Muhammad mentioned by name in the Song of Songs?

[siam]

The fact that Jesus is the Messiah makes Him more than just a messenger.

That may be the perspective of a Christian---the Muslim understanding of the title given to prophet Jesus is as "the annointed one"---which is also the Jewish meaning of the word.

(by the way---it is not upto me what Christians believe or not---that is between them and God)

[siam]

The Prophet like Moses.

The Jews were waiting for the prophet like Moses to arrive.

If the prophet like Moses was interpreted as coming from the Ishmaelites, then why would the Jews ask John the Baptist who was a Jew if he was that prophet? ........ Since Jesus knew the Samaritans believed that the Messiah was the prophet like Moses, this is the one time in the New Testament that He affirmed that He was the prophet like Moses.

Jesus' disciples also knew it because it is recorded elsewhere in the New Testament.

I am sorry I don't understand?...could you perhaps summarize?...or maybe clarify the point/what is this in relation to?

[siam]

The Qur'an was not translated into Arabic until about 900AD. Muslims did not consider the Bible "corrupted" before then. Why? Because they knew the Qur'an confirmed past revelations.

It wasn't until about 1100AD when Muslims had a chance to evaluate the Bible and the Qur'an and found out the Qur'an did not confirm past revelations, but contradicted it that they had a choice: either the author of the Qur'an made a mistake or the Christians and Jews changed their Scriptures and they chose the latter.

The Quran declares the Bible to be a true revelation of God and demands faith in the Bible. Sura 2:40-42,126,136,285; 3:3,71,93; 4:47,136; 5:47-51, 69,71-72; 6:91; 10:37,94; 21:7; 29:45,46; 35:31; 46:11

All these above texts presuppose the availability of the true revelation of God to the people of Muhammad's day. Sura 3:71,93; 10:94; 21:71

A true Muslim is obliged to believe in all the revelations of God. Sura 2:136; 4:136; 29:46

The Quran makes no distinction between God's revelations Sura 2:136

The Qur'an claims that NO ONE can change the Word of God. Sura 6:34; 10:34

Why Do Muslims Believe The Bible Is Corrupted?

In 1064, Ibn-Khazem, FIRST charged that the Bible had been corrupted and the Bible falsified. This charge was to defend Islam against Christianity because Ibn-Khazem came upon differences and contradictions between the Bible and the Quran. Believing, by faith that the Quran was true, the Bible must then be false. He said, "Since the Quran must be true it must be the conflicting Gospel texts that are false. But Muhammad tells us to respect the Gospel. Therefore, the present text must have been falsified by the Christians after the time of Muhammad." His argument was not based on any evidence or historical facts but only on his personal faith, reasoning and desire to safeguard the Quran. This led him to teach that, "The Christians lost the revealed Gospel except for a few traces which God has left intact as argument against them."

Many great MUSLIM teachers DO NOT believe the Bible has been corrupted and ACCEPT the authenticity of our PRESENT New Testament texts.

Ali al-Tabari (died 855) accepted the Gospel texts
Amr al-Ghakhiz (869) " " " "
BUKHARI (810-870) " " " " (he gathered some of the earliest tradition of Islam quoted the Quran itself to support his belief in the text of the Bible Sura 3:72,78)
Al-Mas'udi (956) " " " "
Abu Ali Husain Bin Sina (1037)" " "
AL-GHAZZALI (1111) " " " " (probably the greatest Muslim scholar he lived after Ibn-Khazem but did not accept his teachings)
Ibn-Khaldun (1406) " " " " " " (he lived after Ibn-Khazem but did not accept his teachings but rather believed the earlier Islamic teachers.)

Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, founder of the Aligarh College "In the opinion of us Mohammedans it is not proved that corruption (tahrif-i-lafzi)...was practiced."
Fakhruddin Razi, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, a nephew of Muhammed, "The Jews and early Christians were suspected of altering the text of the Taurat and Injil; but in the opinion of eminent doctors and theologians it was not practicable thus to corrupt the text, because those Scriptures were generally known and widely circulated, having been handed down from generation to generation." (bible.ca/islam)

Who do you believe, the Qur'an or Ibn-Khazem?

"The Qur'an was not translated into Arabic until about 900AD."----You probably mean the Bible was not translated into Arabic right? for more info see---
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_...ns_into_Arabic

Muslims have always considered the Bible corrupted as the Quran states this clearly---only the facts of the extent/degree of the corruption may have differed---recent Western scholarship has detailed the extent of corruption for both the Jewish and Christian scriptures---this amount of detail would have been unknown previously---The Quran is not interested in the details---it only points out the errors in belief and its ramifications.

Christians also believe many of the Gospels are "corrupted" ---which is why you guys have the apocrypha. There are said to be around 30 or so Gospels?---but many of these are rejected by Christians---is this not so?
Did you yourself not claim previously that the Gospel of Thomas(?) was written by someone with an overactive imagination?....

Average Muslims do not read or refer to the Bible---the Quran is read on its own and its world-view/paradigm stands up on its own terms.

[siam]

Since Jesus spent most of His time while on earth preaching His gospel to the Jews and since Jesus called Paul to be the Apostle to the Gentiles, then where does that leave Muhammad whose book denies the Gospel of Jesus? Nowhere.

I thought the two (Jesus/Paul) had never met? --- Paul's conversion experience is a vision, right?
Gospel of Jesus?---where is it?

[Christian3]

That may be the perspective of a Christian---the Muslim understanding of the title given to prophet Jesus is as "the annointed one"---which is also the Jewish meaning of the word.

(by the way---it is not upto me what Christians believe or not---that is between them and God)

I would think that would be the Jewish understanding as well.

[Christian3]

I am sorry I don't understand?...could you perhaps summarize?...or maybe clarify the point/what is this in relation to?

You brought the prophet like Moses in your post number 2.

[Christian3]

"The Qur'an was not translated into Arabic until about 900AD."----You probably mean the Bible was not translated into Arabic right? for more info see---
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_...ns_into_Arabic

Yes, I meant the Bible was not translated into Arabic until about 900AD.

Muslims have always considered the Bible corrupted as the Quran states this clearly---only the facts of the extent/degree of the corruption may have differed---recent Western scholarship has detailed the extent of corruption for both the Jewish and Christian scriptures---this amount of detail would have been unknown previously---The Quran is not interested in the details---it only points out the errors in belief and its ramifications.

The Qur'an does not say the Bible is corrupted.

Christians also believe many of the Gospels are "corrupted" ---which is why you guys have the apocrypha. There are said to be around 30 or so Gospels?---but many of these are rejected by Christians---is this not so?
Did you yourself not claim previously that the Gospel of Thomas(?) was written by someone with an overactive imagination?....

I don't know of any Christian who says the Gospels are corrupted.

To gain canonical recognition, a book was expected to pass two basic tests. First, it had to have a history of continuous and widespread approval amongst Christians and secondly, it was expected to demonstrate that it had either been written by an apostle, or one of his disciples or specifically approved by the apostles. (The word "canon" means "a measuring device" or a standard.) Obviously if the books were approved by the apostles it would mean that they were still alive and that would give the books approval from eye witnesses.

The apocrypha were written way too late -- second, third centuries.

I said the infancy gospels were written by someone with an overactive imagination.

Average Muslims do not read or refer to the Bible---the Quran is read on its own and its world-view/paradigm stands up on its own terms.

I don't doubt that, but they do read what Muslim polemics say about the Bible.

Also, my research shows that about 75% of Muslims do not know how to read the Qur'an in Arabic, so they get an interpretation of it.

[Christian3]

I thought the two (Jesus/Paul) had never met? --- Paul's conversion experience is a vision, right?
Gospel of Jesus?---where is it?

I don't think Apostle Paul ever met Jesus, but he had certainly heard what Jesus preached as evidenced in Acts 7 and the fact that he was persecuting Christians. He could have heard Jesus preach on occasion, but the New Testament is silent on that.

Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus when he was traveling with some of his companions. At first the Apostles of Jesus were wary of him, but when they found out Paul preached what they preached they accepted him.

The Gospel of Jesus is found in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Jesus preached His Gospel and His listeners wrote it down.

[Pentecost]

Chiming in, Paul met Christ in at least two spiritual experiences (although it is conceivable that they had met before hand) the first experience was a vision of Jesus while on the was to Damascas, and the other time was when Paul had a vision and he was caught up into Heaven.

In Ancient Greek, euangelion (gospel) was a technical term for victory in battle, it eventually gained association with the birth/coming of age/enthronement of a king (still prior to the coming of Jesus) and also his speeches. So then in Jesus both of the major understandings of the Hellenist term is found in that he defeated death and put to open shame the powers of darkness, and was the fulfillment of the promise for a future Davidic king. That's the Gospel of Jesus, that he was the Davidic King, that he had come to win victory in battle, which is why the Jews were waiting for an explicit violent uprising against the Romans, he was openly declaring himself to be the King of the Jews come to conquer, he did so in Luke 4 in a synagogue. The four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John each contain this message.

[siam]

I wrote---"Muslims have always considered the Bible corrupted as the Quran states this clearly---only the facts of the extent/degree of the corruption may have differed---recent Western scholarship has detailed the extent of corruption for both the Jewish and Christian scriptures---this amount of detail would have been unknown previously---The Quran is not interested in the details---it only points out the errors in belief and its ramifications."

There are several places where the Quran speaks about "corruption"/changes---one example is Surah 2 verses 72-82---some selected verses as follows---

78. and there are among them illiterates, who know not the book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture.
79. Then woe to those who write the book with their own hands , and then they say "this is from God" and traffic with it for a miserable price. Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.
verses 75 also speak of those who knowingly perverted God's words after knowing them and 76 speaks about the hypocrites who have no integrity about what they believe.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript
There has been an estimate of 400,000 variations among all these manuscripts (from the 2nd to 15th century) ....The vast majority of these are accidental errors made by scribes, and are easily identified as such: an omitted word, a duplicate line, a misspelling, a rearrangement of words. Some variations involve apparently intentional changes, which often make more difficult a determination of whether they were corrections from better exemplars, harmonizations between readings, or ideologically motivated.

Western scholarship of the Bible (OT/NT) proves the Quranic point.


Canonization of NT---is this information correct?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Develo...estament_canon

Writings attributed to the Apostles circulated among the earliest Christian communities. The Pauline epistles were circulating, perhaps in collected forms, by the end of the 1st century AD.[a] Justin Martyr, in the mid 2nd century, mentions "memoirs of the apostles" as being read on "the day called that of the sun" (Sunday) alongside the "writings of the prophets." [3] A defined set of four gospels (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus, c. 180, who refers to it directly.[4][5]

By the early 3rd century, Origen may have been using the same twenty-seven books as in the present New Testament canon, though there were still disputes over the acceptance of the Letter to the Hebrews, James, II Peter, II John, III John, Jude and Revelation,[6] known as the Antilegomena. Likewise, the Muratorian fragment is evidence that, perhaps as early as 200, there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to the twenty-seven-book NT canon, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them.[7] Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings are claimed to have been accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the 3rd century.[8]

In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of the books that would become the twenty-seven-book NT canon,[9] and he used the word "canonized" (Greek: κανονιζόμενα kanonizomena) in regards to them.[10][page needed] The first council that accepted the present canon of the New Testament may have been the Synod of Hippo Regius in North Africa (393). A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419.[11] These councils were under the authority of St. Augustine, who regarded the canon as already closed.[12][13][14] Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome in 382, if the Decretum Gelasianum is correctly associated with it, issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above,[9] or, if not, the list is at least a 6th-century compilation.[15] Likewise, Damasus' commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[16] In c. 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. Christian scholars assert that, when these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church."[12][17][18]

Thus, some claim that, from the 4th century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon,[19] and that, by the 5th century, the Eastern Church, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the canon.[1][20] Nonetheless, full dogmatic articulations of the canon were not made until the Canon of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism,[1] the Gallic Confession of Faith of 1559 for Calvinism, the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox.

This would mean consensus on canonization more or less occurred in 4th century...right---In other words, there was no consensus yet before that?

There is further info here in wiki---
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel

In the immediate aftermath of Jesus' death his followers expected him to return at any moment, and certainly within their own lifetimes.[20] In consequence there was little motivation to write anything down for future generations, but as eyewitnesses began to die, and as the missionary needs of the church grew, there was an increasing demand and need for written versions of the founder's life and teachings.[20] The stages of this process can be summarised as follows:[21]

.Oral traditions - stories and sayings passed on largely as separate self-contained units, and not in any chronological order;
.Written collections of miracle stories, parables, sayings, etc., with oral tradition continuing alongside these;
.Proto-gospels preceding and serving as sources for the written gospels - the dedicatory preface of Luke, for example, testifies to the existence of several previous accounts of the life of Jesus.[22]
.Gospels formed by combining proto-gospels, written collections and still-current oral tradition.

Given this history, it is almost certain that none of the four gospels were written by eye-witnesses.

the same article from wiki says gospel means "good news".----The word gospel, meaning "good news" or "glad tidings", is derived from the Greek word εὐαγγέλιον, euangelion.[


Gospel of Jesus---Is this the sayings of Jesus Christ....what some scholars call the Q source?

[siam]

Chiming in, Paul met Christ in at least two spiritual experiences (although it is conceivable that they had met before hand) the first experience was a vision of Jesus while on the was to Damascas, and the other time was when Paul had a vision and he was caught up into Heaven.

In Ancient Greek, euangelion (gospel) was a technical term for victory in battle, it eventually gained association with the birth/coming of age/enthronement of a king (still prior to the coming of Jesus) and also his speeches. So then in Jesus both of the major understandings of the Hellenist term is found in that he defeated death and put to open shame the powers of darkness, and was the fulfillment of the promise for a future Davidic king. That's the Gospel of Jesus, that he was the Davidic King, that he had come to win victory in battle, which is why the Jews were waiting for an explicit violent uprising against the Romans, he was openly declaring himself to be the King of the Jews come to conquer, he did so in Luke 4 in a synagogue. The four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John each contain this message.

interesting....I don't remember hearing this version, Can you elaborate more?

[Christian3]

Chiming in, Paul met Christ in at least two spiritual experiences (although it is conceivable that they had met before hand) the first experience was a vision of Jesus while on the was to Damascas, and the other time was when Paul had a vision and he was caught up into Heaven.

In Ancient Greek, euangelion (gospel) was a technical term for victory in battle, it eventually gained association with the birth/coming of age/enthronement of a king (still prior to the coming of Jesus) and also his speeches. So then in Jesus both of the major understandings of the Hellenist term is found in that he defeated death and put to open shame the powers of darkness, and was the fulfillment of the promise for a future Davidic king. That's the Gospel of Jesus, that he was the Davidic King, that he had come to win victory in battle, which is why the Jews were waiting for an explicit violent uprising against the Romans, he was openly declaring himself to be the King of the Jews come to conquer, he did so in Luke 4 in a synagogue. The four gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John each contain this message.

Yes, the Jews were expecting a warrior Messiah and Jesus wasn't that kind of Messiah. They also expected the Messiah to build the third Temple and bring peace.

One of my Jewish friends said when he read that Jesus said He didn't come to bring peace but a sword, he knew Jesus was not the Messiah.

When I said Jesus would bring peace at His second coming, he said Judaism does not teach that the Messiah would come twice.

I am in the process of posting what the Messiah would do and be according to the Rabbis, but haven't finished it yet.

[Christian3]

There are several places where the Quran speaks about "corruption"/changes---one example is Surah 2 verses 72-82---some selected verses as follows---

78. and there are among them illiterates, who know not the book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture.
79. Then woe to those who write the book with their own hands , and then they say "this is from God" and traffic with it for a miserable price. Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.
verses 75 also speak of those who knowingly perverted God's words after knowing them and 76 speaks about the hypocrites who have no integrity about what they believe.....

Surah 2:75-79

"Can you (O men of faith) still earnestly desire that they (the Jews) will believe in you? And verily a party (fariq) among them hear the Word of God, then they pervert it knowingly after they have understood it. And when they meet the believers they say, 'We believe,' but when they meet each other in private they say, 'Why do you tell them what God has revealed to you (in the Torah), that they may engage you in argument about it before their God? What do you not understand?' Do they not know that God knows what they conceal and what they make public? Among them are unlettered folk who know the Scripture not except from hearsay. THEY BUT GUESS."

Comments: Notice the words "a party among them." This does not mean all Jews. Also notice "then they pervert it knowingly after they have understood it." Obviously, the Jews had their Scriptures in tact in order to understand it. The allegation is that they "pervert" it by what they said about it; in other words, by interpretation.

"So woe to those who write the Book with their hands, and then say, 'This is from Allah,' that they may sell it for a little price. So woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for their earnings. (S.79)

Commentary from my Qur'an regarding above:

"The Jews wanted to keep back knowledge, but what knowledge had they? Many of them, even if they could read, were no better than illiterates, for they knew not their own Scriptures, but read into them what they wanted, or at best their own profit for the time being: but it was a miserable profit if they "gained the whole world and lost their own souls." (Matt 16:26.) "Writing with their own hands" means inventing books themselves which had no divine authority."

Surah 2:75-79 does not speak of the text of the Holy Bible being changed.

I will get to the rest of your post when I have the time.

[Christian3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript
There has been an estimate of 400,000 variations among all these manuscripts (from the 2nd to 15th century) ....The vast majority of these are accidental errors made by scribes, and are easily identified as such: an omitted word, a duplicate line, a misspelling, a rearrangement of words. Some variations involve apparently intentional changes, which often make more difficult a determination of whether they were corrections from better exemplars, harmonizations between readings, or ideologically motivated.

http://www.answering-islam.org/BehindVeil/btv12.html

[Christian3]

That may be the perspective of a Christian---the Muslim understanding of the title given to prophet Jesus is as "the annointed one"---which is also the Jewish meaning of the word.

(by the way---it is not upto me what Christians believe or not---that is between them and God)