Natassias - "They predate the gospels by about 15-20 years."

1 Corinthians 15

 3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

believer wrote: Natassias - "They predate the gospels by about 15-20 years." Have you noticed though that Paul was referencing the Scripture [Gospel] in his Epistles. 1 Corinthians 15  3For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.

I prefer not to ASSUME things.

Natassia wrote: Andalus wrote:  I would say that is not only inaccruate but a complete misunderstanding of what the hadith are and a sophmoric approach to the NT.   1) Unfortunately I am having to over simplify the science of hadith which I am no scholar of. But the foundation of hadith is "isnaad". A scholar once said (the teacher of Imam Al Bukhari in fact if my memory is correct) that "The isnaad is from the deen, were it not for the isnaad, whosoever willed could say whatever he wished." This system has given us "confidence" in the information.   2) The NT accounts have no isnaad. In fact, there was no methodology in figuring out who said what, what was fact, what was fiction, the reliability of those who told stories, nor was there any method for transmitting the info orally or written. With this in mind, you have four accounts that began as oral accounts that developed from different areas (regions) with differing authers who wished to put accross their point of view which also developed in different time periods. To say that all four accounts are really four perspectives like four different witnesses to an event is complete rubbish. These stories were influenced by their time periods, their geographical location, and the point of view their tellers and later their copiests wanted to convey. Furthermore, the "proto-orthodox" (the group whose theological ideologies modern christians inherited their knowledge from) had no solid method for discerning which accounts were true and which were false. Keep in mind that there were many different accounts floating around in differing regoins. They simply chose based upon their theological views.   3) As the stories in the NT devleoped, it is obvious to see that Christology also grew with a higher Christology as time developed. These are not four witnesses to the same event, these are four unique stories with unique perspectives. I believe the writers intentions have been lost in the need of Christians to force harmonizations onto them which does nothing but create a fifth gospel.     I am not saying that nothing accurate exists, I am saying that historical accuracy was not on the minds of those who formed your cannon (which is why the christian creeds do not force one to declare that the NT is the inspired word of God), and that we have no way of actually knowing what is truth and what is theological truth (the two are not necessarily the same things)     1) And isnads have been forged before. Besides, Bukhari did not compile and write down his collection until about 200 years after the actual events in question. The hadith were passed along orally by devoted followers of Muhammad. The gospels were passed along orally by devoted followers of Jesus and written down within the 1st century AD. The epistles were first written down...never orally passed along.

You are making my point. It is because of the strength of the methodology of the Science of Hadith and the isnaad that we know what is reliable and what is not reliable. The system gives us "confidence". In fact, our hadith that are classified as forged have greater confidence than the gospels, simply because we know with certainty that they are forged. Knowing something with confidence is better than knowing something without confidence. Not that forged hadith are better than the gospel (that was not implied).

Bukhari did not invent hadith compilation. The transmission of hadith already had lines of reliable "isnaad". Keep in mind that the oral tradition of Islam is an entirely diferent paradigm than that of the christian tradition, and to treat the two as equal would be a fallacy. The theory of later compilation and questionable reliability was disproven with the research of Dr. Muhammad Hamidullah who took early collections of hadith in written format from a tabiin named Hammam ibn Munabbih (the written collection is dated to the tabi'in), a desciple of Abu Hurayrah, the Companion of the Prophet (saw).

His work is published and titled "An Introduction to the Conservation of Hadith. In the Light of the Sahifah of Hammam Ibn Munabbih". This masterful work showed with evidence that the transmission of hadith was solid and these lines of transmission had reliable isnaad before Bukhari began his famous work. In other words, Imam Al Bukhari simply built his compilation and methodology based on what already existed. I have the book in my collection and I welcome anyone to read it. Orientalists still teach their outdated views. Then again, nothing will persuade the determined skeptic. Imam Shafi'i, Malik, Imam Ahmed, Imam abu Hanifah lived before Imam Al Bukhari and their work was judged in light of the early collection and there are no descrepencies.

Various stories were told over and over without any checks and balances in the first century. Archeological finds of early writings show that it was not yoru four gospels that were wide spread and agreed upon within the many early Christian communities. What they find are "other" accounts that the group you inherited your theology from did not like. Not because they had special knowledge to what Jesus actually thought, but because the other stories did not agree with their ideology. That is a fact.

To say that something is written in the first century means it is correct is a non sequitur. Without some guidline in place, people can say whatever they like, and you would not know the better. In other words, you cannot say with any confidence that it is reliable or not. You, nor do I, actually know.

The gospels were passed along orally by devoted followers of Jesus and written down within the 1st century AD. The epistles were first written down...never orally passed along.

Actually, the gospels were amongst many other accounts orally passed along, not necessarily the actual accounts that are traceable to Jesus. �Followers� of Jesus does not necessarily mean people who actually knew Jesus. The epistles are just letters, so why would they be passed orally? And being that they were letters does not mean that the author actually knew Jesus. In fact, half of Paul�s letters are in dispute, and acts was written nearly 30 years after the Pauline letters, and is problematic with its account of Paul when compared to the letters that are attributed to Paul. Furthermore,  the letters are simply Paul selling his brand of theology, and they are not an account of the life of Jesus or a reliable source of what Jesus thought and said. In fact, the letters do not add any credence what so ever to the accuracy of the gospels. Whether or not the epistles were part of an oral tradition is really irrelevant.

2) Actually, it is likely that the writers of the gospels relied on a shared primary source for many of Christ's "sayings". The same source was likely relied upon for the Coptic Gospel of Thomas and probably even the Didache. Just as the hadith, sirah, and Quran itself could easily have been influenced by the biases of Muslims, so the gospels could easily have been influenced by the biases of Christians. But that's okay.

 

Actually, you are trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. That the gospels had a primary source is a non-sequitur. In other words, ok, lets say it is true, �so what�? It does not allow for any more confidence in the accounts. Now lets closely look at the claim which is really an over generalization. Some of the gospels share a common source for the sayings of Jesus, not all of the gospels. This �source� has no more quality control in place as the narratives that use them. No one knows who transmitted, where it came from, or the reliability of the narrators.

 

Next you are trying to force your asserted conclusion onto the religious texts of Islam, as if they (the Christian tradition) are an analogue to one another. The methodology in place to criticise the hadith does not allow for much wiggle room as far as �personal biases� to feed the narratives. Unless all the Muslims got together to agree on a bias, but then it would not be a bias but a consensus. I do not find this generalization to play a role in the transmission of accepted hadith given the critical methods employed by scholars.  The sirah do not influence the hadith and is a different discipline all together. It is accepted and known that the critical methods of hadith are not used for sirah due to the nature of hadith and the role it plays in the sunnah. As far as the Quran is concerned, the very people who knew the prophet (saw) were able to nip in divergence from reliable from the beginning. You will have to show what a personal bias has altered the Quran.

 

 

That's how you find out the true BELIEFS of the earliest followers...because that's what really matters. The epistles of Paul are actually the EARLIEST Christian theological writings that we have (like Romans and Galatians). They predate the gospels by about 15-20 years. You want to understand Islam--read the Quran. You want to understand Christianity--read the epistles of Paul--the ones even the most liberal of scholars agree were written by him.

That is how you and those of your faith are forced to find out the �true beliefs�, simply because your traditions were transmitted orally and written without any method of criticism. The problem with simply relying on what is the earliest to define the true belief is that your assertion assumes that Paul wrote all of the letters you have in your NT, and you assumed that Paul was an authority for Jesus, and you assume that Paul was �the authority� and accepted as such in the late second temple period. If you assert these assumptions then your conclusion falls far from anything factual. Matthew, written later than Paul, obviously does not see eye to eye with Paul. This is �obvious�, and only an ideologically driven person would attempt to create another absurd �harmonization� explanation. Even accepting the Pauline letters approved by �liberal scholars� does not prove that they are an authority to Jesus. You are simply reading a view by one man whose letters were chosen by the group you have inherited your views from, and not necessarily the views of Jesus. If you want to understand Islam, learn from a reliable source which includes the study of the Quran.

3) You can argue that with the gospels as well as with the Gnostic and apocryphal writings. You can't argue that with the epistles. There is no need to force harmonizations on the gospels unless you believe they are all the verbatim words of God. None of the authors of the gospels claimed to have been recording the verbatim words of God. So, it is likely a conservative, fundamental (and probably Protestant) doctrine to believe the scriptures are 100% God's spoken word. This is not something supported by the scriptures themselves.

I can argue that the epistles are not proof of the reliability of what Jesus said, taught, and believed, and I can further argue that the epistles did not have any critical rules in place to insure accurate transmission of the writings. Which is why half of the letters attributed to him are in question.

4) The authors of the gospels were not historians. They weren't concerned with presenting a history text book for readers 2000 years in the future. Their goal was to combat the gnostic heresies going around as well as to spread the Good News about Jesus Christ. The theology of the gospel is the same throughout the gospels and epistles, regardless of contradictions between the details of events: "Repent and believe in the salvation given by God though the Messiah Jesus of Nazareth."

Actually, the authors of the gospels are unknown, and their reliability is questionable, and no real claim of confidence can be made with them. The group who chose these four gospels were one group amongst other groups all battling for theological dominance. They also played high and loose with �scripture� in their theological battles with their rival groups, as they were so fond of accusing their rivals. Your group won, but not by having the truth or some authentic truth to Jesus, all of the groups were simply arguing from conjecture.   

The Holy Bible is the inspired Word of GOD.  Jesus was the living WORD of GOD.

Natassia wrote: @ Andalus...   I don't think you understand...   It doesn't matter if we have an isnad or not for the gospels or epistles.  It doesn't matter if something was actually written by Paul or a devoted follower was simply writing something under his name (common in 1st & 2nd centuries.)   What matters is the doctrine and beliefs.

Doctrine and belief are not worth spit if the sources for deriving belief and doctrine are equivalent to �gossip� and �hearsay�. Without any kind of methodology to control the transmission or to know the sources or the authors, doctrine and belief cannot be given any more confidence than the sources, and they could easily be the ranting of liars. The point is, you do not know.

Muslims claim to have this "science of hadith," as if by using the word science they validate their processes of concluding the authenticity of a hadith.  Those sayings are 1200 years old.  1200.  I'm sorry, but studying them now is not going to make them any "stronger" or "weaker" than they were considered to be according to early Islamic scholars like Ibn Kathir.

This is pretty incoherent, which tells me you know even less then I do about the subject, which is actually pretty bad given I am not a scholar but a novice who does not blindly follow any belief.  

No Mulsim believes that using the word science necessarily gives confidence. Your assertion really brands us as complete idiots and your over simplification of the matter speaks volumes for your claimed sincerity. I think it was Chuang Tsu who said that names are but shadows of reality. It is not the naming of a particular field of study that gives confidence; it is the actual methodology that is used in the field of study that gives confidence. A scholar does not make �taqlid� on, say Bukharis work, a true scholar does make their own study for whatever particular matter is being addressed. If the setting is now, then they are studied now, if it was 500 years ago, then it was in the past. The setting is irrelevant since the chains of narration and lists of narrators and such have been around since before even Imam Bukhari was born. That Ibn Kathir may feel a hadith is weak only tells a small part of the story since his stating of such would be for a particular matter. There is more than just assigning a hadith as being weak or strong. MUCH more.

The whole foundation of this "science" is the assumption that the narrators were honest in the first place.  Imagine if Abu Huraira and Aisha were liars.  What then?  How many of the so-called "Sahih" Hadith were reported by them?

You assume your mother tells you the truth when she says she is your mother, unless something does not make sense, then you might investigate her claim. Many things in your life you assume some truth on the part of someone. You assume Paul tells the truth, you assume the narrators of the gospels all told the truth, you assume the copyists all told the truth. You are now trying to create a strawman. If you have more than one sahaba telling a narrative, and you find independent people narrating the story from each, and independent narrators in different regions who do not know each other also narrating, then it is nearly impossible for the narrative to be a lie; unless all of the sahabas were conspiring with each other. If this is true, then you must show where something does not make sense to bring suspicion, and make your case. Believe me when I tell you that when something did not make sense, the scholars classified it in a certain way and the narrative is limited in value. Not all hadiths can be used to interpret acts of worship and such. We are not talking about some kind of absolute truth, we are talking about a system that gives �confidence�.

So, not only must you ASSUME that Muhammad was completely honest with his revelations, but you must also ASSUME that Aisha and Abu Huraira were as well...not to mention Uthman and the role he played in the compiling of the Quran.

This is more of your attempt to distract. You assume your father was your father and you mother was completely honest and did not step out on your father. Right? You assume the author of Acts was completely honest and recalled events honestly without motivation. We all assume many things in life. If something does not make sense, if some fact comes to surface place doubt on some truth of our, then we investigate. If you have evidence to suggest anyone was lying, then produce your evidence? God knows many people tried in the days of the Prophet (saw).

To say the companions �could have lied� is simply an assertion without merit, and the critical techniques that scholars have appealed to for centuries have done an amazing job at keeping things �square�. Unlike your traditions which were part of an oral tradition where many other gospel accounts were floating around, and the group that chose your current ones did not have any critical methods for discerning between fabicated accounts vs authentic accounts. In fact, many mainstream scholars will admit that there is a highly likely chance that fabircation made it into your sources.

One need only seek the writings of early Christians to discover their views about Christ...and for the most part, they agree with the theology presented in the New Testament scriptures.

No, this is not entirely correct. More accurately, one only needs to refer to the current Christian sources to understand how the �proto-orthodox� thought about Christ (the group you have inherited your traditions from), which is not necessarily how Christ thought or what he believed. Furthermore, there is also a great deal of lobored interpretation that goes on with connecting church beliefs and what is in your current sources.

There is only one "gospel," and that gospel points to Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior...one need only repent and believe.

Rubbish. You have no claim with any amount of confidence that you know what Jesus wanted in terms of theology.

What you seem to place such a huge emphasis on ("tradition") is merely commentary and miniscule in importance to the basic theology: Christ saves.  Also, the Law has remained steadfast:   Do unto others as you would have them do to you.   Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.   Love your neighbor as yourself.   Honor your father and mother.   Do not bear false testimony.   Do not steal.   Do not commit adultery.   Do not murder.

Typical Christian. You conveniently left out all the other mitzvahs. You guys pick and choose out of expediency, not knowledge, just conjecture.

These laws convict us of sin.  They always have, and they always will.  The Bible may not have a single author, and there may be factual contradictions within it, but the Bible has one coherent thought throughout the entire thing:

If this is true, then your god has a great deal of personal issues. Imagine if parents had a child with legs missing, and then expected the child to enter a marathon and win, and then punish the hell out of the child for not being able to get across the start line. This is Church theology in a nutshell. You propose that God creates us, gives us laws He knows we cannot follow, and then punishes us for it. How convoluted a theology you follow. Really. As I said, your sources might have been transmitted by lunatics or even liars. How else could you come to a conclusion so absurd that God is a nut?

No matter what humanity does as it exercises Free Will, God's Will is always done.  God will save His chosen ones...whoever they may be.  He knows who they are--He has known since the beginning of time.  And for those chosen, He has provided salvation through JUSTICE AND MERCY because the Law cannot be abolished, and the debt of sin must be paid.

Yes�.in your theological model, His Will is to create us knowingly incapable of following laws He would give us so that he could punish us for not being able to keep them. Good luck to you and your relationship with God.