> Islamic theology may consider the Bible as corrupt. But the manner of
> that corruption (not to mention its extent) has no uniform consensus
> amongst Muslims, even today. Indeed, this issue has swayed back and
> forth over the centuries. If this at least were clear then perhaps we
> would have progressed rather further in the debate.
Muslim theology IN THE MAJORITY acknowledges that the Bible is
corrupt. This corruption differs only in a MATTER OF DEGREES.
There are only a few within the Muslim scholarship that hold that the
'corruption' was not one of actually changing the text by the rabbis,
but by their hiding the truth, through their deliberately misleading
the people through their lies, though the Book was clearly against it.
The Quran's perspective is middle between the two extremes as stated
before. The are elements of blatant corruption in the text,
deliberate lies by the teachers of the religion, and portions of the
Book being lost through the Bani Israel' including those that came
after the Injeel because of their lack of holding fast to it, are all
confirmed by the Quran and history.
The fact of the matter is this is just a ploy by Mike to divert the
attention away from this fact.
> It is also important to note that the Qur'an does not explicitly
> mention the Bible itself - only the Torah and Gospel. Now the issue at
> hand seems to be a question of what the Qur'an means by these terms.
There is no question of what these words mean. What it means is the
Book called Torah which was recognized by the Jews among Arabia at
that time as the Torah, and the Injeel which was recognized as the
Injeel given to the Christians at that time.
> Muslims have come to the conclusion that these must be the original
> messages given by God to Jesus and Moses at the time of their initial
> transmission.
Notice that he claims that Muslims have come to the conclusion that
this must be the original messages at their initial scriptures, yet at
the same time, he argues that the Muslims differ over this corruption.
The problem comes when dealing with Qur'anic calls for
> the people of the book to adhere to the scriptures they have. Which is
> where I believe this argument about the Diatesseron and the NT comes
> up.
The Quran says it confirms what was in-between the hands of the Bani
Israel, including both the Jews and the Christians, meaning it is the
fulfillment of the prophecies of the awaited one whom the People of
the Book were waiting for. This is testified by the Quran itself,
when it draws attention to the Jews belief that the awaited one was
coming, and that he would grant them victory over the unbelievers. In
fact, the Quran draws attention to how they would boast about this
fact, and when that awaited one came, and they found out he was from
the tribe that they weren't from, they turned against him. This is
why the Quran tells the people not only are they to hold fast to the
Torah, and Injeel, but WHAT HAS BEEN REVEALED TO YOU AS WELL.
The Quran, when it says this, is confirming the very prophecies that
were in their Book, and at the same time, it is drawing attention to
this astonishing fact that though it does this, the People of the Book
are now turning away based upon their vain desires. This is all very
clear from the actual context of the Quran and the verses that Mike
wants to distort to prove 'his point'.
Further, the Quran also says that the Bani Israel distorted the truth,
including trying to distort their prophecies. Yet the situation in
Medina, and Mecca in fact were bearuing testimony to it. In fact, it
cleary points out in Surah Baqarah, that certain elements among the
Jews, pretending to be their friends, said, akin to some Jews and
Christians today, that Muhammad (S) was a Prophet, but just to the
Arabs. And in their attempts to play pacifist would often quote the
OT prophecies to prove Muhammad (S) was the waited one, and when they
went back to their 'other' friends, were told "why are you giving an
argument against ourselves?". Other manifestations of this truth of
distortion, was that the learned among the Bani Israel who were KNOWN
FOR THEIR PIETY EVEN BEFORE ISLAM, thus their integrity was without
question, were the one's accepting Islam, understanding quite clearly
that it was the religion and the Prophet they were awaiting.
All of this is clearly understand from the Quran, if not distorted
from its proper context. This is why the Quran refers to this
'holding fast to the scriptures', and 'confirmin what is between their
hands' is primarily made in the context of the personality of Muhammad
(S), and accepting him as the Messenger of God.
The other case, of this alleged proof that the Quran tells the
ahl-kitaab to follow their own scriptures and not the Quran, "Judge
them by what God has revealed", is actually a manifestation of the
same argument of the acceptance of Muhammad (S) as the Messenger of
God. The Quran clearly gave the Jews and Christinas for that maetter
a clear right to judge their own communities with their own books, and
it also gave the Propet (S) the option to settle disputes among them
if brought to his attention if he so desired. The only condition God
Almighty gave was that He (S) judge with justice, and he (S) had no
obligation to even do that. The main point being the Quran draws
attention to the hyprocisy of many of the learned Jews, who themselves
knew the Torah and settled disputes according to it, who when they got
into disputes and didn't want to settle this according to their own
laws because it went against their own vain desires, would take the
matter to the Prophet (S) to judge, and try and prey off the an
'alleged ignorance' of their own Books. This is why we find in
certain narrations that in some cases, when they would attempt to try
and get away with distorting the truth, ABdullah ibn Salaam, the very
learned Jew who became Muslims, would point to the Prophet (S) they
are lying and references the actual verses of the Torah in this
regard.
The Quran clearly remarks in wonder that they have their own book, yet
the come to you to judge their own disputes. The main point being the
truth was becoming manifest that the Jews were toying with the Book to
suit their own whims in most matters, let alone their toying with the
trut regarding Muhammad (S).
> > The purpose of
> > this rebuttal is only to prove that the content of the Diatessaron was
> > not the same.
> Not the same as what? Oh, the NT I suppose. I have to question why
> this is relevant to your discussion. For the issue at hand (from what
> I understand) is whether the Gospel was available to Christians at the
> time of Muhammad, as claimed in the Qur'an.
> Have you bothered to read the Diatesseron? It is no less unIslamic
> than the canonical gospels are.
That does not matter. The Quran AKCNOWLEDGES that their is corruption
in the scriptures, and that parts of the message were lost. It
recognizes that there is truth in them, and false in them. It also
acknowledges quite frankly that many Christians tried to invent
certain regulations that were not enjoined by God, some with pious
intent, which led to their losing revelation. Instead of doing what
God commanded, they fell into their own excesses and own vain
imaginations of what religion is.
> > Divinity of Christ is a cornerstone of Christianity; therefore it is
> > safe to conclude that if Divinity of Christ is not mentioned in the
> > Diatessaron, then a major part of Christianity is missing.
> This is where your whole theory disappears in smoke. Tatian includes,
> verbatim, practically the whole of John 1, which clearly makes a claim
> for Jesus' divinity. The fact that he splits it up into smaller pieces
> makes no difference. Not just that, but other narratives, such as the
> crucifixion accounts, find their way into the Diatesseron too.
> viz: "And the Word became flesh, and took up his abode among us;"
> (Diat V:50).
> So is the Diatesseron any more "in line" with the Qur'an than the
> canonical gospels? No! If anything the reverse is true.
Now Mike is trying to argue because Tatian includes this verse, which
BTW is not even a verse of Jesus, that somehow Tatian believed in the
'divinity' of Christ. This is akin to arguin that because Arian
believed in this, he believed Jesus was God, though it is quite clear
he was not. He did argue that Jesus (AS) had a different nature, and
was the word, but this word did not mean that he was anything other
than a created being. These very words sparked contentious debate
over the nature of Christ, some arguing that Jesus was a special
creature, but not divine, others arguing he was divine. So "No! If
anything the reverse is true." is a mis-judgement of the situation.
Further, the notion that the Word is Logos is almost a pantheistic
doctrine, and derives from Greek philosophy. Sufiism holds the world
a manifestation of this "Logos" or Active Intellect, and the theology
in no way, necessitates they believe actual creation is God. Though,
ultimately many fall into pantheistic doctrines, like the Christians
who have started worshipping Jesus. It is no surprise that one of the
primary features of why the Christinas fell according to the Quran was
of their 'excesses', and it is further no surprise that the mentioning
of their exaggerations in faith, including their attributing to Jesus'
divinity, were made in Sura Imran. Read the pre-amble to the stories
within the stroy and reflect on it.
> So Tatian's lack of output on Jesus' divinity is supposed to mean he
> didn't believe in it?
> Really?
And Tatian's mention of the Logos, and word is suppose to mean he
believed in it? Obviously, Tatian makes a distinction between the
names as opposed to the 4 canonical gospels, and yet, as you yourself
acknowledged, it was an amalgation of them. Why the distinction?
> Encratite = extreme ascetic, a term which applied to some Gnostics and
> others, which was borne of a belief in the evil/corrupted nature of
> physical things.
This was not the only belief in it. It also affected the way they
viewed Jesus, and his 'uncorrupted nature', including the virgin
birht. There were MANY sects within Christianity, and though they
were gnostics, never held the view that Jesus was divine.
> >From this alone we cannot ascertain Tatian's Christology. Indeed, it
> seems that had Tatian's Christology been that out of line then this
> would have received some mention. It didn't. Tatian apparently became
> a Gnostic, which actually implies that he was more prone to affirm
> Jesus' divinity and deny His humanity than the reverse.
This is all assumption, and denies quite explicitly the MANY
TENDENCIES within Christianity, including Gnosticism. Further, these
discussions of the nature of certain relgious figures find precedence
in all societies, including Hinduism and the 'reincarnation' of man,
i.e. the divine somehow manifesting in the man, and sufiism has
strands of this with the insaan-i-kamil, or perfect man. This is why
many sufiis argue the Propet (S) was made from light.
> Proto-Arian Tatian was not. Nor would he have recognised Islam.
> Gnostic Christianity was centred primarily around Jesus' divinity.
> That was about the only thing which united the various strands of the
> Gnostic movement.
This is a BASELESS statement. There were countless factions that
comprised gnostic Christianity, and Mike knows it. But he is trying
to argue otherwise because it would lead to his argument bein null and
void. Gnostic Christianity revolved around asceticism and Hellenism.
It wouldn't be any stretch of an imagination to say Tatian would have
found himself in line with many branches of sufiism, if he decided to
have accepted Islam. But that point is not reality. Neither Mike,
nor I know what he would have done, and in fact, its useless to
discuss that point. But it is useful to discuss what may have been
his belief cause it reflects a certain trend in his area at his point
in time.
> Read the text. Not just those bits of it which suit you.
To me it quite clearly says that she was found with the child of the
Holy Spirit, who is obviously identified with Gabriel. But I don't
see what's the point of contention anyways. Tatian recognizes the
virgin birth and so does the Quran, and Christians.
> This is a matter of translation and context. None of the above
> "discrepancies" (for they are more clarifications or matters of style
> than substantive) make any difference to the message conveyed by the
> passages which contain them.
They don't? On says the Lord, the other says Jesus.
..
> Key passages in both NT and the Diatesseron contradict the Qur'an.
> Fact. How you explain away this issue is up to you. But attempting to
> misrepresent scripture is an unwise approach to take.
And where does that leave your misrepresentation of Gnosticism?
Reply With Quote
