Islam Bible v Quran

[Limo]

I said from the beginning that the Quran only refers to one supposed text called the Gospel which obviously discounts the Quran referring to our synoptics.

Quran refers to "Injeel" not Gospel. It's totally different. Injeel is a book revealed to prophet Al-Maseeh. It's like Torah to Mosa and Quran to Mohamed and Papers to Ibrahim.

I would contend the notion that the writers are unknown. Much ink has been spilled over the issue but there is a case that can be made for the canonical authors. That's outside of the scope of this discussion. Though if you believe the Gospels were only accepted at the Council of Nicaea you have much learning to do. This is a myth and you can't find a single source to suggest that this is the case from Nicaea or from authors of the time. Fathers before, during and after the council referred to the four.

I didn't say Gospels are only accepted by Nicaea.
I say Nicea approved only these books and decreed to burn, burn, destroy, mark as Apocrypha hundreds of books. A few has been discovered.
Nevertheless, there is no complete acceptance and agreement by different Churches even the main ones Catholic, Orthodox,,,

Now if you want to suggest Q as the document the Quran is speaking about, you still have the problem that the Quran tells Christians to judge by their own Gospel. Q, even if it did exist, faded out of existence by the time of Muhammad and the Christian canon was more or less fully shaped. The Gospels were undisputed within the Church and were our sources. So what is the Quran telling Christians during the time of Muhammad to judge by? It can't be our Gospels, they contradict the Quran. Yet there isn't any other text the Christians judged by as an authoritative source.

I suggest nothing.
These Christian researchers reached a scientific theory that is compliant with Quran.
"These books are not genuine, it's copied from each other and properly there is one source.

Quran assures it as a fact that there is one book "Injeel" is disappeared.

This to me is the problem and it suggests to me the author of the Quran was ignorant and didn't know what he was talking about. Which makes sense given the backwater context it arose out of.

No one knows when the original book disappeared ?
Also, the Injeel didn't disappear completely or totally. Even in the Gospels, I myself see some that can be considered true Injeel.
You should notice that we know a few about Arabic Peninsula Christians, their history, books, believe,,

 

[Barney2.0]

One source

View attachment 251237
4 sources
View attachment 251238

Very good question.
First Quran doesn't refer to Gospel(s) of Luke, Mathew, John, and Mark in addition to letters.
Quran refers to Ingeel which is a book inspired to the prophet Al-Maseeh not your Jesus.

Second, These books Gospel(s) are not connected to Al-Maseeh at all. Even you believe it's not, it's a creation (inspiration) to the writers. Even the writers of 4 Gospels are unknown.

It's know to your scholars that there were hundreds of Gospels but only 4 were accepted by Council of Nicaea.

Modern studies by christian scholars and researchers Textual criticism reached to a concrete conclusion that there were books. Nevertheless the 4 Gospels have copied from each other and from other books till we reach one book.

I like the theory of Multi‑source, or 4-sources This is Christian findings not Muslems. You see there were One unique book... disappeared... not by Moslems
Alsos, summary of many theories about how these books written

The fact the Quran makes refference to an injil is evidence that its not from God. Injil first of all is a Greek word ( εὐαγγέλιον, pronounced euangélion). And since Jesus was sent only to his people according to the Quran then why send him a book with a Greek title, as the Quran says.

And We did not send any messenger except [speaking] in the language of his people to state clearly for them, and Allah sends astray [thereby] whom He wills and guides whom He wills. And He is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.

Ibrahim 14:4

So either Jesus was sent to more people then just his own people and that means the Quran contradicts itself or we accept that the authors of the Quran copied words from their respective places without knowing their meaning or origin. Either way you have a massive error in the Quran. Gospel of Injil in arabic is nor a book, it is the literal message of Jesus Christ that is what inspired the four writers to write their experiences with Jesus and outline his message. The council of Nicaea didn't deal with canon and unless you can bring a statement from the council in which the four Gospels were chosen from many Gospels then I'd suggest you drop your claim.

Furthermore, there is no compelling evidence that the first manuscripts of the Gospels did lack attribution to their traditional authors. There are no manuscripts that simply lack titles (as lay critics might imagine). Academic critics, on the other hand, say the variants in the titles of those early manuscripts prove the author’s names were added at a much later date. In addition to the earliest manuscripts, early church tradition also names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as the authors of the gospels. The earliest witness to all four gospel authors is Irenaeus. Around AD 180, he wrote,

“MATTHEW ALSO ISSUED A WRITTEN GOSPEL AMONG THE HEBREWS IN THEIR OWN DIALECT, WHILE PETER AND PAUL WERE PREACHING AT ROME, AND LAYING THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE CHURCH. AFTER THEIR DEPARTURE, MARK, THE DISCIPLE AND INTERPRETER OF PETER, DID ALSO HAND DOWN TO US IN WRITING WHAT HAD BEEN PREACHED BY PETER. LUKE ALSO, THE COMPANION OF PAUL, RECORDED IN A BOOK THE GOSPEL PREACHED BY HIM. AFTERWARDS, JOHN, THE DISCIPLE OF THE LORD, WHO ALSO HAD LEANED UPON HIS BREAST, DID HIMSELF PUBLISH A GOSPEL DURING HIS RESIDENCE AT EPHESUS IN ASIA” (AGAINST HERESIES 3.1.1).

Hengel a Biblical scholar and historian argues that “The unanimity of the attributions in the second century cannot be explained by anything other than the assumption that the titles were part of the works from the beginning. It is inconceivable, [Hengel] argues, that the gospels could circulate anonymously for up to sixty years, and then in the second century suddenly display unanimous attribution to certain authors. If they had originally been anonymous, then surely there would have been some variation in second-century attributions (as was the case with some of the second-century apocryphal gospels). Hengel concludes that the four canonical gospels were never even formally anonymous.”

Biblical scholar Brant Pitre aptly summarizes the issue: "According to the basic rules of textual criticism, then, if anything is original in the titles, it is the names of the authors. They are at least as original as any other part of the Gospels for which we have unanimous manuscript evidence."

 

[Barney2.0]

Quran refers to "Injeel" not Gospel. It's totally different. Injeel is a book revealed to prophet Al-Maseeh. It's like Torah to Mosa and Quran to Mohamed and Papers to Ibrahim.


I didn't say Gospels are only accepted by Nicaea.
I say Nicea approved only these books and decreed to burn, burn, destroy, mark as Apocrypha hundreds of books. A few has been discovered.
Nevertheless, there is no complete acceptance and agreement by different Churches even the main ones Catholic, Orthodox,,,


I suggest nothing.
These Christian researchers reached a scientific theory that is compliant with Quran.
"These books are not genuine, it's copied from each other and properly there is one source.

Quran assures it as a fact that there is one book "Injeel" is disappeared.

No one knows when the original book disappeared ?
Also, the Injeel didn't disappear completely or totally. Even in the Gospels, I myself see some that can be considered true Injeel.
You should notice that we know a few about Arabic Peninsula Christians, their history, books, believe,,

Injil means Gospel in Arabic if you don't know. Show us were Nicaea dealt with the Biblical Canon instead of making claims. How can Jesus have a book sent in Greek if he was sent solely to Israel? The problem with the Islamic claim is that it relies on an assumption that some book existed and for some reason God let it get corrupted, however even Islamic scholarship admit that this can't be proven and is solely believed because the Quran said so. I'm an Arab Christian, our books are the same as any other Christian.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Quran refers to "Injeel" not Gospel. It's totally different. Injeel is a book revealed to prophet Al-Maseeh. It's like Torah to Mosa and Quran to Mohamed and Papers to Ibrahim.


I didn't say Gospels are only accepted by Nicaea.
I say Nicea approved only these books and decreed to burn, burn, destroy, mark as Apocrypha hundreds of books. A few has been discovered.
Nevertheless, there is no complete acceptance and agreement by different Churches even the main ones Catholic, Orthodox,,,


I suggest nothing.
These Christian researchers reached a scientific theory that is compliant with Quran.
"These books are not genuine, it's copied from each other and properly there is one source.

Quran assures it as a fact that there is one book "Injeel" is disappeared.

No one knows when the original book disappeared ?
Also, the Injeel didn't disappear completely or totally. Even in the Gospels, I myself see some that can be considered true Injeel.
You should notice that we know a few about Arabic Peninsula Christians, their history, books, believe,,

Injeel, Gospel, Evangelion, all mean 'good news'. I am using the English word which many Quranic translations use to describe the concept descibred in the Quran and our historic Gospels. This should not be a matter of contention.

Nicaea did no such thing and this a myth you really don't want to advocate. All you will do is look foolish in the end. Where in the materials associated with the council, the canons, Eusebius, Socrates Scholasticus, Athanasius and others, do we have any mention of the Gospels being formally selected and other sources burned? What do you do with pre-nicene sources like Ireneaus who mentions the four by name and their canonical status in the second century? There is complete universal acceptance on the four Gospels by all Chrisitans, Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental and Protestant. This is not an issue of contention and nor should you conflate disagreements over the canon with it.

Q is hardly a scientific theory. It is a source critical theory which seeks to explain the similarities we see in Mathew, Mark and Luke. The lack of any documented evidence of it's existence in either primary manuscript form or secondary manuscript form leads me to believe it didn't exist. Also when you refer to Critical new Testament Scholars as Christians I have to wonder if you know anything about the literature. I'm not the most read up on it, but they are hardly Christian.

Are you also suggesting the Gospel the Quran is talking about still exists and is with us to this day? Take in mind what the Quran says in 5:46-5:47, it tells Christians, in general to "judge therein". I mean, I suppose it could be ignoring the biggest block of Christians at the time being situated primarily in Europe, the Byzantine Empire, Egypt, North Africa and the like but that seems rather odd. Where are these so-called arab Christians who don't have the Four Gospels but the true Islamic Gospel? Where is it and why is the Quran telling Christians to judge by a book they don't believe in?

 

[Limo]

The fact the Quran makes refference to an injil is evidence that its not from God. Angel first of all is a Greek word ( εὐαγγέλιον, pronounced euangélion). And since Jesus was sent only to his people according to the Quran then why send him a book with a Greek title, as the Quran says.

Is what you're saying logical ?
What is the corelation between "Injeel" in Quran and "Angel" in Greek ?

 

[dzheremi]

I think that was a typo, because afterwards he uses the Greek term Evangelion.

 

[Barney2.0]

Is what you're saying logical ?
What is the corelation between "Injeel" in Quran and "Angel" in Greek ?

My mistake I meant to write Injil, but it auto corrects to Angel.

 

[Limo]

The fact the Quran makes refference to an injil is evidence that its not from God. Injil first of all is a Greek word ( εὐαγγέλιον, pronounced euangélion).

How do you connect the Arabic word "Injeel" to Greek word ( εὐαγγέλιον, pronounced euangélion) ?
Have you ever studied math or Arabic or Greek or even Logic ?

And since Jesus was sent only to his people according to the Quran then why send him a book with a Greek title, as the Quran says.

The most important question is for you and all Christians, Although Hebrew was Al-Maseeh worshiping and theological language as a Jew, Aramaic (or Syriac) was his day-to-day language....
Why there is no single manuscripts (2 CM * 2 CM) in Aramaic or Hebrew ?

Furthermore, there is no compelling evidence that the first manuscripts of the Gospels did lack attribution to their traditional authors. There are no manuscripts that simply lack titles (as lay critics might imagine). Academic critics, on the other hand, say the variants in the titles of those early manuscripts prove the author’s names were added at a much later date. In addition to the earliest manuscripts, early church tradition also names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as the authors of the gospels. The earliest witness to all four gospel authors is Irenaeus. Around AD 180, he wrote,....

First of all, many Christians scholars who are Christians till date see that John is completely written later and for sure not by one of the disciples.
It's a fact that the people at that era used to name their books by names of good people.
There is no single evidence whatsoever proofs that Mark's, Mathew's, Luk's Gospels are connected to disciples.
Hengel, Brant Pitre, and whoever are just believers but many Christians or nonbeliever scholars now believe that the synoptic Gospels can't be connected to disciples, and John is written later that all and Trinitarian did it.

 

[Limo]

Injil means Gospel in Arabic if you don't know.

Let us see who doesn't know Arabic.
تأدر تؤولى اسل كلمت إنجيل فى العربى

Show us were Nicaea dealt with the Biblical Canon instead of making claims.

Please search yourself as I've shared a lot. Any fair or well reader Christian knows that Nacia approved the 4 books and foreboded any other book.

How can Jesus have a book sent in Greek if he was sent solely to Israel?

This is a Golden Question.... You should have an answer. I'll give you 10,000 USD if you answer it logically and acceptable.
Why there is no single manuscript in Al-Maseeh's worshiping and Israeli's language Hebrew or street language Aramaic/Syriac ?
The answer of this question will answer the question about the authors of Gospels and Islamic fact that there is a book inspired to Al-Maeeh named as "Injeel" not Gospel

The problem with the Islamic claim is that it relies on an assumption that some book existed and for some reason God let it get corrupted, however even Islamic scholarship admit that this can't be proven and is solely believed because the Quran said so. I'm an Arab Christian, our books are the same as any other Christian.

Why you ignoring the facts ???
I accept you discuss the views but ignoring the facts is strange. The fact that even your scholars are talking about.
Do you know the scholar and monk Matta Al-Mskeen ?

The well known fact is that your books are not the same. It's never and will never.

In Arabic for example, there are Coptic books, Catholic books, Protestants books , Maroon books, Asuric/Syriac books. JW books,,,,,

Even Arabic books printed in Lebanon is different from Arabic books printed in Cairo. From number of Books, Chapters, and normally the translation.

Nevertheless, the same publisher in either Cairo or Lebanon changes the books every time they print it.

 

[Limo]

Injeel, Gospel, Evangelion, all mean 'good news'. I am using the English word which many Quranic translations use to describe the concept descibred in the Quran and our historic Gospels. This should not be a matter of contention.

You can talk about English, Hebrew, Latin,,,, That new testimony means "Good news" but not Arabic.
Tell my why your Arabic early Church fathers have chosen to use the Arabic name "Injeel" إنجيل in naming of New Testimony books ?
Why they didn't use the English, Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic, Even Coptic word of Gospel ?
They abandon all of these and chose the Quranic name of Al-Maseeh's book.
Another 10,000 USD for answering this question.

Nicaea did no such thing and this a myth you really don't want to advocate. All you will do is look foolish in the end. Where in the materials associated with the council, the canons, Eusebius, Socrates Scholasticus, Athanasius and others, do we have any mention of the Gospels being formally selected and other sources burned? What do you do with pre-nicene sources like Ireneaus who mentions the four by name and their canonical status in the second century? There is complete universal acceptance on the four Gospels by all Chrisitans, Catholic, Orthodox, Oriental and Protestant. This is not an issue of contention and nor should you conflate disagreements over the canon with it.

I advocate nothing. Bye the way all my readings and references are Western Christians. You know how these thoughts are totally opposing each other.
If you see whoever advocates the idea of Nicaea discussed/decreed a version canonical books then Jerome is one of the foolish
In Jerome's Prologue to Judith,he claims that the Book of Judith was "found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures", which some have suggested means the Nicene Council did discuss what documents would number among the sacred scriptures, but more likely simply means the Council used Judith in its deliberations on other matters and so it should be considered canonical.

This is from Jerome,

Q is hardly a scientific theory. It is a source critical theory which seeks to explain the similarities we see in Mathew, Mark and Luke. The lack of any documented evidence of it's existence in either primary manuscript form or secondary manuscript form leads me to believe it didn't exist. Also when you refer to Critical new Testament Scholars as Christians I have to wonder if you know anything about the literature. I'm not the most read up on it, but they are hardly Christian.

I know that many of scholars are tuned to atheists after hard study. The bottom line is that they're not Muslims. They were grown up in west from Christian fathers. Right ?

Are you also suggesting the Gospel the Quran is talking about still exists and is with us to this day? Take in mind what the Quran says in 5:46-5:47, it tells Christians, in general to "judge therein". I mean, I suppose it could be ignoring the biggest block of Christians at the time being situated primarily in Europe, the Byzantine Empire, Egypt, North Africa and the like but that seems rather odd. Where are these so-called arab Christians who don't have the Four Gospels but the true Islamic Gospel? Where is it and why is the Quran telling Christians to judge by a book they don't believe in?

It's clear there were a complete book revealed to prophet Al-Maseeh from Allah.
This book was subject to changes, cut from it, add to it till it became hundreds of books. These 4 are just 4 books out of 300 (as some scholars say).
I'm not saying also that all in these 4 books or even the 27 books are false and wrong but it contains a small potion of the original book.

 

[mindlight]

How do you connect the Arabic word "Injeel" to Greek word ( εὐαγγέλιον, pronounced euangélion) ?
Have you ever studied math or Arabic or Greek or even Logic ?

"The Arabic word Injil (إنجيل) as found in Islamic texts, and now used also by Muslim non-Arabs and Arab non-Muslims, is derived from the Syriac Aramaic word awongaleeyoon (ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ) found in the Peshitta (Syriac translation of the Bible),which in turn derives from the Greek word euangelion (Εὐαγγέλιον) of the originally Greek language New Testament, where it means "good news" (from Greek "Εὐ αγγέλιον"; Old English "gōdspel"; Modern English "gospel", or "evangel" as an archaism, cf. e.g. Spanish "evangelio") The word Injil occurs twelve times in the Quran."

Gospel in Islam - Wikipedia

The most important question is for you and all Christians, Although Hebrew was Al-Maseeh worshiping and theological language as a Jew, Aramaic (or Syriac) was his day-to-day language....
Why there is no single manuscripts (2 CM * 2 CM) in Aramaic or Hebrew ?

Most probably cause of the destruction of Jerusalem where the manuscripts would have been kept and also the fading significance of the Jewish church in the global Christian community. Jews in the diaspora would have had to speak Greek or Latin. The scholarly language was Greek. Given that the Septuagint was complete by a minimum of 200BC and we have fragments from as early as 400 BC (while the Masoretic text has no fragments before 10th Century AD) it seems clear that the main written source for the OT was in Greek at the time of Jesus and around the Roman empire this was the text that got distributed through the Jewish community. Major Jewish scholars of the time of Jesus like Philo for instance spoke and wrote in Greek

First of all, many Christians scholars who are Christians till date see that John is completely written later and for sure not by one of the disciples.
It's a fact that the people at that era used to name their books by names of good people.
There is no single evidence whatsoever proofs that Mark's, Mathew's, Luk's Gospels are connected to disciples.
Hengel, Brant Pitre, and whoever are just believers but many Christians or nonbeliever scholars now believe that the synoptic Gospels can't be connected to disciples, and John is written later that all and Trinitarian did it.

Yes that is all wishful thinking by scholars who do not know God or who have a distorted view of Him.

John wrote John in his lifetime

Gospels are eyewitness accounts

 

[dzheremi]

You can talk about English, Hebrew, Latin,,,, That new testimony means "Good news" but not Arabic.
Tell my why your Arabic early Church fathers have chosen to use the Arabic name "Injeel" إنجيل in naming of New Testimony books ?
Why they didn't use the English, Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic, Even Coptic word of Gospel ?
They abandon all of these and chose the Quranic name of Al-Maseeh's book.

Limo, you silly billy, they didn't abandon anything! Injil is the name in Arabic for both Christians and Muslims not because it's in the Qur'an, but because that's what Arabic as a language made out of the Greek original term Evangelion due to Arabic's phonology (sounds) and phonotactics (rules for which sounds can go together in a word). It is just like how we got the word "Copt" from Arabic Gibt or Qibt, because the Arabic speakers couldn't say "Egyptos". It is possible to write Egyptos in Arabic -- اكيبطوس or اغيبتوس or something similar -- but it's immediately evident that this is not an Arabic word, and does not follow Arabic phonology, and hence would be difficult to say. Injil, however, had been nativized (adopted into the Arabic lexicon) in the time before Muhammad by preexisting Arabic-speaking Christians. It is among the words listed in Jeffery's Foreign Vocabulary of the Quran (in the 2009 Gorgias Press reprint, it is dealt with on page 71, with a probable Syriac intermediary discussed, and again referenced on page 80). It is indisputably not an Arabic word. So don't give credit to the Qur'an for what Christians were already doing before Muhammad. That's foolish and very much harms your case.

In Coptic, they just borrowed the word entirely from Greek with no changes, because Evangelion is permissible in Coptic as it is.

Another 10,000 USD for answering this question.

Alright. Pay up.

I advocate nothing.

That is transparently false.

It's clear there were a complete book revealed to prophet Al-Maseeh from Allah.

Where is it, then? Something you cannot produce has the same weight in serious discussion as something that does not exist, because if we just have to take your word for it (since you cannot produce it), then you can say it says anything. Who cares, at that point? I can claim that Muhammad was given an edition of Grimm's Fairy Tales from Allah, and since you can't prove that he wasn't, it's much the same your claim about this supposed book given to al-Masih.

This book was subject to changes, cut from it, add to it till it became hundreds of books. These 4 are just 4 books out of 300 (as some scholars say).

Prove it. Prove that these 300 or whatever number are related to a hypothetical source text that was given to al-Masih by your religion's God. Anything you cannot prove is just your opinion, and given how it is shaped by your religion (neither you nor the Islamic narrative found in the Qur'an and other sources qualify as unbiased observers), we have plenty of reason to consider it suspect.

I'm not saying also that all in these 4 books or even the 27 books are false and wrong but it contains a small potion of the original book.

Prove it. Stop saying things just to say them, or to advance the Islamic narrative of which there is zero proof.

 

[Barney2.0]

How do you connect the Arabic word "Injeel" to Greek word ( εὐαγγέλιον, pronounced euangélion) ?
Have you ever studied math or Arabic or Greek or even Logic ?

The most important question is for you and all Christians, Although Hebrew was Al-Maseeh worshiping and theological language as a Jew, Aramaic (or Syriac) was his day-to-day language....
Why there is no single manuscripts (2 CM * 2 CM) in Aramaic or Hebrew ?



First of all, many Christians scholars who are Christians till date see that John is completely written later and for sure not by one of the disciples.
It's a fact that the people at that era used to name their books by names of good people.
There is no single evidence whatsoever proofs that Mark's, Mathew's, Luk's Gospels are connected to disciples.
Hengel, Brant Pitre, and whoever are just believers but many Christians or nonbeliever scholars now believe that the synoptic Gospels can't be connected to disciples, and John is written later that all and Trinitarian did it.

Actually if you read Tafsirs on the subject of the word Injil most said it’s an ajami word meaning a word foreign to Arabic. Injil is the Arabic translation of the Greek word euangelion which is why the word Injil has no meaning in Arabic. First of all Jesus didn’t speak Syriac, he spoke Galilean Aramaic not Syriac Aramaic, they’re two different languages. Secondly why would the disciples of Christ write their Gospels in Aramaic in Hebrew if they were going to preach to all nations? Thirdly ever heard of the Syriac Peshitta, not that it matters anyway. The fact John prophecised the temple would fall and didn’t manage to include it in his writings either meant John seriously goofed, and I doubt he’d miss the opportunity to prove Jesus right by including it in his Gospel, or there’s the other fact that John wrote his Gospel before the destruction of the temple in 70 AD. The fact that all the Gospels miss this huge event that could bolster the claims of Jesus ten fold really tells you something, and that sometching is that they wrote their Gospels before 70 AD. Also if the title was added it would have to be before Irenaeus attributed it to John and it’s logically impossible for the Gospel to circulate anonymously for 60 years or more and then suddenly have the whole Church attributing it to a single person. If the title was added then their would be conflicts on who wrote the fourth Gospel in the early Church.

 

[Barney2.0]

Let us see who doesn't know Arabic.
تأدر تؤولى اسل كلمت إنجيل فى العربى

Please search yourself as I've shared a lot. Any fair or well reader Christian knows that Nacia approved the 4 books and foreboded any other book.

This is a Golden Question.... You should have an answer. I'll give you 10,000 USD if you answer it logically and acceptable.
Why there is no single manuscript in Al-Maseeh's worshiping and Israeli's language Hebrew or street language Aramaic/Syriac ?
The answer of this question will answer the question about the authors of Gospels and Islamic fact that there is a book inspired to Al-Maeeh named as "Injeel" not Gospel


Why you ignoring the facts ???
I accept you discuss the views but ignoring the facts is strange. The fact that even your scholars are talking about.
Do you know the scholar and monk Matta Al-Mskeen ?

The well known fact is that your books are not the same. It's never and will never.

In Arabic for example, there are Coptic books, Catholic books, Protestants books , Maroon books, Asuric/Syriac books. JW books,,,,,

Even Arabic books printed in Lebanon is different from Arabic books printed in Cairo. From number of Books, Chapters, and normally the translation.

Nevertheless, the same publisher in either Cairo or Lebanon changes the books every time they print it.

Fix your spelling first, it’s not أسل it’s أصل. Until now you’ve not given a single statement from the council of Nicaea to back your claims, show us where Nicaea chose books for the Biblical canon or removed them from it? Jesus didn’t speak Syriac he spoke Galilean Aramaic and the reason the New Testament wasn’t written in Galilean Hebrew Aramaic was because no one outside of Judea could understand it while everyone in the Mediterranean could understand Greek as the language of trade and commerce. It would be impossible to reach out to Non Jews in Hebrew Aramaic. I know Matta Al Maskeen, he was a great Coptic monk and scholar, I don’t see how mentioning him is revelant here. Maronites use the Syriac Peshitta which has its own number of books due to possessing its own liturgy same goes for the Copts in Cairo. This isn’t an issue for Orthodox and Catholic as the books vary for tradition only as the East and West each had their own traditions and liturgies and each formed their own canon to conform to those liturgies. The issue of canon or the number of books in the sense of doctrinal issues is only held by Protestants against Orthodox and Catholic, but even then it’s a minor issue between dialogue between Christian sects. JW (not that they’re Christians anyway) follow the Protestant canon as far as I know.

 

[Barney2.0]

Since Limo claims to know Arabic this video is for him:

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

You can talk about English, Hebrew, Latin,,,, That new testimony means "Good news" but not Arabic.
Tell my why your Arabic early Church fathers have chosen to use the Arabic name "Injeel" إنجيل in naming of New Testimony books ?
Why they didn't use the English, Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic, Even Coptic word of Gospel ?
They abandon all of these and chose the Quranic name of Al-Maseeh's book.
Another 10,000 USD for answering this question.

Considering Islamic translators translate Injeel as Gospel I really have to wonder why you're arguing this. Are you arguing that the Arabic fathers, like John of Damascus or Theodore Abu Qurrah called it injeel because of the Quran? What are you talking about? Injeel in arabic means "good news" right? Gospel in English means "Good news." Gospel in Greek is Evangelion which means "Good news."

This isn't a matter of contention.

I advocate nothing. Bye the way all my readings and references are Western Christians. You know how these thoughts are totally opposing each other.
If you see whoever advocates the idea of Nicaea discussed/decreed a version canonical books then Jerome is one of the foolish
In Jerome's Prologue to Judith,he claims that the Book of Judith was "found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures", which some have suggested means the Nicene Council did discuss what documents would number among the sacred scriptures, but more likely simply means the Council used Judith in its deliberations on other matters and so it should be considered canonical.

You can't take a single quote from Jerome to suggest that an issue of the council was to ratify the whole canon or in particular the whole of Gospels. We have the canons of council and none of them lay down the canon of scripture nor do the main decrees or arguments concerning the divinity of Christ against Arianism seem to deal with this issue. I do think it's quite possible that Judith was discussed

This is from Jerome, not a witness to the things of Nicaea but born some 23 years after the council. Not that I dismiss Jerome out of hand because it is entirely possible Judith, being a book in dispute (not like the four Gospels) was discussed at some point by the Bishops present as to whether or not it could be a scriptural authority. Not that the whole canon was formalized at Nicaea. We have no evidence of this.

I know that many of scholars are tuned to atheists after hard study. The bottom line is that they're not Muslims. They were grown up in west from Christian fathers. Right ?

What's this have to do with anything?

It's clear there were a complete book revealed to prophet Al-Maseeh from Allah.
This book was subject to changes, cut from it, add to it till it became hundreds of books. These 4 are just 4 books out of 300 (as some scholars say).
I'm not saying also that all in these 4 books or even the 27 books are false and wrong but it contains a small potion of the original book.

It is not clear there was one Gospel and nor does this actually respond to my main argument. I'll lay it out again.

The Quran is a Seventh century document and in this document it addresses Muslims, Jews and Christians. To Christians in 5:46 it tells us that Jesus received the Gospel from Allah and then proceeds to tell the people of the Gospel to judge therein. There is no qualification here, it is addressing Christians who apparently have something called the Gospel that we are to judge by and discover Muhammad was true.

The problem is you don't have any evidence of this Islamic Gospel and if what you're saying is true the Islamic command for Christians to judge by their Gospel is nonsensical because Allah is demanding the impossible from us, to judge from something that doesn't exist.

You implied earlier Arabic Christians have the true Gospel. Point them out for me. Tell me where we see in history the Gospel the Quran is talking about.

 

[Gregory95]

Which book has more authority?

I would say the bible for the following reasons:

1) The Quran affirms the bible , directly and by quoting from it, but there is no anticipation of the Quran in the bible?

2) the bible and the Quran give prophetic weight to the person of Jesus but Mohammed fulfils no biblical prophecies.

3) the bible includes prophecies that came true after the texts were written down e.g prophecies about Jesus, prophecies about Jews return to Israel, the fall of Jerusalem. The Quran has no such prophecies beyond a vague hope about the growth of Islam.

4) the bible texts have an audit trail and provides more credibility to the view that we have the original text today. The Quran by contrast has very few textual fragments before 200 years after Mohammed and Muslim history is clear that alternate suras were burnt, the men who memorised them lost in battle and that there was a consolidation and validation of texts by political decree rather than by the theological community.

5) Many more but think I have said enough to kick this off.

Read Sarah Ali Imran 3:47 3:44 3:49 3:73

Then read 3:83 and right after that read John 4:7-26

John 1:1-5
John 1:6-14
John 1:29-34
John 1:41
John 3:3
John 3:14-15
John 3:18
John 5:6-9

Etc etc its best to just read the whole NT and take notes

 

[Limo]

Why you all (not only you but all Christians) have a big punch of copy-past.
Why not read, digest, convinced, then use your own words.
Strange !!!!

 

[Limo]

"The Arabic word Injil (إنجيل) as found in Islamic texts, and now used also by Muslim non-Arabs and Arab non-Muslims, is derived from the Syriac Aramaic word awongaleeyoon (ܐܘܢܓܠܝܘܢ) found in the Peshitta (Syriac translation of the Bible),which in turn derives from the Greek word euangelion (Εὐαγγέλιον) of the originally Greek language New Testament, where it means "good news" (from Greek "Εὐ αγγέλιον"; Old English "gōdspel"; Modern English "gospel", or "evangel" as an archaism, cf. e.g. Spanish "evangelio") The word Injil occurs twelve times in the Quran."

Gospel in Islam - Wikipedia

No doubt that the in Islam, Al-Maseeh's book named Injeel.
Why Christians in all Islamic countires chose to use the name used in Islam ?
Why they didn't do like English, French, German, Italian
Coptic church of Egypt, for sure used another word before Islam comes to Egypt.
I've submitted a question to a Coptic site and waiting for answer.

Most probably cause of the destruction of Jerusalem where the manuscripts would have been kept and also the fading significance of the Jewish church in the global Christian community. Jews in the diaspora would have had to speak Greek or Latin. The scholarly language was Greek. Given that the Septuagint was complete by a minimum of 200BC and we have fragments from as early as 400 BC (while the Masoretic text has no fragments before 10th Century AD) it seems clear that the main written source for the OT was in Greek at the time of Jesus and around the Roman empire this was the text that got distributed through the Jewish community. Major Jewish scholars of the time of Jesus like Philo for instance spoke and wrote in Greek

It's not possible in Al-Maseeh time when the temple was there and used for prayer.
For sure they were using Hebrew holy-books praying. I don't know anything in your Gospels saying that your Jesus spoke Latin or any other language, Please share
The issues is these books have been written after tens of years of Al-Maseeh's era. It's story books not holy.
[/QUOTE]


Yes that is all wishful thinking by scholars who do not know God or who have a distorted view of Him.

John wrote John in his lifetime

Gospels are eyewitness accounts[/QUOTE]
Not true
John has been debated by scholars since at least the 2nd century AD.
Authorship of the Johannine works - Wikipedia

 

[Limo]

Limo, you silly billy, they didn't abandon anything!

Stop targeting the person, but discuss the subject.
These words are considered in an insult in my cultur

Injil is the name in Arabic for both Christians and Muslims not because it's in the Qur'an, but because that's what Arabic as a language made out of the Greek original term Evangelion due to Arabic's phonology (sounds) and phonotactics (rules for which sounds can go together in a word). It is just like how we got the word "Copt" from Arabic Gibt or Qibt, because the Arabic speakers couldn't say "Egyptos". It is possible to write Egyptos in Arabic -- اكيبطوس or اغيبتوس or something similar -- but it's immediately evident that this is not an Arabic word, and does not follow Arabic phonology, and hence would be difficult to say. Injil, however, had been nativized (adopted into the Arabic lexicon) in the time before Muhammad by preexisting Arabic-speaking Christians. It is among the words listed in Jeffery's Foreign Vocabulary of the Quran (in the 2009 Gorgias Press reprint, it is dealt with on page 71, with a probable Syriac intermediary discussed, and again referenced on page 80). It is indisputably not an Arabic word. So don't give credit to the Qur'an for what Christians were already doing before Muhammad. That's foolish and very much harms your case.

In Coptic, they just borrowed the word entirely from Greek with no changes, because Evangelion is permissible in Coptic as it is.

Arabic language can accommodate foreign languages words.
As far as I know Never translate names of lands, languages, books, persons.
Till date Copts uses Coptic language in churches
Egypt, syria, Lebanon were not using Arabic before Islam.

Do you really have any evidence about using the work Injeel in Arabic before Islam.

Alright. Pay up.

Your words convince no single non-christian.

That is transparently false.



Where is it, then? Something you cannot produce has the same weight in serious discussion as something that does not exist, because if we just have to take your word for it (since you cannot produce it), then you can say it says anything. Who cares, at that point? I can claim that Muhammad was given an edition of Grimm's Fairy Tales from Allah, and since you can't prove that he wasn't, it's much the same your claim about this supposed book given to al-Masih.



Prove it. Prove that these 300 or whatever number are related to a hypothetical source text that was given to al-Masih by your religion's God. Anything you cannot prove is just your opinion, and given how it is shaped by your religion (neither you nor the Islamic narrative found in the Qur'an and other sources qualify as unbiased observers), we have plenty of reason to consider it suspect.



Prove it. Stop saying things just to say them, or to advance the Islamic narrative of which there is zero proof.

textual criticism scholars have already proved it.