From Jesus to Muhammad: A History of Early Christianity

[Muwahid]

That there is an initial shock is of course expected. The fear is in the beginning, in the surprise of the visitation. But the herald of Good News by Archangel Gabriel (which only applies to your first example and last two) always ends in peace and hope and joyful expectation. Unless of course, the person doubted in disbelief, for example in Zaccharius' case, whereby his disbelief made him mute.

Muhammad's experience after he had his spiritual encounter is of fear not in disbelief, but in belief.

If I am mistaken in this, than I welcome Muwahid or anyone else to correct me. Did Muhammad not believe what the angel told him?

This is the full story of Gabriel appearing to Muhammad ص

Narated By 'Aisha : The commencement of the Divine Inspiration to Allah's Apostle was in the form of good righteous (true) dreams in his sleep. He never had a dream but that it came true like bright day light. He used to go in seclusion (the cave of) Hira where he used to worship(Allah Alone) continuously for many (days) nights. He used to take with him the journey food for that (stay) and then come back to (his wife) Khadija to take his food like-wise again for another period to stay, till suddenly the Truth descended upon him while he was in the cave of Hira. The angel came to him in it and asked him to read. The Prophet replied, "I do not know how to read." (The Prophet added), "The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it anymore. He then released me and again asked me to read, and I replied, "I do not know how to read," whereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it anymore. He then released me and asked me again to read, but again I replied, "I do not know how to read (or, what shall I read?)." Thereupon he caught me for the third time and pressed me and then released me and said, "Read: In the Name of your Lord, Who has created (all that exists). Has created man from a clot. Read and Your Lord is Most Generous... up to... that which he knew not." (96.15)

Then Allah's Apostle returned with the Inspiration, his neck muscles twitching with terror till he entered upon Khadija and said, "Cover me! Cover me!" They covered him till his fear was over and then he said, "O Khadija, what is wrong with me?" Then he told her everything that had happened and said, 'I fear that something may happen to me." Khadija said, 'Never! But have the glad tidings, for by Allah, Allah will never disgrace you as you keep good reactions with your Kith and kin, speak the truth, help the poor and the destitute, serve your guest generously and assist the deserving, calamity-afflicted ones." Khadija then accompanied him to (her cousin) Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza bin Qusai. Waraqa was the son of her paternal uncle, i.e., her father's brother, who during the Pre-Islamic Period became a Christian and used to write the Arabic writing and used to write of the Gospels in Arabic as much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadija said to him, "O my cousin! Listen to the story of your nephew." Waraqa asked, "O my nephew! What have you seen?" The Prophet described whatever he had seen.

Waraqa said, "This is the same Namus (i.e., Gabriel, the Angel who keeps the secrets) whom Allah had sent to Moses. I wish I were young and could live up to the time when your people would turn you out." Allah's Apostle asked, "Will they turn me out?" Waraqa replied in the affirmative and said: "Never did a man come with something similar to what you have brought but was treated with hostility. If I should remain alive till the day when you will be turned out then I would support you strongly." But after a few days Waraqa died and the Divine Inspiration was also paused for a while and the Prophet became so sad as we have heard that he intended several times to throw himself from the tops of high mountains and every time he went up the top of a mountain in order to throw himself down, Gabriel would appear before him and say, "O Muhammad! You are indeed Allah's Apostle in truth" whereupon his heart would become quiet and he would calm down and would return home. And whenever the period of the coming of the inspiration used to become long, he would do as before, but when he used to reach the top of a mountain, Gabriel would appear before him and say to him what he had said before. (Ibn 'Abbas said regarding the meaning of: 'He it is that Cleaves the daybreak (from the darkness)' (6.96) that Al-Asbah. means the light of the sun during the day and the light of the moon at night).

[TER]

Thank you Muwahid. It seems Muhammed was in sheer fright from the entire experience until Khadija and Waraqa convinced him it was a blessing. I think this demonstrates my position that it was indeed a demon.

As for the rest of my post, has it sufficiently explained to you why it cannot be taken seriously that those claims of a small isolated group of 7th century Nestorians in Arabia are expressing the original and apostolic faith?

[ewizacft]

They think it is corrupted.....

Which part is corrupted? What evidence do they have for this belief? Are there any parts that are not corrupted?

[Muwahid]

Which part is corrupted? What evidence do they have for this belief? Are there any parts that are not corrupted?

Well even today depending on which version of the bible you possess you will find some verses missing, like 1 John 5:7, there are Biblical scholars to this day that argue the authenticity, or accuracy of a plethora of verses.

And this is the crux of the issue really, we don't postulate that some evil man duped the world by inserting corruptions into the Bible, but rather it was a process of poor preservation (in the early years) of the original scriptures, mistranslations, and perhaps yes even some doctrine seeping into the accepted bible (at least it would allow for biases of which books are allowed vs not allowed in the current accepted bible).

But as I noted no where in the Bible does Jesus claim to be God, nor are there any long sermons regarding a triune God or the nature of God, so in reality a lot of what we read in the bible is totally agreeable with what's in the Qur'an, we simply contend it's not the original, and even Christians should concede to that point, would any Christian be brave enough to say that today the bible we have is 100% accurate to what was originally written in the gospels?

The word of God REQUIRES accuracy.

This is why the Qur'an was revealed how it was revealed, that's why the Qur'an is actually stylized like poetry, because Arabs would memorize very long poems already to recite in the same fashion the Qur'an is recited, so there has not been a time in HISTORY that there wasn't hundreds of people who memorized the entire Qur'an (and today there are many many millions), so with that + textual preservation + the fact the same Qur'an has been recited in Mecca uninterrupted for 1,400 years, we can say with a reasonable degree of certainty the Qur'an is totally original.

Even when orientalists would challenge this claim, they make references to the fact that the Arab didn't have Harakat (vowel marks) so one word could actually be a different word... but that's not taking into account the oral preservation of the Qur'an, the daily recitation of it 5 times a day in EVERY community with a mosque, but even if we conceded... they're really only talking about minor minor minor changes (which they have no evidence for anyway).

So if you see how I debate these subjects it's not so much I'm challenging what the gospels say about jesus but rather the doctrines espoused by the ecclesiastics.

[erowe1]

Well even today depending on which version of the bible you possess you will find some verses missing, like 1 John 5:7, there are Biblical scholars to this day that argue the authenticity, or accuracy of a plethora of verses.

And this is the crux of the issue really, we don't postulate that some evil man duped the world by inserting corruptions into the Bible, but rather it was a process of poor preservation (in the early years) of the original scriptures, mistranslations, and perhaps yes even some doctrine seeping into the accepted bible (at least it would allow for biases of which books are allowed vs not allowed in the current accepted bible).

But as I noted no where in the Bible does Jesus claim to be God, nor are there any long sermons regarding a triune God or the nature of God, so in reality a lot of what we read in the bible is totally agreeable with what's in the Qur'an, we simply contend it's not the original, and even Christians should concede to that point, would any Christian be brave enough to say that today the bible we have is 100% accurate to what was originally written in the gospels?

The word of God REQUIRES accuracy.

This is why the Qur'an was revealed how it was revealed, that's why the Qur'an is actually stylized like poetry, because Arabs would memorize very long poems already to recite in the same fashion the Qur'an is recited, so there has not been a time in HISTORY that there wasn't hundreds of people who memorized the entire Qur'an (and today there are many many millions), so with that + textual preservation + the fact the same Qur'an has been recited in Mecca uninterrupted for 1,400 years, we can say with a reasonable degree of certainty the Qur'an is totally original.

Even when orientalists would challenge this claim, they make references to the fact that the Arab didn't have Harakat (vowel marks) so one word could actually be a different word... but that's not taking into account the oral preservation of the Qur'an, the daily recitation of it 5 times a day in EVERY community with a mosque, but even if we conceded... they're really only talking about minor minor minor changes (which they have no evidence for anyway).

So if you see how I debate these subjects it's not so much I'm challenging what the gospels say about jesus but rather the doctrines espoused by the ecclesiastics.

What you describe isn't poor preservation. It's very excellent preservation. Far better for the Christian Bible than any other ancient work. But prior to the printing press, all writings were copied by hand, so textual criticism is needed for all ancient texts. In the case of the Qur'an, Muslims solve this problem by assigning perfection to one particular text as the standard against which all other texts are measured. Some Christians have done this same things with versions like the King James, the Latin Vulgate, the so-called Septuagint, and so on. But this doesn't change the historical fact of textual variants arising in the copying of these texts, including the Qur'an.
http://www.amazon.com/Textual-Critic.../dp/0739177532

[Muwahid]

What you describe isn't poor preservation. It's very excellent preservation. Far better for the Christian Bible than any other ancient work. But prior to the printing press, all writings were copied by hand, so textual criticism is needed for all ancient texts. In the case of the Qur'an, Muslims solve this problem by assigning perfection to one particular text as the standard against which all other texts are measured. Some Christians have done this same things with versions like the King James, the Latin Vulgate, the so-called Septuagint, and so on. But this doesn't change the historical fact of textual variants arising in the copying of these texts, including the Qur'an.
http://www.amazon.com/Textual-Critic.../dp/0739177532

Textual criticism are really rendered obsolete when oral preservation is the second (and probably more important) form of preservation. Like I said I'm aware of the works of some of the orientalists who looked at the earliest manuscripts... like the Sana'a manuscripts which is like less than 50 years old after the death of Muhammad... and what we find is simple, the lack of harakat, verse orders/placing... however it was known that the Mus7afs (written quran) were only used for references, because everyone memorized it...

so people learning a surah, would learn it orally, but also have a reference to look at.

Later on it became more important that people learn SOLELY from the mus7af, and this is when there was more strict standardization of the Quran, but there were already thousands of memorizers of the quran, and I would like someone to find me historical controversy regarding whats in the quran...

I made this point earlier, Muslims are required to go to hajj in Mecca, so Muslims from Cairo, Damascus, Persia, Baghdad, all would travel... they would pray there, and listen to Qur'an there... if there were such variations in the Quran, why didn't massive debate ensue regarding what's in the true Quran if everyone's hearing a slightly different Quran?

We DO find this controversy with regards to biblical scriptures, all over the place in fact. Not with the Qur'an.

[pcosmar]

Thank you Muwahid. It seems Muhammed was in sheer fright from the entire experience until Khadija and Waraqa convinced him it was a blessing. I think this demonstrates my position that it was indeed a demon.

Perhaps but not necessarily.

There are several accounts of terror in the Bible, of folks that met angels.. It is a reoccurring response and not all that strange.

In the same region there were some shepherds staying out in the fields and keeping watch over their flock by night. And an angel of the Lord suddenly stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them; and they were terribly frightened. But the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all the people;…

And an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing to the right of the altar of incense. Zacharias was troubled when he saw the angel, and fear gripped him. But the angel said to him, "Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your petition has been heard, and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you will give him the name John.…

Just a couple,, I could find many more,,, but that should make the point.

[heavenlyboy34]

]Textual criticism are really rendered obsolete when oral preservation is the second (and probably more important) form of preservation.[/B] Like I said I'm aware of the works of some of the orientalists who looked at the earliest manuscripts... like the Sana'a manuscripts which is like less than 50 years old after the death of Muhammad... and what we find is simple, the lack of harakat, verse orders/placing... however it was known that the Mus7afs (written quran) were only used for references, because everyone memorized it...

so people learning a surah, would learn it orally, but also have a reference to look at.

Later on it became more important that people learn SOLELY from the mus7af, and this is when there was more strict standardization of the Quran, but there were already thousands of memorizers of the quran, and I would like someone to find me historical controversy regarding whats in the quran...

I made this point earlier, Muslims are required to go to hajj in Mecca, so Muslims from Cairo, Damascus, Persia, Baghdad, all would travel... they would pray there, and listen to Qur'an there... if there were such variations in the Quran, why didn't massive debate ensue regarding what's in the true Quran if everyone's hearing a slightly different Quran?

We DO find this controversy with regards to biblical scriptures, all over the place in fact. Not with the Qur'an.

The Gospels were oral tradition long before they were written, comrade. It is a great blessing that they were written for us and preserved so well. And even after they were written, the disparities among copies that critics like to harp on are not much more significant than punctuation errors. AFAIK, there's not a document from the ancient world better proven to be authentic than the gospels. Not even the classical Greek writings compare.

[erowe1]

Textual criticism are really rendered obsolete when oral preservation is the second (and probably more important) form of preservation.

If this were true it would apply to the Bible too. It would also apply to a lot of ancient works for which textual criticism is very important. Homer's epics in particular, were orally performed and memorized poems, where the cadence and regularity aided memorization and limited the opportunities for corruption, that were well known by every generation of Greek speakers in antiquity, similar to your description of the Qur'an. But textual criticism is still very necessary for them, and their text is less secure than the New Testament's.

[TER]

The main topic, which relates to the accuracy of the Scriptures, is in regards to the belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

Muwahid, I am glad to see you are still with us and debating. I am indeed learning much from you. I was hoping you might answer my question from my last post in this debate. Do you still propose that a small isolated group of 7th century Nestorians in Arabia who allegedly awaited a prophet by the name of Ahmed are expressing the original and apostolic faith of the Christian Church which was spread everywhere?

Also, are you implying that the Holy Scriptures were so corrupted that the teachings of Muhammed (namely that someone else other than Christ was on the cross) was altered or removed from the original sources?

[Muwahid]

The Gospels were oral tradition long before they were written, comrade. It is a great blessing that they were written for us and preserved so well. And even after they were written, the disparities among copies that critics like to harp on are not much more significant than punctuation errors. AFAIK, there's not a document from the ancient world better proven to be authentic than the gospels. Not even the classical Greek writings compare.

Unlike the Gospels, the Quran was recited in a central location (well many locations) for an uninterrupted amount of time, and where there has always been a Mus7af to use as a reference. Thus we could make a rather educated guess and say the Quran is preserved in this manner.

And as I said, is Koine Greek and Latin the words of Jesus... do we have original Hebrew or Aramaic scriptures, wouldn't those be the original ones or were the original ones in Koine Greek? I'm making an assumption here that Jesus spoke Hebrew and/or Aramaic and that's what he preached in.

If this were true it would apply to the Bible too. It would also apply to a lot of ancient works for which textual criticism is very important. Homer's epics in particular, were orally performed and memorized poems, where the cadence and regularity aided memorization and limited the opportunities for corruption, that were well known by every generation of Greek speakers in antiquity, similar to your description of the Qur'an. But textual criticism is still very necessary for them, and their text is less secure than the New Testament's.

I would give a similar response to you erowe, as I've done above. Not a single day has passed where the Quran hasn't been recited in Mecca and Madina, the place of the original Muslim followers, and not a single day has passed since Abu Bakrs time where a Mus7af was there to serve as a reference for those who had not fully memorized the Qur'an. The criticism scholars give of the Qur'ans preservation are generally with regard to vowels... like for example they might see the word صبح (SubH; morning), and say well that might not even be SubH, but rather, SaBaHa, which means "he became", because they're written exactly the same and only harakat distinguishes. But in the Ummayad time Harakats were added so those in foreign lands could read it.

Would any Christian here (leaving faith aside) proclaim that the bible is better preserved than the Quran? Through scholarly or academic reasoning.

The main topic, which relates to the accuracy of the Scriptures, is in regards to the belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

Muwahid, I am glad to see you are still with us and debating. I am indeed learning much from you. I was hoping you might answer my question from my last post in this debate. Do you still propose that a small isolated group of 7th century Nestorians in Arabia who allegedly awaited a prophet by the name of Ahmed are expressing the original and apostolic faith of the Christian Church which was spread everywhere?

Also, are you implying that the Holy Scriptures were so corrupted that the teachings of Muhammed (namely that someone else other than Christ was on the cross) was altered or removed from the original sources?

Well Baheera was a known Nestorian, but those like Waraqa bin Nauful, it's unclear what his actual denomination was. Also it wasn't just Christians but the Jews too who obviously wouldn't have followed the teachings of Nestorius; what this means is probably many renditions of the scriptures included Muhammads name, and called for a new prophet.

To the extent that the Jews were so sure it existed in the OT, that they would threaten the Arabs because it even described Mecca. If the story of Tub'a is true, then it wasn't limited to the 7th century but as early as the 4th-5th centuries.

I would posit, and yes I am bias, but Arabia were lands not conquered by outsiders. It was inhospitable and thus if any reformations were made to the bible the ones in Arabia would be left alone, since they were self-governing, and didn't answer to those like Constantine.

The Arabs also probably did learn Hebrew to read perhaps the original words of Jesus or Moses.

And also I don't necessarily think someone removed Muhammad's ص name but like I said Ahmad actually means something in Arabic, and the root/form probably exists in ancient hebrew or Aramaic... I think it was ignorantly translated by non-semites, while the semites retained it, which is why it existed in Arabian scriptures, not because it was different per se but because they understood the real meaning of it.

Here's an example.. If I write in Arabic... ومحمود سوف يعود (wa maHmood sowfa ya'uud; and Mahmood will return) if the name Mahmood was uncommon, a translator would use what the proper noun actually means as a passive participle (the praised one). So the translator will translate into their own non-semitic language "and the praised one will return", now if translators take some liberties with translations, this becomes further distorted.

Similarly Muhammad's name literally translates to the "highly praised one", Ahmad is a verb which means "I praise" so these can easily be unrecognized by a translator, and be lost in translation. For the Arabs though, they knew what Ahmad meant, or Muhammad, they knew it was a name because they named their own people with names such as this.

[TER]

If the story of Tub'a is true, then it wasn't limited to the 7th century but as early as the 4th-5th centuries.

But the story of Tub'a is not true for it is not the apostolic faith handed once down and spread everywhere by the Apostles. You are basing a part of you religion on something being true when it is not true and it is a shame that you can not see it. I have nothing against you for having been taught differently, it was not your decision where you would be born, but I will not shy away from telling someone the truth when it is for their benefit, especially you who I have had a very fruitful and friendly relationship with. The confession of the Church (which by the Holy Spirit working in its members has declared through its ancient witness to be the apostolic faith) is that there is no salvation except in Jesus Christ, and there is no thought ever about the rise of a new prophet like Muhammad. That is what is trying to be explained to you.

Because you place such a purity of divinity in the Quran, you may think that Christians do the same with the Holy Scriptures. But the early Christians didn't, nor they do now. They recognize the word of God within its pages, and venerate the truth and beauty of its place and work as the written word of God. Nevertheless, they were written by human hands. It is the ultimate written authority with regards to the fundamental message of the gospel and a synopsis of the events and dialogues which pertain to the ministry of Jesus Christ. But Christians do not worship the Holy Scriptures! Making the writings from human hands, even if told by an angel, to become idols of worship is blasphemy! Instead of a statue, a book of words! God alone is to be worshiped, the uncreated God, and all things which pertain to him rather are glorified and venerated.

For this reason Christ did not write a book, lest it become worshiped as an idol.

Instead, after He ascended into Heaven as was witnessed to by all His Apostles, He built His divine Church within creation, within the very material and sentient world, after having assumed it in His perfect humility and deified it by His perfect Resurrection. For God came down and united with our nature, indeed penetrating our very human nature with His uncreated divine nature and grace, and doing so accomplished what no one except for God could do and grant us the way to salvation and eternal peace in communion with Him.

He did this not by passing down a book, but by writing it in the hearts of men, and formed His Body in the world - the Church, composed of its members in fellowship and unity of faith. Had Jesus spoke about some awaited last prophet, believe you me that this would still be the teaching of the orthodox Church. And in the first many centuries we would have heard a lot of heretics claim that they were the final prophet to come reveal the truth! But the reality is that this was not happening because there never was a mention or belief passed down by the Apostles which spoke of such a thing. Instead, the exact opposite is spoken by Christ so that no one can blame Christ for not warning about it.

Christ created His Church in the living temples of the Holy Spirit of God, namely the faithful and the saints, who expressed in unity of mind and faith the oral and written teachings of the Apostles and lived holy lives of selflessness and love for their neighbor. This unity has been around from the beginning and exists today as a testament to the power and glory of God within the apostolic Orthodox Church. This ancient testament exists and says in one voice the faith which was handed down to them, and nowhere is there any mention a coming great and last prophet in the future but rather that Christ is the Son of God. So, a rational, honest and historically informed Christian would see through the claim of this small, isolated, Arabic speaking tribe of Nestorians who by definition were considered heretics by the entire Christian world. They had twisted the ancient teachings of the Church in more ways then one and have lost reliability and apostolic succession. They certainly could not prove any claim about a coming prophet to be the original teachings of Jesus Christ. So to try and build a case for Muhammad using these as proofs is ineffective, unconvincing, and indeed, just further confirms how many lies are being spread in order confuse and deceive. I am not blaming you primarily for this, because you are just repeating what you have heard, but you are certainly repeating it after you have already been explained why the claim holds no proof, reliability, or authority.

If you wish to convince me of the truths of your faith, show me beauty of it. I love to see how God cares for all of His children! I truly believe God desires all to come to the truth and be saved! But most of what I have seen in this thread are attempts at dictating what the early Christians believed and what they have always confessed without any historical, scriptural, liturgical, hymnological or patristic proofs to back it up. What you have labelled as 'interesting' are not proofs at all. They instead provide more confirmation to the informed Christian that one of the most used propaganda tools by Muslims for proselytization are unsubstantiated and ahistorical lies, unconnected to the orthodox and catholic faith of the apostles. You my friend, not out of malice but of ignorance (which is easily forgivable), have done this because you are being fed it by those who have had influence in your life. Open your mind and your heart and seek the truth. But you must first learn that the foundation and bulwark of the truth is not in a book written by a man, even if spoken by an angel or dictated by God, but by the one testimony of the united body of baptized faithful who have died and risen with Christ through Holy Baptism (those members the Book describes as the Church) and who have become a royal priesthood and holy temples of flesh by the Holy Spirit of God.

I tell you, don't try to convince me that Jesus ever spoke about a coming prophet such as Muhammad because lies will not convert me. Rather, share with me the wonder and beauty of the message revealed to Muhammed by the angel. Teach me the love and goodwill of Islam, which you have done before in other threads. Try and convert me through my heart, not my head, because my head does not accept lies as easily and these 'proofs' you are using have had no effect, neither to my mind nor my heart rather than only strengthening many of my convictions. Nothing you have said has put any doubt in my mind what the apostolic teachings regarding Christ are. I would much rather learn about the beauty within the people of your own faith, and the traditions and worship which demonstrate God working with them and in them. These I truly love to hear about and learn about. Would that not be a more fruitful way to pass our time?

[Muwahid]

TER my friend, I do not come here as a proselytizer. When I mentioned that the Christians and Jews of the prophet Muhammad's ص time mentioned and discussed the coming of a new prophet, this is a historical fact. I did not say that this was the original scriptures, I'm simply raising awareness to what scriptures outside the realm of the Roman Empire preached, which was of a coming prophet, by the name of Ahmad.

I gave examples of how Muhammad's name may have been assimilated within translations, which is a very rational explanation, on how it may have gotten lost, as you said the gospels were written be men, they are not worshipped by you, and there are at the very least some variances between the various different versions we have today.

Because you place such a purity of divinity in the Quran, you may think that Christians do the same with the Holy Scriptures. But the early Christians didn't, nor they do now. They recognize the word of God within its pages, and venerate the truth and beauty of its place and work as the written word of God. Nevertheless, they were written by human hands. It is the ultimate written authority with regards to the fundamental message of the gospel and a synopsis of the events and dialogues which pertain to the ministry of Jesus Christ. But Christians do not worship the Holy Scriptures! Making the writings from human hands, even if told by an angel, to become idols of worship is blasphemy! Instead of a statue, a book of words! God alone is to be worshiped, the uncreated God, and all things which pertain to him rather are glorified and venerated.

I agree with all of this, Muhammad ص did not ever commission a book to be written, it was all learned by heart. We don't consider the book a Qur'an is transcribed in as holy, or anything more than a book.. in fact Muslims were not allowed to make amulets with Qur'an written on them, because the fear was Muslims would think the object is more than an ordinary object, which it's not.

We take the Qur'an itself, the recited words of it as holy. It was put in the Mus7af only for reference, but that is just a book, and remains just a book what is holy is what we memorize in our hearts from the Qur'an.

Islam is full of beauty, listening to the Qur'an still brings tears to my eyes as I sit and listen, because to me these are the words of God speaking directly to me. I do not believe the work of the devil could produce something even similar to that.

[TER]

TER my friend, I do not come here as a proselytizer. When I mentioned that the Christians and Jews of the prophet Muhammad's ص time mentioned and discussed the coming of a new prophet, this is a historical fact. I did not say that this was the original scriptures, I'm simply raising awareness to what scriptures outside the realm of the Roman Empire preached, which was of a coming prophet, by the name of Ahmad.

Muwahid, if it is not proselytism that you are doing with this thread, then forgive me for saying that. I did not mean to suggest that you were doing something wrong even if you were. I don't have any problem with Muslims proselytizing people to Islam. It is only when doing so involves spreading falsehoods against the Christian faith and the Church established by Christ do I begin to have a problem with it. If you wish to claim that some 7th century writings allegedly believed in a coming prophet name Ahmed, than you are free to do so. Just don't go around implying this may have been the apostolic teachings of the Church when it simply wasn't. And that is exactly what you do when you start talking about corrupted texts and the Roman Empire, as if the pagan Romans where the ones who spread the faith that Jesus rose from dead and is the Savior of the world.

The Scriptures were not a product of the Roman Empire. I think you really believe that, but you are incorrect. The Scriptures are a product of the Church, of the baptized members of the body of Christ. It was not Roman authorities who decided on the canon, it was the Bishops of the Church confessing the faith which time memorial points back to being the apostolic faith. The bishops did not create something anew, they simply confessed what they had always taught and what their church always believed, going back as far as they can in the writings of the fathers and saints of the Church. It was not the Roman prelates who transcribed and faithfully handed down the writings, it was the members of the Church. So you should understand that the Holy Scriptures were not transmitted, kept undefiled, and faithfully passed down because of the Roman Empire, but rather, in spite of the Roman Empire which sought to crush the Church for the first 300 years of it's existence.

What these alleged 7th century Nestorians (which you keep alluding to) may have believed about a coming prophet is not a historical fact of relevance to the Church established by Christ. It is a complete deviation from the apostolic faith. In fact, again, if anything, from a Christian perspective it would imply either a coincidental heresy of hope or a demonic plan, had such an isolated excommunicated tribe truly believed such a thing in Muhammad's day.

You are free to believe it, but you are not free to change the facts. If you must, accept the claims that there was a small group of Arab Nestorians who believed in the coming of a prophet name Ahmed who really was Muhammad, but don't try to imply that this was the lost, hidden, teachings or expectations according to Christ and the Church from the beginning. That is simply not true, neither historically, scripturally, liturgically or patristically. Whether the church was located in Rome, Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, Mosul, India, Gaul, Ethiopia, Lybia, Jerusalem, etc, etc, etc, this 7th century 'prophecy' you are referring to was an innovation (maybe a lucky one, maybe a demonic one, or maybe a divine one as you might claim), but one thing it was not according to reality was any teachings of Christ passed down to the Apostles. In fact, as stated several times already, the only prophecy Muhammad filled which Christ spoke about calls him a wolf in sheep's clothing.

As for the Qu'ran, I cannot speak or read Arabic, so I will take your word about the beauty and poetry of the book. I have heard this to be true from my Muslim friends, and I believe you when you say that it is beautiful and awe-inspiring in it's poetry and words. I wish I could understand Arabic to fully appreciate it.

I can tell you though as someone who speaks and reads Greek (though more difficultly with Koine Greek) that there is divine poetry and beauty as well in the Gospels in the language in which they were originally written in. However, the beauty of the Gospel is not in the form of prose or poetry, or in the style and fashion of a particular language or culture, in expressions for the sake of rhythmic appeasement and acoustic pleasure which often times result in fluff and exaggeration as poetry often does, but rather the true beauty of the Gospels, whether in Greek or in Latin or in any language it is written in, is in the eternal historical truths written therein. While there is majestic and alluring beauty in the Christian faith, the Scriptures most divine attribute is not poetic but rather its truthfulness and simpleness of facts and fidelity to the testimony and witness of the many baptized in Christ who saw Him raised from the dead and in obedience established one Church in unity of mind and spirit, confessing with their entire lives: "Christ, the Son of God, is Risen from the dead". If you wish to doubt their claim, then doubt it, just don't try to make up a story that this wasn't the original Christian confession of belief from the beginning. When you do so, you only expose how little you actually know about the history of Christianity and lose complete credibility in your arguments, which is a shame because you seem to me a bright, intelligent, and sincere person. But if you truly believe knowledge to be power, then learn the facts you apparently weren't told about, forget the 'facts' which are so easily disproved through the historical and ecclesiastical record and the sacramental witness of the Church, so that empowered by the knowledge, you might more wisely choose your own beliefs.

[Jamesiv1]

The Gospels were oral tradition long before they were written, comrade.

I've never heard this before. Source?

People sharing and retelling the prayers and parables of Jesus... that I can believe. But 1st century Christians memorizing Paul's musings? Highly doubtful.

[Muwahid]

I've been reading more Hadiths, and I actually find it so intriguing how similar Islam and Christianity are sometimes... look at this hadith-- it's a snippit but the context is it's a hadith about judgement day, where the believers will be gathered and they will ask for a prophet to intercede for them, and they from Adam to Muhammad, but all the prophets give an excuse not to intercede because they're yasta7ee infront of Allah (which means like shy, humble, to ask for anything). Here's the part about Jesus in which Moses is speaking about him:

ائتوا موسى صلى الله عليه وسلم الذي كلمه الله وأعطاه التوراة قال فيأتون موسى صلى الله عليه وسلم فيقول لست هناكم ويذكر خطيئته التي أصاب فيستحيي ربه منها ولكن ائتوا عيسى روح الله وكلمته فيأتون عيسى
Translation: Go to Moses [Abraham speaking to them], ص who spoke directly to God, and was given the Torah, so they will go to Moses ص and he will say 'I am not fit for this', and mention his mistakes and say he is shy to stand before his lord, he will say 'But go to Jesus, the soul of God and his word', so they will go to Jesus...

Some narrations say that, some don't they vary slightly since we don't expect hadiths to be super accurate with specific wording, but that's still pretty amazing.

Because do we see in the gospels Jesus called more than that? This is my point with looking at the gospels only, where Jesus never claims deity, or wants to be worshipped, and has limitations, but may still be referred to as the word, or to have the spirit of God in him... so Muslims can simultaneously agree with such sentiments and still affirm he was a man, but a very special man with a special relationship with Allah.

[heavenlyboy34]

I've never heard this before. Source?

See "The New Testament" by Dr Bart Ehrman, Prof of Religious studies, UNC Chapel Hill-a lecture series available from thegreatcourses.com.

[TER]

I've been reading more Hadiths, and I actually find it so intriguing how similar Islam and Christianity are sometimes... look at this hadith-- it's a snippit but the context is it's a hadith about judgement day, where the believers will be gathered and they will ask for a prophet to intercede for them, and they from Adam to Muhammad, but all the prophets give an excuse not to intercede because they're yasta7ee infront of Allah (which means like shy, humble, to ask for anything). Here's the part about Jesus in which Moses is speaking about him:

ائتوا موسى صلى الله عليه وسلم الذي كلمه الله وأعطاه التوراة قال فيأتون موسى صلى الله عليه وسلم فيقول لست هناكم ويذكر خطيئته التي أصاب فيستحيي ربه منها ولكن ائتوا عيسى روح الله وكلمته فيأتون عيسى
Translation: Go to Moses [Abraham speaking to them], ص who spoke directly to God, and was given the Torah, so they will go to Moses ص and he will say 'I am not fit for this', and mention his mistakes and say he is shy to stand before his lord, he will say 'But go to Jesus, the soul of God and his word', so they will go to Jesus...

Some narrations say that, some don't they vary slightly since we don't expect hadiths to be super accurate with specific wording, but that's still pretty amazing.

Because do we see in the gospels Jesus called more than that? This is my point with looking at the gospels only, where Jesus never claims deity, or wants to be worshipped, and has limitations, but may still be referred to as the word, or to have the spirit of God in him... so Muslims can simultaneously agree with such sentiments and still affirm he was a man, but a very special man with a special relationship with Allah.

That verse from the Hadith is amazing indeed!

There are some very important parts of Islam, such as this Hadith, which bears remarkable witness to Christ as being unique.

I would remind you however that the Gospels do indeed proclaim Christ to be the Son of God.

For example when Nathaniel was under the fig tree and Christ called him to join Him:

43 The following day Jesus wanted to go to Galilee, and He found Philip and said to him, “Follow Me.” 44 Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. 45 Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found Him of whom Moses in the law, and also the prophets, wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”

46 And Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?”

Philip said to him, “Come and see.”

47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward Him, and said of him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom is no deceit!”

48 Nathanael said to Him, “How do You know me?”

Jesus answered and said to him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.”

49 Nathanael answered and said to Him, “Rabbi, You are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”

50 Jesus answered and said to him, “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these.” 51 And He said to him, “Most assuredly, I say to you, hereafter you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.”

(according to the oral tradition of the Church, Christ is foretelling His holy ascension forty days after He had risen from the dead)

+++++++++++

We see above Christ being called the Son of God and the King of Israel by the Apostle Nathaniel, and this was in the first moments of meeting Christ.

Likewise, St. Thomas, when he saw the risen Christ after he doubted and fell onto his knees and worshiped Him:

26 And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!” 27 Then He said to Thomas, “Reach your finger here, and look at My hands; and reach your hand here, and put it into My side. Do not be unbelieving, but believing.”

28 And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”

29 Jesus said to him, “Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

++++++++++

These are but two examples. For Christ Himself speaks about Him being One with the Father in the Gosepl according to St. John. In fact, St. John's entire Gospel was written in order to erase any doubt to those who read it that his confession is that Christ is the Word of God, from the beginning, Who has come down from heaven to save us.

The reason why people gave up their lives from the earliest days of the Church was not simply because Jesus was a good man, but because He revealed Himself to be the Messiah and Son of God. It was this proclamation which came from Christ's lips and His life and ministry which is the reason why He was charged with blasphemy by the SanHedrin and handed over to Pilate in order to be crucified.

The very heart of the faith and which has been protected and passed down and defended is that Christ is the incarnate Son of God Who has come to save us by restoring our very ontological beings into divine and loving communion with the Father. Shedding our old man and putting on the new. Indeed, putting on Christ Himself Who has deified our human nature and given us the means to true communion and participation in the divine nature of our Creator. It has been this hope from the beginning which is the reason why people so easily and bravely faced torture and martyrdom knowing that their true life (after this temporary stay in this world) is in Christ Jesus.

I urge you to read the writings of St. Ignatius, an early Saint of the Apostolic era of the history of the Church. In it, you get a good feel of what the earliest Christians confessed and how they lived and faced martyrdom in joyful expectation of meeting with the Risen Christ. Here is a link with his writings.

[Muwahid]

TER with regards to son of God, we never had a problem with that in a non-literal way.. the Qur'an says Lam yaalid wa Lam yulaad, he does not beget, nor was he begotten. This is a literal sense.

I think the Qur'an began using Abdu Allah (servant of God) in place of Awlaad Allah (Children of God) which existed in other scriptures, because of taking it in a literal sense. We take the animalistic actions such as procreation, something below the almighty God.

I'm sure you have a different opinion. However in a figurative meaning, child of God, servant of God, etc. it all is the same thing its to represent that closeness we want to have with our Lord.

[TER]

TER with regards to son of God, we never had a problem with that in a non-literal way.. the Qur'an says Lam yaalid wa Lam yulaad, he does not beget, nor was he begotten. This is a literal sense.

I think the Qur'an began using Abdu Allah (servant of God) in place of Awlaad Allah (Children of God) which existed in other scriptures, because of taking it in a literal sense. We take the animalistic actions such as procreation, something below the almighty God.

I'm sure you have a different opinion. However in a figurative meaning, child of God, servant of God, etc. it all is the same thing its to represent that closeness we want to have with our Lord.

Yes, I agree, we can never know by God by nature, for we are always the created and God always the uncreated. But the joy of the Christian is that we can know Him and even become like unto God by grace through His divine energies. This is the work of the Holy Spirit working in men. This is the communion and participation in true life and true living. And this has been made possible because God took our human nature, enjoined Himself with flesh, and deified it by His divine presence and power. Christ did not claim He was preparing the way for our salvation. Instead, He Himself is our salvation. His very created flesh is what will rise our own flesh when we die, indeed the flesh of all men. His very life will be our own life. He is the Firstfruits of the new creation according to the Holy Scriptures, and by His wounds ours are healed as the Prophet Isaiah said, by His tears ours will be vanquished.

But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed. (Isaiah 53)

[Muwahid]

I was wondering if a Christian could comment on the Pericope of the Adulteress (which has been used as evidence in this thread), allegedly not existing in any of the early greek manuscripts?

This passage of the Bible is commonly used to attempt to nullify the act of stoning or capital punishment, but how can it be known to be authentic?

[heavenlyboy34]

I was wondering if a Christian could comment on the Pericope of the Adulteress (which has been used as evidence in this thread), allegedly not existing in any of the early greek manuscripts?

This passage of the Bible is commonly used to attempt to nullify the act of stoning or capital punishment, but how can it be known to be authentic?

AFAIK, that passage is apocryphal. It is regarded as inspired and legitimate scripture by everyone I know of, though.

Interesting short piece on the subject-
http://grammaranddeity.wordpress.com...-it-authentic/

[pcosmar]

I've been reading more Hadiths, and I actually find it so intriguing how similar Islam and Christianity are sometimes..

I have seen some of that in my very limited look at it.

Very different from the radicalized versions pushed by the CIA and other unscrupulous teachers.

I hope you will keep seeking God (rather than defending any religion). You may find it is Christ that you are looking forward to. (as am I)

Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign when all these things are going to be fulfilled?" And Jesus began to say to them, "See to it that no one misleads you. "Many will come in My name, saying, 'I am He!' and will mislead many.…

[TER]

Muwahid, I had written a long reply to your last post last night, but drifted off to sleep and woke up with the reply erased when my daughter took the ipad this morning! Lol. I will reply to your post later tonight as time permits. I want to explain it a bit shorter and more to the point. It was too long to begin with! In the meantime, you should understand that the orthodox approach and use of Scriptures as a tool for the ministry of the Church may be different from how you understand Christians regard the Holy Bible.

[Muwahid]

Muwahid, I had written a long reply to your last post last night, but drifted off to sleep and woke up with the reply erased when my daughter took the ipad this morning! Lol. I will reply to your post later tonight as time permits. I want to explain it a bit shorter and more to the point. It was too long to begin with! In the meantime, you should understand that the orthodox approach and use of Scriptures as a tool for the ministry of the Church may be different from how you understand Christians regard the Holy Bible.

Take your time friend

[erowe1]

I've never heard this before. Source?

People sharing and retelling the prayers and parables of Jesus... that I can believe. But 1st century Christians memorizing Paul's musings? Highly doubtful.

The Gospels don't include Paul's musings.

[TER]

Muwahid, I have stated earlier in another post the Christian belief that the Church is 'the pillar and foundation of truth'. It is the Church as the living organism of members enlightened and empowered by the Holy Spirit which Christ has established in this world as this pillar and foundation of the truth. This truth has been handed down through the generations via the written world and the spoken world, what we called the Written and the Oral Tradition. Together, these two important means of transference of wisdom and knowledge constitute 'Holy Tradition'. This is a continuation of the Judaic process of handing down the revelations of God and it is likely similar in the Muslim faith as well. For example, before the Hadiths were written, it is most likely that much of the events and teachings described in them were first passed down orally from generation to generation until they were collected and compiled into a volume of work. Both means, the oral and written methods, are indispensable.

The advantage of the written tradition is that it can be 'permanently memorialized' in a mode of expression using concrete words and symbols and transcribed (most of the times) reliably through visual comparison. But even in this case, where the written words are transcribed reliably, there still requires someone to interpret the words in order to make sense of it. And this is where the Church comes in as the pillar of the truth, for it is through the lens of the Church in her collective witness, tradition, and history which can most accurately interpret the true and original intent and meaning of the words written down.

For example, taking a few verses from the Scriptures, some people might infer one thing and another group another thing. So that while they are reading the same words, their understandings and interpretation may vary widely. This phenomenon is well established, especially with regards to holy texts, and we see how in the earliest heresies each competing sides were referring to the same verses with completely opposite interpretations. So while there is a great advantage to the written word, we also see the great disadvantage to it. And for this reason it has always been the Church which has been the source for the correct interpretation. The modern concept that 'the Scriptures interpret themselves' would be great if it were true, but unfortunately, it is not. And for this reason you see so many divisions in Christendom, all holding to the same books for reference and each professing different beliefs.

This leads me to the role of the Scriptures within the life of the Church. The Scriptures are indispensible in the evangelical ministry of the Church as a tool to help guide the faithful and spread the good news. The Scriptures, while inspired by God, are still the works of men in order to fulfill this ministry. These writings did not fall from the sky, but were written and passed down and transcribed by the Church for the Church, to be interpreted through the Church. Its role as a measuring stick to the truths of the faith was never written down to be used apart from the other equally important modes of evangelism within Holy Tradition, such as through the sacramental life and worship and oral tradition, neither to supplant them or erase them. Rather, these writings were written, transcribed, and passed down by the Church as a tool for the teaching and edification of the Church through the Church. Otherwise, what would happen is what they experienced even back in the earliest times, which is competing interpretations and disunity in beliefs.

With regards to the verses found in St. John's Gospel regarding the adulterer, the hard material evidence as we have them today is that the two earliest extant Greek manuscripts do not contain these verses yet they are found in the later extant manuscripts. This may sound scandalous to someone who views the Holy Scriptures apart from the Holy Tradition of the Church, but it is not scandalous to those who understand the orthodox understanding and place of the Holy Scriptures as a tool produced by the Church for the pastoral edification and illumination of the members of the Church.

Getting back to the hard material evidence, it is my understanding that there are 15 earlier manuscripts which do not provide any evidence for or against the presence of these specific verses, as they have come down through time in small fragments and missing entire sections. Thus we cannot say for sure if these specific verses were indeed in the earlier manuscripts or not and then for some reason not included in the two early extant manuscripts which have been preserved.

What that leaves us with is that either: 1) they were in the original writings, were removed in (at least some) of the early manuscripts, and were put back again later or 2) they were not in the original writings but were added later.

With regards to the first possibility, we do know that in the patristic writings of the second, third and fourth centuries, there are references to this event, which indicates that at least in the oral tradition of the Church, this episode was known. Some scholars believe it is possible it was in fact included in the earliest writings and then removed to prevent the faithful from misinterpreting the event and being wrongly impressed that Christ sanctioned adultery.

One scholar writes:

"Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if he who had said, Sin no more, had granted permission to sin."

We must remember always that the Scriptures is a tool used by the Church and the Church has always applied its actions to the pastoral care of the faithful. Given that in those days adultery was a crime and punishable by death, it may be possible that certain men excluded this episode from the original writings thinking that by doing so they might prevent their flock from misinterpretations which could lead to their death.

The other real possibility is that it was added in later and did not exist in the earlier writings. It may have been something handed down from the oral tradition of the Apostles which was added later for the pastoral care and benefit of the members of the Church.

Either way, to an Orthodox Christian, it means little which route it was introduced into the Scriptures, whether originally or later from the oral tradition. The truths of this event are not denied either way. That the Church indeed reads these verses in the worship services and considers them inspired truthful events are what is important for the Christian, for again, it is the Church which is the pillar of the truth. The Church was not created for the Scriptures, rather the Scriptures were created for the Church, in order to aid in the salvation of it's members. The Church has created, copied, passed down and compiled these writings as an adjunct to its prime role as being an ark of salvation for its members and spiritual hospital to nourish and feed the body of Christ.

In conclusion, this specific example of the Pericope Adulterae (including a couple of other specific examples of possible additions not found in earlier manuscripts though found in later ones) are extremely small and limited in number and in no way perturb the foundational witness and confession of the Church. Unfortunately, some get hung up on these seeming inconsistencies and then get discouraged or frustrated and begin to question the entire corpus of the Scriptures and patristic writings due to these rare, small outliers. But that is because they do not have the correct and orthodox understanding of the place, role, and function of the Holy Scriptures in the life and ministry of the Church.

I hope I explained it okay to you Muwahid, at least from the lens of the Orthodox Church, and I am sorry if it was a bit long. There were other things I wanted to add but this post is long enough already and you probably have more questions.

[Muwahid]

You've explained it quite clearly, and thank you for the explanation.

I suppose one question I have is, in the teachings of Jesus does the Church hold such weight and authority over the believers? Were there any allusions to the Church being 'the pillar and foundation of truth'? My contention is not that the Church had scandalous motives, but we know because of the persecution of early Christians very little of the hundreds of thousands of fragments of the gospels exist from earlier than the 2nd centurty, right? So the time between a certain gospel being written, and it's earliest copy (or fragmentations from it) could be well over 100 years.

I have no problem saying much of the word of the bible is the inspired word of God, I've stated many times 90% of what I find in the new testament is nothing against my own religion, what we differ on mainly are the doctrines we follow. There are clear parallels between my doctrine and my holy book, but you have to admit the connection between a triune God and the gospels are ambiguous at best-- is your point that we can be sure the original intent of certain verses because of oral traditions, and that the Christians would not have lost their way in the hundred or so years where there is a gap between the original scriptures and the copies?

I'm just suggesting things get lost in the details, the fine print.

[ewizacft]

Well even today depending on which version of the bible you possess you will find some verses missing, like 1 John 5:7, there are Biblical scholars to this day that argue the authenticity, or accuracy of a plethora of verses.

Even if you take out the verses that are not in all the manuscripts, there is still enough from the agreed upon scriptures to come to the doctrine of the Christians.

And this is the crux of the issue really, we don't postulate that some evil man duped the world by inserting corruptions into the Bible, but rather it was a process of poor preservation (in the early years) of the original scriptures, mistranslations, and perhaps yes even some doctrine seeping into the accepted bible (at least it would allow for biases of which books are allowed vs not allowed in the current accepted bible). .

Then please present me with the evidence that the process of preservation in the early years was poor and of the mistranslations that led to inaccuracies. Also can you tell me how the 66 books that are in the current bible came to be accepted and for what reasons? What were the reasons other books were left out of the bible?

But as I noted no where in the Bible does Jesus claim to be God, nor are there any long sermons regarding a triune God or the nature of God.

I agree that Jesus does not come out and say that I am God, but he also does not come out and say I am not God. In the Old Testament prophecies, the messiah was to come into the world. Who exactly were the Jews anticipating to come and save them?

so in reality a lot of what we read in the bible is totally agreeable with what's in the Qur'an, we simply contend it's not the original, and even Christians should concede to that point, would any Christian be brave enough to say that today the bible we have is 100% accurate to what was originally written in the gospels?

What if Jesus is God in the flesh even though he does not say those words? Would the Bible agree with the Qur'an then? The original manuscripts do not exist anymore. This does not mean that the copies do not contain what was originally written.

The word of God REQUIRES accuracy.

This is why the Qur'an was revealed how it was revealed, that's why the Qur'an is actually stylized like poetry, because Arabs would memorize very long poems already to recite in the same fashion the Qur'an is recited, so there has not been a time in HISTORY that there wasn't hundreds of people who memorized the entire Qur'an (and today there are many many millions), so with that + textual preservation + the fact the same Qur'an has been recited in Mecca uninterrupted for 1,400 years, we can say with a reasonable degree of certainty the Qur'an is totally original.

Even when orientalists would challenge this claim, they make references to the fact that the Arab didn't have Harakat (vowel marks) so one word could actually be a different word... but that's not taking into account the oral preservation of the Qur'an, the daily recitation of it 5 times a day in EVERY community with a mosque, but even if we conceded... they're really only talking about minor minor minor changes (which they have no evidence for anyway).

All of these things that you say about the Qur’an while they may be true; do these things make the Qur’an true?

So if you see how I debate these subjects it's not so much I'm challenging what the gospels say about jesus but rather the doctrines espoused by the ecclesiastics.

Are you basing your debates on how the bible relates to bible? Or are you looking at the Bible through the lens of what the Qur'an says and then bringing those presuppositions to the bible?

[Muwahid]

Then please present me with the evidence that the process of preservation in the early years was poor and of the mistranslations that led to inaccuracies. Also can you tell me how the 66 books that are in the current bible came to be accepted and for what reasons? What were the reasons other books were left out of the bible?

How old are the majority of the manuscripts which are used to construct the Bible you have today? Due to persecution of the Christians much was lost in the 1st and 2nd centuries, making a large gap between the time the gospels were written, and when the hundreds of thousands of fragments that were discovered were written. Do we even know who the gospel writers were? Or their language?

To clarify I'm sure much has been preserved through some oral and written communication, but much could be lost in translation, and if the doctrine believing Jesus was God was strong during the time people began compiling the codices, is it impossible for them to think something which stated he was not God was an addition made by heretical people? I mean as Muslims we don't believe the "Jesus is God" narrative came from corruption of the transmission of the bible, we attribute it to Paul-- and I don't to this day understand why people take Paul as an authority in Christianity. Maybe someone could give me any kind of theological basis for that.

I agree that Jesus does not come out and say that I am God, but he also does not come out and say I am not God. In the Old Testament prophecies, the messiah was to come into the world. Who exactly were the Jews anticipating to come and save them?

I believe Jesus was the Messiah. That doesn't make him God. And saying he didn't say he was NOT God is an odd explanation... the burden of proof is upon those who make the claim he was God so I'm merely saying show me where Jesus explained any of this.

All of these things that you say about the Qur’an while they may be true; do these things make the Qur’an true?

No proof given for any religion can be undeniable, instead we rationalize religions via inductive argumentation. So if I can build a strong inductive argument for the Qur'an and the religion of Islam, it logically follows it is true, especially when naturalistic explanations are exhausted.

Are you basing your debates on how the bible relates to bible? Or are you looking at the Bible through the lens of what the Qur'an says and then bringing those presuppositions to the bible?

It would be hard to answer this without appearing bias which I am. However I contend that if you took someone who was a blank slate, never knew a thing about Christianity, Judaism, or Islam, and gave them the Gospels to read, they would clearly differentiate between the Father, and the Son, as different entities. The reasons are obvious, he never said he was God, he also never taught of a triune nature, he appeared to have limitations EXCEPT from what God allowed him to do, like miracles, and logic would entail that one cannot be human and God at the same time, because thats to limit [as a human] something with no limits [God] at the same time. That would mean Jesus does not have the nature of God which is immutable therefore he is not God.

To say he's the word, the spirit of God, etc, this there's no major problem with because God spoke through him, God did things through Jesus.