Where is the Injeel?

Hello Andalus,

So the Quran says the prophets were inspired, but does not mention a written document until David.  Noah's laws must be derived, and are not scriptural so I think we agree and my statement was correct.  We have no written scripture from Noah; only exegesis.

The injunction against pork, or in the Islamic case, shellfish, being abrogated are weak hooks upon which to hang the truth.  I think we would be better served in discussing the role of the law by taking up the discussion with BMZ about the sermon on the mount.  It is directly on point, and has wide applicability to Christianity and Islam.

We haven't heard from you on this point yet.  What's your opinion?  Do you think the Sermon on the Mount is likely to be part of the authentic injeel, or do you think it is unlikely? How would you go about sorting out authentic injeel from the gospels?

DavidC wrote: Andalus, I have never seen any reference to a written scripture given to Noah. There are numerous references in the Quran to the gospels, which in themselves make the gospel relevant to Muslims.

I agree, the bible, or at least the Greek and Latin versions were available at the time of Muhammed (pbuh).  This means to me that the NT has to be the Injeel talked about....or at least that's part of my confusion. 

Andalus wrote: Noah was able to eat pork. Moses was prohibted. So what was clarified about Noah being able to eat pork?

I think it clarified that quite nicely....no pork.  In addtion to this

Prohibition of Eating Live Meat

This commandment forbids the eating of meat that has been removed from an animal while it was still alive. For non-Jews, this means that the limbs of the animal must have stopped moving by the time the first cut is made. It also prohibits the eating of meat that still contains the blood within it.

The eating of live meat is connected with indulgence and cruelty. Such meat is selfishly eaten for its spiritual qualities, because the meat still contains the blood with the living soul. This practice is also strongly related to sexual indulgence, in that such rapacious eating affects oneself spiritually by augmenting sexual desires to the point of becoming animalistic. This sexual desire is not based on love, but instead the selfish wish to "consume" one's sexual partner.

When one avoids meat in the forbidden category, there are many positive and uplifting results. One's sexual drive is brought under control, so that it can be used for kindness and love rather than selfish cruelty. This law also provides for the humane treatment of animals. Furthermore, it provides for the proper relationship between man and animals, by ensuring that the animal serves its purpose by being killed and eaten properly. This relationship is based on man's dominion over the world and its creatures as described in Genesis 1, and is further explained in Genesis 9:2: "And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every bird of the air, upon all that moves upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered."

Although it is relatively rare for people in civilized nations nowadays to deliberately eat live meat, there are questions raised about the meat commonly found in restaurants and supermarkets. Because of the quick and careless nature of modern slaughterhouse methods, it is often not clear if the animal completely stops moving before the cut is made to remove the meat. Therefore, we recommend for gentiles to avoid such meat and instead to eat only kosher meat (if kosher meat is not available, then one could live a vegetarian lifestyle). Kosher meat, which is meat slaughtered and prepared in a very specific way, is the only meat allowed to Jews; it also meets the criteria for what non-Jews are permitted to eat.

Because fish are considered by the Torah to be dead at the moment they leave the water, they are not in the forbidden category.

http://www.noahide.com/limb.htm

Well, BMZ, I would argue one one point here, but this IS NOT an argument on the Trinity. 

In the Quran, God spoke and it was.  His word was transformed into flesh at the Creation of Jesus Christ.  Now, does this make him the Son of God????  That's an entirely different debate.  But Jesus very literally was a Word made flesh.  Now, the statement in John 1:1 that the word WAS God....well, I am not going to argue that point.  Howevery, the eternal nature of God and his omnipotence would mean that his very Word could be as immortal and uncreated/unending as he is.  This Word could be his "plan", his "will", his "decree" that this is the way things will be.  I'm sure he didn't just decide out of no where to create his next Prophet this way.  He planned this from the very beginning.   Given the fact that God's will is eternal, then the statement..

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God....

This is very true, even from the realm of the Quran... its this addition that causes all the problems.

and the Word was God.

Now, we LDS dispute this the Word was God....Since Elohim, Jehovah and the Holy Spirit are three different beings.  We feel this is a misinterpretation when it somes to the Godhead/Trinity.  Now, again, lets look at a passage that is in keeping with the Quran with the removal of only one thing....

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

If you remove the part that I have italicized, then you get...

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth.

Now, the Word made flesh is not the Problem.  In the Quran,

3:45 She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: Allah createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!

And to back up my original statement about the eternalness of God's plans and how the Word could be with him in the Beginning.....

3:54 And (the unbelievers) plotted and planned, and Allah too planned, and the best of planners is Allah.

Now, with that, I do not want this thread turning into an argument in the Trinity.  Annie, stop it, your just as bad as George and Fredi.  Every arguement you get involved with turns into a circular arguement on the Trinity.  This is about the Revelations of Christ....the Injeel.  This thread is about why God would be so fanatical about the preservation of one set of revelations and not the others.  So, don't even bother posting your arguments on this thread.  Go to one of the other dozen Trinity threads and post it there. 

 

bmzsp wrote: Annie, So what is your comment on this? You did not answer. "Thou shall not worship any other God beside God.", "Thou shall worship only your Lord God with all thy hearts, all thy minds and all thy souls" and "Your Lord God is only one." The above will be treated as Injeel which means what Jesus taught and preached. As a Muslim, I agree with that. The message is crystal clear. "The Word Became Flesh:'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.' " Is this an statement from Jesus? Obviously it is not. I can write pages of commentary on this. This philosophy or the thought from John, which was NOT presented or taught or preached by Jesus himself, cannot be  considered as Injeel." It appears to me that you are in agreement with me on above. Thanks.

I will answer your questions, but I think it best that I open a couple of new topics to do it.  The topics will be the Shema and whether Jesus thought of himself as the Word of God made flesh.

Give me a couple of days to get it all together.

Annie