The Gospels in Islam: Authentic or Corrupted?

[Dawnofhope]

So you're saying it speaks of the exact things within the Bible (Torah, Psalms, Prophets (Tanakh), & Gospel), and you deny them as truthful, as your scholars and Imams say they're false...

You've not studied these texts, you just assume they're false, as some forefather told you...Exactly as the Quran warns people not to do.

Sorry this is like a person born blind arguing the sky is green; maybe when you're more studied we can discuss the contexts, yet currently it is pointless discussing with someone who is in denial of the things the God Most High has revealed.

Regardless of our different perspectives, I think you have a good point here.

 

[firedragon]

Some scholars believe that, some don't.

Most scholars believe the gospels are anonymous. Most. Not some.

You would need to provide specific examples as to how their theologies differ. How much time have you actually spent reading and studying Biblical texts?

You seem unaware of the close collaboration between the authors of the synoptic Gospels (Mark, Luke and Matthew).

I quoted Mark and John. Maybe you missed that sentence out though you responded to it. Not the synoptic gospels which in itself has the famous synoptic problem anyone studies in college.

Anyway, one simple thing. 4th gospel, John, speaks of Jesus in John’s Gospel, this preexistent divine Word of God became a human being: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory” (1:14) which contradicts mark. Do you believe the earliest writer of the Gospels didn't hold the same theological view? Son of God in Mark is completely different to the Son of God in John. The Ego Eimi statements in John are not present in Mark. There are many many differences between the two gospels. Does a difference of 20 to 25 years between the two change the theology? If its the same Jesus lets say?

 

[wizanda]

Regardless of our different perspectives, I think you have a good point here.

Like I wish we could come to a clearer mutual perspective, I'm not here trying to argue with people, I'm literally mankind's last hope as prophesied in Baha'i writings as well; yet it is set forward, it isn't 1000 years, it was 100, as we have very little time left before the Great Tribulation...

If you question the perspective I was told this as an infant, which has then taken me years to check the details; I'm just trying to help people see it before the end of time, and could do with the help.

Like can't we go over the details in a specific thread of where you don't comprehend it; it could be a record to help others, as this is one of the most prominent platforms for religious discussion on the web.

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

So you're saying it speaks of the exact things within the Bible (Torah, Psalms, Prophets (Tanakh), & Gospel), and you deny them as truthful, as your scholars and Imams say they're false...

Who said Zaboor is the Psalms? Who said the Thawraath in the Quran is the pentateuch? Who spoke of there naviim at all (BTW Prophets or the Naviim is not the Tanah as you have said. Tanah is the Naviim, ketuviim, and the Torah. All three. Not one. Psalms is only a book in the Kethuviim. The first. )?

These are completely different things. You have made assumptions. e.g. Psalms is only assumed to be this Zaboor because it is attributed to David. Not because they are certain. It is a very fringe assumption. Same with the Thawraath, and the Injeel.

You've not studied these texts, you just assume they're false, as some forefather told you...Exactly as the Quran warns people not to do.

I asked you a specific question.

Let me ask again in a different way. Do you believe that Deuteronomy was narrated or written directly by Moses? Was it written by a different author to the other books of the Pentateuch? Do you think that Deutoronomy was written by one person or two different people?

 

[Dawnofhope]

Anyway, one simple thing. 4th gospel, John, speaks of Jesus in John’s Gospel, this preexistent divine Word of God became a human being: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory” (1:14) which contradicts mark.

I reflected on the logos from John 1:14 earlier.

The Gospels in Islam: Authentic or Corrupted?

In that sense it dosn't contradict Mark at all.

Do you believe the earliest writer of the Gospels didn't hold the same theological view?

Each Gospel writer was meeting the needs of their church. As Mark and the other synoptic Gospels had been in circulation for some time the Christian community had learnt a great deal. The Gospel of John addresses a different audience a few decades after Mark had been in circulation.

Son of God in Mark is completely different to the Son of God in John.

The phrase 'Son of God' is used many times throughout all four Gospels along with son of man and son of David. There are multiple meanings depending on context. I see no contradiction.

The Ego Eimi statements in John are not present in Mark.

That is true.

There are many many differences between the two gospels.

There are some significant differences, yes.

Does a difference of 20 to 25 years between the two change the theology? If its the same Jesus lets say?

It is the same Jesus portrayed through a different lens.

 

[firedragon]

I reflected on the logos from John 1:14 earlier.

The Gospels in Islam: Authentic or Corrupted?

In that sense it dosn't contradict Mark at all.



Each Gospel writer was meeting the needs of their church. As Mark and the other synoptic Gospels had been in circulation for some time the Christian community had learnt a great deal. The Gospel of John addresses a different audience a few decades after Mark had been in circulation.



The phrase 'Son of God' is used many times throughout all four Gospels along with son of man and son of David. There are multiple meanings depending on context. I see no contradiction.



That is true.



There are some significant differences, yes.



It is the same Jesus portrayed through a different lens.

Many differences.

If "Gospel" or "euggalien" is the message of Jesus, it varies immensely from Markan priority to John. That is leaving out the rest of the NT.

Peace.

 

[wizanda]

Who said Zaboor is the Psalms?

Arabic does, and thus this is what Muhammad defined... Having studied the Psalms in detail, the level of computations within them are not by a mortal mind alone.

Who said the Thawraath in the Quran is the pentateuch?

I'd not say it is all the Torah; yet we are still to not make distinction among the books according to the Quran...

Reading something, and following it, are too different things; only a fool ignores wisdom.

So we need to understand the history, that Leviticus was made up in Babylon, to see where they've corrupted the Message, and why; not ignore it all...

Everything is for a reason, and we can't understand the message without seeing the darkness as well.

All three. Not one.

Do you just argue on any point you think you can accuse on?

I posted three words, Torah, Psalms, Prophets, and put Tanakh after all 3, then the Gospel to imply all the texts...

You did the same on your first argumentative post, where instead of notice I posted a whole site of verses showing corrupted texts, you pick on one verse, and then make a false argument.

You have made assumptions. e.g. Psalms is only assumed to be this Zaboor because it is attributed to David. Not because they are certain.

Again not listening, 'I do not study commentaries by scholars', so who cares what 'they are certain" about...

I personally can show where David's Psalms are legitimate based on the evidence within them.

Have you even read the Psalms, any of the Bible or are you just assuming everything?

Do you believe that Deuteronomy was narrated or written directly by Moses?

I'm not even sure that history is real, and that God hasn't just put us in an artificial reality...

I know that I can show that the evidence in the book of Deuteronomy is beyond most people's human comprehension; as it works like computer code, therefore has to be by God, as it interlinks across the whole of time, and books globally.

If Moses existed, then clearly it has a vast insight within it, and we will find out at Judgement day; until then I accept that the Quran tells us not to make distinction between any of the books, so I accept it as a text to study...

See a Servant of God is humble, who says we submit and obey; the opposite is arrogant unbelievers who pick and choose among the books.

Was it written by a different author to the other books of the Pentateuch?

Yeah it is clear each of the books in the Torah has a different writing style, and some are more profound than others.

Like Genesis is likely passed down, Exodus is possibly from Aaron, Deuteronomy possibly Moses, Leviticus was made up in Babylon, and Numbers is likely by the history scribes...

Yet we're in an artificial reality made by the Source, so it has all been put here for us to study.

Do you think that Deutoronomy was written by one person or two different people?

Do they edit the ends of books, and put in closures, yes, it is clear they've done that in the New Testament on each of the Gospels, Revelation, etc...

So why wouldn't they edit the Torah as well, that is what the Quran, and Bible say they've done:

Jeremiah 8:8-9 How do ye say, We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us? Lo, certainly in vain made he it; the pen of the scribes is in vain. (9) The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them?

Deuteronomy 31:24-29 And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, (25) That Moses commanded the Levites, which bare the ark of the covenant of the LORD, saying, (26) Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the LORD your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee. (27) For I know thy rebellion, and thy stiff neck: behold, while I am yet alive with you this day, ye have been rebellious against the LORD; and how much more after my death? (28) Gather unto me all the elders of your tribes, and your officers, that I may speak these words in their ears, and call heaven and earth to record against them. (29) For I know that after my death ye will utterly corrupt yourselves, and turn aside from the way which I have commanded you; and evil will befall you in the latter days; because ye will do evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger through the work of your hands.

Yet just because they edit the end, doesn't mean it is all corrupt...

It is like learning now that they've changed the word 'Gentile in the Quran to 'illiterate', should i now deny it all as real, as it has some edits? Personally not that arrogant to assume it is all false.

In my opinion.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Many differences.

If "Gospel" or "euggalien" is the message of Jesus, it varies immensely from Markan priority to John. That is leaving out the rest of the NT.

Peace.

John completes the New Testament and compliments the synoptics. The reason Muslims like to focus on John is because of its emphasis on the Divinity of Jesus. Theologically it is the biggest difference between Christianity and Islam. How can Jesus being God be reconciled to Muhammad being a Messenger? That is the real issue here.

Regardless, I'm here to explore and learn about religion, not to win debates. Thanks for participating in my thread.

 

[firedragon]

Arabic does, and thus this is what Muhammad defined... Having studied the Psalms in detail, the level of computations within them are not by a mortal mind alone.

1. How does arabic say that Zaboor is the Psalms in the OT?
2. Where does Muhammed define that?

 

[firedragon]

John completes the New Testament and compliments the synoptics. The reason Muslims like to focus on John is because of its emphasis on the Divinity of Jesus. Theologically it is the biggest difference between Christianity and Islam. How can Jesus being God be reconciled to Muhammad being a Messenger? That is the real issue here.

Regardless, I'm here to explore and learn about religion, not to win debates. Thanks for participating in my thread.

I will ignore your generalisations like "Muslims like to do this and that" because that's not an argument. There is no point saying anything like Christians like to do this, aliens like to do that, and Muslims like to quote this etc etc. These are general negations. And its bordering the genetic fallacy.

It is not Muslims who speak about the synoptic problem and the johannine exaltation of Jesus. It is Christian scholars. It is Biblical scholars. This is how text books are created. This is standard scholarship.

Peace.

 

[wizanda]

1. How does arabic say that Zaboor is the Psalms in the OT?
2. Where does Muhammed define that?

Just posted you the Wikipedia page explaining it...

Like generally an accuser (satan) is very quick to reply, and generally overlooks the obvious.

In my opinion.

 

[wizanda]

It is not Muslims who speak about the synoptic problem and the johannine exaltation of Jesus. It is Christian scholars. It is Biblical scholars.

A Muhammadan denies the books, and only accepts Muhammad... A true Muslim (Servant of God) studies theology globally.

There are many Muslims discussing the differences; maybe start studying, rather than just arguing with people.

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

Just posted you the Wikipedia page explaining it...

Like generally an accuser (satan) is very quick to reply, and generally overlooks the obvious.

In my opinion.

Thanks for the wikipedia link. Ive seen it. Your source says that it is only assumed that it is the psalms in the bible. Not that it's certain.

You claimed that Arabic confirms it, and Muhammed defines it.

Its not true. The meanings of the words may have similarities. Mizmor in Hebrew means a rhyme, a tune or music. Zaboor in arabic means something written. When you put something down for others to understand or read its zaboor. You can say they have similarities, but you can also say they are very different.

None of this makes the Zaboor of the Quran and Psalms of the Bibles the same. The only link is the attribution to David. Its an assumption.

And Muhammed nowhere ever is attributed to have said that the Zaboor in the Quran is the Psalms inn the Bible.

Cheers.

 

[firedragon]

A Muhammadan denies the books, and only accepts Muhammad... A true Muslim (Servant of God) studies theology globally.

There are many Muslims discussing the differences; maybe start studying, rather than just arguing with people.

In my opinion.

Thats another general statement. Thanks for the rhetoric. Its no use brother. Everyone can speak in the same manner. Better to state evidence and discuss facts.

Fact: Moses never wrote the Pentateuch. They are 5 different books. Written by at least four different schools of thought. Deuteronomy is written by one scribe. The ending makes it clear it is not Moses but someone who lived far after Moses. So this one scribe wrote the Deotoronomy.

So it cannot be what the Quran refers to as the Thawraath. Same thing goes to Injeel. And Zaboor.

There is no evidence to say any of this as a whole is contained within the Bible. Its all assumption.

Peace.

 

[wizanda]

Thanks for the wikipedia link. Ive seen it.

Did you not bother to look at the Sources, so you could quickly reply again?

21:105 And We have already written in the book [of Psalms] after the [previous] mention that the land [of Paradise] is inherited by My righteous servants.

Psalms 37:29 The righteous shall inherit the land, and live in it forever.

Better to state evidence and discuss facts.

That was built on facts of what the Quran says, which have already posted; yet honestly do not think you acknowledge that either.

So it cannot be what the Quran refers to as the Thawraath. Same thing goes to Injeel. And Zaboor.

The Quran and Bible say they've edited the books, it seems you're in denial of both, and don't accept that God made it this way to test who the hypocrites are, who think they know more than the prophets, without even reading them - the arrogance astounds us.

There is no evidence to say any of this as a whole is contained within the Bible. Its all assumption.

Having spent 15 years studying it, personally can show the evidence...

You haven't even read it; so stop just making stuff up about messengers without any knowledge on what they discuss.

In my opinion.

 

[firedragon]

Did you not bother to look at the Sources, so you could quickly reply again?

21:105 And We have already written in the book [of Psalms] after the [previous] mention that the land [of Paradise] is inherited by My righteous servants.

Psalms 37:29 The righteous shall inherit the land, and live in it forever.

I did. That does not prove anything. Your source, wikipedia is quoting verbatim "No books are known to have been written by King David of Israel, either through archeology or biblical accounts. However, the majority of the psalms collected in The Book of Psalms are attributed to David, suggesting that the Qur'an might be referring to Psalms."

Might be is not definitely. They are assumptions.

Please don't quote 15 years or 20 years of studying brother. Anyone can quote these things. Its not that I make you a liar, but its of no use.

Fact: Moses never wrote the Pentateuch. They are 5 different books. Written by at least four different schools of thought. Deuteronomy is written by one scribe. The ending makes it clear it is not Moses but someone who lived far after Moses. So this one scribe wrote the Deotoronomy.

So it cannot be what the Quran refers to as the Thawraath. Same thing goes to Injeel. And Zaboor.

There is no evidence to say any of this as a whole is contained within the Bible. Its all assumption.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I will ignore your generalisations like "Muslims like to do this and that" because that's not an argument. There is no point saying anything like Christians like to do this, aliens like to do that, and Muslims like to quote this etc etc. These are general negations. And its bordering the genetic fallacy.

It is not Muslims who speak about the synoptic problem and the johannine exaltation of Jesus. It is Christian scholars. It is Biblical scholars. This is how text books are created. This is standard scholarship.

Peace.

So going back to the OP question, has Christ’s Revelation from God been corrupted or is it authentic? His Teachings are certainly recorded in some detail within the Canonical Gospels along with an account of His Life, albeit part historical, part theological. These works were all written in the first century. It’s possible that the Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness (John the apostle) but it is a minority of scholars who advocate this. The other Gospel traditionally considered to be written by a disciple is Matthew, but most scholars reject this for good reasons. Regardless we have four books written within 60 to 70 years of Christ’s crucifixion (considered to be an historical likelihood by most scholars, even atheists). The Gospel of Mark was probably written first within 40 years of the crucifixion.

Prior to the Canonical Gospels being written, the stories about Jesus would have been passed down mostly through oral traditions. Some stories would have been written down earlier. It seems highly likely that much of what was passed down through word of mouth initially by eye witnesses and then later second and third generation Christians was remembered and communicated accurately.

The Christian community certainly flourished and the spiritual power of the Canonical Gospels is apparent for anyone with eyes to see, even two thousand years later. The idea that the Gospels were corrupted implies unreliable transmission which seems unlikely. The potency of the Revelation would be diminished, but it’s provided spiritual sustenance for a huge religious community for over two thousand years. Further, why would God go to the trouble of Revealing Himself through Christ if His Message was irredeemably corrupted or lost? Such a God would surely protect and guide the record of such a Lofty Revelation.

 

[firedragon]

So going back to the OP question, has Christ’s Revelation from God been corrupted or is it authentic? His Teachings are certainly recorded in some detail within the Canonical Gospels along with an account of His Life, albeit part historical, part theological. These works were all written in the first century. It’s possible that the Gospel of John was written by an eyewitness (John the apostle) but it is a minority of scholars who advocate this. The other Gospel traditionally considered to be written by a disciple is Matthew, but most scholars reject this for good reasons. Regardless we have four books written within 60 to 70 years of Christ’s crucifixion (considered to be an historical likelihood by most scholars, even atheists). The Gospel of Mark was probably written first within 40 years of the crucifixion.

Prior to the Canonical Gospels being written, the stories about Jesus would have been passed down mostly through oral traditions. Some stories would have been written down earlier. It seems highly likely that much of what was passed down through word of mouth initially by eye witnesses and then later second and third generation Christians was remembered and communicated accurately.

The Christian community certainly flourished and the spiritual power of the Canonical Gospels is apparent for anyone with eyes to see, even two thousand years later. The idea that the Gospels were corrupted implies unreliable transmission which seems unlikely. The potency of the Revelation would be diminished, but it’s provided spiritual sustenance for a huge religious community for over two thousand years. Further, why would God go to the trouble of Revealing Himself through Christ if His Message was irredeemably corrupted or lost? Such a God would surely protect and guide the record of such a Lofty Revelation.

I agree. But accuracy is doubtful. There maybe some that are accurate. Some not. We just don't know. Scholars have various methodologies of making this or that true or false but they are subjective. Some I don't agree with.

The latter part is your faith statement. I respect that. Its yours to keep.

 

[shmogie]

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



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.

They have the right to believe whatever they choose, as do you and I.

 

[firedragon]

The Quran and Bible say they've edited the books,

No. You misquoted the Quran.

As you already know, and quoted, the Quran says people write their own ideas and falsely attribute them to God. Thats what the Quran says. Aytheehim-Their own means. Haazaa min inthallah-Then attribute it to God.

The Quran says that it was sent in order to authenticate and confirm (Musadhdhik) what was earlier revealed "bayna yadhayhi", from what they have. So the Quran affirms that books were revealed earlier, Sadhaka (Sadhdhakathu) means it will clear, clarify, make clean which means what contains within this book will be the cleansing of the previous scripture. So bottomline is, though previous scriptures were revealed, the Quran is the clarification of bayna yadhayhi.

Quran is telling the reader to know that there were scriptures prior to it. But this is sufficient. Because this is the sidhk. The truth. This is the Furqan now. The criterion. This is the Imam. The beacon. So thats that.

Peace.