I have seen a HUGE number of circular and unending arguments about the validity of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. 

Now, from what I understand, the Muslims believe that Jesus Christ (pbuh) revealed a book called the Injeel.  Correct? 

Now, given that Moses (pbuh) supposedly wrote the Torah (which included the 1st 5 books of the Old Testament) and that Muhammed (pbuh) wrote down the Quran as it was revealled, why did Christ not write down the Injeel????

Where is this collection of revelations?  Why did God not preserve the words of Moses and Jesus (pbut) like he did the revelations given to Muhammed (pbuh)?

Why is it that God/Allah did not guard all his truths and allowed the confusion to take place to begin with???? 

Why is it that an All Powerful and All Merciful being would not preserve the message of one of his most unique Prophets and creations?

I'm really struggling with this one. 

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?

Dear Angela,

I understand your confusion on the issue of the injeel.  Sorry I can't give you a definitive answer, but perhaps these verses might help you with this part of your inquiry:  "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?"

"If it had been thy Lord's Will, they would all have believed - all who are on earth!  Wilt thou then compel mankind, against their will to believe!"  Qur'an 10:99

"And unto Allah leads straight the Way, but there are ways that turn aside: if Allah had willed, He could have guided all of you."  Qur'an 16:9

"If Allah so willed, He could make you all one People: but He leaves straying whom He pleases: but ye shall certainly be called to account for all your actions."  Qur'an 16:93

I guess what I'm trying to put across to you is the notion that the message is there for everyone and anyone in the Qur'an, but even Allah knew not all would take it to heart.

I would suggest you use the search or Q&A on some reliable Islamic sites to try and find an answer to your injeel question.

Hope this is of some small help to your questions.

Peace, ummziba.

Angela wrote: I have seen a HUGE number of circular and unending arguments about the validity of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  Now, from what I understand, the Muslims believe that Jesus Christ (pbuh) revealed a book called the Injeel.  Correct?

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

Angela wrote: Now, given that Moses (pbuh) supposedly wrote the Torah (which included the 1st 5 books of the Old Testament) and that Muhammed (pbuh) wrote down the Quran as it was revealled, why did Christ not write down the Injeel????

This is already been answered.  Jesus' followers wrote down Jesus' mesage.

Angela wrote: Where is this collection of revelations?  Why did God not preserve the words of Moses and Jesus (pbut) like he did the revelations given to Muhammed (pbuh)?

He did.

Angela wrote: Why is it that God/Allah did not guard all his truths and allowed the confusion to take place to begin with????

He did.

Angela wrote: Why is it that an All Powerful and All Merciful being would not preserve the message of one of his most unique Prophets and creations?

He did.

Angela wrote: I'm really struggling with this one.  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?

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. 

AnnieTwo wrote: 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.  <>Annie

Always factual, never equivocal.  Well stated.

AnnieTwo wrote: Angela wrote: I have seen a HUGE number of circular and unending arguments about the validity of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  Now, from what I understand, the Muslims believe that Jesus Christ (pbuh) revealed a book called the Injeel.  Correct? The "injeel" is the Gospel or the Good News. Angela wrote: Now, given that Moses (pbuh) supposedly wrote the Torah (which included the 1st 5 books of the Old Testament) and that Muhammed (pbuh) wrote down the Quran as it was revealled, why did Christ not write down the Injeel???? This is already been answered.  Jesus' followers wrote down Jesus' mesage. Angela wrote: Where is this collection of revelations?  Why did God not preserve the words of Moses and Jesus (pbut) like he did the revelations given to Muhammed (pbuh)? He did. Angela wrote: Why is it that God/Allah did not guard all his truths and allowed the confusion to take place to begin with???? He did. Angela wrote: Why is it that an All Powerful and All Merciful being would not preserve the message of one of his most unique Prophets and creations? He did. Angela wrote: I'm really struggling with this one.  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? 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.  <>Annie

AMEN, Annie, AMEN!!  Exactly correct.

May the Peace of the Lord be with You Always.....

Aquinian wrote: AnnieTwo wrote: 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.  <>Annie  Always factual, never equivocal.  Well stated.

Very true, Aquinian....very accurate and well stated!

Peace be with you.....

Angela,

Injeel is my territory. I have done a lot of research on it, becoming almost an expert on detection of Jesus' Injeel. But first sweet salvo: Injeel is not Gospels!

Here is a clue. The answer is in Annie's post.  This is the first time that I am agreeing with Annie but I am not sure if Annie will agree with me on what I write later.

Please bear with me for a few hours. Once I finish my work, Annie will rejoice in what I write.  Then all can rejoice together.

bmzsp wrote: Here is a clue. The answer is in Annie's post.

is this it, bmz ?

AnnieTwo wrote: The Injeel is in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  God's message was not destoryed. <>Annie

Angel,

"is this it, bmz ?

That is the clue, Angel.

"The Injeel is in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Annie"

If I were to write that, which I will do later, I would have written," The Injeel can be found in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John."  But we must keep in mind that the Gospels are not Injeels.

Please mark my words "the Gospels" are not "Injeels". There has to be only one Injeel. Are you with me on this point? I know you are.

Please stay tuned. However, you may elaborate, if you wish. Cheers.

I'm looking forward to your elloboration.  The statement that the Injeel is in the Gospels but not the Gospels is kinda a cop out.  (sorry sweetie)  Why would any being allow for his message to be corrupted so? 

Many muslims argue with me on the Gospels because they were written anywhere from 20-100 years after the Crucifixion, they are complete fabrications. 

Its very upsetting.  The whole basis of Islam is that the Truth was lost from Moses and from Jesus (pbut).  That their scriptures were corrupted.

If this is the case, why did he not preserve them in the "same" manner he's preserving the Quran.

AnnieTwo wrote: Angela wrote: Now, given that Moses (pbuh) supposedly wrote the Torah (which included the 1st 5 books of the Old Testament) and that Muhammed (pbuh) wrote down the Quran as it was revealled, why did Christ not write down the Injeel???? This is already been answered.  Jesus' followers wrote down Jesus' mesage.

So did Muhammed's (pbuh) companions.  They wrote down while he revealed.  So, why did Jesus (pbuh) not direct his followers to do the same????

Angela,

From you:"

So did Muhammed's (pbuh) companions.  They wrote down while he revealed.  So, why did Jesus (pbuh) not direct his followers to do the same????"

This is in itself another good question. I will try to incorporate this question in my reply later. Thanks.

Angela wrote: I'm looking forward to your elloboration.  The statement that the Injeel is in the Gospels but not the Gospels is kinda a cop out.  (sorry sweetie)  Why would any being allow for his message to be corrupted so?

Sounded like a copout to me or a little play with words.

Angela wrote: Many muslims argue with me on the Gospels because they were written anywhere from 20-100 years after the Crucifixion, they are complete fabrications.

All the gospels except John's were written prior to 70AD.  When your Muslim friends tell you this, point out to them that the Qur'an was not put into book form in the lifetime of their prophet.  It took 22 or 23 years to write.

Angela wrote: Its very upsetting.  The whole basis of Islam is that the Truth was lost from Moses and from Jesus (pbut).  That their scriptures were corrupted.

And they are wrong.  There is no verse in the Qur'an that says that.

Angela wrote: If this is the case, why did he not preserve them in the "same" manner he's preserving the Quran.

He did.

[/QUOTE=Angela]

This is already been answered (to Mishmish.  I gave her an article to read on this subject.)  Jesus' followers wrote down Jesus' mesage.

So did Muhammed's (pbuh) companions.  They wrote down while he revealed.  So, why did Jesus (pbuh) not direct his followers to do the same???? [/QUOTE]

What makes you think he didn't?  When Jesus told his disciples to go and preach the gospel to all nations, do you think he meant that it would be an oral gospel for all time?  Or do you think that Jesus expected or even asked his disciples to write down his message so others could read it and preach it also?

BMZ wrote: Angel, "is this it, bmz ? AnnieTwo wrote: The Injeel is in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  God's message was not destoryed. Annie  That is the clue, Angel. "The Injeel is in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Annie" If I were to write that, which I will do later, I would have written," The Injeel can be found in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John."  But we must keep in mind that the Gospels are not Injeels. Please mark my words "the Gospels" are not "Injeels". There has to be only one Injeel. Are you with me on this point? I know you are. <>Please stay tuned. However, you may elaborate, if you wish. Cheers.

You will find Jesus' Gospel/good news noted in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Bismillah irrahman irrahim

Assalamu alaikum

I think to properly understand it we have to start from the start, Allah swt created humans to see who follows the right path. He gave us free will. Another side point could have been to show the importance of hidden motives of creatures i.e. shaytan, how he was very noble but that was not his true colour.  Now if we say that Allah swt lets us indulge in wrong but if He was Most Merciful, He would not, be a wrong way of thinking.  This whole idea would negate the idea of free will and a reward at the end for choosing the right path. 

Another point is this life is a test. Every body knows there is some sort of difficulty involved when you use this word. Succession of Messengers (as) was a test as it is hard on self to admit that what i have got is not useful anymore. So you leave what you grow to love which is also hard. We are told that shaytan asked permission to lead us astray and it was given. Now best way for doing this would be corrupt the minds of nobles and people in authority. Now those people changed what did not suite them and Allah swt let it happen due to the fact that there were still Messengers (as) coming. Allah swt let it happen because if a law in its true form is still among the people of earth then there is no point sending another Prophet (as) with new laws. 

The true teaching did not totally disappear as there were many christians who embrased islam as soon as they became aware of it, that was completion of their belief because they were told about coming of Last Prophet (saw) and following him. 

Now reason why Holy Quran is guarded against any evil is because its the last divine book. There is no book or message coming after this, so our Lord being Most Merciful made sure that true guidance stays out till the last day.  Allah swt says that He does not give the wrong doers an excuse against Him, so thats why Holy Quran stays in its original form. 

I cant comment on whether injeel in its original form was written down or not because we are not been told of this in Holy Quran or Ahadith. Even if it was written down, maybe follower of Isa (as) had to hide it to protect it ofcourse. I am saying this because if people against Isa (as) were so strong that they killed the person who they thought was Isa (as), they would have surely done damage to the Book as well.

Believe me sister sending Prophets (as) one after the other is also a test as i already said. Thats where whispering of shaytan come in. Its natural to have pride in your belonging but Allah swt wants to see what is more dearer to you.

I pray that may Allah swt help you in your quest and guide you to straight path and His pleasure inshaAllah cos i know thats what you are looking for. ameen 

wassalam

Sister annie, you are mistaken, Holy Quran was put in the form of a book within the first two years of the passing of Sayyidina Muhammad (saw)

Holy Quran does mention the distortion of the previous Books, give me some time I will inshaAllah post them

Fatima you said:

>>>>I think to properly understand it we have to start from the start, Allah swt created humans to see who follows the right path. He gave us free will.<<<<<

Perhaps your iitial premise here is bad....First off Why would God create life forms to see who would follow him? He knows which of those life forms that would follow him.....?

so Allah swt knew in His complete knowledge the mindset of shaytan but shaytan was being a perfect slave. So would that have been just to punish shaytan because Allah knew the hidden motives. He gives everyone a chance to choose the good,

Now it is second Ayah of Surah Mulk that Allah swt created life and death to see which of you do rightous deeds. How is that negative brother?

Angela, I have not elaborated yet. I have not even said much. Please bear with me. There is no cop out.

For 50 years or so there were no gospels. Only Paul's letters were flying around. Qur'aan was already in the hearts and minds of Prophet's companions, while what Jesus preached was not even memorised in the hearts of his disciples at all. They had narrated to others who had narrated to some others till there were so many gospels written by many people. 

In case of Qur'aan, whether it took 5 years or 150 years or 500 years, it was written down with all verses as revealed to Muhammad. Qur'aan was not written down by various authors telling stories.

So much was written by men that the preaching and teachings of Jesus became like "salt in the flour" and more gospels were neeeded to find what he taught. Men who wrote the gospels are not even known by their real names and identities. No one truly knows who wrote what and for who. Matthew wrote for Matthew, Luke wrote for Peter, John wrote for John or Paul. No one knows. Even Christian scholars agree on this.

Can we believe that,"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning." this was taught and preached by Jesus? This was the view of John, not Jesus. Hence, we can say that this was not the Injeel.

Injeel is what Jesus taught and preached. Jesus only preached and taught. What did he teach? He taught the Torah. The Book Torah was his book. What Jesus taught and preached is the Injeel, a knowledge full of wisdom, that was given to him by God.

When we read the statement,"Thou shall worship only thy Lord God.", we know that was spoken by Jesus and we accept it as Injeel. The entire stories written about him and the people are not what he taught. As such they cannot be Injeel.

His followers never bothered to write it down during his short ministry. After he was long gone, then it started by Paul taking the lead role as fast as he could, by circulating his letters. Only then people realised and started writng but men's messages grew in size more than the messages and teachings of Jesus. Initially it was all oral teachings and everyone had some parchments but not the entire teachings. One can see serious differences among Paul, Barnabas and the elders at Jerusalem.

Had people followed his true teachings and preachings, there would not have been any need for so many gospels to have been written by many and there would have been no need to have even four gospels canonised.

In short, the gospels do contain the teachings and preaching of Jesus but they contain more material from men.

That is why, all Hadith literature was kept away from Qur'aan to make sure that the Word of God did not get mixed with the words of men.

Angel, hope you are reading this.  And Angela, I hope you got me right this time!

Fatima,

So God gives everyone a chance even though he KNOWS in the future that they will do bad? So if God knows I'm going to wreck my car why would he give me a chance to prove him wrong by not getting into an accident?  Sorry to throw this off topic but I'm astonished at your belief

brother you a finite being, a creation can never prove infinite creator wrong.

Allah swt through His Mercy gives every one a chance but Him being All knowing know the result, does that make sense to you

DavidC wrote: I also think Fatima's assumption obout life being a test of some kind is wrong.  I think it's a training level for the afterlife; a chance to improve our condition through hard work and practice.

David, of course you can believe as you wish, but, for Muslims, Allah is very clear about this life being a test.  Here are just a few verses from the Qur'an where Allah tells us this is so:

"And most certainly shall We try you by means of danger, and hunger, and loss of wordly goods, of lives and of (labour's) fruits.....Qur'an 2:155

"And know ye that your possessions and your progeny are but a trial; and that it is Allah with whom lies your highest reward."  Qur'an 8:28

"Behold, We have willed that all beauty on earth be a means by which We put men to a test, (showing) which of them are best in conduct."  Qur'an 18:7

"Every soul shall have a taste of death: and We test you by evil and by good by way of trial.  To Us must ye return."  Qur'an 21:35

"Do men think that they will be left alone on saying, 'we believe', and that they will not be tested?"  Qur'an 29:2

Hope this helps you see why Muslims do believe this life is a trial/test.

Peace, ummziba.

bmzsp wrote: For 50 years or so there were no gospels. Only Paul's letters were flying around. Qur'aan was already in the hearts and minds of Prophet's companions, while what Jesus preached was not even memorised in the hearts of his disciples at all. They had narrated to others who had narrated to some others till there were so many gospels written by many people.

Acutally, it was more like 20 years, not fifty.  The Gospels date from around 50-60AD for the earliest, the Crucifixion was around 26-34 AD depending on your accepted date of the birth of Christ.  The original Apostles would have still been alive at this time.  Not just Paul, mind you, but Peter, James, John, Simon the Zealot, Andrew, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, James the Younger, Thaddeus, Matthias.  Some of them were executed, but not all.  Wouldn't you think they would have countered Paul's claim if they were not taught the same thing???

BMZ wrote: Men who wrote the gospels are not even known by their real names and identities. No one truly knows who wrote what and for who. Matthew wrote for Matthew, Luke wrote for Peter, John wrote for John or Paul. No one knows. Even Christian scholars agree on this.

Most scholars agree only that there were many scriptures attributed to the teachers of the authors.  However, if not by the hand of those Apostles but by their students.  Jesus ordered them to go forth and teach.  I don't think they all went forth teaching the same doctrine and yet all had it wrong.

BMZ wrote: Can we believe that,"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning." this was taught and preached by Jesus? This was the view of John, not Jesus. Hence, we can say that this was not the Injeel.

You can't pick and chose just because it agrees or disagrees with later doctrines.  My Church gets accused of this all the time, but its like this...if you throw out part, you must throw out all.  Because if you want to accept part ONLY because it agrees with you, then you're not using the empirical data properly. 

I would use the example of the Epistle of Barnabas (an apostle) and the Gospel of Barnabus (a 15th century forgery).  There are HUGE errors and very hard evidence of its date.  The two works are often confused and the latter dispite its proven forgery is used as evidence because it supports a theory.  This defies all archeological standards.

BMZ wrote: His followers never bothered to write it down during his short ministry. After he was long gone, then it started by Paul taking the lead role as fast as he could, by circulating his letters. Only then people realised and started writng but men's messages grew in size more than the messages and teachings of Jesus. Initially it was all oral teachings and everyone had some parchments but not the entire teachings. One can see serious differences among Paul, Barnabas and the elders at Jerusalem. Had people followed his true teachings and preachings, there would not have been any need for so many gospels to have been written by many and there would have been no need to have even four gospels canonised.

I disagree with this assessment.  The reason they were gathered was much the same reason there are weak Hadiths and strong Hadiths.  The more witnesses and accounts you have of the same event, even with minor differences build for a stronger case.  The reason the Council of Nicea was called was to combat the many heresies that were happening.  By canonizing which books were the most authentic and rejecting the ones that were the most unreliable, they gave the ability for the spreading of the word without worry of Gnostic Heresies and such to leak into the larger Church.  The Bible is largely historical account.  However, if you have 12 witnesses telling one story and 1 witness telling another, who is the jury supposed to believe.

BMZ wrote: That is why, all Hadith literature was kept away from Qur'aan to make sure that the Word of God did not get mixed with the words of men. Angel, hope you are reading this.  And Angela, I hope you got me right this time!

I'm sure you are aware of those that take Hadith as scripture.  The example I use is the stoning of Adulterers.  Its is not in the Quran, anywhere.  However, giving them lashes is very much in the Quran.  No matter how long people have a scripture or how pure it is, there will always be a deviation.  You have Muslims that SWEAR that the punishment for Adultery is stoning, because of a hadith.  They are putting the words of Men higher than the words of God. 

The trick here is the Bible is not like the Quran.  Its not 23 years of revelation to one Prophet, its a collection of Prophets.  Its also part history book.  You're right, to an extent this causes confusions.  However, I have found at times the Quran to be impossible to understand without the historical context of the revelation.  Why would got reveal its permissible to kill traitors?  Because there was a problem with that at the time.  For the most part, the historical context is within the Bible. 

fatima wrote: Sister annie, you are mistaken, Holy Quran was put in the form of a book within the first two years of the passing of Sayyidina Muhammad (saw)

fatima, if it took 22-23 years for all the revelations to be made and another 2 years for it to be put into book form, that is about 25 years after the first revelation.

fatmia wrote: Holy Quran does mention the distortion of the previous Books, give me some time I will inshaAllah post them.

I have read them all and find none that accuses the Jews or Christians of altering the text.

ummziba wrote: David, of course you can believe as you wish, but, for Muslims, Allah is very clear about this life being a test.

Yes, life is a test of sorts.  I'm still just baffled why he would protect one Prophet's word so stringently and allow is other Prophet's words to be twisted.

All is by the power and will of God?  Why would God make is so that a majority of his creations were doomed to hellfire?  What purpose does that serve him?  Wouldn't he want the majority to return to him?

He's perfect, he doesn't need worshippers.  He needs nothing, he is everything.  He doesn't need our prayers, we need him.  He demands there shall be no Gods before him.  So, why allow for the creation of a Prophet through a virgin birth and then allow those teachings to be twisted into giving him a son?  I know he's got a smite button.  He's used it.  Why not strike Paul done for his blasphemy and be merciful to all those he taught?  Why not allow the destruction of the Christians at the hands of their enemies if they were committing the unforgivable sin of Shirk and allow the blasphemy to continue and spread?

As you can see, I'm in a mood today....a very sour mood.  I cannot see how a God of supreme power, love and mercy would intentionally allow for so many of his creations to have to suffer his wrath and burn in hellfire.

BMZ wrote:   Angela wrote: I'm looking forward to your elloboration.  The statement that the Injeel is in the Gospels but not the Gospels is kinda a cop out.  (sorry sweetie)  Why would any being allow for his message to be corrupted so?    Angela, I have not elaborated yet. I have not even said much. Please bear with me. There is no cop out. Angela wrote:   Many muslims argue with me on the Gospels because they were written anywhere from 20-100 years after the Crucifixion, they are complete fabrications.   For 50 years or so there were no gospels. Only Paul's letters were flying around. Qur'aan was already in the hearts and minds of Prophet's companions, while what Jesus preached was not even memorised in the hearts of his disciples at all. They had narrated to others who had narrated to some others till there were so many gospels written by many people.

Not true, BMZ.  All the Gospels with possibly the Gospel of John were written prior to 70AD.  Luke is thought to have been written around 64AD.  If Mark was written first it would have been written prior to 64AD, possibly in the mid-to late 50's.

Jesus' disciples did memorize his sayings.  This was very typical of Jews.  They memorized and recited.

There is some evidence that some of Muhammad's companions did not know all of the verses and could not recite them properly.

Paul's letters were not "flying around."  They were written to specific churches for specific reasons.  There is no evidence that all churches in existence had those letters.

BMZ wrote: In case of Qur'aan, whether it took 5 years or 150 years or 500 years, it was written down with all verses as revealed to Muhammad. Qur'aan was not written down by various authors telling stories.

That has no bearing on its truthfulness.  What you have is the testimony of one man.  Christianity has the testimony of 500 and more.

BMZ wrote: So much was written by men that the preaching and teachings of Jesus became like "salt in the flour" and more gospels were neeeded to find what he taught. Men who wrote the gospels are not even known by their real names and identities. No one truly knows who wrote what and for who. Matthew wrote for Matthew, Luke wrote for Peter, John wrote for John or Paul. No one knows. Even Christian scholars agree on this.

Again, you are historically wrong.  Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Peter's testimony, Luke wrote the testimony of many, John wrote his gospel.  There are no other "gospels" needed to find out what Jesus taught.  Take a look at some of the non-canonical books.  They say that Jesus died on the cross, rose from the dead, was the Messiah, died for our sins and made Jesus more divine that the 4 gospels do.

BMZ wrote: Can we believe that,"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning." this was taught and preached by Jesus? This was the view of John, not Jesus. Hence, we can say that this was not the Injeel.

Yes, we can.  Don't forget that John was an apostle of Jesus'.  They spoke of many things.  It is very evident that Jesus considered himself to be divine in the claims that he made and in the reaction of the Jews who encountered this claim.

BMZ wrote: Injeel is what Jesus taught and preached. Jesus only preached and taught. What did he teach? He taught the Torah. The Book Torah was his book. What Jesus taught and preached is the Injeel, a knowledge full of wisdom, that was given to him by God.

I have already written up some of what Jesus taught.  Cite the verses in the Gospel where Jesus taught the Torah and explain what he taught about the Torah. 

BMZ wrote: When we read the statement,"Thou shall worship only thy Lord God.", we know that was spoken by Jesus and we accept it as Injeel.

Yes, he taught that.  I think it would take about 4 or 5 seconds to say those words.  Do you think he repeated them continually for 3 years and said nothing else?

BMZ wrote: The entire stories written about him and the people are not what he taught. As such they cannot be Injeel.

Such as?  It is very important to know the reactions and thoughts of those who heard him preach.  It is vital.  Besides teaching that he was bringing in the kingdom of God, he taught that he would die and rise again.  He was seen risen by his apostles.  His brother James became a believer after seeing Jesus after he arose from the dead.  Three thousand people because Christians on the day of Pentacost.

BMZ wrote: Angela wrote:   Now, given that Moses (pbuh) supposedly wrote the Torah (which included the 1st 5 books of the Old Testament) and that Muhammed (pbuh) wrote down the Quran as it was revealled, why did Christ not write down the Injeel????   His followers never bothered to write it down during his short ministry.

I think you are again mistaken.  It is inconceivable that Jesus' followers did not write down his sayings and his parables.  Many were scribes and it was there job to write things down.

BMZ wrote: After he was long gone, then it started by Paul taking the lead role as fast as he could, by circulating his letters.

Again you are wrong.  James took the lead.  Paul's letters were written to specific churches based on their needs as said above.

BMZ wrote: Only then people realised and started writng but men's messages grew in size more than the messages and teachings of Jesus.

What?  Now you are making stuff up.

BMZ wrote: Initially it was all oral teachings and everyone had some parchments but not the entire teachings.

Yes, Jesus' gospel was preached orally.  On what historical basis do you claim "everyone had some parchments but not the entire teachings?"

BMZ wrote: One can see serious differences among Paul, Barnabas and the elders at Jerusalem.

Such as?  The apostles in Jerusalem gave Paul and Barnabas their blessings.

BMZ wrote: Had people followed his true teachings and preachings, there would not have been any need for so many gospels to have been written by many and there would have been no need to have even four gospels canonised.

What were Jesus' "true teachings."  He taught that he would die and rise again and he did.  This is recorded in all 4 gospels.  The reason for 4 gospels is that each wrote to a different audience�the same message.  Matthew to the Jews others to the Gentiles, for instance.

BMZ wrote: In short, the gospels do contain the teachings and preaching of Jesus but they contain more material from men.

So what?  The men agreed with Jesus.

BMZ wrote: That is why, all Hadith literature was kept away from Qur'aan to make sure that the Word of God did not get mixed with the words of men.

They why don't you throw out all of the Hadith literature?  Why keep it?  Why read it?

BMZ wrote: Angel, hope you are reading this. And Angela, I hope you got me right this time!

I hope that both read my corrections on your mistakes.

Fatima you misunderstood what I said. Of course I personally know I cannot understand the wisdom of God. Of course I personally know what God will do between 12 mailto:!@:00am - :00am and 8:00pm. However as it is theologically implied, God is the most knowledgable force in the universe. Commenting on Islamic theology, it is understood that God knows everything. He knows the potential, the actual. So my question to you since you are convinced of this theology and since you have shown that you are convinced yourself. How can you say God allows room for change if God knowledge doesn't change? Meaning, since he knows the future and knows what the end result is how does he is there freewill?

We may not know the wisdom of God but since this theology is comprehensible it is consequentially embedded in our minds of the kind of knowledge God may have. This, thus leads us to our position here now concerning the gospels.

Bismillah irrahman irrahim

Assalamu alaikum

sister angela two things we need to remember is the existance of free will on which judgement is going to take place and presence of shaytan. From very start shaytan confused human beings to lead them astray. Humans under his influence changed things from original state. We are told that idolatory started as a form of remembering the noble by making thier statues. Later generation forgot the real purpose behind this and shaytan made it easy for them to accept them as gods. Allah swt being Most Mercifull kept reinforcing to show us the real path. Now there is also an appointed term for the creation after which we have to return to our Lord, The Mos High, for accountibility. So ProphetHood had to a have an ending, so to make things fair, He promised us that He would protect the Last Message.

Now your second point about Isa (as) birth, well again dont you think its a trickery of shaytan that only possible explanation to many people is that naudhubillah he is son of god. Allah swt says in Holy Quran that for Him example of Isa (as) is like that of Adam (as). Allah swt made Adam (as) from dust and He made Hawwa from the rib of Adam. So why this birth of Isa (as) cannot be another example of His Most Perfect ability to create whatever He will, however He wills. Again it was a miracle for people who were very hard to please. So when they see this they believe but again their wrongdoings took them to other extreme.

Now your last point of why not punishing the culprut straighaway to show the right from wrong. Allah swt says is Holy Quran that He gives respite to wrongdoers to see the length of their disbelief and show people that their long life did not help them least. Another thing which i think is quite important is that religion is faith, a belief from the sight of heart. If every part of it would have been undenyable than life would not have been a trial. Water is colourless for every one, no point arguing about that. If Allah swt would have hit the culprits with the punishment then following true teaching of Isa (as) would not have been faith but the aparent, the cerainity.

Lastly I pray that this burning question are result of shaytan's handywork because shaytan only strikes where he thinks a light, a desire of finding the light. Pray that Allah swt leads you to His true guidance, ameen

wassalam

Brother israfil

Allah swt says in Holy Quran, [39:42] Allah takes the souls at the time of their death, and those that die not during their sleep; then He withholds those on whom He has passed the decree of death and sends the others back till an appointed term; most surely there are signs in this for a people who reflect.

And also, '[31:34] Surely Allah is He with Whom is the knowledge of the hour, and He sends down the rain and He knows what is in the wombs; and no one knows what he shall earn on tomorrow; and no one knows in what land he shall die; surely Allah is Knowing, Aware.

Allah swt has also told us in many places in Holy Quran that Sayyidina Muhammad (saw) is the last Prophet. These are only three examples of His perfect knowledge of what to take place. He knows the time of last hour, the appointed term, because he knows how things are going to span out. As He knows how people are going to react to Prophets (as) and when they will currupt the real teachings so when the new teachings are going to be needed.

Now His perfect knowledge and His will dont inhibit our free will. His will is giving us sight and option of able to chose either good or bad. It is upto us what we choose but with His perfect knowledge He knows what we going to choose. Take example of behaviour psychology, even though you present a little child with many options, kids most likely would respond in a manner we would expect. You give them option of watching a cartoon or some documentary, 9 out of 10 is cartoons. This is what us limited, finite beings can predict, who only know through experience, cant really read the mind of a child. Now think about our dear Lord, Most High, He said in Holy Quran that He is closer to us than our jugular vein, He is between us and our heart, He knows what our ownself whispers to us. So why is it strange for you to acknowledge the fact that He knows our choices.

wassalam

Annie,

I have noticed that most of the time you reply as if I am your teacher and you are answering like a child.

Answers, like "He did", "He did not", "say what?", "I am not following you", etc., etc., are considered cop out in my opinion.

You should read my thoughts, which are purely my own as I draft them myself, not just quote from polemic sites. You should be able to analyse them carefully and present serious replies.

My simple point was:

"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.

Thus, if you follow and pick the true statements uttered by Jesus, you can collect the Injeel easily. The "Lost Injeel" has  actually drowned in the seas of the gospels. You talk more of narrations, stories and reports of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John but less of what really came from Jesus' own mouth. 

I rest my case!

David,

Excellent and a thoughtful reply. Thanks for relieving me from the fear that my written English was poor and incomprehensible to some. You got me right.

"I get BMZ's point about the injeel being a subset of the gospels.

I think a starting point might be the Sermon on the Mount, which begins in Matthew 5."

Sermon on the Mount is my favourite.  Plenty of Injeel is there.

"The Quran:
5:46 And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.

Matthew 5:17
Do not think that I have come to do away with or aundo the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to do away with or undo but to complete and fulfill them.
Matt. 5:18 For truly I tell you, until the sky and earth pass away and perish, not one smallest letter nor one little hook [identifying certain Hebrew letters] will pass from the Law until all things [it foreshadows] are accomplished.

This seems to be a point, and a significant one, where the Islamic criterion is useful
Quran 3:3
It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).

The Quran itself states the Gospel is inaccurate in some way, and to use the criterion (Quran) to discern what is valid.  Based on the Sermon on the mount and Quran 5:46 this part of the gospel seems to be a likely candidate for acceptance by Islam. 

Why not start here, and save John 6:40 for another day? "

Rightly said.

Thanks, David for the understanding.

Best Regards

BMZ

Angela wrote: I have seen a HUGE number of circular and unending arguments about the validity of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  Now, from what I understand, the Muslims believe that Jesus Christ (pbuh) revealed a book called the Injeel.  Correct?  Now, given that Moses (pbuh) supposedly wrote the Torah (which included the 1st 5 books of the Old Testament) and that Muhammed (pbuh) wrote down the Quran as it was revealled, why did Christ not write down the Injeel????

Hi Angela.

1) No one actually knows what the injeel was. Moses recieved the Torah, a book that contained laws and instructions, and was required to be written down. There was also an oral component to the Torah, which is contained in the Talmud.

2) Given that no one actually knows the nature of the injeel, it would be mere speculation to try and understand why Jesus did not wrie it.

Was it meant to be written? Did the nature of the revelation require it to be in book format? Was it a message meant only for the Jews?

Angela wrote: Where is this collection of revelations?

As far as the NT goes, it is unknown. many were destroyed, and none of them were actual direct copies.

The Torah is the handiwork of several writers, piecing it together from traditions and oral sources. There are at least two different traditions of the Torah that we know today. It is not in the same form that it was in the beginning. So the Torah exists as a series of books from one of the two traditions.

angela wrote:    Why did God not preserve the words of Moses and Jesus (pbut) like he did the revelations given to Muhammed (pbuh)?

They are preserved, as Gd does not forget.

1) The earthly recording is partially in the care of man.

2) The messages have periods of relevance. The specifics on ritual sacrifice in front of the ark is no longer a relevant bit of info.

Why was Noah's revelation not preserved in the time of Moses?

Angela wrote: Why is it that God/Allah did not guard all his truths and allowed the confusion to take place to begin with????

What confusion? I am not confused? Man brings confusion down upon himself.

angela wrote: Why is it that an All Powerful and All Merciful being would not preserve the message of one of his most unique Prophets and creations?

The same reason the revelation given to Noah was not preserved at the time of Noah. It was no longer relevant.

angela wrote: I'm really struggling with this one.  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?

There was an injeel given to Jesus. We do not know enough about it to make any conclusions. One important question is: Was the injeel relevant to gentiles? Did it only make sense to those who followed the Torah? Just as Noahs revelation was not preserved in the time of Moses. It was not relevant. Gd only gives His people what is relevant.

Peace

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.

bmzsp wrote: "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'll keep silent on this part...as a Mormon, we feel this is a very misunderstood passage.

fatima wrote: So ProphetHood had to a have an ending, so to make things fair, He promised us that He would protect the Last Message.

I don't believe Prophethood must have an ending.  Prophets are the voice of God, they are his representative on Earth.  There have always been Prophets, every nation, kindred and tongue.  Why would God suddenly remove Prophets?  Of course he wouldn't.  God is unchanging, he's not someone who's going to change the rules midstream.  He would preserve his message to all his Prophets.  In the last days, we believe these records will be brought forth by the hand of God.  However, the interpretation thereof, well that's mankinds failing.  Thanks to the divine calling of the Prophets we can know what our Lord wants of us.  This to me is an ongoing process, not one that stopped 1400 years before my birth.

fatima wrote: Now your second point about Isa (as) birth, well again dont you think its a trickery of shaytan that only possible explanation to many people is that naudhubillah he is son of god. Allah swt says in Holy Quran that for Him example of Isa (as) is like that of Adam (as). Allah swt made Adam (as) from dust and He made Hawwa from the rib of Adam. So why this birth of Isa (as) cannot be another example of His Most Perfect ability to create whatever He will, however He wills. Again it was a miracle for people who were very hard to please. So when they see this they believe but again their wrongdoings took them to other extreme.

Please, please, please, don't take this the wrong way, but have you ever considered the opposite?  Satan tried very hard to smash Christianity using the Pagans of the Roman empire.  The early martyrs, from Stephen to Paul died because they fiercely believed that this is what Jesus taught, including his original disciples.  They wen't willingly to their death for this...the men who sat at his feet.  I would think if this was some trickery, they would have faltered and dispersed.  I'm not just talking about Paul (who was not an original disciple)  I'm talking about James, John, Thomas, Bartholomew...etc.

fatima wrote: Lastly I pray that this burning question are result of shaytan's handywork because shaytan only strikes where he thinks a light, a desire of finding the light. Pray that Allah swt leads you to His true guidance, ameen wassalam

I pray this burning question is the result of the Spirit of God working on my heart in a constant search of the truth.  Doubt is the work of the Devil, but questioning with a sincere heart is the work of learning.  Unfortunately, I'm in a fight with one hand tied behind my back.  Because of people like Athanasius, Muslima and other "mainstream" Christians.  I'm only able to argue half of my doctrine.  Thus I can't bring all my points forth. 

Annie:

From you: "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."

Before you go into Shema, etc., and opening of new topics, you have to confirm your acceptance of my argument which no one can deny. I feel there is no need to open new topics. Let's rather finish this one. 

I can give you a week but I can tell you right now that Jesus never thought of himself as The Word of God made flesh. There is no teaching from Jesus on this topic of Word and flesh based on John's theory and ideas. Period. There is nothing in the NT to say or support that Jesus said anything like that. Period.

What I have written earlier is a very Clear, Bold and Big Statement.

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. 

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.

1) Example: 4:163 BEHOLD, We have inspired thee [O Prophet] just as We inspired Noah and all the prophets after him - as We inspired Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and their descendants, including Jesus and Job, and Jonah, and Aaron, and Solomon; and as We vouchsafed unto David a book of divine wisdom;

2) We can derive at least 7 commands given to Noah. These are taken from Genesis, and not the actual writings of his covenant.

DavidC wrote: I have never seen any evidence of your supposition that past revelation was made irrelevant by later revelations.  Quite the opposite � later revelations have always seemed to be clarifications or renewals of the older scripture.

Noah was able to eat pork.

Moses was prohibted.

So what was clarified about Noah being able to eat pork?

DavidC wrote: Do you have any evidence from Qu'ran or hadith that supports your position, or is it a wholly personal view?

I left you with examples.

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

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

Angela wrote: 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.

Your conclusion is based upon the use of an assumption, which also rests at the heart of this thread: The gospel narratives, the copies of copies of copies, which were four out of hundreds, were the actual works that can be attributed to Jesus. This is a huge assumption that you are forcing and basing your conclusion on. There were a lot of works flaoting around at the time of the Prophet, the question that comes to mind is: So what?

angela wrote: 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

Let me defines what "to clarfiy" means.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=clarify - http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va =clarify

1 : to make (as a liquid) clear or pure usually by freeing from suspended matter
2 : to free of confusion
3 : to make understandable

So this should mean that something is made less confusing, less ambiguous, and more understandable.

In this case, "something" is eating pork.

Eating prok was not prohibited, according to Genesis for Noah.

Noah was given law. No law prohibted pork.

Moses was given law.

Moses was prohibited from eating pork.

So we go from, "eating prok" to "not eating pork".

One law allows it, the latter does not. The latter law makes the former law irrelevant, as it addresses a new issue specific for the recipients. 

Calrification would be,

1) The former law prohibiting the drinking of any drink made of fermented grapes.

2) The latter law prohibits all intoxicants.

That would be a clarification. The example we are looking at is no a clarification. It is the prohibition of something that was permissible to another person.  

If you want to try and say that a clarification is a prohibition of something that was permissble before, then you are agreeing with me, and giving it a different word.

Dear Angela,

Why don't you say what Mormons really believe?  Why don't you just say your religion does not believe in the Holy Trinity?  And that you pray only to "Heavenly Father"....your religion does not worship Jesus, they honor him, but do not worship him.  Why not say that Mormons believe in "Heavenly Father" as the god of THIS planet, but that you believe there are many, many other gods who are over the other planets, who were populated with "spirit births"?

I can't stand it.  You try so very hard to "explain" what everyone means, but lack the courage to state what Mormons truly believe.  I have read the Book of Mormon, I know about the Temple IDs, my own cousin and her husband are Mormons, etc.  If you truly embrace your religion, then don't be afraid to tell it like it is. I am not saying this out of any sort of mean-spiritedness, or to be unkind.  I would only like to see you tell the whole truth of your faith and beliefs as a Mormon.  I know you are a very nice lady, but it puzzles me as to why you choose to "shy away" from thruth of your religions' doctrines.

Peace be with you......

DavidC wrote: 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.

Hi David.

We know Noah had a covenant. We know he had laws. One cannot assume that "laws" would not be written. In fact, it makes more sense to assume that he was given something and it was written down, and the Torah touches on parts of that era that were relavant to Moses.

The Quran says that he was inspired as the Prophet Muhammad(saw) was. The Jewish tradition says that NOah had a covenant and law. This is evidence that allows one to conclude with a strong degree of confidence that Noah had a revelation, and it was written.

For the sake of argument, lets say it was not written. There was still a revelaiton with Noah. Noah had laws. If he chose not to write them, then that was his choice. Either way, by the time the Torah was revealed, the laws of Noah were no longer relevant to Moses, and it was not preserved.   

David wrote: The injunction against pork, or in the Islamic case, shellfish, being abrogated are weak hooks upon which to hang the truth.

The case where pork was allowed to one group and not to another is a prime example of one law being contradictory to something that was once premissible. Thats all I need to bring my point home. Just one example. It is not that they are weak hooks to hang the truth, it is more that they are an obstacle to your thesis.

David wrote:   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.

 I have given the forum one example of a law that contradicts a former scripture, which is no longer preserved. That point, as far as I am able to understand, up holds my earlier contribution.

David wrote: 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?

It is too difficult to know if the sermon on the mount is even attributed to Jesus, which is why I normally do not spend much time with topics based upon common verses of the NT with an "implicit" nature.

It is not a tenent of my faith to have to work to find the injeel. I simply know that Jesus had some inspiration. I do not know if it was written, or orally transmitted, and if the message was specifically relevant to gentiles or any other people. Jesus served his purpose to his people.

I do know that the NT today, and of the 3rd century, is not the injeel. I do not find any real benefit in trying to ponder it.

Enjoy the rest of the topic!

Bismillah irrahman irrahim

Assalamu alaikum

Angela you said it absolutely right that Allah swt does not change His sunnah and we are been told of this in Holy Quran as well. But let me remind you that no Prophet (as) was sent to arabs between the time of Ismael (as) and Sayyidina Muhammad (saw). For majority of scholars and historians the time span between Ibrahim (as), father of Ismael (as), and Sayyidina Muhammad (saw) is round about 4000 years. Although through His Mercy He sent Prophets (as) to bani israel in succession, that was not necessarily His sunnah for the rest. So you see not sending a Prophet (as) for 1400 years is not a new thing. I think it is very simple and easy thing to understand that because Allah swt wants to give a fair trial to His creation, He promised to save the Last revelation.

now you yourself explained it beautifuly the concept of word made into flesh. Yes Allah swt said 'be' and Isa (as) was born to a virgin Maryam (as). But the rest of the sentence, you yourself wrote two examples with difference of a word but a big difference to the meaning. Now every one knows that only the red part of your book is attributed to Isa (as). Language of Isa (as) was what? How many different languages is it been translated into? Lastly how do you seperate word of Isa (as) from divine words? I am not sure whether you have read some thing in original language and then its translation or not but I have. And translation always fall short, few many words are used for one term, some times not even the right ones. So how do you know what was the real sentence of 'word was god'?

No one can ever claim an alteration in Holy Quran, we kept Word of Allah swt seperate from even the words of Sayyidina Muhammad (saw). And alhamdulillah those words are safe and at hand in its original language. Allah swt says in Holy Quran,

[ 5:116] And when Allah will say: O Isa son of Marium! did you say to men, Take me and my mother for two gods besides Allah he will say: Glory be to Thee, it did not befit me that I should say what I had no right to (say); if I had said it, Thou wouldst indeed have known it; Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I do not know what is in Thy mind, surely Thou art the great Knower of the unseen things.
[5:117] I did not say to them aught save what Thou didst enjoin me with: That serve Allah, my Lord and your Lord, and I was a witness of them so long as I was among them, but when Thou didst cause me to die, Thou wert the watcher over them, and Thou art witness of all things.

now an interesting point what a translation can do, this one above is by shakir but if you look at the part i highlighted in yusuf ali, he translates it as '"Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, 'worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things'.

But as i said alhumdulillah Holy Quran is present in its original form and thats what sort of gives it away that Allah swt is saving the revelation by keeping its language alive.

wassalam

Fatima you said:

>>>>>Now His perfect knowledge and His will dont inhibit our free will. His will is giving us sight and option of able to chose either good or bad. It is upto us what we choose but with His perfect knowledge He knows what we going to choose. Take example of behaviour psychology, even though you present a little child with many options, kids most likely would respond in a manner we would expect. You give them option of watching a cartoon or some documentary, 9 out of 10 is cartoons. This is what us limited, finite beings can predict, who only know through experience, cant really read the mind of a child. Now think about our dear Lord, Most High, He said in Holy Quran that He is closer to us than our jugular vein, He is between us and our heart, He knows what our ownself whispers to us. So why is it strange for you to acknowledge the fact that He knows our choices.<<<<<<<<

Not trying to derail discussion, only addressing Fatima's comment to me here so please excuse me.

Fatima I have to say your example is quite interesting however it is not always the best example however I appreciate your intent. Honestly the propblem here that I've encountered (which is why I chose to not write my thesis on in Philosophy) is the knowledge of God and Freewill.

God's Knowledge and Freewill are strictly religious/spiritual perspectives of individuals not whole societies however it is important to know how the influences of religious text have on people. If I am made aware that God is All-Knowing and knows what I did in the past, what I'm doing now and what I'm doing in the future there truly is no "Freewill." First let us examine Freewill then examine God's knowledge.

First off, Freewill is an action or movement without external/internal restriction. Freewill is absolute and independent of another influence. This simple definition is established here. God, whom is infinite and contains the maximum abilities (in accordance to the human understanding of what maximum is) such as infinitude, power and the like.

Since God has infinite knowledge on past, present and future its obvious that in order to communicate with his most intelligent crection, that being us he spoke to the prophet in regards to this matter. So now that we know this let us examine past, present and future.

God knows that I washed my car at 10:00am yesterday 6/30/06

Look at Present:

God knew I ironed my clothes at 9:30am 7/1/06

God knows I will graduate Police Academy 8/14/06 at 12:30pm

Looking at this from the secular point of view I am totally unaware that God knew what I did in the past, present and future because I am not equipped with the proper understand ing ofGod's knowledge. Therefore my actions are do not correspond to the knowledge of God and therefore unrestricted due to my ignorance of God's knowledge.

Looking at the religious point of view if I know that God will chastise me for a specific act(s) my actions from thus, do correspond to the knowledge of God because God knows my past, present and future. Although God's knowledge specifically does not change my behavior the fact that there is chastisement for sin which are personal actions of trangression, will influence my behavior. Therefore there is no freewill.

For some people, the problem with the knowledge of God is that if he knows you will end up in Hell there is no room for the imporvement of the individual therefore any action from hence forth is solely nihilistic. From the religious perspective one may act good for a specific time, then later on in life will commit to an act which is spiritually horrific, or something which ultimately violates religious law.

One thing I always say to myself so long as there is law, ther eis no such thing as freewill. How can Islam be freewill if the premise of Islam is Submission? If one understanbds the concept of Free then one cannot make the concept of Free and Submission interchangable either.

Bismillah irrahman irrahim

Assalamu alaikum

Brother you are so rapped up in the absolute truth of philosphy that you are not seeing the straight forward truth infront of you. If philosphy was anything to do with the reality, it would have been sciences.

NOw I put a bright colour paper along side a dull colour like grey and ask a kid to chose. You know what kids go for bright colour, i know that but how am i effecting his dicision? I am not. And you know what you never going to agree with anything that I say. I know that through experience of reading your posts, but how am I having any effect of you never listening? I am not. But your philosphy will prove it some how. Ironic it could never prove itself but khair.

I hope you dont mind but i am not going to reply to any of your comments on this thread. If you want to discuss this particular issue, please open a new thread.

wassalam

Fatima,

I'm not "wrapped" up in philosophy I was merely addressing your comments. I was merely addressing your comments concerning the knowledge of God. I do not wish to get off topic here so therefore like yourself I quit in this process. I'm sorry that my faith in everything I read is steady. If you read my thread "Crisis of Faith" the past judgements against me has caused me to re-evaluate my faith in Islam. Rather read everything and believe everything I read I investigate what I read which in the Qur'an God commands all Muslims to do.

Philosophy is not a science where you sit around and think up things to piss people off. It's a natural investigative science much like a natural science where you need an Observation, Hypothesis, Theory, Communication and Conclusion. Philosophy is the summation of all of these.

I'm sorry if you feel that I'm a critique of your writing. I'm sorry. The fact that I'm reading your posts is that I actually "listening" to you. Please don't think I'm close minded or anything.

Patty,

Elohim is the God of Worlds without Number.  Heavenly Father.  Though we believe there to be other Gods, that is an often mistaken concept.

Frankly, Patty.  There are three main reasons I don't come out and say what Mormon's believe. 

First, every time I have attempted this, non Mormons feel the need to correct me on their misperceptions of what we believe.  You just did that with your own description.  You are not Mormon, you have not been INSIDE the Temple ceremony.  You've read the Book of Mormon, but chances are, you haven't read the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. (where the real doctrine and beliefs are).  I get extremely tired of having to correct people and defend from anti Mormon crap.

Secondly, everytime I start to explain Mormon beliefs, I attract a nutcase like Meng or Athanasius.  I have been harassed unmercifully in the past via PM, Post and Personal emails.  It kinda makes one alot less willing to open up.  It gets really old to be attacked everytime we open up. 

Thirdly, unlike the other Christians (in their own opinion) any attempt to teach only results in the claims were are proselyting and trying to covert.  Therefore, since this is a muslim site, I prefer not to have to deal with those attacks.

I learned several months ago, I'm not allowed to express my faith here.  As the ONLY Mormon on this board, I'm alone in defending myself.  And as a new convert, it puts me at a huge disadvantage. 

But, to answer you're rather flippant question.

We do worship Christ.  However, the Glory goes to the Father, the Son is a servant.  We believe in a Godhead, not a Trinity.  The Holy Spirit is not part of the Son or the Father, the Comforter is his own entity. 

I could get really complicated and explain that Jehovah (Jesus) was the God of the Old Testament acting on behalf of the Father, but then we'd just spiral out of control and next thing I know, I'll have a PM inbox full of evangelical nonsense.  I'd just rather not deal with it.

Dear Angela,

You said,

"But, to answer you're rather flippant question.

We do worship Christ.  However, the Glory goes to the Father, the Son is a servant.  We believe in a Godhead, not a Trinity.  The Holy Spirit is not part of the Son or the Father, the Comforter is his own entity. 

I could get really complicated and explain that Jehovah (Jesus) was the God of the Old Testament acting on behalf of the Father, but then we'd just spiral out of control and next thing I know, I'll have a PM inbox full of evangelical nonsense.  I'd just rather not deal with it."

I honestly don't see my questions to you as in any way "flippant".  They were honest questions about your religion.  Contrary to your opinion as to what I have or have not read, I HAVE read MUCH about Mormonism, and I do know your beliefs. 

You have chosen to be a Mormon (I had no idea this was new to you), but if one choses a certain religion, I have always felt it was important to be faithful to your religion and tell about it exactly like it is.  Since you have previously been Greek Orthodox and Methodist, you also have a basis in those beliefs and often what you state would be true in those religions, but not in the Mormon Church. 

I would certainly never criticize your religion.  I have never criticized any religion....but I have suffered through the sadness of having mine criticized rather harshly.  This is okay with me, because I will always try to reveal what my Church's beliefs are rather than hide them. 

God's Peace.

Patty wrote: You have chosen to be a Mormon (I had no idea this was new to you), but if one choses a certain religion, I have always felt it was important to be faithful to your religion and tell about it exactly like it is.

This is an Islamic site, I'm not here to tell it like it is.  I came here to learn about them.  I try to focus on those things we have in common, rather than the differences.  Also, there is a long standing rule of thumb in the Mormon Church.  Milk before meat.  Since most people here do not read our scriptures, they would not understand the whole doctrine.  So its easier just to not talk about it rather than try to explain it.  Also, opening up to explaination opens that wonderful door for the Antis.  You're Church gets badmouthed, but you have no idea what its like to be Mormon.  At least Catholics are acknowledged as a Christian faith and an acceptable religion.  There are entire throngs of people dedicated to harassing members of my Church.  They twist doctrines or only quote half the doctrine, then accuse us of lying about our beliefs.  Thus, we have to be guarded when we enter interfaith conversations.

Patty wrote: Since you have previously been Greek Orthodox and Methodist, you also have a basis in those beliefs and often what you state would be true in those religions, but not in the Mormon Church.

I have argued several points from a "mainstream" Christian point of view only because of the attacks I received during one of your vacations from here.  However, I usually point out that I'm going to do so before I post the stuff so people know.  But, I'd like you to clarify what you mean by the bold print here.

Angela.

From you: "This is why we believe Muhammed (pbuh) to have been a prophet of God. No one was sent to the Arabs in a long time they had dwindled in unbelief and needed to be brought away from their pagan ways."

Absolutely correct observation and I appreciate that observation. Sometimes the "Tenants' Story" comes to mind and Muslims are the New Tenants!

Patty, Angela and David,

I admire all of you, who exchange thoughts so nicely. I vsiit another Christian Site and looks like the guys have lost all the "Love".

Best Regards

BMZ

Dear Angela,

You quoted my words here:

Patty wrote:

What I meant was that you have no problem interjecting or explaining Protestant or Orthodox point of view, or beliefs, but you have not truly been stating what Mormons believe in many instances. 

I had no idea you had been hassled by some on this site, and I am sorry for that.  No one deserves to have their chosen religion insulted or disrespected.  I assume the attacks have stopped, and I certainly hope so.  But I also realize this is a Muslim website, but this is an area where we can explain our beliefs in a civilized manner....no matter what those beliefs may be.  I know that many, or perhaps most, here do not agree with my Church or my faith, and that is fine.  But I still will always tell what my Church really believes.  For instance, I suppose what I'm saying is if I were explaining a certain scripture or doctrine, I would explain it from the Catholic point of view, rather than the Methodist or Baptist point of view.  I did not see you explaining teachings from a Mormon point of view.  Perhaps you were, but I missed it.  Since I know that you have been insulted on previous occasions, I understand your hesitancy to speak out for your church.

Peace to you Angela....

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!?!?!?!?!?