The Reliability of the Christian Gospels

[ahmadj3]

When I was a Christian, I of course never questioned what the Bible had to say. I grew up Christian, and to question the reliability of what I read, or what the pastor said during sermons never crossed my mind. Now as a Muslim, looking back on what I knew, and read in the Bible, I see several things that stick out as clear contradictions, and issues that point to the fact that the Bible is a very human book, rather than the word of God. For example, In Mark's gospel ( assuming mark is the author, another issue I have with the new testament is that the authors of these gospels are anonymous), 1:2. We find the statement, " As is written Isaiah the prophet, ' Behold, I am sending my messenger before your face, who shall prepare your way.' "

Now where exactly in Isaiah was this recorded? The thing is it doesn't exist in Isaiah, but rather in Exodus. This a 1,000 year difference, so that means Mark ( anonymous) was off by 1,000 years. Can we really that the word of God can be off that much? Does God make such a mistake? I could write an exceptionally long post, but I'll stick to a few that are the most convincing, and pertinent. In Luke 2:1,2 and 2 it's stated, " And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed." Now Jamieson-Fausset-Brown admits that there is a rather difficult problem involved in the verses, that is Cyrenius appears to not have been the govenor of Syria for about 10 years after Christ (pbuh), and the taxing mentioned under his administration was what led to the insurrection mentioned in Acts 5:37. This is a clear historical contradiction in what the Christian calls the word of God, yet in verse 3 of the 1rst chapter of Luke we find the author making this statement, " It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you in order, most excellent Theophilus". Apparently the author didn't do a very careful investigation of all the facts. He missed a very big one! One that I still can't get over is was Jesus' name meant to be Jesus, or Emmanuel? In Matthew ch. 1:21 we read, And she shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.." However in verse 23 we read, " Behold, a virgin shall be
with child , and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel..." It seems the author of Matthew is a little confused. How can regard this as Scripture?

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

ahmadj3 perhaps you could pinpoint the time in history when the Bible began to be known as "the word of God". It certainly was not deemed that by the early church or even in later times.

[ahmadj3]

Maybe not to all Christians, but there are a few who contest that it is God's word. Not simply inspired, but literally the word of God. I don't know the exact point in history that people began to view the Bible as God's word, however I have come across Christians that contend that it is word for word God's word.

[Bowman]

When I was a Christian, I of course never questioned what the Bible had to say. I grew up Christian, and to question the reliability of what I read, or what the pastor said during sermons never crossed my mind. Now as a Muslim, looking back on what I knew, and read in the Bible, I see several things that stick out as clear contradictions, and issues that point to the fact that the Bible is a very human book, rather than the word of God.

Hold on brother…

Before parroting the Islamic machine and casting doubt on the Biblical Gospels (which the author’s of the Koran absolutely loved, btw!) – Why don’t you please show us where, in the 114 chapters of the Koran, where it gives any credit at all to a divine author?

Just show us one example which has islam’s “prophet” claiming ownership or taking part in any shape or fashion in the Koranic material.

Show us where an angel supposedly transmitted the Koranic text to anyone.

Show us where your god ‘allah’ claims to have divinely inspired the text to anyone at all.

Show us anything that would make you feel that your book of faith has ‘one-up’ on its source material, the Holy Bible.

[ahmadj3]

This isn't about the Qur'an, nor is my intention is not to discredit the Bible as a guide, but rather to do away with the idea that it is the literal word of God as taught by some Christians. However if you want proof of the Qur'an's divine authorship, then look at Surah 2:176, where Allah (swt) says;

"(Their doom is) because Allah sent down the book in truth but those who seek causes of dispute in the book are in schism far (from the purpose)."

Also we read in Surah 3:3;

" It is He (Allah) Who sent down to you (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law and the Injil."

There are literally 39 other refrences to Allah revealing the Qur'an to the Prophet Muhammed (sws) in the Qur'an, all you have to do is just read it, rather than hate on it :)

Just show us one example which has islam’s “prophet” claiming ownership or taking part in any shape or fashion in the Koranic material

That's the thing, no where in the Qur'an does it say Muhammed (sws) authored the Qur'an.

[Bowman]

This isn't about the Qur'an, nor is my intention is not to discredit the Bible as a guide, but rather to do away with the idea that it is the literal word of God as taught by some Christians.

The Bible repeatedly claims to be the Word of God.

The Koran never once makes this claim.

However if you want proof of the Qur'an's divine authorship, then look at Surah 2:176, where Allah (swt) says;

"(Their doom is) because Allah sent down the book in truth but those who seek causes of dispute in the book are in schism far (from the purpose)."

No, brother.

What you have done is to show that the Holy Bible (alkitab) is true…nothing about your Koran.

Remember that ‘alkitab’ always refers to the Holy Bible when used in the Koran.

Also we read in Surah 3:3;

" It is He (Allah) Who sent down to you (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law and the Injil."

Again, this puts you even more at odds with your Koran, as it is describing the Holy Bible, and the Gospel – of which is Arabicized from the Greek and had the original meaning of ‘Salvation through Jesus Christ’…!

There are literally 39 other refrences to Allah revealing the Qur'an to the Prophet Muhammed (sws) in the Qur'an, all you have to do is just read it, rather than hate on it :)

No, brother.
There is not a single, solitary ayah which even remotely states that your god ‘allah’ revealed anything at all, to anyone at all.

That's the thing, no where in the Qur'an does it say Muhammed (sws) authored the Qur'an.

Not only does someone named ‘Muhammad’ not take credit for the Koranic material – but no one does!

Not even your god ‘allah’…!

To think otherwise is to buy into Islamic myth.

So…again, brother…why do you think that the Koran is somehow superior over its source, the Holy Bible?

The Bible repeatedly claims to be the Word of God.

The Koran never once makes this claim.

[ahmadj3]

No, brother. What you have done is to show that the Holy Bible (alkitab) is true…nothing about your Koran. Remember that ‘alkitab’ always refers to the Holy Bible when used in the Koran.

What?! How is that not proof?! You have to give a little bit more evidence than the fact that you say so.

Also we read in Surah 3:3; " It is He (Allah) Who sent down to you (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law and the Injil." Again, this puts you even more at odds with your Koran, as it is describing the Holy Bible, and the Gospel – of which is Arabicized from the Greek and had the original meaning of ‘Salvation through Jesus Christ’…!

Still you need more proof, other than your own opinion. The thing is while Muhammed doesn't take even a little bit of credit, and you refuse to believe it is Allah's word, because you would have to in fact reject your beliefs in a man god, which is kufr even according to the Bible. You still have yet to give me solid proof, Jesus said he was God. You have no choice but to back your opinions up with the old Christian rhetoric that deviant Christians wrote the Qur'an. You still have not given any good evidence of that alone. When there are authenitc sound traditions in the Sunnah, from companions of Muhammed (sws) of not only instances when Qur'an was revealed,but also how the meanings of the Qur'an was understood by Rasulullah (sws), and the Sahaba, their companions, as well as the earliest scholars, and students of knowledge after them. You simply stating wild interpretations with nothing to back them up that is solid proof.

[bling]

When I was a Christian, I of course never questioned what the Bible had to say. I grew up Christian, and to question the reliability of what I read, or what the pastor said during sermons never crossed my mind. Now as a Muslim, looking back on what I knew, and read in the Bible, I see several things that stick out as clear contradictions, and issues that point to the fact that the Bible is a very human book, rather than the word of God. For example, In Mark's gospel ( assuming mark is the author, another issue I have with the new testament is that the authors of these gospels are anonymous), 1:2. We find the statement, " As is written Isaiah the prophet, ' Behold, I am sending my messenger before your face, who shall prepare your way.' "

Now where exactly in Isaiah was this recorded? The thing is it doesn't exist in Isaiah, but rather in Exodus. This a 1,000 year difference, so that means Mark ( anonymous) was off by 1,000 years. Can we really that the word of God can be off that much? Does God make such a mistake? I could write an exceptionally long post, but I'll stick to a few that are the most convincing, and pertinent. In Luke 2:1,2 and 2 it's stated, " And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed." Now Jamieson-Fausset-Brown admits that there is a rather difficult problem involved in the verses, that is Cyrenius appears to not have been the govenor of Syria for about 10 years after Christ (pbuh), and the taxing mentioned under his administration was what led to the insurrection mentioned in Acts 5:37. This is a clear historical contradiction in what the Christian calls the word of God, yet in verse 3 of the 1rst chapter of Luke we find the author making this statement, " It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write to you in order, most excellent Theophilus". Apparently the author didn't do a very careful investigation of all the facts. He missed a very big one! One that I still can't get over is was Jesus' name meant to be Jesus, or Emmanuel? In Matthew ch. 1:21 we read, And she shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.." However in verse 23 we read, " Behold, a virgin shall be
with child , and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel..." It seems the author of Matthew is a little confused. How can regard this as Scripture?

The quote that best fits is:

Malachi 3:1 Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the LORD, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the LORD of hosts.

In the King James Version of the Bible Isaiah is not mentioned, but “in the prophets” is used not specific. The Early Jews way of talking about the Old Testament was to give the prominent Old Testament figure (Moses for the first 5 books, David for Psalms & Songs of Solomon, Elijah for major prophets and Isaiah for the minor prophets) credit for all the works even though that did not write all of them. Isaiah did prophesy about John the Baptist which this is referring to in Isaiah 41: 3.

Just as “Caesar” was reused as a name we do not know how often Cyrenius was used or if he held the office twice. Luke has been repeatedly shown to be right after initially being shown to be wrong about his historical accuracy.

Emmanuel = “God with Us” would be a title for the Messiah which would have been extremely revealing if used as Jesus’ everyday name. While “Jesus” was a common name for the time. Both the Quran and the Bible tell us Jesus was the “Messiah”, but that was also not what people called Him on a regular passes, for good reason.

The Bible is not this “miracle” given to us as hard “proof” of the Christian God. Humans are not to have “hard” proof, because of the benefit there is to having “faith”. The Bible is a tool to help the Christian (really not much help for the non-Christian) to support what his believe and where he is being led by the indwelling Holy Spirit (the Bible is consistent with the indwelling Holy Spirit).

If the Bible was God’s actual “words” given in Greek and Hebrew we would have to learn Greek and Hebrew (a huge waste of time and of no help). We can use scripture as a tool as it was ment to be used and not raise it to some status of almost being “worshipped”.

The inspired writers become examples to us even today; of how God can work through lowly individuals to do great stuff, equivalent to actually having inspired words written through us. We can allow the Holy Spirit in partnership through us to do wonderful things for others.

The reason I trust (believe) the Bible is because it is extremely useful for getting me though this day of my life. It tells us of God’s Love and gives us lots of examples of how God interacts with individuals (his Children) which I am also one of.

The Bible was not ment to stand alone. By praying for wisdom and believing I will get wisdom, I am promised I will get wisdom. That wisdom is not worldly wisdom but Godly wisdom that helps me understand scripture for my life. If you try to “use” the scripture without being given wisdom it will remain confusing. The way you are really to get to know God is allowing him to help you one on one first hand eyeball to eyeball. God is true Love and can be seen in true Christians working through them with His indwelling Spirit.

[Bowman]

What?! How is that not proof?! You have to give a little bit more evidence than the fact that you say so.

It’s as simple as defining the very term, itself, as thus…

كتاب= “kitaba”

“kitaba” definition:

Singular. A thing in which, or on which, one writes; (a book); a written piece of paper or (a record or register; and a written mandate) of skin; a writing, or writ, or thing written. Applied also to the Revelation from above; and to a letter, or epistle, which a person writes and sends. A revealed scripture. Written Revelation. Book; decree; ordinance, law; write; prescribed; prescribed period; record; letter; term; scripture; teachings; knowledge reverted to a prophet; recorder.

Adding the definite article…

الكتاب=“al” + “kitaba” = “alkitaba” = The written Revelation

Lane references sura 2.2 in his definition:


ذلك الكتاب لا ريب فيه هدى للمتقين


Thalika alkitabu la rayba feehi hudan lilmuttaqeena

That The Book no doubt/suspicion in it, (it is) guidance to the fearing and obeying. (2.2)



“That is the book, or scripture”; as though combining in itself the excellences of all other books or scriptures; or meaning that is preeminently the book, or scripture. The Pentateuch or Mosaic Law; and the Gospel, or Book of the Gospels; the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians. Divine prescript, appointment, or ordinance; judgment, or sentence; fatal decree or predestination.


It comes from the root “kataba”, which means to write, note, record, prescribe, ordain, destine, decree, transcribe, command, inscribe.

References:
An Arabic-English Lexicon, E.W. Lane, volume seven, pp. 2589 - 2591
The Dictionary of the Holy Qur’an, 1st edition, Abdul Mannan Omar, pp. 478 - 479


Clearly, “The Book” is declared as a one-stop-shop, and combines the previous divine Jewish and Christian scriptures into one location.

It was written down…not oral in nature as Islamic tradition maintains that its Koran was.

Still think that this is your Koran, brother?

Still you need more proof, other than your own opinion. The thing is while Muhammed doesn't take even a little bit of credit, and you refuse to believe it is Allah's word

If it was ‘allah’s’ word then why does the Koran never once say so, brother?

You are speaking out of Islamic ignorance.

because you would have to in fact reject your beliefs in a man god, which is kufr even according to the Bible.

The very term ‘Muhammad’ relates directly to a man-God, as applied in your Koran.

You still have yet to give me solid proof, Jesus said he was God.

Not 'was'.....but 'is' God...

Rev 21.7.

You have no choice but to back your opinions up with the old Christian rhetoric that deviant Christians wrote the Qur'an.

The Christians who penned your book of faith were definitely orthodox Trinitarians.

You still have not given any good evidence of that alone.

Then you pick any portion of your book of faith that you feel is completely devoid of Jewish or Christian influence.

Good luck…

When there are authenitc sound traditions in the Sunnah, from companions of Muhammed (sws) of not only instances when Qur'an was revealed,but also how the meanings of the Qur'an was understood by Rasulullah (sws), and the Sahaba, their companions, as well as the earliest scholars, and students of knowledge after them. You simply stating wild interpretations with nothing to back them up that is solid proof.

So…now the Koran cannot stand on its own, and it desperately needs the help of Islamic ‘traditions’ in order to pour into the text what simply does not exist.

Nice.

[fm93]

When I was a Christian, I of course never questioned what the Bible had to say. I grew up Christian, and to question the reliability of what I read, or what the pastor said during sermons never crossed my mind.

That's unfortunate. The Bible actually encourages people to critically examine the claims that they are given, and to make a decision only after evaluating the evidence and arriving at a rational conclusion. See Acts 17:11 and 1 Thessalonians 5:21, for instance.

In Mark's gospel ( assuming mark is the author, another issue I have with the new testament is that the authors of these gospels are anonymous), 1:2. We find the statement, " As is written Isaiah the prophet, ' Behold, I am sending my messenger before your face, who shall prepare your way.' "

Now where exactly in Isaiah was this recorded? The thing is it doesn't exist in Isaiah, but rather in Exodus. This a 1,000 year difference, so that means Mark ( anonymous) was off by 1,000 years.

Not so fast. First of all, there are church traditions attributing Mark as the author of the gospel—it’s not anonymous. Second of all, the “I will send my messenger ahead of you” statement comes from Malachi 3:1, not Exodus. Finally, take a look at the entire quotation, which consists of verses 2 and 3 in Mark:

“I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way—a voice of one calling in the wilderness, ‘Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.’”

As you can see, Mark is showing that the messenger (John the Baptist) whom Malachi prophesied about is the same person whom Isaiah prophesied about. However, Mark finds Isaiah’s prophecy to be more important, since the “Prepare the way for the Lord” statement shows that the messenger is preparing the way for Jesus. So although the prophecies are basically saying the same thing, Mark conflates both of them into one and attributes it to Isaiah, since Isaiah’s prophecy is more specific. As a modern example, your aunt might say “The pizza at Domino’s tastes terrible”, and your uncle might say “The pizza at Domino’s tastes like vomit.” So when a friend asks you what you’ve heard about Domino’s, you might say “My uncle said the pizza tastes as terrible as vomit.” Although you’re combining two statements into one, it’s still appropriate to attribute it solely to your uncle. They’re both saying essentially the same thing, but your uncle’s version is more specific.

In Luke 2:1,2 and 2 it's stated, " And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed." Now Jamieson-Fausset-Brown admits that there is a rather difficult problem involved in the verses, that is Cyrenius appears to not have been the govenor of Syria for about 10 years after Christ (pbuh), and the taxing mentioned under his administration was what led to the insurrection mentioned in Acts 5:37.

The Greek word that is translated as “governor” in Luke 2:2 is hegemon, which is a generic term for any position of leadership. It doesn’t specifically refer to a governor. So the verse is basically saying “this was the first census that occurred while Quirinius/Cyrenius [however you prefer to spell it] held a position of leadership in Syria.” And Quirinius held positions of leadership in Syria around the time of Christ’s birth.

One that I still can't get over is was Jesus' name meant to be Jesus, or Emmanuel? In Matthew ch. 1:21 we read, And she shall bring forth a son, and you shall call his name Jesus.." However in verse 23 we read, " Behold, a virgin shall be
with child , and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel..." It seems the author of Matthew is a little confused. How can regard this as Scripture?

“Emmanuel” simply means “God with us.” Jesus’ Hebrew name is Yeshua (which is short for Yehoshua), which means “YHWH is salvation/YHWH saves.” When people said “YHWH saves,” they were also essentially saying “God is with us,” since YHWH is God, and God has to be with the people if he saves them. Also, it’s possible that the people called Jesus by the Emmanuel name as a sort of title. It’s the same way in which a hypothetical prophet who lived before Wayne Gretzky’s birth might tell Gretzky’s mother “You will bear a son, and he shall be called “The Great One.”

[OneSizeFit]

Salaam Op.

The thing is, I dont think Christianity was meant to be a religion of the book. You either experience it or you don't.

Much in the same way that it is hard for westerners to understand the Quran and Islam if they don't speak Arabic, simply because it is a sonic theophany, it touches the hearts of Arabs, it's power is in the sound, the writing, etc.. it something moat people just won't get unless they are middle eastern.