Hall of FameHall of Fame  Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp  chatChat
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin
InterReligious Dialogue
 Whyislam.org Forums : General : InterReligious Dialogue
Message Icon Topic: The False and Fabricated Gospel Of John Post Reply Post New Topic
Page  of 3 Next >>
Author Message
The_truth  
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar
Religion: Islam(Sunni)
Posts: 606
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote The_truth Replybullet Topic: The False and Fabricated Gospel Of John
    Posted: 06 April 2009 at 10:21am
Christians claim that the Gospels state that Jesus is the son of God and that God is his father –exalted be Allaah above having a son or a wife – does not count as any kind of proof of their claims, because we as Muslims aswell as MANY non Muslims and some Christians believe that that is something that was fabricated by human beings, and it is not part of the religion of Jesus (peace be upon him) or the religion of any other Messenger. This is why SO many Christians have converted to Islam after realising the extent of the fabrication of the Gospels aswell as the countless contradictions,inconsistencies aswell as additions and deletions of the Bible.
 
We believe that the Gospels that are in people’s hands today, in which the Christians believe, have been tampered with and changed, and are still being tampered with from time to time, so that there is nothing left in the form in which the Gospel was revealed from Allaah. Here we would point out that the Gospel which speaks most of the belief in the trinity and the divinity of the Messiah (peace be upon him), so that it has become a reference-point for the Christians in their arguments in support of this falsehood, is the Gospel of John. This Gospel is subject to doubts about its authorship even among some Christian scholars themselves, as is not the case with the other Gospels in which they believe. This is an ancient doubt which goes back to the second century CE according to their own history. 

Professor Stadlin says:  The entire Gospel of John was written by one of the students of the Alexandrian school. One sect, in the second century, rejected this Gospel and everything that was attributed to John. 

In the Encyclopaedia Britannica it says:  

As for the gospel of John, it is undoubtedly fabricated. Its author wanted to pitch two of the disciples against one another, namely St. John and St. Matthew. 

This writer who appears in the text claimed that he was the disciple who was loved by the Messiah, and the Church took this at face value and affirmed that the writer was the disciple John, and it put his name on the book, even though the author was not John for certain. This book is like the books of the Torah, in that there is no connection between them and the one to whom they are attributed. We feel sorry for those who did their utmost to make the connection, between this philosopher who wrote the book in the second century, and the disciple John the fisherman, for their efforts were to no avail and with no guidance.  

Quoted from Muhaaraat fi’l-Nasraaniyyah by Shaykh Muhammad Abu Zahrah. 

It is strange indeed that they cast aspersions on the authorship of this Gospel which they affirm was written especially to support this falsehood, the false belief in the divinity of the Messiah, which is ignored in the other gospels, until this gospel was written, at the least. Yoosuf al-Khoori says: John wrote his Gospel at the end of his life, at the request of the bishops of Asia and elsewhere. The reason for that is that there were sects that denied the divinity of the Messiah, so they asked him to prove it, and to highlight that which Matthew, Mark and Luke had neglected in their Gospels. 

(op.cit., p. 64) 

Regardless of the doubts about the authorship of the Gospels in general, and of the Gospel of John in particular, the phrases that they quote from these Gospels do not support the point they are trying to make, rather it is a spider’s web to which they are clinging, as Allaah says of them and others like them (interpretation of the meaning): 

“The likeness of those who take (false deities as) Awliya’ (protectors, helpers) other than Allaah is the likeness of a spider who builds (for itself) a house; but verily, the frailest (weakest) of houses is the spider’s house if they but knew”

[al-‘Ankaboot 29:41] 

The Bible in which it says that the Messiah is the son of God is the same Bible in which the lineage of the Messiah ends with Adam (peace be upon him), and he too is described as a son of God.  

“Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli … the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God”

[Luke 3:23-38] 

This is the same Bible that describes Israel in the same terms: 

“Then say to Pharaoh, 'This is what the LORD says: Israel is my firstborn son”

[Exodus 4:22] 

Something similar appears in the Book of Hosea: 

“When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son”

[Hosea 11:1] 

The same is said of Soloman (peace be upon him): 

“He said to me: 'Solomon your son is the one who will build my house and my courts, for I have chosen him to be my son, and I will be his father”

[I Chronicles 28:6] 

Were Adam, Israel and Soloman all other sons of God, before the Messiah (peace be upon him)? Exalted be Allaah far above what they say! 

Indeed, in the Gospel of John itself there is an explanation of what is meant by this being a son; it includes all the righteous servants of God, so there is nothing unique about Jesus or any other Prophet in this regard. 

“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name”

[John 1:3] 

Something similar appears in the Gospel of Matthew: 

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God”

[Matthew 5:8-9] 

This usage of the word “son” in the language of the Bible is a metaphor for the righteous servant of God, without it implying anything special or unique about the way in which he is created, or describing him literally as the offspring of God. Hence John says: 

“How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God!”

[1 John 3:1] 

For the same reason Adam is also called a son of God – exalted be Allaah far above that. 

There remains the issue of Eesa (peace be upon him) being described as a son of God, and what they fabricated about the Lord of the Worlds, saying that He was the father of the Messiah (peace be upon him). This too is not unique in the language of the Gospels: 

“Jesus said, Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'”

[John 20:17] 

In one text he says that God is a father to them too, and that God is the God of them all. 

So let them(Christians)say if they wish that we are all the children and the beloved of God, as God said of their forefathers. In that case there is nothing special about the Messiah so that they should worship him instead of Allaah. Or let them be stubborn and follow something other than true guidance, with no clear Book. This is something that anyone could do. 

Praise be to Allaah, the Lord of the heavens and the Lord of the earth, the Lord of the Worlds, for the blessing of Islam that He has bestowed upon us. 

O Allaah, guide us to Your straight path, The way of those on whom You have bestowed Your Grace, not (the way) of those who earned Your Anger, nor of those who went astray.


Source used: http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/82361
[T]he sun and moon and stars are subservient to His command. Both creation and command belong to Him. Blessed be Allah,
the Lord of all the worlds.
(Qur’an, 7:54)
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
Damo808  
Mureed
Mureed

Religion: Christian(Catholic)
Posts: 4238
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote Damo808 Replybullet Posted: 06 April 2009 at 10:58am

 Another thread already    ... And there was I under the impression you were preparing your answer to my reponse to your other thread namely " Jesus for Jews only. Keep up the bad work  

out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Micah 5:5
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
wesley  
Undergraduate
Undergraduate

Religion: Christian(Jehovah's Witness)
Posts: 1272
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote wesley Replybullet Posted: 06 April 2009 at 4:15pm
We believe that the Gospels that are in people’s hands today, in which the Christians believe, have been tampered with and changed, and are still being tampered with from time to time, so that there is nothing left in the form in which the Gospel was revealed from Allaah.
 
 
Then, why quote from the gospels?
 
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
katy098  
Sophmore Member
Sophmore Member
Avatar
Religion: Christian(Catholic)
Posts: 228
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote katy098 Replybullet Posted: 06 April 2009 at 5:10pm
Originally posted by The_truth

In the Encyclopaedia Britannica it says:  

As for the gospel of John, it is undoubtedly fabricated. Its author wanted to pitch two of the disciples against one another, namely St. John and St. Matthew. 

This writer who appears in the text claimed that he was the disciple who was loved by the Messiah, and the Church took this at face value and affirmed that the writer was the disciple John, and it put his name on the book, even though the author was not John for certain. This book is like the books of the Torah, in that there is no connection between them and the one to whom they are attributed. We feel sorry for those who did their utmost to make the connection, between this philosopher who wrote the book in the second century, and the disciple John the fisherman, for their efforts were to no avail and with no guidance. 



FALSE. I have read Encyclopaedia Britannica to know that did not say the above. From where did the site take that from?! and attributing it to Britannica!

Edited by katy098 - 06 April 2009 at 5:10pm
"Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word." (Luke 1:38)
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
Mansoor_ali  
Freshman
Freshman
Avatar
Location: Pakistan
Religion: Islam(Muslim)
Posts: 80
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote Mansoor_ali Replybullet Posted: 07 April 2009 at 1:44am

 We all know that not a single Gospel was written in the life time of Jesus Christ.So what is the authenticity of the Gospels?Who wrote them?where they were written?How we can say that each and single word of Gospels is accurate?

 Now Gospel of John is one of those Gospels which was not written by John but actually its author is UNKNOWN but it is dedicated to John.

 Here is what Christian's source says about it

 Gospel of John
 "The author is the apostle John, 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' (13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20,24). He was prominent in the early church but is not mentioned by name in this Gospel--which would be natural if he wrote it, but hard to explain otherwise.  (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1588)"

 They claimed that it was John who wrote the Gospel, but yet, his name was not signed on his Gospel! How is it possible for us to be absolutely sure that it was indeed John who wrote the so called "Gospel of John" when "his name is not mentioned in this Gospel" so we can then take it as a 100% True Error-free Word of GOD Almighty?

 
 
Mansoor Khan
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
Damo808  
Mureed
Mureed

Religion: Christian(Catholic)
Posts: 4238
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote Damo808 Replybullet Posted: 07 April 2009 at 7:31am

Originally posted by Mansoor_ali


 We all know that not a single Gospel was written in the life time of Jesus Christ.So what is the authenticity of the Gospels?Who wrote them?where they were written?How we can say that each and single word of Gospels is accurate?

 They may not have been written within the same time as Jesus lifetime, however they were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses of the accounts therein.
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Micah 5:5
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
Damo808  
Mureed
Mureed

Religion: Christian(Catholic)
Posts: 4238
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote Damo808 Replybullet Posted: 07 April 2009 at 7:45am
Originally posted by The_truth

In the Encyclopaedia Britannica it says:  

As for the gospel of John, it is undoubtedly fabricated. Its author wanted to pitch two of the disciples against one another, namely St. John and St. Matthew. 

This writer who appears in the text claimed that he was the disciple who was loved by the Messiah, and the Church took this at face value and affirmed that the writer was the disciple John, and it put his name on the book, even though the author was not John for certain. This book is like the books of the Torah, in that there is no connection between them and the one to whom they are attributed. We feel sorry for those who did their utmost to make the connection, between this philosopher who wrote the book in the second century, and the disciple John the fisherman, for their efforts were to no avail and with no guidance. 



Originally posted by katy098

FALSE. I have read Encyclopaedia Britannica to know that did not say the above. From where did the site take that from?! and attributing it to Britannica!
 
 
 I too had my doubts about the validity of this claim Katy, what i put it down to were most likely words taken from a quote from someone quoted by the Britannica. Though who and the context in which it was taken is cleverly yet typically left out. All in all,  yet another strawman argument constructed by Truth who no-doubt will not be able to vouch either whether it is in the Britannica or not as most often he seems to soak up like a sponge every available piece of anti-christian data he can find on the web without varifying for himself its credibility.
out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be the ruler in Israel: and his going forth is from the beginning, from the days of eternity. Micah 5:5
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
Mansoor_ali  
Freshman
Freshman
Avatar
Location: Pakistan
Religion: Islam(Muslim)
Posts: 80
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote Mansoor_ali Replybullet Posted: 07 April 2009 at 2:16pm
Originally posted by Damo808


They may not have been written within the same time as Jesus lifetime, however they were written within the lifetime of eyewitnesses of the accounts therein.


 But Gospels were not written by their authors such as Mark,Matthew,Luke,John etc It was written by unknown people who then attributed these Gospels to Mark,Matthew etc.

 Do you know that in the early stage of Christianity there were many Gospels?There were 100 of Gospels and out of which only 4 were selected.

 As Dr. Hamidullah said The compilation of the Gospels(I am talking about 4 Gospels), their preservation and transmission from one generation to the other, has not taken place in the way which governed the books of Hadith.

 We do not know who wrote them, who translated them, and who transmitted them. How were they transferred from the original Aramaic to Greek?

 Did the scribes make arrangements for a faithful reproduction of the original? The four Gospels are mentioned, for the first time, three hundred years after Christ. Should we rely on such an unauthentic book in preference to that of Bukhari who prefaces every statement of two lines with three to nine references?"

 
Mansoor Khan
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
wesley  
Undergraduate
Undergraduate

Religion: Christian(Jehovah's Witness)
Posts: 1272
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote wesley Replybullet Posted: 07 April 2009 at 2:41pm
 But Gospels were not written by their authors such as Mark,Matthew,Luke,John etc It was written by unknown people who then attributed these Gospels to Mark,Matthew etc.
False. The writings were circulating during lifetime of the authors. Fabrications would have been easily exposed.
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
wesley  
Undergraduate
Undergraduate

Religion: Christian(Jehovah's Witness)
Posts: 1272
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote wesley Replybullet Posted: 07 April 2009 at 2:44pm
We do not know who wrote them, who translated them, and who transmitted them. How were they transferred from the original Aramaic to Greek?

This author makes a fundamental error. Matthew was written in Hebrew first then Greek. Mark, Luke and John were written in Greek. None were written in Aramaic. What other errors might there be from this "Dr."?
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
katy098  
Sophmore Member
Sophmore Member
Avatar
Religion: Christian(Catholic)
Posts: 228
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote katy098 Replybullet Posted: 07 April 2009 at 3:26pm
People sadly like to assume that we picked and chose the four Gospels to meet the requirements of Constantine or some conspiracy story such as that.

Why were those four Gospels chosen? Because they were cited by the early Church Fathers. The authors of the Gospels were based on what these Church Fathers said.

The earliest citation from the Gospels comes from St. Clement of Rome (around 92-101) and Ignatius of Antioch who died in 107. St. Iranaeus attest to their authenticity in Against Heresies.  (Source: Navarre Bible)


"Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word." (Luke 1:38)
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
katy098  
Sophmore Member
Sophmore Member
Avatar
Religion: Christian(Catholic)
Posts: 228
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote katy098 Replybullet Posted: 07 April 2009 at 5:29pm
Originally posted by The_truth



In the Encyclopaedia Britannica it says: 

As for the gospel of John, it is undoubtedly fabricated. Its author wanted to pitch two of the disciples against one another, namely St. John and St. Matthew.

This writer who appears in the text claimed that he was the disciple who was loved by the Messiah, and the Church took this at face value and affirmed that the writer was the disciple John, and it put his name on the book, even though the author was not John for certain. This book is like the books of the Torah, in that there is no connection between them and the one to whom they are attributed. We feel sorry for those who did their utmost to make the connection, between this philosopher who wrote the book in the second century, and the disciple John the fisherman, for their efforts were to no avail and with no guidance.


Originally posted by Damo808


 I too had my doubts about the validity of this claim Katy, what i put it down to were most likely words taken from a quote from someone quoted by the Britannica. Though who and the context in which it was taken is cleverly yet typically left out. All in all,  yet another strawman argument constructed by Truth who no-doubt will not be able to vouch either whether it is in the Britannica or not as most often he seems to soak up like a sponge every available piece of anti-christian data he can find on the web without varifying for himself its credibility.


I have checked "John, Gospel According to" in both the microencyclopaedia and macroenclyclopaedia of Encyclopaedia Britannica (under "Fourth Gospel: Gospel According to John" and a Biblical criticism subheading), and neither of these locations had either of the two paragraphs in it.


Edited by katy098 - 07 April 2009 at 5:36pm
"Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word." (Luke 1:38)
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
katy098  
Sophmore Member
Sophmore Member
Avatar
Religion: Christian(Catholic)
Posts: 228
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote katy098 Replybullet Posted: 07 April 2009 at 5:48pm
Originally posted by wesley

We do not know who wrote them, who translated them, and who transmitted them. How were they transferred from the original Aramaic to Greek?

This author makes a fundamental error. Matthew was written in Hebrew first then Greek. Mark, Luke and John were written in Greek. None were written in Aramaic. What other errors might there be from this "Dr."?


Many make such mistakes, I have even heard one preacher say that all the books from Acts to the end of NT were written in St. Paul.


Edited by katy098 - 07 April 2009 at 5:48pm
"Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word." (Luke 1:38)
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
Mansoor_ali  
Freshman
Freshman
Avatar
Location: Pakistan
Religion: Islam(Muslim)
Posts: 80
Forum Rating: 0
Rating: 0 of 0 votes Quote Mansoor_ali Replybullet Posted: 08 April 2009 at 2:33am

 False. The writings were circulating during lifetime of the authors. Fabrications would have been easily exposed.

 As i said authors of the Gospels are UNKNOWN.Here is some evidence by Christian sources.

 
Below, you'll see that the gospels were:
  1. Written by mysterious men.
  2. Written by an unknown number of men.
  3. Written in unknown places.
  4. Written in unknown dates.
 
  Gospel of Mark:

 
"Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship, it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark.  (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1488)"

 So, in reality, we don't really know whether Mark was the sole author of this Gospel or not.How are we to know for sure that the current "Gospel of Mark" wasn't written by some pro of Mark?

 Gospel of Luke:

"The author's name does not appear in the book, but much unmistakable evidence points to Luke.  (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1529)"

 Again, we don't know for sure whether it was Luke or not who wrote the "Gospel of Luke" since his name doesn't appear in the Book.

 Gospel of John:

 "The author is the apostle John, 'the disciple whom Jesus loved' (13:23; 19:26; 20:2; 21:7, 20,24). He was prominent in the early church but is not mentioned by name in this Gospel--which would be natural if he wrote it, but hard to explain otherwise.  (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1588)"
 
 They claimed that it was John who wrote the Gospel, but yet, his name was not signed on his Gospel! How is it possible for us to be absolutely sure that it was indeed John who wrote the so called "Gospel of John" when "his name is not mentioned in this Gospel" so we can then take it as a 100% True Error-free Word of GOD Almighty?

 This author makes a fundamental error. Matthew was written in Hebrew first then Greek. Mark, Luke and John were written in Greek. None were written in Aramaic. What other errors might there be from this "Dr."?

 Jesus mother language was Aramaic not Greek.It's very important to know that the Hebrew and Greek letters that were found, are only translations that were written 150 to 300 years after Jesus.  It is important to know that Jesus did not speak Greek.  So therefore, the Greek letters are nothing but a translation (which could have many faults in it) from Aramaic to Greek.  Same applies to Hebrew.  When you translate a doctrine that was written hundreds of years after the fact into another language, then you can't really claim that your sources are 100% correct.  As a matter of a fact, claiming 50% would be even too much.

 Matthew was written in Hebrew first then Greek.

 Here is response by brother Abdullah Smith on this subject:

 
Did Matthew exist in Hebrew?
 
 
 
Mansoor Khan
No Guest-Voting   IP IP Logged
Page  of 3 Next >>
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums version 8.03
Copyright ©2001-2006 Web Wiz Guide
Disclaimer
The opinions expressed by members of the Whyislam Forum do not necessarily reflect the beliefs of the Whyislam Team, or any of its subsidiaries, or parent organizations.