Who Invented the Trinity?

[Lulua]

[font size=7 font color=purple]Who Invented the Trinity?[/font size=7 font color=purple]

by Aisha Brown

The three monotheistic religions - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - all
purport to share one fundamental concept: belief in God as the Supreme
Being, the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. Known as tawhid in Islam,
this concept of the Oneness of God was stressed by Moses in a Biblical
passage known as the "Shema" or the Jewish creed of faith: "Hear, O Israel:
The Lord our God is one Lord." (Deuteronomy 6:4)
It was repeated word-for-word approximately 1500 years later by Jesus when
he said: "...The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord
our God is one Lord." (Mark 12:29)

Muhammad came along approximately 600 years later, bringing the same
message again: "And your God is One God: There is no God but He, ..." (The
Qur'an 2:163)

Christianity has digressed from the concept of the Oneness of God, however,
into a vague and mysterious doctrine that was formulated during the fourth
century. This doctrine, which continues to be a source of controversy both
within and without the Christian religion, is known as the Doctrine of the
Trinity. Simply put, the Christian doctrine of the Trinity states that God
is the union of three divine persons - the Father, the Son and the Holy
Spirit - in one divine being.

If that concept, put in basic terms, sounds confusing, the flowery language
in the actual text of the doctrine lends even more mystery to the matter:

"...we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity... for there is one
Person of the Father, another of the Son, another of the Holy Ghost is all
one... they are not three gods, but one God... the whole three persons are
co-eternal and co-equal... he therefore that will be save must thus think
of the Trinity..."(excerpts from the Athanasian Creed)

Let's put this together in a different form: one person, God the Father +
one person, God the Son + one person, God the Holy Ghost = one person, God
the What? Is this English or is this gibberish?

It is said that Athanasius, the bishop who formulated this doctrine,
confessed that the more he wrote on the matter, the less capable he was of
clearly expressing his thoughts regarding it.

How did such a confusing doctrine get its start?

Trinity in the Bible

References in the Bible to a Trinity of divine beings are vague, at best.

In Matthew 28:19, we find Jesus telling his disciples to go out and preach
to all nations. While the "Great Commission" does make mention of the three
persons who later become components of the Trinity, the phrase
"...baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost" is quite clearly an addition to Biblical text - that is, not
the actual words of Jesus - as can be seen by two factors:

Baptism in the early Church, as discussed by Paul in his letters, was done
only in the name of Jesus; and The "Great Commission" found in the first
gospel written, that of Mark, bears no mention of Father, Son and/or Holy
Ghost - see Mark 16:15.

The only other reference in the Bible to a Trinity can be found in the
Epistle of I John 5:7, Biblical scholars of today, however, have admitted
that the phrase "...there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father,
the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one" is definitely a
"later addition" to Biblical test, and it is not found in any of today's
versions of the Bible.

It can, therefore, be seen that the concept of a Trinity of divine beings
was not an idea put forth by Jesus or any other prophet of God. This
doctrine, now subscribed to by Christians all over the world, is entirely
man-made in origin.

The Doctrine Takes Shape

While Paul of Tarsus, the man who could rightfully be considered the true
founder of Christianity, did formulate many of its doctrines, that of the
Trinity was not among them. He did, however, lay the groundwork for such
when he put forth the idea of Jesus being a "divine Son." After all, a Son
does need a Father, and what about a vehicle for God's revelations to man?
In essence, Paul named the principal players, but it was the later Church
people who put the matter together.

Tertullian, a lawyer and presbyter of the third century Church in Carthage,
was the first to use the word "Trinity" when he put forth the theory that
the Son and the Spirit participate in the being of God, but all are of one
being of substance with the Father.

A Formal Doctrine is Drawn Up

When controversy over the matter of the Trinity blew up in 318 between two
church men from Alexandria - Arius, the deacon, and Alexander, his bishop -
Emperor Constantine stepped into the fray.

Although Christian dogma was a complete mystery to him, he did realize that
a unified church was necessary for a strong kingdom. When negotiation
failed to settle the dispute, Constantine called for the first ecumenical
council in Church history in order to settle the matter once and for all.

Six weeks after the 300 bishops first gathered at Nicea in 325, the
doctrine of the Trinity was hammered out. The God of the Christians was now
seen as having three essences, or natures, in the form of the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The Church Puts Its Foot Down

The matter was far from settled, however, despite high hopes for such on
the part of Constantine. Arius and the new bishop of Alexandria, a man
named Athanasius, began arguing over the matter even as the Nicene Creed
was being signed; "Arianism" became a catch-word from that time onward for
anyone who did not hold to the doctrine of the Trinity.

It wasn't until 451, at the Council of Chalcedon that, with the approval of
the Pope, the Nicene/Constantinople Creed was set as authoritative. Debate
on the matter was no longer tolerated; to speak out against the Trinity was
now considered blasphemy, and such earned stiff sentences that ranged from
mutilation to death. Christians now turned on Christians, maiming and
slaughtering thousands because of a difference of opinion.

Debate Continues

Brutal punishments and even death did not stop the controversy over the
doctrine of the Trinity, however, and the said controversy continues even
today.

The majority of Christians, when asked to explain this fundamental doctrine
of their faith, can offer nothing more than "I believe it because I was
told to do so." It is explained away as "mystery" - yet the Bible says in I
Corinthians 14:33 that "... God is not the author of confusion..."

The Unitarian denomination of Christianity has kept alive the teachings of
Arius in saying that God is one; they do not believe in the Trinity. As a
result, mainstream Christians abhor them, and the National Council of
Churches has refused their admittance. In Unitarianism, the hope is kept
alive that Christians will someday return to the preachings of Jesus:
"...Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve."
(Luke 4:8)

Islam and the Matter of the Trinity

While Christianity may have a problem defining the essence of God, such is
not the case in Islam.

"They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity, for there
is no god except One God." (Qur'an 5:73) It is worth noting that the Arabic
language Bible uses the name "Allah" as the name of God.

Suzanne Haneef, in her book WHAT EVERYONE SHOULD KNOW ABOUT ISLAM AND
MUSLIMS (Library of Islam, 1985), puts the matter quite succinctly when she
says, "But God is not like a pie or an apple which can be divided into
three thirds which form one whole; if God is three persons or possesses
three parts, He is assuredly not the Single, Unique, Indivisible Being
which God is and which Christianity professes to believe in." (pp. 183-184)

Looking at it from another angle, the Trinity designates God as being three
separate entities - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. If God is the
Father and also the Son, He would then be the Father of Himself because He
is His own Son. This is not exactly logical.

Christianity claims to be a monotheistic religion. Monotheism, however, has
as its fundamental belief that God is One; the Christian doctrine of the
Trinity - God being Three-in-One - is seen by Islam as a form of
polytheism. Christians don't revere just One God, they revere three.

This is a charge not taken lightly by Christians, however. They, in turn,
accuse the Muslims of not even knowing what the Trinity is, pointing out
that the Qur'an sets it up as Allah the Father, Jesus the Son, and Mary his
mother. While veneration of Mary has been a figment of the Catholic Church
since 431 when she was given the title "Mother of God" by the Council of
Ephesus, a closer examination of the verse in the Qur'an most often cited
by Christians in support of their accusation, shows that the designation of
Mary by the Qur'an as a "member" of the Trinity, is simply not true.

While the Qur'an does condemn both trinitarianism (the Qur'an 4:17) and the
worship of Jesus and his mother Mary (the Qur'an 5:116), nowhere does it
identify the actual three components of the Christian Trinity. The position
of the Qur'an is that WHO or WHAT comprises this doctrine is not important;
what is important is that the very notion of a Trinity is an affront
against the concept of One God.

In conclusion, we see that the doctrine of the Trinity is a concept
conceived entirely by man; there is no sanction whatsoever from God to be
found regarding the matter simply because the whole idea of a Trinity of
divine beings has no place in monotheism. In the Qur'an, God's Final
Revelations to mankind, we find His stand quite clearly stated in a number
of eloquent passages:

"...your God is One God: whoever expects to meet his Lord, let him work
righteousness, and, in the worship of his Lord, admit no one as partner."
(Qur'an 18:110)

"...take not, with God, another object of worship, lest you should be
thrown into Hell, blameworthy and rejected." (Qur'an 17:39)

...Because, as God tells us over and over again in a Message that is echoed
throughout All His Revealed Scriptures:

"...I am your Lord and Cherisher: therefore, serve Me (and no other)..."
(Qur'an 21:92)

For more information please contact:

The Institute of Islamic Information and Education
P.O. Box 41129
Chicago, IL 60641-0129 U.S.A.
Tel. (312) 777-7443, Fax. (312) 777-7199
III&E Brochure Series; No. 22 (published by The Institute of Islamic
Information and Education (III&E) and reproduced with permission)

[jcecil3]

LAST EDITED ON 28-11-01 AT 10:46 PM (GMT)[p]Greetings!

I admire the attempt to struggle with the historical sources of the doctrine of the Trinity, but there are few mistakes in your piece.

You write: "Let's put this together in a different form: one person, God the Father + one person, God the Son + one person, God the Holy Ghost = one person,"

This is emphatically not what we Christians believe. We agree that "one person + one person + one person = one person" would be complete nonsense, an utter contradiction, and "gibberish", as you so eloquently put it.

Likewise, we believe that the formula "one being + one being + one being = one being" would be gibberish.

However, what the Christian says is "one person + one person + one person = one being" in the Godhead. There is no confusion of categories, and the distinction between the words "person" and "being" is extremely important.

The term “being” (or “essence”, as it is sometimes translated form the creeds) answers the question “What?”. The term “person” answers the question “Who?”. Part of the confusion is that when we look at a man or a woman, we see a one-to-one correspondence between the human person and the human being. Our minds have a difficult time grasping otherwise. The answer to the question “what?” and “who?” are so often the same, that we are not careful to distinguish them.

By “person”, we do not mean an individual being with a unique center of consciousness and will. Nor did the great councils mean three unique personalities, in the modern sense of the word. Christians do not say there are three people in the Trinity. “Person” is originally a Greek word used to describe a mask worn by actors in the theater. In Trinitarian theology, it is an identity formed and completed on the basis of relationship (the answer to the question “Who?”).

In this sense, it is possible for it to be too limiting to an infinite God to assume that there is only one identity formed and completed on the basis of relationship in this one being! There is no contradiction. The doctrine does not confuse categories of personhood and being. There is only one being rightly called God, but that one being is so far beyond our understanding that he is known by us in three persons, and those three persons relate to one another eternally in some mysterious fashion. The doctrine of the Trinity is at once a radical affirmation of the oneness of God, and the incomprehensibility of God! God is community in his very being!

Christians believe that humanity is made in the image and likeness of God. If God is community in her very nature, it follows that we image God most perfectly in our relationships with others! The doctrine of the Trinity is the ground for the Christian moral claim that love is the highest virtue. I'm not sure if any other religion teaches anything like this, and I've studied many.

We cannot fully comprehend the Trinity. However, we apprehend the Trinity from the revealed Scriptures. We also experience the Trinity in our daily lives.

God the Father watches over us and protects us and guides us like any good human father would do (only better). We see the action of God the Father throughout Old and New Testament, and few monotheists question this theological assertion.

The Jesus depicted in the New Testament is the perfect example of what we would want God to be like if God were human. Indeed, he is the human face of God: the divine as human, and the human as divine. The beauty of the New Testament is that when we read of Jesus, we are drawn to his personality like metal to a magnet. His life, death, and resurrection shed light on the meaning and purpose of our own lives. We Christians feel his continued living presence, and believe that God walks beside us as a brother in the risen Christ. As he was a man who died and rose, so we believe that we will die and rise to new life. Perhaps the greatest evidence of Christ’s divinity is how he changes lives, down to our own day!

Belief in the Trinity hinges on our answer to Jesus' question to his disciples: "But who do you say that I am?" (Matthew 16:15). With Peter, the Rock, we answer, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." (Matthew 16:16) In its historical context, a son possesed all the authority of the father. To call Jesus the Son of God was to call him God. This is the faith upon which Christ built his church. In my reading of the Koran, Mohammed never really understood what was meant by the term "Son of God", and confused it with daughters of the gods concept held by pagans in Arabia.

Finally, we Christians experience the Holy Spirit as God within us. He is the voice of our higher conscious, and the guide of the events and circumstances of our lives. He is the one who empowers to love one another and forgive as God has forgiven us. He is the one who leads some into mystical prayer, tongues, and prophetic utterances. He is the one who acts in the Church’s sacraments.

Yet, in all three persons, it is God’s oneness, his love, his perfection, his holiness, his justice, and his forgiveness that continually shines through and reveals in each person that it is one and the same being who is acting! The absolute beauty of the doctrine is so sublime that it could not have been invented by humanity!

You are correct that there are only a couple of Scriptural passages that refer directly to the Trinity in a single verse, and Matthew's great commission is the clearest direct reference to the Trinity.

However, there are over 700 verses of the New Testament that support the doctrine. The New Testament clearly states that there is one God, and that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. The New Testament also clearly indicates that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct and relate to one another as “persons”. Thus, the doctrine is an attempt to codify and make sense of what the New Testament reveals.

That there is only one God: “Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom all things are and for whom all things exists, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and through whom all things exists.” (I Corinthians 8:6) We see in this passage that the Father is explicitly called God, and Jesus is attributed divine power.

That the New Testament says that Jesus is God: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God….And the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us, and we saw his glory, the glory of the Father’s only Son, and the fullness of grace and truth.” (John 1:1 and 1:14) Furthermore, “Jesus said to them, ‘Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM.’ So they picked up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid from them and went out of the temple area.” (John 8:58-59). Jesus’ listeners understood that he was claiming divinity here, which was why they wanted to stone him. They understood it as blasphemy because Jesus used God’s own name in reference to himself (“I AM Who AM (Exodus 3:14)). Many other passages could be cited, and throughout the New Testament, Jesus does things only God can do, such as healing, raising form the dead, and declaring sins forgiven!

That the Holy Spirit is God: “Do you not know that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? If anyone destroys the temple of God, God will destroy that person; for the temple of God, which you are, is holy.” (I Corinthians 3:16), which clearly shows that the Spirit is God. For if the Spirit dwelling in us is not God, than we cannot be temples of God. Yet, this passage follows on I Corinthians 2:10, where Paul says, “For the Spirit scrutinizes everything, even the depths of God”, implying that the Spirit is separate form God. How can this be? The doctrine of the Trinity makes sense of this.

Throughout the New Testament, we find numerous verses where Jesus is explicitly or implicitly said to be God, and we find numerous passages where he prays to the Father, and relates to the Father as a subordinate son. How can that be? The doctrine of the Trinity makes sense of these statements.

Throughout the New Testament, we find passages where the Holy Spirit is explicitly and implicitly called God, yet he is sent by the Father and the Son, and he guides the Son. How can that be? The doctrine of the Trinity makes sense of these statements.

You incorrectly assert that the Trinity as a doctrine was developed in the fourth century. Ignatius of Antioch, Ireneas of Lyons, the Didache, and several early church writers assert the planks of the Trinity within the first century or very early second century: that the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and there is only one God, and yet, Jesus, the Father, and the Holy Spirit are not the same. While these fathers may not have used the word “Trinity”, even a casual perusal of their writings indicates that the Trinitarian belief was present within the church in the generation immediately following the apostles. Furthermore, the quoting of Scripture by these early fathers shows that the entire New Testament was written within 3 to 80 years of Jesus crucifixion (Paul’s writings being the earliest, and John and Revelations coming last). The consistency of translations across languages and geographic languages proves that there was little to no tampering with the texts, with the exception of a few minor spelling or grammar variations, and some scribal insertions in the margins on some occasions.

Thus, two things are clear: Trinitarian theology was extremely early in the Christian church, it is very clearly taught in modern Bible translations, and there is no evidence whatsoever that the earliest manuscripts were tampered with enough to create the 700+ verses that support the doctrine. This is one doctrine that Roman Catholics, Protestants (both mainline and evangelical), and Eastern Orthodox unanimously agree as true. How can over 1,000,000,000 people familiar with the Bible be so wrong if the doctrine is not found in the Bible at all? There are more Roman Catholics alone than there are Muslims.

Elsewhere, I have read something I think you wrote that would indicate you were raised Christian, Lulua. I am sorry if you were hurt by members of the Church. I am also sorry if you have received misinformation about the history of the Church. Without a doubt, Christianity has been made cloudy by centuries of Eurocentric encrustation. However, the divinity of Christ, his love for you, and the truth of the Trinity still shine brightly through the religion, despite the sins of the members of the Church. I do not wish to be banned from this site for "preaching", but I do wish to communicate that you would be welcomed home in Chritianity with open arms.

I have been attempting to re-read the Koran since the September 11, 2001 events. I must admit that it would seem difficult to harmonize statements in the Koran with Trinitarian theology. Is there any Islamic acknowledgement of monotheism in Trinitarian theology? Do any Muslim views hold that Christianity and Islam can be harmonized in some fashion? How do we come to a mutual understanding of Allah between Christians and Islam, rather than constantly arguing with one another and fighting? It is the answer to these questions that lead me to this site.

Peace and blessings!

Jcecil3

[Tayeb]

When I was a student in a Catholic College back in Mozambique I heard several times our headmaster a priest answering to the Catholics who asked about Trinity that this was a dogma of Christian religion, a mystery, something that the Christians had to accept without questioning.

I found it difficult to understand being a Muslim. It seemed that Christianity that had to please the Pagans and brought incomprehensible dogmas of Pagan belief into Jesus' Message .

Tayeb

[Ruqayyah]

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim.

Assalamualaikum:

First is about your verse on "Word Of God" that "supports" your belief that Jesus is the Son Of God.

Book John 1:1

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".

-The Revised Standard Version

From this verse,the writer of book John wants to tell that the word is Jesus,and Jesus was already with god in the mean time, and Jesus is god.

However Bible specialists and researches in the West has made a statement that this new verse was actually written by a mystic,an ISRAELI named Philo who has been staying in Alexandria a long long time before Jesus or John(Yahya) were born.Philo has been writing his mystical views at that time & was practiced by quite a number of people.And the word "WORD" (in the verse),according to Philo doesn't have any connections at all with Jesus.

Therefore Bible specialists and researches have said that the writer of book John had actually PLAGIARISED that verse from PHILO and then said that it was from God,and then JESUS was God.

This is a VERY BIG MISTAKE in the Bible.

Dr.H.J.Schonfield has translated the end of the verse mentioned (John 1:1):

....."and the word was divine".

This shows that the WORD wasn't god,the WORD HAS A VALUE OF DIVINITY AND IS ASSOCIATED WITH GOD.

A Bible specialist in his research of Christinaity,A.Daedat,has made a statement that the old Bible in Greek on that particular verse has been translated in English as:

"......and the word was GOD'S"

And there's another difference in the Bible.

In the Quran,4:171:

"O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was ONLY A MESSENGER OF ALLAH, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not "Three" - Cease! (it is) better for you! - Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender".

The verse in book John 1:1 is simply can't be used to "support" your belief that Jesus is the Son Of God.

It is not from Jesus.
It is not even written by a Christian,however an ISRAELI who has been living a long long time before Jesus and John were born,and mentioned earlier was named Philo.This shows that Christians either don't know a thing about the history of the Bible or they want to make us Muslims blind.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Another thing is about your whole concept of humanity being made in the image and likeness of God.How could this be accepted when you're saying that God is similar to humans?How could that be?He CANT be similar to human beings or any of His creations.If He is similar to His creations,this means that He is weak,just like His creations.Because of course,the Creator has to be stronger than the things He create.And different of course,if He wants to be called a Creator.

If you're saying how your God in Christianity is lovable and understandable,you have no idea of Allah being the Most Merciful,the Most Understandable,the Most lovable.He doesn't need to be a community to understand us human beings.His love is not the same as a mother loves her child.It is even greater than that.

And evidence:He still gives all people richness,knowledge,power and whatever whatever even if they don't believe in His Oneness and His Godness.Even if they don't believe in Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as the Prophet of all mankind who lives in this era.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Plus,anyway,why do even say that Jesus is the Son of God?If God has a son,then where's the grandfather?And where's the grandfather's father?And his father?And his father?

This can't be possible.

God is Only One.

"He doesn't begetteth not nor was begetten.And there is none comparable to Him".
-Al-Ikhlas.

Wassalam,
Ruqayyah Ramli.

[jcecil3]

LAST EDITED ON 29-11-01 AT 02:40 PM (GMT)[p]Greetings!

Regarding the fact that humanity images the divine in relationships, “God created humanity in His image; in the divine image he created humanity; male and female He created them.” It is interesting to note that the author of Genesis makes clear that both male and female image God, and that it is in relationship with each other that they do so.

Regarding your statement about God’s love being greater than a human father, brother, friend, and so forth, Christians unanimously agree. However, there is a principle in Christian theology (at least among Roman Catholics) that grace builds on nature. This principle means that God communicates himself to us according to our nature and our way of hearing him. Though God transcends all that we can comprehend, he wishes to relate to us personally. The doctrine of the Trinity truly affirms this by stating that God reveals himself as “persons”. The doctrine also protects the transcendence of God, because, while it possible for us to relate with the “persons” of the Trinity, it is impossible for us to fully comprehend the self consciousness of One who is three persons in one being.

I would not argue at all against the theory that the author of the Gospel according to John borrowed language from Philo the Jew. I don't see how that takes away from the text being divinely inspired. I have said numerous times throughout this forum that it is not Christian belief that the Bible was "dictated" by angels, or that Allah over-rode human consciousness to make the words in the Bible inspired.

Christians believe that the authors and the editors of the Bible wrote in full human consciousness, using their own language, idioms, figures of speech, and so forth to address issues that they were facing within the community of faith. When we speak of divine inspiration, we mean something much more subtle than that the Bible fell out of the sky from Allah. Not only did the author of the Gospel according to John borrow from Philo, but also Paul borrowed from Greek philosophers, and Jude borrowed from Jewish apocalyptic literature such as the non-canonical Book of Enoch. In the Old Testament, there are various schools that contributed to the composition of the Torah, including the "Elohists" and "Yawhists" sources, who both were monotheists or henotheists communities, but may have been unrelated to one another prior to the final formation of the federation of the 12 tribes of Israel.

My point is that it does not matter where the author of the Gospel of John borrowed the language in his prologue. What matters is what the inspired author is trying to say about Jesus. Clearly, the author is ascribing some type of divinity to this man. The question at that point becomes, "What is it about the person and work of this man Jesus that so many different authors writing in so many different places seem to ascribe divinity to him?" There are 27 different writings in the New Testament, ascribed to a minimum of eight authors who all agree on several major points: Christ was crucified, died and is risen! Christ intercedes with the Father on our behalf, and Christ shares in divinity with the Father and the Holy Spirit. This is affirmed over and over again by these various authors who wrote in different locations, to different communities, each writing with a unique style and background!

Christians study how the Bible was compiled using the historical-critical method in order to understand what the author was saying. However, the process of composition and compiling the Bible has nothing to do with whether the text is divinely inspired or not. Even if our scholarship is proven to be mistaken by new evidence, the text is discovered to be inspired by the community of faith. In other words, the Church has spoken throughout our Tradition saying that these texts summarize our faith and are useful for encouragement, instruction, and guidance. The canon was established by liturgical use, counciliar decree, and principles such as perspicuity, prophecy, and the ability of the text to lead one individually and in community to a personal relationship with Allah in Christ.

In other words, I have problems with accepting the Qur'an as a divinely inspired text precisely BECAUSE Muslims insist that it was dictated by an angel to a single human being without any input from others. This is a far-fetched theory that demands more faith in a man (Mohammed) than the Bible (which is written by an entire community over a long period of time). The claim of Islam is an incredible claim that requires thorough examination. Let's look a little more closely at what the Qur'an says about the Bible to establish the truth or falsity of this claim:

"Children of Israel, remember the favours I have bestowed upon you. Keep your covenant, and I will be true to Mine. Revere me. Have faith in my revelations, which CONFIRM your Scriptures, and do not be the first to deny them." (Sura 2:40-43)

It would seem that Allah revealed to Mohammed that the Western scholars are incorrect about the origins of the Old Testament. And even if the Western scholars are correct about the compilation of the Old Testament, these Scriptures were established centuries before Mohammed. Therefore, there can be no other Israelite Scriptures that the Qur'an is confirming. And the Qur'an does not seem to be saying that it is confirming some lost writing -- but the very Scriptures in use by the Israelites (Jews) of Mohammed's day. Regardless of the process of composition, the Muslim cannot deny their divine merit without creating a contradiction with the Qur'an!

"To Moses we gave the Scriptures and after him We sent other apostles. We gave Jesus the son of Mary veritable signs and strengthened him with the Holy Spirit. Will you then scorn each apostle whose message does not suit your fancies, charging some imposture and slaying others? They say; 'Our hearts are sealed.' But Allah has cursed them for their unbelief. They have but little faith. And now that a Book CONFIRMING their own has come to them from Allah, they deny it, although they know it to be the truth and have long prayed for help against the unbelievers." (Sura 2:87-89)

Now, Muslims themselves realize that the gospels are irreconcilable with the Qur'an. And the gospels we have today are the same gospels that were used in Christian liturgy during the lifetime of Mohammed. The Qur'an is clearly saying that it confirms Christian Scripture that were in use at the time the revelation was given to Mohammed -- not some hidden or lost "Injeel" from first century Palestine. Thus, how is it that the Qur'an is a book confirming our own Scriptures?

"When it is said to them; 'Believe in what Allah has revealed,' they reply; 'We believe in what was revealed to us.' But they deny what has since been revealed, although it is the truth, CORROBATING their own Scriptures." (Sura 2:91)

Does Allah change his mind or something? In our Scriptures, Jesus is clearly called "monogeneses theos", which means "the only begotten Son of God." (John 1:14, 1:18, 3:16, etc...). You can argue all you want about how much corruption went into the composition of the gospel according to John prior to Nicea. However, the gospel according to John as it exists today was clearly in use for all Christians during Mohammed's lifetime. This gospel proclamation found its way into the Nicene Creed over 250 years before the birth of Mohammed. The Qur'an is clearly referring to corroborating our Scriptures, not some hidden and lost "Injeel". Yet, the Qur'an says "They say; 'Allah has begotten a son.’ Allah forbid." (Sura 2:116) Mohammed claims we are the people who are denying faith, but this illiterate man was claiming that Allah told him that the gospel was true and not true at the exact same time? How does Islam reconcile this?

"Be courteous when you argue with the People of the Book, except those among them who do evil. Say; 'We believe in that which is revealed to us and that which was revealed to you. Our God and your God is one. To him we surrender ourselves." (Sura 29:46)

Christians and Jews both would solidly affirm that there is only one God. On the surface, it looks like we all agree. However, based on over 700 passages of the Bible, primarily from the New Testament that was already in existence when Mohammed was born, Christians believe that there are three persons in one God. Furthermore, based on the New Testament, Christians believe that the proper title of the second person within the Godhead is "Son of God". Muslims do not accept this language. Mohammed did not accept this language. But this language is so interwoven into the New Testament, the creeds, and the liturgical prayers of Christians living at the time of Mohammed that one would have to assume he never read the New Testament to make the statement that he did -- which is exactly the case! He was illiterate. To ascribe these words to Allah is to make God contradict himself.

My point is that the harder Muslims try to debunk the Bible, the more Muslims dig themselves in a hole. The Qur'an solidly confirms the Bible, regardless of how the Bible was compiled!

Peace!

jcecil3

[Ruqayyah]

And Jecil said:

Furthermore, based on the New Testament, Christians believe that the proper title of the second person within the Godhead is "Son of God". Muslims do not accept this language. Mohammed did not accept this language. But this language is so interwoven into the New Testament, the creeds, and the liturgical prayers of Christians living at the time of Mohammed that one would have to assume he never read the New Testament to make the statement that he did -- which is exactly the case! He was illiterate. To ascribe these words to Allah is to make God contradict himself.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

We would never accept that language even it is IN THE TIME of Mohammed because it has been changed AFTER THE DEATH OF JESUS.
Mostly all the changes in the bible were made after his death.
Well of course Jesus didn't really die.He is with Allah right now.(and he'll come back and tell the truth.you'll see).

After Jesus was raised by Allah,the whatever language has been changed.His life history has been changed.The laws has been changed.By early Christian leaders who just came out with their own ideas to make laws and all that.Of course we won't believe in modified laws,even if it's in the time of Mohammed because at that time.Modified laws aren't from God.They're from PEOPLE who CLAIMED that they're from GOD.

78. And there are among them (Jews) unlettered people, who know not the Book, but they trust upon false desires and they but guess.

79. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, "This is from Allâh," to purchase with it a little price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for that they earn thereby.
-Al Baqarah


We would never accept the theory that God has a son,or there is a second person god.God is free from all these weaknesses and flaws.God is free from 'entering a woman's womb' and all that.That's just so human,so 'dirty'.

92. But it is not suitable for (the Majesty of) the Most Beneficent (Allâh) that He should beget a son (or offspring or children).

93. There is none in the heavens and the earth but comes unto the Most Beneficent (Allâh) as a slave.
-Maryam

-----------------------------------------------------------------

And about this verse:

"Be courteous when you argue with the People of the Book, except those among them who do evil. Say; 'We believe in that which is revealed to us and that which was revealed to you. Our God and your God is one. To him we surrender ourselves." (Sura 29:46)

Here,Allah is trying to warn us to be careful of Christians and Jews not to believe in all those stories they tell us so they can twist us.(Nauzubillah).

Say: O disbelievers!

I worship not that which ye worship;

Nor worship ye that which I worship.

And I shall not worship that which ye worship.

Nor will ye worship that which I worship.

Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.

-Sura Al-Kafiruun.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

And about God,yes,there is ONLY ONE GOD AND HE IS ALLAH.NOT JESUS,NOT JESUS,NOT JESUS.Not Son God or Holy Spirit God or whatever God.God is only Allah.And every living thing will return to Him.Even Christian and Jew,yes,we agree on that too.

28. How can you disbelieve in Allâh? Seeing that you were dead and He gave you life. Then He will give you death, then again will bring you to life (on the Day of Resurrection) and then unto Him you will return.
-Al-Baqarah

285.The Messenger (Muhammad SAW) believes in what has been sent down to him from his Lord, and (so do) the believers. Each one believes in Allâh, His Angels, His Books, and His Messengers. They say, "We make no distinction between one another of His Messengers" - and they say, "We hear, and we obey. (We seek) Your Forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the return (of all)."
-Al-Baqarah.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

And I'll say when the people who don't want to accept Islam...when they're dying...they will know the truth.Only Jecil...they're all too late.Too late I tell you.

23. And if you (Arab pagans, Jews, and Christians) are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down (i.e. the Qur'ân) to Our slave (Muhammad Peace be upon him ), then produce a Sûrah (chapter) of the like thereof and call your witnesses (supporters and helpers) besides Allâh, if you are truthful.

24. But if you do it not, and you can never do it, then fear the Fire (Hell) whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers.
-Al-Baqarah.

-Ruqayyah Ramli

[jcecil3]

LAST EDITED ON 06-11-01 AT 05:17 PM (GMT)[p]You still fail to answer the question I have asked. The verses of the Qur'an that I quote clearly seem to refer to written documents in existence at the time the revelation was given to Mohammed. Yet, the only written sources in use about Jesus in the seventh century on the Christian calendar were the 27 books of the current New Testament.

We Christians do not claim that Jesus ever wrote down anything. But even if he did, whatever words he wrote do not seem to be the writings referred to by the verses of the Qur'an -- they could not have been, because nobody was using them or aware of them. Thus, when the Qur'an says it is confirming and corraborating our Scriptures, it seems that it can only be talking about the 27 books of the New Testament.

You cannot simply state that these verses of the Qur'an refer to a lost or hidden "Injeel", because the context clearly seems to refer to publically available documents that were in existence in the life-time of Mohammed!

Which leads to the obvious question, how does Islam reconcile the Qur'an's simultaneous confirmation of the New Testament texts that state Christ is God's sole begotten son, while the Qur'an also denies that God has any son? Simply stating that the Qur'an denies the sonship of Jesus does not resolve the contradiction! Rather, it confirms the contradiction.

It would seem to me that the Muslim must chose one of three options.

First, you could come up with a way of interpreting statements about Allah having no son in the Qur'an in a way that is acceptable to Christians. If you chose this first path, you may find yourself coming to an interpretation of the Qur'an that promotes unity, or at least peace between Christians and Muslims. The difficulty will be that you will need to come up with a nuanced reinterpretation of the Qur'anic texts that say Allah has no son, and that would be difficult, though not necessarily impossible.

A second path is that you interpret the verses I quote from the Qur'an in such a way as to do violence to your own texts. You would need to invent history and twist the words of the prophet himself to mean something he (or Allah) never intended. This seems to be to the path that most responses on this forum are following. This is the "hidden Injeel" theory, that simply doesn't seem to be corraborated by the Qur'an itself. If you chose the second path, you may make the Qur'an unintelligible to those who know the Bible who were not raised in Islamic culture. The path of trying to completely debunk the authenticity of the Bible as an divinely inspired text seems to lead you further into self-contradiction.

Finally, you could follow a path to try to show how Christians misinterpret their own texts without denying the validity of the Bible. With the path, the goal would be to come up with a nuanced interpretation of the sonship imagery in the New Testament, without changing your interpretation of the Qur'an. This will be difficult, as many heretics have tried to do this, but there are just too many passages of the New Testament confirming traditional Christian theology.

Whatever path you chose to resolve this contradiction, the answer is not going to be simplistic.

[Ruqayyah]

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim

Okay,I'm sorry that I didn't answer your questions before.Must be too umm... involved with the text before this one.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Okay. And these are the verses that you want to discuss:
(Insya'Allah I'll try my best)

40.O Children of Israel! Remember My favour wherewith I favoured you, and fulfil your (part of the) covenant, I shall fulfil My (part of the) covenant, and fear Me.

41.And believe in that which I reveal, confirming that which ye possess already (of the Scripture), and be not first to disbelieve therein, and part not with My revelations for a trifling price, and keep your duty unto Me.

42.Confound not truth with falsehood, nor knowingly conceal the truth.

43.Establish worship, pay the poor-due, and bow your heads with those who bow (in worship).
----------------------------------------------------------------

Here,from what I understand (and a little research),Allah is referring to the Israeli,to be the reminder for religious teachers,leaders (etc),that it is not right for them to ask people to do good,and yet they aren't.People like that are hated by Allah.

Okay,I understand that what you really want to discuss here is about the Torah.As we all know,the Torah was sent to the Jewish through Moses.AT THAT TIME,it can still be used.It was still in it's original state.And in it,Allah command the Jews to perform the Salat (prayers),to give Zakat(charity) and etc.Therefore they HAVE to obey what was written in there.They could not reject it and went against it.

Well sadly,they rejected it.And went ahead of it and modified it.

5.The likeness of those who are entrusted with the Law of Moses, yet apply it not, is as the likeness of the ass carrying books. Wretched is the likeness of folk who deny the revelations of Allah. And Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
-Al Jumaah

78. And there are among them (Jews) unlettered people, who know not the Book, but they trust upon false desires and they but guess.

79. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, "This is from Allâh," to purchase with it a little price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for that they earn thereby.
-Al Baqarah

So in other words,the real Torah is gone now.There is no more confirmed scriptures or verses in the Torah,as it has been modified.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
And the other verse:

87.And verily We gave unto Moses the Scripture and We caused a train of messengers to follow after him, and We gave unto Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs (of Allah's sovereignty), and We supported him with the Holy spirit. Is it ever so, that, when there cometh unto you a messenger (from Allah) with that which ye yourselves desire not, ye grow arrogant, and some ye disbelieve and some ye slay ?

88.And they say: Our hearts are hardened. Nay, but Allah hath cursed them for their unbelief. Little is that which they believe.

89.And when there cometh unto them a scripture from Allah, confirming that in their possession - though before that they were asking for a signal triumph over those who disbelieved - and when there cometh unto them that which they know (to be the truth) they disbelieve therein. The curse of Allah is on disbelievers.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I simplify this verse:

Allah had given the Jews the book of Torah through Moses,and then "Injeel" through Jesus.However they ignored them,and rejected them.

Allah disapproved them.

However then came the Quran through Mohammed (PBUH),which then confirmed the truth of the Torah, they too turned against it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, what you're stressing here is that how the Quran actually confirmed the truth of the Torah.From what I can say,the Quran was confirming the truth of the Torah AT THAT TIME.However AFTER the Quran was sent to them,they SHOULD obey the QURAN now.

They rejected the Quran too as they are angry (and jealous) because Allah should reveal His bounty to whoever He wants.

I can say....that the people referred here were just too arrogant.Even after the Quran was sent confirming the truth of the earlier books sent to them,they never did believe in Allah.

90.Evil is that for which they sell their souls: that they should disbelieve in that which Allah hath revealed, grudging that Allah should reveal of His bounty unto whom He will of His slaves. They have incurred anger upon anger. For disbelievers is a shameful doom.

91.And when it is said unto them: Believe in that which Allah hath revealed, they say: We believe in that which was revealed unto us. And they disbelieve in that which cometh after it, though it is the truth confirming that which they possess. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Why then slew ye the prophets of Allah aforetime, if ye are (indeed) believers ?
-Al-Baqarah

Plus,as said earlier,the Torah (and also "Injeel")has been modified by people.Therefore,they can't be used.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION: (ok,this is basically the answer I just found.Alhamdulillah)

The early books sent by Allah through all his prophets before Mohammed (PBUH) were all SIMILAR to the Quran in the aspect of BELIEF of 'Aqidah.

In all of them were written that ALLAH IS THE ONE AND ONLY GOD.THE GOD OF ALL EARTH AND HEAVENS.

The theory about son god or Uzair god or holy spirit God or whatever god.... were never,ever,ever written in the early Torah or Injeel or Zabur.These are all being purposely added in the Bible.

So even if the Quran says CONFIRMED,it means CONFIRMED THAT ALLAH IS THE ONE AND ONLY GOD,just like what was written in THE EARLY TORAH OR INJEEL OR ZABUR.

I hope that answers your question.

Wassalam,
Ruqayyah Ramli.

[Fadhilah]

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim

Assalamualaikum to all.

Jesus is the Son of God. If God has son, where's the grandfather, mother, wife so on so fore?????. If God has son, He will be like us human. If God is like us, humans, he will be weak as us. If God weak, he is NOT GOD. Jesus is No God, He is one of the massenger of Allah. NO GOD BUT ALLAH AND MUHAMMAD IS THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH.One day,Jesus or Isa will return and bring the truth. You will see. He is now with Allah s.w.t.

Wassalamualaikum.

-Fadhilah Ramli.

[jcecil3]

LAST EDITED ON 08-11-01 AT 03:08 PM (GMT)[p]RAQAYYA -- No disrespect is intended, but I think you are not getting the point of my question, though I appreciate your attempt to try to answer. Thank you.

The selections from the Qur'an we are discussing seem to me to be clearly referring to documents that were publically available to everyone in Mohammed's life-time. You keep repeating that Muslims don't accept this interpretation of the Qur'an, and that the Qur'an is referring to lost texts that were given directly to Moses and Jesus.

Perhaps I need to rephrase my question to clarify. In the phrase "And now a Book confirming their own has come to them from Allah..." (Sura 2:91), who does Allah or Mohammed refer to by the pronouns "their" and "them"?

It seems to me that the plain sense of the text is referring to a group of people alive at the time of the revelation to Mohammed. Note the use of the word "now". It does not seem that the pronouns refer to people alive at the time of Moses or Jesus, but dead when the Qur'an was proclaimed.

Thus, if the pronouns in this statement refer to people in the lifetime of Mohammed, then the Scriptures that are confirmed must be the Scriptures that those same people used in the present tense. This means scriptures available in the seventh century on the Christian calendar, and not scriptures from the first century that were lost.

If we say the Scriptures refered to are lost Scriptures from the days of Moses and Jesus, then the pronouns "their" and "them" also refer to people who were dead in Mohammed's lifetime. Furthermore, the word "now" becomes meaningless and contradictory. If that were the case, the Sura has little practical meaning to anyone. It would be an obscure warning to dead and no longer existent peoples.

This same type of argument can be used with all the verses of the Qur'an that I am quoting above. If you state that the confirmed Scriptures are an original Torah, Injeel and Zabur that was lost, then the passages are addressed to people who were dead at the time Mohammed received his revelations.

However, the context (at least in English) seems to be present tense, rather than past. Furthermore, a warning to dead people would seem unnecessary for Allah. Thus, the linguistic use of tense and the theological implication both seem to point to these passages referring to scriptures publically available in the lifetime of Mohammed.

Think of it another way. In a passage you quoted, rather than me, Sura 4:171 says "O People of Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth." If you are going to interpret the word "Scriptures" in the passages I quote as referring to lost writings, then you have to do the same in the passage you quote. Thus, the "people" referred to become dead people once again. The passage cannot be applied to Christians.

It seems more likely to me that Mohammed wrote Sura 4:171 as directed to Christians who were alive in his own day. But if he refered to "scriptures" and "people" in the present tense in this single passage, then it is logical to assume that he was doing the same in the passages I quoted.

The only scriptures in use by Christians and Jews during the lifetime of Mohammed were the Scriptures that we still use today.

Thus, we return to the issue. If the Qur'an confirms our own scriptures, you have an apparent contradiction that requires a more nuanced interpretation to resolve. If the Qur'an is affirming lost scriptures, however, you are making the Qur'an into unintelligible warnings to dead people with no relevance to the living.

FADHILAH -- The "sonship" language used in the New Testament is very different than sonship language used throughout the rest of the Bible. Jesus is refered to as "monogeneses theos", which means the "only begotten Son of God". The very uniqueness of the term and the way it is used in the text reveals that there is a sense that we are expressing things in metaphor and analogy. We Christians do not mean that Jesus is a biological son of God when we speak of him as son of God. Thus, the question about grandfathers, etc...is meaningless and irrelevant once "sonship" is understood in its proper context. I know I haven't really answered your question. The metaphor is used to describe a relationship within the Godhead. For more detail on this, I would suggest that you read some of my other postings and ask questions based on those other responses. I do not wish to take up excessive room on this post to answer a question I have answered elsewhere.

[Ruqayyah]

Okay,hang in there.I'll see to that.
But if you think you want to find out more about Islam,here's a recommended site:

http://www.meccacentric.com

It's a very good site.

-Ruqayyah Ramli

[jcecil3]

LAST EDITED ON 28-11-01 AT 10:47 PM (GMT)[p]I discovered something from another site recommended by Dr. Quasir that helps to clarify your point for me.

I asked for a site that would do word searches in the Qur'an, and in experimenting with it, I discovered that the verses of the Qu'ran I quote above, translated by N.J. Dawood, are translated differently by Yusafali, Pickthal and Shakir. For example, in one of the verses I am quoting that seems to so clearly make my point, here is how all four read:

Sura 2:91

YUSUFALI: When it is said to them, "Believe in what Allah Hath sent down, "they say, "We believe in what was sent down to us:" yet they reject all besides, even if it be Truth confirming what is with them. Say: "Why then have ye slain the prophets of Allah in times gone by, if ye did indeed believe?"

PICKTHAL: And when it is said unto them: Believe in that which Allah hath revealed, they say: We believe in that which was revealed unto us. And they disbelieve in that which cometh after it, though it is the truth confirming that which they possess. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Why then slew ye the prophets of Allah aforetime, if ye are (indeed) believers?

SHAKIR: And when it is said to them, Believe in what Allah has revealed, they say: We believe in that which was revealed to us; and they deny what is besides that, while it is the truth verifying that which they have. Say: Why then did you kill Allah's Prophets before if you were indeed believers?

DAWOOD: When it is said to them; 'Believe in what Allah has revealed,' they reply; 'We believe in what was revealed to us.' But they deny what has since been revealed, although it is the truth, corraborating their own Scriptures.

Now Dawood was born in Iraq. As far as I know, he was a Muslim. I find his translation easier to read for its style. However, I must confess that the point I was trying to make above is much less clear in the other translations. While the other translations can be interpreted the way I have done, Dawood much more clearly indicates it is our scriptures that are corraborated, where the other translations refer our "truth" or simply "that which they have". In other words, your lost or hidden "Injeel" theory may not be as unintellegible as I originally thought....

This leads to two new questions:

1) Which translation is the more accurate reading of the Arabic?

2) Can it be that the variant readings of the Qur'an are not as widely recognized by Muslims as Muslims recognize variants in the gospel simply because the Qur'an has yet to be translated in as many languages as the Bible?

I'll check out your recommeded site for answers....

Thanks!

[Fadhilah]

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim.

To: Jecil

Sorry. I dont get you.

-Fadhilah Ramli.

[Ruqayyah]

Okay,you're talking about the knowledge of Tafseer,which means,translations of the Quran.

The history of this knowledge:

Before this,the Quran was only translated(in points of views about the verses),partly and unorderly.It was only translated to avoid confusions in the meanings of those verses.

Sometimes,the Quran was translated together with the Hadith(which is from our prophet,Muhammad PBUH.His saying,his doing...etc).

Close friends of Muhammad PBUH (sahabats),for example Ali Bin Abi Talib,Abdullah bin Abbas,Inbu Mas'ud,Ubai Bin Kaab were one of the first to translate and find the meanings of some verses in the Quran.The way they do that is by sometimes

1.Discussing about the reasons why those verses came to them,
2.sometimes by recording and discussing what they have heard from Muhammad PBUH himself,
3.and other times,they discuss among themselves.Debate.Discuss.And then pick the best.

Ulama or people who learn and know,then follow what the views and explanations of the sahabats and sometimes they add from their own views.

It is okay to give your views in Islam,as long as it doesn't go beyond the Quran or the Hadith.

1.O ye who believe! Be not forward in the presence of Allah and His messenger, and keep your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is Hearer, Knower.
-Al Hujuraat.

It is also advisable to follow and choose the views of those in the Majority group.Of course in a debate or a discussion,some agree,and others don't.All of them have their own dalils or evidence,either they pick it from the Quran or Hadith.However still,it is advisable to choose the views from the Majority group.

In the knowledge of Tafseer,the most popular Ulama are Ibnu Kathir,Hasan Basri,Nasafi,Al-Alusi,Sufyan As-Sauri... and that's all I am basically learning from.(I'm still learning and schooling).

And about those translated in English or any other languages,I'm sure all those Ulama had been very careful to avoid differences from the real one in Arabic.If you look more closely,you'd notice that most of the verses,even though translated in different levels and ways in English (or other languages),all of them actually mean the same thing.

For example:

YUSUFALI: When it is said to them, "Believe in what Allah Hath sent down, "they say, "We believe in what was sent down to us:" yet they reject all besides, even if it be Truth confirming what is with them. Say: "Why then have ye slain the prophets of Allah in times gone by, if ye did indeed believe?"

PICKTHAL: And when it is said unto them: Believe in that which Allah hath revealed, they say: We believe in that which was revealed unto us. And they disbelieve in that which cometh after it, though it is the truth confirming that which they possess. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Why then slew ye the prophets of Allah aforetime, if ye are (indeed) believers?

SHAKIR: And when it is said to them, Believe in what Allah has revealed, they say: We believe in that which was revealed to us; and they deny what is besides that, while it is the truth verifying that which they have. Say: Why then did you kill Allah's Prophets before if you were indeed believers?

DAWOOD: When it is said to them; 'Believe in what Allah has revealed,' they reply; 'We believe in what was revealed to us.' But they deny what has since been revealed, although it is the truth, corraborating their own Scriptures.

Yes,maybe Dawood's translation is easier to be understood.But it actually means the same thing.The people mentioned here did corrupt the scriptures sent to them (the Torah or Injeel).However if we look at the Sura in it's Arabic language (i can't say i'm a pro.. but i do understand them a little),

Wa-itha qeela lahum aminoo bima anzala Allahu qaloo nu/minu bima onzila AAalayna wayakfuroona bima waraahu wahuwa alhaqqu musaddiqan lima maAAahum qul falima taqtuloona anbiyaa Allahi min qablu in kuntum mu/mineena
2:91

If translated to English directly,the ones from Yusuf Ali,Pickthal and Syakir are more accurate than the one from Dawood.The verse from the 3 mentioned about killing the prophets (taqtuloon-kill),but not Dawood's.See?The Majority is usually the more accurate one.Maybe Dawood translated this verse... in the form of views,not accurately to English.

As for my verse on the Jews changing their scriptures... that came from Ibnu Kathir.. and I'm sure that is correct.Even in arabic,it is correct without translating.

So... that is all.If you want to make sure in everything said in the Quran... maybe it is advisable for you to learn Arabic... :)
That is all.

Wassalam,

Ruqayyah Ramli.

[Ruqayyah]

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim

40.Children of Israel! Remember My favour wherewith I favoured you, and fulfil your (part of the) covenant, I shall fulfil My (part of the) covenant, and fear Me.

41.And believe in that which I reveal, confirming that which ye possess already (of the Scripture), and be not first to disbelieve therein, and part not with My revelations for a trifling price, and keep your duty unto Me.
-Al Baqarah

Before the Quran,both Torah and Injeel were sent to the Jews to be their guides.

2.We gave Moses the Book,And made it a Guide".
-Bani Isreael

However, God placed the responsibility on humans to preserve the integrity of this message over time. When the people failed in their duty, it was made necessary for the Holy Qur'an to come into existence in order to correct the teachings that were changed. By God's mercy He revealed His will once again to Muhammad over 600 years later, and his companions similarly wrote it down and compiled it into what became known as The Holy Qur'an. By God's justice He promised that He would preserve it therefore making it the last revelation to humanity.

But,the Jews were arrogant and ignored Muhammad PBUH just because he was an Arab.This same goes to Christians (which I reckon,were actually also Jews.Since Jesus was sent to Jews and then..well,they became Christians).

They changed the contents of Injeel and Torah,till the real Injeel and Torah are gone now.

78. And there are among them (Jews) unlettered people, who know not the Book, but they trust upon false desires and they but guess.

79. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, "This is from Allâh," to purchase with it a little price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for that they earn thereby.
-Al Baqarah

So they should know that Al-Quran is the Book they should follow and Islam is the religion.

It has been mentioned in the Quran,how true Christians and Jews who have seen the truth and truly believe in Allah.They are not egoistic.And not arrogant.And they are willing to follow the teachings of Muhammad PBUH even if he is an Arab,not an Israeli.

69.Lo! those who believe, and those who are Jews, and Sabaeans, and Christians - Whosoever believeth in Allah and the Last Day and doeth right - there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.
-Al Maa-Idah
-----------------------------------------------------------------

72.They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers.

73.They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no God save the One God. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve.

74.Will they not rather turn unto Allah and seek forgiveness of Him ? For Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

75.The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how We make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away!
-Al Maa-Idah

[JBJ]

LAST EDITED ON 15-11-01 AT 09:41 PM (GMT)[p]LAST EDITED ON 15-11-01 AT 09:33*PM (GMT)

LAST EDITED ON 13-11-01 AT 06:09*PM (GMT)

Assalamu alaikum Ruqayyah,

I respect your study, but it's a little naive. I'd check be a little more critical of your sources.

First concerning Philo. Where have you seen Philo's work with John 1.1? I've looked and can't find it. I think you or your source confused taking ideas with taking words.

Logos ("word" in Greek) was a common philosophical concept with Greeks at the time. Philo wasn't the first. Plato and the stoics all taught it too. Using the same ideas certainly isn't plagarism. Muhammad didn't plagarize the Jews and Christians by teaching one God, John was the same.

He connected with readers by using concepts many were familiar with. If I write a paper titled "O Say Can You Sing?" Is it plagarism or allusion?

Much of John's audience knew the ideas beind "logos." If he was trying to plagarize it, he would have been caught very quickly.

I do agree with Jcecil that the Bible was not created directly by God. God combined the author's own personality and sometimes experiences with His own truth to bring the Bible. What an example of a personal God! Still, John's writing is his own.

Then concerning translation. Let's look at the Greek:

. . . kai theos en ho logos.

It literally says, "and theos was the word." Greek is unlike English in that the predicate can (but doesn't have to) come before the subject. The subject is signaled by an article in front of it: "ho" meaning "the." So the clause says "and the word was theos."

This is just what Christians say, that the word is divine, that he is god. Schonfield was correct. "Theos" is used to describe "logos." It does NOT say the logos has some divinity, or a value of divinity. It says simple the logos is divine. And that is exactly what Muslims disagree with.

You might object and say that John should read "and the logos was THE divine." That would make the Greek "kai ho theos en ho logos." But in Greek grammar, having two nouns, each with an article makes the nouns interchangable. Then it would mean the logos was God and God was the logos. But John, understanding the trinity, knew that would be wrong. God is not Jesus.

So how do we know John meant THE god and not A god?

1 There is no way to say: "the logos is God" in Greek the way it can be said and meant in English.

2 "Theos" is used in other parts of his gospel without "ho" when referring to the God, even when grammar would easily allow it.

3 The preverbal position puts emphasis on "theos."

4 John was a Jew and so believed in one God. (Note that John supported three persons and one god, not three gods and one god, or some nonsense.)

5 The greatest reason, John knew Jesus personally and Muslims and Christians agree Jesus didn't claim to be a god. John had no reason to lie.

As for Ahmed Deedat's comment, there's no way "theos" is possessive here.

One last thing. You said "this can't be possible" that God have a son. I agree. "Son of God" or "God's Son" literally means "Son in connection with God." A Christian might also say the Father is "Father of God" meaning "Father in connection with God."

The Bible doesn't say God had a son, like the Qur'an talks about, it says the Father has a Son. There is one God and three persons. No, God cannot have a son. God is only one.

In your head, make a line. Put God on one side and everything else on the other. We see that on God's side there is only one. But one what? One God. We both agree. Is there nothing more "inside" our one God? Yes! We both agree: there is holiness, power, knowledge, mercy, etc. Is that inaccurate? God is still one.

The trinity is not the same, but it is similar. I say that there are three "persons" inside God. But just like you, I'm still believing God is one. It's wierd, I realize, but it's not so impossible.

JBJ

[Tayeb]

JBJ: We want to draw attention to our rules that don't allow disrespect towards Muslim Scholars. You are invited to rephrase your words in your last posting with regards to Ahmad Deedat, otherwise we'll have no option but to remove your message.

Tayeb
Admin

[JBJ]

LAST EDITED ON 15-11-01 AT 09:48 PM (GMT)[p]Tayeb-

I apologize, I didn't mean disrespect. In respect to your guidelines, I gladly took out my comments. Thank you.

JBJ

[Lulua]

Quite a spiced apology...indeed not a true apology.

I hope and request that the moderator of this forum takes note of this.

[Dr Qaisar]

>
>You still fail to answer the
>question I have asked. The
>verses of the Qur'an that
>I quote clearly seem to
>refer to written documents in
>existence at the time the
>revelation was given to Mohammed.
>Yet, the only written sources
>in use about Jesus in
>the seventh century on the
>Christian calendar were the 27
>books of the current New
>Testament.
>
>Jesus ever wrote down anything.
>But even if he did,
>whatever words he wrote do
>not seem to be the
>writings referred to by the
>verses of the Qur'an --
>they could not have been,
>because nobody was using them
>or aware of them. Thus,
>when the Qur'an says it
>is confirming and corraborating our
>Scriptures, it seems that it
>can only be talking about
>the 27 books of the
>New Testament.
>
>You cannot simply state that these
>verses of the Qur'an refer
>to a lost or hidden
>"Injeel", because the context clearly
>seems to refer to publically
>available documents that were in
>existence in the life-time of
>Mohammed!
>
>Which leads to the obvious question,
>how does Islam reconcile the
>Qur'an's simultaneous confirmation of the
>New Testament texts that state
>Christ is God's sole begotten
>son, while the Qur'an also
>denies that God has any
>son? Simply stating that the
>Qur'an denies the sonship of
>Jesus does not resolve the
>contradiction! Rather, it confirms the
>contradiction.


Greetings, jcecil3


One would have to forgive you for evidently having a very poor understanding of the Qur'an & history of Islam at the time of it's revelation, but, unfortunately, not for your eagerness to point out so called "contradictions" in the Qur'an. Here you seem to have a great deal of confusion regarding the statement in the Qur'an that it "confirms what is with them" and thus, you invent a "contradiction" where none exists in the first place, that the Qur'an cannot both confirm what is all contained in the previous Scriptures and at the same time deny the Divinity of Christ & The Sonship theology!! Allow me to construct for you a logical and most simple explanation to clear away the clouds of confusion hovering over your intellect. But first let me quote once again the relevent verses:

"We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of Messengers; We gave Jesus the son of Mary clear (signs) and strenghtened him with the holy spirit. Is it that whenever there comes to you a Messenger with what you yourselves desire not, you are puffed with pride?- Some you called imposters and others you slay!"

(V.2:87)


"And when there comes; to them a Book from Allah, confirming what is with them,- although from of old they had prayed for victory against those without faith,- when there comes to them that which they (should) have recognised, they refuse to believe in it, but the curse of Allah is on those without faith."

(V.2:89)

"When it is said to them, "Believe in what Allah has send down," they say, "We believe in what was sent down to us": yet they reject all besides, even if it be truth confirming what is with them. Say: "Why then have you slain the prophets of Allah in times gone by, if you indeed believe?"

(V.2:91)


Now let me explain the context of the above verses and to whom they address primarily. All these verses are taken from Sura Al-Baqarah (the Heifer) revealed to the Prophet (PBUH) in Madinah shortly after the migration from Meccah. The verses 87-121 of this Sura relate primarily to the story of Israel ie. the Jews from the time of Prophet Moses (PBUH) to Prophet Jesus (PBUH). Here, I would like to inform you about the different types of people living in Madinah: 1) the Prophet (PBUH) and his Muslims followers, 2) the Bedouin Arabs, 3) the tribes of Jews in & around Madinah (like the tribes of Nadhir, Quraiza), and 4) the Hypocrites. From my reading of the Qur'an and the Hadith literature, I have not come across any mention at all of any Christian (Trinitarian) person or people living in the city of Madinah in the 10 years that Prophet stayed there, though Allah knows best! Therefore, as it turns out, since there were no Christians there, then there is no question at all of a copy of the New Testament existing in Madina at that time!! Though, naturally the NT would have existed elsewhere outside Mecca & Madina in the Christian world, but at the same time the Jewish Scriptures ie. Torah would have, indeed, been in the possession of the Jews living in Madina.

Having given a proper context of the the verses 2:87 to 91 above, I shall now demonstrate to you that verses 2:87-91 actually, in fact refer only to the Jews & their Torah; and thus, the charge by Allah against the Jews in V.2:91 of their having slain some of the earlier prophets. The Jews also state in the same verse that they only "believe in what was send to us" ie. the Torah (the Taurat of Moses). One prophet killed by the Jews was Prophet Yahya (PBUH) or John the Baptist who was beheaded by the Jews! You will note that the Christians did not kill any prophet simply because of the fact that there was no prophet sent to them between Prophet Jesus & Prophet Mohammad, may peace be upon both of them!! Therefore, when it is mentioned in verses 2:89 & 91 that, "And when there comes; to them a Book from Allah, confirming what is with them,-.....", here it only "confirms" the Jewish Scripture, the Torah!!! Hence, here the Qur'an in V.2:89-91 IN NO WAY AT ALL CONFIRMS YOUR 27 BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT!!!! Get it, jcecil??

But, indeed, the Qur'an does mention about "confirming" the Books of Prophets Moses & Jesus (PBUH) in other places, one being in V.3:3 (also V.5:48) below:

"It is He who send down to you (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; And He send down the Torah (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus)."

Now before you jump to unfounded & arbitrary and wishful conclusions, let me tell you that the Arabic word used for "Gospel" in the Qur'an is "INJEEL"; the Greek/English word "Gospel" is only an inaccurate translation! Thus, there is no such thing as the "hidden Injeel theory" the way you have put it. It is simply the Arabic equivalent name of the Revelation given to Jesus (PBUH) by Allah. At this stage I will attempt to explain to you what is meant by the phrase used in the Qur'an ".....confirming what went before it (the Qur'an)." The Qur'an only confirms the essential truth
present in the previous Scriptures as regards the pure concept of Monotheism ie. the belief in the absolute oneness of God (‘tawhid‘) and worship of the one & only one God!! It in no way affirms any kind of "spin" or twist transplanted onto the pure concept of the oneness of God. You may use all kinds flowery language in the world to convince people like the Jews and Muslims that your doctored ‘doctrine of Trinity‘ is a replica of pure Monotheism, but no, you and your Doctors of Divinity fail miserably to convince not only Muslims & Jews, but your ownselves about the contradictory nature of Trinity when compared to pure Monotheism by saying "....Trinity is beyond rational understanding..." and that it is "...the central mystery of Christain faith and life." Thus, Trinity remains a "mystery" to both the faithful (Christians) and unfaithful alike (Jews, Muslims etc.)!!
Let us examine what are the eternal truths preserved in the Scriptures of the People of the Book (ie. the Taurat and Gospels) that the Qur'an confirms as stated in V.2:89-91 and V.5:48 and elsewhere:

"Thou shall worship only God" (the First Commandment)

"Hear O Israel; the Lord our God is one God" (Deuteronomy 6:4)

"Hear O Israel; the Lord our God is one God" (Mark 12:29)

Compare the above with the Command in the Qur'an below:

"And your God is one God: There is no God but He" (V.2:163)

See for yourself, jcecil3, is there any contradiction at all in the passages quoted from the 3 separate Scriptures, the Torah of Moses, the Gospel of Jesus and the Qur'an revealed to Prophet Mohammad, may peace be upon all of them?? None whatsoever!!! No contradiction at all!! How could there be any?? All 3 (in their originality) are from the one and same source, the Lord of all the 3 Prophets, your Lord and our Lord and the Lord of the Universe, Allah Most High!!!! Will you not then, consider the Qur'an with care?? Have I not then proved to you how the Qur'an CONFIRMS the TRUTH of the previous Scriptures?? The Qur'an only testifies to the pure concept of the oneness of God contained in the previous Scriptures and not to any additions or alterations or superimpositions plastered onto the pure concept of Monotheism!! It does not confirm word for word all the passages or verses present in the modern day OT and/or NT that makes the Bible of today.

Now, to refute your self-created "hidden Injeel theory". Let us ask the question: what happened to the original Revelation given to Jesus (PBUH) by Allah? It did not disappear into thin air. The true teachings of Jesus (PBUH) after his departure from this world were at first transmitted orally by his numerous followers as an oral tradition for the first 30-40 years, later elements of his teachings were recorded in a written form by scores of people in the 1st-2nd century AD. But at this stage, not all his pure & original teachings were faithfully recorded! Elements of human manipulation & ‘doctoring‘ crept into his original teachings. Thus, was formulated the NT and along with the OT (which had met a similar fate at the hands of the custodians of the Taurat of Moses ie. the rabbis, priests etc.) become the Bible. If we examine the Bible, it can be divided into 3 types of narrations as below:

1) The Words of God.
2) The Words of a Prophet of God.
3) The Words of a Historian.

The end mixture is the Bible of today, or more accurately, what was compiled by the Church in the 3rd-4th Century AD. In it, as well as, the Jewish Bible (or the Torah) are contained the elements of God's original Revelation (eg. "Thou shall worship only one God" or "...the Lord our God is one God"). But also are contained in it, the sayings of a prophet himself or words put into the mouth of the prophet by the historian or author, whoever they may have been in the past. The bulk of the Bible is the testimony of the third kind ie. narrations of a third person. We Muslims (and also the Orthodox Jews) do not mind the accurate Word of God present in the previous Scriptures as long as it refers to the oneness of God only!! Nor does the Qur'an, for that matter!!!

I now hope sincerely that you have understood clearly what the Qur'an means when it says that it confirms the truth of the previous Scriptures. It does not give a cart blanche to all that is contained in the present day Bible or that existing during the time of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). Therefore, your Catholic Bible or the Protestant version does not enjoy unqualified legitimacy from the Qur'an, the final Revelation of God (Allah)!!



>It would seem to me that
>the Muslim must chose one
>of three options.
>

>You would need to invent
>history and twist the words
>of the prophet himself to
>mean something he (or Allah)
>never intended. This seems to
>be to the path that
>most responses on this forum
>are following. This is the "hiddden Injeel" theory, that simply
>doesn't seem to be corraborated
>by the Qur'an itself. If
>you chose the second path,
>you may make the Qur'an
>unintelligible to those who know
>the Bible who were not
>raised in Islamic culture. The
>path of trying to completely
>debunk the authenticity of the
>Bible as an divinely inspired
>text seems to lead you
>further into self-contradiction.
>


We Muslims do not need at all to follow your hopeless "options or paths". The Word of God (Allah) is proved against all ingrate rejectors of Truth. We do not have to twist the words of God or of His Last Prophet (PBUH) to convince you of the eternal Truth. It is there right in front of you, right under your nose, so as to say. We only have to convey the Message of God (Allah), ie. the Qur'an to everyone. That is all. It is not required of us to convince you or anyone else as to the Message of Islam. The conviction must regenerate in your own hearts. If you choose not to profit from the final Revelation & Warning of God, then you are free to do so. But wait for the Judgement of God; we too are waiting!


Dr.Qaisar

(jcecil3, please note my spelling: it is not Quasir but QAISAR.)

[jcecil3]

LAST EDITED ON 16-11-01 AT 08:01 PM (GMT)[p]DR. QAISAR AND RAQAYYAH: Based on the apparent fault in my translation of the Qur'an by Dawood, I accept the internal logic of your responses. Indeed, I purposedly posted the various translation prior to your responses as an admission that my question may have been prompted by a faulty English translation of the Qu'ran. The only point of fact that I see as blatantly incorrect is where Dr. Qaisar seems to say the New Testament texts reached their final form in the 3rd or 4th century -- or are you saying the canon was established in this time period? While it may have taken that long for the texts to be universally accepted in the Church as inspired texts, the texts themselves reached their final forms by 110 A.D. at the latest.

Other than this, you have presented the best answer I have read in regard to the "apparent contradiction" I identified, and I thank you for taking the time to provide such detailed and thoughtful analysis of the problem.

However, while your responses resolve the apparent contradiction, I am still not embracing the doctrine that the Qur'an is infallible or that Jesus received an Injeel that we Christians corrupted.

Elsewhere, Firefly or myself have attempted to demonstrate that the so-called contradictions in the Bible that Muslims seem to find are only "apparent contradictions" as well. I am a little disappointed by Dr. Qaisar's assertion that we christians are simply putting flowery spin on our language. I think I have demonstrated that there is no logical fallacy in what we say. While I don't expect anyone to convert based on a few hundred words on a web-site, I hoped that I wrote clearly enough to promote better understanding of the internal consistency of the christian position.

One of the reasons I am not swayed either way by the so-called consistency argument is that I expect educated people to have an internally consistent world-view. There can be multiple interpretations of reality that are internally consistent. While inconsistency may be a sign of falsity, consistency alone is not the test of truth.

Perhaps an analogy from science would help. Aristotle's physics is an entirely internally consistent world-view of how nature operates. According to Aristotle, inanimate objects had an inner "desire" and "energy" that performed the functions we typically ascribe to gravity today. What goes up must come down because objects desire to come down and rest. Newton proved Aristotle wrong not by pointing out an inconsistency in Aristotles theory. Rather, Newton proved Aristotle wrong because his theory of gravity explained better the new evidence of the planetary systems. Later, Einstein proposed the theory of relativity which superceded Newton's theory. Again, Einstein did not prove Newton inconsistent. Rather, the theory of relativity had more predictive power than Newton's theory, especially in the realm of atomic energy. But Einstein's theory cannot explain the results of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is not really a theory. Rather, it is a set of mathematical formulas that has more predictive power at the sub-atomic level. Yet, one can go back and study Aristotle intensely, and you will not find an internal inconsistency within his theory.

Regarding an Injeel revealed to Jesus: Basically, Christians do not believe that Jesus received a gospel apart from himself as Muslims assert. Rather, we believe that Jesus IS the gospel. We do not read the New testament to learn doctrines, dogmas, and moral codes. Rather, the words of the New Testament lead to an encounter with the living Word of God, who is Jesus Christ. The doctrines and dogmas (words) of christianity are an attempt to codify and explain an encounter with a living person.

LULUA: I don't know what JBJ wrote before the apology, and I admit that I can see why you would claim the original apology itself was "spiced". I hope that I am not breaking the rules by defending JBJ somewhat....

I do think it is important to note that JBJ did state that Christians and atheists do occassionally lie or twist facts to make a point. He was not singling out Muslims for attack in his apology.

Just to back up the point of the argument made by JBJ, I have the Greek verse presented by Deedat memorized. By the way, I am not sure if this name is "Deedat" or "Daedat", as both spellings are used above.

I meant to address the same point about the possesive use of "Theos" in my original response to Raqayyah above. I pulled out my copy of Nestle-Aland's Greek text to be sure I memorized it correctly. JBJ is absolutely correct.

The person who claims that John's prologue can be translated in English as "....the Word was God's." or "...the Word was of God." is extremely wrong.

In all fairness to Ahmed Deedat, Raquayyah quotes A. Daedat as saying that an old English Bible translates the verse with a possesive. Thus, Deedat appears to be refering to an old English Bible, and not the original Greek.

Regarding the Greek, there is no way to translate "Theos" as a possesive. A first semester greek student would know this within the first few weeks of class. Likewise, modern secular Greek does not allow this meaning.

Both JBJ and I are aware that the argument above is being quoted from somewhere (attributed to Ahmed Deedat). We are not assuming you agree with the argument, or that you even know Greek.

We are simply pointing that you can go find the Greek texts yourself, and you will see the word "Theos". Then you can go to a lexicon, or ask a native Greek speaker (Biblical Koine Greek is not different from modern Greek in this regards) and you will understand that there is no possible way to interpret this word as possesive.

This is not something ambiguous and debatable, which is why a knowledgeable person (regardless of religion) would find the argument extremely irritating. Perhaps JBJ overstated his irritation, or expressed it poorly. Perhaps Ahmed Deedat did not originate the argument, but quoted it from someone else.

However, a possesive interpretation of "Theos" is simply so wrong that it is difficult to believe that whoever originated the argument was being truthful. Even if an old Bible was translated that way in English, the translator was twisting the word for heretical purposes....

[JBJ]

I'm not sure what made my apology "spiced." I am sorry for disobeying the rules and causing some unrest. Because of that I ommitted (I think) anything questionable from my apology. Again, I'm sorry I ruffled any feathers, I'll try to be more careful with my words in the future.

JBJ

[JBJ]

Dr.Qaisar,

I agree that jcecil's quotes don't mean what he said. However, there are legitimate ayat that do show the Qur'an support the Torah and Injeel that are present at Muhammad's time. There's a new discussion topic focusing on it. Here's a repeat of it:


Jcecil has mentioned several times different ayat that seem to say the Torah and Gospel were true at Muhammad's time. To my knowledge no one has answered them, or not fully. Just about every objection that gets put up in this forum gets answered except this one, so I'm putting them up again in hopes that someone will.

The following is an incomplete listing of such quotes, but they're enough to start out with:

10.94 But if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed to you, ask those who read the Book before you.

2.85 Then is it only a part of the Book that ye believe in, and do ye reject the rest?

2.120 Those to whom We have sent the Book study it as it should be studied: They are the ones that believe therein: Those who reject faith therein,- the loss is their own.

3.93 Say: (to the Jews) "Bring ye the Law and study it, if ye be men of truth."

4.171 O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah.

This one is more implicit. It's implying that believing Jesus was more than a messenger is going beyond their "religion."

Then we have to understand what "religion" means. If their "religion" did teach Jesus was more than that he was, then this aya would make no sense, therefore, their "religion" must NOT have meant this. So "religion" must mean what is taught in the "Book" that's referred to. What else is could it mean?

So the Qur'an is saying not to exceed the Book of the Christians, ie, the Gospel or Bible. (Bible literally means "book.") I hope I've been clear enough.

5.77 Say: "O people of the Book! exceed not in your religion the bounds."

10.94 If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.

In other words, people should ask the Jews because they've been reading the truth sent by God.

29.46 And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you;

This is explicit! The Qur'an is telling Muslims to say they believe in what came to them AND what came to Jews and Christians. It does not say to believe in what had came down to merely Moses and Jesus, but what has come down to the Jews and Christians at Muhammad's time.

So why do no Muslims say this? I work with a lot of Biblical apparent contradictions and other issues to understand what I believe is God's revelation. I hope Muslims reading this will work through what they believe is God's revelation.

JBJ

[Dr Qaisar]

LAST EDITED ON 21-11-01 AT 05:08 AM (GMT)[p]Greetings, JBJ


>However, there are legitimate ayat
>that do show the Qur'an
>support the Torah and Injeel
>that are present at Muhammad's
>time. There's a new
>discussion topic focusing on it.
> Here's a repeat of
>it:
>
>
>Jcecil has mentioned several times different
>ayat that seem to say
>the Torah and Gospel were
>true at Muhammad's time. To
>my knowledge no one has
>answered them, or not fully.
>Just about every objection that
>gets put up in this
>forum gets answered except this
>one, so I'm putting them
>up again in hopes that
>someone will.


I would have thought that anyone who had read the preceding posts with consideration & care, especially mine (No.19 above) would have been able to understand & appreciate how the Qur'an "confirms, reaffirms or supports" the message of the previous Scriptures. It has been stated very clearly before that the Qur'an reaffirms the principle of monotheism contained in the Scriptures of the People of the Book in whatever form they may have existed at any given time in history, whether at or before the coming of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). But at the same time, it does not agree word for word with each & every passage or verse contained in the OT or NT because of the introduction of human manipulation in the previous Scriptures over a period of time. But if you still continue to think otherwise, there's not much I or others here could do about that!!


>
>The following is an incomplete listing
>of such quotes, but they're
>enough to start out with:
>
>
>10.94 But if you are in
>doubt as to what We
>have revealed to you, ask
>those who read the Book
>before you.
>

>
>2.120 Those to whom We have
>sent the Book study it
>as it should be studied:
>They are the ones that
>believe therein: Those who reject
>faith therein,- the loss is
>their own.
>
>3.93 Say: (to the Jews) "Bring
>ye the Law and study
>it, if ye be men
>of truth."


The verse you have quoted above is actually V.2:121 and not V.2:120!! In fact, V.2:120 is also interesting from our point of debate as follows:

"Never will the Jews or Christians be satisfied with you unless you follow their form of religion. Say: "The Guidance of Allah,- that is the (only) Guidance." Were you to follow their desires after the knowledge has reached you, then would you find neither protector nor helper against Allah."

As to V.2:121, it's content is addressed to everyone in general,ie. the Jews, Christians or Muslims etc. Whoever wants to profit from the Revelation of God (Allah) and believe in it & follow diligently the Commands of God to worship Him alone as contained in all the Revelations of God, can choose to do so if he/she desires, yet if they reject faith in God, the loss is their own.

V.3:93 (please quote the entire verse!) deals with the subject of permissible foods for Jews (as also V.4:160 & V.6:146):

"All food was lawful to the Children of Israel, except what Israel made unlawful for himself before the Torah was revealed. Say: Bring you the Torah and study it, if you be men of truth."

The Mosaic Law of the Jews forbade the eating of the flesh of the camel, rabbit & hare in LEVITICUS 11:4-6 (though, allowed for Muslims) and the fat of oxen, sheep and goats (Leviticus 7:23). Therefore, in V.3:93, the Qur'an asks the Jews to bring their Torah & to study it to confirm what was permissible to them or not. Before it was promulgated, Israel was free to choose its own food.


>
>4.171 O People of the Book!
>Commit no excesses in your
>religion: Nor say of Allah
>aught but the truth. Christ
>Jesus the son of Mary
>was (no more than) a
>messenger of Allah.
>
>This one is more implicit. It's
>implying that believing Jesus was
>more than a messenger is
>going beyond their "religion."
>
>Then we have to understand what
>"religion" means. If their "religion"
>did teach Jesus was more
>than that he was, then
>this aya would make no
>sense, therefore, their "religion" must
>NOT have meant this. So
>"religion" must mean what is
>taught in the "Book" that's
>referred to. What else is
>could it mean?
>
>So the Qur'an is saying not
>to exceed the Book of
>the Christians, ie, the Gospel
>or Bible. (Bible literally means
>"book.") I hope I've been
>clear enough.
>
>5.77 Say: "O people of the
>Book! exceed not in your
>religion the bounds."


No, JBJ, in both V.4:171 and V.5:77 above, the phrase used is ...."in your religion" and NOT ..."in your Book" (of Moses or Jesus). The words used in Arabic in the Qur'an are ...."fi diinikum" which mean "in your relgion". It does not say "do not exceed the limits of your Book of Moses or Jesus". I request you to please quote the entire verse in future so as to NOT TWIST the meaning or context of the particular verse. Here V.5:77 reads as follows:

"Say: O People of the Book! Exceed not in your religion the bounds (of what is proper) Tresspassing beyond the Truth, nor follow the vain desires of people who went wrong in times gone by,- who misled many, and strayed (themselves) from the even Way."

Now, let us ask the question: what was the true religion of the People of the Book and if it was any different from Islam through the ages?? First, the meaning of Islam; Islam is defined as SUBMISSION TO THE WILL OF GOD (Allah). In Arabic, the name of God is simply "Allah"!! Let us see what religion was enjoined on the People of the Book. The answer is given in V.42:13 below:

"The same religion has He established for you as that which He enjoined on Noah- the which We have send by inspiration to you- And that which We enjoined on Abraham, Moses, and Jesus: Namely, that you should remain steadfast in religion, and make no divisions therein: To those who worship other things than Allah, hard is the (way) to which you call them. Allah chooses to Himself those whom He pleases, and guides to Himself those who turn (to Him)."

Therefore, the religion before Noah, Abraham, Moses and Jesus and all the previous prophets of God was only
one religion, Al-Islam= Submission to the Will of God!!! The religion of Prophet Moses (PBUH) was the same as that of Prophet Jesus (PBUH) which was that of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), the last Messenger of God. The Religion of God (Islam) was only completed & perfected by God in His Last Revelation, The Qur'an, given to Prophet Mohammad (Pbuh). Thus, the reminder & instruction to the Jews & Christians by their Lord, Allah, NOT to exceed the limits of their religion (Islam) and Not to tresspass the ETERNAL TRUTH of the worship of the one & only one God and not to ...."follow the vain desires (eg. Trinity) of people who went wrong in times gone by,- who misled many, and strayed (themselves) from the even Way".


>
>10.94 If thou wert in doubt
>as to what We have
>revealed unto thee, then ask
>those who have been reading
>the Book from before thee:
>the Truth hath indeed come
>to thee from thy Lord:
>so be in no wise
>of those in doubt.
>
>In other words, people should ask
>the Jews because they've been
>reading the truth sent by
>God.

The Qur'an states that some among the People of the Book were, indeed, true Believers in the oneness of God & were on the correct Path, but NOT ALL Jews & Christians!!

"Not all of them are alike: of the people of Book are a portion that stand (for the right); they rehearse the signs of Allah all night long, and they prostrate themselves in adoration." (V.3:113)

"They believe in Allah and the Last Day; they enjoin what is right; and forbid what is wrong; and they hasten in (emulation in (all) good works: They are in the ranks of the righteous." (V.3:114)

"And when they listen to the revelation received by Messenger, you will see their eyes overflowing with tears, for they recognise the truth: They pray: "Our Lord! We believe, write us down among the witnesses." (V.5:83)
See also V.5:82 & 84. These refer to the Christians.

It is a well known fact that among the early Christians were present what is called as "the Unitarian Christians" who believed in only the true oneness of God and rejected the concept of Trinity. As a historical fact, many such true followers of Jesus (pbuh) were spread over North Africa & the Middle East before the 7th century AD and when the Message of Islam was preached to them after the Prophet's death in 632 AD, in 7th-8th century AD, they immediately recognised the truth of their own Scriptures and embraced Islam willingly as a continuation & confirmation of what their own Scripture told about the oneness of God!! Many Jews in the time of the Prophet himself (PBUH) in Madinah accepted the Qur'an & Islam.

So when the Qur'an says to ask the Jews (or People of the Book) about this Revelation, it does not come as a surprise. If you were to pose this question to a Jew: whom do you worship or who is your God?? The answer would be "ALLAH"!!! But, of course, he/she would reply in his/her own language ie. Hebrew which would turn out to be "ILOH" or "ILOHIM". The Arabic equivalent is simply "ALLAH". Note the similarity in the Hebrew word for God, "ILOH" and that in Arabic, "ILAH"!!! And were you to ask him/her about Moses, he/she would reply that he was only a Prophet of God, like the rest of the Hebrew prophets. This is what we Muslims also believe in. Quite unlike the case with Christians who have taken Jesus as their God and/or Son of God!! The Orthodox Jews have quite rightly remained faithful to the worship of the one true God, like us Muslims. But having said that, both the Jews & Christians were Commanded by God to believe in the Messengership of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) & the Qur'an in V.4:47:

"O you People of Book! Believe in what We have (now) revealed, confirming what was ( already) with you, before We change the face and fame of some (of you) beyond all recognition, and turn then hindwards, Or curse them as We cursed the Sabbath-breakers, For the decision of Allah must be carried out."


>
>29.46 And dispute ye not with
>the People of the Book,
>except with means better (than
>mere disputation), unless it be
>with those of them who
>inflict wrong (and injury): but
>say, "We believe in the
>revelation which has come down
>to us and in that
>which came down to you;
>
>
>This is explicit! The Qur'an is
>telling Muslims to say they
>believe in what came to
>them AND what came to
>Jews and Christians. It does
>not say to believe in
>what had came down to
>merely Moses and Jesus, but
>what has come down to
>the Jews and Christians at
>Muhammad's time.
>
>So why do no Muslims say
>this? I work with a
>lot of Biblical apparent contradictions
>and other issues to understand
>what I believe is God's
>revelation. I hope Muslims reading
>this will work through what
>they believe is God's revelation.

No need to work through God's revelation. It's very explicit & self-evident. We Muslims are ONLY required to believe in the original revelations given to ALL THE PREVIOUS PROPHETS but NOT to follow their laws, customs, traditions, practices etc. This is so because God (Allah) has completed His religion, Islam as given to all the prophets, in His last Revelation to mankind ie. the Qur'an. Thus, ISLAM has now formulated its own set of laws and rules & regulations and customs & rituals distinct from the previous revelations. But as far as believing in the previous revelations is concerned, it is a cardinal article of Islamic faith as stated in V.2:136 :

"Say you: We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, and the tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) Prophets from the Lord: We make no difference between one and another of them; And we submit to Allah."

But as explained before, the revelations to Prophets Moses & Jesus (PBUH) as existing in the present OT/NT are not an accurate & faithful reproduction of the original. The Bible of today (or that existing at the Prophet Mohammad's, PBUH time) contains only a semblance of the original revelations. Still they are referred to as the Scriptures or Books in the Qur'an because the basic message of monotheism is contained in them inspite of the human alterations or "editing" by various authorities! I hope, once again, that I have gone a little further in explaining to you.


Dr.Qaisar

[Fadhilah]

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim.
Asssalamualaikum to all.
Taken from: Book titled MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

1)Those who maintain the unity of God in the trinity of persons tell us that "each person is omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal and perfect God; yet there are not three omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal and perfect Gods, but one omnipotent.....God!" If there is no sophistry in the above reasoning then we shall present this "mystery" of the churches by an equation:-

1 God= 1 God + 1 God + 1 God; therefore : 1 God= 3 Gods. In the first place, one god cannot equal three gods, but only one of them. Secondly, since you admit each person to be perfect God like His two associates, your coclusion that 1 + 1 + 1 = 1 is not mathematical, but an absurdity!

You are either too arrogant when you attempt to prove that therr units equal one unit; or too cowardly to admit that three ones equal three ones. In the former case you can never prove a wrong solution of a problem by a false process;and in the second you have not the courage to confess your belief in three gods.

2)The first verse with which St.Johns Gospel commences was often refuted by the early Unitarian writers, who rendered its true reading as follows: "In the begining was the Word; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God's."

It will be noticed that the Greek form of the genitive case "Theou," i.e "God's" was corrupted into "Theos"; that is, "God," in nominative form of tha name! It is also to be observed that the clause "In the begining was the word" expressly the origin of the word which WAS NOT BEFORE THE BEGINNING!

-PROF.'ABDU 'L-AHAD DAWUD.

"There is no God but ALLAH, and MUHAMMAD is the messenger of ALLAH."

[Lulua]

Assalaamu alaikum ya muslimeen.

Good day to all.

Need evidences from the Quran? There is exact and explicit evidence against the trinity. Word for word, to be exact. As well, the concept of the trinity itself simply does NOT agree with common sense or understanding. Even the best or most knowledgeable of the Christian scholars cannot explain the trinity in anything more than a mystery which 'must' be accepted. That is not enough for me, and not enough truly for mankind. There is a simple beauty to Islam...if you can see and understand that, fine...and good for you. If you cannot...then there is surely little else that anyone at these forums can do for you.

The above mentioned verses from the Quran:

'O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not "Trinity" : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs.' s. 4, v. 171.

'They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.' s. 5, v. 73.

May Allah guide all those who are seeking Him and His path...and find ease in their path.

Lulua.

[jcecil3]

LAST EDITED ON 30-11-01 AT 02:50 PM (GMT)[p]Greetings All!

LULUA: I was aware of the verse from the Qur'an that is seemingly opposed to the Trinity. However, this only goes to the question of which set of religious texts are to be trusted. JBJ posted a different argument about the Qur'an confirming the New Testament than I did. It can be found above inserted as a response to Dr. Qasair. What are your thoughts on his question?

FADHILAH: Your analogy to mathematics fails. It is entirely possible for a formula such as 3x=1 to be logically valid.

Of course, with this formula, x=0.3333333.....which is not what Christians say. We do not believe that the three persons of the Trinity are each one third part of God, but that each is wholly God. My point in bringing up 3x=1 is simply to demonstrate by analogy that your mathematical equation is solely an analogy, and all analogies fall short of the reality they attempt to describe.

I return to the issue of the meaning of terms. In talking about the Trinity, we absolutely must define our terms. I recently went back to all the Councils of the Church from Nicea to Vatican II. The bishops are extremely careful not to confuse terms or categories.

1) Ousias (Greek) = Substantia or Natura (Latin); "Being", "Essense", "Nature" or "Substance" (English).

2) Hypostasis (Greek) or Prosopon (Greek) = Persona (Latin), translated as "Person" (English).

3) Subsistentia (Latin) = subsistent or dependent being (English).

4) Phystis (Greek) = will, or principle of action (English).

5) Gennethenta (Greek) = generated or begotten (as opposed to "Poethenta" (Greek) or "Factum" (Latin, which mean "created" "born" or "made")

6) Spiration or Procession (I could not find the original Greek on this term, but will keep looking).

In God, there is one "Ousias" = one being, essence, nature, or substance. This term answers the question "What?"

There are three "hypostasis" = persons, a word meaning "that which stands" was used to clarify "prosopon", which is derived from the Greek word to describe a mask worn by actors in the theater, it answers the question "Who?". It is an identity arising from "ousias", but distinct from "ousias". A "hypostasis" is formed and completed on the basis of relationship.

To my wife, my own "hypostasis" is that of "husband". To my father, I am the "hypostasis" of "son". I am one human "being", with more than one "hyspostisis", which is true of all of us.

There is absolutely no contradiction in asserting that there are three "hypostasis" in God -- not even an apparent contradiction!

The "hypostasis" called the "Logos" (Word) in Scripture assumed a human nature. In this "hypostatic union", a divine nature and a human nature (two ousiasis) were conjoined from the moment of conception in the womb of Mary, such that we can rightly call Mary "Theotokes" (the "God Bearer", or "Mother of God"). The Logos is the divine nature from all eternity, but assumes a human nature in the womb of the Virgin in time.

Muslims and Christians agree that "with God, all things are possible". Therefore, we still have no contradiction in stating that an "hypostasis" of God assumed human flesh.

In God, there is only one "Phystis" = one divine will or principle of action.

In the "hypostatic union" in Christ, there is a perfect union of a divine nature and a human nature. The human nature, in order to be fully human, has a human "phystis", or human will. Thus, in Christ, there is a divine will and a human will. It is impossible to fully understand Christ's self-consciousness of this.

However, we can understand by analogy that not all human knowledge and willing is "verbal" or "thematic" knowledge. For example, I know how to move my arms without knowing how to express the biological mechanisms involved. I also know the experience of trying to recall a person's name after I seem to have forgotten it.

By analogy, in the person of Christ, it is possible that the divine omniescience (divine knowledge) was partially hidden from the human mind and will of Christ, and gradually revealed to him in his human life in history. Christian theologians do not universally agree about how much divine knowledge Christ was conscious of in his historical human existence. Traditionalists or conservatives maintain he knew his divine nature throughout his life. Progressive liberals maintain that his self consciousness gradually developed.

Thus, it is generally believed that the Trinity was gradually revealed to the apostles as well, with full understanding coming after the resurrection event. This gradual revelation is either because the apostles could not grasp it all at once, or it is even possible that Christ did not grasp it thematically (or verbally) all at once.

The divine nature was so perfectly united to the human nature so as to guide the human will perfectly. Thus, Jesus is the divine as human, and the human as divine: true God and true man. The divine and human are so united to form a "subsistentia" -- a subsistent being or subsistent person arising from the unity of Christ.

This subsistent being in Christ is fully human. He was born of a woman, gets hungry and thirsty, eats and drinks, goes to the bathroom, grows tired, feels just anger, cries, does not have conscious verbal knowledge of all things, is tempted by Satan (though never sins), fears his suffering, and he even dies. Muslims seem to think this makes God weak. From a Christian perspective, God's becoming human is the ultimate revelation of human dignity: Jesus is God's GIFT of his very self. Jesus is the "Word" of God -- the highest self-communication of God to humanity. By the divine becoming human, humanity is invited to share in divine life.

Christ's humanity is subordinate to his divinity, and "the Son" in his humanity is less than the Father. Yet, due to his divine nature, he pre-exists his birth and his death is a death into resurrection in eternity. The divine Logos shares all things with the Father, and knows all and was present in all creation. All things that were made were made for him, through him, and in him. To look at Christ is to see the model of what it means to be human.

From before and outside of time, the Logos is "gennethenta" (generated) from the Father. There is no beginning or end to this generation, as it is a divine act not under the restrictions of time and space. As such, we cannot possibly fully comprehend this, since our minds are limited to comprehending the world of time and space.

The best analogies are a thinker to a thought, or the yellow heat of flame to fire.

The second "hypostasis" called the Logos, is distinct from the first hypostasis, called the Father. These two hypostasis are distinct in terms of relationship from all eternity, yet both are one and the same "ousias".

Thus, when we speak of the identity of the "hypostasis" (the answer to the question "Who?") being formed on the basis of a relationship, we are stating that the hypostatic identity is NOT formed solely on the basis of the relationship of the Logos to humanity, but on the basis of the Logos to the Father. There is an eternal DISTINCTION in the God-head, without a separation of "ousias" or "phystis".

The self-consciousness of God is impossible to comprehend. In asserting this distinction without separation, we are not pretending to know what goes on the mind of God in the formation of these two identities. Rather, we are merely stating that God has revealed these two "hypostisis" exists eternally through the Scripture and in the work and person of Jesus Christ.

The third "hypostisis" is not generated, as the Logos. Rather, the union between the Father and the Logos spirates the Holy Spirit. Thus, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and is the very holiness of God revealed as an "hypostasis". Again, this is not derived from pure reason, but is revelaed in Scripture. And again, there is no separation in the God-head. Rather, there is a distinction of hypostasises in the God-head that exists from eternity.

Now, it is clear in the use of these terms that we Christians say of God that there is one being, and one will. With Muslims and Jews, we proclaim that there is one God!

Yet, we maintain that there are three "autonomous persons" (Fourth Lateran Council) within the God-head, meaning that there is a distinction forming an identity on the basis of relationship within the God-head. I repeat, there is no SEPARATION of persons. Rather, there is a DISTINCTION. When we speak of this "mystery", we admit that we cannot fathom the self consciousness of any one person within God, or of all three persons of the God-head.

In asserting that there is a DISTINCTION, as opposed to a SEPARATION, I am not saying anything any more illogical than saying that the husband of my wife, and the son of my Dad are one and the same being. Yet, I am not son to my wife! The logic of the Trinity is impeccable when we use the terms appropriately.

The problem Christians have with Mohammed, the Qur'an, and Muslim objections to the Trinity is that when you argue against the Trinity, you never seem to use the terms appropriately. Thus, you seem to be always attacking a "straw man". If you read all the posts that you all have made, you constantly use the words "person" and "being" interchangeably, when they are NOT the same term and do not have the same meaning.

We do not say there are three gods in one god. We do not say God has partners who are also gods apart from god. We do not assert multiple beings or multiple "ousiasis" in one "ousias".

The part of Trinitarian doctrine that is confusing to human beings is that the "hypostasis" relate to one another without being separate beings from one another. We do not believe that the three "hypostasis" in God are three modes of God, only known as a "person" by their relationship to human persons. There are real subject-object distinctions between the persons of the Trinity. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit each share in an "I-Thou-We" relationship of love with each other, though there is no separation in being or will. The hypostatic identity of each is established in relation to the other two hypostasis. I understand your confusion in this regard, because this is precisely what we affirm as "mystery".

However, to say something is a mystery beyond complete comprehension does not mean it is illogical or untrue. For example, in mathematics, there are non-conceptual formulas for dealing with multidimensional reality that work in quantum mechanics to predict things like quarks acting as waves and particles at one and the same time. If you insist on using mathematical formulas as analogies of the Trinity, the math used in super-string theory would be far more appropriate than the basic grade school arithmetic you are using.

Many things in life are a mystery, love and beauty being a prime examples. God is beyond our comprehension, and the doctrine of the Trinity protects this while revelaing God as personal, relational, and loving. The recognition of "persons" in the Godhead becomes the theological and philosophical grounds for understanding human personhood and how we image God in relationships with one another.

We do not need to rack our brains trying to grasp this as a mathematic formula. A child can understand that God became one of us because he loves us. A child can grasp that asking what Jesus would do is a moral guide to behavior. Millions with little philosophical back-ground can find infinite significance in the crucifixion event as a HUMAN event made meaningful because it was done by a DIVINE being who shared in our humanity! On the cross, God is with us in our own suffering!

Back to the distinctions between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit....Some of the Saints have used analogies. All analogies express a similarity or likeness. However, all analogies also fall short of the reality they attempt to describe. There are faults in demonstrating truths by analogies, yet they are helpful.

Saint Patrick of Ireland used the analogy of the three leaf clover. In reality, the clover has a single leaf, but it appears to have three leaves. Saint Augustine used the analogy of a triangle, where there are three lines forming a single unity. A contemporary Catholic theologian, Elizabeth Johnson, uses the analogy of DNA strands. Two strands form a single unity. Ms. Johnson suggests picturing the Trinity as a triple stranded helix....

Eastern theology places more emphasis on the different functions or "energies" that are exercised by each person of the Trinity. These energies are exercised in creation, in the individual spiritual life of the believer, and in the Church. There is more emphasis in the East on how to distinguish the persons of the Trinity.

Western theology places more emphasis on the unity of being and will of the Trinity by demonstrating the same divine attributes are demonstrated by each person of the Trinity. There is more emphasis in the West on the unity of God.

Yet, both East and West agree on the same use of the terms defined above, and consider each other "orthodox" in regards the Trinity. Even where there is "schism" between, we do not call each other heretics.

Recently, I heard a talk on bio-ethics where the discussion turned to the beginnings of human life in the abortion debate. Scientists universally agree that at the moment of conception, a new "human being" is formed. A unique organism with a unique set of 46 chromosomes is formed at the very moment a human egg is fertilized by a human sperm. Pro-abortionists who have a back-ground in biology do not deny this is a unique human being. What they deny is that it is a "human person". We see here a distinction between "person" and "being". I happen to be against abortion, but I acknowledge the distinction between personhood and being.

Take this a step further. With unseparated siamese twins, we obviously have two persons. Yet, this is a single being until they are surgically separated! This is not a perfect analogy for the Trinity, because the siamese twins have two wills and can be surgically separated. God has one divine will and cannot be surgically separated. Yet, the example of unseparated siamese twins demonstrates in our own three dimensional world the possibility of two persons existing in a single being!

To borrow a Muslim metaphor, the New Testament affirms "five pillars" about God:

1) There is one God.
2) The Father is God.
3) The Son is God.
4) The Holy Spirit is God.
5) The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternally distinct.

The New Testament authors and early Christian writers prior to Nicea also go to great lengths to demonstrate how each of these "pillars" is implied int he Old Testament. Indeed, while the New Testament was being written and compiled, Christians only had the Old Testament to refer to in defining their doctrine.

If this doctrine was "invented" by human beings, rather than revealed by God, one has to ask why anyone would come up with such a complex doctrine?

The Trinity did not appeal to the Romans and Greeks, who persecuted the Christians by throwing them to lions and burning them alive. Indeed, the pagans accused the Christians of atheism because they denied the multiplicity of gods. Paul was beheaded for this belief. Peter was crucified upside down. John was exiled to the island of Patmos.

Nor did the Trinity appeal to large numbers of Jews, who failed to understand how the doctrine was pure monotheism. James was thrown from the temple and stoned to death. Steven was stoned.

Thus, the argument that it was a compromise to attract Roman or Jewish converts makes little sense.

I would assert that the only reason the doctrine arose was the unique experience of the Risen Christ and the meaning of the person and work of Jesus of Nazareth. Only in an encounter with him does one begin to apprehend the Trinity, never fully comprehending it.

The New Testament was written as the first feeble attempts to explain this mystery in the form of creative narrative based on the historical life of Christ.

Fortunately, these attempts to describe the mystery of the person of Christ were inspired by the Holy Spirit, as we have discovered through the community of faith, the Church. The early Church affirmed that these writings defined the faith handed to them by the apostles and these writings lead to an encounter with the Risen Christ.

The Bible is a window to view Christ, or a gateway to a personal encounter with him. Once you have this personal encounter, all the apparent contradictions begin to resolve themselves and the total consistency of the Bible slowly begins to emerge.

For some of the many New Testament verses that support each of these five assertions, please see the following link.

http://www.infpage.com/concordance/god1.htm

For some more Scripture and pre-Nicea writings affirming belief in the Trinity, go to this link (These passages prove Nicea did not INVENT the doctrine).

http://www.catholicanswers.org/ANSWERS/tracts/_trinity.htm

And if you are interested in the Councils of the Church, go to this link (Here you see how the doctrine is clarified against common misunderstandings and supported by both Scripture and Tradition for 2,000 years).

http://www.newadvent.org/directory/14388a_04423f.htm

For a breifer synopsis of Trinitarian doctrine as presently taught by the Roman Catholic Church, see the following link to the section devoted to the Trinity in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm#I

Regarding the interpretation of John's prologue as "Theou" rather than "Theos", or the possibility that the Injeel was corrupted by the gospel writers, or the possibility that Jesus did not die on the cross, what is the historical evidence for any of these assertions?

The Unitarians you quote did not exist prior to Harvard University in America! There is no evidence that I have seen that any of these ideas originated as early as any of the New Testament texts. The so-called gospel of Barnabas (argued by many Muslims to the original Injeel) only exists in fragments, uses the canonical gospels as a source (quoting Matthew and Luke verbatim in places in an attempt to harmonize the two), and can be demonstrated through lingusitic analysis and external quoting to be of late origin. Furthermore, the authors of Barnabas and the Docetae and Gnostics associated with them held to beliefs that Muslims would find objectionable, such as demi-gods emanating from a blind impersonal god.

In the New Testament, we have a minimum of eight different authors with different personalities and different writing styles and different theological nuances, all affirming the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus AND his divinity, AND the first formulations of Trinitarian doctrine.

All of these authors are writing while the apostles or their immediate followers are still alive and the Christ events are in recent memory. It seems that the people who knew Jesus or the apostles best all got it wrong (according to Muslims) immediately after the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension events.

Yet, I challenge you to find a dissenting voice among those who knew Christ or the apostles that can be demonstrated by historical-critical methods to be dated prior to 110 AD (the latest date ascribed to the Johanine writings according to the most sceptical historical-critical scholarship). So far, I have not seen any evidence of your assertions of corruption.

Peace and Blessings!

jcecil3

[JBJ]

Dr. Quaisar,

Sorry for my tardiness. I'm glad you responded. The common response from most Muslims on this issue I've found is to only restate the Qur'an teaches the past Books were changed and doesn't teach obedience to them without looking at everything the Qur'an says.

I do in fact understand the Qur'an confirms the monotheism of the previous Books but that doesn't agree with every part of them. My point is that I think the Qur'an says that it agrees, and that is the problem. And I'm a little surprised you think I'm a person who wouldn't look at the facts. But maybe I'm wrong; I'm open to it. Let's look again.


2.21

Those to whom We have sent the Book study it as it should be studied: They are the ones that believe therein: Those who reject faith therein,- the loss is their own.

First, thank you for pointing out my mistake on the reference. I agree that it's addressed to all the receivers of the Book, and because the Qur'an is sent to everyone, the aya addresses everyone. The problem with it is that it says that these people study the revelation as it should be studied. In other words, these people are right. Now, I study the Torah, the Zabur, and the Gospel, and believe the Son of God to be the ransom of my sins, so doesn't this aya mean that I'm right in my study?

3.39

All food was lawful to the Children of Israel, except what Israel made unlawful for himself before the Torah was revealed. Say: Bring you the Torah and study it, if you be men of truth.

V.3:93 (please quote the entire verse!) deals with the subject of permissible foods for Jews (as also V.4:160 & V.6:146)

The Mosaic Law of the Jews forbade the eating of the flesh of the camel, rabbit & hare in LEVITICUS 11:4-6 (though, allowed for Muslims) and the fat of oxen, sheep and goats (Leviticus 7:23). Therefore, in V.3:93, the Qur'an asks the Jews to bring their Torah & to study it to confirm what was permissible to them or not. Before it was promulgated, Israel was free to choose its own food.

Sorry for not quoting the entire verse, I only did it for brevity's sake. I agree with everything you've said. The problem is that the aya is saying to follow the Torah. However, Muslims say that the Torah has been corrupted and lost. How could the Jews study the Torah unless the book they had at Muhammad's time is the Book from Moses's time?

4.171

O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah.

5.77

Say: "O people of the Book! exceed not in your religion the bounds."

You said that everyone's religion is Islam, yet the Qur'an says, "To you your religion, and to me my religion "(109:6). So in the Islamic usage, aren't there more than one religion? If you can answer that, then the problem is satisfied.

10.94

If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.

I think you missed the point, I'm quite aware that there were both righteous and evil Jews and Christians at Muhammad's time, just as there are now. First, this aya says to ask the People of the Book, not merely the upright people. But if Muslims asked even the good Christians, they would say Jesus died and rose again.

29.46

And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you;"

Unfortunately, you never responded to this verse directly, so I have nothing to say other than repeating myself. This says to believe not only in the revelation come Abraham, Moses, and Jesus but also to 7th century Chrstians, to me, to jececil, and to all Christians!

Also, I think you accidently missed 2.85. Thanks for your work.

~JBJ

[Fadhilah]

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim.
Assalamualaikum to all.
Taken from: Book titled "MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE".
-----------------------------------------------------------------

The Christian Trinity-inasmuch as it admits a plurality of persons in the Deity,attributes distinct personal properties to each persons;and makes use of family names similar to those in the pagan mythology-cannot be accepted as a true conception of the Deity.Allah is neither the father of a son nor the son of a father.He has no mother,nor is He self-made.Ther belief in "God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Ghost" is a flagrant denial of the unity of God,and an audacious confession in three imperfect beings who, unitedly or separately,cannot be the true God.

Mathematics as a positive science teaches us that a unit is no more nor less than one;that one is never equal to one plus one plus one;in other words,one cannot be equal to three,because one is the third of the three.In the same way,one is not equal to a thrid. And vice versa,three are not equal to one,nor can a thrid be equal to a unit.The unit is the basis of all numbers,and a standard for the measurements and weights of all demensions,distances,quantities and time.In fact,all numbers are aggregates of the unit 1.Ten is aggregate of so many equal units of the same kind.

Besides, we all-Muslims and Christians-belives that God is Omnipressent,that He fills and encompasses every space and particle.Is it conceivable that all the three persons of the Deity at the same time and seperately encompass the universe,or is it only one of them in the time? To say "the Deity does this" would be no answer at all.For Deity is not God, but the state of being God,and therefore a quality.Godhead is the quality of one God;it is not susceptible of plurality nor of diminution. There are no godheads but one Godhead,which is the attribute of one God alone.

Then we are told that each person of the trinity has some particular attributes which are not proper to the other two. And these attributes indicate-according to human reasoning and lauguage-priority and posteriority among them.The Father always holds the first rank,and is prior to the Son. The Holy Ghost is not only posterior as the third in order of counting but even inferior to those from whom he proceeds. Would it not be considered a sin of heresy if the names of the three persons were conversely repeated? Will not the signing of the cross upon the countenance or over the elements of the Eucharist be considered impious by the Churches if the formula be reversed thus: "In the name of the Holy Ghost, and of the Son, and of the Father"? For if they are absolutely equal and coeval,the order of precedence need not be so scrupulously observed.

[Ruqayyah]

Assalamualaikum:
I have to clear an error concerning Philo and John.Brother Tayeb e-mailled me recently,telling me that he could not find any information about Philo working with John.I have to clear this.I didn't say he work with THE John.I said,the WRITER of Book John,whoever he is,took views and opinions from Philo (who is a Jew)and put it in his book.I do hope that is clear....Thank you and Wassalam.
-Ruqayyah Ramli

[jcecil3]

LAST EDITED ON 28-11-01 AT 08:52 PM (GMT)[p]Greetings Fadhila!

Christians do agree that God is one and omnipresent. Exodus 3:14 names God as "I AM, Who AM". God is absolute and self subsistent being, and all things that exist are dependent on the very being of God. Saint Thomas Aquinas, using Aristotelian categories, refers to God as "pure act" referring to the fact that God is the power of being that underlies all contingent reality. In other words, I only exist because God wills me into existence at every nanosecond I am alive. My own "being" depends on God, who is the ground of all being. God is the goad and goal of all that exists. God is THE Absolute Being. In this regard, Christians agree with you.

But God is not just a blind force like electricity. Bhuddists believe in a ground of all that exists, but even the Dali Lama and the Pope (who are friends) acknowledge that they have different conceptions about this ground of all that exist. The Dali Lama believes that Absolute Being is impersonal. Christians believe that Absolute Being is personal, has will, and is identifiable with pure and infinite love (beyond any experience of love we sinners have on earth -- yet the very ground of our experience of love).

In saying that THE Absolute Being is personal, we are more in agreement with Muslims than Bhuddists.

As human beings begin to discuss our experiences of this power called God with one another, we are forced to use metaphors, analogies, figures of speech, etc....There is no other way to speak of eternal and infinite mystery that is beyond finite and sinful human imagination. There is nothing inherently wrong with using the metaphors of "Father" or "Mother" etc....

Did pagans also use metaphors to describe God? In many cases, the answer is yes! In other cases, the pagans literally meant that there was more than one spirit, and they were not refering to THE Absolute Being in their use of metaphors. We all need to learn to really listen to each other with an open mind, rather than assuming we know what the other believes.

We do not believe in three gods. You are making an argument by anology. There is nothing wrong with analogies. I use them too. However, analogies are not perfect. Your argument does not deal with the logic used in the terms employed (ousias, hypostasis, etc....)

I am not a math major. My primary back-ground is literature and theology. The highest math I took was Calculus, and I did study science as a major my first three years in university. I then switched to literature and theology and continued through graduate studies in the latter fields.

However, my brother did study higher math in depth and my Dad has a PhD in Chemistry. I do not pretend to understand higher math, but my Dad and my brother would say you are wrong about your understanding of math. In multideminsional math (that used for quantum mechanics, super-string theory, etc....) 2+2 can equal 5. A quark can act as a particle and a wave at the same time. A basketball can be turned inside out without cutting the ball. And "1" is not a single unit. Furthermore, science demostrates that this type of higher math more accurately reflects the way the universe actually operates than the grade school arithmetic you are using.

While I do not fully understand all this math, there is an excellent book you may want to check out called "God and the New Physics". I think the author is Paul Davies. Another good book is "The Structures of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn. These works are written for people like myself, who don't have higher degrees in math, yet are interested in how the universe really works and what it means to us.

I am suggesting that you are mistaken in your view about how math reflects physical reality. If you are mistaken about math in the physical realm, you may also be mistaken about your view about how math is used to draw analogies about God.

Read my posting titled "Random Reflections on Comparative Religion". It's long, and wanders in places, but maybe you will begin to really LISTEN and understand what I am saying about how the human mind works and how we appraoch God.

Then, IF you can still find a contradiction in the doctrine of the Trinity by using logic, rather than faulty analogies to math, I'll listen to what you have to say.

You do raise an interesting point in your last paragraph about the sign of the cross. I honestly do not know if it would be considered heresy to say "In the name of the Holy Spirit, and the Son, and the Father". I'll have to research that one and get back to you.

Peace and Blessings!

jcecil3

P.S. -- Ruqayyah -- I understood you correctly above the first time you made your post. I agree that the author of John's gospel borrowed language from a Jew named Philo. I still do not understand how this subtracts one iota from what the author of the gospel of John was saying about Jesus.

[Fadhilah]

Assalamualaikum to all.
Bismillahirrahmanirrahim.
Taken from: Book titled "MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE"
-----------------------------------------------------------------

THe truth is that there is no mathematical exactitide,no absolute equality between the three persons of the Trinity.If the Father were in every respect equal to the Son or the Holy Spirit,as the unit 1 is positively equal to another figure 1,then there would necessarily be ONLY ONE person of God and not three,because a unit is not a fragment or fraction nor a multiple of itself.The very difference and relationship that is admitted to exist between the persons of the Trinity leaves no shadow of doubt that they are neither equal to each other nor are they to be identified with one another.The Father begets and is not begotten; the Son is begotten and not a father;the Holy Ghost is the issue of the other two persons; the first person is described as creator and destroyer;the second as saviour or redeemer, and the third as life-giver. Consequently none of the three is alone the Creator, the Redeemer and the Life-giver. Then we are told that the second person is the Word of the first Person,becomes man and is sacrificed on the cross to satisfy the justice of his father,and that his incarnation and resurrection are operated and accomplished by the thrid person.

In conclusion, I must remind Christians that unless they belive in the absolute unity of God, and renounce the belief in the three persons, they are certainly unbelivers in the true God. Strictly speaking, Christians are polytheists, only with this exception, that the gods of the heathen are false and imaginary, whereas the three gods of the Churches have a distinct character, of whom the Father-as another epithet for Creator-is the One true God, but the son is only a prophet and servent of God, and the thrid person one of the innumerable holy spirits in the service of the Almighty God.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH, AND MUHAMMAD IS THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH.

[Fadhilah]

Assalamualaikum to all.
Bismillahirrahmanirrahim.
Taken from: Book titled "MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE"
-----------------------------------------------------------------

The Chrisrian auspicatory formula: "In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," does not even mention the name of God! And this is the Cristian God! The Nestorian and Jacobite formula, which consists of ten syllables exactly like the Muslim "Bismillahi," is thus to be transliterated: Bshim Abha wo-Bhra ou-Ruha d-Qudsha, which has the same meaning as that contained in all the other Christian formulas. The Quranic formula, on the other hand, which expresses the foundation of the Islamic truth is a great contrast to the Trintarians' formula: Bismillahi 'r-Rahmani 'r-Rahim; that is : "In the name of the Most Merciful and Compassionate Allah."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

"THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH, AND MUHAMMAD IS THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH"

P/l: I also not a math major. I am only 13. :)

[jcecil3]

LAST EDITED ON 29-11-01 AT 03:22 PM (GMT)[p]Greetings Fadhila!

So you are only 13! I congratulate you on studying something so complicated. I think it is great that you are interested in religion at such an early age. I just realized that you are posting articles written by someone else who is probably older than you.

Let me try to simplify this a bit for you so that you can see that the authors of the articles you are quoting are making a mistake.

Basically, I am saying that there are two words in English that do not mean the same thing. These two words are "being" and "person". If you go back and read the very articles you posted, you will see that the author is using these two words as though they DO mean the same thing.

Thus, he is making a mistake. He is doing this to make Christian doctrine sound like nonsense. He makes it sound like nonsense by confusing terms. I cannot know what is going on his heart, but it appears that he is deliberately trying to fool you into thinking that Christians believe something that we do not believe.

Maybe he just doesn't understand the difference between "being" and "person", and he is not deliberately trying to fool you. But either way, he is making a mistake.

Let me create an example. If I said that the Qur'an always uses "We" when Allah is speaking, therefore Muslims believe that there are many gods, wouldn't you say that I am misrepresenting Muslim belief? Wouldn't you say that I am not understanding the use of a royal "We". Wouldn't you say that I am not being careful in translating an Arabic thought? Wouldn't you say that I am imposing a meaning into a word that was not intended by Allah or Mohammed?

Well, as a Christian, I am saying that when you make "being" and "person" mean the exact same thing, you are misunderstanding and distorting what we believe. You are imposing meanings into words not intended by Christians.

Yet, the articles you are posting speak for themselves. The author switches back and forth using the words "being" and "person" interchangeably as though they mean the exact same thing. Thus, he confuses you, other Muslims, and Christians who do not understand their own faith very well.

Assuming that this author is a smart person, I would have to say that his tendency to make "being" and "person" mean the exact same thing is a deliberate attempt to fool you into believing that Christians believe in more than one God.

However, I can assure you that Christians do NOT believe in three gods. We believe in one God.

As you keep studying, some of what I say will start making more sense. You are probably a little young to fully understand everything I wrote above upon the first reading. But re-read it carefully and slowly. You are old enough that some of it should start to sink in a little bit.

I am not trying to make you a Christian. Rather, I am trying to help you understand correctly what we believe. If you still disagree with it, that's fine. However, you cannot really change a mature Christian's mind until you can argue with what we REALLY believe. What your author describes is not what we really believe.

Keep studying. Both Islam and Christianity encourage study.

Peace and Blessing!

jcecil3

[Fadhilah]

Assalamualaikum to all.
Bismillahirrahmanirrahim.
Taken from: Book titled "MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This is just for your information,Mr.Jcecil that the authour of the book is Professor 'Abdu 'I-Ahad Dawud, B.D., the writer of the present series is the former Reverend David Benjamin Keldani, B.D., a Roman Catholic priest of the Uniate-Chaldean sect. A brief sketch of his biography appears elsewhere.

When asked how he came to Islam he wrote:

"My conversion to Islam cannot be attributed to any cause other than the gracious direction of the Almighty Allah. Without this Divine guidance all learning, search and other efforts to find the Truth may even lead one astray. The moment I believed in the Absolute Unity of God His Holy Apostle Muhammad became the pattern of my conduct and behaviour."

----------------------------------------------------------------

"THERE IS NO GOD BUT ALLAH, AND MUHAMMAD IS THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH."

[jcecil3]

LAST EDITED ON 29-11-01 AT 04:49 PM (GMT)[p]Greetings once again.

I suspected the author was a former Roman Catholic due to his reference to making the sign of the sign of the cross over the Eucharistic elements (a particularly Catholic use of words).

Knowing that the author was a former Catholic makes me all the more suspicious that his choice of words is a deliberate choice to confuse you. He must know better, since he had as much formal training as I did.

For example, he says the following:

"The Christian Trinity-inasmuch as it admits a plurality of PERSONS in the Deity,attributes distinct personal properties to each PERSON;and makes use of family names similar to those in the pagan mythology-cannot be accepted as a true conception of the Deity.Allah is neither the father of a son nor the son of a father.He has no mother,nor is He self-made.Ther belief in "God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Ghost" is a flagrant denial of the unity of God,and an audacious confession in three imperfect BEINGS who, unitedly or separately,cannot be the true God."

Note how he switches from the word "person" to "being" and cleverly asserts that Christians believe in three beings. Anyone who has done graduate studies in Roman Catholic theology (which is true of ALL priests) knows that "being" and "person" do not mean the same thing, and this switch that he pulls is DELIBERATE. He is intentionally trying to fool you into believing that we Christains believe in three beings! We do not believe in three beings, but one being! In that one being, there are three persons, and I have carefully tried to define what "person" means in my posts above.

In other words, his back-ground does not make him right. I have asserted that he uses the words "being" and "person" interchangeably as though they mean the exact same thing. You can read what he wrote for yourself and see that he does this. I am not making an assertion that cannot be proven by his own words.

Then I am asserting that if you read what I wrote carefully, you see that "being" and "person" do NOT mean the exact same thing. And I have provided links to every official document of the Catholic Church as well as to Biblical passages to demonstarte that my meaning of those terms is THE Catholic understanding of those words.

Thus, if an ex-catholic mixes these words up and makes them mean the exact same thing, then that Catholic either never understood what his own Church teaches, or he is deliberately trying to fool you. Since a priest would have passed graduate level courses in university where he needed to define these terms correctly, I can only assume that the author is deliberately trying to fool you.

Furthermore, I can assure you that most priests have not studied enough math to know the fallacy in his errors with mathematics. I only recognize them because my Dad and brother have studied higher math and have pointed me to some books about math and sceince that helped me see that math is more complicated than this ex-priests seems to think. But again, don't take my word for it. Go read and study on your own to see that his understanding of math is incorrect.

Like I say, you can simply read everything HE wrote compared to what I wrote, and you can see for yourself that he is using these words (person and being) in the exact same way. In other words, think for yourself -- don't just say that author is right because he has some kind of degree! Don't even just take my word for it. Read what we both wrote and think for yourself! This is what good study is, and Islam encourages good study.

Peace!

jcecil3

[Ruqayyah]

Bismillahirrahmanirrahim

Being-Existence;constitution;nature;existing person etc.

Person-Individual human being;living body of human being

Exactly,what is the difference between these two terms here?Being=Existing person and Person=Human being,according to the Oxford Dictionary at least.

Maassalam.

[jcecil3]

LAST EDITED ON 05-12-01 AT 10:32 PM (GMT)[p]Greetings Ruqqayya.

I defined my terms above and provided the references to the Bible, the Church Councils, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church. If you do NOT believe that I am using the terms "person" and "being" as intended by the Church, you can check my references for yourself.

The Bible and the Councils of the Catholic Church are considerably older than the Oxford English Dictionary. Furthermore, the original doctrines are written in Greek and Latin. As good a dictionary as the Oxford Dictionary is, it is not intended to be a theological resource and is almost useless for this discussion.

This is a point that needs to be understood for interpreting ALL ancient texts. You cannot rely on a modern dictionary to accurately render the meaning intended by an author writing in a different age and different culture.

But like I say, if you doubt that I am using the terms "person" and "being" in the sense intended by Catholic Christians, just read the official Church documents in the English versions approved by the Pope and the Bishops. For convenience, I will re-post the links:

Some of the Biblical passages are at this link:

http://www.infpage.com/concordance/god1.htm

The Church Councils are at this link:

http://www.newadvent.org/directory/14388a_04423f.htm

The Catechism of the Catholic Church on the Trinity is at this link:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm#I

And some more scriptures and pre-nicene trinitarian teachings of the saints are at this link:

http://www.catholicanswers.org/ANSWERS/tracts/_trinity.htm

I know it's a lot to research and digest. But you only need to do the research IF you have any true doubt that I am using these words in the way the Church intends.

If you DO think I am using the words the way the Church intends, then just address how my definition of the Trinity is illogical or polytheism based on my own definitions provided above.

Peace!

jcecil3

[Ruqayyah]

Assalamualaikum.

I found this verse in the Quran, and thought I would like to share with the muslims,and the non-muslims.I am not so sure if anybody had posted this message in this forum before me, but I'll just post it anyway.

6.And when Jesus son of Mary said: O Children of Israel! Lo! I am the messenger of Allah unto you, confirming that which was (revealed) before me in the Torah, and bringing good tidings of a messenger who cometh after me, whose name is the Praised One. Yet when he hath come unto them with clear proofs, they say: This is mere magic.
-Ash-Shaff

It seems like Jesus had known about Muhammad PBUH (the Praised One) even before he was borned.

Wassalam.
Ruqayyah Ramli

[JBJ]

Hi Ruqayyah,

Yes, that is what the Qur'an says, and there are no historical records saying Jesus said anthing like this. Bye!

JBJ

[Fadhilah]

Bismillahirrahmairrahim.
Assalamualaikum to all.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

I have a question.

Q:Why do Crisitans say that Jesus is a God?

Just Curious..

-Fadhilah and Ruqayyah Ramli.

[JBJ]

Assalamalaikum,

Hi, Christians don't say he is a god, we say he is God. The difference is that saying "a god" means he's separate from God, but being God himself, Jesus is a part of him. This is explained more at this page: http://answering-islam.org/Who/theos.html

We say this because the Bible says "the Word (Jesus) was God." Jesus said it in his own words when he said he's the "I Am" which the Bible's name for God. (It's translated Lord.) Christians believe the Bible because it's a historical record of Jewish history, Jesus, and his first followers. This is talked about in this page: http://answering-islam.org/Bible/Text/index.html

Salaam!

JBJ

[Ruqayyah]

Hello JBJ

Muhammad is also mentioned in the bible.He is the "SHILOH".

Taken from: Muhammad In The Bible (Prof. 'Abdu 'L-Ahan Dawud)

The famous prophecy,which may be considered as the nucleus of this testament (that's the old one), is contained in the 10th verse of the 49th Chapter of Genesis as follows:-

"The Sceptre shall not depart from Judah,
And the Lawgiver from between his feet,
Until the coming of SHILOH,
And to him belongeth the obidience of peoples".
-

Ruqayyah Ramli

[Fadhilah]

Hello JBJ,

Thanks for answering my qustion. But are you sure that is the real,original verse?
"In the beginning was the Word;and the Word was with God; and the Word was God's."
?
Because I have read about this verse..some Bibles wrote "The Word was God" and the other.."The Word was God's".

Thank you.

-Fadhilah & Ruqayyah Ramli.

[JBJ]

Hi!

Yes, I'm quite sure that's what the verse says. Every manuscript we have of this verse, starting from about 17 hundred years ago, says the same thing, "kai theos en ho logos." Here's something I wrote earlier about the translation of this verse:

Let's look at the Greek:

. . . kai theos en ho logos.

It literally says, "and theos was the word." Greek is unlike English in that the predicate can (but doesn't have to) come before the subject. The subject is signaled by an article in front of it: "ho" meaning "the." So the clause says "and the word was theos."

This is just what Christians say, that the word is divine, that he is god. Schonfield was correct. "Theos" is used to describe "logos." It does NOT say the logos has some divinity, or a value of divinity. It says simple the logos is divine. And that is exactly what Muslims disagree with.

You might object and say that John should read "and the logos was THE divine." That would make the Greek "kai ho theos en ho logos." But in Greek grammar, having two nouns, each with an article makes the nouns interchangable. Then it would mean the logos was God and God was the logos. But John, understanding the trinity, knew that would be wrong. God is not Jesus.

Hi!

Yes, I'm quite sure. There are rumors that the verse says "the word was a god" or "the word was God's" but neither of these is a correct translation. Here's what I wrote earlier on this verse translation:

Let's look at the Greek:

. . . kai theos en ho logos.

It literally says, "and theos was the word." Greek is unlike English in that the predicate can (but doesn't have to) come before the subject. The subject is signaled by an article in front of it: "ho" meaning "the." So the clause says "and the word was theos."

This is just what Christians say, that the word is divine, that he is god. Schonfield was correct. "Theos" is used to describe "logos." It does NOT say the logos has some divinity, or a value of divinity. It says simple the logos is divine. And that is exactly what Muslims disagree with.

You might object and say that John should read "and the logos was THE divine." That would make the Greek "kai ho theos en ho logos." But in Greek grammar, having two nouns, each with an article makes the nouns interchangable. Then it would mean the logos was God and God was the logos. But John, understanding the trinity, knew that would be wrong. God is not Jesus.

So how do we know John meant THE god and not A god?

1 There is no way to say: "the logos is God" in Greek the way it can be said and meant in English.

2 "Theos" is used in other parts of his gospel without "ho" when referring to the God, even when grammar would easily allow it.

3 The preverbal position puts emphasis on "theos."

4 John was a Jew and so believed in one God. (Note that John supported three persons and one god, not three gods and one god, or some nonsense.)

5 The greatest reason, John knew Jesus personally and Muslims and Christians agree Jesus didn't claim to be a god. John had no reason to lie.

JBJ

[Ruqayyah]

Hey there JBJ..
Well..okay..thank you for sharing the verse.But you have to look at our verse too..

Say: He is Allah, the One!

Allah, the eternally Besought of all!

He begetteth not nor was begotten.

And there is none comparable to Him.
-Al-Ikhlas

We too have the Quran to tell you that God is Allah and Allah only..

-Ruqayyah Ramli

[JBJ]

Hi Ruqayyah Ramli!

I know what the Qur'an says about God. You're question was "why Christians say Jesus is a god?" Obviously Christians don't follow the Qur'an. A Jew could quote one of his books saying that Jesus was a sorcerer, or a Jehovah's Witness saying Jesus was an angel, but that doesn't make their view the correct one, it just shows what they believed, which is what I've done.

In other words, Christians believe Jesus is God (but not a god) because the Bible says so, and Christians follow the Bible. If you wanted to why we follow the Bible, that is something else altogether.

But I agree with everything you quoted in the Qur'an, it all agrees with the Bible. God is one: "The Lord your God is One" (Deut 6.4). No comparable: "Who is like you, O Lord?" (Zabur 35.10). Only God is God: "The Lord is our God, the Lord alone." Eternal: "Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God." (Zabur 90.2)

JBJ

[jcecil3]

LAST EDITED ON 11-01-02 AT 00:06 AM (GMT)[p]Greetings!

Just to add to JBJ's comments:

The Qur'an says something about Jesus different than the New Testament, as does the Jewish Talmud, the Book of Mormon, the Jehovah's Witnesses' etc....

Jesus died approximately 33 AD. Paul wrote his earliest letters by 50 AD. Paul also quotes creeds and hymns that date to about 35-41 AD. Paul's writings are undisputed as the earliest testimony to Christian belief and practice.

There is evidence that Mark's gospel may have also been composed around 50 AD, though the majority of scholars concede the possibility that it was composed around 70 AD. The argument for the later date is based on a presuppostion that Jesus did not foretell the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. If we assume Jesus could have prophecied a future event, all other evidence points to earlier composition. The author speaks Greek as a second language (evidenced by his poor Greek grammar, use of Aramaic words inserted in the Greek, and familiarity with first century Palestinian customs). This is definitely the work of someone who knew Jesus, or one of the apostles.

A page of John's gospel has been accurately dated at around 100 AD based on the script style and material used. The discovery of this page demolished a theory in the last century that John's gospel was composed in the second century. Subsequent archeological finds have confirmed as well that teh author knew Jerusalem before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. This was a copy of an earlier manuscript, since it was found in Egypt, where the gospel is known to have originated in Greek territories. Thus we know John's gospel is first century. As already stated, it is also written by someone familiar with the physical landscape of Jerusalem before the Romans destroyed the city in 70 AD, and the author is very familiar with the Old Testament and Jewish traditions.

Most scholars accept that the author of Luke wrote the Book of Acts, which ends before Paul's death. Paul was martyred around 64 AD, thus, the gospel of Luke and Book of Acts were completed before 64 AD, though some scholars try to argue for a later date. No valid arguments exist for a later date than 80 or 90 AD for the Lucan accounts, and no explanation exist for the aprupt ending to Acts other than the book being completed before Paul's death.

The last book of the New Testament, Revelations, was completed by about 110 AD at the very latest, which is conceded by even the most sceptical scholars. Thus, all but the last of the major writings of the New Testament was definitely composed within the first century.

There is some debate over the dates of the letters of Peter and a handful of Paul's letters may have been written by a Pauline disciple after his martrydom. Many scholars place these works in the first century, and even reject the notion that they were not authored by teh people whose names are on them. The more skeptical position still places them some-time before 125 AD.

Some non-Biblical prayers confirming Trinitarian doctrine and the Eucharist (the Didache) date to first century.

Secular references to Christians or Jesus in Josephus and Tacitus date to late first century or early second century. The writings of Josephus were questioned earlier in this century, but sceptics have conceded that he does refer to Christians by the end of the first century, if not to Christ per se. Writings of early church fathers such Ignatius of Antioch and Pachomius date to about the same time period. We see the gospel of Matthew quoted in these early fathers.

The gnostic gospels and the Jewish Talmudic references to Jesus date to the early second century at the very earliest. Some were written as late as the eighth century.

The Qur'an and its references to Jesus date to the seventh century.

The Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons date to the nineteenth century.

Like it or not, the New Testament is the earliest extant document testimony to the meaning and life of Jesus. There are no earlier sources available that anyone has found.

This has all been verified by non-Christians, atheists, Muslims, and so forth.

You do not have to agree with the content of the New Testament, but you are stuck with the fact that there is absolutely no alternative narrative of Jesus' life or the meaning of his ministry that dates earlier than the New Testament -- and this is a proven fact accepted by non-believers.

If the New Testament is a corruption of earlier sources, the corruption happenned extremely quickly, and all evidence was thouroughly destroyed. As I have indicated in other postings, if Muslims want to assert that the New Testament is a corruption of an earlier gospel, the burden proof lies on you to produce the manuscript evidence for this assertion.

Peace and Blessings!

jcecil3

[Dr Qaisar]

Greeings jcecil3,

No, we don't have to prove to you or the Church that the previous Scriptures were changed or to produce the "original" manuscript to compare with anything existing today or since the earliest composition of the NT!! We also don't have to name the persons who altered the "original" texts nor do we have to point out the exact date when these alterations happened. These are ALL irrelevant to the Truth & fact that alterations have occured in the Original Revelations given to some of the previous Prophets of God (Allah). Also there is no burden on us to produce such evidence. I shall attempt to give you an analogy. But first, we all know that for the first 30-40 years after the departure of Prophet Jesus (PBUH), the Revelation given to him did not exist as a written document but were transmitted to the followers as an ORAL tradition! The point is that there is NO WAY of ascertaining that these oral transmissions OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT WERE IN FACT accurate reproductions of the original Revelation. Therefore, if there were errors or inaccuracies in these oral transmissions, then logically these errors/inaccuracies would, in all probability, have been incorporated in the subsequent written compositions of the NT a few years down the road, sometime at or after 70 AD (between 70-110 AD)!! Now since these oral transmissions DO NOT exist now or even 1900 years ago, there is no way of saying that the eventual written compositions were faithful reproductions of the true teachings of Prophet Jesus (PBUH). Also we know that the 4 canonical gospels depended on each other to some extant and also to a large extant to an unknown or indeterminant common source ambiguously called 'Q'. Once again, no knows what really was present in this common source AND whether this common source, indeed, contained the original and true teachings of Prophet Jesus (PBUH).

No onto that analogy which is based upon the above facts. If some error or inaccuracy creeps into a perceived "original" or assumed earliest extant manuscript in possession, then naturally, all future copies of that manuscript would logically carry on with those inaccuracies!! And everything based on such a manuscript, even if further works were quite different from that earliest document, would STILL contain that inaccuracy!! This is the case with the 4 canonical gospel. You don't yourself have the ORIGINAL REVELATION GIVEN to Prophet Jesus (PBUH), in fact no one ever did in history!!! Simply because the Revelation given to Jesus (PBUH) was never recorded in a written form immediately during the LIFETIME OF JESUS (PBUH)!!! Yet, you Christians ask us Muslims to produce the "original" text given to Prophet Jesus (PBUH) to compare it to your Gospels!!! INCREDIBLE!! A clever ploy, indeed, but nevertheless, a deceptive and fallacious one!!!

But how do you go about proving the accuracy of the written compositions of the existing Gospels since their canonising by the Church in the 4th century AD?? It basically boils down to Faith because the Church says that the Holy Spirit inspired the gospel writers to write whatever they felt like writing!! Next the Church puts its God-given (or was it the Holy Spirit-given, well does it make any difference for a Christain??) authority and stamp of approval on the 4 canonical gospels. Therefore, when it comes down to a matter of Faith, then evidence or arguments to the contrary actually fail to convince a person brought up in any particular Faith (well, in most cases at least).

As for us Muslims, we would rather rely on the eternal True Word of God (Allah) who was and is the God of Prophet Moses, the God of Prophet Jesus, the God of Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon all of them) and the God & Lord of all Creation. To you your way and to us our way. But the end of us all is towards the One True God (Allah) on the Day of Judgement. But on that momentous Day, He (Allah) will call Jesus (PBUH) in front of you and ask him (Jesus) to say whether he (Jesus) ordered you Christians to worship him (Jesus) besides Allah. What will be your plea then??
Wait then for that Day, we too are waiting with you!!!


Dr.Qaisar

[jcecil3]

LAST EDITED ON 09-01-02 AT 08:20 PM (GMT)[p]Peace Dr. Qaisar!


>
> No, we don't have
>to prove to you or
>the Church that the previous
>Scriptures were changed or to
>produce the "original" manuscript to
>compare with anything existing today
>or since the earliest composition
>of the NT!!

Perhaps I should rephrase. You do not "need" to "prove" anything if your assertions are simply a matter of faith. However, if you wish to argue that the assertion is something a skeptic would concur with, then you DO need to produce evidence for your claim.

>We also
>don't have to name the
>persons who altered the "original"
>texts nor do we have
>to point out the exact
>date when these alterations happened.
>These are ALL irrelevant to
>the Truth & fact that
>alterations have occured in the
>Original Revelations given to some
>of the previous Prophets of
>God (Allah). Also there is
>no burden on us to
>produce such evidence. I shall
>attempt to give you an
>analogy. But first, we all
>know that for the first
>30-40 years after the departure
>of Prophet Jesus (PBUH),

Paul was writting by 50 AD, but Jesus ascended to heaven around 33 AD. The difference is merely 17 years!!!! not 30 or 40 years!

Furthermore, Paul quotes creeds and hymns that date to to within 3 to 8 years after the ascension of Jesus!!!

Even if we mainatin that Mark was written in 70 AD, this is less than 40 years after the ascension of Jesus. The third caliphate ended 46 years after the first revelation of the Qur'an. We've had this argument before Dr Qaisar. I think you are confusing the start of the Western calendar with the death of Jesus. The Western calendar is based on the approximate time of Jesus' BIRTH.

>the
>Revelation given to him did
>not exist as a written
>document but were transmitted to
>the followers as an ORAL
>tradition!

It was common for rabbis to have their desciples memorize their teachings, much the way Muslims believe that the Qur'an was memorized by scribes who knew Mohammed.

However, my point in my post was that the New Testament is the earliest WRITTEN testimony to Jesus, which you do not seem to be disputing.

>The point is that
>there is NO WAY of
>ascertaining that these oral transmissions
>OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT WERE
>IN FACT accurate reproductions of
>the original Revelation.

This is true. However, by the exact same logic, there is no way to be absolutely certain that the Uthmanic version of the Qur'an is an exact reproduction of the revelation to Mohammed.

At some point, both Islam and Christianity are asserting faith that the earliest extant manuscripts faithfully record the meaning of our respective founder's messages.

It is interesting with Christianity, however, that we have at least eight authors writing in different places to different communities, and coming to universal agreement on such matters as the crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, as well as the sonship of Jesus and his divinity. In other words, we have the testimony of more than one witness to believe.

>Therefore, if
>there were errors or inaccuracies
>in these oral transmissions, then
>logically these errors/inaccuracies would, in
>all probability, have been incorporated
>in the subsequent written compositions
>of the NT a few
>years down the road, sometime
>at or after 70 AD
>(between 70-110 AD)!!

But Paul wrote way before 70 AD. In fact, he was dead by about 64 AD. Furthermore, nobody disputes that ALL of the New Testament author are relaying earlier traditions that confirm their own experience of the risen Christ. Thus, the early traditions they quote add further layers of even earlier witness to confirm the opinions of these eight or so authors.

>Now since
>these oral transmissions DO NOT
>exist now or even 1900
>years ago, there is no
>way of saying that the
>eventual written compositions were faithful
>reproductions of the true teachings
>of Prophet Jesus (PBUH).

There is no other known case in the ancient world for legend and myth arising so rapidly around an individual. Furthermore, all the authors of the New Testament underwent persecution or death for what they wrote and preached. It belies credibility to assume they were willing to die for what they knew to be a lie.

Furthermore, several of the text refer to living eyewitnesses, and recent historical events at the time of compostion that invited first century critics to check the facts. Yet, no critic of Christianity produced a case that the early Christians were lying about such things as the crucifixion and the empty tomb. Indeed, the Pharisees of Judaism did not deny the tomb was empty. Rather they suggested that maybe the apostles stole the body. However, if this were the case, then we are left asking once again why the apostles would be willing to die for what they knew to be a lie?

>Also
>we know that the 4
>canonical gospels depended on each
>other to some extant and
>also to a large extant
>to an unknown or indeterminant
>common source ambiguously called 'Q'.

This is possible. But this means that Q was even earlier than 50 AD. At any rate, the supposed Q source is simply a theory. It happens to be a theory I agree with -- yet we can't prove it. At any rate, the theory is that Q was a collection of Jesus' sayings that may have been compiled even in the life-time of Christ. Q was likely incorporated into Matthew and/or Luke, who also may have borrowed from Mark. Once Q was incorporated in the gospels, nobody felt the need to reproduce it, and it was eventually lost.

However, I must reiterate -- this is simply theory. The theory is proposed to explain why Matthew and Luke contain most of the stories of Mark in pretty much the same sequence as Mark, but also contain similar stories not found in Mark, yet found in each other in about the same sequence. Where Matthew and Luke contain similar sayings or stories in similar sequence that are not found in Mark, scholars suggest they copied from a another source. Scholars call this "Q", but it is not an existing manuscript. Rather, it is a theory.

Thus, Mark is independant of Q, and John is independant of both Mark and Q, and Paul is independant of all of them. Hebrews and James are also independant of the rest of the New Testament. Again, we see multiple witnesses affirming the same truths.

Indeed, many of the apparent contradictions Muslims find in the accounts can be explained as different perspectives from independant witnesses, much like different witnesses in a trial see things slightly differently. Indeed, if witnesses in a court are too consistent, prosecutors build the case of collusion. Thus, we have several independant witnesses to the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension events.

>Once again, no knows what
>really was present in this
>common source AND whether this
>common source, indeed, contained the
>original and true teachings of
>Prophet Jesus (PBUH).
>

And we have no way of being absolutely certain that Zaid and his companions did not alter the Qur'an.

They probably did not. I have no evidence that Zaid corrupted the Qur'an. My point is merely that I also have no evidence that he did NOT corrupt the Qur'an. The Uthmanic copy is the earliest copy, and it was not compiled in Mohammed's life-time.

My point is not to argue whether it is POSSIBLE that there were corruption between the life of any given prophet and works written by later editors. My point is to suggest that the evidence leans toward Jesus truly being crucified, and his followers universally experiencing him as risen, and universally believeing him to be the Son of God. There is no contrary evidence.

Another way of stating my point is that even IF Jesus were not crucified, nor risen, and never claimed to be God or the Son of God, all the earliest manuscript evidence indicates that his immediate followers ALL DID believe he was crucified, died, was buried, rose from the dead, and is the Son of God and/or God in the flesh!

In other words, let's assume the apostles and Paul and Luke were just lying. If the people this close to the events -- Jesus' immediate followers or people who knew them -- what accounts for their outrageous statements?

If they were lying about the crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, and assertion that Jesus claimed to be Son of God, then what accounts for them writing the texts we have and being willing to die to defend their beliefs? Perhaps they were mistaken, but they could not have been lying!

> No onto that
>analogy which is based upon
>the above facts. If some
>error or inaccuracy creeps into
>a perceived "original" or assumed
>earliest extant manuscript in possession,
>then naturally, all future copies
>of that manuscript would logically
>carry on with those inaccuracies!!

But what happenned to the original manuscript?

In other words, we know that Mark is a first century Palestinian Jew writing in Greek to a Greek speaking community in Rome based on literary evidence alone.

Early testimony of the saints in the second century claims that this person called Mark was a secretary of Peter who knew Jesus and Peter. Peter was martyred in Rome (his body is still in the Vatican).

All the evidence points to the gospel of Mark being an eyewitness interpretation of the Jesus event in history. If Mark is a corruption, where is the original manuscript written by the REAL Mark that is missing the crucifixion and resurrection (which the Qur'an would lead us to expect)?

>And everything based on such
>a manuscript, even if further
>works were quite different from
>that earliest document, would STILL
>contain that inaccuracy!! This is
>the case with the 4
>canonical gospel. You don't yourself
>have the ORIGINAL REVELATION GIVEN
>to Prophet Jesus (PBUH),

We do not believe that Jesus was GIVEN a revelation. We believe that Jesus IS the self revelation of Allah.

The Old Testament prophets foretold that Allah himself would come as savior of the world. To see how Jesus fullfills several of the Old Testament written at least 400 years before his birth, check out the following site produced by Jewish converts to Christianity:

http://www.webservants.com/prophets/index.html

There are only a little over 30 prochecies outlined on this site, but of the 39 books of the Palestinian Canon, there are at least 119 prophecies of Christ.

>in
>fact no one ever did
>in history!!! Simply because the
>Revelation given to Jesus (PBUH)
>was never recorded in a
>written form immediately during the
>LIFETIME OF JESUS (PBUH)!!!

And the Uthmanic version of the Qur'an was not compiled in the life-time of Mohammed either. So what?

>Yet,
>you Christians ask us Muslims
>to produce the "original" text
>given to Prophet Jesus (PBUH)
>to compare it to your
>Gospels!!! INCREDIBLE!! A clever ploy,
>indeed, but nevertheless, a deceptive
>and fallacious one!!!
>

It is neither a deceptive nor a clever ploy. Muslims are the people making a bold assertion of corruption. All we are asking is that you produce the evidence for your claim!!!! That is an extremely reasonable request.

> But how do
>you go about proving the
>accuracy of the written compositions
>of the existing Gospels since
>their canonising by the Church
>in the 4th century AD??

But we have over 24,000 manuscripts, many dating prior to the 4th century, some fragments dating to the late first or early second century.

The consistency of these 24,000 manuscripts indicates that the original manuscripts have been faithfully preserved.

For example, if I asked 100 people to copy this entire thread by hand, almost all of them would make some type of mistake. However, not all 100 would make the exact same mistake. Thus, after the 100 hand made copies were made, if the administrator deleted the thread, we could use those 100 copies to accurately deduce the original text, since at each point of variation, we would be able to go with the majority of the 100 text.

Add to 100 people making copies in English another 100 copies in different languages. Again, we'd be even more sure we are getting the original meaning by looking at the various translations.

With the New Testament, we have around 24,000 manuscripts to compare. Some of these are very ancient (full texts in 2nd and 3rd century, as well fragements that are very early). While the majority of the most ancient manuscripts are in Koine Greek, we have substantial manuscript evidence in Latin, as well as manuscripts in Syriac, Aramaic, Coptic (Egyptian), and Ethiopian.

With all this evidence, we do not see the type of substantial corruption that we would expect if the crucifixion were a fabrication (much less the resurrection or Jesus' claim to divine sonship)!

>It basically boils down to
>Faith because the Church says
>that the Holy Spirit inspired
>the gospel writers to write
>whatever they felt like writing!!

Yes -- but it is faith based on evidence -- not PROOF -- but evidence. It is like legal evidence in a court, rather than "proof" like in geometry or science. Evidence points to a truth, but cannot absolutely remove all doubt.

Christian faith rests in the direction that the evidence points.

In other words, there is no contrary evidence, and all the evidence (over eight authors) points to the fact that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate, died, was buried, was experienced as risen by over 500 witnesses, and his tomb was indisputably empty.

Many people today claim an experience of the risen Christ.

In the New Testament, all who shared the experience of Christ as risen began almost immediately to call him the Son of God, and claimed that this is what he taught in his life-time. However, even the Jews who did not accept Jesus as Son of God did not put forth the argument that Jesus never claimed to be Son of God. Indeed, the evidence seems to be that they crucified him BECAUSE he claimed to be the Son of God.

>Next the Church puts its
>God-given (or was it the
>Holy Spirit-given, well does it
>make any difference for a
>Christain??) authority and stamp of
>approval on the 4 canonical
>gospels.

The Church, down through the ages, claims that we continue to experience the risen Christ, which confirms the validity of the New testament witness, just as the New Testament confirms our experience of the risen Christ. You can experience him too. Just ask Jesus to show himself to you!

>Therefore, when it comes
>down to a matter of
>Faith, then evidence or arguments
>to the contrary actually fail
>to convince a person brought
>up in any particular Faith
>(well, in most cases at
>least).
>

It is true that people raised outside of the Church need more evidence than those raised in the Church. However, I believe the evidence objectively points to the fact that the apostles and immediate followers of Jesus truly believed all that is recorded in the New Testament. Maybe they were all wrong, deluded, and crazy -- but they seem to have really believed it! The historical evidence points to all 12 of Jesus closest followers and many others coming to faith in the New Testament message, whether the message is true or not!

> As for us
>Muslims, we would rather rely
>on the eternal True Word
>of God (Allah) who was
>and is the God of
>Prophet Moses, the God of
>Prophet Jesus, the God of
>Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon
>all of them) and the
>God & Lord of all
>Creation. To you your way
>and to us our way.
>But the end of us
>all is towards the One
>True God (Allah) on the
>Day of Judgement. But on
>that momentous Day, He (Allah)
>will call Jesus (PBUH) in
>front of you and ask
>him (Jesus) to say whether
>he (Jesus) ordered you Christians
>to worship him (Jesus) besides
>Allah. What will be your
>plea then??
> Wait then for that Day,
>we too are waiting with
>you!!!
>

It is fine with me if you hold your position based on FAITH. However, if you insist on making the assertion that the injeel was corrupted, do not get upset if we Christians ask for the proof. As long as the assertion is made that the New Testament is a corruption of the injeel, Christians (and all rational people) have the right to ask Muslims to produce the evidence. If you have no evidence, simply respond that you hold it as a matter of blind faith!

Blessings!

jcecil3

[jcecil3]

LAST EDITED ON 09-01-02 AT 11:17 PM (GMT)[p]Greetings Servant!

There is nothing in the quote from Phillips, a Christian scholar, that I blatantly disagree with, and nothing in this quote that contradicts anything I have written already.

I think that the "problem" or “confusion” that Muslims are having when you read the introductions to our Bibles, or the footnotes and such is that you do not understand how modern Bible scholarship works. The modern CHRISTIAN Bible scholar tries to write opinions that he knows that even an atheist would accept based on solid evidence.

The historical context of modern Biblical scholarship began during "the enlightenment" in Europe in the seventeenth century. The enlightenment was an intellectual movement that called for radical skepticism in all fields of study. This skepticism led to advances in the scientific method, and empowered thinkers to challenge the authority of tradition to overthrow evil monarchs and begin democracy.

However, another fruit of the enlightenment was that some people embraced atheism. The atheist, questioning authority, asserted such absurd things as the notion that Jesus never existed, and the gospels were written by the court of Constantine in the fourth century. Atheists tried to poke holes in the faith, and often made fools of Christians who had not questioned their faith. (Incidentally, some early atheists also denied the existence of Mohammed).

Thus, when a modern Bible scholar carefully states that a gospel was written by 70 or 80 AD, he is really making a conservative guess based on evidence that even an atheist will be forced to accept. Indeed, scholars only make these assertions when it is widely accepted by skeptics! The Bible scholar is trying to prove to the atheist that the gospel is not a fourth century invention, but that Jesus was a real man and the gospels were written much earlier than the atheist wants to admit.

Note: the gospels may have been written earlier than 70 or 80 AD. The point is that Christians do not lose faith if the gospel was written in 70 or 80 AD, because this is much earlier than 325 AD!!!!! Indeed, we asserting based on evidence that our faith can withstand a degree of scrutiny.

We call this scholarship "the historical-critical method". By that, we mean that we agree to use the same methods on the Bible that an atheist would use to date and interpret any other ancient text.

As an additional benefit of these methods, we have discovered that we frequently find deeper meanings in the text by understanding the historical context in which they were written. Indeed, some Christians scholars get so caught up in the method that they get a kick out of conceding more ground tot he atheist than the evidence warrants.

I am convinced that Muslims could gain new insight into the meaning of the Qur'an by using similar methods.

Let’s artificially create an example. A Muslim who does not use historical critical methods might say that the Uthmanic version of the Qur’an was compiled in Mohammed’s life-time, and kept by one of the prophet’s wives until the third caliphate. Thus, we have an original version of the Qur’an. I've seen this argument on some of the recommended sites posted on this site.

On the other hand, a Muslim were using the historical-critical method would never make a statement that Uthman’s authorized version of the Qur’an is an exact manuscript of the revelation to Mohammed. The scholar may BELIEVE this in his or her heart. However, the most that can be said based on the evidence is that the Uthmanic text is the earliest manuscript dating to the third caliphate, and was compiled by persons believed to be companions of Mohammed, such as Zaid. This is a much more careful and nuanced statement that even a skeptic can accept.

Rather, than trying to defend a theory that it dates to the Mohammed’s life-time with little or no evidence, the historical-critical scholar would make the much more careful assertion that it dates to the third caliphate, and beyond that we don’t know for certain.

I had written elsewhere to hasanalmuslim how interpreting the "seaven heavens" passages of the Qur'an through literary criticical techniques might lead to a clearer understanding of the Qur'an than the methods he was using.

A scholar might personally BELIEVE that the Apostle Matthew wrote the gospel of Matthew immediately after the resurrection, but he will not state this position without evidence. Thus, he writes starting with the presuppositions of an atheist, and carefully builds a case for what we can we know with a fair degree of certainty based on the evidence.

Regarding the authorship of Matthew, tradition ascribed the text to the apostle Matthew. However, opponents of Christianity argue that the gospel was ascribed to "Matthew" simply because this gospel changed the name of one of the apostles from "Levi" to "Matthew". This was the tax collector who followed Jesus. Nobody really knows why the author has a different name than Mark (Levi). Thus, scholars hypothesize that the author's name was Matthew, and he is trying to say that he IS that tax collector that followed Jesus.

So what happened to Levi? Again, nobody knows for certain. We have no writings apart from the gospels in the first century that say who Levi or Matthew were. We have no evidence that these are not two different names for the same person. However, we also have no external evidence that they are the same person. All we know with certainty is that the text of the gospel was written in the first century, and very quickly became the most popular gospel in the early church.

Early tradition in the second century ascribes the gospel to Matthew-Levi, the Apostle. Some of these second century sources suggest that Mathew's gospel is simply a Greek translation of the Aramaic gospel of the Hebrews. However, our oldest fragments of the gospel of the Hebrews seem to be later in origin, and seem to be Aramaic translations of the Greek, rather than vice-a-versa.

Western scholars are almost unanimously willing to concede that the evidence that this early tradition of this text being written by an apostle is scant. While we know that the gospel was written in the first century, we cannot be sure who wrote it. The evidence does not point conclusively either way.

Indeed, the way that the Old Testament is quoted in Matthew's gospel does not match rabbinic styles for the time period, suggesting the possibility that someone who was not educated in rabbinic thought authored Matthew’s gospel. Some scholars suggest that the gospel was written by a convert to Judaism who later accepted Christ, and then set out to convert the Jews. This would make Matthew a non-Jew. However, according to the gospel itself, most of the 12 did not have formal education in rabbinic thought anyway. So, again, we cannot draw any certain conclusions.

Thus, in modern Biblical scholarship, there is a tendency to say that from a viewpoint of ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, ALL of the gospels are anonymous. We do not have a time machine that can go back and SEE Matthew writing a gospel and ask him if he was an apostle of Jesus. At the same time, in saying this, we are NOT saying that there is absolutely no evidence that the gospels were authored by either the people who's names are on them, or by students of these people.

By the way, in the first century, it was not uncommon for a teacher to be considered the author of a work that was actually written by his students under his approval. Most Western scholars, either atheist or Christian do not quibble about the possibility that there were multiple hands involved in the final production of a text before it was published for the rest of the world. It’s not exactly the same, but somewhat like the manner that Zaid is said to have consulted other companions of Mohammed to verify the Uthmanic Qur’an.

Looking at the internal evidence of the text itself, the author writes in a style of Greek that is fluent, but likely using the language as a second language. He is educated, but his Greek lacks the sublime literary beauty of Paul, Lucan sources, or the Johanine author.

He quotes frequently from the Old Testament to demonstrate that Jesus fulfills prophecy, and he interprets events in such a way as to imply that Jesus is a new Moses, except greater than Moses. For example, he places Jesus on the mount for his greatest sermon, just as Moses came down from the mount to deliver the Torah. The author of Luke places Jesus on a plain for a great sermon, where Luke seems to be implying that Jesus levels the playing field for all humanity by delivering a message of global import that equalizes rich and poor, Jew and gentile, etc....

The author of Matthew interprets Mark and Q in such a way that he is constantly addressing issues of community life in the Church. His emphasis is on prophecy, interpreting Jesus in light of Judaism, and establishing the authority figures within the new Jesus movement within Middle Eastern Judaism. On the other hand, Luke interprets Mark and Q in a more global perspective, constantly emphasizing what Jesus means to gentiles, women, and the poor.

In other words, they tell the same story of crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. They tell the same story of Jesus as Son of God. They overlap in recording the same sayings and deeds of Jesus, and seem to use the same literary sources (Mark and Q). However, Matthew and Luke interpret these events to different audiences. Matthew addresses a Jewish Christian audience, and likely wrote to a community in Greek speaking Syria, just outside of Palestine. Luke writes to an audience of pagan converts, probably in the provinces of Asia Minor or Greece. It's the same story, but with different emphasis.

Their source, Mark, wrote in poor Greek style and inserted Aramaic words in the text. He is familiar with first century Palestinian Jewish customs such as cleansing rituals. His gospel was likely written to a Jewish community that spoke Greek living outside of Palestine. As the earliest gospel, it is a high level summary of Jesus' life and the meaning of his words and deeds. It lacks the detail that later authors wished to flesh out.

These facts derived from the internal literary evidence seem to confirm the early tradition that Mark was Peter's secretary in Rome, writing to Jewish converts to Christianity who lived in Rome. The ending of Mark's gospel has a slightly different literary style in the Greek, and most scholars concede the possibility that another author added this ending. Note: there is no evidence whatsoever that the author of Mark did not know about and approve this addition, and the addition can be left off the gospel without changing the message of the gospel itself!

In nineteenth century Biblical scholarship, a theory developed that the gospels were all written AFTER the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70 AD. The theory originated based on the idea that the impetus for writing gospels in the first place was the dispersion of the community at Jerusalem. Furthermore, it was argued that the references to the prophecies of the temple destruction were placed in the mouth of Jesus by the gospel writers themselves after the fact. This was based on a presupposition of atheists scholars that tried to find naturalistic interpretations for all of Jesus' miracles.

Christian scholars countered that miracles can happen through "secondary causes". For example, if God wanted to put a hole in the roof of my building, he could either create a hole from nothing, or he could create a storm that knocked over a tree into the roof of the building. Thus, Christian scholars tried to use the atheist assumption of no miracles without secondary causes to interpret the Bible. In using this method, they also allowed for the possibility that miracle stories were narrated in such a way as to make a theological point, rather than recording "history" as we think of history today.

However, current scholarship denies this presupposition of naturalistic causes for all things in the Bible. After a century of trying to find naturalistic interpretations for all the miracles, scholars have conceded that even if the gospel writers took creative liberties in narrating the miracles to make theological points, there can be no denying that Jesus was believed to be some type of healer and miracle worker by the authors of Scripture (the Qur'an also confirms this).

Furthermore, evidence keeps pouring in with new discoveries in Palestine that the gospels are of early origin -- too early for legend and myth to arise spontaneously compared to other legends. This leads modern scholars admitting that the apostles believed in the miracles of Jesus, but perhaps crafted their narration of the events to make specific points. In other words, they may have used the literary genre of myth to elucidate who they believed Jesus was. This is what Phillips means when he says Matthew used Mark freely. However, behind the myth is an actual belief made clear by the internal evidence of each author that Jesus truly is the risen Son of God who displayed the power of God in his life and ministry.

Many scholars have noted that the Lucan account including Acts ends before the death of Paul. Paul is known to have died by about 64 AD. Thus, if the gospel of Luke and Acts were completed by 64 AD, and Luke copied from Mark, then Mark must be earlier than the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, and the prophecies must be real! This opinion is not widely accepted yet by all scholars, but it does present a difficulty for maintaining late authorship.

The Johanine writings seem to be based on traditions completely separate form Paul, or from the Mark/Q corpus. These works are written in exquisite Greek and incorporate some Greek philosophical poetry. This led some scholars of the nineteenth century to initially suppose that the fourth gospel was a much later writing, perhaps even late second or third century. However, Saint Papias, in the second century refers to the author as John the elder in a passage that also refers to John the apostle. Papias knew Polycarp, who knew John the Apostle. It is not clear in Papias whether John the elder and John the apostle are one and the same person. Furthermore, atheist do not trust Papias fully because he is ambiguous in some writings. Thus, we Christians avoid stating with certainty that the author of John is one and the same John the Apostle.

Subsequent archeological finds in the twentieth century have helped Bible scholars realize that the author of John's gospel is extremely familiar with the physical landscape of Palestine and Jerusalem prior to the destruction of the temple. For example, he knows the exact description of the pool at Bethesda, the portico of Solomon, the palaces of Herod and Pontius Pilate, and even the graveyard of the tomb where Jesus was buried.

Also, scholars have identified that where Matthew directly quotes from the Old Testament, the Johanine author uses a technique of weaving Old Testament allusions carefully throughout the text in the style of Hillel and other first century rabbis.

Finally, a page of John's gospel written in a script style on materials of the late first or early second century was found in Egypt. Since this was a copy, it presupposes that the original was written in the first century.

Thus, scholars have completely moved away from second century authorship to admit that this text had to be written in the first century by a Palestinian Jew who knew Jerusalem before 70 AD. How he learned such fine Greek remains a mystery. However, the evidence seems to be pointing more and more to the accuracy of Papias' account.

When we look at the Pauline corpus, we have even earlier testimony. No serious scholar doubts that Paul began writing by 50 AD (17 years after the crucifixion). Further, it is widely accepted that he quotes pre-existing hymns and creeds of earlier origin (within 3 to 8 years of the crucifixion).

The universal consensus of scholars, including atheists, the Jesus seminar, and even Muslims who have looked at the issues, is that the four gospels and the authentic Pauline writings were definitely written some time in the first century. Furthermore, there are no earlier written sources about Jesus.

Furthermore, the Book of Revelations, Petrine writings, Hebrews and James were also likely authored in the first century, though many scholars continue to try to hold out for later dates -- even as late as 125 AD for these select writings. Nobody holds dates later than 110 AD for the Johanine corpus. The other canonicals and Paul are known to be first century because we start to see external quoting by mid second century!

Thus, even IF these writings are as late as 110 or 125, there are no other sources (i.e. -- Gnostic gospels) that are earlier. In this light, the later proclamations such as the local council of Hippo that affirmed the canon based on the text being written in the apostolic age and originating in apostolic churches has been affirmed by modern Biblical scholarship. These conclusions reached in the fourth century were based on oral traditions, rather than scholarly research. Yet, modern scholarship is providing more and more evidence that the traditions are fairly accurate historically.

The entire New Testament IS the earliest document witness to Jesus. Period!

What this means to atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Hindus, and all who do not believe the Christian message is that IF you want to assert that Christians invented or corrupted the gospel, you must either admit that this assertion is made on blind faith, OR you must produce evidence that such corruption occurred between 33 AD and 70 AD (a period of 47 years).

Islam is asserting not only that the gospel writers made up the "Son of God" theology and the divinity of Christ, and the resurrection, BUT the crucifixion! The crucifixion was being written about by multiple independent sources by 70 AD, referring to historically verifiable or existing people (Pontius Pilate, Herod, Ananias, as well as Peter and the 12). If the crucifixion was a blatant lie, why aren't there Jewish or secular sources saying, "You guys are making this up."?

Even the second century Docetae, embarrassed by the crucifixion of one they believed to be God, did not deny the crucifixion. Rather, they made up an elaborate and absurd theory that the person on the cross only appeared to be Jesus. Paul, who was a convert to Christ, admits to struggling personally to come to an understanding of the notion of a crucified Messiah (c.f. Galatians 3:13). Thus, even the critics wind up affirming the crucifixion event! Likewise, the empty tomb was not countered with the argument that there was a body still lying there. Rather, the non-believers made up a story that the apostles stole the body, proving that the tomb really was empty.

When we look at the crucifixion event alone, the fact is that even 37 years is a very short period of time for the type of corruption you are asserting to occur in several independent sources. The crucifixion event winds up being affirmed even by first and second century critics, despite enough historical detail provided near enough in time to the event for opponents to refute it if it were all mere myth.

Again, you can still believe that it IS corruption, but your faith is a blind faith that goes against the existing evidence.

Now, as you can see in the presentation that I have made above, there is still some “back and forth” going on between scholars over some of the details. Some argue for composition of Matthew, Mark, and Luke before 64 AD, while others argue for later dates of 70 to even 90 AD. We are not dealing here with proofs like we would have in geometry. We are dealing with arguments based on evidence, like we would in a court of law. Much of what I am writing can be debated endlessly. However, I think that if you research the topic yourself and familiarize yourself with the arguments, three things become clear.

First, it becomes clear that the entire New Testament has more consistency on matters of fact than critics like to admit. By this, I mean that if you ignore the parts that are interpretation, and look at the New Testament assertions of historical events: the crucifixion, the resurrection, and the ascension of Jesus. All authors agree these events happened. On the interpretation of these events, there may be some apparent contradictions based on the personality of the author and his intended audience. However, on the facts, there is agreement.

Second, it becomes clear that these writings summarize the belief of early Christianity that lead people to be willing to be martyred. Furthermore, we find evidence that the people who authored these texts were themselves among those persecuted, or wrote under threat of persecution.

Finally, all the evidence points to these writings being the earliest writings about Christ and uncomfortably close to the events in time if they were all mere myth and corruption.

Now, Christians do assert on faith that whoever authored the New Testament texts were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and protected from error in matters of faith and morals. This IS a statement of faith. However, it is a statement of faith that is congruent and consistent with the evidence presented above. In other words, it is a reasonable faith.

For further reading on the subject, a popular introduction from an Evangelical Protestant perspective would be Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" and "The Case for Faith". Another more scholarly introduction written by a Catholic would be Raymond Brown's "Introduction to New testament Christology". I would particularly point to his appendix on the resurrection event. Brown's "Introduction to the New Testament" is a very careful analysis of the entire New Testament based on current scholarship, but written for serious students (i.e. -- graduate level). John Meir's "A Marginal Jew" is written for the true scholar more than the student, but is widely accepted by Jews and atheist as a good analyses of the New Testament texts based on what can be known through solid evidence.

Peace and Blessings!

jcecil3

[jcecil3]

LAST EDITED ON 10-01-02 AT 11:08 PM (GMT)[p]Greetings!

>Subhan Allah !
>
>A very long post, and, therefore,
>i did not read it
>completely.
>
>But i did manage to skim
>through it. What i realised
>is that perhaps jcecil3 did
>not understand the intention behind
>that post of mine. Though
>he is talking about convincing
>the atheist, etc. or proof
>that Jesus did exist, etc.
>That's not what i talked
>about.
>
>What i was mentioning is the
>point, that Christians seem to
>believe that just because there
>were 8 different authors, each
>at different times and places,
>etc., the present day Bible
>ought to believed in.
>What i am saying is that
>this argument raised more than
>once by jcecil3 does not
>hold any weight, because what
>the Christian scholar is confirming
>is that some of these
>authors were copying from each
>other, therefore they were not
>inspired, but copy cats. It's
>as simple as that.
>

The simple fact is that IF you had read my post more carefully, you would understand that I am saying is that we admit that Matthew and Luke copied some material from Mark and use late dates of compositions to convince atheist that we are not claiming more than can be known with certainty. Even admitting this, we still have AT LEAST eight independant works. Let me break it down:

Paul is an independant source from Matthew-Luke-Mark. Likewise, the Johanine corpus is independant of Matthew-Luke-Mark, and independant of Paul. Hebrews is independant of Mathew-Luke-Mark, as well as being independant of John and Paul. Peter is independant of the rest, as is James or Jude.

Furthermore, while Luke and Matthew may have copied from Mark, they also have a source independent of Mark, which scholars call Q, or quelle source. Q (if it exist) is independant of everyone.

Thus, even allowing for copying by Matthew and Luke, we have several independant sources:

1) The author of Mark written by a 1st century Jew to a Roman Jewish community and said to be Peter's secretary. This work was completed by 70-80 AD, though there are arguments for earlier composition. Mark is unaware of Q, though he may know Paul.

2) Quelle, a theoretical source for similar passages in Matthew and Luke. If this source truly exist, it was composed prior to 70 AD, and some scholars argue that it was composed in Jesus' life-time and simply not reproduced as it became incorporated in the canonical gospels. Both Mark and Paul seem unaware of this source.

3) Paul, a Jewish Pharisee who converted to Christianity and composed the earliest writings accepted in the New Testament. He wrote between 50 Ad and 64 AD. Paul is completely unaware of Mark or Q.

4) The author of the Johanine corpus, a first century Palestinian Jew extremely familiar with Greek language and thought and writing in Greek provinces. He was said to be John the Apostle or John the Elder by second century sources, though scholars have entertained the possibility that he may even have been a convert from the followers of John the Baptist. The Johanine corpus was written entirely in the first century excluding Revelations, which may have been authored as late as 110 AD. The author is either unaware of Paul, Mark, or Q, or deliberately chooses not to use them.

5) The author of Hebrews, an unknown author who seems to have sources entirely independant of the rest of the New Testament, yet consistent in the message. The internal evidence points to composition prior to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. The audience is first century Palestinian Jews. This author may know Paul, but does not use any other sources.

6) The author of the Petrine corpus, said to be Peter, but possibly a later disciple of Peter. These writings appear to have been written by 90 AD at the latest based on the majority consensus. More skeptical scholars place these letters at about 125 AD, while those who maintain that Peter actually wrote them or approved them himself place composition as early as 67 AD. This author knows the Pauline corpus, but wishes to counter misunderstandings about Paul.

7) The author of James, who claims to be a "brother of the Lord" (and it was not uncommon for cousins to be called brothers in 1st century Palestine). He is connected with the Church in Jerusalem and wrote the letter by 100 AD, though there are good arguments for an earlier date, especially if the author is the same James refered to in Eusebius who was martyred before 100 AD. Like the author of Peter, this author knows the Pauline corpus, but wishes to counter misunderstandings about Paul.

8) The author of Jude, likely another relative of Jesus connected to the Church at Jerusalem. This was written by about 80 AD. This author seems unfamiliar with any other New Testament text.

In addition, we have the "so-called" copiers, including Matthew and Luke, who each do not deny using other sources, add material of their own, claim to know eyewitnesses, and refer to historically verifiable names and places inviting readers to check their sources, etc....Matthew is likely writing in Syria, while Luke is likely writing in Asia Minor. They do not appear to know each other. Matthew also does not use Paul, while Luke is attributed to a disciple of Paul who has interviewed other eyewitnesses. Thus, if we count Matthew and Luke as sources, we are up to 10 independent sources.

Throughout my post, I have asserted at LEAST eight authors, because I am aware that we could ALSO posit that the Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessolonians, and 1 Timothy were written by someone other than Paul (perhaps a disciple of Paul). If we accept this theory, we now have at least 11 independent sources.

We can also posit that it is possible that Revelations was written by someone other than the author of the gospel of John. This would take our count to at least 12 independant sources.

There are scholars who reject the notion that these writings were written by other authors than those whose names appear on them, and there are scholars who build strong cases based on literary evidence that they could have been written by sources independant of John and Paul. Either way, we have at LEAST eight independant sources, possibly more, all written between about 50 AD and 125 AD at the latest (possibly earlier)......

In addition, we have references to Christians in Josephus and Tacitus by the close of the first century to verify that Christian belief had indeed spread fast enough to produce so many writings. Likewise, we have a liturgical document called the Didache confirming New Testament belief that may date to the first century. Finally, we have several writings of the next generation of Christians such as Clement, Ignatius of Antioch, Papias, Ireneas, and so forth to confirm the continuity of Christian belief and to provide evidence that my assertions are evidentially verifiable.

However, with the Gnostic gospels, only Thomas can be dated early enough to make Christians uncomfortable, and even this dating is controversial to atheists as well as Christians. The Protoevengelium of James would be the next closest but is definitely a second century text. The gospels of the Hebrews and Ebionites only exist in late dated fragments and are consistent with Matthew's account, sugesting that they may have copied form Matthew translating the Greek into Aramaic, though some Muslims and athiests wish to assert these fragments evidence the possibility of an earlier Aramaic gospel. However, since they are consistent with Matthew, there is not much that can be drawn about their significance if they were source material for Matthew. A late dated Aramaic version of Matthew remains in use among Antiochian Christians to this day. Indeed, Christians could argue that Matthew wrote in both Aramaic and Greek based on the same evidence Muslims wish to use to assert corruption! All other gnostic texts are demostrably late second to sixth century writings.

What is the evidence that Jesus was NOT crucified? None.

What is the evidence that Matthew was NOT an Apostle? Only that he doesn't write in typical rabbinic style.

What is the evidence that any authors other than Matthew and Luke were copying from each other? None.

What is the evidence that the New Testament was NOT written prior to the dates proposed by scholars? Only that we presuppose the impetus for writing was the destruction of the temple for most authors.

What is the evidence that each of these authors corrupted the original message of Jesus? Only that the earliest works do not say quite as clearly that Jesus is divine (they do seem to say it, but not as strongly or clearly as the later authors).

What is the evidence that all the authors did not personally believe what they wrote regarding the crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension? None. Indeed, they wrote at great risk to their lives. The evidence points toward genuine faith in the hearts of the writers of the New Testament. And we can test faith by asking Jesus to show the truth.

Again, you can believe whatever you want based on blind faith. However, the evidence clearly points to Jesus being truly crucified, and ALL of his immediate followers believing that he is risen from the dead.

Peace and Blessings!

jcecil3

[jcecil3]

LAST EDITED ON 10-01-02 AT 10:54 PM (GMT)[p]Greetings!

You are correct that my emphasis shifted in this most recent exchange. I did unconsciously shift from questioning and explaining to actually preaching.

I apologize for the shift in focus and would not be offended if the adminsitrator decides to delete these most recent couple of posts. This thread is probably way too long anyway.

As I have indicated elsewhere, I DO believe that Islam is probably an internally consistent religion, and my original intent coming here was to understand the beauty of the religion. I hoped too that there would be some common ground between us.

I have recently purchased a book called "Islam Today: and Introduction to the Muslim World" by Akbar S. Ahmed. I'm about a third of the way through it. Do you recommend this work?

Peace and Blessing!

jcecil3

[Netcurtains]

LAST EDITED ON 04-03-02 AT 11:18 PM (GMT)[p]
Hi Tita,
I couldn't get your email so I thought I'd post it here. This is a trinitarian thread and I guess therefore a comparision between my view and the view before can be made.

This is my email to you:

"Trinity - Father, Son and ‘Female’ Holy Spirit.

There is some scientific background to a Trinitarian universe
(eg Light for human beings is made up of the THREE Primary colours -
its the way the human eye works - God is "light from light" and of course
there are THREE Quarks in a Proton (the smallest fundamental particle in
the universe - together with the 12 leptons). However, more importantly,
(for me), if the trinity is true you would possibly expect some sort of
Trinitarian leadership in the early church. Not necessarily by
design but by the outworking of events as they unfolded.

Is there any evidence of Trinitarian leadership in the early
Church?

I think there is:

"The Father"
I think St Peter is definitely considered the elder Christian statesmen (the father figure) by most
Christians. He is the ROCK (Jesus often talked about firm foundations). The name Rock is of course
feminine. But Peter is still "The Boss". The male version of rock means LITTLE stone.

"The Son"
The younger man - the dynamic man is of course St. Paul. He is not "the Boss" but he is the organiser and the preacher - the little boss - the son. Saul means "To ask" and Paul literally means "LITTLE"….- (The Son if you like).

"The ‘female’ Holy Spirit".
This is where it gets a bit messy. Mary Magdalene was the person God chose to let the world know that Jesus had risen from the dead. In the Gospel of John, Mary Magdalene is named as THE person
to see Jesus rise from the dead. There is also John Ch19 v25.27 - "The disciple that Jesus loved" - but
you will note no men were named as being at the foot of the cross - but Mary Magdalene was. There
are many internet links suggesting that Mary was this "loved disciple" and indeed some say that in fact the writer of "Johns" - Gospel was Mary Magdalene herself! A clue. In the other three gospels
an un-named woman anoints Jesus in a loving way. In "Johns" gospel the woman is named as Mary.
This anointing is important as two of the Gospels say this story must be told where ever the Gospel
is told. In Johns Gospel it is Mary ALONE who first sees Jesus rise from the dead (NO ONE ELSE). Johns Gospel
is much more Magdalene orientated. The disciple who Jesus loved… The Holy Spirit.

Lets look at the anointing story a bit closer.
There appears to be a code.
Simon is mentioned in one of them as a leper and the other as a Pharisee.
In one the head is anointed and in the other the feet.

At the time of Jesus a leper was at one end of the religious spectrum and a Pharisee at the other.
The head is obviously the other end to the feet. This looks like a code to me!

So you could say Mary was put in charge of all Worship in the Church - from top to bottom….
Worship is the "spiritual" side to the Church. She is known as the "Apostle of the Apostles" because she
told the Apostles that Jesus had risen from the dead. Magadalene means fortress tower but the name comes from a town which had mountains nearby where the mountain ROCKS looked like towers.

The EARTHLY trinity: Peter Paul and Mary - it has a nice ring to it.

On a different note I now have a job working in the airline industry - I would have thought that more or less impossible in todays market but the world is a strange place

God Bless

John - Aka Netcurtains"

[Netcurtains]

I was talking post pentacost.
Before then the Trinity was Jesus, Mary and Joseph.
Is there a Trinity in Christian leadership today?
Not sure.

[jcecil3]

A Trinity as 3 people? ...probably not. How 'bout Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox as a Trinity of bodies of leadership?

[Netcurtains]

lol -

Mary - Catholics?
Paul - Protestants?
Peter - Orthodox?

it seems to fit.

My User Id failed to work.
Does that mean I must not write again?
If so I'll stop?
There was no notification or anything?

[vancouver]

The trinity was invented by the Babylonians after Nimrod's death. Nimrod, his wife and mother were supposed to have been the first trinity. Actually Nimrod married his mother believe it or not so that was two equals one. Then after his death he was made a three in one god(himself, wife and mother). Many religions after this had a triune of gods including the Romans. When the Christian religion became apostasized by the Romans they adopted a triune of gods. The Romans had a special religious leader(PM). The popes became that leader(nothing to do with Christianity). The title of Pope and what it is supposed to stand for is a direct insult to God. The fact that he believes Jesus to be God is also a direct insult to God. The fact that he believes the Holy Spirit to be a person is again a direct insult to God. That is a trinity of direct insults to the True God.

[Netcurtains]

You can't pick and choose. The Jehovahs Witnesses literature often points to "truth in every religion". So taking you up on this:
DEMOCRACY:
==========
1) Democracy.
In the ancient world there were many religions that had a common theme of "Son Of God, virgin births, water into wine, dying and coming back to life". Two of them - Dionysius (or Baccus) and Krishna dominated the ancient world. Ancient man democratically (as much as they were able to) had a preference for a "virgin birth, Son of god, water into wine, dying and coming back to life type thing". Surely, if god exists he would be a democrat and give us the God that we all asked for?

Indeed the second choice was for a Buddhist God. This was also concidered but rejected by God. In the Christian bible jesus asks the lads around him "who do you say I am". Many of them said he was the reincarnation of someone who had died. Peter on the other hand went with the democratic choice.
Acts ch18 v34 "among the new beleivers was a lad called Dionysius and his chic Damaris". And no I don't think the names are accidental.

[vancouver]

God is a God of Truth. He cannot give us democracy only theocracy. We have to worship God on his terms and not our terms. We cannot have God how we want him, that is how idolatry started. The Isrealites in the desert while Moses was receiving the ten commandments decided to worship God on their terms and they wandered the desert for 40 years as a result of that.

[Sadiq]

>God is a God of Truth. He cannot give us democracy only
>theocracy. We have to worship God on his terms and not our
>terms. We cannot have God how we want him, that is how
>idolatry started. The Isrealites in the desert while Moses
>was receiving the ten commandments decided to worship God on
>their terms and they wandered the desert for 40 years as a
>result of that.

Salam to all!

A very active forum, i hope others here use the other forums too, and read the articles...

Now this thread as 64 replies, including mine, the topic of 'trinity' has finished with members and there are two other threads going on. I hope you reply to the other threads to let us know about the trinity issue.

If you want to discuss demoracy, then please create another thread and remember, try and compare your views with islam and christianty and the religion of democrats...

This thread is locked, there are two other threads going on about the issue of trinity and the replies of this thread has gone over the limits..

Discuss and learn, and remember learn the rules, before you type anyTHing...here..

Sadiq