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  <1 2345>
Author
Message
Laurie View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 20 March 2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 7
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Laurie Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 April 2005 at 2:46am

Thank you most sincerely Ahmad Joyia for your timely & succinct reply.  As I said in an earlier reply I am now going back to do some months of research into the Islamic faith vide the Quran & recorded history.  The above are my feelings at this time however they lack any substantial knowledge of the topic.  Therefore back to the books and see if I can make a fair dinkum assessment of it all and then I may be able to appreciate, more knowingly, the passion and fervour devout Muslims display about their faith.

Perhaps all I know at this time is that there is only ONE GOD but many paths.

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: 19 April 2005 at 4:06pm
there is such as thing as absolute truth. So there cannot be contradictory religions also true. Good books include "The Case For Christ" by Lee Strobel and "The Resurrection" by Hank Haanagraff

Edited by rbaitz
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: 20 April 2005 at 7:49pm

Is there any 1st or 2nd Century manuscripts that support Islam's claim that Jesus never died on a cross, which would also invalidate His claim of resurrection?

One would think that one of the Jews who denied Jesus as the Messiah would have written strongly concerning the lie of the apostles that Jesus rose from the dead because he was never crucified (supposedly). Or even the Romans would have written something saying Jesus was never crucified to quiet the Christians and the spread of Christianity in Rome since it was outlawed and Christians persecuted.

However nothing has ever been written. The best the Jews who rejected their Messiah did do was to say that the apostles stole the body of Jesus. That was their sole argument! Rome and the Jews who rejected Christ had no valid argument against what the apostles eventually suffered and died for, which was their belief that Jesus was the Son of God who did really die on a cross for the sins of the world, and really did rise from the dead proving that He was truly the Son of God who offers salvation as a free gift to all who would believe in Him.

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: 21 April 2005 at 10:55am
Originally posted by rbaitz rbaitz wrote:

Is there any 1st or 2nd Century manuscripts that support Islam's claim that Jesus never died on a cross, which would also invalidate His claim of resurrection?

I really coudn't understand your line of reasoning? You need a written evidence of events of 100 to 200 years after the events occured? Wow! that is amazing. Do you think these anonymous gospels provide some evidence and any absence of evidence contrary to them would legitmize their conjectures to be true. This is more in line with "catching on a straw" than anything else. Before anyone take a stand on these gospels, one has to assure their authenticity. I pray to the God of Jesus to guide all of us to the right path. The path which is not based on conjectures but the path of surity. Amen.

Back to Top
Servetus View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member

Male
Joined: 04 April 2001
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2109
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Servetus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 11:13am

Hi Robin,

It’s nice to catch up with you again. 

Originally posted by You You wrote:

Is there any 1st or 2nd Century manuscripts that support Islam's claim that Jesus never died on a cross, which would also invalidate His claim of resurrection?

Ref:

http://www2.evansville.edu/ecoleweb/articles/docetism.html

I don't know if you will accept them as support, exactly, and, in my experience, Muslims do not cite them as proof, but there are, in fact, early manuscripts and books, not found in the New Testament, which were both written and promulgated by, for lack of a better term, “Christian” groups, now known to Church historians as docetists.  Some early manuscripts with docetic tendencies are found in the recently discovered and published Nag Hammadi Library.  In that collection of books, note, especially, two: The Apocalypse of Peter and The Second Treatise of the Great Seth.  As I understand, docetism appeared early in Christological controversies and one of its doctrinal variants -that which argued that Jesus did not actually have a material, corporeal body- is addressed by St. John in his (first) Epistle, fourth chapter.  

That said, I have noticed that Western Orientalists and Christian apologists, probably including CARM (your link), when writing of Islam and Muhammad, often assert that he took the docetic view.  Muslims, on the other hand, and again from what I have understood, counter that not only the docetists but also the orthodox Catholic (and later Protestant) Christians mixed truth with error, that they are thus and in some respects all heretical, and that the final truth of the matter is revealed in the Quran and is resolved by faith.

That's my book report Smile.

Best regards,

Servetus



Edited by Servetus
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: 21 April 2005 at 5:54pm

Servetus,

Hello. It amazes me that some people would base their beliefs on stories told around the 8th Century or so to be true from that of stories told within the close time as the gospel writers written, but whom also had first hand knowledge and experience to write those true stories.

It has been shown that mythology creeps into stories 150 years after the story takes place. That is why its so important that the gospel writers wrote within such a short period of time because it shows the accuracey of them, which were then copied and copied and copied... until thousands were copied and spread throughout the world. Today we possess over 5000 Greek manuscripts that validate the New Testament we have today is the same way back then.

Last concerning the other writings I heard of some of the bogus writings that tried to creep into the Church, but which the Church didn't accept, one being the Gospel of Barnabas.

Robin

Back to Top
Servetus View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member

Male
Joined: 04 April 2001
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2109
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Servetus Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 April 2005 at 8:40pm

Hi Robin,

Originally posted by You You wrote:

It amazes me that some people would base their beliefs on stories told around the 8th Century or so to be true from that of stories told within the close time as the gospel writers written, but whom also had first hand knowledge and experience to write those true stories.

Well, let's admit it, Faith can be an amazing thing.  For that matter, the at times irrepressible rationalist within me thinks it rather odd that Matthew could continue to report on what Jesus said and did in the garden after the disciples, according to his own admission, had not once but twice fallen fast asleep (Matt. 26:43).  

But seriously [Servetus says, deleting his little winkey face],  I don’t want to get too involved in the “actual” vs. “apparent” crucifixion discussion at this point.  Right now, I am tired of controversy.  I just thought, in response to your question, that you would be interested to review some early manuscripts. 

Best regards,     

Servetus



Edited by Servetus
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: 22 April 2005 at 6:36am
Originally posted by rbaitz rbaitz wrote:

.......... It amazes me that some people would base their beliefs on stories told around the 8th Century or so to be true from that of stories told within the close time as the gospel writers written, but whom also had first hand knowledge and experience to write those true stories.

Well someone has to identify these so called "early gospel writers". Isn't it? If gospel of John is not by the disciple John and gospel of Mathew is not by the disciple Mathew, then who were they who wrote these gospels supposedly under the "influence of holy spirit". Shouldn't this holy spirit may come now to some holy man in present time and tell him about these anonymous writer with some evidential proof?

Originally posted by rbaitz rbaitz wrote:

It has been shown that mythology creeps into stories 150 years after the story takes place. That is why its so important that the gospel writers wrote within such a short period of time because it shows the accuracey of them, which were then copied and copied and copied... until thousands were copied and spread throughout the world.

By the way, who has shown that myth only creeps in after 150 years after the event. I mean, from where this magical number of 150 year come? Myth comes if there are anonymous people relaying anonymous stories to about anonymous generations. e.g. if it is said that "shepards saw the angels coming down from the heaven" then it is one kind of anonymous story without any references even though the one who is telling the story may himself be identifiable. However, if the same story is related as "stephan (or anyone by name who can be identified from history independent of this story) says that he saw the angels coming down from the heavens" then it is totally a different story. More authentic and less mythical. There is whole science of authenticating these stories and every statement (I would even say every word) in these stories carry its own weight to help authenticating them. So if the story is without proper references, I would say, it will not take even a minute (what to talk of 150 years) after it is narrated to lable it nothing but a myth or folk lure story. 

Originally posted by rbaitz rbaitz wrote:

 Today we possess over 5000 Greek manuscripts that validate the New Testament we have today is the same way back then.

This is strange. One may have 100,000 more than mere 5000 Greek manuscripts but is there any one in Jesus's own language? Is it so hard to recognise the truth from this simple and very basic fact?

Originally posted by rbaitz rbaitz wrote:

Last concerning the other writings I heard of some of the bogus writings that tried to creep into the Church, but which the Church didn't accept, one being the Gospel of Barnabas.

Robin

It is this pick and choose done by the selective people (centuries after) who shaped the present state of christian relegion. It is this canonization process that didn't accept anything other than what they thought should be accepted. Not only this, they burned down all other scriptures that they thought were contrary to their doctrine. Though we still see some of them in the form of apocryphal writtings, but who knows what and where is the truth. Ever Lost "Q" gospel may be considered to be one of them that might carried original teachings of Jesus. But the church lost it due to their canonization centuries later.

 

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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