I have several questions concerning this topic and hope someone can be helpful in answering them based on what Islam teaches and not personal belief if it differs then that of historical Islam.

1. Why do some Muslims believe the Bible is not the word of God and it has become corrupt? Does it mention this in the Quran or Hadith or elsewhere and that is how they came to that conclusion?

Look forward to chatting.

Robin

Second question. Why does Islam reject that Jesus died on a cross then rose from the dead? What historical evidence is their to support this belief?

The brief support for the Christian in believing this is following;

1. Jesus Himself said He would be taken and put to death, "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn Him to death" Matthew 20:18. He also said He would rise from the dead, John 2:19-21.

2. All the New Testament writers who proclaimed Jesus as God's only begotten Son who died and rose from the dead in victory. They believed this because they saw with their own eyes and felt Him with their own hands. Even douting Thomas believed after He saw the risen Christ, John 20:28. Most of them were killed for their faith. If this were a lie they could have simply said so to save their own lives but held to the truth they knew about Jesus.

3. Non-Christian writers from the first century, Tacitus was a Roman historian who wrote briefly of the Christian faith. Josephus was a Jewish historian who also wrote briefly concerning the Christian faith. Both support the truth Jesus died and rose from the dead.

4. There are even more historical documents from early century supporting the Christians claim. See http://www.carm.org - www.carm.org

5. The Church is a living witness that Jesus rose from the dead defeating death.

This is a mere brief summary of some of the evidence why Christians believe Jesus, God's Son, died for the sins of mankind then rose from the dead.

To deny this seems to me that all the New Testament writers, early historians and the Church would all have to been lying or all these documents changed through history. As in any good court of law this must be shown to be the case by evidence. Can Islam make a case that is valid? Juriors must weight the evidence not merely say it is so just because, this goes for both sides, Christians and Muslims alike.

Q= Question; A= Answer

rbaitz wrote: Q: 1. Why do some Muslims believe the Bible is not the word of God and it has become corrupt?

rbaitz wrote: Q: Does it mention this in the Quran or Hadith or elsewhere and that is how they came to that conclusion?

A: Hadith Shahih Bukhori:

Volume 9, Book 92, Number 460:

Volume 9, Book 92, Number 461:

Narrated Ubaidullah:

Ibn 'Abbas said, "Why do you ask the people of the scripture about anything while your Book (Quran) which has been revealed to Allah's Apostle is newer and the latest? You read it pure, undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, 'It is from Allah,' to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything? No, by Allah, we have never seen any man from them asking you regarding what has been revealed to you!"

So we asked to believe the ORIGINAL scriptures that he revealed to moses and Jesus. The above hadith said the current scripture that you have has been corrupted. So the hadith advise us not to believe all and not to deny all. We are asked to believe to them as long as it is align  with the quran. If not we have to use the quran as the latest version of God's book.

More about bible contradiction read link bellow:
http://www.islaminfo.com/new/bible.asp - http://www.islaminfo.com/new/bible.asp

rbaitz wrote: Q: Second question. Why does Islam reject that Jesus died on a cross then rose from the dead?

A: There is discussion about this on this forum:
http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=132&KW=jesus - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=132& KW=jesus

However I want to add a little Read bellow your question

rbaitz wrote: Q: What historical evidence is their to support this belief? The brief support for the Christian in believing this is following; 1. Jesus Himself said He would be taken and put to death, "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem; and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn Him to death" Matthew 20:18. He also said He would rise from the dead, John 2:19-21. 2. All the New Testament writers who proclaimed Jesus as God's only begotten Son who died and rose from the dead in victory. They believed this because they saw with their own eyes and felt Him with their own hands. Even douting Thomas believed after He saw the risen Christ, John 20:28. Most of them were killed for their faith. If this were a lie they could have simply said so to save their own lives but held to the truth they knew about Jesus. 3. Non-Christian writers from the first century, Tacitus was a Roman historian who wrote briefly of the Christian faith. Josephus was a Jewish historian who also wrote briefly concerning the Christian faith. Both support the truth Jesus died and rose from the dead. 4. There are even more historical documents from early century supporting the Christians claim. See http://www.carm.org/ - www.carm.org 5. The Church is a living witness that Jesus rose from the dead defeating death. This is a mere brief summary of some of the evidence why Christians believe Jesus, God's Son, died for the sins of mankind then rose from the dead. To deny this seems to me that all the New Testament writers, early historians and the Church would all have to been lying or all these documents changed through history. As in any good court of law this must be shown to be the case by evidence. Can Islam make a case that is valid? Juriors must weight the evidence not merely say it is so just because, this goes for both sides, Christians and Muslims alike.

A: The Quran as the final version God's book didn't say so (Jesus was crucified).

A: The Quran tell everything about Jesus.
4:157 That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

More About Jesus:
http://www.islaminfo.com/new/jesus.asp - http://www.islaminfo.com/new/jesus.asp

Jesus in the Quran:
http://www.islamicity.com/quransearch/default.asp?ref=jesus&TB - http://www.islamicity.com/quransearch/default.asp?ref=jesus& amp; amp; amp;TB =

-------------
Salam/Peace,

Semar

"We are people who do not eat until we are hungry and do not eat to our fill." (Prophet Muhammad PBUH)

"1/3 of your stomach for food, 1/3 for water, 1/3 for air"

rbaitz wrote: I have several questions concerning this topic and hope someone can be helpful in answering them based on what Islam teaches and not personal belief if it differs then that of historical Islam. 1. Why do some Muslims believe the Bible is not the word of God and it has become corrupt? Does it mention this in the Quran or Hadith or elsewhere and that is how they came to that conclusion?   Look forward to chatting. Robin

no...and that is the wierdest thing...contemporary islam theology accuse the bible...any translation...of corruption

yet their prophet claimed otherwise

however i am yet to see a muslim show me a good enjeel...good enough for them anyway...

the burden of proof then falls on islam....and has stayed there since its birth....

comments please

sukran, thomas

Problems with "Changes in the Bible" http://www.islaminfo.com/new/detail.asp?ID=60 - http://www.islaminfo.com/new/detail.asp?ID=60

Next http://www.islaminfo.com/new/bible.asp - http://www.islaminfo.com/new/bible.asp is mentioned. I have nothing against anyone here though we may disagree in our beliefs, however this writer as with the last writer shown to be misinformed and uneducated about the Bible, interpretation and seems to be bent toward making the Bible out to have problems. For example,

In http://www.islamicity.com/kjv/2Sam/2Sam_24.htm#1 - 2 Samuel 24:1 , God incited David to number Israel because God was angry with David. Ultimately, God wanted to teach David not to trust in his number of fighting men, but to trust in Him. So, He moved to let David count the fighting men of Israel. He used Satan to do it which is why in http://www.islamicity.com/kjv/1Chron/1Chron_21.htm#1 - 1 Chronicles 21:1 , it says Satan moved David to count the men. Both are true. God either sent Satan or allowed Satan to incite David. But, how can God send Satan to do a job and yet God is not responsible for the sin? Simple.
God's authority extends even over Satan. God can use Satan to accomplish His ultimate will by simply giving permission to Satan to do that which Satan already desires to do. We see this in the crucifixion of Christ where evil men brought Jesus to death. Yet, at the same time, it was the predetermined plan of God that this be done.

"For truly in this city there were gathered together against Thy holy servant Jesus, whom Thou didst anoint, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, ²⁸to do whatever Thy hand and Thy purpose predestined to occur," ( http://www.islamicity.com/kjv/Acts/acts_4.htm#27 - Acts 4:27-28 , NASB).

Furthermore, we see in Job that God allowed Satan to test Job and demonstrate Job's character ( http://www.islamicity.com/kjv/Job/Job_1.htm#Now - Job 1:8-13 ). We see in http://www.islamicity.com/kjv/John/john_13.htm#19 - John 13:25-27 that Satan entered into Judas to betray Jesus, but it was the plan of God that Jesus be betrayed as http://www.islamicity.com/kjv/Acts/acts_4.htm#27 - Acts 4:27-28 above tells us.
God allows the evil one to work His evil yet that word is ultimately used for the glory of God. All this is done without God sinning and it demonstrates God's absolute sovereignty over all creation.

Third Question

What century was the Quran founded or made known?

Robin

Besides, those of the Companions who were literate used to keep a written record of several portions of the Qur'an. In this manner, the text of the Qur'an had been preserved in four different ways during the lifetime of the Prophet:

1. The Prophet had the whole text of the Divine Messages from the beginning to the end committed to writing by the scribes of revelations.
2. Many of the Companions learned the whole text of the Qur'an, every syllable of it, by heart.
3. All the illustrious Companions, without an exception, had memorized at least some portions of the Holy Qur'an, for the simple reason that it was obligatory for them to recite it during worship. An estimate of the number of the illustrious Companions may be obtained from the fact that one hundred and forty thousands Companions had participated in the Last Pilgrimage performed by the Prophet.
4. A considerable number of the literate Companions kept a private record of the text of the Qur'an and satisfied themselves as to the purity of their record by reading it out to the Prophet.

It is an incontrovertible historical truth that the text of the Qur'an extant today is, syllable for syllable, exactly the same as the Prophet had offered to the world as the Word of God. After the demise of they Prophet, the first Caliph, Abu Bakr, assembled all the Huffaz and the written records of the Qur'an and with their help had the whole text written in Book form. In the time of 'Uthman copies of this original version were made and officially dispatched to the Capitals of the Islamic World. Two Of these copies exist in the world today, one in Istanbul and the other in Tashkent.

Whosoever is so inclined may compare any printed text of the Holy Qur'an with those two copies, he shall find no variation. And how can one expect any discrepancy, when there have existed several million Huffaz in every generation since the time of the Prophet and in our own time? Should anyone alter a syllable of the original text of the Qur'an, these Huffaz would at once expose the mistake.

In the last century, an Institute of Munich University in Germany collected FORTY-TWO THOUSAND copies of the Holy Qur'an including manuscripts and printed texts produced in each period in the various parts of the Islamic World. Research work was carried out on these texts for half a century, at the end of which the researchers concluded that apart from copying mistakes, there was no discrepancy in the text of these forty-two thousand copies, even though they belonged to the period between the 1st Century Hijra to 14th Century Hijra and had been procured from all parts of the world.

This Institute, alas! perished in the bombing attacks on Germany during World War II, but the findings of its research project survived. Another point that must be kept in view is that the word in which the Qur'an was revealed is a living language in our own time. It is still current as the mother tongue of about a hundred million people from Egypt to Iraq to Morocco. In the non-Arab world too, hundreds of thousands of people study and teach this language.

The grammar of the Arabic language, its lexicon, its phonetic system and its phraseology, have remained intact for fourteen hundred years.

A modern Arabic-speaking person can comprehend the Holy Qur'an with as much proficiency as did the Arabs of fourteen centuries ago. This, then, is an important attribute of Muhammad, which is shared by no other Prophet or Leader of Religion. The Book which God revealed to Him for the guidance of mankind is today's in its original language without the slightest alteration in its vocabulary.

I encourage you to look up researchers that have taken the time to compare the history and authenticity of the three scriptures, Torah, Injeel, and the Quran.

Salam,

Good post femme.

tawhid wrote: rbaitz wrote: 1. Why do some Muslims believe the Bible is not the word of God and it has become corrupt? Does it mention this in the Quran or Hadith or elsewhere and that is how they came to that conclusion?   no...and that is the wierdest thing...contemporary islam theology accuse the bible...any translation...of corruption yet their prophet claimed otherwise

Volume 9, Book 92, Number 461:

Narrated Ubaidullah:

Ibn 'Abbas said, "Why do you ask the people of the scripture about anything while your Book (Quran) which has been revealed to Allah's Apostle is newer and the latest? You read it pure, undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, 'It is from Allah,' to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything? No, by Allah, we have never seen any man from them asking you regarding what has been revealed to you!"

Tawhed, I you meant "contemporary islam theology" is Abdullah ibn abbas. it's a big mistake. Abdullah ibn abbas is prophet Muhammad's cousin. He was very close with the prophet, he always prayed behind the prophet. He was basically acted like a video camera that record almost everything about the prophet. So he was one of the hadith source. This hadith Number 461 is the explanation of the previous hadit Number 462

tawhid wrote: however i am yet to see a Muslim show me a good enjeel...good enough for them anyway... the burden of proof then falls on islam....and has stayed there since its birth.... sukran, thomas

There is no good injeel this days, all modified, too many hand involve, too many contradictions. Yes we proofed it, many books and many scholars talked about it. So it's very easy to find the proof. But it is totally depends on your open mind and your heart to see and accept the proof as the truth.

-------------
Salam/Peace,

Semar

"We are people who do not eat until we are hungry and do not eat to our fill." (Prophet Muhammad PBUH)

"1/3 of your stomach for food, 1/3 for water, 1/3 for air"

jalillah wrote: and their was a slight problems due to the past in regards to the text specially about the Dead sea scroll went missing and now was found but still the public is refused to be told the containment of that scroll that would help all believer of the scripture. and now is in the hands of a very rich jews.

source and proof of your statement please

Semar,

Have you read my post concerning the so called "Changes in the Bible? If not please read over, I would like to hear what you think.

Robin

Forth Question,

So far I have read posts that have said the Bible has become corrupt and I read the web pages that said they have become corrupt then tried to demonstrate that. However just saying the Bible is corrupt or saying the Quran, Hadith or Islam teachings the Bible has become corrupt is not evidence at all. This kind of argument would fail in a court of law. The bit of evidence from the "Changes in the Bible" web page I have shown to be completely wrong, I explained why in one of my posts. Also the other examples from other web pages simply show a lack of biblical interpretation. One example coming from Muslim websites says,

"I don't believe Jesus died on a cross! Three days and three nights never took place because Jesus died on a Friday and rose from the dead Sunday morning. This is not a literal 3 days or mornings and three nights. It doesn't make sense!"

It doesn't make sense because the person was misinterpreting the Bible. If they had interpreted it properly they would have found that this is known as a jewish idiom. Just like all cultures use idioms in their speech. For example if I said, "It's raining cats and dogs out here!" and you were standing next to be and took what I said literally you would misunderstand what I had said. But if you understood the context and culture I said that in you would understand I meant it rained very hard outside. This is known as an idiom. I used it to describe a hard rainfall and the Bible used it to describe Jesus rising from the dead the 3rd day.

So far no evidence has been shown to prove the Bible has become corrupt. However I'll give you another opportunity at it. If you can find a 1st or 2nd Century document that has been considered a valid ancient manuscript that rejects Jesus' death on a cross and rejects Jesus rising from the dead as Jesus' followers believed and the Bible teaches then this would be a major argument against Christianity.

The Bible teaches us Jesus died around 33A.D. The manuscript evidence for the New Testament shows the earliest book was written within 60 A.D., just 30 years or so after the fact. If Jesus was never crucified one would think that all those who opposed Christianity would have written something saying Jesus was not crucified, just opposite of the Christian claim. People who were living in the time of Jesus would still have been around to recall the teaching of the New Testament and would then have had the opportunity to deny Christianitys claim. However there has never been found such documents. Nor has there ever been found any ancient bible manuscripts that clearly show the Bible has been changed over time. In fact the manuscript evidence shows just the opposite. It shows the Bible is the same today as it was then.

Last, anything written 150 years or more after a original story is usually subject to change or mythology. However the New Testament was written well within that time. However the Quran came into being about the 7-8th century. This is well past the 150 year period and mythology did creep in as you can see from Islams denial of Jesus death and resurrection. For something to NOT become corrupted by mythology, one God must be in it and two it should be within the 150 years.

Robin

Bro Rbaitz

Do you know about the authors of the different books of Bible. Except St. Paul who else do you thing wrote these books and who were they with relationship to Jesus? Just to give you a clue, the famous gospel according to John, is now being called as the "fourth gospel" among the modern christian shcolars and do you know why is it? Simply because the author of this book is anonymous. Also, I see Bro Tawhid raising the question of "Quranic Injeel" again and again in every other forum or thread, but he either don't know or refuse to answer this question that I have been asking him almost after every post he makes. Hopefully, the question of corruption in Bible would be resolved only after the authenticity of the Bible is first established as to which Bible are we talking about.

The Quran says concerning the immutability of God's revelations,

"There is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah" Sura 6:34

"None can change His words" Sura 6:115

"No change can there be in the words of Allah" Sura 10:64

So then God's revelation to man cannot be changed or altered, even by evil influence of man.

In the Quran the Jewish people are accused of concealing God's word (Sura 2:42, 3:71), verbally distorting the message in their scriptures (Sura 3:78; 4:46), not believing all their scriptures (Sura 2:85), and not knowing what their scriptures really taught (Sura 2:78). Nowhere however in the Quran are the Christians accused of distorting or corrupting the New Testament; instead, in a few passages the Christians are referred to as honest people, the closest group to the Muslims (Sura 5:85).

There are many reasons why neither the Jews nor the Christians would ever have corrupted their own scriptures. First, to do so would bring God's wrath down on themselves (Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32, Revelation 22:18-19). Second, if Muhammad really was prophesied in the Bible, then it would certainly have been advantageous for the Jews and the Christians to acknowledge this fulfilled prophecy. Third, if either group, the Jews or Christians, had corrupted the Old Testament scriptures, then the other group would have exposed this misdeed. Fourth, if the Jews and Christians had corrupted the Bible in order to hide prophecies concerning Muhammad, then it is reasonable to assume they would have removed all of them; however Muslims still quote alleged prophecies of Muhammad from the Old and New Testaments. Finally, the Jewish people as a whole never accepted Jesus as their Messiah. Despite their disbelief, they did NOT corrupt their scriptures to hide prophecies concerning the Messiah.There is no reason to believe either the Jews or Christians had any motive for corrupting their own sacred scriptures, instead they were willing to die in order to protect and preserve them.

Robin

My Dear, if the hypothesis and conjectures are the only means through which one tries to establishe the authorship, then its better to look at the modernscholarship than the opinon held centuries ago when even the christians had the trouble of interpreting the bible other than official church's verdict. Here is the brief review of the authorship of the NT.

"

THE NEW TESTAMENT

Before discussing the authorship of the New Testament, it is important to remember that much of the justification of the New Testament is due to the supposed fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies. But, as is clearly shown above, the authorship and the authenticity of the Old Testament is highly doubtful. You cannot build a sturdy house on a flimsy foundation. Similarly, you cannot have a sound argument when your premise for your argument is a weak, shaky presumption.

The philosophic "center" of the New Testament is the first four books (Matthew, Mark, Luke,and John), which are known as the "Gospels". The rest of the New Testament is, for all practical purposes, an elaboration on these four books. Many Christians believe that these four Gospels were written by the direct disciples of Jesus, but, as you will see, this is hardly the case. So even the beloved Gospels are not free from the nagging doubt of dubious authorship. Christians cite the similarity of the Gospels as "proof" of their authenticity. But the similarities between these four books is due to the existence of a alleged collection of the sayings of Jesus called "Q". The compiler of Q is unknown. Christians place enormous faith that this unknown person(s) did not 1) fabricate his own sayings to suit his own agenda, and 2) use saying from questionable sources.

Also, as I noted earlier, there were over 50 different Gospels in circulation at the time the New Testament was compiled. Since the persons choosing the canon used only books that were, more or less, harmonious, it is reasonable to conclude that the results would be... harmonious books!

For example, one book that did not make it into the New Testament was the "Gospel of Peter", because the book does not consider the Crucifixion as an act of atonement. Similarly, the "Acts of John" was not included because of its subversion of traditional Christian teachings (such as, denying the reality of Jesus's physical body). It may be argued that these (and many other books) were not included because of "questionable authorship", but the authorship of these books is no less questionable than other books that have been included.

Another significant, disquieting fact concerning the New Testament is the widely used literary tradition at that time of pseudonymously ascribing new works to a venerated personage of the past in order to give the new concoction credibility! This has, indeed, serious implications for the entire New Testament.

• Matthew: Traditionalists believe that this is the earliest of the four Gospels, and was written by St. Matthew, one of the 12 apostles. However, most modern scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark was earlier, and that the author of the Gospel of Matthew drew upon the Gospel of Mark for material. This is significant, because the Gospel of Mark is indeed of highly questionable authorship (see below). They base these beliefs on internal and external evidence. And this evidence also casts strong doubts that St. Matthew wrote this book. They have narrowed down the date of the writing of this book between 70 and 80 AD.
• Mark: Traditionalists believe that St. Mark wrote this book. And many Christians believe that St. Mark was one of the 12 apostles, but that is not the case. The very earliest evidence concerning the authorship of this Gospel comes from the 3rd century, from a church historian, Eusebius of Caesarea, who in turn quotes a writer who lived a hundred years earlier, whose name was Papias... who in turn quotes a still earlier person called only "the elder". This quote refers to the author, Mark, being an interpreter of Peter, whose name was John Mark, a cousin of Barnabas. But there are reasons to doubt this. Because most early Christians linked this Gospel to Mark, the "elder" did his best to at least try to link the author with a man named "Mark" (Peter's interpreter). The conclusion by most scholars that the author was an otherwise unknown man (named Mark), who drew on a large number of traditions to compose this work. It is also interesting to note that many Greek manuscripts end with the eighth verse of the 15th chapter. Yet the Bible today ends with verse 20! Most scholars believe that the final 12 verses were added by a 2nd century monk or scribe to make a more satisfying ending.
• Luke: Attributed to St. Luke, although very little is know about St. Luke, except that he may have been a traveling companion of St. Paul. And, like Paul, there is no record or mention of St. Luke even meeting Jesus. Therefore, even if this gospel was written by St. Luke, it would clearly be at best a second-hand account of the biography of the savior of the Christians, and was written 40 or 50 years after Jesus's death. Modern scholars agree that the Gospel of Luke is clearly based on the earliest Gospel (Mark), and that the author used two major interpolations (Luke 6:20-8:3, and 9:51-18:14) from the collection of supposed sayings of Jesus, "Q", and from a large body of oral traditions (commonly referred to as "L").
• John: The authorship of this book has created heated controversy since the 1800s. Although traditionalists have always believed that the author of this book was St. John the Evangelist, in actuality there are four candidates for authorship: 1) it was written by a person known as "the elder", as mentioned in the Epistles of John; 2) it was written by a student of St. John the Evangelist; 3) it was written by Lazarus of Bethany; or 4) it was written by an anonymous person in Alexandria a hundred years after Jesus's death.
• Also, scholars generally agree that the entire 21st chapter is a later
• addition. This chapter deals with Jesus's resurrection.
• Acts of the Apostles: Traditionally believed that the author was St. Luke, but, since there is no reference to this within the book itself, there are many doubts to this. Many scholars contend that it was written by someone who had acquired the diary of a traveling companion of St. Paul.
• Scholars point out that it was written around AD 62-90, and was written
• in Greek, instead of Hebrew.
• Romans; Corinthians (1 and 2); Galatians: Attributed to Paul. Ephesians: Traditionally attributed to Paul, but it is doubted by many modern scholars, because of the extreme differences of tone, vocabulary, and writing style as compared to authentic letters of Paul.
• Phillippians: Attributed to Paul.
• Colossians: Although traditionally ascribed to Paul, many scholars have strong doubts about this, because of the differences of vocabulary used (as compared to genuine Pauline writings).
• 1 Thessalonians: Attributed to Paul.
• 2 Thessalonians: Attributed to Paul, although, based on internal and
• external evidence, many scholars tend to doubt this.
• Timothy (1 and 2); Titus: Traditionally attributed to Paul, but most scholars believe otherwise due to the fact that the style and vocabulary differ in significant ways from authentic works by Paul. Also, historical events as reflected in these works do not fit into any known situation of Paul's life. The scholars believe that these books are by an unknown author(s), who used the name of Paul to give it an air of authority.
• Philomon: Traditionally ascribed to Paul.
• Hebrews: Practically all modern scholars doubt this was written by Paul (as the traditionalists claim). Actually, even the early Christian Church itself had strong doubts about Paul's authorship of this book! Scholars point out that the vocabulary, grammar, and style are dramatically different from known works by Paul. But the most damning evidence is that the author(s) of this book quote from the Greek versions of the Old Testament (instead of the Hebrew originals, as Paul would have done)! Therefore, it is clear that this book was not written by Paul, or any other apostle. This is significant, for in this book contains the cornerstones of the fundamentalists' beliefs: 1) that Jesus died for everyone's sins (chapter nine and ten); and 2) that the doctrine of faith alone is sufficient for salvation (chapters 11 and 12)
• James: This book is traditionally ascribed to St. James, the apostle. Most scholars doubt this, because of the expertise of the author in the Greek language. Therefore, they feel that it was written by an unknown Greek Christian. And even many Christians themselves have their doubts about this work. Even Martin Luther, the founder of one of the three main branches of Christianity (Protestantism), called it "an epistle of straw". One reason why he may have said this was because of a verse in James (2:20): "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?" The Protestants believe that faith alone is sufficient for salvation. The Catholics believe that it is important to do good works as well. This one point was a major factor in causing Protestantism to break away from Catholicism. And this one verse devastates the fundamentalists' argument. This is completely contradictory to Paul's exhortations of "justification by faith" in Romans and Hebrews. So much for the "harmony of the Bible", as the fundamentalists claim (as proof of the Bible's validity).
• Peter 1: Although attributed to Peter, it is widely doubted by most scholars, on the basis of the fact that the author of this book cites Greek translations of the Old Testament, instead of the Hebrew originals. This questionable book contains the fundamentalists' slogan, "born again" (1 Peter 1:23)
• Peter 2: This book has even more doubtful authorship that Peter 1, so much so that it was delayed entrance into the New Testament's canon. It is generally believed that it was written by an unknown scribe around 150 AD.
• Epistles of John: Traditionally ascribed to St. John the Evangelist, but many scholars disagree. Many scholars feel that it was written by one of the four "Johns" as listed above under the "Gospel of John", but they can't agree on which one.
• Revelations: Again, attributed to St. John the Evangelist, but scholars again disagree. But there are so many linguistic differences between this book and the Gospel of John that it is clear that they were written by different people. This book is the cornerstone of the fundamentalists, the evangelicals, and the millenarianists. It records a purported "vision", and Christians are fond of tying its enigmatic allegory to current events, to show that the end of the world is near. And they are generally successful, since this book is so obscure that one elicit practically any interpretation from it. In fact, ever since it was written (around AD 100), people of every generation have been able to link it to their own period of time. The numerous references to "a thousand years" in chapter 20 has led many to consider that doomsday will occur at the end of a millenium. The "Judgement Day" hysteria that occurred as the year 1000 approached is a historical fact. Similarly, social psychologists predict that, as we approach the year 2000, the same hysteria will occur. Many scholars believe that Revelations is actually a collection of separate works by various unknown authors. One reason they believe this is because the book is a strange collection of Greek and Hebrew idioms. And some believe that it was never intended to be viewed as a "prophecy", but as an allegory showing the crisis of faith at that period of time (of the Roman persecutions). "

For authorship of OT and other complete details on NT kindly refer to http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/aotb.htm - http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/aotb.htm

Of course you would lable him heretics/ atheies or whatever you may call him just to refute his article, but here is the contents of the course of a Christian college in australia (Australian Catholic Universtiy Theo 252 the fourth gospel) and see what do they say about the authorship of fourth gospel.

"

1.2 Who And Where?

There are various opinions about the author of this Gospel.

1. John the apostle, brother to James and one of the sons of Zebedee.
2. The unnamed disciple (1:35-42; 18:15, 16; 20:3, 4, 8) referred to in the Gospel as the disciple whom Jesus loved (13:23; 19:26; 20:2).
3. John the elder, who identifies himself as the author of Revelation (Rev 1:1, 4, 9; 22:8).

Around a hundred years after the Gospel was written, ie. towards the end of the second century, a famous Christian writer and martyr called Irenaeus (about 130-200 C.E.) identified the author of this Gospel as a man named John, called a disciple of the Lord and the one who leaned on Jesus at the Last Supper ie. the disciple whom Jesus loved. "Lastly John, the Lord's disciple, who also reclined on his breast, himself produced the Gospel when he was staying in Ephesus in Asia".

Irenaus is writing at a time when this Gospel is in great danger of being rejected as a legitimate or canonical Gospel. Some are saying it comes from a heretical group called the Gnostics who emphasised knowledge (gnosis) and the mind, and downplayed the value of the physical and human experience. To rescue this gospel it was important to attribute it to an eyewitness, preferably one of the disciples - even better if it was one of the inner circle of Apostles - Peter, James and John.

The earlier commentaries of Schnackenburg (1965) and R. E. Brown (1966) identify John, the son of Zebedee as the disciple called in the Gospel the Beloved Disciple. This disciple is the authority behind the text, probably the leader of the community that produced this Gospel. The actual author of the gospel, the evangelist, was a disciple of this John. In his later work -The Community of Beloved Disciple (1974) Brown changed his view. While still naming the Beloved Disciple as the authority behind the text, he no longer identified this disciple as John son of Zebedee.

Most contemporary scholars take the view that the unnamed disciple, later called the Beloved Disciple, is the authority behind the Gospel. This unnamed 'other' disciple was at first a disciple of John the Baptist but then with Andrew was the first to be called to discipleship (1:35-42), he was present as eye-witness to the crucifixion (19:26, 35) and was the first to come to Easter faith (20:8).

You will notice that more recent authors speak of The Fourth Gospel, while earlier commentators called it St. John's Gospel. Care is now taken to show that there is some uncertainty about the identity of the actual author."

If this seems to be in-sufficient, do let me know as there are other references as well to guide you to the same conclusion. Similar treatment can also be made for the authorships of other books in the Bible. You just have to let me know. I don't want to conclude anything except whatever the position you take shall never be more than a guess work; a Conjecture based decision. It is for this reason that Prophet Mohammad was sent by God  to call people to the truth without conjectures. As I always say it that I have great respect for these books as they do contain some original teachings of Jesus to his disciples, but they have been so obliterated with other stories that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to discern from the heresy. Hence the authenticity of Quran standout visibly distinct and prominant than any other scriptural books. Leave the conjectures and follow the one (i.e. Quran) which is without any ambiguity. May God of Jesus guide us all to the right path. Amen.

AhmadJoyia

It is impossible for the revelation from God to be perverted by man. Even the Quran says concerning the immutability of God's revelations,

"There is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah" Sura 6:34

"None can change His words" Sura 6:115

"No change can there be in the words of Allah" Sura 10:64

So then God's revelation to man cannot be changed or altered, even by evil influence of man.

Do you believe the Quran to be true? Listen to it, "None can change His words"? In numerous places the Quran states that both the Jews and the Christians were given revelations from God in the past: "These were the men to whom We gave the Book, and authority, and prophethood" (Sura 6:89); "He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind" (Sura 3:34); "And dispute ye not with the people of the Book... but say,'We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you" (Sura 29:46; cf.2:136, 5:46-47, 51, 7:157).

Numerous passages in the Quran specifically assert that the Jewish and Christian scriptures still existed during Muhammad's time; "Say oh people of the Book! Ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and the revelation that has cometo you from your Lord" (Sura 5:68, 2:91, 3:93, 5:43). It would be impossible for the "People of the Book" to "stand fast" by the Law and the Gospel unless they still had them at the time.

In other places we find the Quran was sent to "CONFIRM" the previous scriptures; Sura 2:40-41, 2:89, 2:91, 3:3. Now how could the Quran confirm the Bible if as you claim it is corrupt?

The truth shall set you free.

Robin

Well Bro Rbaitz,

Thanks for quoting Quran for me, at least on one particular matter. I pray and shall hope that not only in this matter, you may consult it and get guidance in all other matters as well from the Quran. You have indeed done a great service to me to provide these references from Quran. 

There are many ways to reply to your question. Foremost is that your implied understanding of word "word of God" in verses 6:34, 6:115, and 10:64 is not correct. Here this means the "decree" of Allah and not the "Mushaf" or "the book". There are many instances where God has warned the people of the book for corrupting the book of Allah with their own hands just for petty exchange.

"It was We who revealed the law (to Moses): therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the prophets who bowed (as in Islam) to Allah's will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law: for to them was entrusted the protection of Allah's book, and they were witnesses thereto: therefore fear not men, but fear me, and sell not my signs for a miserable price. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) Unbelievers. " Quran 5:44.

Kindly note the highlighted and the underlined part of the verse which clearly states that Allah's book was an entrusted job for the people of the book. It was upon them not to sell Allah's signs for miserable price. So your argument, even from the Quran doesn't stand valid. Though there are many other instances in the Quran as well, but due to shortage of time, I am concluding my remarks here with your last argument about the existance of old scriptures at the time of Quran's revelation. True, there were, and they might even exist today. However, with the warning of its corruption by the scribes in Quran, we also know that they have been so obliterated with other stories around them that its really difficult to discern truth out of them, especially once my Christian brothers are bent upon following the conjectures and doing away what is known to them as fact. Kindly let me know if you have heard anything about the "Q, the lost gospel". It may hint as to what happened to the teachings of Prophet Jesus.

   Another aspect to look at this issue is that since we know that original language of Quran is Arabic so any translational difficulties can readily be understood by referring back to the original language i.e. Arabic. In the same way Bible (NT) may also be needed to look back in original Aramic version, the language of Prophet Jesus, and not in any other language. Do you have this Bible known in Aramic any where in the world. Probably not; the most oldest known is in Greek language simply because their authors were not among the 12 diciples of Jesus what to talk of Jesus himself. Quran says to the people of the book to stick to His "revealed" book if they want guidance, and not just any other  book by anonymous authors. God's revelations are such that people of faith live by them for their whole life. Can we say such a thing about these gospels whose basic characteristic is "anonymous authorship" and then interpreting them through the monocule of St. Paul and later day saints.  I hope that you would continue to follow Quran, not only for this matter but others as well especially once it calls the people of the book to come to terms and don't associate anyone with Him and He shall forgive them. I think this is a fair proposition, especially in the light of the fact that afterall, Jesus also used to pray to some one. So let us pray together to the God of Jesus to help us guide in the right direction. Amen.

Having read all the above about the Bible & the Quran it all boils down to whether you believe (or had it drummed into you from birth) that Jesus did have direct contact with God/Allah and Muhammad did in fact speak with Archangel Gabriel.  The times that both appeared on earth were times when most of the earth were simple living and superstitious people.  Someone out of the ordinary was either persecuted or praised.  What has happened since has just been perpetuated by a male dominated authoritarian power based culture.  There is nothing in the Bible or Quran that cannot be found in daily self examination and reexamination through prayer with God.  Churches and Mosques are man made to control the blindly faithful masses.  Have a look at both Religions, Christianity & Islam and who has the whip hand all the time, yes, the male.  God made us all equal and all with free will to be home makers, world/community leaders and Priests and Imams regardless of gender.  I am solving my problems with all matters both divine & worldly.  First I emptied my head of everything I was told was true and what we had to do and say to survive in both aspects.  I then spent the past four years putting back in my head, through research and study (like these forums), what I believe to be the truth and not just because someone told me so.  The Bible & Quran are only meant to be guides to a honest and moral life of service to our fellow man.  They were never meant to be enshrined in Mosques and Churches with dogma and blind faith. The fire & brimstone (hell & satan) are metaphors for our own dark side and this can be addressed within your own dialogue with God and the Angels.  Look Muhammad and Jesus were exceptional men of their time but I am sure they would be mortified to see how each Religion has come down to the idoltary of shrines in the form of Mosques and Churches.  I entered the Islamic forum to seek perhaps a new Religion of eqality of gender and free will of worship.  I see now that I may have to leave this forum and research and study more of the Quran and Hadiths before I convince myself that Archangel did carry this message to Muhammad or whether he was just a divinely inspired genius way ahead of his time.  Thank you all for putting up with me and I will rejoin in a couple of months.

God bless you all in your Divine journey here on earth and I do most earnestly thank you all for your input and sincerity towards me and my questions. 

Laurie,

Men and women are equally important in God's eyes. The Bible does show the way women were treated back then but this is not the way God wanted it. There are historical events, practices and so forth that took place, but this doesn't mean it was God's order of things. For example the people of Israel worshipped Baal (a false idol) but God had judged them for idolatry. In the New Testament the adulteress woman was found and brought before Jesus so He would judge her, however he showed compassion on her. But where was the man? He was never mentioned.

Men and women are equally important in the eyes of God, yet each have different roles in the context of marriage and within the Church. This is not to say anyone is better than anyone else, however the wife/woman is esteemed in her role as a woman and the man in his. God has made us different, not just physically, but mentally also. I know I couldn't withstand the pain of child bearing, I can't handle many things my wife can because she was made differently. Also as a husband I am supposed to love my wife as Jesus loved the Church, which is to say, I am supposed to be willing to lay my life down for her, serve her, cherish her, comfort her, Love her, which is more then words. Love is an action word that takes action on my part. Love involved self sacrifice because marriage isn't just about me.

This is what the Christian marriage is all about. The marriage is a picture of the relationship we can have with God. That's why the Bible calls the Church (i.e. believers) the bride and Jesus Christ the bride-groom. The awesome relationship we can have with God comes through the self sacrifice of the bride-groom which was demonstrated at Jesus' death on the cross to pay our fine of sins so we can enter into a loving relationship with God by faith.

Jesus didn't treat women the same way as the culture did back then. Just look at Mary Magdallene she was accepted by Jesus upon her repentance for her sins of harlotry. Later she is the first one to find the empty tomb of Jesus as we can read from the Bible. Now as we know a woman's word in that century didn't hold much water, unfortunatly. However here she is first seeing the empty tomb, then Jesus appearing to her and telling her to go tell His disciples that He had risen. God used Mary as His important messenger. Now if the Bible was written by men who wanted to write lies portraying them as true, then they would not have written concerning what Mary had found, saw and heard.

Robin

rbaitz posted: I have several questions concerning this topic and hope someone can be helpful in answering them based on what Islam teaches and not personal belief if it differs then that of historical Islam.

1. Why do some Muslims believe the Bible is not the word of God and it has become corrupt? Does it mention this in the Quran or Hadith or elsewhere and that is how they came to that conclusion?

Salams (Peace)- 

I will try to explain clearly an example answering your question (I have bolded ur question as above).

Answer: 

The following is according to the BIBLE>>>
Question:  "Is Jesus God?  Did Jesus ever claim to be God?"

Laurie,

I didn't notice any of your questions on this thread before. Do you have question that are concerning the topic under discussion or you have responded in generality of this whole forum? After going through your response here as well as on some other thread, I think you are more concerned about how Mohammad or Jesus are to be believed in as to what they said. If this is true, then this is a new topic and needs new thread. I think its not appropriate to divert from the topic of this thread to another direction. However, just to reply for your response on this thread; I would say something from my own understanding of relegions and leave its decision to anyone who does not agree to it. I beleive that all relegions, at some point, have some uncertainty attached to their doctrines. Since God is infinite, it is this uncertainity that the religions call it a matter of faith, as no logic works to define or understand infinity. It would be naive (I am assuming that one believes in the presence of God and not of an aeithest belief) to expect God to show the answers to the test while the humans on this earth are still under the test. This is the basis on which, I think, whole circle of faith and logic revoleves around. The degree of uncertainity varies from religion to religion. In Islam, this uncertainity or as we call it a matter of faith has two distinctive features. Other than that, Islam is a religion which asks human beings to recognise God through wisdom and logic. These two are 1). Belief that there is a God. 2). Beleif that Prophet Mohammad is his last messanger. Other than this, everything that exist in nature has a logic attached to its existance and can be understood through human mind and logic. To test how the second point of faith is quite close to logical understanding or nature is through circumstantial evidence and not through direct one. The honesty of Prophet Mohammad was known to his people long before he claimed Prophethood. So it was often difficult for the people of his town to dissmiss him altogether merely on the basis of telling lies. Its not that they didn't use any such slandering, but from their hearts of hearts they knew they are not correct. Again it is from the pagan history that once a delegation of pagan arab went to neighbouring countries to make propaganda against the new relegion (Islam), they couldn't escape the reality but to accept that they didn't find Mohammad ever telling a lie even in his jokes. Second foremost convincing reason that I found to believe in him is the book (Quran) that he said is the actual spoken word of God and not from himself. He doesn't claim to be its author. Of course since he was the messanger of God, therefore God's message would come through His messanger as it used to come to other prophets before Mohammad. The sgnificance of this book is so great that we are left with no other reason but to admit that he indeed was the real messanger of God. In that we find that the book claims its authenticity to be the same (ditto) as it was revealed to Prophet Mohammad 14 to 15 centuries ago (of course in the language of messanger of God i.e. Arabic). There is no book (in history or in any other relegion) that we know to exist on this earth except Quran with such a remarkable quality. The book itself is not easy to understand especially for an uninformed reader, however, for those who have the patience to find the truth, soon find it to be the most logical book to preach faith. The order or composition of the book is not like an ordinary book of history, but its purpose is to guide humans to the right path. Various examples are presented in it to recognise God through wisdom, and logical arguments. This unique feature is non-existent in any other book of faith. There are many other properties of this book but I shall leave it for some other time and conclude that it is because of extremely small uncertainity as compared with other relegions that attracted me to Islam and I found it well upto its claims. Rest it is upto an individual how he/she looks at these merits of Islam. Or he/she may not even count them any merits, that is upto them. Rest Allah knows the best. May Allah guide us all to the ultimate truth. Amen.

Thank you most sincerely Ahmad Joyia for your timely & succinct reply.  As I said in an earlier reply I am now going back to do some months of research into the Islamic faith vide the Quran & recorded history.  The above are my feelings at this time however they lack any substantial knowledge of the topic.  Therefore back to the books and see if I can make a fair dinkum assessment of it all and then I may be able to appreciate, more knowingly, the passion and fervour devout Muslims display about their faith.

Perhaps all I know at this time is that there is only ONE GOD but many paths.

Is there any 1st or 2nd Century manuscripts that support Islam's claim that Jesus never died on a cross, which would also invalidate His claim of resurrection?

One would think that one of the Jews who denied Jesus as the Messiah would have written strongly concerning the lie of the apostles that Jesus rose from the dead because he was never crucified (supposedly). Or even the Romans would have written something saying Jesus was never crucified to quiet the Christians and the spread of Christianity in Rome since it was outlawed and Christians persecuted.

However nothing has ever been written. The best the Jews who rejected their Messiah did do was to say that the apostles stole the body of Jesus. That was their sole argument! Rome and the Jews who rejected Christ had no valid argument against what the apostles eventually suffered and died for, which was their belief that Jesus was the Son of God who did really die on a cross for the sins of the world, and really did rise from the dead proving that He was truly the Son of God who offers salvation as a free gift to all who would believe in Him.

Robin

rbaitz wrote: Is there any 1st or 2nd Century manuscripts that support Islam's claim that Jesus never died on a cross, which would also invalidate His claim of resurrection?

I really coudn't understand your line of reasoning? You need a written evidence of events of 100 to 200 years after the events occured? Wow! that is amazing. Do you think these anonymous gospels provide some evidence and any absence of evidence contrary to them would legitmize their conjectures to be true. This is more in line with "catching on a straw" than anything else. Before anyone take a stand on these gospels, one has to assure their authenticity. I pray to the God of Jesus to guide all of us to the right path. The path which is not based on conjectures but the path of surity. Amen.

Hi Robin,

It�s nice to catch up with you again. 

You wrote: Is there any 1st or 2nd Century manuscripts that support Islam's claim that Jesus never died on a cross, which would also invalidate His claim of resurrection?

Ref:

http://www2.evansville.edu/ecoleweb/articles/docetism.html

I don't know if you will accept them as support, exactly, and, in my experience, Muslims do not cite them as proof, but there are, in fact, early manuscripts and books, not found in the New Testament, which were both written and promulgated by, for lack of a better term, �Christian� groups, now known to Church historians as docetists.  Some early manuscripts with docetic tendencies are found in the recently discovered and published Nag Hammadi Library.  In that collection of books, note, especially, two: The Apocalypse of Peter and The Second Treatise of the Great Seth.  As I understand, docetism appeared early in Christological controversies and one of its doctrinal variants -that which argued that Jesus did not actually have a material, corporeal body- is addressed by St. John in his (first) Epistle, fourth chapter.  

That said, I have noticed that Western Orientalists and Christian apologists, probably including CARM (your link), when writing of Islam and Muhammad, often assert that he took the docetic view.  Muslims, on the other hand, and again from what I have understood, counter that not only the docetists but also the orthodox Catholic (and later Protestant) Christians mixed truth with error, that they are thus and in some respects all heretical, and that the final truth of the matter is revealed in the Quran and is resolved by faith.

That's my book report .

Best regards,

Servetus

Servetus,

Hello. It amazes me that some people would base their beliefs on stories told around the 8th Century or so to be true from that of stories told within the close time as the gospel writers written, but whom also had first hand knowledge and experience to write those true stories.

It has been shown that mythology creeps into stories 150 years after the story takes place. That is why its so important that the gospel writers wrote within such a short period of time because it shows the accuracey of them, which were then copied and copied and copied... until thousands were copied and spread throughout the world. Today we possess over 5000 Greek manuscripts that validate the New Testament we have today is the same way back then.

Last concerning the other writings I heard of some of the bogus writings that tried to creep into the Church, but which the Church didn't accept, one being the Gospel of Barnabas.

Robin

Hi Robin,

You wrote: It amazes me that some people would base their beliefs on stories told around the 8th Century or so to be true from that of stories told within the close time as the gospel writers written, but whom also had first hand knowledge and experience to write those true stories.

Well, let's admit it, Faith can be an amazing thing.  For that matter, the at times irrepressible rationalist within me thinks it rather odd that Matthew could continue to report on what Jesus said and did in the garden after the disciples, according to his own admission, had not once but twice fallen fast asleep (Matt. 26:43).  

But seriously [Servetus says, deleting his little winkey face],  I don�t want to get too involved in the �actual� vs. �apparent� crucifixion discussion at this point.  Right now, I am tired of controversy.  I just thought, in response to your question, that you would be interested to review some early manuscripts. 

Best regards,     

Servetus

rbaitz wrote: .......... It amazes me that some people would base their beliefs on stories told around the 8th Century or so to be true from that of stories told within the close time as the gospel writers written, but whom also had first hand knowledge and experience to write those true stories.

Well someone has to identify these so called "early gospel writers". Isn't it? If gospel of John is not by the disciple John and gospel of Mathew is not by the disciple Mathew, then who were they who wrote these gospels supposedly under the "influence of holy spirit". Shouldn't this holy spirit may come now to some holy man in present time and tell him about these anonymous writer with some evidential proof?

rbaitz wrote: It has been shown that mythology creeps into stories 150 years after the story takes place. That is why its so important that the gospel writers wrote within such a short period of time because it shows the accuracey of them, which were then copied and copied and copied... until thousands were copied and spread throughout the world.

By the way, who has shown that myth only creeps in after 150 years after the event. I mean, from where this magical number of 150 year come? Myth comes if there are anonymous people relaying anonymous stories to about anonymous generations. e.g. if it is said that "shepards saw the angels coming down from the heaven" then it is one kind of anonymous story without any references even though the one who is telling the story may himself be identifiable. However, if the same story is related as "stephan (or anyone by name who can be identified from history independent of this story) says that he saw the angels coming down from the heavens" then it is totally a different story. More authentic and less mythical. There is whole science of authenticating these stories and every statement (I would even say every word) in these stories carry its own weight to help authenticating them. So if the story is without proper references, I would say, it will not take even a minute (what to talk of 150 years) after it is narrated to lable it nothing but a myth or folk lure story. 

rbaitz wrote:  Today we possess over 5000 Greek manuscripts that validate the New Testament we have today is the same way back then.

This is strange. One may have 100,000 more than mere 5000 Greek manuscripts but is there any one in Jesus's own language? Is it so hard to recognise the truth from this simple and very basic fact?

rbaitz wrote: Last concerning the other writings I heard of some of the bogus writings that tried to creep into the Church, but which the Church didn't accept, one being the Gospel of Barnabas. Robin

It is this pick and choose done by the selective people (centuries after) who shaped the present state of christian relegion. It is this canonization process that didn't accept anything other than what they thought should be accepted. Not only this, they burned down all other scriptures that they thought were contrary to their doctrine. Though we still see some of them in the form of apocryphal writtings, but who knows what and where is the truth. Ever Lost "Q" gospel may be considered to be one of them that might carried original teachings of Jesus. But the church lost it due to their canonization centuries later.

Think about this for a moment. There are a total of 66 books contained in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. There was a total of 40 different authors who wrote these books over a 1500 year period from different parts of the world in different languages and last many didn't ever meet the other authors. However there is harmony between all the writers, between all the books, and though there are many sub-themes within it, there is a main theme that runs through the entire Bible. God created a perfect world, and man once walked and talked with God because they had a relationship with one another. But then came the fall of man because of sin that the first Adam chosen to do and as a result sin came to all mankind causing a broken relationship with God. God however has provided a way to re-enter back into that relationship with Him through the second Adam (Jesus). The first Adam brought death through sin cauing separation from God, but the second Adam (Jesus) has abolished death through the gospel, which provides a way to draw near to God.

Hebrew 7:25 "Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him (Jesus), since He always lives to make intercession for them."

Not only is there similiar themes running through and harmony of all the writers penned words, there is fulfilled prophecy. For example Jesus fulfilled over 300 prophecies concerning Himself, http://messiahrevealed.org - http://messiahrevealed.org

I'll post one here,

Isaiah 40:3 A voice is calling, "Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God

Who is this voice calling in the wilderness? This is vital because this voice is laying down the red carpet, announcing, ushering in, "the LORD"! Now notice the word "LORD" in caps, the hebrew word is YHWH which is the hebrew name for God.

At my wedding we were ushered into the party where the announcer let everyone know that Mr. and Mrs. B were here and here they are walking down then red carpet. In a similiar way this voice in the wilderness ushered or announced the LORD. Now who is this voice?

Luke 3:3-4 And he (John the baptizer) came into all the district around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins; as it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, "THE VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS, `MAKE READY THE WAY OF THE LORD, MAKE HIS PATHS STRAIGHT.

So John the baptizer is the one voice in the wilderness announcing YHWH's entrance. Who did John point to? John 1:15 John testified about Him and cried out, saying, "This was He of whom I said, `He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.' " John 1:27 "It is He who comes after me, the thong of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie." John the baptizer is announcing or ushering in Jesus who existed before him. If you think this is talking about Jesus' physical birth, think again, because John was born before Jesus' virgin birth miracle. So how could Jesus have existed before John? This could only be as the prophecy says, John was preparing the way for the Son of God, YHWH.

Not only are the fulfillment of these prophecies amazing but statistically speaking they are impossible. However this is not impossible with God.

Next look at the life of the apostles. Saul, also named Paul, was killing Christians and throwing them in prison because as he saw it he was doing God's will. This man had a prominent position as a Pharasee, born a roman citizen, educated, looked up to by others. However he gave up all these things to become a Christian following Jesus. Why? What would make him completely change? Jesus!

Acts 9 1 Now http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=ac+9:4&version=nas&context=1&showtools=1#R458 - ^R458 Saul, http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=ac+9:4&version=nas&context=1&showtools=1#F203 - ^F203 still breathing http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=ac+9:4&version=nas&context=1&showtools=1#R459 - ^R459 threats http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=ac+9:4&version=nas&context=1&showtools=1#F204 - ^F204 and murder against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest, 2 and asked for letters http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=ac+9:4&version=nas&context=1&showtools=1#R460 - ^R460 from him to the http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=ac+9:4&version=nas&context=1&showtools=1#R461 - ^R461 synagogues at Damascus, http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=ac+9:4&version=nas&context=1&showtools=1#R462 - ^R462 so that if he found any belonging to the http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=ac+9:4&version=nas&context=1&showtools=1#R463 - ^R463 Way, both men and women, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. 3 As he was traveling, it happened that he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=ac+9:4&version=nas&context=1&showtools=1#R464 - ^R464 a light from heaven flashed around him; 4 and he http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=ac+9:4&version=nas&context=1&showtools=1#R465 - ^R465 fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" 5 And he said, "Who are You, Lord?" And He said, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, 6 but get up and enter the city, and it http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=ac+9:4&version=nas&context=1&showtools=1#R466 - ^R466 will be told you what you must do."

Saul knew now whom Jesus was! He knew Jesus was more then just a man. Saul's conviction eventually lead to his death and well as all those who had these same convictions.

Then there are the eye witnesses of Jesus resurrection, over 500 witnesses saw Jesus rise from the dead over a period of days and in different places. The changed lives and attitude of the believers are astounding. Once cowardice disciples who hide at the capture and death of their Lord Jesus, were now encouraged, excited and bold in their witness of the risen Jesus. What caused such a dramatic change? Seeing with their own eyes and touching with their own hands the risen Jesus. Talk about amazing things!

Do you have anything other than stories based on conjectures? All you have said is to based on your faith on books of anonymous authors. This is strange. I thought you would negate or disagree with me about these authors, however, you do seem to admit this fact. With this, I can only conclude that whatever you read through these books is merely based on human conjectures and it is for this reason that Quran is the recommended path to recognise the ultimate truth by avoiding all such conjecutres. Rest God knows the best.

Robin you wrote: "There are a total of 66 books contained in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation. There was a total of 40 different authors who wrote these books over a 1500 year period from different parts of the world in different languages and last many didn't ever meet the other authors."

No wonder you have so much difficulty explaining Christianity as it is followed today. We don't have 40 different authors, we have only one AUTHOR who is the CREATOR of the universe and only ONE BOOK the QUR'AN which makes our religion clear, simple and easy to follow. If we need further explanation we take it from the life of God' messenger all of which is recorded in the Hadith.

Then you say "God created a perfect world, and man once walked and talked with God because they had a relationship with one another. But then came the fall of man because of sin that the first Adam chosen to do and as a result sin came to all mankind causing a broken relationship with God. God however has provided a way to re-enter back into that relationship with Him through the second Adam (Jesus). The first Adam brought death through sin cauing separation from God, but the second Adam (Jesus) has abolished death through the gospel, which provides a way to draw near to God."

To me this makes no sense. This is pure fiction or myth! Who were all these people with whom God walked and talked before Adam's arrival?  How can you personify God with these words "walked and talked"? To us God is everywhere and there is nothing hidden from Him, he need not walk and talk!

And what is this sin that Adam brought death with? So is God so unjust that he punishes every human being because of this sin which Adam brought? Is not God forgiving? And how does Jesus become the second Adam? Isn't Jesus supposed to be the "son of God" according to Christianity? How many forms do you give Jesus?

"Lo! the likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him of dust, then He said unto him: Be! and he is."003.059

003.060 "The Truth (comes) from Allah alone; so be not of those who doubt."

"It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is." 019.035

"And when Allah saith: O Jesus, son of Mary! Didst thou say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside Allah? he saith: Be glorified! It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then Thou knewest it. Thou knowest what is in my mind, and I know not what is in Thy Mind. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the Knower of Things Hidden?" "005.116

"Never said I to them aught except what Thou didst command me to say, to wit, 'worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord'; and I was a witness over them whilst I dwelt amongst them; when Thou didst take me up Thou wast the Watcher over them, and Thou art a witness to all things. 005.117

 "If Thou dost punish them, they are Thy servant: If Thou dost forgive them, Thou art the Exalted in power, the Wise." 005.118

"Allah will say: "This is a day on which the truthful will profit from their truth: theirs are gardens, with rivers flowing beneath,- their eternal Home: Allah well-pleased with them, and they with Allah: That is the great salvation, (the fulfilment of all desires)."005.119

"To Allah doth belong the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is therein, and it is He Who hath power over all things"005.120