IslamiCity.org Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > Religion - Islam > Interfaith Dialogue
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Where is the Injeel?  What is Islam What is Islam  Donate Donate
  FAQ FAQ  Quran Search Quran Search  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Where is the Injeel?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 78910>
Author
Message
Niblo View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar
Male Islam
Joined: 01 September 2016
Location: Leeds; UK
Status: Offline
Points: 58
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Niblo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 September 2018 at 7:32am
Originally posted by Zach aka c00lest Zach aka c00lest wrote:

The Injeel is the equivalent of The Gospel or Good news. About what? About ''Gods Kingdom''.   
The Good News of Gods Kingdom is not given to Jesus, it's ABOUT Jesus. 
It looks like Allah, or the prophet Muhammad, had no clue of what the Good News of Gods Kingdom, aka know as the Gospel/Injeel actually really means. A HUGE mistake.


The word ‘ʾInjīl’ is translated ‘Gospel’ by those writing in English. However, in the Qur’an this word is always in the singular, and is never used to describe the four Gospels of the New Testament. The consensus among biblical scholars today is that these were not written by the persons named on the covers.

The Church Father Irenaeus (writing around 180-185 CE) was the first to name the four ‘approved’ Gospels of the Church: ‘Matthew’, ‘Mark’, ‘Luke’ and John’. The reason he did so was to distinguish these anonymous works from the many other gospels existing within the early Christian community; and which were said to have been written by actual disciples of Yeshua (Thomas; Peter; and Philip are examples). These unapproved works contained theological matters regarded as heretical by the Church. The solution was to attribute to each ‘approved’ Gospel the name of an authoritative figure. The rest, as they say, is history.

Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) says: ‘We sent Yeshua, son of Mary, in their footsteps, to confirm the Taurāt that had been sent before him: We gave him the ʾInjīl with guidance, light, and confirmation of the Taurāt already revealed - a guide and lesson for those who take heed of Allāh.’ (Al-Ma’ida: 46).

It is quite clear from this verse that Yeshua was given the ʾInjīl as a complete Book; how else could it have been ‘a guidance, light and confirmation of the Taurāt already revealed’?

That the four Gospels were written decades after the lifetime of Yeshua (radi Allahu ‘anhu) – by anonymous authors who never met him – is proof positive that they cannot be the ‘ʾInjīl’ mentioned in the Qur’an.

It is possible that certain passages of today’s Gospels contain something of the ʾInjīl: the Sermon on the Mount, for example; or Yeshua’s confirmation that he was sent only to the ‘lost sheep of Israel’ (Matthew 15: 24); or his confirmation that he did come to abolish the Law of Moses or the writings of the prophets; but to ‘accomplish their purpose.’ (Matthew 5: 7); namely, to draw these ‘lost sheep of Israel’ back into the fold of Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla); and to help them remain there.
'Sometimes, silence is the best answer for a fool.' (Alī ibn Abī Tālib‎)
Back to Top
2Acts View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 22 March 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 143
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote 2Acts Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 September 2018 at 11:32pm
Originally posted by Niblo Niblo wrote:

Originally posted by Zach aka c00lest Zach aka c00lest wrote:

The Injeel is the equivalent of The Gospel or Good news. About what? About ''Gods Kingdom''.   
The Good News of Gods Kingdom is not given to Jesus, it's ABOUT Jesus. 
It looks like Allah, or the prophet Muhammad, had no clue of what the Good News of Gods Kingdom, aka know as the Gospel/Injeel actually really means. A HUGE mistake.


The word ‘ʾInjīl’ is translated ‘Gospel’ by those writing in English. However, in the Qur’an this word is always in the singular, and is never used to describe the four Gospels of the New Testament. The consensus among biblical scholars today is that these were not written by the persons named on the covers.

The Church Father Irenaeus (writing around 180-185 CE) was the first to name the four ‘approved’ Gospels of the Church: ‘Matthew’, ‘Mark’, ‘Luke’ and John’. The reason he did so was to distinguish these anonymous works from the many other gospels existing within the early Christian community; and which were said to have been written by actual disciples of Yeshua (Thomas; Peter; and Philip are examples). These unapproved works contained theological matters regarded as heretical by the Church. The solution was to attribute to each ‘approved’ Gospel the name of an authoritative figure. The rest, as they say, is history.

Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla) says: ‘We sent Yeshua, son of Mary, in their footsteps, to confirm the Taurāt that had been sent before him: We gave him the ʾInjīl with guidance, light, and confirmation of the Taurāt already revealed - a guide and lesson for those who take heed of Allāh.’ (Al-Ma’ida: 46).

It is quite clear from this verse that Yeshua was given the ʾInjīl as a complete Book; how else could it have been ‘a guidance, light and confirmation of the Taurāt already revealed’?

That the four Gospels were written decades after the lifetime of Yeshua (radi Allahu ‘anhu) – by anonymous authors who never met him – is proof positive that they cannot be the ‘ʾInjīl’ mentioned in the Qur’an.

It is possible that certain passages of today’s Gospels contain something of the ʾInjīl: the Sermon on the Mount, for example; or Yeshua’s confirmation that he was sent only to the ‘lost sheep of Israel’ (Matthew 15: 24); or his confirmation that he did come to abolish the Law of Moses or the writings of the prophets; but to ‘accomplish their purpose.’ (Matthew 5: 7); namely, to draw these ‘lost sheep of Israel’ back into the fold of Allāh (subḥānahu ūta'āla); and to help them remain there.

Gospel simply means “good news” and actually the term “ Gospel “ is singular so you are wrong. And Injeel is the Arabic translation of “good news” so obviously its referring to the same thing.  You are wrong that consensus amongst scholars is that they were not written by the persons named. John and Luke were obviously written by John and Luke. Its pretty obvious Mark wrote Mark. Mathew is a little more problematic but at the end of the day none of this is important as all four accounts are based on were witness accounts and written within the time of that generation while still living.

You are wrong that Ireneaus was the first to name the first approved Gospels. The canon was in formation even before him as the Diatessaron and Muratorian fragment demonstrate.

The four canon books of Mathew, Luke. John and Mark were always considered canon, unlike the other accounts you mention which were written later and were forgeries.

You say Jesus was given the Injel as a complete book. Obviously not. Where is this “mysterious” book now ? and besides  the Qur'an claims the Torah and the Gospel as referring to the books which the Jews and Christians possessed at the time of Muhammad.

Those who follow the Messenger (Mohammed), the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them (7:157 MP).

And when there cometh unto them (Jews) a Scripture (the Qur'an) from Allah, confirming that in their possession (2:89 MP).

Muhammad lived during the 6th/7th century A.D. We have Bibles from before, during and after this time. This archaeological evidence allows us to be sure that the Torah and Gospel mentioned in the Qur'an are the same books that are found in the Bible today.

You ask “how else could it have been ‘a guidance, light and confirmation of the Taurāt already revealed’ to Jesus? The answer is obviously -by direct revelation.

Besides your Quran in 10. 94 states If you have any doubts in the Quran which I give you go and read the Bible or ask those who read the Bible. So if you have any doubts simply take the Christian view as truth as  according to your Quran you have no place to doubt the revelation and reliability of the Gospels.

You are wrong that the four gospels were written decades after the lifetime of Yeshua. It is obvious they are eye witness accounts compiled by followers of Jesus in the same generation in which Jesus was part of. You accept your hadiths do you not? Well the Gospels compare far better than the best of your hadiths in compilation being at the time of the eye witness generation.

You and other Muslims simply pick and choose what ever Bible verses suit your argument with no validity to do so. If you are concerned about the reliability of scripture I suggest you worry about the Quran. You have no original copies because Uthman burnt them all as different copies disagreed with each other. And the earliest Quran found in Sanaa in the 1970s proves the Quran Muslims have today is not reliable.

So the rest is history.

Back to Top
ovibos View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 14 September 2016
Status: Offline
Points: 34
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ovibos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 December 2018 at 8:20pm
Originally posted by Zach aka c00lest Zach aka c00lest wrote:

The Injeel is the equivalent of The Gospel or Good news. About what? About ''Gods Kingdom''.   
The Good News of Gods Kingdom is not given to Jesus, it's ABOUT Jesus. 
It looks like Allah, or the prophet Muhammad, had no clue of what the Good News of Gods Kingdom, aka know as the Gospel/Injeel actually really means. A HUGE mistake.
Why the gospel is called the good news? Because it contains good news!
To whom the gospel is preached? To the poor (Luke 4:18, Matthew 11:5, Luke 7:22)

How did Jesus preach good news to the poor? In Sermon on the Mount and Sermon on the Plain. 
The very first line of the sermon is the good news to the poor: "Blessed are the poor, for yours is the Kingdom of Heaven". So, that's how the Injeel (the Good News) got its name.

Originally posted by DavidC DavidC wrote:

I would define the Injeel to a Muslim as the Shariah of the prophet Jesus. Not a book, 
I'm a muslim, and I agree with you. Injeel is not necessarily a book in a written form. It's more like a speech or sermon which contains some rules and obligations (the do's and the don'ts)

Originally posted by Angela Angela wrote:

If there is an Injeel.  Bring it forth.....if you can't, tell me why God would allow the message destroyed when he had it in his power to preserve it, knowing that it would lead billions into Shirk?

Show me the original Q Gospel, and I will show you the Injeel .... :)


Originally posted by AnnieTwo AnnieTwo wrote:

The "injeel" is the Gospel or the Good News.

The Injeel is in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  God's message was not destoryed.  God did and does have the power to preserve His Holy Word.  Those who say that He didn't make God look weak and ineffectual.  

In my opinion, Injeel can be found in Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark nor John.
Back to Top
SwineOnUCrazyDiamond View Drop Down
Starter.
Starter.

Male christian
Joined: 27 January 2020
Location: US
Status: Offline
Points: 1
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SwineOnUCrazyDiamond Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 January 2020 at 1:14pm

I have spoken to a lot of Muslims online, and our conversation always seems to land on 2 things:

1) if the Torah, Psalms, other OT scripture is corrupted then where is the evidence from scholarly Textual Criticism that these books are corrupt?

2) If the 4 Gospels (Matt/Mark/Luke/John – Jesus prophecy for crucifixion and resurrection, actual crucifixion and then actual resurrection) are not representative of the Gospel as understood by Christians then where is this Injeel “Gospel”?

I know many of you will point to corruption of Christian and Judaic scripture here, but research shows that the corruption of these Christian scriptures are primarily (99%)

a) notes from copies that are added (additions) by scribes in later copies

b) misspellings

c) dropped words

d) repeated words

e) synonyms

…etc.

 

My question is WHERE IS THE INJEEL IF THE GOSPELS ARE NOT THE INJEEL???

 

Also, why did Jesus

 

  1. Accept worship from disciples and believers as only God should do?
  2. Forgive sins, as only God can do?
  3. Augment the Law?
  4. Produce a New (blood) Covenant which only God should do?
  5. Share glory with God?
  6. Met Abraham?

    …and many other blasphemous thing Jesus did if he were not divine. BUT mainly…

 

WHERE IS THE INJEEL!?!?!?!?!?

Back to Top
asep garutea View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar
Male Islam
Joined: 18 January 2019
Location: Indonesia
Status: Offline
Points: 281
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote asep garutea Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 February 2020 at 8:02am
Originally posted by SwineOnUCrazyDiamond SwineOnUCrazyDiamond wrote:

I have spoken to a lot of Muslims online, and our conversation always seems to land on 2 things:

1) if the Torah, Psalms, other OT scripture is corrupted then where is the evidence from scholarly Textual Criticism that these books are corrupt?

2) If the 4 Gospels (Matt/Mark/Luke/John – Jesus prophecy for crucifixion and resurrection, actual crucifixion and then actual resurrection) are not representative of the Gospel as understood by Christians then where is this Injeel “Gospel”?

I know many of you will point to corruption of Christian and Judaic scripture here, but research shows that the corruption of these Christian scriptures are primarily (99%)

a) notes from copies that are added (additions) by scribes in later copies

b) misspellings

c) dropped words

d) repeated words

e) synonyms

…etc.

 

My question is WHERE IS THE INJEEL IF THE GOSPELS ARE NOT THE INJEEL???

 

Also, why did Jesus

 

  1. Accept worship from disciples and believers as only God should do?
  2. Forgive sins, as only God can do?
  3. Augment the Law?
  4. Produce a New (blood) Covenant which only God should do?
  5. Share glory with God?
  6. Met Abraham?

    …and many other blasphemous thing Jesus did if he were not divine. BUT mainly…

 

WHERE IS THE INJEEL!?!?!?!?!?

The original Injeel has been gone since 325 AD


Back to Top
DavidC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar
Male Christian
Joined: 20 September 2001
Location: Florida USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2474
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DavidC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 February 2020 at 12:49pm
In 325 Constantine needed an agreed upon codex suited for public worship throughout his empire, so a council was called to put the Christian Bible together.  

There was very little discussion regarding which texts were to included.   Asep pointed out how the word typically translated as ‘corruption’ seems to refer to poor interpretation and teaching, snd that is difficult to dispute.

The hadith (ref:Ling) show how Ebionite and Nestorian Christianities were extant in Muhummad’s sphere of influence.  Both were considered heretical by Constantine’s church, so church history and the Qu’ran are not inconsistent on this point.
Christian; Wesleyan M.Div.
Back to Top
asep garutea View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar
Male Islam
Joined: 18 January 2019
Location: Indonesia
Status: Offline
Points: 281
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote asep garutea Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 February 2020 at 6:28pm
Originally posted by DavidC DavidC wrote:

In 325 Constantine needed an agreed upon codex suited for public worship throughout his empire, so a council was called to put the Christian Bible together.  

There was very little discussion regarding which texts were to included.   Asep pointed out how the word typically translated as ‘corruption’ seems to refer to poor interpretation and teaching, snd that is difficult to dispute.

The hadith (ref:Ling) show how Ebionite and Nestorian Christianities were extant in Muhummad’s sphere of influence.  Both were considered heretical by Constantine’s church, so church history and the Qu’ran are not inconsistent on this point.
Yes DavidC, in the history of Injeel that I read, at the Nicene trial there were debates and disagreements, especially the things that are quite basic about the divinity and prophecy of Jesus, which is about aqidah (the creed).

At the hearing, as many as 2048 bishops were present including discussing disagreements about the Prophet Jesus.
As many as 1730 people have agreed that Jesus was an ordinary human being sent by God, as stated by the Arius group, and 318 people said that Jesus was the Son of God, and this opinion was supported by the church from Alexandria which was chaired by Bishop named Athanasius.

At that time, the King Constantine supported the minority group in order to protect his political rights from being influenced and fall into the hands of those who thought that Jesus was a human being who was appointed to be a messenger of God. Besides that, King Constantine and his people had a tradition of worshiping the sun god. With his power, then came some changes or additions to Injeel.

When Commander Titus announced that the territory of Jerusalem and its surroundings was controlled by the Roman empire, such area was given the name: "Aeliae Capitolae".

Since 70 AD the Jews were not permitted to enter the territory of Aeliae Capitolae. This is known in Jewish history as the Great Diaspora (the period of Jewish dispersion without a homeland).

The first small group of followers of Jesus (Early Christians) who escaped to the city of Pella (across the Jordan River) is known as the Ebionites sect which has its own Injeel (Ebionite Gospel), and its contents are different from the Gospels that exist today. And what is developing now is a new group of followers of Paul's teachings known as Gentile Christians.


Back to Top
DavidC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar
Male Christian
Joined: 20 September 2001
Location: Florida USA
Status: Offline
Points: 2474
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DavidC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 February 2020 at 9:01pm
I am not a historian my friend Asep but that seems close enough.

My point is once Christianity became the state religion of Rome the formerly private groups became public as Romans from other backgrounds now came for public worship.

Less a theological event and more of a political one.
Christian; Wesleyan M.Div.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 78910>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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