Is Islam true?

I haven't twice written an answer, but accidently lost it when the page forwarded.
AhmadJoyia
First of all, do you think there is any truth in the New Testament or do you think it is all a conspiracy?

Summary is the Inner three of the disciples have letters written, James, John and Peter in these alone is contained the essentials of what Christians believe. Jesus is the Son of God, etc.

John wrote one Gospel, Mark, Peter's Roman interpreter wrote another, Matthew who was called by Jesus beside the lake of Galilee wrote another. Luke who also wrote the Acts of the Apostles, wasn't an apostle, but one of the wider disciples - he wrote another Gospel.

(More historical evidence follows)

Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, letter to the Trallians (110-115 AD):

"Jesus Christ who was of the race of David, who was the Son of Mary, who was truly born and ate and drank, was truly persecuted under Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died in the sight of those in heaven and on earth and those under the earth; who moreover was truly raised from the dead, His Father having raised Him, who in the like fashion will so raise us also who believe on Him."

My dear bro Melco, thanks for your trust in me for asking such an important question. Instead of me giving you the reply, a non-christian that anyone can lable me easily to hide under the false hood, let us see as what Christian Biblical scholars themselves say about the authorship of the Gospels. For the purpose of brevity, I shall only quote about Gospel of Matthew and John as same results go directly to the other two gospels as well. Here are the excerpts from �Introduction� by New American Bible (NAB) society.

About Matthew:

The questions of authorship, sources, and the time of composition of this gospel have received many answers, none of which can claim more than a greater or lesser degree of probability. The one now favored by the majority of scholars is the following. The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Matthew 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain. The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew not only upon the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mark that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke. This material, called "Q" (probably from the first letter of the German word Quelle, meaning "source"), represents traditions, written and oral, used by both Matthew and Luke. Mark and Q are sources common to the two other synoptic gospels; hence the name the "Two-Source Theory" given to this explanation of the relation among the synoptics.

About John:

Critical analysis makes it difficult to accept the idea that the gospel as it now stands was written by one person. John 21 seems to have been added after the gospel was completed; it exhibits a Greek style somewhat different from that of the rest of the work. The prologue (John 1:1-18) apparently contains an independent hymn, subsequently adapted to serve as a preface to the gospel. Within the gospel itself there are also some inconsistencies, e.g., there are two endings of Jesus' discourse in the upper room (John 14:31; 18:1). To solve these problems, scholars have proposed various rearrangements that would produce a smoother order. However, most have come to the conclusion that the inconsistencies were probably produced by subsequent editing in which homogeneous materials were added to a shorter original. Other difficulties for any theory of eyewitness authorship of the gospel in its present form are presented by its highly developed theology and by certain elements of its literary style. For instance, some of the wondrous deeds of Jesus have been worked into highly effective dramatic scenes (John 9); there has been a careful attempt to have these followed by discourses that explain them (John 5; 6); and the sayings of Jesus have been oven into long discourses of a quasi-poetic form resembling the speeches of personified Wisdom in the Old Testament. The gospel contains many details about Jesus not found in the synoptic gospels, e.g., that Jesus engaged in a baptizing ministry (John 3:22) before he changed to one of preaching and signs; that Jesus' public ministry lasted for several years (see the note on John 2:13); that he traveled to Jerusalem for various festivals and met serious opposition long before his death (John 2:14-25; 5; 7-8); and that he was put to death on the day before Passover (John l8:28). These events are not always in chronological order because of the development and editing that took place. However, the accuracy of much of the detail of the fourth gospel constitutes a strong argument that the Johannine tradition rests upon the testimony of an eyewitness. Although tradition identified this person as John, the son of Zebedee, most modern scholars find that the evidence does not support this. The fourth gospel is not simply history; the narrative has been organized and adapted to serve the evangelist's theological purposes as well. Among them are the opposition to the synagogue of the day and to John the Baptist's followers, who tried to exalt their master at Jesus' expense, the desire to show that Jesus was the Messiah, and the desire to convince Christians that their religious belief and practice must be rooted in Jesus. Such theological purposes have impelled the evangelist to emphasize motifs that were not so clear in the synoptic account of Jesus' ministry, e.g., the explicit emphasis on his divinity.

I hope this last line, highlighted and underlined, commented by Christians� own Biblical scholars (NAB), would answer your own question.

As I have been teaching Mark's Gospel for 2 years, I can say with certainity there are many references to Jesus' divinity, however, John above all gives it most emphasis.

I was a little lazy and undefined in what I last wrote, because I lost the first two attempts before posting. We do make silly mistakes, exactitudes and truth aren't quite the same. Public revelation ends with New Testament.

My experience was a private revelation, and it had a private purpose. I did wonder if it was a trick by Satan. I asked many others if they could see it and they couldn't. I was attacked by the devil when I was a child and when it failed (my prayers protected me), another person near became possessed and proceded to say and do as you would expect in these circumstances. The following day (I was at a Summer camp), he asked me to help him and I exorcised him in Christ's name (very  reservededly). I  waited many years for God to send me some consolation to ease my pain, especially for what was said to me.  I feared God's judgement, but Jesus showed me the side of his suffering face to remind me that suffering is a sign of being close to God. 

I meant to say in an earlier message, that God the Father (Lord) is unseen, but Christ is the image of the invisible God. I know that doesn't make sense. These aren't different Gods, but "roles" within God. ("roles" isn't quite right, but near enough)

Liberty, you originally wrote:  "Christians believe their religion to be correct, Muslims believe their religion to be the true religion, etc.  blah, blah, blah.  A persons religion is based upon faith, not in historical facts, rational discussions, etc."

I responded by saying:  �Sorry.  Are you meaning to suggest that St. Augustine, for example, employed neither facts nor rationality in his works?  What about Hans K�ng?  Finally, if rationality has nothing to do with it, why would the Prophet Isaiah (1:18) write: "Come now, let us reason together ..."

You then said (henceforth in blue):  �I know that many people much more intelligent than I have attempted to use reason to prove their religion is true or correct.  I worked for a woman that believed that Albert Eistein proved to himself using reason and rational thinking that god exists.�

And were you able to determine if her �belief� was grounded in fact?

�I can not prove the existence of god ��

For that matter, I doubt that it will be required of you.  At any rate, and as I see it, God does not require our proofs. 

�� nor can you prove that one religion is right and another is wrong.�

For that matter, I would not try.  That said, a quick review of this thread should show that it was opened with a set of metaphysical statements, propositions, or theorems.  One can respond to these statements reasonably, as I think I did and have.   

�It is ridiculus to argue the merits of Islam vs Christianity.�

Then by all means don�t do it.  I would not want you to be subjected to ridicule.  Please do note, however, that this forum (the Interfaith forum more so) is established for that purpose.

�Do you deny that most people accept their religion that they were indoctrinated in growing up?  That their parents pretty much decided which religion would be theirs?�

This, it seems, is exactly how traditions are at this point, while �parents� and �viviparous births� are still somewhat the norm, continued.  So in answer to your question, no I do not.  On the other hand, it seems equally clear that plenty of people, and often for �reasons� of their own, convert from one religion to another or, what is more often these days, especially in America and Europe, to no religion at all.  Personally, I don�t think that Hans Kung�s (see, for example, Judaism Between Yesterday and Tomorrow) efforts in establishing ecumenical dialogue are ridiculous and I could hardly appreciate his book if he used neither reason nor facts in his presentation.  In that book, I learned plenty about Judaism, Christianity and Islam.  Their relative merits and demerits were discussed by what I consider a fair-minded Christian and modern scholar practically without a peer.

�If reason had anything to do with it, then the United States would be more evenly divided between Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc, and the Middle East would not be predominately Muslims.  If we did not program our children to accept a certain religion then there would be a great variety in each society.  As it is, there is not!�

Have we sufficiently dealt with this?

Servetus

Edited by Servetus