IslamiCity.org Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Religion - Islam > Islam for non-Muslims
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Islams beliefs concerning Christianity  What is Islam What is Islam  Donate Donate
  FAQ FAQ  Quran Search Quran Search  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Islams beliefs concerning Christianity

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
Author
Message
semar View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar
Male Islam
Joined: 11 March 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 1830
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote semar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 April 2005 at 10:07pm

Originally posted by tawhid tawhid wrote:

Originally posted by rbaitz rbaitz wrote:

1. Why do some Muslims believe the Bible is not the word of God and it has become corrupt? Does it mention this in the Quran or Hadith or elsewhere and that is how they came to that conclusion?

 

no...and that is the wierdest thing...contemporary islam theology accuse the bible...any translation...of corruption yet their prophet claimed otherwise

Volume 9, Book 92, Number 461:

Narrated Ubaidullah:

Ibn 'Abbas said, "Why do you ask the people of the scripture about anything while your Book (Quran) which has been revealed to Allah's Apostle is newer and the latest? You read it pure, undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, 'It is from Allah,' to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything? No, by Allah, we have never seen any man from them asking you regarding what has been revealed to you!"

Tawhed, I you meant "contemporary islam theology" is Abdullah ibn abbas. it's a big mistake. Abdullah ibn abbas is prophet Muhammad's cousin. He was very close with the prophet, he always prayed behind the prophet. He was basically acted like a video camera that record almost everything about the prophet. So he was one of the hadith source. This hadith Number 461 is the explanation of the previous hadit Number 462

Originally posted by tawhid tawhid wrote:

however i am yet to see a Muslim show me a good enjeel...good enough for them anyway...

the burden of proof then falls on islam....and has stayed there since its birth.... sukran, thomas


There is no good injeel this days, all modified, too many hand involve, too many contradictions. Yes we proofed it, many books and many scholars talked about it. So it's very easy to find the proof. But it is totally depends on your open mind and your heart to see and accept the proof as the truth.



Edited by semar
Salam/Peace,

Semar

"We are people who do not eat until we are hungry and do not eat to our fill." (Prophet Muhammad PBUH)

"1/3 of your stomach for food, 1/3 for water, 1/3 for air"
Back to Top
jalillah View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar
Joined: 10 April 2005
Location: Antarctica
Status: Offline
Points: 77
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jalillah Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 April 2005 at 10:47pm
enjeel is your question...is there any good one you've asked??? "NO not even a bad one ...but the change is the understanding of Gods words of the script and their is a problem due to many intervention of peoples so called opinion but every thing about god words is missed understood because people always focus on the obvious answer or solution to things they can't or wont understand and their was a slight problems due to the past in regards to the text specially about the Dead sea scroll went missing and now was found but still the public is refused to be told the containment of that scroll that would help all believer of the scripture. and now is in the hands of a very rich jews.
May Allah Bless those who seek the truth......Allah Stands Alone in truth..
Back to Top
tawhid View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar
Joined: 28 March 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 82
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tawhid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 April 2005 at 1:53am

Originally posted by jalillah jalillah wrote:

and their was a slight problems due to the past in regards to the text specially about the Dead sea scroll went missing and now was found but still the public is refused to be told the containment of that scroll that would help all believer of the scripture. and now is in the hands of a very rich jews.

 

source and proof of your statement please

Back to Top
femme View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar
Joined: 21 March 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 9
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote femme Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 April 2005 at 3:13am
Originally posted by tawhid 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.
Back to Top
rbaitz View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 25 March 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rbaitz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 April 2005 at 5:31pm

Semar,

Have you read my post concerning the so called "Changes in the Bible? If not please read over, I would like to hear what you think.

Robin

Back to Top
rbaitz View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 25 March 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rbaitz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 April 2005 at 6:13pm

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
Back to Top
AhmadJoyia View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 20 March 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 1647
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AhmadJoyia Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 April 2005 at 6:35am

Bro Rbaitz

Do you know about the authors of the different books of Bible. Except St. Paul who else do you thing wrote these books and who were they with relationship to Jesus? Just to give you a clue, the famous gospel according to John, is now being called as the "fourth gospel" among the modern christian shcolars and do you know why is it? Simply because the author of this book is anonymous. Also, I see Bro Tawhid raising the question of "Quranic Injeel" again and again in every other forum or thread, but he either don't know or refuse to answer this question that I have been asking him almost after every post he makes. Hopefully, the question of corruption in Bible would be resolved only after the authenticity of the Bible is first established as to which Bible are we talking about.

Back to Top
rbaitz View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 25 March 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 28
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rbaitz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 April 2005 at 1:57pm

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 2nd 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

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 5>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.