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.

 

Gospel according to John

Some little tid bits about who wrote it. Gather your own conclusions.

This Gospel records little extra details that could only have been known by one who was there. For example, the loaves that the lad brought to Jesus at the Feeding of Five Thousand were barley loaves (6:9); that the disciples had rowed three and four miles when Jesus came to them walking on the water in the storm (6:19); that there were six stone waterpots at Cana of Galilee (2:6); that four soldiers gambled for the seamless robe as Jesus died (19:23) and that aloes were used to anoint the dead body of Jesus (19:39); that the perfume of the ointment filled the house at the anointing at Bethany (12:3). These are such unimportant details that only a person who was there would have remembered them. This points to John as the writer of this Gospel.

Internally, the author identifies himself as "the disciple that Jesus loved... who has written these things" (21:20, 24); this is not egoism, but only indicates that the contents of the Gospel comes from one in whom Jesus had confided. He never refers to himself by name in the Gospel. The unnamed disciple, referred to in 13:23-24; 19:26-27; 20:2-10, is never identified by name. In every instance, except at the cross in 19:26, he is with Simon Peter, and he may be "the other disciple" who is with Peter when they went into the house of the high priest at the trial (18:15-16). The synoptists tell us that James and John, the sons of Zebedee, worked at fishing with Peter; and with him formed the inner circle of the Twelve. Since James had died earlier as a martyr (Acts 12:1-5) and since Peter is clearly distinguished from the beloved disciple (John 20:2-10), only John is left to be the beloved disciple and the author of the Fourth Gospel. Early Christian writers called the author of the Fourth Gospel "the beloved disciple" and identified him with the Apostle John, the son of Zebedee.

Last, all the early church fathers from the time of Irenaeus held to the Johannine authorship of this Gospel. Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 190), Origen (about A.D. 220), Hippolytus (about A.D. 225), Tertullian (about A.D. 200), and the Muratorian Fragment (about A.D. 170) agree in attributing the authorship of the Fourth Gospel to John, son of Zebedee. The earliest witness is that of Irenaeus who was bishop of Lyons about A.D. 177; he was himself a disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of the Apostle John. He writes,

"John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leant upon his breast, himself also published the gospel in Ephesus, when he was live in Asia."

Note that Irenaeus does not merely say that John wrote the Gospel; he says that John published (exedoke) in Ephesus. The Greek word that Irenaeus uses implies that the Gospel was not just a private writing of some personal memoir, but that it was a public publication like a official document.

The next witness is that of Clement who was the head of the great Catechetical School at Alexandria about A.D. 190. He writes,

"Last of all, John, perceiving that what had reference to the bodily things of Jesus's ministry had been sufficiently related, and encouraged by his friends, and inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote a spiritual gospel."

My conclusion is that John did write the gospel book. The book itself gave unimportant small details as listed above, however these details could only have been known by the one who was there. All the other disciples such as Peter and James who made up the inner circle, are ruled out and John is left as the only writer. John�s Gospel was writen later than the other gospels and was also copied and maintained by the Church even until the 2^nd Century where we can see early Christians accepting this Gospel as written by John. You must understand that there are liberal Christians in the world who may differ, but what does the Bible say? What does history say? John wrote it.

Robin

http://fromdeathtolife.org/jnintro.html

Forth Question,

So far I have read posts that have said the Bible has become corrupt and I read the web pages that said they have become corrupt then tried to demonstrate that. However just saying the Bible is corrupt or saying the Quran, Hadith or Islam teachings the Bible has become corrupt is not evidence at all. This kind of argument would fail in a court of law. The bit of evidence from the "Changes in the Bible" web page I have shown to be completely wrong, I explained why in one of my posts. Also the other examples from other web pages simply show a lack of biblical interpretation. One example coming from Muslim websites says,

"I don't believe Jesus died on a cross! Three days and three nights never took place because Jesus died on a Friday and rose from the dead Sunday morning. This is not a literal 3 days or mornings and three nights. It doesn't make sense!"

It doesn't make sense because the person was misinterpreting the Bible. If they had interpreted it properly they would have found that this is known as a jewish idiom. Just like all cultures use idioms in their speech. For example if I said, "It's raining cats and dogs out here!" and you were standing next to be and took what I said literally you would misunderstand what I had said. But if you understood the context and culture I said that in you would understand I meant it rained very hard outside. This is known as an idiom. I used it to describe a hard rainfall and the Bible used it to describe Jesus rising from the dead the 3rd day.

So far no evidence has been shown to prove the Bible has become corrupt. However I'll give you another opportunity at it. If you can find a 1st or 2nd Century document that has been considered a valid ancient manuscript that rejects Jesus' death on a cross and rejects Jesus rising from the dead as Jesus' followers believed and the Bible teaches then this would be a major argument against Christianity.

The Bible teaches us Jesus died around 33A.D. The manuscript evidence for the New Testament shows the earliest book was written within 60 A.D., just 30 years or so after the fact. If Jesus was never crucified one would think that all those who opposed Christianity would have written something saying Jesus was not crucified, just opposite of the Christian claim. People who were living in the time of Jesus would still have been around to recall the teaching of the New Testament and would then have had the opportunity to deny Christianitys claim. However there has never been found such documents. Nor has there ever been found any ancient bible manuscripts that clearly show the Bible has been changed over time. In fact the manuscript evidence shows just the opposite. It shows the Bible is the same today as it was then.

Last, anything written 150 years or more after a original story is usually subject to change or mythology. However the New Testament was written well within that time. However the Quran came into being about the 7-8th century. This is well past the 150 year period and mythology did creep in as you can see from Islams denial of Jesus death and resurrection. For something to NOT become corrupted by mythology, one God must be in it and two it should be within the 150 years.

 

Robin

Edited by rbaitz

tawhid wrote: source and proof of your statement please

You know, tawhid, it is that kind of attitude (I-need-proof) that doesn't get people anywhere. It is in my opinion that people who have to have proof for everything they can't see are weak in mind and have no faith - with that said, faith is not easy to come to them beacuse they cannot believe in what they don't see and touch.

Perhaps you should give those few words some thought.