Islams beliefs concerning Christianity

My Dear, if the hypothesis and conjectures are the only means through which one tries to establishe the authorship, then its better to look at the modernscholarship than the opinon held centuries ago when even the christians had the trouble of interpreting the bible other than official church's verdict. Here is the brief review of the authorship of the NT.

"

THE NEW TESTAMENT

Before discussing the authorship of the New Testament, it is important to remember that much of the justification of the New Testament is due to the supposed fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. But, as is clearly shown above, the authorship and the authenticity of the Old Testament is highly doubtful. You cannot build a sturdy house on a flimsy foundation. Similarly, you cannot have a sound argument when your premise for your argument is a weak, shaky presumption.

The philosophic "center" of the New Testament is the first four books (Matthew, Mark, Luke,and John), which are known as the "Gospels". The rest of the New Testament is, for all practical purposes, an elaboration on these four books. Many Christians believe that these four Gospels were written by the direct disciples of Jesus, but, as you will see, this is hardly the case. So even the beloved Gospels are not free from the nagging doubt of dubious authorship. Christians cite the similarity of the Gospels as "proof" of their authenticity. But the similarities between these four books is due to the existence of a alleged collection of the sayings of Jesus called "Q". The compiler of Q is unknown. Christians place enormous faith that this unknown person(s) did not 1) fabricate his own sayings to suit his own agenda, and 2) use saying from questionable sources.

Also, as I noted earlier, there were over 50 different Gospels in circulation at the time the New Testament was compiled. Since the persons choosing the canon used only books that were, more or less, harmonious, it is reasonable to conclude that the results would be... harmonious books!

For example, one book that did not make it into the New Testament was the "Gospel of Peter", because the book does not consider the Crucifixion as an act of atonement. Similarly, the "Acts of John" was not included because of its subversion of traditional Christian teachings (such as, denying the reality of Jesus's physical body). It may be argued that these (and many other books) were not included because of "questionable authorship", but the authorship of these books is no less questionable than other books that have been included.

Another significant, disquieting fact concerning the New Testament is the widely used literary tradition at that time of pseudonymously ascribing new works to a venerated personage of the past in order to give the new concoction credibility! This has, indeed, serious implications for the entire New Testament.

• Matthew: Traditionalists believe that this is the earliest of the four Gospels, and was written by St. Matthew, one of the 12 apostles. However, most modern scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark was earlier, and that the author of the Gospel of Matthew drew upon the Gospel of Mark for material. This is significant, because the Gospel of Mark is indeed of highly questionable authorship (see below). They base these beliefs on internal and external evidence. And this evidence also casts strong doubts that St. Matthew wrote this book. They have narrowed down the date of the writing of this book between 70 and 80 AD.
• Mark: Traditionalists believe that St. Mark wrote this book. And many Christians believe that St. Mark was one of the 12 apostles, but that is not the case. The very earliest evidence concerning the authorship of this Gospel comes from the 3rd century, from a church historian, Eusebius of Caesarea, who in turn quotes a writer who lived a hundred years earlier, whose name was Papias... who in turn quotes a still earlier person called only "the elder". This quote refers to the author, Mark, being an interpreter of Peter, whose name was John Mark, a cousin of Barnabas. But there are reasons to doubt this. Because most early Christians linked this Gospel to Mark, the "elder" did his best to at least try to link the author with a man named "Mark" (Peter's interpreter). The conclusion by most scholars that the author was an otherwise unknown man (named Mark), who drew on a large number of traditions to compose this work. It is also interesting to note that many Greek manuscripts end with the eighth verse of the 15th chapter. Yet the Bible today ends with verse 20! Most scholars believe that the final 12 verses were added by a 2nd century monk or scribe to make a more satisfying ending.
• Luke: Attributed to St. Luke, although very little is know about St. Luke, except that he may have been a traveling companion of St. Paul. And, like Paul, there is no record or mention of St. Luke even meeting Jesus. Therefore, even if this gospel was written by St. Luke, it would clearly be at best a second-hand account of the biography of the savior of the Christians, and was written 40 or 50 years after Jesus's death. Modern scholars agree that the Gospel of Luke is clearly based on the earliest Gospel (Mark), and that the author used two major interpolations (Luke 6:20-8:3, and 9:51-18:14) from the collection of supposed sayings of Jesus, "Q", and from a large body of oral traditions (commonly referred to as "L").
• John: The authorship of this book has created heated controversy since the 1800s. Although traditionalists have always believed that the author of this book was St. John the Evangelist, in actuality there are four candidates for authorship: 1) it was written by a person known as "the elder", as mentioned in the Epistles of John; 2) it was written by a student of St. John the Evangelist; 3) it was written by Lazarus of Bethany; or 4) it was written by an anonymous person in Alexandria a hundred years after Jesus's death.
• Also, scholars generally agree that the entire 21st chapter is a later
• addition. This chapter deals with Jesus's resurrection.
• Acts of the Apostles: Traditionally believed that the author was St. Luke, but, since there is no reference to this within the book itself, there are many doubts to this. Many scholars contend that it was written by someone who had acquired the diary of a traveling companion of St. Paul.
• Scholars point out that it was written around AD 62-90, and was written
• in Greek, instead of Hebrew.
• Romans; Corinthians (1 and 2); Galatians: Attributed to Paul. Ephesians: Traditionally attributed to Paul, but it is doubted by many modern scholars, because of the extreme differences of tone, vocabulary, and writing style as compared to authentic letters of Paul.
• Phillippians: Attributed to Paul.
• Colossians: Although traditionally ascribed to Paul, many scholars have strong doubts about this, because of the differences of vocabulary used (as compared to genuine Pauline writings).
• 1 Thessalonians: Attributed to Paul.
• 2 Thessalonians: Attributed to Paul, although, based on internal and
• external evidence, many scholars tend to doubt this.
• Timothy (1 and 2); Titus: Traditionally attributed to Paul, but most scholars believe otherwise due to the fact that the style and vocabulary differ in significant ways from authentic works by Paul. Also, historical events as reflected in these works do not fit into any known situation of Paul's life. The scholars believe that these books are by an unknown author(s), who used the name of Paul to give it an air of authority.
• Philomon: Traditionally ascribed to Paul.
• Hebrews: Practically all modern scholars doubt this was written by Paul (as the traditionalists claim). Actually, even the early Christian Church itself had strong doubts about Paul's authorship of this book! Scholars point out that the vocabulary, grammar, and style are dramatically different from known works by Paul. But the most damning evidence is that the author(s) of this book quote from the Greek versions of the Old Testament (instead of the Hebrew originals, as Paul would have done)! Therefore, it is clear that this book was not written by Paul, or any other apostle. This is significant, for in this book contains the cornerstones of the fundamentalists' beliefs: 1) that Jesus died for everyone's sins (chapter nine and ten); and 2) that the doctrine of faith alone is sufficient for salvation (chapters 11 and 12)
• James: This book is traditionally ascribed to St. James, the apostle. Most scholars doubt this, because of the expertise of the author in the Greek language. Therefore, they feel that it was written by an unknown Greek Christian. And even many Christians themselves have their doubts about this work. Even Martin Luther, the founder of one of the three main branches of Christianity (Protestantism), called it "an epistle of straw". One reason why he may have said this was because of a verse in James (2:20): "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?" The Protestants believe that faith alone is sufficient for salvation. The Catholics believe that it is important to do good works as well. This one point was a major factor in causing Protestantism to break away from Catholicism. And this one verse devastates the fundamentalists' argument. This is completely contradictory to Paul's exhortations of "justification by faith" in Romans and Hebrews. So much for the "harmony of the Bible", as the fundamentalists claim (as proof of the Bible's validity).
• Peter 1: Although attributed to Peter, it is widely doubted by most scholars, on the basis of the fact that the author of this book cites Greek translations of the Old Testament, instead of the Hebrew originals. This questionable book contains the fundamentalists' slogan, "born again" (1 Peter 1:23)
• Peter 2: This book has even more doubtful authorship that Peter 1, so much so that it was delayed entrance into the New Testament's canon. It is generally believed that it was written by an unknown scribe around 150 AD.
• Epistles of John: Traditionally ascribed to St. John the Evangelist, but many scholars disagree. Many scholars feel that it was written by one of the four "Johns" as listed above under the "Gospel of John", but they can't agree on which one.
• Revelations: Again, attributed to St. John the Evangelist, but scholars again disagree. But there are so many linguistic differences between this book and the Gospel of John that it is clear that they were written by different people. This book is the cornerstone of the fundamentalists, the evangelicals, and the millenarianists. It records a purported "vision", and Christians are fond of tying its enigmatic allegory to current events, to show that the end of the world is near. And they are generally successful, since this book is so obscure that one elicit practically any interpretation from it. In fact, ever since it was written (around AD 100), people of every generation have been able to link it to their own period of time. The numerous references to "a thousand years" in chapter 20 has led many to consider that doomsday will occur at the end of a millenium. The "Judgement Day" hysteria that occurred as the year 1000 approached is a historical fact. Similarly, social psychologists predict that, as we approach the year 2000, the same hysteria will occur. Many scholars believe that Revelations is actually a collection of separate works by various unknown authors. One reason they believe this is because the book is a strange collection of Greek and Hebrew idioms. And some believe that it was never intended to be viewed as a "prophecy", but as an allegory showing the crisis of faith at that period of time (of the Roman persecutions). "

For authorship of OT and other complete details on NT kindly refer to http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/aotb.htm

Of course you would lable him heretics/ atheies or whatever you may call him just to refute his article, but here is the contents of the course of a Christian college in australia (Australian Catholic Universtiy Theo 252 the fourth gospel) and see what do they say about the authorship of fourth gospel.

"

1.2 Who And Where?

There are various opinions about the author of this Gospel.

1. John the apostle, brother to James and one of the sons of Zebedee.
2. The unnamed disciple (1:35-42; 18:15, 16; 20:3, 4, 8) referred to in the Gospel as the disciple whom Jesus loved (13:23; 19:26; 20:2).
3. John the elder, who identifies himself as the author of Revelation (Rev 1:1, 4, 9; 22:8).

Around a hundred years after the Gospel was written, ie. towards the end of the second century, a famous Christian writer and martyr called Irenaeus (about 130-200 C.E.) identified the author of this Gospel as a man named John, called a disciple of the Lord and the one who leaned on Jesus at the Last Supper ie. the disciple whom Jesus loved. "Lastly John, the Lord's disciple, who also reclined on his breast, himself produced the Gospel when he was staying in Ephesus in Asia".

Irenaus is writing at a time when this Gospel is in great danger of being rejected as a legitimate or canonical Gospel. Some are saying it comes from a heretical group called the Gnostics who emphasised knowledge (gnosis) and the mind, and downplayed the value of the physical and human experience. To rescue this gospel it was important to attribute it to an eyewitness, preferably one of the disciples - even better if it was one of the inner circle of Apostles - Peter, James and John.

The earlier commentaries of Schnackenburg (1965) and R. E. Brown (1966) identify John, the son of Zebedee as the disciple called in the Gospel the Beloved Disciple. This disciple is the authority behind the text, probably the leader of the community that produced this Gospel. The actual author of the gospel, the evangelist, was a disciple of this John. In his later work -The Community of Beloved Disciple (1974) Brown changed his view. While still naming the Beloved Disciple as the authority behind the text, he no longer identified this disciple as John son of Zebedee.

Most contemporary scholars take the view that the unnamed disciple, later called the Beloved Disciple, is the authority behind the Gospel. This unnamed 'other' disciple was at first a disciple of John the Baptist but then with Andrew was the first to be called to discipleship (1:35-42), he was present as eye-witness to the crucifixion (19:26, 35) and was the first to come to Easter faith (20:8).

You will notice that more recent authors speak of The Fourth Gospel, while earlier commentators called it St. John's Gospel. Care is now taken to show that there is some uncertainty about the identity of the actual author."

If this seems to be in-sufficient, do let me know as there are other references as well to guide you to the same conclusion. Similar treatment can also be made for the authorships of other books in the Bible. You just have to let me know. I don't want to conclude anything except whatever the position you take shall never be more than a guess work; a Conjecture based decision. It is for this reason that Prophet Mohammad was sent by God  to call people to the truth without conjectures. As I always say it that I have great respect for these books as they do contain some original teachings of Jesus to his disciples, but they have been so obliterated with other stories that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to discern from the heresy. Hence the authenticity of Quran standout visibly distinct and prominant than any other scriptural books. Leave the conjectures and follow the one (i.e. Quran) which is without any ambiguity. May God of Jesus guide us all to the right path. Amen.

Well Bro Rbaitz,

Thanks for quoting Quran for me, at least on one particular matter. I pray and shall hope that not only in this matter, you may consult it and get guidance in all other matters as well from the Quran. You have indeed done a great service to me to provide these references from Quran. 

There are many ways to reply to your question. Foremost is that your implied understanding of word "word of God" in verses 6:34, 6:115, and 10:64 is not correct. Here this means the "decree" of Allah and not the "Mushaf" or "the book". There are many instances where God has warned the people of the book for corrupting the book of Allah with their own hands just for petty exchange.

"It was We who revealed the law (to Moses): therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the prophets who bowed (as in Islam) to Allah's will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah's book, and they were witnesses thereto: therefore fear not men, but fear me, and sell not my signs for a miserable price. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers. " Quran 5:44.

Kindly note the highlighted and the underlined part of the verse which clearly states that Allah's book was an entrusted job for the people of the book. It was upon them not to sell Allah's signs for miserable price. So your argument, even from the Quran doesn't stand valid. Though there are many other instances in the Quran as well, but due to shortage of time, I am concluding my remarks here with your last argument about the existance of old scriptures at the time of Quran's revelation. True, there were, and they might even exist today. However, with the warning of its corruption by the scribes in Quran, we also know that they have been so obliterated with other stories around them that its really difficult to discern truth out of them, especially once my Christian brothers are bent upon following the conjectures and doing away what is known to them as fact. Kindly let me know if you have heard anything about the "Q, the lost gospel". It may hint as to what happened to the teachings of Prophet Jesus.

   Another aspect to look at this issue is that since we know that original language of Quran is Arabic so any translational difficulties can readily be understood by referring back to the original language i.e. Arabic. In the same way Bible (NT) may also be needed to look back in original Aramic version, the language of Prophet Jesus, and not in any other language. Do you have this Bible known in Aramic any where in the world. Probably not; the most oldest known is in Greek language simply because their authors were not among the 12 diciples of Jesus what to talk of Jesus himself. Quran says to the people of the book to stick to His "revealed" book if they want guidance, and not just any other  book by anonymous authors. God's revelations are such that people of faith live by them for their whole life. Can we say such a thing about these gospels whose basic characteristic is "anonymous authorship" and then interpreting them through the monocule of St. Paul and later day saints.  I hope that you would continue to follow Quran, not only for this matter but others as well especially once it calls the people of the book to come to terms and don't associate anyone with Him and He shall forgive them. I think this is a fair proposition, especially in the light of the fact that afterall, Jesus also used to pray to some one. So let us pray together to the God of Jesus to help us guide in the right direction. Amen.

Laurie,

Men and women are equally important in God's eyes. The Bible does show the way women were treated back then but this is not the way God wanted it. There are historical events, practices and so forth that took place, but this doesn't mean it was God's order of things. For example the people of Israel worshipped Baal (a false idol) but God had judged them for idolatry. In the New Testament the adulteress woman was found and brought before Jesus so He would judge her, however he showed compassion on her. But where was the man? He was never mentioned.

Men and women are equally important in the eyes of God, yet each have different roles in the context of marriage and within the Church. This is not to say anyone is better than anyone else, however the wife/woman is esteemed in her role as a woman and the man in his. God has made us different, not just physically, but mentally also. I know I couldn't withstand the pain of child bearing, I can't handle many things my wife can because she was made differently. Also as a husband I am supposed to love my wife as Jesus loved the Church, which is to say, I am supposed to be willing to lay my life down for her, serve her, cherish her, comfort her, Love her, which is more then words. Love is an action word that takes action on my part. Love involved self sacrifice because marriage isn't just about me.

This is what the Christian marriage is all about. The marriage is a picture of the relationship we can have with God. That's why the Bible calls the Church (i.e. believers) the bride and Jesus Christ the bride-groom. The awesome relationship we can have with God comes through the self sacrifice of the bride-groom which was demonstrated at Jesus' death on the cross to pay our fine of sins so we can enter into a loving relationship with God by faith.

Jesus didn't treat women the same way as the culture did back then. Just look at Mary Magdallene she was accepted by Jesus upon her repentance for her sins of harlotry. Later she is the first one to find the empty tomb of Jesus as we can read from the Bible. Now as we know a woman's word in that century didn't hold much water, unfortunatly. However here she is first seeing the empty tomb, then Jesus appearing to her and telling her to go tell His disciples that He had risen. God used Mary as His important messenger. Now if the Bible was written by men who wanted to write lies portraying them as true, then they would not have written concerning what Mary had found, saw and heard.

Robin

Laurie,

I didn't notice any of your questions on this thread before. Do you have question that are concerning the topic under discussion or you have responded in generality of this whole forum? After going through your response here as well as on some other thread, I think you are more concerned about how Mohammad or Jesus are to be believed in as to what they said. If this is true, then this is a new topic and needs new thread. I think its not appropriate to divert from the topic of this thread to another direction. However, just to reply for your response on this thread; I would say something from my own understanding of relegions and leave its decision to anyone who does not agree to it. I beleive that all relegions, at some point, have some uncertainty attached to their doctrines. Since God is infinite, it is this uncertainity that the religions call it a matter of faith, as no logic works to define or understand infinity. It would be naive (I am assuming that one believes in the presence of God and not of an aeithest belief) to expect God to show the answers to the test while the humans on this earth are still under the test. This is the basis on which, I think, whole circle of faith and logic revoleves around. The degree of uncertainity varies from religion to religion. In Islam, this uncertainity or as we call it a matter of faith has two distinctive features. Other than that, Islam is a religion which asks human beings to recognise God through wisdom and logic. These two are 1). Belief that there is a God. 2). Beleif that Prophet Mohammad is his last messanger. Other than this, everything that exist in nature has a logic attached to its existance and can be understood through human mind and logic. To test how the second point of faith is quite close to logical understanding or nature is through circumstantial evidence and not through direct one. The honesty of Prophet Mohammad was known to his people long before he claimed Prophethood. So it was often difficult for the people of his town to dissmiss him altogether merely on the basis of telling lies. Its not that they didn't use any such slandering, but from their hearts of hearts they knew they are not correct. Again it is from the pagan history that once a delegation of pagan arab went to neighbouring countries to make propaganda against the new relegion (Islam), they couldn't escape the reality but to accept that they didn't find Mohammad ever telling a lie even in his jokes. Second foremost convincing reason that I found to believe in him is the book (Quran) that he said is the actual spoken word of God and not from himself. He doesn't claim to be its author. Of course since he was the messanger of God, therefore God's message would come through His messanger as it used to come to other prophets before Mohammad. The sgnificance of this book is so great that we are left with no other reason but to admit that he indeed was the real messanger of God. In that we find that the book claims its authenticity to be the same (ditto) as it was revealed to Prophet Mohammad 14 to 15 centuries ago (of course in the language of messanger of God i.e. Arabic). There is no book (in history or in any other relegion) that we know to exist on this earth except Quran with such a remarkable quality. The book itself is not easy to understand especially for an uninformed reader, however, for those who have the patience to find the truth, soon find it to be the most logical book to preach faith. The order or composition of the book is not like an ordinary book of history, but its purpose is to guide humans to the right path. Various examples are presented in it to recognise God through wisdom, and logical arguments. This unique feature is non-existent in any other book of faith. There are many other properties of this book but I shall leave it for some other time and conclude that it is because of extremely small uncertainity as compared with other relegions that attracted me to Islam and I found it well upto its claims. Rest it is upto an individual how he/she looks at these merits of Islam. Or he/she may not even count them any merits, that is upto them. Rest Allah knows the best. May Allah guide us all to the ultimate truth. Amen.