Islam & Christianity FAQ

[Murad]

Here are some FAQ from Christians.
(I will be quoting some of my older posts & websites)
The aim of this post is not to start a debate; but to give the muslim perspective regarding Christendom.


1. How can you prove the Bible is corrupted?
There is confusion not only within non-muslims; but also muslims that think the Quran sees the Bible as a "partial" revelation; and that it was corrupted over time.
[1]It is a misconception that Muslims believe the Bible ‘became’ corrupted. Nor does the Muslim believe the Torah and Gospel are corrupt. These revelations of God that existed prior to any so called inscription were pure. On the contrary, we don’t take the stance that the New Testament eventually was fabricated, even though it is possible and probable that it did deteriorate from its original also, rather, it is more adequate to say that the New Testament upon its very and initial inscription by Luke, by Matthew, by John, and by Paul, etc. was tainted by the hearsay, perceptions, beliefs, opinions, and interpretations of the author. Therefore, erroneous of preservation, the New Testament writings were always fabricated from the very initial inscription. The “Gospels According To� are not the words of God – they are the perceptions of men.

“And We had Jesus, son of Mary, follow them (the Prophets), and We gave to him the Gospel.� (Quran 57:27)

2. Do Muslims believe in the Trinity & the Divine Sonship of Jesus Christ?
No.
Muslims believe in the absolute perfectness and oneness of God. He is a Supreme Being free of human limitations, needs and wants. He has no partners in His Divinity. He is the Creator of everything and is completely separate from His creation.
God directly talks about the Trinity in the Quran:

"People of the Book (Jews and Christians)! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, and attribute to God nothing except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only a Messenger of God, and His command that He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and in His Messengers, and do not say: ‘God is a Trinity.' Give up this assertion; it would be better for you. God is indeed just One God. Far be it from His glory that He should have a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth. God is sufficient for a guardian" (Quran 4:171).

3. What do muslims think about Jesus Christ?
Nabi Isa(Jesus) is considered to be a Messenger of God & the one and only 'Messiah' (the anointed one" i.e. by means of blessings) who was sent to guide the People of Israel (bani isra'il) with a new scripture, the Injil or Gospel.[2]
He is seen as one of the greatest Prophets in Islam, and we believe his messege was to reinforce the Laws of Moses & to remind the people to believe in One God. And thus he was given the ability to perform miracles to show his prophethood.
To show how special Islam see's Jesus i will quote a hadith:

“When any human being is born. Satan touches him at both sides of the body with his two fingers, except Jesus, the son of Mary, whom Satan tried to touch but failed, for he touched the placenta-cover instead.�
—Bukhari, Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:54:506

Although there is no such thing as "Original Sin" in Islam & that every baby is born innocent and sinless; this hadith shows the uniqueness of Jesus.


4. Do muslims believe in the Resurrection & Atonement of Jesus Christ?
No.
We all agree that nobody saw the moment he was resurrected. They found the sepulchre where Jesus was laid down, empty and made the conclusion that he was resurrected because the disciples and other witnesses saw him alive after the alleged crucifiction.

When Pharisees asked Jesus for a sign of his true mission he answered:

(Matthew 12:40) "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whales belly, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Disregard now the time factor, which was also not three days and three nights but one day (Saturday) and two nights (Friday and Saturday)
Was Jonas alive in the belly of the whale?
If Jonas was alive, then Jesus was still alive as he prophesied.

The Quran claims, that he did not die on the cross in the first place:

“That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of God";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- Nay, God raised him up unto the himself; and God is Exalted in Power, Wise.�[Qur'an 4:157–158]

Similar to Judaism; the doctrine of "Original Sin" does not exist in Islam. It is a Christian man made doctrine; we dont believe the death of one person can atone for every human being; the only way to salvation is "sincere repentance"

"O my Servants who have transgressed against their souls! Despair not of the Mercy of God: for God forgives all sins: for He is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
[Quran- 39:53]

5. Do muslims believe in the Second Comming of Jesus?
Absolutely.

“And (Jesus) shall be a Sign (for the coming of) the Hour (of Judgment): therefore have no doubt about the (Hour), but follow ye Me: this is a Straight Way.�[Qur'an 43:61]

Also in a hadith:
Sahih Bukhari Volume 3, Book 43, Number 656: Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle(Muhammad) said: "The Hour(of Judgement) will not be established until the son of Mary (i.e. Jesus) descends amongst you as a just ruler.....

6. What does the Quran say about Christians?

"Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians -- whoever believes in God and the Last Day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord. And there will be no fear for them, nor shall they grieve" (2:62, 5:69, and many other verses).

"...and nearest among them in love to the believers(muslims) will you find those who say, 'We are Christians,' because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant" (5:82).

"O you who believe! Be helpers of God -- as Jesus the son of Mary said to the Disciples, 'Who will be my helpers in (the work of) God?' Said the disciples, 'We are God's helpers!' Then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved. But We gave power to those who believed, against their enemies, and they became the ones that prevailed" (61:14).

As you can see from 5:8, the Quran sees some Christians to be righteous people dedicated to learning. Contrary to the popular Christian opinion that Islam is from the devil; we dont share that exact opinion about Christianity.
We see most Christians as righteous people but we dont believe Christianity to be the absolute truth & we certainly don't believe in a trinitarian belief:

"The Jews call 'Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is but a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. God's curse be on them; how they are deluded away from the Truth! They take their priests and their anchorites to be their lords in derogation of God, and (they take as their Lord) Christ the son of Mary. Yet they were commanded to worship but One God: there is no god but He. Praise and glory to Him! (Far is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him)" (9:30-31).

Sources:
[1]http://defendingislam.com/domuslims.htm
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam

[Joshua Patrick]

Hello Murad, It's good to get an overview on Islam.

I've been recently debating two of my good Muslim friends, who went to my Catholic school. Were talking about the ressurection of Jesus and his crucifixion.

4. Do muslims believe in the Resurrection & Atonement of Jesus Christ?
No.
We all agree that nobody saw the moment he was resurrected. They found the sepulchre where Jesus was laid down, empty and made the conclusion that he was resurrected because the disciples and other witnesses saw him alive after the alleged crucifiction.

The word "crucifiction" - icwotudid

If you like reading, Im going through some books myself on this subject of ressurection.

The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Gary R. Habermas, Michael R. Licona
Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence
Did the Resurrection Happen?: A Conversation with Gary Habermas and Antony Flew (Veritas Forum Books)
Trusting the New Testament James Patrick Holding
The Resurrection of the Son of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God, Vol. 3) N. T. Wright
The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable? F. F. Bruce
Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament Frederick Fyvie Bruce
The Historical Reliability of the Gospels Craig L. Blomberg
The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ Gary R. Habermas

You might find the evidence overwhelming.

[Murad]

You might find the evidence overwhelming.

I probably wont get the pleasure of reading all those books, but those books most likely attempt "increase the probability" of the assumption that Jesus was resurrected.
There is no 'overwhelming evidence'; there are no eye witnesses to the resurrection; the disciples and other people that saw Jesus alive after the alleged crucifiction and thus the myth that he was 'resurrected' was created.
Religious Philosophers then created doctrines such as 'Atonement' etc...

A quote from my other post:

Foreign Gospels, written by unknown men at unknown places, in a foreign tongue, several generations after the death of those who are supposed to have known the facts; such is the evidence relied upon to prove the religion of Christianity.

[Joshua Patrick]

I probably wont get the pleasure of reading all those books, but those books most likely attempt "increase the probability" of the assumption that Jesus was resurrected.
There is no 'overwhelming evidence'; there are no eye witnesses to the resurrection; the disciples and other people that saw Jesus alive after the alleged crucifiction and thus the myth that he was 'resurrected' was created.
Religious Philosophers then created doctrines such as 'Atonement' etc...

Not so true, I think the rise of Christianity gave testimony to Jesus' ressurection.
People did see the risen Christ. I think some of the books I referenced answer some of these questions.

Another early source mentioning the Passion of Christ is the notice Flavius Josephus gave in JEWISH ANTIQUITIES 18.3.3. sub sub sections 63-64:

"At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was the Messiah [some believe this part is a later Christian interpolation]. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out."

The "Testimonium Flavianum" is among the most violently debated passages of the writings of Flavius Josephus (AD 37-100). The point I wish to stress is that the ANTIQUITIES, appearing as they did circa AD 93-94, is one of the earliest non Biblical sources to mention the DEATH of Jesus. And that Jesus was executed due to the hostility of the Jewish leaders and with the assent and assistance of Pilate.

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a42.htm

A quote from my other post:
Quote:

Foreign Gospels, written by unknown men at unknown places, in a foreign tongue, several generations after the death of those who are supposed to have known the facts; such is the evidence relied upon to prove the religion of Christianity

.

Can you support this, all 4 gospels were written by people who were the students of the Apostles, or in contact with Jesus.

To say the above statement is pretty much a wild accusation based upon no factual evidence. All four Gospels were linked with the Apostles.


The Gospel of St.Matthew was written by the Apostle Matthew, which was translated into Greek. The Original was in Hebrew/Aramaic, but was lost. But STILL reliable, we know this from early church writings.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm


Gospel of Mark;

All early tradition connects the Second Gospel with two names, those of St. Mark and St. Peter, Mark being held to have written what Peter had preached. We have just seen that this was the view of Papias and the elder to whom he refers. Papias wrote not later than about A.D. 130, so that the testimony of the elder probably brings us back to the first century, and shows the Second Gospel known in Asia Minor and attributed to St. Mark at that early time. So Irenæus says: "Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself also handed down to us in writing what was preached by Peter" (Against Heresies III.1 and III.10.6)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm


Gospel of Luke;
* The author of Acts was a companion of Saint Paul, namely, Saint Luke; and
* the author of Acts was the author of the Gospel.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm

Gospel of John;

This was written by The Beloved Apostle John. Who also wrote the book of revelation.

Apostle John was the author of the Fourth Gospel. Equally clear is the testimony of Origen (d. 254). He knew from the tradition of the Church that John was the last of the Evangelists to compose his Gospel (Eusebius, Church History VI.25.6), and at least a great portion of his commentary on the Gospel of St. John, in which he everywhere makes clear his conviction of the Apostolic origin of the work has come down to us. Origen's teacher, Clement of Alexandria (d. before 215-6), relates as "the tradition of the old presbyters", that the Apostle John, the last of the Evangelists, "filled with the Holy Ghost, had written a spiritual Gospel" (Eusebius, op. cit., VI, xiv, 7).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08438a.htm


To say that the Gospels had been written generations after knows who have supposed the known the facts, seriously falls at the first hurdle. I suggest you read the links to the 4 Gospels I gave you.

[Murad]

Not so true, I think the rise of Christianity gave testimony to Jesus' ressurection.

I doubt its true testimony; ask yourself; just because Jesus was seen alive; is it adequate evidence to conclude that he was resurrected?
If people witnessed the resurrection taking place; then that could be considered 'evidence'

People did see the risen Christ.

1) Do you have verifable, clear-cut evidence he died in the first place?
The Gospel describing some events seem very fake.
If Jesus died on the cross, his blood would clot and no blood would gush out of his body when his side was pierced.
But the Gospel states that blood and water came out:

(John 19:34) "But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water"

I think some of the books I referenced answer some of these questions.

Another early source mentioning the Passion of Christ is the notice Flavius Josephus gave in JEWISH ANTIQUITIES 18.3.3. sub sub sections 63-64:

"At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one should call him a man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. He was the Messiah [some believe this part is a later Christian interpolation]. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. For he appeared to them on the third day, living again, just as the divine prophets had spoken of these and countless other wondrous things about him. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not died out."

The "Testimonium Flavianum" is among the most violently debated passages of the writings of Flavius Josephus (AD 37-100). The point I wish to stress is that the ANTIQUITIES, appearing as they did circa AD 93-94, is one of the earliest non Biblical sources to mention the DEATH of Jesus. And that Jesus was executed due to the hostility of the Jewish leaders and with the assent and assistance of Pilate.

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a42.htm

I have to admit; i dont have much knowledge about this topic; and i'll look into it.

A quote from my other post:


Foreign Gospels, written by unknown men at unknown places, in a foreign tongue, several generations after the death of those who are supposed to have known the facts; such is the evidence relied upon to prove the religion of Christianity

.

Can you support this, all 4 gospels were written by people who were the students of the Apostles, or in contact with Jesus.

That is a false statement.
Like the Resurrection & Trinity(which are both assumed); the authorship of the Gospels are also assumed; and Christian Scholars attempt to give a hypothesis with the evidence that they have.
Unlike the writings of Paul which can be verified to be written by him; the Gospels are shrouded in mystery; the fact remains; the authorship of the canonical gospels are anonymous; the fact also remains; it is unknown what time they were written(sure Christian Scholars give opinions); and it is also not known where they were written or why they were written exclusively in Greek when Aramaic was considered the primary language.


Joshua; the way you present your arguement makes it seem that there is verifable evidence; and that the Gospels were proved to be written by the Disciples. This is false and wishful thinking; all Christian Scholars can provide is 'evidence' that increases the likeliness of a certain disciple in having written a certain Gospel. The fact remains; the authors of the Gospels are unkown.

[Joshua Patrick]

I doubt its true testimony; ask yourself; just because Jesus was seen alive; is it adequate evidence to conclude that he was resurrected?
If people witnessed the resurrection taking place; then that could be considered 'evidence

People witnessed his death and then he rised. Clear cut evidence, the start of Christianity began. The Apostles witnessed this and clearly preached this, is they testimony a lie?

1) Do you have verifable, clear-cut evidence he died in the first place?

The Gospels and the earliest writings of Flavius Josephus. Aswell as the Rise of Christianity that was based upon him dying and rising. Aswell as the Apostles. Substantial amount of evidence, also some of the books I referenced you is a good place to start.

Do you have clear-cut evidence that he did not die apart from Muhammad' who came 600 years later?

The Gospel describing some events seem very fake.
If Jesus died on the cross, his blood would clot and no blood would gush out of his body when his side was pierced.

This is possible, let me explain, The Roman flogging or scourging that Jesus endured prior to being crucified. Those who were flogged would often go into hypovolemic shock, a term that refers to low blood volume. In other words, the person would have lost so much blood he would go into shock. The results of this would be

1) The heart would race to pump blood that was not there.

2) The victim would collapse or faint due to low blood pressure.

3) The kidneys would shut down to preserve body fluids.

4) The person would experience extreme thirst as the body desired to replenish lost fluids.

There is evidence from Scripture that Jesus experienced hypovolemic shock as a result of being flogged. As Jesus carried His own cross to Golgotha (John 19:17), He collapsed, and a man named Simon was forced to either carry the cross or help Jesus carry the cross the rest of way to the hill (Matthew 27:32–33; Mark 15:21–22; Luke 23:26). This collapse indicates Jesus had low blood pressure. Another indicator that Jesus suffered from hypovolemic shock was that He declared He was thirsty as He hung on the cross (John 19:28), indicating His body’s desire to replenish fluids.

Prior to death, the sustained rapid heartbeat caused by hypovolemic shock also causes fluid to gather in the sack around the heart and around the lungs. This gathering of fluid in the membrane around the heart is called pericardial effusion, and the fluid gathering around the lungs is called pleural effusion. This explains why, after Jesus died and a Roman soldier thrust a spear through Jesus’ side (probably His right side, piercing both the lungs and the heart), blood and water came from His side just as John recorded in his Gospel (John 19:34).

Recommended Resource: Jesus: The Greatest Life of All by Charles Swindoll.

Joshua; the way you present your arguement makes it seem that there is verifable evidence; and that the Gospels were proved to be written by the Disciples. This is false and wishful thinking; all Christian Scholars can provide is 'evidence' that increases the likeliness of a certain disciple in having written a
certain Gospel. The fact remains; the authors of the Gospels are unkown.

Guessing you did not read my links I gave you.

Can you provide evidence that the author of the Gospels are unknown even when so many early Christian writings confirm the author of the Gospels?

I'll make it more clear for you who wrote which Gospel.

Gospel of Matthew; (St.Matthew was an Apostle)

St. Matthew wrote a Gospel in Hebrew; this Hebrew Gospel has, however, entirely disappeared, and the Gospel which we have, and from which ecclesiastical writers borrow quotations as coming from the Gospel of Matthew, is in Greek.

How do we know this?

Eusebius (Church History III.39.16), Papias said that Matthew collected (synetaxato; or, according to two manuscripts, synegraphato, composed) ta logia (the oracles or maxims of Jesus) in the Hebrew (Aramaic) language, and that each one translated them as best he could.

This is also the only Gospel quoted by St.Ignatius of Antioch (A student of the Apostle John) in his letters written around 108 AD.


Gospel of Mark

All early tradition connects the Second Gospel with two names, those of St. Mark and St. Peter, Mark being held to have written what Peter had preached. St.Mark was a student of the 1st Pope St.Peter.

Gospel of Luke:

* The author of Acts was a companion of Saint Paul, namely, Saint Luke; and
* the author of Acts was the author of the Gospel.


Gospel of John

Written by the Apostle John himself. This is non-debatable, I don't even think Scholars disagree on this.

So;

Gospel of Matthew: Translation from the original hebrew text written by the Apostle himself, into Greek.

Gospel of Mark: Written by the St.Mark a student of the Apostle Peter, the head of the apostles and the church.

Gospel of Luke: Written by the student of St.Paul.

Gospel of John : Written by the Apostle John.


But seriously read the links I gave before I think it lays the evidence out clear enough.

[Murad]

People witnessed his death

Do you have non-biblical proof(verifable) to back this assumption?

The Gospels and the earliest writings of Flavius Josephus. Aswell as the Rise of Christianity that was based upon him dying and rising.

So basically you have 4 unverifable texts written by unknown people at unknown times; and 1 text that is debated whether authentic.
Is this the evidence you provide to prove your assumption?

Substantial amount of evidence, also some of the books I referenced you is a good place to start.

There are alot of books written by different people with different perceptions; i never restrict myself to strictly islamic texts; or strictly christian texts.
So how do you expect me to view the works of a Christian Scholar to be unbiased?

Do you have clear-cut evidence that he did not die apart from Muhammad' who came 600 years later?

This reminds me of an athiest joke:
"God exists"
'Ok prove it'
"You cant prove he doesn't exist"

Your position is because Christianity did emerge; Jesus must've died and been resurrected.
Lets say im neautral; you still havn't provided any verifable evidence that Jesus died.

This is possible, let me explain, The Roman flogging or scourging that Jesus endured prior to being crucified. Those who were flogged would often go into hypovolemic shock, a term that refers to low blood volume. In other words, the person would have lost so much blood he would go into shock. The results of this would be


2) The victim would collapse or faint due to low blood pressure.

2 is the only bodily response that fits the event.
But; are you suggesting no other bodily responses(such as twitching; moving & even regaining conciousness) will be apparent when being stabbed by a spear?(conscious or not)

Prior to death, the sustained rapid heartbeat caused by hypovolemic shock also causes fluid to gather in the sack around the heart and around the lungs. This gathering of fluid in the membrane around the heart is called pericardial effusion, and the fluid gathering around the lungs is called pleural effusion. This explains why, after Jesus died and a Roman soldier thrust a spear through Jesus’ side (probably His right side, piercing both the lungs and the heart), blood and water came from His side just as John recorded in his Gospel (John 19:34).

Logical & possible; but never forget blood clots really fast; hypovolemic shock doesn't explain the blood rushing out; only the fluid.

Can you provide evidence that the author of the Gospels are unknown even when so many early Christian writings confirm the author of the Gospels?

Here i'll quote from a pro-christian author:

* Gospel of Matthew - The strongest evidence attesting to Matthew’s authorship is the fact that four ancient sources (Papias of Asia Minor, Irenaeus of Gaul, Pantaenus, and Origen of Alexandria and Caesarea) specifically attribute the Gospel of Matthew to Matthew, the disciple of Jesus.
* Gospel of Mark - Early church figures, including Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Jerome of Palestine all attribute Mark's Gospel to Mark. There's little reason to believe the early church would falsely attribute this Gospel to Mark, who was a second-tier church figure at best.
* Gospel of Luke - Evidence associating Luke with his Gospel (as well as the book of Acts) includes the Muratorian Canon (c. A.D. 180-200) as well as the writings of Irenaeus, Clement, and famed early church historian Eusebius.
* Gospel of John - The evidence is thinner for John than the others, but Irenaeus and Polycarp (according to Eusebius) both attribute the fourth Gospel to John.

As you can see, for the Gospel of Matthew; his 'strongest' evidence are 5 Christian sources written by Christian authors; that simply attribute the Gospel of Matthew to Matthew; we dont know how they came up with that conclusion; we also dont know whether it was their subjective opinions rather than fact.

For the Gospel of Mark he has absolutely no real evidence. His best assumption is: There's little reason to believe the early church would falsely attribute this Gospel to Mark, who was a second-tier church figure at best.

For the Gospel of Luke; the author refers to Paul as his evidence(Acts); and refers to the Muratorian Canon which is absolutely unverifable because its in pieces; the beginning is missing and it ends suddenly.

For the Gospel of John; he admits there is no evidence. And his strongest reason to believe it was written by John is because scholars Irenaeus and Polycarp say so. He has not provided any evidence how Irenaeus and Polycarp came with that conclusion.

I'll make it more clear for you who wrote which Gospel.

Thank you.

Gospel of Matthew; (St.Matthew was an Apostle)

St. Matthew wrote a Gospel in Hebrew; this Hebrew Gospel has, however, entirely disappeared, and the Gospel which we have, and from which ecclesiastical writers borrow quotations as coming from the Gospel of Matthew, is in Greek.

How do we know this?

Eusebius (Church History III.39.16), Papias said that Matthew collected (synetaxato; or, according to two manuscripts, synegraphato, composed) ta logia (the oracles or maxims of Jesus) in the Hebrew (Aramaic) language, and that each one translated them as best he could.

This is also the only Gospel quoted by St.Ignatius of Antioch (A student of the Apostle John) in his letters written around 108 AD.

This again reinforces my earlier post:

all Christian Scholars can provide is 'evidence' that increases the likeliness of a certain disciple in having written a certain Gospel

Gospel of Mark

All early tradition connects the Second Gospel with two names, those of St. Mark and St. Peter, Mark being held to have written what Peter had preached. St.Mark was a student of the 1st Pope St.Peter.

So you have no evidence besides assumption and blindly relying on tradition?
Why cant you just be honest and conclude you have no evidence?

Gospel of Luke:

* The author of Acts was a companion of Saint Paul, namely, Saint Luke; and
* the author of Acts was the author of the Gospel.

Yes i know; this is the primary belief that it was written by Luke.
Is this enough evidence to give an absolute answer? No.

Gospel of John

Written by the Apostle John himself. This is non-debatable, I don't even think Scholars disagree on this.

No, on the contrary the Gospel of John is the least authentic Gospel; for the other 3 Gospels we can atleast make a 'good' "assumption"

The internal evidence against the authenticity of the Fourth Gospel is conclusive. The Apostle John did not write it. John, the apostle, was a Jew; the author of the Fourth Gospel was not a Jew. John was born at Bethsaida; the author of the Fourth Gospel did not know where Bethsaida was located. John was an uneducated fisherman; the author of this Gospel was an accomplished scholar. Some of the most important events in the life of Jesus, the Synoptics declare, were witnessed by John; the author of this knows nothing of these events. The Apostle John witnessed the crucifixion; the author of this Gospel did not. The Apostles, including John, believed Jesus to be a man; the author of the Fourth Gospel believed him to be a god.

Regarding the authorship of the Fourth Gospel, Dr. Davidson says: "The Johannine authorship has receded before the tide of modern criticism, and though this tide is arbitrary at times, it is here irresistible" (Canon of the Bible, p. 127).

So;

Gospel of Matthew: Translation from the original hebrew text written by the Apostle himself, into Greek.

Gospel of Mark: Written by the St.Mark a student of the Apostle Peter, the head of the apostles and the church.

Gospel of Luke: Written by the student of St.Paul.

Gospel of John : Written by the Apostle John.


But seriously read the links I gave before I think it lays the evidence out clear enough.

Very, very bad evidence you have provided.
* Biased (Pro Christian)
* Assumption; blindly believing in what other Scholars thought

Also you provided no proof to justify the beliefs or statements of 'Eusebius'; thus you blindly follow tradition

I conclude; the authenticity of the 4 canonical gospels are very weak.
All we can do is give a somewhat "Hypothesis"; and not an absolute answer.
Thus they were written by Unknown Authors.

[Joshua Patrick]

So I'm guessing you did not read the links I gave you.
If you read them it lays the evidence out to the 4 Gospels, pretty well.

Logical & possible; but never forget blood clots really fast; hypovolemic shock doesn't explain the blood rushing out; only the fluid.

Need a lesson on what blood is, we'll keep it simple from Wiki:" Blood is a specialized bodily fluid that delivers necessary substances to the body's cells"

Here i'll quote from a pro-christian author:

Who?

So you have no evidence besides assumption and blindly relying on tradition?
Why cant you just be honest and conclude you have no evidence?

The law of evidence governs the use of testimony (e.g., oral[Tradition] or written statements, such as an affidavit) and exhibits (e.g., physical objects) or other documentary material which is admissible (i.e., allowed to be considered by the trier of fact, such as jury) in a judicial or administrative.

Again from my best friend Wiki!


Want to define what evidence is for me?

If your wanting clear cut evidence, like a video I don't think Holywood was around back then. But I believe writings were, like Flavius Josephus, The Apostles writings. Oral Tradition.

Btw the Jewish historian Josephus, writing for the Roman government in the 70's A.D. are authentic.




Only thing your doing is replying with rhetorical questions to get out of the dilemma that you cannot prove the Gospels were written by the authors I've provided, but as you stated yourself "Why cant you just be honest and conclude you have no evidence?"

So I'll ask you again, and I only want you to reply to this question and no other;

What evidence have you got, apart from Muhammad, that proves what you said in your second post;

Foreign Gospels, written by unknown men at unknown places, in a foreign tongue, several generations after the death of those who are supposed to have known the facts; such is the evidence relied upon to prove the religion of Christianity.

Also do you believe the evidence of the Christian viewpoint outweights the Islamic viewpoint?

[Murad]

So I'm guessing you did not read the links I gave you.
If you read them it lays the evidence out to the 4 Gospels, pretty well.

Ofcourse i read them; they outline what i already know; except the authors subjective opinion seems to exaggerate the likeliness of the authorship.

Need a lesson on what blood is, we'll keep it simple from Wiki:" Blood is a specialized bodily fluid that delivers necessary substances to the body's cells"

Yes i know blood is a fluid -_-; but not an ordinary fluid; the platelets clot and sticken really fast.
Although i see hypovolemic shock as being very unlikely for the cause of blood&water gushing out; its a possibility; and i'll give it to you.

Who?

Brian Tubbs

The law of evidence governs the use of testimony (e.g., oral[Tradition] or written statements, such as an affidavit) and exhibits (e.g., physical objects) or other documentary material which is admissible (i.e., allowed to be considered by the trier of fact, such as jury) in a judicial or administrative.

Again from my best friend Wiki!


Want to define what evidence is for me?

No i actually think wiki defined it pretty well:
"documentary material which is admissible"

If your wanting clear cut evidence, like a video I don't think Holywood was around back then. But I believe writings were, like Flavius Josephus, The Apostles writings. Oral Tradition.

Nah, im not that close minded....
The evidence you provided are the subjective opinions of early Christian Scholars; and you didn't show how they came with that conclusion.
The authenticity of your sources are gravely questionable.

Only thing your doing is replying with rhetorical questions to get out of the dilemma that you cannot prove the Gospels were written by the authors I've provided

Its all logic.... really...
If you cant prove(beyond reasonable doubt & not just subjective opinions of other people) that the Gospels were written by the authors you claim; then thats a single reason for me to doubt.
But i also provided reasons:

The Apostle John did not write it. John, the apostle, was a Jew; the author of the Fourth Gospel was not a Jew. John was born at Bethsaida; the author of the Fourth Gospel did not know where Bethsaida was located. John was an uneducated fisherman; the author of this Gospel was an accomplished scholar. Some of the most important events in the life of Jesus, the Synoptics declare, were witnessed by John; the author of this knows nothing of these events. The Apostle John witnessed the crucifixion; the author of this Gospel did not. The Apostles, including John, believed Jesus to be a man; the author of the Fourth Gospel believed him to be a god.

Also check out my old thread:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=14527

So I'll ask you again, and I only want you to reply to this question and no other;

What evidence have you got, apart from Muhammad, that proves what you said in your second post;

Foreign Gospels, written by unknown men at unknown places, in a foreign tongue, several generations after the death of those who are supposed to have known the facts; such is the evidence relied upon to prove the religion of Christianity.

Everyone probably knows that the first written records of Jesus’ life appear several decades after he would have died. Not everyone seems to understand what the implications of this are. Given such a long time span during which nothing more than oral transmission would have existed, just how reliable can we count on the gospels being? In any other context, people wouldn’t trust them much.
To prove how reliable your Gospels are:

Perhaps the most striking thing about these dates for the historian is the long interval between Jesus’ death and the earliest accounts of his life. Our first written narratives of Jesus appear to date from thirty-five to sixty-five years after the fact. Thirty-five to sixty-five years. This perhaps does not seem like a long time; after all, these books and Jesus all come from the first century.

But think about it in modern terms. For the shortest interval, this would be like having the first written record of John F. Kennedy’s presidency appear today, thirty-five years after the fact (the gap between Jesus and Mark). Imagine having no other written records — for example, no newspaper or magazine articles to go on, but simply oral traditions! For the longest interval, between Jesus and John, it would be like having stories of a famous preacher from the height of the Great Depression, say 1935, show in print for the first time this week.
In Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, Bart D. Ehrman

Here is your best friend wiki doing my talking:

Strictly speaking, each gospel (and Acts) is anonymous.
Source:
Harris, Stephen L., Understanding the Bible. Palo Alto: Mayfield. 1985.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authors_of ... _Testament

Further on it says:

The traditional view, that the Gospel of Luke and Acts of the Apostles was written by Luke the Evangelist, is widely held by many scholars though the area continues to be one of debate.

So as you can see; it is believed(best hypothesis) by Christian Scholars regarding the authorship of the Gospels because of "traditional view".
But there is absolutely no evidence that settles it; and gives 100% proof. Thus as wikipedia states "the area continues to be one of debate"
And thus; its impossible to prove who wrote the Gospels with the evidence we currently have.
And thus i conclude again:
1) The Gospels were written by anonymous authors
2) At anonymous places
3) At anonymous times(yes estimates are given)
4) For some reason exclusively in Greek

Also do you believe the evidence of the Christian viewpoint outweights the Islamic viewpoint?

Subjective opinions of Christian Scholars?
Unverifable Texts?


It is Christians that are making their sources "authentic".
We muslims rate our hadiths in "authenticity"; and we still doubt some texts in our most authentic hadiths.

[Joshua Patrick]

So we have a different view point on how authentic the Gospels are, you claim them to be anomyous authors, while I believe the evidence scholars provide is enough for me.

Matters not, The Catholic Church was around way before the Gospels were written, the church itself carries the testimony of Christ.

Out of curiosity, do you believe any of the gospels authors were in contact with the Apostles?

Or do you also believe the Apostles to drifted away from the teachings of Christ?