Matthew 26: 28

Manji2012

Well-Known Member
Messages
95
Reaction score
2
Points
0
Location
United States
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?
 
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.
 
I think someone said they saw him in Tesco's Tuesday night... Getting some groceries.

Yea, he does that......sometimes. And Elvis too.
 
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"?
 
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
 
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."
 
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.
 
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?
 
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
 
Last edited:
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.
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...
 
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
 
Originally Posted by JosephM
Luke was not a recorded eyewitness and the New Testament was not formed as it exists til approximately 267 AD

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][FONT=verdana,sans-serif][COLOR=blue! important][FONT=verdana,sans-serif]Jesus [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=verdana,sans-serif][COLOR=blue! important][FONT=verdana,sans-serif]Christ[/FONT][/color][/FONT][/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][FONT=verdana,sans-serif][COLOR=blue! important][FONT=verdana,sans-serif]Gospel[/FONT][/FONT][/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
 
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.
 
Hi all -

I read you wrong Joseph ... I read Luke was not compiled until 267
My mistake also — sorry Joseph.

What no discussion of Q here?
Q was a proposed hypothetical solution to a problem, and even as that does not work satisfactorily ... mind you, nor does any other solution ... but the fact remains that there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of any document that fulfills that required of 'Q' ... nor can scholars retroactively create a document that might have been 'Q' ... so of all the possible solutions, Q is the most fragile.

The existence of an Aramaic Matthew, for example, answers a lot of the questions Q seeks to answer, and there is at least some historical validation, from Papias, and others.

What all the Synoptic Problem solutions are obliged to ignore, or rather cannot factor in, is Oral Tradition, because without verifiable data, that's a non-scientific approach, yet it seems logical to accept that oral tradition determined what eventually was written down.

In the same way tradition determines what is canonical, and what isn't.

My view is that Aram M was first; Mark second, a later Greek Matthew utilised Mark as a chronology and incorporated the Aram M sayings and discourses (more of which in Matthew than the others); Luke wrote using Matthew, Mark (possibly in earlier edition than we now possess) and other sources; and John wrote his with his community at Ephesus.

All three wrote testimonies that were tailored Christian teachings to the situation of the communities for which they were written, rather than an attempt at biography or history.

And I do believe many of them have access to all the same information we have.
That's an interesting question. Muslims accuse Christians of tritheism, whereas Christians profess monotheism. Some have suggested that wherever Mohammed (pbuh) got his information about the Trinity from, he was misinformed, as Christians aren't tritheist ... in the same waqy we must ask where he got his info about Judaism and Christianity from.

Thomas
 
Who is a true prophet?

Thank you Abdullah and Amica for your replies and to the others for their comments too.

This raises the question "Do you test the Scriptures by the messages of later prophets or the messages of the prophets by the Scriptures?"

Jesus certainly felt that the teachings of Scripture had been corrupted by the religious leaders of His day. However He didn't teach that the Scriptures themselves were corrupted. As Thomas and Pico pointed out, the modern Bible has been shown to be essentially unchanged from the oldest texts from the 1st and 2nd century.

If a new "Islamic prophet" came along today and said that the Qu'ran was corrupted from what the prophet Mohammed said (the Qu'ran being put in written form some time after Mohammed's death), on what basis would the Islamic community dispute his claim?

Christians believe that a prophet has to be judged by his life (Matthew 7:16) and whether his message is in harmony with the other Scriptures, whether there is confirmation of fulfilled prophecy, and whether they confess Christ (1 John 4:1-3)

What does the Qu'ran teach regarding how to "test" a prophet?
 
Re: Who is a true prophet?

Thank you Abdullah and Amica for your replies and to the others for their comments too.

This raises the question "Do you test the Scriptures by the messages of later prophets or the messages of the prophets by the Scriptures?"

It has to be done by the Message of later prophets, for if a scripture is distorted, and there exists no verifiable authentic copy [in paper or in mind], then the only way the truth regarding it can be known is if God sends down further revelations that verifies and corrects it.

The Quran has verified the truthfull message of previous scriptures and corrected it's distortions.

If a new "Islamic prophet" came along today and said that the Qu'ran was corrupted from what the prophet Mohammed said (the Qu'ran being put in written form some time after Mohammed's death), on what basis would the Islamic community dispute his claim?

The Quran affrims for us that Muhammad [saw] was the seal of the Prophets/Messengers, so he was the verry last one and there will be no other Prophet coming till the Last Day, so we know that any person who claims to be a Prophet after Muhammad [saw] is a lier and an imposter.

Christians believe that a prophet has to be judged by his life (Matthew 7:16) and whether his message is in harmony with the other Scriptures, whether there is confirmation of fulfilled prophecy, and whether they confess Christ (1 John 4:1-3)

But if their scripture has been distorted, then how will they rely on seeing wether a future Prophets acts is in accordance with past scriptures? [for example, if monothiesm has been distorted to a a disguised polythiesm such as the trinity conception, then obviously a future Prophet will preach the true monothiesm, i,e, God without partners, and beyond conception]]. Also, they should make room for some abrogations and changes to the religion with the advent of New Messengers; do they not beleive that Jesus [pbuh] taught a little different to what Moses [pbuh] taught?

What does the Qu'ran teach regarding how to "test" a prophet?

God sends new Messengers with 'clear signs', i.e, miracles, and the Prophet Muhammad's [saw] miracle was the Holy Quran...Also they will conform somewhat to past revelations, and will live pure, sinless and moral lives.

People may have different ways of veryfying a Prophet; this is how a Christian? Ruler 'tested' the Prophethood of muhammad [saw]:

Narrated Abdullah bin 'Abbas:

Abu Sufyan bin Harb informed me that Heraclius had sent a messenger to him while he had been accompanying a caravan from Quraish. They were merchants doing business in Sham (Syria, Palestine, Lebanon and Jordan), at the time when Allah's Apostle had truce with Abu Sufyan and Quraish infidels. So Abu Sufyan and his companions went to Heraclius at Ilya (Jerusalem). Heraclius called them in the court and he had all the senior Roman dignitaries around him. He called for his translator who, translating Heraclius's question said to them, "Who amongst you is closely related to that man who claims to be a Prophet?" Abu Sufyan replied, "I am the nearest relative to him (amongst the group)."

Heraclius said, "Bring him (Abu Sufyan) close to me and make his companions stand behind him." Abu Sufyan added, Heraclius told his translator to tell my companions that he wanted to put some questions to me regarding that man (The Prophet) and that if I told a lie they (my companions) should contradict me." Abu Sufyan added, "By Allah! Had I not been afraid of my companions labeling me a liar, I would not have spoken the truth about the Prophet. The first question he asked me about him was:

'What is his family status amongst you?'

I replied, 'He belongs to a good (noble) family amongst us.'

Heraclius further asked, 'Has anybody amongst you ever claimed the same (i.e. to be a Prophet) before him?'

I replied, 'No.'

He said, 'Was anybody amongst his ancestors a king?'

I replied, 'No.'

Heraclius asked, 'Do the nobles or the poor follow him?'

I replied, 'It is the poor who follow him.'

He said, 'Are his followers increasing decreasing (day by day)?'

I replied, 'They are increasing.'

He then asked, 'Does anybody amongst those who embrace his religion become displeased and renounce the religion afterwards?'

I replied, 'No.'

Heraclius said, 'Have you ever accused him of telling lies before his claim (to be a Prophet)?'

I replied, 'No. '

Heraclius said, 'Does he break his promises?'

I replied, 'No. We are at truce with him but we do not know what he will do in it.' I could not find opportunity to say anything against him except that.

Heraclius asked, 'Have you ever had a war with him?'

I replied, 'Yes.'

Then he said, 'What was the outcome of the battles?'

I replied, 'Sometimes he was victorious and sometimes we.'

Heraclius said, 'What does he order you to do?'

I said, 'He tells us to worship Allah and Allah alone and not to worship anything along with Him, and to renounce all that our ancestors had said. He orders us to pray, to speak the truth, to be chaste and to keep good relations with our Kith and kin.'

Heraclius asked the translator to convey to me the following, I asked you about his family and your reply was that he belonged to a very noble family. In fact all the Apostles come from noble families amongst their respective peoples. I questioned you whether anybody else amongst you claimed such a thing, your reply was in the negative. If the answer had been in the affirmative, I would have thought that this man was following the previous man's statement. Then I asked you whether anyone of his ancestors was a king. Your reply was in the negative, and if it had been in the affirmative, I would have thought that this man wanted to take back his ancestral kingdom.

I further asked whether he was ever accused of telling lies before he said what he said, and your reply was in the negative. So I wondered how a person who does not tell a lie about others could ever tell a lie about Allah. I, then asked you whether the rich people followed him or the poor. You replied that it was the poor who followed him. And in fact all the Apostle have been followed by this very class of people. Then I asked you whether his followers were increasing or decreasing. You replied that they were increasing, and in fact this is the way of true faith, till it is complete in all respects. I further asked you whether there was anybody, who, after embracing his religion, became displeased and discarded his religion. Your reply was in the negative, and in fact this is (the sign of) true faith, when its delight enters the hearts and mixes with them completely. I asked you whether he had ever betrayed. You replied in the negative and likewise the Apostles never betray. Then I asked you what he ordered you to do. You replied that he ordered you to worship Allah and Allah alone and not to worship any thing along with Him and forbade you to worship idols and ordered you to pray, to speak the truth and to be chaste. If what you have said is true, he will very soon occupy this place underneath my feet and I knew it (from the scriptures) that he was going to appear but I did not know that he would be from you, and if I could reach him definitely, I would go immediately to meet him and if I were with him, I would certainly wash his feet.' Heraclius then asked for the letter addressed by Allah's Apostle

which was delivered by Dihya to the Governor of Busra, who forwarded it to Heraclius to read. The contents of the letter were as follows: "In the name of Allah the Beneficent, the Merciful (This letter is) from Muhammad the slave of Allah and His Apostle to Heraclius the ruler of Byzantine. Peace be upon him, who follows the right path. Furthermore I invite you to Islam, and if you become a Muslim you will be safe, and Allah will double your reward, and if you reject this invitation of Islam you will be committing a sin by misguiding your Arisiyin (peasants). (And I recite to you Allah's Statement:)

'O people of the scripture! Come to a word common to you and us that we worship none but Allah and that we associate nothing in worship with Him, and that none of us shall take others as Lords beside Allah. Then, if they turn away, say: Bear witness that we are Muslims (those who have surrendered to Allah).' (3:64).

Abu Sufyan then added, "When Heraclius had finished his speech and had read the letter, there was a great hue and cry in the Royal Court. So we were turned out of the court. I told my companions that the question of Ibn-Abi-Kabsha) (the Prophet Muhammad) has become so prominent that even the King of Bani Al-Asfar (Byzantine) is afraid of him. Then I started to become sure that he (the Prophet) would be the conqueror in the near future till I embraced Islam (i.e. Allah guided me to it)."

The sub narrator adds, "Ibn An-Natur was the Governor of llya' (Jerusalem) and Heraclius was the head of the Christians of Sham. Ibn An-Natur narrates that once while Heraclius was visiting ilya' (Jerusalem), he got up in the morning with a sad mood. Some of his priests asked him why he was in that mood? Heraclius was a foreteller and an astrologer. He replied, 'At night when I looked at the stars, I saw that the leader of those who practice circumcision had appeared (become the conqueror). Who are they who practice circumcision?' The people replied, 'Except the Jews nobody practices circumcision, so you should not be afraid of them (Jews).

'Just Issue orders to kill every Jew present in the country.'

While they were discussing it, a messenger sent by the king of Ghassan to convey the news of Allah's Apostle to Heraclius was brought in. Having heard the news, he (Heraclius) ordered the people to go and see whether the messenger of Ghassan was circumcised. The people, after seeing him, told Heraclius that he was circumcised. Heraclius then asked him about the Arabs. The messenger replied, 'Arabs also practice circumcision.'

(After hearing that) Heraclius remarked that sovereignty of the 'Arabs had appeared. Heraclius then wrote a letter to his friend in Rome who was as good as Heraclius in knowledge. Heraclius then left for Homs. (a town in Syrian and stayed there till he received the reply of his letter from his friend who agreed with him in his opinion about the emergence of the Prophet and the fact that he was a Prophet. On that Heraclius invited all the heads of the Byzantines to assemble in his palace at Homs. When they assembled, he ordered that all the doors of his palace be closed. Then he came out and said, 'O Byzantines! If success is your desire and if you seek right guidance and want your empire to remain then give a pledge of allegiance to this Prophet (i.e. embrace Islam).'

(On hearing the views of Heraclius) the people ran towards the gates of the palace like onagers but found the doors closed. Heraclius realized their hatred towards Islam and when he lost the hope of their embracing Islam, he ordered that they should be brought back in audience.

(When they returned) he said, 'What already said was just to test the strength of your conviction and I have seen it.' The people prostrated before him and became pleased with him, and this was the end of Heraclius's story (in connection with his faith).

Domain of Islam :: Sahih Hadith Bukhari :: Sayings of Prophet Muhammad(saws)

The Prophets have the light of truth and faith in them, and for osme people just one look at a Prophets face is enough for them to believe.

A beduin once came to the Prophet muhammad [saw] to deny him and argue with him, but once he set his eyes on him, and saw the radiance of faith in him, he excliamed, "By God this is not face of a lier"! ...and then he immediately accepted Islam.

Hope that hleps

Peace.
 
Re: Who is a true prophet?

This raises the question "Do you test the Scriptures by the messages of later prophets or the messages of the prophets by the Scriptures?"

It can also be done by the message in the scriptures itself; a true Message of God wont contradict past scriputres in Creed [conception of 'God', and essential beliefs for faith...] and nor will it have any non-sensical, contradictory, or unethical stuff in it...

Peace.
 
Matthew 26:28 English Standard Version (ESV)

This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

Exodus 24:8 English Standard Version (ESV)

And Moses took the blood and threw it on the people and said, "Behold the blood of the covenant that the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words."

Christ never uses the words, " I died for your sins." He lived for the salvation and betterment of mankind. If Christ died for people's sins, then Moses and Muhammed died for people's sins.

But, I think the important aspect is the persecution that each of them faced, but that they all persevered for the betterment of mankind.
 
Back
Top