Matthew 26: 28

Manji2012 · 08-06-2007, 07:03 AM

Does Islam consider that verse as heretical or has a different view of that verse that is other than Jesus dying for the forgiveness of sins so everybody has to believe in Jesus to go to heave or God and what not?

What is the Islamic perspective? I ask because, this is something that is considered to be what Jesus Christ has said according to that book or verse. Is it made up and corrupted by man? Is there a different interpretation?

Abdullah · 08-07-2007, 06:48 PM

Hi manji.

It is difficult to tell wether that verse is original or not, for it could be original and have a metophorical meaning or a meaning different to how the Christians interpret it.

One thing for sure is that, it does not mean that Jesus [pbuh] died for our sins, or that he died at all, according to Islam.

Peace.

17th Angel · 08-10-2007, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abdullah

One thing for sure is that, it does not mean that Jesus [pbuh] died for our sins, or that he died at all, according to Islam.

Peace.

Sorry what? He didn't die?

I think someone said they saw him in Tesco's Tuesday night... Getting some groceries.

farhan · 08-10-2007, 10:51 AM

Quote:

I think someone said they saw him in Tesco's Tuesday night... Getting some groceries.

Yea, he does that......sometimes. And Elvis too.

kf123 · 08-12-2007, 02:56 AM

Muslims believe in the Quran, do they accept any part of the Bible? In Surah XXVI:196, it refers to the "scriptures of the ancients". Are these "scriptures of the ancients" considered holy by the Muslims and what is specifically meant by the term "scriptures of the ancients"?

Abdullah · 08-15-2007, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kf123

Muslims believe in the Quran, do they accept any part of the Bible? In Surah XXVI:196, it refers to the "scriptures of the ancients". Are these "scriptures of the ancients" considered holy by the Muslims and what is specifically meant by the term "scriptures of the ancients"?

Hi kf123,

Muslims accept that the original Bible [reffered to as the 'Injeel' in Islam] was revealed to the Prophet Jesus [pbuh] by God; thus we accept the original one as a truthfull and holy revelation of God allmighty and we revere it as such.

But we also beleive that the bible has since been corrupted by man, thus we accept from it [in the sense that we dont consider it to be lies...] whatever is in accordance with the Quran, and reject whatever goes against the Creed of Islam...

There could be some original verses in the Bible that dont neccassarily go agaisnt the Islamic Creed...but if it dont accord to the jurisprudence of Islam, then it isn't neccassarily considered to be false, but just abrogated...

Hope that helps

Peace

Amica · 08-17-2007, 04:48 AM

Hello!

Muslims do not believe, and Islam does not teach, that sins are forgiven by any human. To believe so is blasphemy in Islam, and is one of the sins (shirk-idolatry, assinging partners to God) that may not be forgiven.

So, to claim that Jesus (Isaa) pbuh was sacrificed for the sins of humanity would be a major, unforgivable sin for Muslims. One thing to understand is that Muslims do not regard Isaa (Jesus) pbuh as divine, and therefore, in our belief, he is unable to forgive human sins.

Not to hurt anyone's feelings, but Mathew 26:28 besides giving some hope to potential Christians who believe the statement, but also may give murderers, rapists, racists, sucides, etc., an idea that they got a free ticket to Heaven. The kind of thing where one may believe: "Hey, all I got to do now is believe in Jesus and all my evils, including murder, will be forgiven."

Amica · 08-17-2007, 04:54 AM

One of the pillars of the Islamic faith is to believe in God Almighty's revealed Books, which includes the Holy Bible.

What the Holy Qur'an states about the Bible that existed at the time of the Revelation of Qur'an is that it was corrupted--some of it has been changed, added or lost. Many Christian sources admit to the changes, additions, revisions.

I personally believe that the Holy Qur'an corrected that which was considered to be corrupted in the Bible. As a result, there are similarities and differences between the two Holy Books. I believe that it is a mistake for some Muslims (I also did this mistake before) to completely reject today's version of the Holy Bible because not all is lost from the Book. Archeology has proved the Bible correct in many instances. Muslims just need to be vigilant about certain areas of the Bible that differ from the Holy Qur'an.

Pico · 08-17-2007, 09:28 AM

Why do you think the Bible has become corrupted? A large majority of Scholars agree that the New Testament is the most accurate account of Jesus available (being written within a generation of Jesus' resurrection by eyewitnesses to the event). The New Testament is also the most supported historical document ever written with some 20,000 manuscripts found.

How has it become corrupt?

farhan · 08-17-2007, 10:50 AM

..

JosephM · 08-17-2007, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pico

Why do you think the Bible has become corrupted? A large majority of Scholars agree that the New Testament is the most accurate account of Jesus available (being written within a generation of Jesus' resurrection by eyewitnesses to the event). The New Testament is also the most supported historical document ever written with some 20,000 manuscripts found.

How has it become corrupt?

Pico,

It seems to me, there are two obvious errors in your statement here. One is that the New Testament was written within a generation of Jesus's resurrection and the other that it was written by eyewitnesses (I assume you meant exclusively by eyewitnesses) to the event. Luke was not a recorded eyewitness and the New Testament was not formed as it exists til approximately 267 AD and has been translated into a number of different languages and versions making it subject to the errors of men. Even Bible scholars admit to translation errors. Perhaps you can correct me if I am in error here.

Love in Christ,
JM

wil · 08-17-2007, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abdullah

Muslims accept that the original Bible [reffered to as the 'Injeel' in Islam] was revealed to the Prophet Jesus [pbuh] by God; thus we accept the original one as a truthfull and holy revelation of God allmighty and we revere it as such.

Interesting, the old testament portion of the bible wasn't revealed to Jesus it is what was written and ne studied. The new testament portion has a few books which are thought to be his life and teachings the rest are a variety of info but not any revelation from G!d to Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JosephM

Luke was not a recorded eyewitness and the New Testament was not formed as it exists til approximately 267 AD

I'd like to learn more about this...

Thomas · 08-17-2007, 02:03 PM

Hi all —

The question with regard to Moslem interpretation of Scripture is specious, as that would be like asking a Buddhist the same thing — where Scripture agrees with the Q'ran, that shows the correctness of Scripture, where it does not, that shows corruption. It's a false argument, as Christians could claim the reverse case.

If Islam accepted Scripture, then that displaces The Prophet (pbuh) and renders him inferior to Christ ... so it's hardly surprising that they do not accept Scripture.

As Moslem understanding of Christ is based on Scripture and Tradition, then they are hardly in a position to say what is right and what is wrong, as they would have no other source of comparison other than their own teaching.

+++

We know that canonical Mark is the earliest, probably around 65AD, and canonical Matthew second, although there is mention of an Aramaic Matthew which is perhaps prior to this. Matthew is dated around 80. Luke is third, again before the close of the first Christian century. John's was last.

We have Clement of Rome's quotations from Matthew in 95AD, by which time it was in Greek, and the same as we have today.

I think broad scholarship (eg Catholic and Protestant) agrees that:
Mark, probably the Mark who accompanied Paul, wrote the testimony of Peter, whilst in Rome, before Peter's execution.
Matthew was a disciple who wrote a sayings and discourse document in Aramaic for his local church. This was expanded upon.
Luke, again a disciple of Paul, wrote an account drawn from various sources, as he describes, Mark being one, perhaps Matthew another, possibly the Blessed Virgin another.
John wrote his gospel to refute various erroneous (gnostic) teachings being bandied about, and Cerinthus in particular.

Whilst scholars have agreed on certain textual 'errors' (doublets, etc.,) and the evidence of editing — Mark's gospel was used as a chronology for both Matthew and Luke — to say corruption is over-stating the case, and usually based on misunderstanding what the scholars have said, or as an unfounded argument to put forward an anti-scripture case.

Unless one can demonstrate precisely where such corruption has occurred, the claim is unfounded.

Examination of the oldest extant texts, in Greek, Syriac, etc., as Pico noted, has shown a remarkable coherence from the first century on — enough for scholars to agree that the Bible we have today (JW versions, etc., aside) is in its formal content, that is in its theology, the same as the documents created 2000 years ago.

Remember also that the early Epistles are older than the Gospels, so that is another stream of evidence ... and that there was a large Christian community prior to the writing of Scripture, so had the teachings been corrupted, there would have been significant disturbance and disagreement, especially as the Church at this time was a persecuted church, with no central administration beyond the acknowledgement of Rome as 'first among equals'.

The claim that 'the Church' falsified documents and hushed up the outcry is an anachronism that is untenable in light of the evidence and the facts of its growth. (People invariably mean the Catholic Church, not in existence for another couple of centuries.)

+++

Thomas

JosephM · 08-17-2007, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by JosephM

Luke was not a recorded eyewitness and the New Testament was not formed as it exists til approximately 267 AD

Quote:

Originally Posted by wil

Interesting, the old testament portion of the bible wasn't revealed to Jesus it is what was written and ne studied. The new testament portion has a few books which are thought to be his life and teachings the rest are a variety of info but not any revelation from G!d to Jesus.I'd like to learn more about this...

Hi Wil,
In reference from my comments and your inquiry above....

Perhaps this will help: from The New Testament book of Luke

The Gospel according Luke was written in 60 A.D. Luke, a close friend and companion of Paul, is perhaps the only Gentile author of any portion of the New Testament. Luke was also a physician. Colossians 4:14: "Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you." Luke was not an eyewitness to the life of [COLOR=blue! important][COLOR=blue! important]Jesus [COLOR=blue! important]Christ[/color][/color][/color] and little is known of his conversion or his early life. Luke was an evangelist by calling and a physician by profession. Luke not only wrote the [COLOR=blue! important][COLOR=blue! important]Gospel[/color][/color] of Luke but also the book of Acts and he traveled with Paul as a missionary. Luke was with Paul when he was martyred. As to the rest of Luke’s life, we know very little.

And from Wikipedia...

Contrary to popular misconception, the New Testament canon was not summarily decided in large, bureaucratic Church council meetings, but rather developed very slowly over many centuries.

The New Testament canon as it is now was first listed by St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in 367, in a letter written to his churches in Egypt, Festal Letter 39. Also cited is the Council of Rome, but not without controversy. That canon gained wider and wider recognition until it was accepted at the Third Council of Carthage in 397.

Note my initial date of 267AD should have read 367AD

JM

wil · 08-17-2007, 02:42 PM

Namaste all,

I read you wrong Joseph, and when I reread it I saw my error. I read Luke was not compiled until 267 (I skipped over the whole middle part)...I concur with your revised dates...and original thought.

What no discussion of Q here?

I would think Muslims would have as much right to say what is right and wrong as anyone else. Seems to me we Christians (as a group not as individuals) are fairly willing to say Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc are wrong in their teachings, we just don't appreciate the shoe on the other foot.

I'd be perfectly happy to agree that Muslims don't have the right to say we are wrong, as long as we give up same. And I do believe many of them have access to all the same information we have.