16 comments

Comment from: E. I. Sanchez [Member] Email
Good Dan.

At the least, I would've expected Mohammed, or the earliests Quran Commentators to criticize these verses.

But the Quran makes explicit claims that the Injil was the word/message from God.

I like your take on this...can't wait for the rest...
09/03/08 @ 13:36
Comment from: Neil [Visitor] · http://4simpsons.wordpress.com
Dan, this looks really interesting. Nice start.

You might want to give a little background on the "Injil." I wasn't familiar with that term. I knew they sort-of believed the Bible and claimed it had changed.
09/03/08 @ 14:27
Comment from: Dan [Member] Email
Good point Neil. I was targeting our Muslim friends and forgot about my Christian ones.
09/03/08 @ 19:51
Comment from: paarsurrey [Visitor] · http://paarsurrey.livejournal.com
Hi Dan!

Please explain about injil for your Christian as well as Muslim friends. I was waiting for that. Please feel free.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

09/05/08 @ 20:53
Comment from: Johnny O [Visitor]
Good point Neil. I was targeting our Muslim friends and forgot about my Christian ones
What about us heathens too????
09/08/08 @ 07:07
Comment from: Dan [Member] Email
I left you guys out of this one. Maybe I should ask, would you rather live next door to Mohammed or Jesus, assuming both really existed?
09/08/08 @ 07:43
Comment from: Johnny O [Visitor]
I don't doubt their actual existence, just the claims made on their behalf.

Mohammed did like a fight, so I think Jesus would be a quieter neighbour and he'd be handy at parties with the whole water into wine thing.
09/09/08 @ 03:07
Comment from: Dan [Member] Email
LOL. I don't think Jesus would yell at you for the loud music either.
09/09/08 @ 15:22
Comment from: Havok [Visitor]
Dan, the Sura you quote states that "We gave him the Gospel, containing guidance and light" where I assume gospel is rendered from the original "injil".
I'm not familiar with any works from Jesus, so I don't think you can use this passage as Mohammed/Allah supporting the gospels.
Assuming the historicity of Jesus, there is plenty of time between Jesus' ministry and the writing of the gospels for the message/injil to become corrupted/changed.

Dan: LOL. I don't think Jesus would yell at you for the loud music either.

Probably, but you'd better watch out if you have fruit tree's which don't bear fruit out of season ;-)
09/15/08 @ 07:19
Comment from: Dan [Member] Email
It might be a little shaky, but as I understand it, most Muslims agree that the Gospel accounts (Injil) were trustworthy, and included the synoptics and John, but were later corrupted. I added a link above just below the blockquote. At any rate, Muslims have the burden of proof to show the so-called corruption of the earliest known records. If the best known accounts of the life of Jesus of Nazareth are corrupt, I would certainly like to know about it. Thus far, I haven't seen any evidence that any essential Christian doctrine is in doubt.

I won't go too far off-topic with this, but I disagree that there was enough time for the message to become corrupted or changed in any substantial manner. Of course, Muslims would have us believe that accounts written 600 years after the fact are more accurate than those written 25-40 years after. Go figure.
09/15/08 @ 08:50
Comment from: E. I. Sanchez [Member] Email
To Dan's point, even skeptic Bart Ehrman hasn't proved that the Gospels (read New Testament) has been corrupted. he just says, "it is possible"... and he also uses my favorite phrase: "I think"...

So I take Ehrman over Quran.

When Ehrman proves, without a doubt, that the new testamenet we have is not what Paul, John, Luke, and Peter wrote, then, we'll chat again.

p.s. Bart Ehrman is the, or at least one of THE, new testament reliable experts in the world.
09/15/08 @ 09:06
Comment from: E. I. Sanchez [Member] Email
Dan, I think it would be cool to convert this into an MP3 when you are done.
11/06/08 @ 09:42
Comment from: E. I. Sanchez [Member] Email

why aren't muslims remembering their prophet through the breaking of the bread and drinking of the wine?

Excellent point.
12/22/08 @ 14:39
Comment from: Havok [Visitor]
Dan: It might be a little shaky, but as I understand it, most Muslims agree that the Gospel accounts (Injil) were trustworthy, and included the synoptics and John, but were later corrupted.


It's my undersanding that the message was corrupted prior to the gospels being written down. The "message" was given to Jesus, not to the gospel authors.

Dan: I added a link above just below the blockquote. At any rate, Muslims have the burden of proof to show the so-called corruption of the earliest known records. If the best known accounts of the life of Jesus of Nazareth are corrupt, I would certainly like to know about it. Thus far, I haven't seen any evidence that any essential Christian doctrine is in doubt.

As I said above, it's more that the message was corrupted from Jesus to the gospel authors. At least that's the argument I'd make if I were a Muslim :-)

Dan: I won't go too far off-topic with this, but I disagree that there was enough time for the message to become corrupted or changed in any substantial manner.

Plato's Dialogues are an example of rapid fabrication of sayings and conversations of an historical person.
There's also a Saint whose life was mythologized ~10 years after her death (I'll see if I can rustle up a reference for that one.
It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the rapid fabrication of unchallenged legends, far from being improbable, is in actually routine.

Dan: Of course, Muslims would have us believe that accounts written 600 years after the fact are more accurate than those written 25-40 years after. Go figure.

In the Muslims favour (and in their view), the Koran is the direct word of God, and therefore it doesn't matter how much time had passed. If it mentions an event, regardless of how long has passed, it must be correct.
01/16/09 @ 20:19
Comment from: Havok [Visitor]
I can't find anything treating her specifically, but the account of St Genevieve, written by an anonymous monk 10 years after her death contains many mythological elements, therefore casting doubt on the charge that mythological development takes too long to be considered for the gospels.

"In 520 A.D. an anonymous monk recorded the life of Saint Genevieve, who had died only ten years before that. In his account of her life, he describes how, when she ordered a cursed tree cut down, monsters sprang from it and breathed a fatal stench on many men for two hours; while she was sailing, eleven ships capsized, but at her prayers they were righted again spontaneously; she cast out demons, calmed storms, miraculously created water and oil from nothing before astonished crowds, healed the blind and lame, and several people who stole things from her actually went blind instead. No one wrote anything to contradict or challenge these claims, and they were written very near the time the events supposedly happened--by a religious man whom we suppose regarded lying to be a sin."

From this essay.
01/16/09 @ 21:10
Comment from: Dan [Member] Email
It's finished!
01/22/09 @ 17:17

Leave a comment


Your email address will not be revealed on this site.

Your URL will be displayed.
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Name, email & website)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will not be revealed.)
To prove your human, please type: person
antispam test

Subscriptions

TheChristianAlert.org RSS Feed Follow TheChristianAlert.org on Twitter TheChristianAlert.org YouTube Page Get a Free Email Subscription From TheChristianAlert.org
learn to study the bible matthew study 10 Netflix movies for the Christian apologist in you