-

Natassia wrote: @ Andalus...   I don't think you understand...   It doesn't matter if we have an isnad or not for the gospels or epistles.  It doesn't matter if something was actually written by Paul or a devoted follower was simply writing something under his name (common in 1st & 2nd centuries.)   What matters is the doctrine and beliefs.

Doctrine and belief are not worth spit if the sources for deriving belief and doctrine are equivalent to �gossip� and �hearsay�. Without any kind of methodology to control the transmission or to know the sources or the authors, doctrine and belief cannot be given any more confidence than the sources, and they could easily be the ranting of liars. The point is, you do not know.

Muslims claim to have this "science of hadith," as if by using the word science they validate their processes of concluding the authenticity of a hadith.  Those sayings are 1200 years old.  1200.  I'm sorry, but studying them now is not going to make them any "stronger" or "weaker" than they were considered to be according to early Islamic scholars like Ibn Kathir.

This is pretty incoherent, which tells me you know even less then I do about the subject, which is actually pretty bad given I am not a scholar but a novice who does not blindly follow any belief.  

No Mulsim believes that using the word science necessarily gives confidence. Your assertion really brands us as complete idiots and your over simplification of the matter speaks volumes for your claimed sincerity. I think it was Chuang Tsu who said that names are but shadows of reality. It is not the naming of a particular field of study that gives confidence; it is the actual methodology that is used in the field of study that gives confidence. A scholar does not make �taqlid� on, say Bukharis work, a true scholar does make their own study for whatever particular matter is being addressed. If the setting is now, then they are studied now, if it was 500 years ago, then it was in the past. The setting is irrelevant since the chains of narration and lists of narrators and such have been around since before even Imam Bukhari was born. That Ibn Kathir may feel a hadith is weak only tells a small part of the story since his stating of such would be for a particular matter. There is more than just assigning a hadith as being weak or strong. MUCH more.

The whole foundation of this "science" is the assumption that the narrators were honest in the first place.  Imagine if Abu Huraira and Aisha were liars.  What then?  How many of the so-called "Sahih" Hadith were reported by them?

You assume your mother tells you the truth when she says she is your mother, unless something does not make sense, then you might investigate her claim. Many things in your life you assume some truth on the part of someone. You assume Paul tells the truth, you assume the narrators of the gospels all told the truth, you assume the copyists all told the truth. You are now trying to create a strawman. If you have more than one sahaba telling a narrative, and you find independent people narrating the story from each, and independent narrators in different regions who do not know each other also narrating, then it is nearly impossible for the narrative to be a lie; unless all of the sahabas were conspiring with each other. If this is true, then you must show where something does not make sense to bring suspicion, and make your case. Believe me when I tell you that when something did not make sense, the scholars classified it in a certain way and the narrative is limited in value. Not all hadiths can be used to interpret acts of worship and such. We are not talking about some kind of absolute truth, we are talking about a system that gives �confidence�.

So, not only must you ASSUME that Muhammad was completely honest with his revelations, but you must also ASSUME that Aisha and Abu Huraira were as well...not to mention Uthman and the role he played in the compiling of the Quran.

This is more of your attempt to distract. You assume your father was your father and you mother was completely honest and did not step out on your father. Right? You assume the author of Acts was completely honest and recalled events honestly without motivation. We all assume many things in life. If something does not make sense, if some fact comes to surface place doubt on some truth of our, then we investigate. If you have evidence to suggest anyone was lying, then produce your evidence? God knows many people tried in the days of the Prophet (saw).

To say the companions �could have lied� is simply an assertion without merit, and the critical techniques that scholars have appealed to for centuries have done an amazing job at keeping things �square�. Unlike your traditions which were part of an oral tradition where many other gospel accounts were floating around, and the group that chose your current ones did not have any critical methods for discerning between fabicated accounts vs authentic accounts. In fact, many mainstream scholars will admit that there is a highly likely chance that fabircation made it into your sources.

One need only seek the writings of early Christians to discover their views about Christ...and for the most part, they agree with the theology presented in the New Testament scriptures.

No, this is not entirely correct. More accurately, one only needs to refer to the current Christian sources to understand how the �proto-orthodox� thought about Christ (the group you have inherited your traditions from), which is not necessarily how Christ thought or what he believed. Furthermore, there is also a great deal of lobored interpretation that goes on with connecting church beliefs and what is in your current sources.

There is only one "gospel," and that gospel points to Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior...one need only repent and believe.

Rubbish. You have no claim with any amount of confidence that you know what Jesus wanted in terms of theology.

What you seem to place such a huge emphasis on ("tradition") is merely commentary and miniscule in importance to the basic theology: Christ saves.  Also, the Law has remained steadfast:   Do unto others as you would have them do to you.   Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.   Love your neighbor as yourself.   Honor your father and mother.   Do not bear false testimony.   Do not steal.   Do not commit adultery.   Do not murder.

Typical Christian. You conveniently left out all the other mitzvahs. You guys pick and choose out of expediency, not knowledge, just conjecture.

These laws convict us of sin.  They always have, and they always will.  The Bible may not have a single author, and there may be factual contradictions within it, but the Bible has one coherent thought throughout the entire thing:

If this is true, then your god has a great deal of personal issues. Imagine if parents had a child with legs missing, and then expected the child to enter a marathon and win, and then punish the hell out of the child for not being able to get across the start line. This is Church theology in a nutshell. You propose that God creates us, gives us laws He knows we cannot follow, and then punishes us for it. How convoluted a theology you follow. Really. As I said, your sources might have been transmitted by lunatics or even liars. How else could you come to a conclusion so absurd that God is a nut?

No matter what humanity does as it exercises Free Will, God's Will is always done.  God will save His chosen ones...whoever they may be.  He knows who they are--He has known since the beginning of time.  And for those chosen, He has provided salvation through JUSTICE AND MERCY because the Law cannot be abolished, and the debt of sin must be paid.

Yes�.in your theological model, His Will is to create us knowingly incapable of following laws He would give us so that he could punish us for not being able to keep them. Good luck to you and your relationship with God.