Matthew 26: 28

[Thomas]

Hi all -

Originally Posted by wil

I read you wrong Joseph ... I read Luke was not compiled until 267

My mistake also — sorry Joseph.

Originally Posted by wil

What no discussion of Q here?

Q was a proposed hypothetical solution to a problem, and even as that does not work satisfactorily ... mind you, nor does any other solution ... but the fact remains that there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any document that fulfills that required of 'Q' ... nor can scholars retroactively create a document that might have been 'Q' ... so of all the possible solutions, Q is the most fragile.

The existence of an Aramaic Matthew, for example, answers a lot of the questions Q seeks to answer, and there is at least some historical validation, from Papias, and others.

What all the Synoptic Problem solutions are obliged to ignore, or rather cannot factor in, is Oral Tradition, because without verifiable data, that's a non-scientific approach, yet it seems logical to accept that oral tradition determined what eventually was written down.

In the same way tradition determines what is canonical, and what isn't.

My view is that Aram M was first; Mark second, a later Greek Matthew utilised Mark as a chronology and incorporated the Aram M sayings and discourses (more of which in Matthew than the others); Luke wrote using Matthew, Mark (possibly in earlier edition than we now possess) and other sources; and John wrote his with his community at Ephesus.

All three wrote testimonies that were tailored Christian teachings to the situation of the communities for which they were written, rather than an attempt at biography or history.

Originally Posted by wil

And I do believe many of them have access to all the same information we have.

That's an interesting question. Muslims accuse Christians of tritheism, whereas Christians profess monotheism. Some have suggested that wherever Mohammed (pbuh) got his information about the Trinity from, he was misinformed, as Christians aren't tritheist ... in the same waqy we must ask where he got his info about Judaism and Christianity from.

Thomas

[kf123]

Thank you Abdullah and Amica for your replies and to the others for their comments too.

This raises the question "Do you test the Scriptures by the messages of later prophets or the messages of the prophets by the Scriptures?"

Jesus certainly felt that the teachings of Scripture had been corrupted by the religious leaders of His day. However He didn't teach that the Scriptures themselves were corrupted. As Thomas and Pico pointed out, the modern Bible has been shown to be essentially unchanged from the oldest texts from the 1st and 2nd century.

If a new "Islamic prophet" came along today and said that the Qu'ran was corrupted from what the prophet Mohammed said (the Qu'ran being put in written form some time after Mohammed's death), on what basis would the Islamic community dispute his claim?

Christians believe that a prophet has to be judged by his life (Matthew 7:16) and whether his message is in harmony with the other Scriptures, whether there is confirmation of fulfilled prophecy, and whether they confess Christ (1 John 4:1-3)

What does the Qu'ran teach regarding how to "test" a prophet?

[Abdullah]

Originally Posted by kf123

Thank you Abdullah and Amica for your replies and to the others for their comments too.

This raises the question "Do you test the Scriptures by the messages of later prophets or the messages of the prophets by the Scriptures?"

It has to be done by the Message of later prophets, for if a scripture is distorted, and there exists no verifiable authentic copy [in paper or in mind], then the only way the truth regarding it can be known is if God sends down further revelations that verifies and corrects it.

The Quran has verified the truthfull message of previous scriptures and corrected it's distortions.

Originally Posted by kf123

If a new "Islamic prophet" came along today and said that the Qu'ran was corrupted from what the prophet Mohammed said (the Qu'ran being put in written form some time after Mohammed's death), on what basis would the Islamic community dispute his claim?

The Quran affrims for us that Muhammad [saw] was the seal of the Prophets/Messengers, so he was the verry last one and there will be no other Prophet coming till the Last Day, so we know that any person who claims to be a Prophet after Muhammad [saw] is a lier and an imposter.

Originally Posted by kf123

Christians believe that a prophet has to be judged by his life (Matthew 7:16) and whether his message is in harmony with the other Scriptures, whether there is confirmation of fulfilled prophecy, and whether they confess Christ (1 John 4:1-3)

But if their scripture has been distorted, then how will they rely on seeing wether a future Prophets acts is in accordance with past scriptures? [for example, if monothiesm has been distorted to a a disguised polythiesm such as the trinity conception, then obviously a future Prophet will preach the true monothiesm, i,e, God without partners, and beyond conception]]. Also, they should make room for some abrogations and changes to the religion with the advent of New Messengers; do they not beleive that Jesus [pbuh] taught a little different to what Moses [pbuh] taught?

Originally Posted by kf123

What does the Qu'ran teach regarding how to "test" a prophet?

God sends new Messengers with 'clear signs', i.e, miracles, and the Prophet Muhammad's [saw] miracle was the Holy Quran...Also they will conform somewhat to past revelations, and will live pure, sinless and moral lives.

People may have different ways of veryfying a Prophet; this is how a Christian? Ruler 'tested' the Prophethood of muhammad [saw]:

Narrated Abdullah bin 'Abbas:

Abu Sufyan bin Harb informed me that Heraclius had sent a messenger to him while he had been accompanying a caravan from Quraish. They were merchants doing business in Sham (Syria, Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan), at the time when Allah's Apostle had truce with Abu Sufyan and Quraish infidels. So Abu Sufyan and his companions went to Heraclius at Ilya (Jerusalem). Heraclius called them in the court and he had all the senior Roman dignitaries around him. He called for his translator who, translating Heraclius's question said to them, "Who amongst you is closely related to that man who claims to be a Prophet?" Abu Sufyan replied, "I am the nearest relative to him (amongst the group)."

Heraclius said, "Bring him (Abu Sufyan) close to me and make his companions stand behind him." Abu Sufyan added, Heraclius told his translator to tell my companions that he wanted to put some questions to me regarding that man (The Prophet) and that if I told a lie they (my companions) should contradict me." Abu Sufyan added, "By Allah! Had I not been afraid of my companions labeling me a liar, I would not have spoken the truth about the Prophet. The first question he asked me about him was:

'What is his family status amongst you?'

I replied, 'He belongs to a good (noble) family amongst us.'

Heraclius further asked, 'Has anybody amongst you ever claimed the same (i.e. to be a Prophet) before him?'

I replied, 'No.'

He said, 'Was anybody amongst his ancestors a king?'

I replied, 'No.'

Heraclius asked, 'Do the nobles or the poor follow him?'

I replied, 'It is the poor who follow him.'

He said, 'Are his followers increasing decreasing (day by day)?'

I replied, 'They are increasing.'

He then asked, 'Does anybody amongst those who embrace his religion become displeased and renounce the religion afterwards?'

I replied, 'No.'

Heraclius said, 'Have you ever accused him of telling lies before his claim (to be a Prophet)?'

I replied, 'No. '

Heraclius said, 'Does he break his promises?'

I replied, 'No. We are at truce with him but we do not know what he will do in it.' I could not find opportunity to say anything against him except that.

Heraclius asked, 'Have you ever had a war with him?'

I replied, 'Yes.'

Then he said, 'What was the outcome of the battles?'

I replied, 'Sometimes he was victorious and sometimes we.'

Heraclius said, 'What does he order you to do?'

I said, 'He tells us to worship Allah and Allah alone and not to worship anything along with Him, and to renounce all that our ancestors had said. He orders us to pray, to speak the truth, to be chaste and to keep good relations with our Kith and kin.'

Heraclius asked the translator to convey to me the following, I asked you about his family and your reply was that he belonged to a very noble family. In fact all the Apostles come from noble families amongst their respective peoples. I questioned you whether anybody else amongst you claimed such a thing, your reply was in the negative. If the answer had been in the affirmative, I would have thought that this man was following the previous man's statement. Then I asked you whether anyone of his ancestors was a king. Your reply was in the negative, and if it had been in the affirmative, I would have thought that this man wanted to take back his ancestral kingdom.

I further asked whether he was ever accused of telling lies before he said what he said, and your reply was in the negative. So I wondered how a person who does not tell a lie about others could ever tell a lie about Allah. I, then asked you whether the rich people followed him or the poor. You replied that it was the poor who followed him. And in fact all the Apostle have been followed by this very class of people. Then I asked you whether his followers were increasing or decreasing. You replied that they were increasing, and in fact this is the way of true faith, till it is complete in all respects. I further asked you whether there was anybody, who, after embracing his religion, became displeased and discarded his religion. Your reply was in the negative, and in fact this is (the sign of) true faith, when its delight enters the hearts and mixes with them completely. I asked you whether he had ever betrayed. You replied in the negative and likewise the Apostles never betray. Then I asked you what he ordered you to do. You replied that he ordered you to worship Allah and Allah alone and not to worship any thing along with Him and forbade you to worship idols and ordered you to pray, to speak the truth and to be chaste. If what you have said is true, he will very soon occupy this place underneath my feet and I knew it (from the scriptures) that he was going to appear but I did not know that he would be from you, and if I could reach him definitely, I would go immediately to meet him and if I were with him, I would certainly wash his feet.' Heraclius then asked for the letter addressed by Allah's Apostle

which was delivered by Dihya to the Governor of Busra, who forwarded it to Heraclius to read. The contents of the letter were as follows: "In the name of Allah the Beneficent, the Merciful (This letter is) from Muhammad the slave of Allah and His Apostle to Heraclius the ruler of Byzantine. Peace be upon him, who follows the right path. Furthermore I invite you to Islam, and if you become a Muslim you will be safe, and Allah will double your reward, and if you reject this invitation of Islam you will be committing a sin by misguiding your Arisiyin (peasants). (And I recite to you Allah's Statement

'O people of the scripture! Come to a word common to you and us that we worship none but Allah and that we associate nothing in worship with Him, and that none of us shall take others as Lords beside Allah. Then, if they turn away, say: Bear witness that we are Muslims (those who have surrendered to Allah).' (3:64).

Abu Sufyan then added, "When Heraclius had finished his speech and had read the letter, there was a great hue and cry in the Royal Court. So we were turned out of the court. I told my companions that the question of Ibn-Abi-Kabsha) (the Prophet Muhammad) has become so prominent that even the King of Bani Al-Asfar (Byzantine) is afraid of him. Then I started to become sure that he (the Prophet) would be the conqueror in the near future till I embraced Islam (i.e. Allah guided me to it)."

The sub narrator adds, "Ibn An-Natur was the Governor of llya' (Jerusalem) and Heraclius was the head of the Christians of Sham. Ibn An-Natur narrates that once while Heraclius was visiting ilya' (Jerusalem), he got up in the morning with a sad mood. Some of his priests asked him why he was in that mood? Heraclius was a foreteller and an astrologer. He replied, 'At night when I looked at the stars, I saw that the leader of those who practice circumcision had appeared (become the conqueror). Who are they who practice circumcision?' The people replied, 'Except the Jews nobody practices circumcision, so you should not be afraid of them (Jews).

'Just Issue orders to kill every Jew present in the country.'

While they were discussing it, a messenger sent by the king of Ghassan to convey the news of Allah's Apostle to Heraclius was brought in. Having heard the news, he (Heraclius) ordered the people to go and see whether the messenger of Ghassan was circumcised. The people, after seeing him, told Heraclius that he was circumcised. Heraclius then asked him about the Arabs. The messenger replied, 'Arabs also practice circumcision.'

(After hearing that) Heraclius remarked that sovereignty of the 'Arabs had appeared. Heraclius then wrote a letter to his friend in Rome who was as good as Heraclius in knowledge. Heraclius then left for Homs. (a town in Syrian and stayed there till he received the reply of his letter from his friend who agreed with him in his opinion about the emergence of the Prophet and the fact that he was a Prophet. On that Heraclius invited all the heads of the Byzantines to assemble in his palace at Homs. When they assembled, he ordered that all the doors of his palace be closed. Then he came out and said, 'O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give a pledge of allegiance to this Prophet (i.e. embrace Islam).'

(On hearing the views of Heraclius) the people ran towards the gates of the palace like onagers but found the doors closed. Heraclius realized their hatred towards Islam and when he lost the hope of their embracing Islam, he ordered that they should be brought back in audience.

(When they returned) he said, 'What already said was just to test the strength of your conviction and I have seen it.' The people prostrated before him and became pleased with him, and this was the end of Heraclius's story (in connection with his faith).

Domain of Islam :: Sahih Hadith Bukhari :: Sayings of Prophet Muhammad(saws)

The Prophets have the light of truth and faith in them, and for osme people just one look at a Prophets face is enough for them to believe.

A beduin once came to the Prophet muhammad [saw] to deny him and argue with him, but once he set his eyes on him, and saw the radiance of faith in him, he excliamed, "By God this is not face of a lier"! ...and then he immediately accepted Islam.

Hope that hleps

Peace.

[Abdullah]

Originally Posted by kf123

This raises the question "Do you test the Scriptures by the messages of later prophets or the messages of the prophets by the Scriptures?"

It can also be done by the message in the scriptures itself; a true Message of God wont contradict past scriputres in Creed [conception of 'God', and essential beliefs for faith...] and nor will it have any non-sensical, contradictory, or unethical stuff in it...

Peace.

[Sean H.]

Matthew 26:28 English Standard Version (ESV)

This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Exodus 24:8 English Standard Version (ESV)

And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, "Behold the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words."

Christ never uses the words, " I died for your sins." He lived for the salvation and betterment of mankind. If Christ died for people's sins, then Moses and Muhammed died for people's sins.

But, I think the important aspect is the persecution that each of them faced, but that they all persevered for the betterment of mankind.

[Amica]

Salaam,

Like I mentioned earlier: the Christian sources, including the Roman Catholic Church resources, ACCEPT that the Holy Bible have suffered changes: revisions, additions and deletions. This itself is enough to say that the Bible had been corrupted.

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by Amica

Salaam,

Like I mentioned earlier: the Christian sources, including the Roman Catholic Church resources, ACCEPT that the Holy Bible have suffered changes: revisions, additions and deletions. This itself is enough to say that the Bible had been corrupted.

Salaam

Do you have a link to a Christian source that says what was revised, added or deleted? I would be very interested to read it.

[Pico]

Originally Posted by Amica

Salaam,

Like I mentioned earlier: the Christian sources, including the Roman Catholic Church resources, ACCEPT that the Holy Bible have suffered changes: revisions, additions and deletions. This itself is enough to say that the Bible had been corrupted.

Whether people accept that the Bible has suffered changes and whether it actually has are different. Just as some people accept that there is no God, while others say there is.

But in away, yes. According to historical scholarship the manuscripts have gone some changes over the years they were copied. But these changes have been minor: misspellings, interchanging "Lord" with "Jesus" etc. But these changes have not altered anything significant about the Bible.

Historians have a method for tracking these changes, the look at the manuscripts we have (thousands of them), and look at how and what has been changed through the generations. By doing so, they are able to get very close to what the original said.

It turns out that the Bibles we have today are very true to what was originally written.

[Saltmeister]

Originally Posted by Sean H.

Matthew 26:28 English Standard Version (ESV)

This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Christ never uses the words, "I died for your sins." He lived for the salvation and betterment of mankind. If Christ died for people's sins, then Moses and Muhammed died for people's sins.

But, I think the important aspect is the persecution that each of them faced, but that they all persevered for the betterment of mankind.

I think "dying for your sins" or even "dying for the forgiveness your sins" is open to interpretation. A lot of people take this to mean that it meant it was absolutely necessary and essential for Jesus to die in order for God to forgive people, that if he didn't, God couldn't accept them. They assume it doesn't require further explanation.

In the context of that passage, nowhere is it said that Jesus' death alone, and only his death, could allow God to forgive people. It simply says that he would simply die for (in pouring out his blood) their sins.

The first-century Christians didn't necessarily believe that one person exclusively had to die for them, or that this act exclusively was necessary for God to accept them. The important thing was that someone had died for them, and that it had something to do with their sins.

It is important, therefore to see the event in context. Why was the crucifixion important to these people, and what relevance does it have for us today? Why did they want to remember it?

If Christianity has so much influence today, and if someone chose to preserve the memory of it, it's not necessarily because "Jesus died for your sins." Jesus died for someone else's sins. People wanted to remember that.

But again, it's not even a matter of whether it's necessary for someone to die for a person to be forgiven. One would be overlooking the possibility that Jesus' death served a political purpose. It may be true that it is sufficient to believe you're forgiven to acquire forgiveness from God, but even then the crucifixion doesn't lose its significance. Could the crucifixion not have been God's declaration of support for those who believed they were forgiven, but were told by their religious leaders that they were not?

I would say that it's unreasonable, after having been slaves of Israel's religious leaders, that a person would then give his soul away to be enslaved again by the idea that he had to believe Jesus' death was necessary for his being accepted by God. I think it's more reasonable to think that Jesus died so that that person could be confident that God had already accepted him, that he would be justified in thinking that God accepted him no matter what people told him. It was between him and God alone. In that sense Jesus died as a martyr defending people's individuality and individual identity.

Originally Posted by Amica

Like I mentioned earlier: the Christian sources, including the Roman Catholic Church resources, ACCEPT that the Holy Bible have suffered changes: revisions, additions and deletions. This itself is enough to say that the Bible had been corrupted.

By "corrupted", you make it sound like something has been desecrated, or that the Christian Texts are like a structure or building that collapses because a pillar has been pulled, cut down or removed. That, I believe, is to misunderstand the function and purpose of the Christians Texts, which is to record and preserve the memory of an experience that existed in the first century. As long as the experience is correctly and accurately conveyed, the Texts serve their purpose and function.

The question to ask is whether the essential meaning is still there, and that's debatable. It depends a lot on whether Christians interpret their own Texts correctly. That's because Islam's view on Christianity depends on how Christians see Christianity, just as we depend on the views of Jews to interpret Judaism and likewise Muslims for Islam. The first-century Christians did not anticipate the many ways their Texts would be interpreted and used, and they therefore didn't cover all loopholes. We have to go the distance, climb the mountain and slay the dragon in rediscovering first-century Christianity, and thereby rediscover what it all meant . . . if we see that as our purpose in life.

Islam's view of Christianity will be wrong if Christians have misunderstood Christianity, and this will undermine any argument against Christianity, and likewise Judaism. It's the same for Christians looking into Islam. If Muslims have misunderstood Islam, anything said by Christians against Islam loses its authority. It's only until you, as an adherent of one faith, have full appreciation of the meaning of another, that you can speak with authority on the other. I have to say, I have never met anyone who knows and understands both Islam and Christianity well enough to comment on the legitimacy or validity of either and convince me that that theory he has (whatever it will be) is correct. In most cases, I found that knowledge and experience in one or the other was rather limited.

Most people don't even get around to fully appreciating their own faith. I wonder whether there is any point. There is the argument that it is wrong to believe we cannot figure out which one has more validity, that it nullifies the validity of one's faith to think that way. I disagree. If nobody can figure it out, I think it's reasonable to assume and that nobody will ever solve the problem. God wouldn't make unreasonable demands on us feeble humans.

This idea that the Christian Texts have been corrupted is fueled by the idea that one must invalidate one faith to validate another. Who said so? Why not just let Jews be Jews, Christians be Christians and Muslims be Muslims? Won't God look after us all in the end?

It's probably more correct to say we've misinterpreted our own Texts than to say we've actually "corrupted" them. If the Texts convey the same essential meaning, then the "corruption theory" goes out the window. Islam should not rely on this theory to affirm and assert its own legitimacy. I don't think it helps anyone to say a text is corrupted because you may be overlooking the possibility that it's been misinterpreted. If a text is misinterpreted and you base a corruption theory on a misinterpretation of a text then your theory is baseless. Why not just let Christians quietly figure out what their faith means?

That is not to say . . . we shouldn't listen to what Jews and Muslims have to say . . . but in the end . . . we decide.

[bob x]

"According to historical scholarship the manuscripts have gone some changes over the years they were copied. But these changes have been minor: misspellings, interchanging "Lord" with "Jesus" etc. "
You are quite mistaken if you think all the changes were minor. For example, the resurrection account in Mark was deleted, and new versions written: we do not have the original; we only know that all the different endings that have been preserved are of late origin.

[Pico]

Originally Posted by bob x

"According to historical scholarship the manuscripts have gone some changes over the years they were copied. But these changes have been minor: misspellings, interchanging "Lord" with "Jesus" etc. "
You are quite mistaken if you think all the changes were minor. For example, the resurrection account in Mark was deleted, and new versions written: we do not have the original; we only know that all the different endings that have been preserved are of late origin.

So does that discredit the Bible? All Bibles I've read say that the extra ending isn't in the oldest manuscripts. Doesn't sound like they're trying to deceive anyone, just being honest. Plus there are 3 other resurrection accounts. Is there any major change in doctrine because part of Mark may have been tacked on later?

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by bob x

You are quite mistaken if you think all the changes were minor. For example, the resurrection account in Mark was deleted, and new versions written: we do not have the original; we only know that all the different endings that have been preserved are of late origin.

Hi Bob

Do you have any authoritative sources I could read? Perhaps you could just suggest an historian or religious scholar.

Originally Posted by Pico

So does that discredit the Bible? All Bibles I've read say that the extra ending isn't in the oldest manuscripts. Doesn't sound like they're trying to deceive anyone, just being honest. Plus there are 3 other resurrection accounts. Is there any major change in doctrine because part of Mark may have been tacked on later?

Hi Pico

I understand you defending the Bible, I would do the same with the Quran. I am asking for sources so that I can see what is believed to have been changed. As a Muslim I believe in Jesus (pbuh) and his teachings but in order to know what his teachings really were I need to know what has been changed.

One problem for non Christians with people stating 'yes the Bible has been changed' is it naturally leads one to wonder what else has been changed. I would like to learn more.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Hi Sally.

Early manuscripts of Mark's Gospel end with an empty tomb, the message that Jesus has risen and he will meet all of you in Galilee as he promised, and trembling and afraid women. Jesus has already risen and left, apparently. The part that was tacked on later has the recently risen Jesus first appearing to Mary M., then making several other appearances in various locations.

Chris

[Pico]

Originally Posted by Muslimwoman

Hi Pico

I understand you defending the Bible, I would do the same with the Quran. I am asking for sources so that I can see what is believed to have been changed. As a Muslim I believe in Jesus (pbuh) and his teachings but in order to know what his teachings really were I need to know what has been changed.

Shoot, this book I lent to my friend "The Case for the Real Jesus" by Lee Strobel tackles this issue, but I can't quote from it right now.

But from manuscript evidence the Bible itself is virtually unchanged. The 2 exceptions are resurrection in Mark and the story of the Adulteress in John 8. If you read these in a Bible there will be a note: "Not in the earliest manuscripts." These are just two stories that are not found in the earliest manuscripts. It doesn't change anything about the gospel.

[Muslimwoman]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Hi Sally.

Early manuscripts of Mark's Gospel end with an empty tomb, the message that Jesus has risen and he will meet all of you in Galilee as he promised, and trembling and afraid women. Jesus has already risen and left, apparently. The part that was tacked on later has the recently risen Jesus first appearing to Mary M., then making several other appearances in various locations.

Chris

Hi Chris

Good to 'see' you. So where did Mark come in history, would he have known Jesus (pbuh)?

Salaam
Sally

Originally Posted by Pico

"Not in the earliest manuscripts." These are just two stories that are not found in the earliest manuscripts. It doesn't change anything about the gospel.

So these were added later but by whom and why? I am afraid I find that rather significant.