The Gospels in Islam: Authentic or Corrupted?

[Muffled]

You have misquoted it.

It does not say all of those things you have said above brother.

"Woe to those who write the book with their hands and say this is from God" means some will write on their own and claim that is of divine origin. It does not mean all those added, corrupted, ignored some curse of Moses etc etc. Its just simple language.

On what basis do you say this is speaking "only" about corruption of previous scripture, and it refers to Jews or Christians alone etc? You are wrong. This is addressing all. Even those who call themselves Muslim. Anyone.

I believe it was all unsupported noise. They don't want to know the truth because then they can see how far short they fall.

Of course I believe the Hadiths qualify as man written dribble. The texts themselves reveal it.

 

[Muffled]

Clearly not, but was He given the Words He is alleged to have spoken in the four Gospels?

I believe Jesus does say that but it could not be otherwise because as God in the flesh He can only speak the words of God.

 

[wizanda]

On what basis do you say this is speaking "only" about corruption of previous scripture, and it refers to Jews or Christians alone etc?

Firstly posted numerous verses, plus a link, and am generally correlating a whole texts if putting concepts forward; so within the Quran there are numerous statements, that confirm what has happened in the Bible, and can justify each from both books.

Secondly read it in contexts of the passage, it is referring to those who have corrupted what is within the Torah...

Moses stated in Deuteronomy 28, that the Curse would be placed after they defiled the Law; this happened in Zechariah 11 where they paid 30 pieces of silver for the price of Yeshua...

When the Quran says they sold their covenant for a small price (3:77), that is part of what that statement means: they rewrote the Curse in the books of Paul, John, and Simon stating (Christian) Gentiles should be grafted on to the nullified covenants.

Instead of Gentiles accepting that what Moses has stated has happened on a global scale, many people have become atheists, as they think it is all fantasy, when it has all very blatantly happened...

If you read all them verses posted with that knowledge of the events it is referring to, the Quran makes much more sense when both books are put together.

2:75 Do you covet [the hope, O believers], that they would believe for you while a party of them used to hear the words of Allah and then distort the Torah after they had understood it while they were knowing? (76) And when they meet those who believe, they say, "We have believed"; but when they are alone with one another, they say, "Do you talk to them about what Allah has revealed to you so they can argue with you about it before your Lord?" Then will you not reason? (77) But do they not know that Allah knows what they conceal and what they declare? (78) And among them are unlettered ones who do not know the Scripture except in wishful thinking, but they are only assuming. (79) So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.

In my opinion.

 

[Milton Platt]

Injil is the Arabic name for the Gospel of Jesus. This Injil is described by the Quran as one of the Holy books revealed by God, Including the Tawrat (Torah) and the Quran itself. The word Injil is also used in the Quran, the Hadith and early Muslim documents to refer to both a book and revelations made by God to Jesus.

However Muslim scholars have resisted identifying the Injil with the New Testament Gospels. Some have suggested the Injil may be the Gospel of Barnabas or the Gospel of Thomas. More commonly, Muslim scholars have argued that the Injil refers to a text now lost or hopelessly corrupted.

For example, Abdullah Yusuf Ali wrote:

The Injil spoken of by the Quran is not the New Testament. It is not the four Gospels now received as canonical. It is the single Gospel which, Islam teaches, was revealed to Jesus, and which he taught. Fragments of it survive in the received canonical Gospels and in some others, of which traces survive (e.g., the Gospel of Childhood or the Nativity, the Gospel of St.Barnabas, etc.)

The following verse is often interpreted as implying that the Injil is preserved, but instead many Muslim scholars interpret it as Allah warning the Christians not to enforce the law contrary to the law sent by Allah:

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 [Injil] 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). Let the People of the Gospel [Injil] judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein....".
 Quran 5:46-47

Scholars such as Gabriel Said Reynolds have maintained Injil refers specifically to the Gospel of the New Testament in the possession of the Christians being addressed in such passages, which is none other than the Gospels of the Bible as known today and in copies that predate the lifetime of Muhammad.

Adapted from: Gospel in Islam - Wikipedia

So is the Gospel of Jesus referred to in the Quran the New Testament Gospels? Or does it refer to a Gospel that is now hopelessly lost, meaning the New Testament Gospels are corrupted? What evidence would support your conclusion?

There are no original manuscripts of any of the Christian stories, either the ones in the bible, or those left out of it.So discussions of corrupted texts are all based on copies of copies anyway.

 

[Terry Sampson]

I believe the Gospel does not exist in the Qu'ran except as mentioned that God gave it to Jesus. So if a person wants to know what the Gospel is, the only source is the Bible.

The problem in this thread is that the Muslim position, i.e. the Qur'an's position, is that "the Gospel given to Jesus" is not spelled out in the Qur'an. Furthermore, Islam and Muslims apparently deny that the Bible is an uncorrupted and credible source for "the Gospel given to Jesus" except where what the Bible says does not conflict with what the Qur'an says. The Muslim position is not a position that any traditional Christian would accept who acknowledges, at a minimum, the execution, entombment, resurrection, and ascension of the Jew, Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[FooYang]

The problem in this thread is that the Muslim position, i.e. the Qur'an's position, is that "the Gospel given to Jesus" is not spelled out in the Qur'an.

But it is.
How have you come to this conclusion?

Furthermore, Islam and Muslims apparently deny that the Bible is an uncorrupted and credible source for "the Gospel given to Jesus" except where what the Bible says does not conflict with what the Qur'an says.

You can't generalize, besides there isn't much reason that a Muslim should be concerned with any of the Bible, when there is no direct revelation to be found in it's pages. Must raise an eyebrow about the Bible?

The Muslim position is not a position that any traditional Christian would accept who acknowledges, at a minimum, the execution, entombment, resurrection, and ascension of the Jew, Jesus of Nazareth.

This is true, I often see far more Christians that hate Islam than ones that like it. The idea that their secondhand narrative of Jesus dying for your sins is not legitimate seems to get under many Christian's skins. It's cute.

 

[Dawnofhope]

It isn´t scorn nor malice, it is fact from my perspective. There cannot be multiple truths, there is only one truth.

There are not numerous paths to God, there is only one, and according to Christ, it is very narrow.

Anything that isn´t true is de facto false.

The number of Muslims is irrelevant as to the veracity of their belief structure.

This is your faith perspective. It is based on your opinion and interpretation of the NT. Many of your fellow Christians would disagree.

The Koran corrects the Christian view ? Really ? Based upon what authority ? That of a someone
having hallucinations 600 years after Christ was on earth ?

It corrects the men who knew Christ, lived with him, and were taught by him ?

The whole idea is ludicrous.

Whether you like it or not, whether it is in harmony with with your own prophet, or not, you cannot combine correct and incorrect with a result of being 100% correct.

Christianity is the thesis, Islam is the anithesis.

¨Choose this day whom you will serve¨ is great advice.

Jesus certainly questioned the perspectives of the Pharisees and the religious orthodoxy of His day. I'm sure many of His fellow Jews considered His opinions ludicrous too. They even arranged to have Him crucified!

Muslims view Muhammad as a Messenger of God who had the authority from God to correct misunderstandings and interpretative errors that had arisen in previous religions including Christianity.

Muhammad's theology may bring about strong negative reactions for you but for many the Quran is viewed as the inerrant Word of God.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I think about this repeated revelation matter I will cut and paste an older response in this thread. Easier.

"The Injeel is referred to as containing Hudhan wa noorun, the guidance and light that was sent to Jesus in 5:46. The Injeel is not specifically referred to as a written down book on paper or anything of the sort. It is the revelation given to Jesus. Jesus was "taught" the revelations, both Tawraath and Injeel. The Torah and the Gospel 5:110.

The Injeel is never specified as a physical book. So it may very well be referring to what the "euaggelion tis basilias", the "Gospel of the Kingdom" referred to in Matthew 24. And when Mark says things like "those who lay down their life for me and for the gospel" it looks like it is not referring to a particular printed book but what Jesus preached or his message.

I fully agree and accept what Muhammad said about a Revelation being given to Jesus and that Muhammad has not referred to any specific book. I'm not sure why you keep repeating something I have already agreed to?

The thing is there are some variances in the message of Paul where he refers to "my gospel" which looks like a generic statement mou or of me. His gospel. His good news. His good news speaks of judgment through Jesus.

We have also covered how the word Gospel can have multiple meanings depending on context. It certainly has some different meanings for Christians and Muslims which is to be expected. Still there's overlap.

For the record I agree with many Christians that there is no variance or inconsistency between what Christ taught and what the apostle Paul taught. Its a little off topic though and we should first focus on what Jesus taught as recorded in the NT.

Anyway, the Quran also does not specifically refer to a gospel that was written down. It was a revelation."

See what I mean about you repeating yourself!

Also. I understand when you say that Jesus's teachings were orally transmitted through time and people wrote them down. But the four canonical gospels have a particular genre. It has a personality. They are not theology of Jesus, they are theology about Jesus. And they differ from one to another. I do not like to get into faith based discussions but when you say Jesus's teachings were written down by latter day inheritors of it there is a lot of things to consider.

We can hopefully agree on the process by which the Teachings of Jesus were passed down by oral traditions and eventually written. That's simply historic fact.

The recorded Words of Muhammad in the Quran, those of Jesus in the Canonical Gospels and those of Moses in the Torah vary from each other in their style or manner of expression. That is to be expected as the cultures where each of these Great Faiths emerged were very different from each other. The recorded Teachings of Jesus in the Canonical Gospels includes historic and theological narrative as part of the exposition. That is stylistically quite different from the Quran, but for me it neither negates or takes anything away from the authenticity and authority of these four major works that constitute the first four books of the New Testament.

I see no distinction between the theology that Jesus taught and aspects of that theology that relate to His exalted personage. That is a strength, not a weakness the NT gospels. The Quran OTOH has little to say about Muhammad Himself. We need to turn to the Hadiths and Sirat which are often contradictory and not necessarily reliable.

If Jesus taught a Gospel that was sent "through him", it will not be "all about him". It will be what he narrated. And if you contend that what he taught was recorded within the text itself then you should also know that the four gospels in the New Testament were written by four different people, and has four different, evolving personalities.

The Revelation of Jesus recorded in the NT Gospels was not all about Jesus.

Like many Christians, I see no significant contradictions between the NT accounts which would affect theology.

If you go into scholarship of these books its another extensive matter that might not agree with you.

I have examined what scholars have said and of course there will be a huge variety of opinion. Christian scholars seem to be much more able to have these discussions that Islamic scholars.

Anyway, in a nutshell, what is your contention about the Gospels (Mark, Luke, Matthew, John) and what is the euaggalion of Jesus? If the Euaggelion is a message is that contained within the four gospels. If they are contained, then what is the reason for the theology about Jesus to change from one book to another? If you don't believe it has changed then what is the message that Jesus taught and is contained "within the text" as you said?

In a nutshell please if you could.

Its a big ask to have me summarise the entire theology of Jesus.

He emphasised that we should turn towards God and follow His commandments, the greatest of which was the law of love. We should love God, love our neighbours and even our enemies. We should be fair and just in our dealings with others. We should not be hypocritical and our deeds and words should be consistent. There's a lot more I could say. You are best to ask specific questions as to what I believe Jesus taught and why.

 

[Terry Sampson]

@FooYang

Me: "The Gospel given to Jesus" is not spelled out in the Qur'an.
FooYang: But it is.
Me: Marvelous. I'd be pleased to read it for myself. In which chapter(s) and verse(s) can I read the Qur'an's version of "the Gospel given to Jesus"?

Me: Islam and Muslims apparently deny that the Bible is an uncorrupted and credible source for "the Gospel given to Jesus" except where what the Bible says does not conflict with what the Qur'an says.
FooYang: You can't generalize,...
Me: I think you'd very surprised what I can do. Generalizations are "kid's play."
FooYang: ...besides there isn't much reason that a Muslim should be concerned with any of the Bible, ...
Me: Right. And personally, I can't think of a reason that I should be concerned that a Muslim isn't concerned with any of the Bible.
FooYang: ...when there is no direct revelation to be found in it's pages.
Me: "No direct revelation in its pages"? So you believe that either Abraham was delusional or the direct revelations to Abraham are myths? Have you told the Jews? I'm sure that they would be amused to hear that.
FooYang: Must raise an eyebrow about the Bible?
Me: Not mine. What does raise my eyebrow is your apparent belief that you can jerk my chain or convert me to Islam. You're not trying to do either, are you? Save your strength.

FooYang: I often see far more Christians that hate Islam than ones that like it.
Me: Me too. Silly isn't it? It's not worth the effort liking or hating it.
FooYang: The idea that their secondhand narrative of Jesus dying for your sins is not legitimate seems to get under many Christian's skins. It's cute.
Me: Personally, I consider it silly and amusing. IMO, a Muslem's opinion about Jesus of Nazareth has no more value than an atheist's or agnostic's opinion, and--in my experience--it's usually less clever. Jesus of Nazareth is currently untouchable. He certainly doesn't need little ol' me to defend his reputation.

 

[FooYang]

@FooYang

Me: "The Gospel given to Jesus" is not spelled out in the Qur'an.
FooYang: But it is.
Me: Marvelous. I'd be pleased to read it for myself. In which chapter(s) and verse(s) can I read the Qur'an's version of "the Gospel given to Jesus"?

5:46: "And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Injeel: 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."

5:65: "If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Injeel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course: but many of them follow a course that is evil."

This is speaking of the revelations to the Prophets themselves, in an identical manner to the Qur'an.

Me: "No direct revelation in its pages"? So you believe that either Abraham was delusional or the direct revelations to Abraham are myths? Have you told the Jews? I'm sure that they would be amused to hear that.

You've got pseudobiographical accounts of his life, sure. Where is the book revealed to Abraham? there is no such thing in the Bible, only narratives of his life in Genesis

Me: Not mine. What does raise my eyebrow is your apparent belief that you can jerk my chain or convert me to Islam. You're not trying to do either, are you? Save your strength.

I'm trying to convert you to Hinduism. Why do you think I'm trying to convert you to anything?

Me: Personally, I consider it silly and amusing. IMO, a Muslem's opinion about Jesus of Nazareth has no more value than an atheist's or agnostic's opinion, and--in my experience--it's usually less clever. Jesus of Nazareth is currently untouchable. He certainly doesn't need little ol' me to defend his reputation.

Why should a Christians opinion be more valuable than a Marcionite? or a Sethian? or a Manichaean?

The list goes on. I just find it strange you uphold Christianity for no reason at all.
But aside from this, you are not arguing against "a Muslem's opinion", you are claiming more validity of four randomly chosen biographies of Jesus' life (by the early Christian institution), against God's own word about Jesus. Big difference.
My question to you is, why do you simultaneously accept prophets while not accepting revelation from God?

 

[Terry Sampson]

@FooYang


FooYang: You've got pseudobiographical accounts of his life, sure. Where is the book revealed to Abraham? there is no such thing in the Bible, only narratives of his life in Genesis
Me: So let me get this straight: Are you saying that a revelation to Abraham has to be a book given to Abraham, and since there is no such book, the personal encounters and verbal exchanges recorded in Genesis are "pseudobiographical accounts of his life" and "apocryphal" [my word, not yours] "narratives of his life in Genesis", but they aren't direct revelations?

FooYang: I'm trying to convert you to Hinduism.
Me: LOL!
FooYang: Why do you think I'm trying to convert you to anything?
Me: I didn't say that you were trying to convert me to something. I said: "What does raise my eyebrow is your apparent belief that you can jerk my chain or convert me to Islam." Then I asked for clarification: "You're not trying to do either, are you?" A simple "No" would have been sufficient. I'd have taken your word for it.

FooYang: Why should a Christians opinion be more valuable than a Marcionite? or a Sethian? or a Manichaean? The list goes on.
Me: I don't know why a Christian's opinion should be more valuable to you than an X, a Y, or a Z. For the record, I really don't care what you believe or why.

FooYang: I just find it strange you uphold Christianity for no reason at all.
Me: And I find it strange that you bother wondering why I "uphold Christianity". And I find it doubly strange that you're willing to assume that I believe what I believe "for no reason at all." If you had wanted to know why I believe what I believe, you could have just asked.

 

[firedragon]

Firstly posted numerous verses, plus a link, and am generally correlating a whole texts if putting concepts forward; so within the Quran there are numerous statements, that confirm what has happened in the Bible, and can justify each from both books.

Not really brother. Quran will narrate an example of something that happened. But a statement is made that is general to all. And if you study the Quran this is prevalent all through out. This particular statement is general. And if you read from the beginning to the chapter till the end, you will that it begins by defining that this book is for the righteous, not for the Muslims alone. And a few verses prior to the "write with your own hands" verse it speaks of a general salvation in 2:62. So do you insist that this is also only referring to the Jews because there next verse is about Moses? Also how about 2:76? 3 verses prior?? It speaks about those who claim to be Mumeens. And does it mean by gentiles? Its Ummi, the same word used for the prophet Muhammed. He is Ummi Nabi.

No. The verse 2:79 does not refer to Jews. If you study the Quran you would clearly see that Jews are referred as Yahoodhi. Bani Israela is a different designation. And even if you wish to completely put this verse on them yet it only means that people made up their own religious ideas and attributed it to God.

Moses stated in Deuteronomy 28, that the Curse would be placed after they defiled the Law; this happened in Zechariah 11 where they paid 30 pieces of silver for the price of Yeshua...

When the Quran says they sold their covenant for a small price (3:77), that is part of what that statement means: they rewrote the Curse in the books of Paul, John, and Simon stating (Christian) Gentiles should be grafted on to the nullified covenants.

No. 3:77 is misquoted here and you are trying to associate it to a verse in the Bible. I thought you normally take it in context brother.

It speaks of Sharaya. Exchange. Sold or purchased. Sold or purchased for a little value. It does not refer to your quote from the Bible. There are many things to learn from these set of verses. You have quoted one single verse. It speaks about those who will return what they borrow, and those who lie about what's written, etc. This is speaking about those who cheat or do unethical things for a cheap advantage. Small advantage.

You have attributed it to selling of a thing for a number of silver. Thats absolutely wrong. This is a huge problem with understanding the language.

Instead of Gentiles accepting that what Moses has stated has happened on a global scale, many people have become atheists, as they think it is all fantasy, when it has all very blatantly happened...

You use the word Gentile. Well, the Quran calls the prophet Muhammed the "Gentile prophet" in that case. You have not understood what that means.

2:75 Do you covet [the hope, O believers], that they would believe for you while a party of them used to hear the words of Allah and then distort the Torah after they had understood it while they were knowing? (76) And when they meet those who believe, they say, "We have believed"; but when they are alone with one another, they say, "Do you talk to them about what Allah has revealed to you so they can argue with you about it before your Lord?" Then will you not reason? (77) But do they not know that Allah knows what they conceal and what they declare? (78) And among them are unlettered ones who do not know the Scripture except in wishful thinking, but they are only assuming. (79) So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.

It does not say "Distort the Torah". Thats an interpolation.

It says "Kalaamullah" A generic word. It means "God's words". Its a generic term.

This is repeatedly speaking about those who attribute their religious fabrications to God. Anyone. All.

 

[wizanda]

For the record I agree with many Christians that there is no variance or inconsistency between what Christ taught and what the apostle Paul taught. Its a little off topic though and we should first focus on what Jesus taught as recorded in the NT.

This isn't really off topic, it is at the heart of it, and the idea you miss that I'm here as Christ telling you this repeatedly down near Hell before Judgement Day; is part of the problem with everyone's comprehension issues with the Abrahamic case - people don't go the extra mile, they go equal or opposite.

To rightly divide a case, and be logical we need to dissect it into its logical parts.

If we're not going to recognize the manipulations that are taking place, we will not understand the depths the devil has gone to:

Galatians 1:8-9 But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any “Gospel” other than that which we preached to you, let him be cursed. (9) As we have said before, so I now say again: if any man preaches to you any “Gospel” other than that which you received, let him be cursed.

Paul has literally rewrote the "Gospel", sealing it from anyone changing it (even God), and if we're not taking it on board, how can we acknowledge why the Quran says the book has been corrupted?

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

I see no distinction between the theology that Jesus taught and aspects of that theology that relate to His exalted personage. That is a strength, not a weakness the NT gospels. The Quran OTOH has little to say about Muhammad Himself. We need to turn to the Hadiths and Sirat which are often contradictory and not necessarily reliable.

Quran is not about Muhammed. the prophet Muhammed is only fleetingly mentioned. Its not about any prophet. It is about the message.

Its a big ask to have me summarise the entire theology of Jesus

I did not ask you to summarise the theology of Jesus. You have misunderstood the question.

Alright. You spoke of Christians scholars. Christian scholars believe that the Gospel of John was written by 4 different schools of thought.

What do you say about that?

I see no distinction between the theology that Jesus taught and aspects of that theology that relate to His exalted personage.

If you don't see a difference, you actually disagree with many Christian scholars though you say you agree. This is basic curriculum in New Testament studies.

 

[firedragon]

The problem in this thread is that the Muslim position, i.e. the Qur'an's position, is that "the Gospel given to Jesus" is not spelled out in the Qur'an. Furthermore, Islam and Muslims apparently deny that the Bible is an uncorrupted and credible source for "the Gospel given to Jesus" except where what the Bible says does not conflict with what the Qur'an says. The Muslim position is not a position that any traditional Christian would accept who acknowledges, at a minimum, the execution, entombment, resurrection, and ascension of the Jew, Jesus of Nazareth.

Brother. With all due respect you have made this a discussion into the exaltation of Jesus Christ.

Anyway, can you quote me an "and ascension of the Jew, Jesus of Nazareth" as you said? I mean in the New Testament. Lets take the four gospels.

 

[Shia Islam]

Injil is the Arabic name for the Gospel of Jesus. This Injil is described by the Quran as one of the Holy books revealed by God, Including the Tawrat (Torah) and the Quran itself. The word Injil is also used in the Quran, the Hadith and early Muslim documents to refer to both a book and revelations made by God to Jesus.

However Muslim scholars have resisted identifying the Injil with the New Testament Gospels. Some have suggested the Injil may be the Gospel of Barnabas or the Gospel of Thomas. More commonly, Muslim scholars have argued that the Injil refers to a text now lost or hopelessly corrupted.

For example, Abdullah Yusuf Ali wrote:

The Injil spoken of by the Quran is not the New Testament. It is not the four Gospels now received as canonical. It is the single Gospel which, Islam teaches, was revealed to Jesus, and which he taught. Fragments of it survive in the received canonical Gospels and in some others, of which traces survive (e.g., the Gospel of Childhood or the Nativity, the Gospel of St.Barnabas, etc.)

The following verse is often interpreted as implying that the Injil is preserved, but instead many Muslim scholars interpret it as Allah warning the Christians not to enforce the law contrary to the law sent by Allah:

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 [Injil] 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). Let the People of the Gospel [Injil] judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein....".
 Quran 5:46-47

Scholars such as Gabriel Said Reynolds have maintained Injil refers specifically to the Gospel of the New Testament in the possession of the Christians being addressed in such passages, which is none other than the Gospels of the Bible as known today and in copies that predate the lifetime of Muhammad.

Adapted from: Gospel in Islam - Wikipedia

So is the Gospel of Jesus referred to in the Quran the New Testament Gospels? Or does it refer to a Gospel that is now hopelessly lost, meaning the New Testament Gospels are corrupted? What evidence would support your conclusion?

Hi,
Great Post!
Let me say that we have a detailed hadith on the subject.
I have no time to search for it now, however here is the summary of its meanings,
After the death of Jesus the original gospel (the Injil) was lost..
So accorroding to my rememrance one or more of the diciples started to recite what he has rembered from the lost diciple and they wrote it.

So the resulted written gospel is different from the orginal lost one.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Brother. With all due respect you have made this a discussion into the exaltation of Jesus Christ.

Actually, all I was doing was responding to Muffled's post:

Anyway, can you quote me an "and ascension of the Jew, Jesus of Nazareth" as you said? I mean in the New Testament. Lets take the four gospels.

Mark 16:19 So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. 20 And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that followed.

Luke 24:50-53
50 And He led them out as far as Bethany, and He lifted up His hands and blessed them. 51 While He was blessing them, He parted from them and was carried up into heaven. 52 And they, after worshiping Him, returned to Jerusalem with great joy, 53 and were continually in the temple praising God.

Acts 1:1 The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen.

Acts 1:9-11
9 And after He had said these things, He was lifted up while they were looking on, and a cloud received Him out of their sight. 10 And as they were gazing intently into the sky while He was going, behold, two men in white clothing stood beside them. 11 They also said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven.”

 

[wizanda]

But a statement is made that is general to all.

Agreed, that any texts that applies moral ethics, and understandings should be applied to all...

Yet you're arguing so much, you're not taking on board, I did not post only one verse.

So do you insist that this is also only referring to the Jews because there next verse is about Moses?

I never say only, I always say there are multiple sides to any dice, and most people will cite there is only 1, when there is a 6 on the other side.

There are applied contexts, and then contexts start precept upon precept, a true Servant of God reads all the religious texts without distinction; so once we understand the Biblical contexts, we can see why the Quran makes some of these statements.

general salvation in 2:62.

It is item specific, I'm a computer programmer, and don't deal with contexts like a Pharisee (straining out a gnat and gaining a camel)...

The statements in 2.62 define who it is talking about by name:

2:62 Indeed, those who believed and those who were Jews or Christians or Sabeans [before Prophet Muhammad] - those [among them] who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness - will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve.

The verse 2:79 does not refer to Jews.

It doesn't have to refer to Jews, as you've rightly just explained, if "Kalaamullah" means "God's words"; where we know the Pharisees rewrote the Gospel, distorting the message, and sold it for a small price, then we have evidence, a case, history, and everything stated taking place as the books reveal, and you have an alternative meaning you want to apply.

No. 3:77 is misquoted here and you are trying to associate it to a verse in the Bible. I thought you normally take it in context brother.

It speaks of Sharaya. Exchange. Sold or purchased. Sold or purchased for a little value. It does not refer to your quote from the Bible.

Lets read back from verse 3:70-77, and each line before and after talks of the people of the book, and then some scholar has made up a bigoted idea that doesn't match the Bible; the books are one, and the idea you're now dividing them is not what a Servant of God should do.

There is an item specific context, it defines who it is talking about, what is being referenced, that they deny parts, and almost reject their religion, and then sell their covenant for a small price...

This is stated by Isaiah 50:1 where it says they sold their covenant for a small price, and divorced themselves, and in Zechariah 11 it defines it...

The Quran confirms it, and you deny that is the context.

You use the word Gentile. Well, the Quran calls the prophet Muhammed the "Gentile prophet" in that case. You have not understood what that means.

Please try not to keep saying "you're wrong", "you don't know", etc, it is a very rude way to communicate; as a servant of God, then we should always be humble in debate showing evidence.

The word "Gentile" is an item specific term in the Tanakh first, have you read all the Bible, and do you accept all the message globally as one?

Then have you studied what the Talmud says about Gentiles?

Then do you understand the contexts that are applied to them, even by Yeshua?

Then when we've done all of that, do you know why Muhammad was sent to free the Gentiles of the lies already given them, and if you don't know all of that, why are you assuming on so much of this; as you clearly are missing some of this to make such a naive statement?

Since you are unaware of the prophetic contexts being applied, will explain for you as Christ here before Judgement day:

The Gentiles in the Torah are the unlearned animals of other nations, as people in the past were very barbaric, so they would refer to them as "dogs" or "swine" as they eat pig, and act like savages...

When Yeshua said "do not give pearls to swines, or what is holy to the dogs" (Matthew 7:6), he is saying the Gentiles will not understand the Bible, and thus will destroy the Jews later...

Muhammad is saying the Jews have lied to the Gentiles, and that God wants everyone to come to understanding, not just some...

When we read the Tanakh, it already was made clear that God wanted to make the Jews priests unto the Gentiles (Exodus 19:6, Isaiah 61:6)...

Yet as Isaiah suggested the Talmud states the Gentiles are animals, and deserve to die, as they're not smart enough to learn.

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

Lets take one example.

Luke 24:50-53
50 And He led them out as far as Bethany, and He lifted up His hands and blessed them. 51 While He was blessing them, He parted from them and was carried up into heaven. 52 And they, after worshiping Him, returned to Jerusalem with great joy, 53 and were continually in the temple praising God.

This is not in the earlier manuscripts. And is largely considered as interpolation.

Mark 16:19 So then, when the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, He was received up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. 20 And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them, and confirmed the word by the signs that followed.

So is this.

Acts 1:1 The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up to heaven, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen.

Taken up doesn't mean crucified, dead and resurrected and ascended unto heaven. that's your own interpretation because of a preconceived notion.

Then you are quoting acts. Not the four canonical gospels. This is why its a faith statement. Not textual analysis.

 

[wizanda]

the Qur'an's position, is that "the Gospel given to Jesus" is not spelled out in the Qur'an.

The Quran isn't the issue, it is people who are hypocritical; the Quran warned this would happen, as did Yeshua:

9:97 The wandering Arabs are more hard in disbelief and hypocrisy, and more likely to be ignorant of the limits which Allah hath revealed unto His messenger. And Allah is Knower, Wise.

We're in a reality of equal and opposite reactions, not many go the extra mile; in other words: listening, and expanding on something, not going to accuse it (goats) or partially follow it (sheep).

Thus we have Muhammadans claiming to be Muslims (Servants of God); yet they follow Muhammad, and reject all the other religious texts globally, when the Quran says that is who the unbelievers are:

2:285 The Messenger has believed in what was revealed to him from his Lord, and [so have] the believers. All of them have believed in Allah and His angels and His books and His messengers, [saying], "We make no distinction between any of His messengers." And they say, "We hear and we obey. [We seek] Your forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the [final] destination."

10:47 And for every nation is a messenger. So when their messenger comes, it will be judged between them in justice, and they will not be wronged.

4:150-151 Indeed, those who disbelieve in Allah and His messengers and wish to discriminate between Allah and His messengers and say, "We believe in some and disbelieve in others," and wish to adopt a way in between - Those are the disbelievers, truly. And We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating punishment.

Like if we take on board a Rabbinic Jew doesn't follow the Bible, they follow oral traditions, a Muslim is a Muhammadan, a Christian follows John, Paul, and Simon...

Thus hardly any follow Christ, and the world is currently doomed, as they all keep arguing to the point of WW3 is soon...

"Thus blessed are the peacemakers, as they shall be called children of God" (Matthew 5:9) should be more clear in that context.

In my opinion.