue.

 

[Popeyesays]

Well, Truth it took more than fifty years for the Qumran scrolls to be truly public. I assume it will take that long or longer for the translation and forensic work on the Qur'an bundle from Sana'a.

In my opinion, Islam is going to discover it must adapt to changes in our knowledge of the history surrounding Islam. Christianity has certainly had to do that, so has Buddhism, Hinduism, and any other religion one might think of.

Despite being an oral tradition, Qur'ans were written down and sent along with the armies and missionaries of Islam to a wide range of places before the formal redaction. Those Qur'ans were spread far and wide when Uthman ordeered their destruction by fire and replacement with the redaction when it arrived in those far-flung places.

The world is lucky that the clerics in sana`a followed their ancient tradition of wrapping and "laying to rest" old scripture in this case. Maybe we will find other such cases along the way.

Islam is going to have to adapt to discoveries made, or else it will calcify and eventually disintegrate.

Regards,
Scott

 

[Muffled]

We went through this battle over words, meanings and language when you sided with Apple Pie in his assertion that the Quran showed that Jesus was the son of Allah. In fact it showed no such thing either in english or arabic as he assumed. He was given a challenge to confront each and every Classical Arabic verse in the Quran that said Allah has no son, no partner, no consort etc. and HE LEFT THIS FORUM to start the same old tired rhetoric at another forum. He didn't even take the challenge.

So I understand the english and the arabic very well. Most christians believe that Jesus died for man's sins so that man would have everlasting life, but as you have said..."He didn't die but left"....so if he didn't die but left then how did he die for man's sins?

No. the text does not say that God halted anything. However the Bible indicates that Jesus did not die but left and then the body died.

So either way you look at it we are correct in making the statement that he didn't die. Are you trying to get our understanding of what "not died" means to us?



You have to show me how you arrive at this interpertation. In one verse of the bible it describes how Jesus gives up his spirit but after that a centurion is quoted as saying how he praised God after he saw what had happened.....

What did he see? Did he actually see Jesus give up his spirit. That can be interperted as he did...but that information is not explicitly mentioned.

Luke
23:46 and having cried with a loud voice, Jesus said, `Father, to Thy hands I commit my spirit;` and these things having said, he breathed forth the spirit.

23:47 And the centurion having seen what was done, did glorify God, saying, `Really this man was righteous;`

I'm quite sure, giving what we know of Roman soilders, they killed plenty of people back then so there would be nothing special about a man crying for his god to save him but when looking at his reponse to Jesus one has to wonder if he actually did see something like Jesus actually giving up his spirit (God raising him up). I'm not saying that's how it was because like I said there not enought there to state that as a fact but it is interesting.



Not sure what you mean here.




Again, I'm not sure what you mean here. Jesus was not God......




This is another assumption. This is an inaccurate assesment of Islamic ideology. Do you actually talk to muslims to get their understanding? I'm not talking about the few that you converse with on this forum.

Muslims beleive that the scripturs have been altered. I gave this example of the different manuscripts that were used when the scriptures were compiled (bible). It is common knowledge that not all of the scriptures are in the bible. Some here have said that the KJV contained more books or pages and now it's different. The christian culture, not all, are filled with various pagan customs and rituals that have crept in over the years from various people across the globe (i.e. easter, christmas, valentines day, holloween,...etc)

Stephens 1550 Textus Receptus
John 1:18
qeon oudeiV ewraken pwpote o monogenhV uios o wn eiV ton kolpon tou patroV ekeinoV exhghsato

Alexandrian
John 1:18
qeon oudeiV ewraken pwpote monogenhV qeos o wn eiV ton kolpon tou patroV ekeinoV exhghsato




This is your biased opinion of muslims. Be fair......christians do it too. I've never seen a door to door muslim or a door to door Jew, but you will see christians knocking on your door stopping you on their bikes etc.



We get it. Jesus didn't die. We totally agree here. We have said from the start that he didn't die. So why are we still in debate if we are in agreement?



If you say so, even though it is incomplete (due to man not including all the scrptures, changing the words in the scriptures, adding words that weren't originally there). All that exist today are copies of copies of copies and a few of the manuscripts are different than the others. So what's wrong with scrutanizing the bible?

Jesus said I am the good shepherd, I lay down my life for the sheep. In leaving the body while it was being crucified, Jesus was also relinquishing His corporeal life. That is an equivalence to death even though Jesus did not pass through the death process. The english word die can mean more than one thing. It can mean passing trhough the death process and it can mean the cessation of life. Jesus did not fulfill the first definition but He did fulfill the second definition.

No. It obviously isn't enough information in the Qu'ran for a Muslim to understand what occurred. This particular verse isn't even meant to be informative about the event but only was meant to point out why Jews can't boast.

It is useless to speculate since nothing was reported about the centurion seeing anything. I think it is safe to make some assumptions: 1. He heard Jesus make the statement that He wass committing His spirit to the hands of God. 2.He witnessed the death of the body. I don't see the death of the body as a measure of righteousness so it must have been the words Jesus spoke that impressed the centurion.

It is probably unfortunate that the only Muslims I get to talk to are the ones in discussion groups. I agree Apple Pie would probably be an example of it. The calling of Christians is to proclaim the Gospel not promote Chistianity.

There is nothing wrong with it. Christians do it all the time. What is wrong is to dismiss the Bible as useless. The majority of the Bible has not been changed and the scriptures about the death and resurrection of Jesus are solid as a rock. Any speculation that something different was said and lost is nothing but a pipe dream.

 

[JayHawes]

When Jesus died, immediantly an earthquake shot through Israel and right through the Temple and the viel which separated man from God was torn from top to bottom exposing the holies of holies. Then the skies became dark so that there was no light, and rain began to fall from the sky.

Such things happening at the death of one man, whom many claimed was not the Son of God would cause anyone to say "surely this was the Son of God."

 

[TashaN]

Well, Truth it took more than fifty years for the Qumran scrolls to be truly public. I assume it will take that long or longer for the translation and forensic work on the Qur'an bundle from Sana'a.

And what happen to the *irrefutable* proof that the Quran changed?

All this was just to make it equal to the bible which was altered, edited and written mostly by human, contrary to the Quran?

There is irrefutable proof that the Qur'an changed between the timeof Muhammad's death and the redaction.

The purpose of the redaction was to create ONE Qur'an for all Islam.

The creation of the bible created ONE sacred text for all of Christendom.

I fail to see the difference.

Regards,
Scott

The least you could do was to point out something to our attention about this issue not to make such a bold statement while you are fully aware that you can't back it up.

 

[TashaN]

"surely this was the Son of God."

You are confusing me, is he the son of God, son of Man, or God?

 

[Popeyesays]

And what happen to the *irrefutable* proof that the Quran changed?

All this was just to make it equal to the bible which was altered, edited and written mostly by human, contrary to the Quran?



The least you could do was to point out something to our attention about this issue not to make such a bold statement while you are fully aware that you can't back it up.

These are the opening paragraphs from the article cited below. it appeared first in The Atlantic Monthly:
"

I

N 1972, during the restoration of the

Great Mosque of Sana&#8217;a, in Yemen, laborers
working in a loft between the
structure&#8217;s inner and outer roofs stumbled
across a remarkable gravesite, although
they did not realize it at the time.
Their ignorance was excusable: mosques
do not normally house graves, and this
site contained no tombstones, no human
remains, no funereal jewelry. It contained
nothing more, in fact, than an unappealing
mash of old parchment and
paper documents&#8212;damaged books and
individual pages of Arabic text, fused together
by centuries of rain and dampness,
gnawed into over the years by rats
and insects. Intent on completing the task
at hand, the laborers gathered up the​

http://www.dushkin.com/text-data/articles/23323/body.pdf

And:
"Back to the Koran and its historical development

Angelika Neuwirth (FU Berlin) presented a research approach that understands the Koran as the result of different discourses documenting the interaction between the Prophet and his followers.

According to this view, the Koran reflects the course of oral communication that stretches over a period of two decades and which underwent change. In order to do justice to the Koran, the discourses developing between a charismatic speaker and an emerging congregation must be taken into account.

Neuwirth cautions against allowing strong skepticism (for example in the approaches articulated by Wansbrough and Cook/Crone) to get in the way of granting the appropriate attention to the text itself as well as well as to its different chronological layers. Even if the question of the influence of foreign languages is relevant, she says, the Koran text itself must still be the focus of the research.

The discussions at the conference resulted in an international research group, led by Andrew Rippin (Victoria, Canada) and Angelika Neuwirth, which met in Berlin at the beginning of March. The group's purpose is to deliberate on how the early history of the Koran texts can best be approached.

A systematic attempt to bring together the earliest manuscripts has still not been undertaken. In order to create a solid grounding for the Koranic texts, the evidence available in the different Koran manuscripts as well as in the canonical and non-canonical interpretations must be compiled.

The Berlin group's ambitions matches that of the Apparatus Criticus project by Bergstr&#228;sser and Pretzl, which was discontinued after the Second World War and the demise of which represents a significant gap in debates about the Koran. "

http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-478/_nr-115/_p-1/i.html
​

Regards,
Scott​

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Jesus said I am the good shepherd, I lay down my life for the sheep. In leaving the body while it was being crucified, Jesus was also relinquishing His corporeal life. That is an equivalence to death even though Jesus did not pass through the death process. The english word die can mean more than one thing. It can mean passing trhough the death process and it can mean the cessation of life. Jesus did not fulfill the first definition but He did fulfill the second definition.

I have no problem with your interpertation here. That is why I asked were you trying to find out what "die" means to us. It certainly isn't the only one but one of the interpertations I've heard.

No. It obviously isn't enough information in the Qu'ran for a Muslim to understand what occurred. This particular verse isn't even meant to be informative about the event but only was meant to point out why Jews can't boast.

You are assuming that ALL muslims don't read the bible. There are plenty around the world that do. I know a few who study it. Some of them feel as though the scriptures have been changed through translation on purpose/accident or both. The quran itself is said to be the seal, confirming what was before it. This would mean that it can be read in conjunction to the scriptures.

It is useless to speculate since nothing was reported about the centurion seeing anything.

I think it is safe to say that he saw Jesus give up the spirit. this is confirmed by the scriptures.

Mark 15:39
And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the spirit, he said, Truly this man was the Son of the Almighty.

I don't see the death of the body as a measure of righteousness so it must have been the words Jesus spoke that impressed the centurion.

Observe the above...

I agree Apple Pie would probably be an example of it. The calling of Christians is to proclaim the Gospel not promote Chistianity.

It's ok. He got lost in translation and focused on one thing but missed everything else. People like him are bound to do but one thing...discredit everything they don't agree or understand.

There is nothing wrong with it. Christians do it all the time. What is wrong is to dismiss the Bible as useless.

I hear ya...This is why I say scrutanize the scriptures.

The majority of the Bible has not been changed and the scriptures about the death and resurrection of Jesus are solid as a rock. Any speculation that something different was said and lost is nothing but a pipe dream.

But if you make this kind of statement that the "majority of the bible has not been changed" then you must understand why they feel the way the do. If it has been changed then how would they be able to trust the rest of the information?

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

1) Only one Gospel writer, John was present at the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ.

Many historians have proven it was actually mark and he was 10.

Each writer had a different purpose for writing, each book was for a different people, and each book had different sources. Matthew Mark and Luke draw a huge majority from the Apotles and eye wittnesses, only John gives a 1st Person point of view. So why do his last words change? They dont, all the authors did not write down everything Jesus said, however they wrote down what people remembered.

I am not asking the purpose I am asking for the original unaltered texts associated with the Canon. the book of Luke you have today is not what Luke wrote likewise with the other books they were changed and altered.

2) If i ask you who visited your house today you may say, your friend Jerry becuase he came over for something very important. If i ask your brother who visited your house, (on that day), one year fomr now, he may say Johnathan.

So if my brother was there and he saw Jerry there why would he say jonathan. someone is lying in this.

If i ask you again 20 years from know who visited you house, you may say Jerry and Johnatan.

Only if I answer you according to the way the bible tranferrs testimony.

My point is thus, it matters not "who" one says visited the tomb, but that they actually visited it. Certain wittnesses only heard from certain women, so when they confessed to Mark and Luke, they only told of whom they heard, they may have left out one woman or two. However Mary is a reoccuring figure, we can be sure that Mary, and the other women went ot the tomb.

first thing try to do this in a court of law today and see if any of the testimony will be accepted.

You assume alot about me. I do not respond in the manner of your church fathers and authors.

If you asked me who visited my house today. I would list everyone that was there. And if everyone who was there does not give you the same answers then someone is lying.

3) Your scenario is not accurate.

Ok fine. What did GW bush say at the state of the Union Address. And if you give a different account then what every major publication and video of it agrees upon. then someone is lying. And since you are the only one who may object I would have to assume it is you, but Allahu alim.

If we all give a different account of the same event, we can still all agree.

We are talking about the testimony of someones words, he either said it or he didn't

For although one may be present for some things that happen another may not be present.

Um, if you are not present you are not a witness. these are supposed to be eye witnessess.

However, Every single account in the bible ends up in the same spot, that Jesus rose from the dead ( he won the NBA Championship). They don't disagree on "who won the NBA Championship."

Now this is a past event we are speaking of with no eye witnessess. so we are relying only on the validity of the text be consistent in its story. Just like if you go to court. The judge did not see the crime but he hears all the testimony of everyone. Now if their testimony does not agree what do you think his ruling will be.

your books do not agree on what Jesus's last words were Mark doesn't even mention it, nor do they agree on who was at the tomb. There are countless little errors, contradictions in statement and dogma because of how it was compiled and who authored it.

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

There is irrefutable proof that the Qur'an changed between the timeof Muhammad's death and the redaction.

Where? What verses were removed and altered. Where is your evidence that is older then the uthami script.

The purpose of the redaction was to create ONE Qur'an for all Islam.

No, the purpose of redaction as you call it was to make sure the recitation of the Quran stayed consistent with the manner or dialect the Messenger of Allah used, just one more way for us to follow his blessed sunnah. The recitation never changed. Are you saying Abu Bakr changed from what the messenger gave us. Are you saying Uthman changed the recitation of the Quran from other then what the Messenger of Allah gave him. did he or any of the sahaba remove texts and changed the wording of the Quran from other then what Muhammed gave him.

You have evidence of that. Please give it to me.

The creation of the bible created ONE sacred text for all of Christendom.

Then why all the different versions. why are books removed and replaced. Text is altered and changed. Whole chapters removed from bible.

I fail to see the difference.

subhanallah, may Allah show you the light. for the difference is huge.

 

[Muffled]

I have no problem with your interpertation here. That is why I asked were you trying to find out what "die" means to us. It certainly isn't the only one but one of the interpertations I've heard.

You are assuming that ALL muslims don't read the bible. There are plenty around the world that do. I know a few who study it. Some of them feel as though the scriptures have been changed through translation on purpose/accident or both. The quran itself is said to be the seal, confirming what was before it. This would mean that it can be read in conjunction to the scriptures.


I think it is safe to say that he saw Jesus give up the spirit. this is confirmed by the scriptures.

Mark 15:39
And when the centurion, which stood over against him, saw that he so cried out, and gave up the spirit, he said, Truly this man was the Son of the Almighty.



Observe the above...



It's ok. He got lost in translation and focused on one thing but missed everything else. People like him are bound to do but one thing...discredit everything they don't agree or understand.

I hear ya...This is why I say scrutanize the scriptures.



But if you make this kind of statement that the "majority of the bible has not been changed" then you must understand why they feel the way the do. If it has been changed then how would they be able to trust the rest of the information?

I see what you are saying. However again the witnesses can only tell what they saw and heard. No-one can see a spirit although there are some people who claim they can. Most likely what they are observing is the difference between the presence of the spirit and the absence of it. It is possible that the centurion linked the observable difference with the words of Jesus and recognized a higher power in the ability to leave the body. This isn't a necessary indication of divinity though because humans have been able to separate their spirits from their bodies as well.

Yes, I can understand. I still have an itchy twitchy feeling about Mohammed as to whether he is a true prophet or a false one. Knowing that the Quaran authenticates the Bible must lead to some pretty schizophrenic thinking on their part. All I am saying is that if you can't prove it was changed then saying it is amounts to fantasy.

As for trust there is only one who is trustworthy and that is God. I believe that He has preserved the information that He wanted preserved. It appears to me from what God says in the Qu'ran that His problems are with church practices and doctrines not with the scriptures.

 

[Muffled]

Many historians have proven it was actually mark and he was 10.

Although Marks first name was John that is not enough because John was and still is a common name. I don't find it reasonable that Jesus would assign the responsibility for His mother to a boy. Also the book of John is self narrated and John reports himself as an apostle which Mark was not.

 

[Popeyesays]

No, the purpose of redaction as you call it was to make sure the recitation of the Quran stayed consistent with the manner or dialect the Messenger of Allah used, just one more way for us to follow his blessed sunnah. The recitation never changed. Are you saying Abu Bakr changed from what the messenger gave us. Are you saying Uthman changed the recitation of the Quran from other then what the Messenger of Allah gave him. did he or any of the sahaba remove texts and changed the wording of the Quran from other then what Muhammed gave him.

You have evidence of that. Please give it to me.

What I am saying is this--there would have been no purpose for redacting the Qur'an unless there were Qur'ans out there in the world that were suspect. Uthman did not do the redaction himself, he embodied a panel of living experts to recite the Qur'an and refine the recitations to what they could agree was accurate. They did it from memory not written text.

If there had been no suspect texts, the whole enterprise would never have begun.

Now we are left with the question -- which is accurate the redaction or the earlier written scripts which were done by equally fine authorities?

As time passes and the Yemeni texts are analyzed that question will be answered. It may well take fifty years to do that. That was the case with Qumran Scrolls, after all.

i doubt you really have difficulty understanding what I am saying, you are just jerking a knee in response to painful questions.

Regards,
Scott

 

[JayHawes]

Muslims always want to claim that our books were altered and changed. Well...we have the orginal Manuscripts, which upon translation will be exactaly the same as we have today. Stop trying to claim our book has been changed without any proof at all...

Stop teaching stupidity. John Mark was not a disciple of Jesus, John Mark was a disciple of the Apostle Paul. John the Apostle is said to have been preesnt at the crucifixion, and it is he to whom Jesus gave Mary to take care of her. Jesus would not give a 10 year old boy his mother to take care of her. Stop making up stuff.....

 

[JayHawes]

Many historians have proven it was actually mark and he was 10.


I am not asking the purpose I am asking for the original unaltered texts associated with the Canon. the book of Luke you have today is not what Luke wrote likewise with the other books they were changed and altered.

So if my brother was there and he saw Jerry there why would he say jonathan. someone is lying in this.

Only if I answer you according to the way the bible tranferrs testimony.

first thing try to do this in a court of law today and see if any of the testimony will be accepted.

You assume alot about me. I do not respond in the manner of your church fathers and authors.

If you asked me who visited my house today. I would list everyone that was there. And if everyone who was there does not give you the same answers then someone is lying.

Ok fine. What did GW bush say at the state of the Union Address. And if you give a different account then what every major publication and video of it agrees upon. then someone is lying. And since you are the only one who may object I would have to assume it is you, but Allahu alim.

We are talking about the testimony of someones words, he either said it or he didn't

Um, if you are not present you are not a witness. these are supposed to be eye witnessess.

Now this is a past event we are speaking of with no eye witnessess. so we are relying only on the validity of the text be consistent in its story. Just like if you go to court. The judge did not see the crime but he hears all the testimony of everyone. Now if their testimony does not agree what do you think his ruling will be.

your books do not agree on what Jesus's last words were Mark doesn't even mention it, nor do they agree on who was at the tomb. There are countless little errors, contradictions in statement and dogma because of how it was compiled and who authored it.

1) It was not Jnhn Mark (who followed Paul) but John. PLease list these "many" historians who have proven it was Mark, are they muslim?

2) The original "unaltered" text are the manuscripts, we have hundreds that pre-date Islam. Surpirisnly they are amazingly accurate to what we have today

3) They did not lie, they only told who they remembered had come. Add it up and we have a full account.

4) First of all you need to realise that Luke and Mark were not there when all of the Gospels took place. They gathered their information from eyewitnesses. Perhaps, the witneses only wittnessed so much....

 

[Popeyesays]

1) It was not Jnhn Mark (who followed Paul) but John.
2) The original "unaltered" text are the manuscripts, we have hundreds that pre-date Islam. Surpirisnly they are amazingly accurate to what we have today

...

His point is that those texts do not coincide with the life of Christ--they came after from transcription of verbal accounts.

The transcription of the recitation of the Qur'an is much closer in time than is the transcription of the 'recitations' of the Gospels. In fact the authors of the Gospels were dead before any attempt was made to transcribe their accounts.

Regards,
Scott