> Christianity - What do you need to know?

[Aayah]

Asalam Alykom

My next question is mainly have two parts

Firslty I want to know according to Christianity, when did people recognize Jesus as "lord"

I have been told about many views:

some said that its at age of 8 by Simeon, who saw Jesus when he was brought to the Temple at the age of 8 days to be circumcised and was told by the holy spirit that he is the lord christ ((Luke2:25-32))


some others said that its at age of 12, when he had an unusual understanding of spiritual matters (Luke 2:41-51)


some other group said that its when he was at his 30th birthday at the time the Holy Spirit descended on the disciples at Pentecost. (Acts:Ch. 2)




The next part of the question is the following:

As muslims, and as stated in Quran, I want to know what happened to Jesus after the jewish witnessed his miraclous birth and his talks when he was infant. Was he in danger by those people who were totally amazed seeing him talking when he just born?

Also, I want to know when he start practice the miracles that Allah granted him to have as what Allah told us in the Quran:

And will make him a messenger unto the Children of Israel, (saying): Lo! I come unto you with a sign from your Lord. Lo! I fashion for you out of clay the likeness of a bird, and I breathe into it and it is a bird, by Allah's leave. I heal him who was born blind, and the leper, and I raise the dead, by Allah's leave. And I announce unto you what ye eat and what ye store up in your houses. Lo! herein verily is a portent for you, if ye are to be believers. (Al Imran: 49)

[Al Habeshi]

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَـٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

I would like to know what evidence is there at bible contains major variations. As when we talk about variant readings of Bible, Christians point out that such variances are on minor issues and can be reconciled by comparing it to different version of Bibles. So how can we carry that along?

Preface
Introdcution
The Attitudes
Manuscript Evidence
What does the Evidence Show?
Summary
Some Common Questions

I am so reluctant to provide you with this, this is not an article or even proper notes, but its just a little reply to help share my view, not a scholarly view or anything. THIS SHOULD NOT BE REPRODUCED ANYWHERE ELSE.

I advise you to read the articles Textual Integrity Of The Bible from that page for a more comprehensive guide of what Scholars of the New Testament have said, you can start with this article which challenges the claims of Christian Apologists very well, if after reading my off putting material you still want to know about it then read it, Textual Reliability / Accuracy Of The New Testament

The following is very very very very basic and only cites one or two pieces of work, namely Bruce Metzger (whom had Bart Ehrman as a writer on his book), (From his The Text of the New Testament) and Raymond Brown (From his Introduction to the New Testament)

.
.
.

Preface

There are things within the realms of Islamic beliefs that are held due to belief in the sources and things which are held due to reasoning and the likes. In showing the truth of Islaam, evidences one may say, a Muslim will show the non Muslims things which can be easily verified. It is important to note that not everything can be verified through means of historical research, scientific experiment or the likes, for example, I believe in the existence of Abraham, ‘alayhis salam, not because I have seen scientific or historical evidence but because I believe in the Qur’an, in turn I believe in the Qur’an due to evidence which I have seen. There may or may not be, though, scientific or historical evidence outside the sources of Islam for Abraham – this though does not affect my belief in him, ‘alayhis salam.

You see in my journey to become Muslim I did not check out every single detail and see if it was independently attested (I did not check for historical record about Adam and Eve before I believed in them). I focused on the fundamental things, things which I could verify and reason, and see if they were right.

A note should be taken that I do not mean to say that there was no way for me to know if Islam was wrong – on the contrary there was, if something was verifiable and when verified showed a mistake in Islaam, this in my view would have proven Islam false. What I am saying is that in cases where there is no way to accurately verify something then I cannot use this as evidence for or against.

The belief that Christians altered the message of Jesus I believe because the Qur’an told me, not because of historical evidence -it just so happens though that the evidence which does indicate this is available.

One should also understand that the corruption of the Message of Jesus may not necessarily have occurred after New Testament was authored. Follow me to the introduction to understand what I mean and see the two stages of history for the Message of Jesus.

.
.
.

Introduction

The real point of discussion should be whether Jesus’ message has been changed, not necessarily whether the Bible has. For it is possible – it is my view, and hotly debated – that the Bible may even in its original form not contain the accurate words of Jesus.

But regardless, let us look at this point. We have to first realize that the Bible has come down to us in this era through one method of preservation, textual.1 This means that in order for us to know what the Bible said we have to look at manuscripts and work it out (no other method was used generally). Due to this the status of manuscript evidence in assessing whether the Bible has been preserved is of utmost importance.

Having said this and echoing the first paragraph though one should keep firmly in mind, in looking at the wider picture that there can be divided two stages,

I – The word of Jesus to the pen of the authors of the Gospels
II – The Gospels handed down to us through the ages

We are now discussing the second stage.

1 - There was for example no generation to generation oral transmission of the text which has survived to our time, no known tradition in Jerusalem for example which has continued wherein Christians all gathered and memorised the text.

.
.
.

The Attitudes

When speaking with Christians you will find a variety of attitudes, at least I have found so. I tend to find a certain divide which is sometimes attached to social context. There are two attitudes or views I have found normally being held, the first is often found amongst many of the unlearned Christians (not always though) and the latter is found amongst others, though the divide is not merely a knowledge based one but as noted it appears to me to be various factors.

Attitude – I

Under this view some hold that every word in the Bible is right and that we know which words are original and which are not. It is very simple to look at the text of various English translations and note that there are many footnotes which indicate that certain manuscripts have variant readings in certain places. For example, the NIV has;

2 Chronicles 36:9

9 Jehoiachin was eighteen [a] years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months and ten days. He did evil in the eyes of the LORD.

Foonotes:

a. 2 Chronicles 36:9 One Hebrew manuscript, some Septuagint manuscripts and Syriac (see also 2 Kings 24:8 most Hebrew manuscripts eight

2 Kings 24:8

8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. His mother's name was Nehushta daughter of Elnathan; she was from Jerusalem.

When you point out these straight out variants, the viewpoint generally changes.

Attitude – II

This view point is that there are variants but there are not any important ones, generally the reasoning is given that since we have so many manuscripts for the New Testament we can compare them and see which the original words are.

Such a claim needs to be discussed in detail and all the evidence needs to be looked at. Following is a very brief summary of our situation regarding manuscripts and textual criticism.

Always keep in mind that this is a very longwinded topic and one that needs a lot of time, thus it can be very difficult to resolve a difference in this subject with someone over even a week, let alone an afternoon or at a da’wah stool. Personally I do not know too much about this as I have not focused on it (though I hope to do some work on it next year). I will conclude with some tips on this subject and da’wah.

.
.
.

Manuscript Evidence

You will find that many times people say ‘we have so many manuscripts compared to other ancient writings’ well this is true, the new testament has in the Greek language over 5000 manuscripts. The point though is not necessarily something to shout about, having loads of manuscripts is not always the most important thing. For example, it is possible that one manuscript is of equal importance than ten. What do I mean? If you have documents A and B, both copied from the Original. Then you have 10 copies of B, when you put all the manuscripts together now, A and B are of most importance, A is more important than the 10 copies of B. So we see that its quality rather than quantity. If we have very early manuscripts this is generally better. (It should be noted thought that sometimes even late manuscripts can – if we think of it logically – be copied from very early manuscripts, thus having a higher quality than previously thought (Brown, R.E. Introduction to the New Testament Ch.3 p.48))

One short note, you must also realize that some manuscripts are fragmentary. For example the earliest manuscript is a papyri and is about the size of a credit card.

So one thing to look at would be from when do most of our manuscripts exist?

Let us first turn to the Families or Groups wherein manuscripts fit. Brown notes,

Textual Families. Scholars have bunched together into groups or families mms. that share similar readings and peculiarities,4 but none of these text groupings has an uncontaminated descent from the originals. The most commonly recognized are the following: … (p.49)

He then gives the list of four and writes by them some characteristics. The names are Alexandrian, Western, Caesarean and Byzantine (or Koine). Just for note, he writes alongside the last family/group;

Byzantine (or Koine):5 This conflated text that smooths out difficulties and harmonizes differences was used in the liturgy of the Byzantine church (becoming almost normative from the 6th century on), and is generally looked on as quite late and secondary development. Yet some of its readings are ancient and go back to the church at Antioch ca. 300. The Textus Receptus (see below) that underlay the KJV NT exemplified this tradition. (p.49)

It is interesting to note that the Byzantine text is the text preserved in the majority of the manuscripts that have survived. (Metzger, The Text of the NT p.280) Metzger writes, ‘as we have seen, however, the fact that the bulk of witnesses attest the Byzantine text is no sign of its superiority when it comes to establishing the original text.’ (Metzger, The Text of the NT p.280)

Secondly let us turn to the Textual Witnesses ‘scholars distinguish three types of Greek mms.’ (Brown, p.49) These types Brown notes are Papyri, Great Uncial Codices and Minuscules. There are distinguishing features between these. Papyri, which is a material used in antiquity, earliest manuscript we have is from this type, it is apparently contains a couple of verses (a couple since all that we have is a credit size piece) the Gospel of John and named P (for papyri) 52, and is dated around 120-150 Brown notes it as ca. 135, he also notes P46 which has ‘The Pauline epistles, including Heb (following Rom – an order based on decreasing length), but not the Pastorals.’ He dates it at ca. 200. Then he mentions P66 containing ‘a heavily corrected text of much of John.’ Dated ca. 200. Lastly he mentions P75, ‘containing Luke 2:18 - 18:18 and Luke 22:4 – John 15:8’ dating it ca.225.

All of the above he write are “Among the oldest” (p.50)

Regarding the second mentioned, Great Uncial Codices which ‘were most prominent from the 3d to the 9th centuries.’ There are about 300 known uncials (Brown, Intro p.50) ‘beginning with the earliest’ Brown notes, ‘B (Codex Vaticanus), mid-4th century, lacking the last part of the NT.’ The ‘S or [Hebrew script] (Codex Sinaiticus), mid-4th century, containing the whole NT plus Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas.’ Then ‘A (Codex Alexandrinus), early 5th century’, ‘D (Codex Bezae) 5th century, contains Matt, John, Luke, Mark, III John, and Acts in Latin and Greek on facing pages.

With regards to the last of the three mentioned by Brown, Minuscules Brown writes (p.51)

‘About the 9th century a cursive (connected letters) writing style began to supersede the uncial, and there are nearly 2,900 NT mss. in this script.’

Moreover he mentions also with regards to manuscripts in different languages, (p.51)

In addition to what we know from these mss., information about the early NT is supplied by versions or translations into other ancient language, since they bear witness to a Greek text that was the basis of the translation. Ca. 200 translations were made into Latin and Syriac, called the Old Latin (OL) and the Old Syriac (OS), to distinguish them respectively from the late – 4th century Latin translation (the Vulgate) by St.Jerome that became the standard Bible of the Western church, and from the 4th-5th century Syriac translation (the Peshitta) that became the standard Bible of the Syriac church. … Comments on the Scriptures by early church writers also supply information about the Greek text or translation that lay before them.

Raymond Brown – Observations about the Use of the Evidence

One of the interesting points Brown makes in evaluating the evidence is that, (p.51)

“Many differences among the textual families visible in the great uncial codices of the 4th and 5th centuries existed already ca. 200 as we see from the papyri and early translations. How could so many differences arise within a hundred years after the original books were written? The answer may lie in the attitude of the copyist toward the NT books being copies. These were holy books because of their content and origins, but there was no slavish devotion to their exact wording. They were meant to be commented on and interpreted, and some of that could be included in the text.”

This is echoed in Metzger’s writing, we find in a discussion on the dissemination of early Christian literature, p.275,

We have good evidence to indicate that in the early decades of transmission numerous changes were made to the texts in circulation: as words or entire lines came to be left out inadvertently or inadvertently copied twice, stylistic changes were made, words were substituted for one another, evidence infelicities or outright mistakes were corrected, and so on (see the discussion of the kinds of change in Chapter 7). It is a striking feature of our textual record that the earliest copies we have of the various books that became the New Testament vary from one another far more widely than do the later copies, which were made under more controlled circumstances in the Middle Ages. Moreover, the quotations of the New Testament by early church fathers evidence a wide array of textual variation dating from these earliest stages in the history of transmission.

.
.
.

What does the evidence show?

• The earliest manuscripts show that there were already in the early days of Christianity differences, as noted by Brown and Metzger above.
• Brown notes, as mentioned above, that nearly 2,900 Greek manuscripts are in a form of handwriting which became popular from 9th cent onwards.
• There are accusations by people of others changing the scripture (Metzger, p.265)
• Metzger (p.284) points out ‘While no one would claim that theological controversies caused the majority of our hundreds o thousands of textual variants, they clearly engendered several hundred. Nor are these variant readings, taken as a whole, of little consequence. On the contrary, many prove to be critical for questions relating to New Testament exegesis and theology.” At which point he provides a footnote which has some examples.
• Brown (p.48) points out “These witnesses to the text of the NT do not agree amongst themselves in myriad ways, but relatively few of the differences are significant” referencing to Bruce Metzger statement, “No doctrine of the Christian faith depends solely upon a passage that is textually uncertain.”

Much more could be noted, but we shall keep it brief and I will give you an article I read and really enjoyed and which you can read to help you better understand, it is way more comprehensive and discusses what many Christian debaters say.

.
.
.

Summary

I think for Da’wah we have better things to discuss;

a) This topic is hardcore; it is like discussing parts of science of hadith with someone. A person would need to know some background and to research etc. To discuss this at a da’wah stall where you have 10 minutes to really capture their attention, I wouldn’t even mention it because it is too wide of a topic.

b) It is not that important of a subject compared to the amount of study one has to do, I mean one has to study for ages to say what? That we have the words of unknown authors who could themselves have made up something or have received stuff made up from the unknown people before them.

Having said that I do think that this subject is one which is not closed off and 100% sealed. Many of the claims Christians make in this field 1) do not prove anything and 2) are wrong.

I - For example as we mentioned the fact about 5000 manuscripts, well if these derive from faulty translations of early corruptions then what? Regardless if you have 1,000,000,000 one can only get to that corrupt version from which it comes. I mentioned this elsewhere;

Let me give you an example, let us say I have written a document labeled O for Original, 3 people copy it from me, A-B-C. In their copying B and C make mistakes and also add their explanations to it. Then a Student of A copies his copy, 5 Students of B copy from B’s bad copy and 7 students of C copy from C’s bad copy, many of them make mistakes. And then this keeps going.

O

A----B----C

D----E,F,G,H----I,J,K,L,M,N,O


The majority of the manuscripts thus have a lot of mistakes and mild corruptions, whilst one has an ok text with mistakes. Anyhow, this can get tricky but the point is to show that even if we have 10000s of manuscripts all stemming from a bad coy of a bad copy of a corrupted copy of a copy of the original, then it won't help us get to the original - it may help get to the Corrupt copy of the copy of the Original.

Moreover imagine we then lose the one copy of A and A itself, we are then left with all the manuscripts being copies of copies of the corrupt versions, which in turn means that even if we keep analyzing variants in them we cannot go past them. We cannot in this research go beyond the manuscripts we have – which means that we have to assume the manuscripts we have were not copied from corrupt manuscripts.

Some may say that this means that someone would have had to get the uncorrupt manuscripts and burn them or something, I say not necessarily, if for example I wrote a Gospel, and someone wished to copy it from me, he copied it and then added his own sayings, views, interpretations. He travelled and showed this to others, who copied from him, whilst my manuscript was not copied by any other person. All the manuscripts which spread far a wide then are from the person who copied from me, whilst my manuscript was no one else copied from and thus perished. All the surviving manuscripts then would be copied from a corrupt version of that the one individual copied from me.

I am not saying this happened, what I am saying is that it is possible it is upon the one who claims that the Bible has been preserved (i.e. that this did not happen) to show us why it probable that it did not.

II – It has been previously mentioned that no Christian doctrine of Faith relies solely upon a disputed passage, this may be true, but the point which I think should also be looked into is the books as individual books.

Sometimes because the books of the Bible are placed into one volume we assume that the author of Mark or Matthew or Luke or John each meant to say what the other said – that they agreed. This though is an assumption and just because they have been placed by others into the same volume (called the New Testament) does not mean the original authors shared the same views. So in order to understand the belief that the author of Mark held we need to analyse his Gospel, see what it says. We cannot assume what Matthew’s Gospel says is what the author of Mark’s Gospel believes.

From this view then would be interesting to note what the individual Gospels teach and also whether any variants change what they teach. Metzger noted, (p.284);

Whilst no one would claim that theological controversies caused the majority of our hundreds of thousands of textual variants, they clearly engendered several hundred. Nor are these variant readings, taken as a whole, of little consequence. On the contrary, many prove to be crucial for questions relating to New Testament exegesis and theology.32

Footnote

32. The interpretation of significant passages is sometimes often affected by the textual decision. Just within the Gospels, reference can be made to the Prologue of John (e.g., 1.18), the birth narratives of Matthew and Luke (e.g., Matt. 1.16, 18; Luke 1.35), the baptism accounts (e.g., Mark 1.10; Luke 3.22; John 1.34), and the various passion narratives (e.g., Mark 15.34; Luke 22.43-4; John 19.36). Moreover, a number of variants affect a range of issues that continue to interest historians and exegetes of the New Testament, including such questions as whether the Gospels could have been used to support either an “adoptionistic” Christology (e.g., Mark 1.1; Luke 3.22; John 1.34) or one that was “antidocetic” (e.g., the Western noninterpolations), whether Luke has a doctrine of atonement (e.g. Luke 22.19-20), whether members o f the Johannine community embraced a Gnostic Christology (e.g., 1 John 4.3), and whether any of the authors of the New Testament characterizes Jesus as God (e.g., Heb 1.8). See Ehrman, Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, pp.276-7.

Now I cannot claim to know all this or to have researched it all, as I mentioned earlier, nor have I put my questions to New Testament scholars yet, so I do not normally go out and make points on this topic. So no one should take what I have noted here, either in my words or quotations, and try to win an argument – unless of course you understand this subject very well and can hold your ground.

Recap

• To the claim of many manuscripts you can reply that A) it is not mainly about quantity as it is quality and most of the manuscripts are late! B) ask how many complete manuscripts are from the first 100 years, then 300?
• If a corruption occurred at the hands of the first copier and his copied was passed on then the manuscripts would almost all have this corruption?
• It is clear that relying solely on manuscripts to preserve a text is hardly a great method of preservation especially when the originals have perished.
• The original books of the NT were individual books, thus variants in some cases can affect the meaning or what we understand the author meant of the individual books.

.
.
.

Common Questions


If you claim the Bible has been changed then who changed it?

This question is often thrown at Muslims, this is one of those questions that sound like a valid point at first, but it is not when one thinks about it. Here are two points one should keep in mind;

I – From a totally logical point of view – if we have two manuscripts which contradict each other then someone must have changed something, either through addition or omission. (That is if they claim to be copies of the same book)

If one manuscript says Chapter 1, verse 1 of Mark’s Gospel says ‘The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ’, whilst another manuscript says ‘The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the son of God.’

We do not need to know who wrote what to know that someone wrote something different, either one person added ‘the son of God’ or one person omitted ‘the son of God’

II – From a historical point of view – we do not even know who wrote the Gospels, let alone which scribes copied the Gospels. The scribes did not (in general) write down names of who they were, even the Gospel authors did not write their own names in the Gospels. Knowing for the names of scribes or who they are does not change the evidence of the differing manuscripts and the possibility that people changed things, specially since we don’t know who done what.

.
.
.

How do you know the Bible is corrupt if you don’t have the originals?

Two points to this answer;

I - As implied in the above, we do not need to know the originals in order to know that it has been altered in its transmission, this is evident in the fact that the manuscripts differ. This is widely accepted, the point of argument amongst scholars is can work our way through the alterations and reconstruct the original text. So basically by looking at the surviving manuscripts and the differences between them we can see that there have been changed – we don’t need the originals to know that.

II – Another aspect of this answer can be that in the surviving statements of individuals we can find people accusing each other of changing passages, adding or subtracting things. I do not think this is disputed. What is dispute is who did this and to what extent – did all Christians including those we may now think of ‘orthodox’ do this too? Or was it only supposed ‘heretics’? That is a totally different discussion though. I can try to provide quotations if needed.

.
.
.

Where is the Bible of Jesus then?

If one assumes or concludes that Jesus did author or dictate a book, then does the fact that this book no longer exist show the previous assumption wrong? No, not necessarily, if this book was lost in the early periods of persecution or before it could have been spread, then this would show why it has not survived. Many works have not survived from those centuries.

The 5 volume work of Papias part of which is reproduced in Eusibius’ Church History is one such example, moreover it highlights that what was preserved was what was needed, i.e. the testimony of Papias about the elders etc.

Tacitus’ work, Annals, which supposedly covers a period between AD 14-68, has partly been lost, Stanton (The Gospels and Jesus 2nd ed, p.145) notes

‘Only about half of this ambitious history has survived. Unfortunetely the secretion of the Annals which covered Ad 29 to 32, and which might have referred to the trial and crucifixion of Jesus, has not survived. The earliest manuscript dates from the eleventh century – in marked contrast with the early strong evidence for the text of the Gospels.’

So it is pretty evident that his work exists now only from the eleventh century onwards, and part of it has been totally lost.

The fact that the earliest Papyri is only the size of a credit card indicates that such material could perish – as most of it has done in this case and only such a small portion has remained.

Regarding the Gospel of the Hebrews Brown notes (p.835), ‘This Jewish Christian gospel, independent of Matt and apparently known to Papias (ca.125), survives only in a few patristic quotations.” So it is clear this Gospel which once existed has now been lost, only surviving in the quotes of some church fathers.

Speaking on the Gospel of Thomas, Brown gives a background noting that in 1945 thirteen Coptic codices which had about 46 different tractates ‘almost forty of which were not known previously.’ (p839) So we had no knowledge of these until we discovered them, we did not know they existed until that discovery!

Thus it is both a)logically possible that documents were existent which have not survived, and b)historically possible, not only possible but obvious as has been demonstrated with the discoveries some of which we did not know of.

.
.
.

When was the Bible Corrupted: Before or After Muhammad, sallaAllahu alayhi wa salam?

The point behind this question is to show that if one says

a) After Prophet Muhammad, sallaAllahu alayhi wa salam, then we have enough manuscripts from before him to show us what was in the books.
b) Before Prophet Muhammad, sallaAllahu alayhi wa salam, then why does the Qur’an confirm it and say it is from God etc.

This is roughly the argument behind this, well; the problem is with point b, because one needs to show this is the case. What often happens is that they will provide verses which say that we believe in the Injeel or that we confirm the Injeel – or event hat the early Muslims never believe the Injeel was corrupt. There are various ways to tackle this. There is the simple way and the long way, most often with someone who has been taught this by ‘Christian Scholars of Islam’ because those supposed ex Muslims or Christian Scholars of Islam sound so convincing, one has to take the long way.

The short was is to indicate that Muslims confirm and believe that the Messages of Jesus and Moses and other Prophets did come from God, this does not necessitate that they are preserved for us now. Moreover you can take him to a passage like 2.79 (where one may try argue it is specifically talking about the unlettered) take him to what Ibn ‘Abbas radiyaAllahu anhu says in Sahih Al Bukhari and show him that the early Muslims did indeed believe this, so that you have clearly shown to him that the idea that it is a later Muslim invention is disproven through this simple narration. Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, (Tafsir.com Tafsir Ibn Kathir )

Az-Zuhri said that `Ubadydullah bin `Abdullah narrated that Ibn `Abbas said, "O Muslims! How could you ask the People of the Book about anything, while the Book of Allah (Qur'an) that He revealed to His Prophet is the most recent Book from Him and you still read it fresh and young Allah told you that the People of the Book altered the Book of Allah, changed it and wrote another book with their own hands. They then said, `This book is from Allah,' so that they acquired a small profit by it. Hasn't the knowledge that came to you prohibited you from asking them By Allah! We have not seen any of them asking you about what was revealed to you.'' This Hadith was also collected by Al-Bukhari.

But I would encourage people who encounter Christians, who try this argument to read the following,

Does Islam Endorse The Bible ?

Which should help, but common sense and quick reading and slowing the discussion down helps to make people realise that their points are not adding up, I spoke with a guy online once who tried this, and first he was adamant of his view point, I not knowing these arguments much just told him to give the verse and let us read it together. Thereafter I sat down and said let us analyse the possibilities, we looked at various things and in the end he agreed the verse could mean various things and he would need to verify his viewpoint instead of putting it forth as truth, I haven’t spoke to him sense but I hope at least he has become more open minded.


There is a lot more I wanted to say, but I needed to keep it brief.

In Need of Allah's Mercy,

Br.al-Habeshi

[Al Habeshi]

Originally Posted by Aayah

I was looking forward to come back and posting my "so many" questions to a former christian. Jazak Allah Khair for giving us such a chance

as a beginning, I just want make sure of something:

Is the old testament what we call now as Torah? the book of Moses? if so, then isn't this mean that Christians and Jews are believing in the same book? at least for the old testament part?

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem,

The Old Testament has many books, the first five are what the Jews call the Torah. Some people say that these (the 5) books came from Moses, alayhis salam, but according to Scholars of the Bible it appears that Moses was not the author. And there is no evidence that he was!

So when Christians say we have the Torah, they only have a book that some claim is the Torah from God to Moses, but they have no evidence for it. What Scholars (non Muslims) say is that these 5 books seem to have different authors and an editor which put the sources together. Which reminds one of;

Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, "This is from Allāh," 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 2:79)

As for whether they believe in it, then both of them do in the sense that both Christians and Jews (generally) accept that it is the word of God (in different ways). Although some Christians used to think that it was not and that it came from an Evil God. But anyhow, even the Christians in our time do not act upon all the laws from the Torah.

Why is a big discussion, which I am trying to research into. So alot of the Jews and Christian claim to believe in the Torah but the Christians dont feel that they have to act upon all the laws in the book they say is the Torah.



Br.al-Habeshi

[Al Habeshi]

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَـٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

We also want to know who Jesus is, through his own sayings i.e. he is human and not God. We want verses from Qur'an, but also from bible to prove this. We want the argument to be related to only Paul introducing this concept of jesus being 'god', and not Jesus himself. you might also want to mention abdullah ibn saba' in our islamic history, the jewish man who also started the shi'a sect, causing many to go astray from the pure teachings and beliefs of Prophet Muhammad and 'Ali ibn abi talib (radhiAllahu 'anhu.)

Who was/is Jesus? – the Different approaches
I – Who does the Jesus of the Bible say he is?
II – Who does the Jesus of the Bible say he is? Methodology Revisited
II.a - Point one to note – the Man’s reaction
II.b - Point two to note – Matthew’s interpretation
III – Showing the Elevation of Jesus
IV – Summary
IV.a - Recap
My view on things

.
.
.

Who was/is Jesus? – the Different approaches

I – Who does the Jesus of the Bible say he is?

Jesus within the four Gospels has a variety of roles. The portrayal of Jesus within the Gospels differs in some instances, something which most readers accept (though they disagree with regards to the extent and the reasons why). But what can we say about who Jesus was according to his own words in the Bible?

Almost everyone in our times agrees that Jesus was a man to say the least. Thus his human side is often taken as a given point in Muslim/Christian dialogue. What is debated is whether Jesus is God and whether he claimed to be. You see there are no clear cut passages which show Jesus claiming to be God, Christians either claim he is or say ‘well this is because he took the nature of man, read Philipians 2:7 etc’. So in the end this is what it boils down to.

You see, even if you show that Jesus never claimed to be God the Christian can say ‘this is because he had taken on human form read Philipians 2:7’ or if a person shows Jesus clearly being human the Christian will say ‘yes, that’s his human side’. Thus this can quickly turn into a no win situation.

Having said the above none of the arguments from Jesus words – I think – show Jesus as being God. I do not think anyone who would be given the Bible to read for themselves, even the Pauline letters, would come away thinking Jesus is God – though a possible heavenly figure yes, a sort of mini God maybe, it would be interesting to see what early church Father’s believed Jesus to be – is the concept of the Trinity, or Jesus being God so clear that the all accepted it?

Generally I find Muslims debating this according to the Gospels, with an exception of a few who take the approach of analyzing the Gospels and their sources and try to work out which sayings are authentic or not (similar to what happens in Historical Jesus research). So there are many articles online you can find wherein the main thrust is to show that even according to the Gospels as we have them Jesus did not claim to be God. So I will just post some links.

What a person should keep in mind is that if someone wants to affirm that Jesus is God then they should bring evidence, as I mentioned above non the of arguments work in my view and at best (if they use other passages other than Jesus’ words) they can but claim Jesus is some sort of heavenly figure who God has blessed in a major way, but not God.

.
.
.

Here are some links you may find interesting.

What did Jesus really say – has an array of supposed evidences for the divinity of Jesus and discusses them in interesting ways. If you want to find arguments from the Bible then look at this since it is pretty nice, it is a must I think for those who want to argue based on the Bible as it stands!

What Did Jesus Really Say ? - Table Of Contents


Br.Bassam Zawadi has some interesting articles hosted on the answering-Christianity website look under Articles on Christianity (half way down the page) - Bassam Zawadi's Rebuttals section.

Br.Sami Zaatari has some interesting stuff on this - Christianity

Some of the above is encapsulated in the works and debates of Shaykh Ahmed Deedat, rahimahullah. So these include topics likes, Jesus is not God because… and Is Jesus God because… the former giving evidence for why it clearly appears that Jesus cannot be God and the later given a rebuttal to reasons some Christians give for Jesus being God.

.
.
.

II – Who does the Jesus of the Bible say he is? Methodology Revisited

Above I mentioned some of the discussions which may take place. Because of the nature of the claims, i.e. that one person has contradictory natures (goodness and humanity), people tried to disprove one nature (God) by proving the other (human). Meaning, people understood that by showing that Jesus is man it will disprove that Jesus is God, normally this reasoning would work, if I show that I am heterosexual, then this would generally rule out me being homosexual, or if I showed that I was married, this would indicate that I am not the something which is contradictory to that, i.e. a bachelor. But due to the contradictory affirmation held by some Christians this does not seem to satisfy one whose mind is already made up, i.e. if I believe that x is both heterosexual and homosexual, you showing me is he heterosexual does not disprove my belief that he is homosexual, or if I believe that x is both married and a bachelor, you showing me that he is married does not disprove my belief that he is a bachelor.

One way to approach this would be to challenge the Christian to bring forth clear evidence for his belief from the Christian Scriptures, if he satisfies this then it will only show that the Christian Scriptures teach it, and not that they are right in teaching it – a crucial difference which should be noted.

This is generally what happens, when asked for their evidence of the God side, some claim incidents like ‘he forgave sins’ to be evidence, but Jesus clearly indicated that whatever he done was not of his own ability – another indication he is not God. Instead of accepting this, the party then goes on to state something like ‘well he could not do it alone because he was in human form’ well, the text does not say that, nor does the text clearly say he was God, what we know is that he is clearly a man and clearly did nothing of his own self. (The articles mentioned above which deal with, Is Jesus God because… would deal as a rebuttal of such arguments)

Another way to approach it is to show that the Jesus contained within the Christian scriptures denied being God. The method previously mentioned (of Jesus clearly being human) failed against a belief wherein a person held two opposing views (that he is human and God), this though does not. For if one shows that Jesus denied being God then should remove belief in it – for those who take the Gospel portrait of Jesus as being authoritative.

Are there such instances? I believe so, a famous example, where much exchange is found is the incident in Mark. The incident is found as follows, found in chapter 10;

17As He was setting out on a journey, a man ran up to Him and knelt before Him, and asked Him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
18And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone.
19"You know the commandments, 'DO NOT MURDER, DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, DO NOT STEAL, DO NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS, Do not defraud, HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER.'"
20And he said to Him, "Teacher, I have kept all these things from my youth up."
21Looking at him, Jesus felt a love for him and said to him, "One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."
22But at these words he was saddened, and he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property.

To the average person this passage clearly indicates that Jesus is teaching the man that he is not God.

II.a - Point one to note – the Man’s reaction

A point often overlooked is that after Jesus’ statement the man stops calling Jesus good. This point was noted by Brother Bassam Zawadi in his dialogue (who is God and how are we saved or something like this), to which the Christian representative replied that this was a misunderstanding on the part of the man. Note though that Jesus gives him more advice even after verse 20, this advice does not include a correction on the topic of God, but rather Jesus told him, one thing you lack, this one thing was not his lack of understanding that Jesus is God. The man is told to sell his possessions, give to the poor and follow Jesus.

II.b - Point two to note – Matthew’s interpretation

This is a more scholarly point, briefly, due to our lack of knowledge of the Gospels scholars have tried to work out many things. One of which is the relationship between the synoptic Gospels (Matt, Mark &Luke). The wide accepted conclusion after seeing the evidence is that Mark wrote first and was used by both Matthew and Luke, this is the background of the following point.

If one accepts that point – one of the rare things many scholars agree upon. Then one can see that Matthew altered his source as I have noted elsewhere;

…it is not thus a surprise that the author of the Gospel according to Matthew although copying the story almost word for word; the author changes words around to alter the meaning. Jesus is asked, 'Teacher, what good must I do to gain eternal life?' so instead of referring to Jesus as 'Good teacher' the questioner says, 'Teacher, what good...' then Jesus replies, with something amazing, 'Why do you ask me about the good?' This response is quite illogical, since this is exactly what we would expect, meaning someone asking about what good to do.

.
.
.

III – Showing the Elevation of Jesus

This is a method more in tune with scholarship and digs beyond the Gospels as, underneath them, looking at the sources of the Gospels and having to do some historical research. I have seen it become more prominent in the debates of Brothers like Shabbir Ally. I myself like this approach because I feel it is more scholarly and more honest and brings one closer to what is probably more likely to have happened in the course of history.

The problem with this is that it may take a while to set out the background, one cannot just pick a bible and show the famous passages which would have to be accepted without argument by Christians. Rather this approach needs the recipient to be both interested and attentive and patient. It is a hard thing in a world which has learnt to want information fast and cannot be bothered to wait around, but this approach works I think better than the former, or maybe I just like it more.

This approach if put to a layman will take time over several days most likely, since you need to show various points which are needed for this to work, i.e. Markan priority, that Matthew used Mark, etc. Stuff which is generally accepted by Scholars but not pretty much known to laymen.

.
.
.

IV. Summary

Jesus in the Gospels made it very clear that he was a Man, a Prophet, a Healer, a Teacher, in the different Gospels different aspects of Jesus are clearer. There are passages which may be interpreted in various ways, but the best was is to interpret them in the light of the passages which can only be interpreted in one clear way. When we realise that the passage show clearly Jesus was a man, then the passages that indicate anything supernatural are signs of God providing this for Jesus, for he ‘can of his own self do nothing’, this would be true for most readers, unless you start off with a view that a person is both man and God then you try to show evidence.

IV.a Recap

• Jesus is clearly man
• When something supernatural happens – 1) one view says this show that God has given him stuff as Jesus says himself 2) one view says that this shows Jesus is God
• When the second view is challenged that Jesus is clearly not God but man, they reply, he is both man and God.
• Any evidence to show Jesus is not God (such as lack of knowledge, growing, praying etc) is rejected and the reply is usually, this is Jesus’ human side
• The above may work for someone who is openminded, if it does not then one should realize that the person claiming Jesus is God needs to bring evidence which cannot be re-interpreted (in a logical way) other than to say Jesus is God
• Just as importantly one can also view the passages wherein Jesus may explicitly deny being God.

.
.
.

My view on things

I personally don’t spend a lot of time arguing whether or not the Gospels as they stand now show Jesus is God or man or a liar or not. But whatever I do it is a must that the person I speak with is open and ready to change if need be. Both the above approaches work with one who is open minded, for the first approach one needs to be very neutral too, start from a neutral point, because if one starts by believing something and not accepting a different possible viewpoint he will never change no matter what evidence is brought. Many people though have such a strong fitrah that even years of being taught such a thing will not always have a lasting effect.

In the end though, if someone agrees that Jesus is not God this would not make them Muslims, some Christians of our time do agree that Jesus is not God, some of them still think he is the Son of God, some still think that the Bible is accurate and that Jesus died for their sins.

As I understand it da’wah would be two folds, merely getting a Christian to negate that Jesus is God does not mean he will be on the right path, rather he needs to accept that Islam is true. Just proving that the Bible teaches Jesus is not God does not prove that the Bible is not right or that Islam is right. So this would only be one side of things – and a main reason I don’t, personally, focus on it.

Forgive my rush and hurry in writing this and its not really a da'wah article to non Muslims just some notes for Muslims I guess.

As for Paul I would have to do more research, I am currently trying to read more on Paul. But what is clear is that Paul was a controversial figure within the early days of Christianity.

Br.al-Habeshi

[Aayah]

Originally Posted by Al Habeshi

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem,

The Old Testament has many books, the first five are what the Jews call the Torah. Some people say that these (the 5) books came from Moses, alayhis salam, but according to Scholars of the Bible it appears that Moses was not the author. And there is no evidence that he was!

So when Christians say we have the Torah, they only have a book that some claim is the Torah from God to Moses, but they have no evidence for it. What Scholars (non Muslims) say is that these 5 books seem to have different authors and an editor which put the sources together. Which reminds one of;

Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, "This is from Allāh," 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 2:79)

As for whether they believe in it, then both of them do in the sense that both Christians and Jews (generally) accept that it is the word of God (in different ways). Although some Christians used to think that it was not and that it came from an Evil God. But anyhow, even the Christians in our time do not act upon all the laws from the Torah.

Why is a big discussion, which I am trying to research into. So alot of the Jews and Christian claim to believe in the Torah but the Christians dont feel that they have to act upon all the laws in the book they say is the Torah.



Br.al-Habeshi

Asalam Alykom Wa Rahmat Allah Wa Barakatoh

jazak Allah khair for your useful inputs


For the five books that you said considered as Torah, were those books documented in Moses time?

and what about the other books in the old testament? when they were documented and written?




Wasalam Alykom

[Al Habeshi]

Originally Posted by Aayah

Asalam Alykom Wa Rahmat Allah Wa Barakatoh

jazak Allah khair for your useful inputs


For the five books that you said considered as Torah, were those books documented in Moses time?

and what about the other books in the old testament? when they were documented and written?

Wasalam Alykom

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem,

Wa Alaykum Salaam Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh

Wa Iyyaki.

According to Islam then I don't knowwht the Islamic teaching is on this and if Islam has a teaching on it then that is the truth.

From what we know from history then we don't know much. The Five books appear to be from a later time, they speak of Moses, alayhis salam, and recount history. There are different theories and hypohesis by Scholars of when these books were put together, no one knows for sure. But generally it is accepted that they were put together a long long time after Musa alayhis salam.

The Other books in the Old Testament, well those range from different periods, I don't really know anything about it. I don't really look into it because it does not touch upon Islam in the sense that no revealed books that we know of (as far as I know) are spoken about then. Except for the Zaboor which some say are the Psalms given to Dawud, but the current Psalms cannot be attributed to Dawud with certainty and there is discussion about who wrote them and when.

In general, the more you learn about it the more you start to realise how Blessed this Ummah is in having the Isnaad and the likes, walillahilhamd.

Just out of curiosity, is there a specific reason why you ask?

Br.al-Habeshi

[Aayah]

Originally Posted by Al Habeshi

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem,

In general, the more you learn about it the more you start to realise how Blessed this Ummah is in having the Isnaad and the likes, walillahilhamd.

Indeed, Alhumdulilah for the grace of Islam

Just out of curiosity, is there a specific reason why you ask?

Br.al-Habeshi

I am reading a book about Christianity (by a Muslim Author) and it raised many questions about the old/and new Testament


Now my next question about the forgiven sin that confused me:

If people can "still" commit sins (like murdering....etc) and thereby enter hell because of that, then isn't that mean that Jesus sacrifice "that they believe in" went to vain?

[Aayah]

Asalam Alykom,

Hopefully I will get this question and the previous question in my previous post answered soon if possible.

I would like someone to explain how can those two verses complement each other rather than contradicting each other.

the first verse is by Paul claiming that he is the builder and founder, the next verse to it is telling the exact opposite thing that Jesus Peace be upon him is the founder

“According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder, I have laid the FOUNDATION, and another builds on it" (1 Corinthians 3:10)

"For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Corinthians 3:11)


Jazakum Allah khair in advance.

[Al Habeshi]

Bismillahir Rahmaanir Raheem,

as-Salaamu 'Alaykum Wa RAhmatullah.

I was going to reply to the three things at once but some of them take longer than others, this was pretty quick.

I would like someone to explain how can those two verses complement each other rather than contradicting each other.

the first verse is by Paul claiming that he is the builder and founder, the next verse to it is telling the exact opposite thing that Jesus Peace be upon him is the founder

“According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder, I have laid the FOUNDATION, and another builds on it" (1 Corinthians 3:10)

"For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Corinthians 3:11)

Well let me share a fundamental viewpoint I use personally. If you find what appears to be a contradiction in the speech of one person, i.e. within the same book or speech, then it is more likely that I do not understand it than it being a contradiction. Unless it is possible that there is more than one author of the same book or that the person generally contradicts himself.

This means for example that if I were analyzing a book from the Bible, like Gospel of Mark, and something seems contradictory with itself, (i.e. one passage in mark with another passage in mark) I would first see if there is more than one author to the Gospel, sometimes we can’t know, then I would try reconcile it even if it seemed improbable if I was certain that there was one author who was reliable and accurate.
I don’t know if that makes sense.

Anyhow, coming to the particular case, if you read this part of Paul’s letter you find that people were bickering about stuff, and paul indicates that whatever us humans do it is not about us but God working through us, like he states (from verse 4-11);

For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not mere men?

What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believerd, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one.

I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth.
So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth.

Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor.

For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.
According to the grace of God which was given to me, like a wise master builder I laid a foundation, and another is building on it. But each man must be careful how he builds on it.

For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Insha'Allah that helps.

Br.al-Habeshi

[Sensationnz]

asallamalikum

brother habish i had a question regarding christianity and there god ie. jesus,father,holy ghost. do they change there mind?? i get the answer "NO" they say all of them have same purrpose and it will never change.

1. From my understanding the old testoment is moses words ! but the message of god. so it must mean they should follow it.

2. jesus says to obey moses in one of his many commandments.

3. moses said to us to not eat pork ie. in bible i think it is leviticus chapter 8 verse 11.

4. Jesus confirmed his idea or law.

5. But when i ask christians why do you eat pork they tell me jesus says you can eat anything ? and they bring some verses.

6. i agree with them but does that make there god change there mind?

Can you elaborate on this .

PS:and alchohal.

Wsallam