Islam and Christianity

 

There are quite a few distinct differences between Christianity and Islam even though they both claim to worship the one true God.  I believe that one of the most important distinctions can be found in the Quran in Surah 4.157-159. These verses are, to my way of thinking, foremost in a number of Quranic verses that divide the two religions with an unbridgeable chasm.  The reason for this is that these verses deny the death and therefore the resurrection of Jesus.  The resurrection of Jesus being the very heart and foundation of the Christian faith.

While these verses may seem difficult for the Christian, it also puts up quite a challenge for the Muslim because they are, in some ways, self contradictory and paint God as a liar and deceiver. Let’s look at these verses:

Surah 4.157-159 reads:

"And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise. And there is none from the People of the Scripture but that he will surely believe in Jesus before his death. And on the Day of Resurrection he will be against them a witness."

While explicitly denying the death of Jesus on the cross, Surah 4.157-159 also confirms that Christians (or at least someone of the time) believed that Jesus died on the cross. This is quite a confronting section of the Quran, and as far as I can conceive, there are only four possible explanations as to why this verse says what it says the way it says it and why these thing contradict the Bible. These possibilities are as follows:

1. Allah deliberately deceived the Jews and the Romans in order to save Jesus and then made a mistake, accidentally deceiving the disciples of Jesus.  Allah then left it to snowball for nearly 600 years until this mistake was corrected through Muhammad. 

2. Allah did not care about the disciples or deliberately went out of His way to deceive the disciples of Jesus and then the disciples recorded this deception as the Gospel. 

3. The Quran has errors or is incomplete. 

4. The Bible has been somehow radically changed.

For obvious reasons, Muslims reject possibilities 1, 2 & 3. This leaves only possibility number 4. However this is actually the most impossible of all as explained below:

Impossible for the First Reason

For the first possibility to be true, the Bible would have to have been changed totally and dramatically. As stated above, the death and resurrection of Jesus is the very heart and foundation of Christianity and this event has been recorded in just about every book of the New Testament and foretold in some books of the Old Testament. For the Bible to have been changed after Muhammad received the revelations, one would have to gather up every copy of New Testament writings that were spread across Europe, Asia Minor and North Africa at the time and replace them with the new altered versions without anyone noticing. Don’t forget that the Jews have their own copy of the Old Testament scriptures. And this would also have to include the Dead Sea copy of the book of Isaiah – lost in the first century and not discovered until 1947.

Bible could not have been changed before Muhammad received the revelations otherwise the Quran would not have said in Surah 10.94:

"And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers."

To get a full understanding of just how impossible it would be to change the Bible, I challenge you both to read the Gospel of John and the book of Acts.

Impossible for the Second Reason

If someone did in fact manage to change out all the Bibles across Europe, Asia Minor and North Africa, then please note that it would have to have been changed in such a way as align is with Surah 4.157-159 to make it look like Allah lied to the disciples of Jesus. And on top of this, Allah did not see it coming.

If God is God, then He is not bound by the things that constrain man. God created time; he is therefore not bound by it and can see the past, present and future as if an open book. The explanation provided in Surah 4.157-159 is very incomplete given that Christians everywhere believe that Jesus died on the cross and three days later rose from the grave thus conquering death and the grave.

If the Bible has been changed or corrupted, why doesn’t it clearly state that in the Quran?

Impossible for the Third Reason

"And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them."

According to the verse above someone else was put in the place of Jesus and made to resemble him and Jesus somehow went to his freedom and was raised up to be with God. But God is Almighty and Good and is not like sinful man. Why then would Allah resort to the use of a deception to save Jesus from the cross? Why did Allah need to put someone in Jesus' place? And if this action was not deception, what would you call it?

Impossible for the Fourth Reason

The requirement for there to be two eye-witness testimonies

There are many witnesses that testify that Jesus is what the Christians claim that he is:

• The writers of the four gospels - Mathew, Mark, Luke and John.
• The letters written by - Peter, James, Paul and Jude.
• The prophetic writings of - Moses, David, Nathan, Isaiah, Daniel and Micah and others.
• The historical writings of hostile witnesses - Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny the Younger.
• Plus the many writings from the first century church.

I have named just 18 manes of witnesses, but as you can see there are many, many more.  Some of these were eye-witnesses of Christ's death and resurrection like Peter and John.   Others like Isaiah and Nathan were prophets of God and it was revealed to then ahead of time.  Paul on the other hand saw the risen Christ and was blinded for a time.  These people listed above bear witness that Jesus is the Messiah, the Alpha and the Omega, the Risen Christ, the King of kings, the one the Christians claim to worship, the Prince of Peace, the Holy one of God, the one who was killed on the cross and raised to life again.

But Muhammad said all of these things are not so and that Jesus was only a prophet of the God, a messenger of Allah and nothing more.  For certain offences under Islamic law, the testimony two eye-witnesses are required.  How could this not be the case for the accusation that someone had bared false witness about God or that someone changed the scriptures?  And yet the Muhammad is only one witness and not an eye-witness.  His testimony cannot stand? 

Impossible for the Fifth Reason - History. 

The Bible itself is regarded as historically accurate, particularly the New Testament (although there some historians who will discount the miracles).  There are also others historical documents written in the First Century that can be referenced.  These are the works of:

Josephus - a 1st century Romano-Jewish historian (37AD – 100AD)

Tacitus - a senator and historian of the Roman Empire (56AD – 117AD)

Pliny the Younger - lawyer, author and magistrate of Ancient Rome (61AD – 112AD)

The three authors listed above were all hostile to Christians, one was a Jew the other two were part of the Roman hierarchy (Pliny even had Christians torched and executed). The documents written by these men provide quite detailed information on life and the time in which they lived.  All three records record that Jesus Christ died by the order issued by Pontius Pilate. It is also recorded Christian community at the time believed in the death and resurrection of Jesus and that they celebrated communion with one another. All three are regarded as historically accurate.

This being the case would mean that for the Quran to be without error, ether Allah deliberately would have had to go out of His way to deceive the disciples of Jesus and through them all Christians, or made a mistake and the disciples of Jesus were deceived accidently.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Younger_on_Christians

Conclusion and a Challenge

Standard Muslim teaching asserts that the Injil, which is the prophetic Gospel delivered through the prophet Isa (Jesus of Nazareth), has been irretrievably corrupted and distorted in the course of Christian transmission; and that consequently, place no reliance on any text in the New Testament.

However there is existence today some 5,735 manuscripts of the whole or part of the Greek text of the New Testament (Injil) all of which pre-date Muhammad. Worldwide, there are 24,800 copies of these original manuscripts. These include the Codex Vaticanus (325-350 AD) located in the Vatican library and the Codex Sinaiticus (350 AD) located in the British Museum. There are also 80,000 quotations in the works of early Christian writers, which are so extensive that the New Testament could virtually be reconstructed from them without the actual New Testament documents. Then there is the obvious fact that the Christian Gospels were so widely distributed both before and after Muhammad, that any attempt to change (add/subtract) something in the Christian Gospels would have resulted in immediate discovery and condemnation.

Surah 10.94:

"And if thou (Muhammad) art in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto thee, then question those who read the Scripture (that was) before thee. Verily the Truth from thy Lord hath come unto thee. So be not thou of the waverers."

According to the Quran the Bible was trustworthy at the time of Muhammad. With the 5,735 manuscripts pre-dating Muhammad, Moslems and anyone looking to Islam for answers have got to do some soul searching. Better still some reading.  I challenge Muslims everywhere to read part of the bible of the Bible: the Gospel of John and the book of Acts. Then you can explain to me how on earth Surah 4.157-159 cannot be in error.

The reason that the Bible is rejected by Islam is not because it’s inaccurate or because there are minor variances in the source documents, it is because they must reject it or else they must admit that the Quran has errors.

So out of the four possibilities the only possibility that makes logical sense, and that is possibility number 3 - “The Quran has errors or is incomplete.”

Please seek the truth in this regard,

it is the truth that is important not pride or saving face.

The Gospel of Barnabas Part 2

Some Muslims use the Gospel of Barnabas to preach the message of Islam on their websites and they make some pretty extraordinary claims about it. 

Within these extraordinary claims they will drop some names of some great Christian leaders from the early church and some names of important places from the early church’s history and say that: “This shows that the Gospel of Barnabas was in circulation in the first and second centuries”. But the one thing you will also see, is they will never provide you with any references as to where these details can be found (at least not until the references are from books written after the 16th century).

Let’s have a look at some of these claims:

1.) The Gospel of Barnabas was accepted in the Churches of Alexandria till 325 A.D.

2.)  Irenaeus of Lyons (130-202) opposed Paul for injecting pagan Roman religion and Platonic philosophy into Christianity. 

3.)  Irenaeus had quoted extensively from the Gospel of Barnabas showing that the Gospel of Barnabas was in circulation in the first and second centuries of Christianity.

My comment on these three points:

1.)  You will notice that in each of the websites that quote this point, the author of the website provides absolutely no evidence for the statement that they have made. Quite frankly, I believe that this claim is totally baseless and will continue to do so until some evidence is provided to the contrary.

2.)  Once again, no references are provided even though the works of Irenaeus are divided into book, chapter and verse and can be referenced very easily.  Irenaeus quotes extensively from the four canonised Gospels, the Book of Acts, Paul’s letters and the letters from the other apostles. I have not found anywhere where he opposes Paul or Paul’s writings; on the contrary, he quotes Paul’s letters to make his case within his series of five books called “Adversus Haereses” (Against Heresies) in which he defends the Christian faith against Gnosticism.

3.)  And again, the writers of the various web pages provide no references.  In the works of Irenaeus, I have found many direct quotes made from the four canonised Gospels but nothing from the so called “Gospel of Barnabas”.  But because the Gospel of Barnabas parallels some parts of the canonised Gospels one could make the assumption that Irenaeus was quoting from the Gospel of Barnabas. However there are some mark differences between the Gospel of Barnabas and what Irenaeus quotes.  For example Irenaeus quite often refers to Jesus as the “Word of God” which found in Gospel of John and not in the Gospel of Barnabas.  He also talks about the death and resurrection of Jesus found in the four canonised Gospels but not in the Gospel of Barnabas.

The works of Irenaeus’ can be found at this web site. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.html

There are a lot of websites out there that say all sorts of things and make all sorts of claims, but what I say is this:  

Please do not just accept or reject the words of this website or for that matter any other web site without first checking out for yourself the claims that have been made.  

It’s the truth that matters, not the ideas, opinions or agendas of those who would want to gain the power of influence over us.  It was God who gave us our minds; not so that we would blindly follow someone else, but so we could use our minds, determine what is the true and then to do what is right.

Seek out the truth; it is the truth that sets us free. 

The Gospel of Barnabas

There are a lot of people ranting and raving about the Gospel of Barnabas (mostly Muslims) and they say that it portrays the truth about Jesus.  But is document authentic?  Was the Gospel of Barnabas written by someone who walked and talked with the Jesus of Nazareth two thousand years ago?   

      In a word, NO

The so called Gospel of Barnabas is a forgery written sometime between the 14th and 16th centuries and there are some Muslim scholars who agree with this dating.  So how can we know the date and the age that the book was first written?

There are two main things used to determine the date of the composition of document and these are external evidence and internal evidence:

“External Evidence” - this is where other documents make reference to or quote from the document in question. 

As far as the Gospel of Barnabas is concerned, there is absolutely no external evidence to even suggest that this book ever existed prior to the 14th century.

“Internal Evidence” - evidence within the text itself. A proper examination of the document can reveal more that what you would think when it is aligned with what is already known about history, geography, language, manner of writing etc.

For example:

If a document was presented and was said to have been created in the early 1950s and yet this document used the word “Facebook” and the term “social networking” you would know that the document was actually written in 2004 or later.  

If another document was to be found referencing “TCP/IP” and “ARPANET” (as a going concern), you would have to assume that document was written after 1969 and before 1989 when the “ARPANET” was resigned to the history books.  

So what can the text within the Gospel of Barnabas tell us?

The Gospel of Barnabas claims to have been written by a disciple of Jesus called Barnabas, so if this writing was authentic, it would be reasonable to expect that the author would be very familiar with the basic facts of Jewish life in 1st century Israel. However the author of the so called “gospel” did not understand the language, history or geography of 1st century Israel. 

1.) Geography 
In the first half of chapter 20 we find “Jesus went to the Sea of Galilee, and having embarked in a ship sailed to his city of Nazareth” and after Jesus calmed the storm “arrived at the city of Nazareth the seamen spread through the city all that Jesus had wrought”.

By definition, to sail a ship you need water (and a lot of it). However the city of Nazareth is 25 km inland from the Sea of Galilee, more than 500m higher in altitude and situated on a mountainous ridge half way between Sea of Galilee and the Mediterranean Sea.  It is impossible to sail a ship to city of Nazareth as you cannot sail a ship without water.  

2.) Christ / Messiah
The word “Christ” is the Greek translation for the Hebrew word “Messiah”. Both these words when translated into English mean the Anointed One or the Chosen One. This word is not an obscure or rarely used word, on the contrary it is one of the most famous words in the Jewish and Christian religions. There is no doubt that if the author had been a disciple of Jesus, he would have been very familiar with this word.

However in the very opening of the book we find Jesus announced as God’s “prophet Jesus Christ”. And later in chapter 24 “Jesus confessed, and said the truth: 'I am not the Messiah.'”  It is clear that the author did not understand the language spoken by Jesus and the 1st century Jews

3.) History 
In chapter 3 we are told that Herod and Pilate both ruled in Judea at the time of Jesus' birth: “here reigned at that time in Judaea Herod, by decree of Caesar Augustus, and Pilate was governor.”

This is historically wrong for Herod and Pilate never ruled Judea at the same time. Herod ruled Judea alone from 37 to 4 B.C., while Pilate ruled thirty years later from 26 to 36 A.D. The real Barnabas lived during the rule of Pilate, so if he really was the writer of this book, how could he make such a simple mistake?

4.) Anachronisms and other internal evidence

Anachronisms are things that show that this document was written at a much later time in history than claimed in this so called gospel, and there are many anachronisms that show the book was first written many, centuries later.

For example:

In the so called Gospel Barnabas, wooden barrels are mentioned as a method for storing wine. However, in the Near East, leather wineskins were used as wooden barrels were not available till after the third century.

And the other internal evidence of the book suggests it was written sometime in the 14th to 16th centuries. The Gospel of Barnabas contains quotations from Dante Alighieri, references to an edict from Pope Boniface, and descriptions of feudalism and lots of other discrepancies. Therefore, scholars place the date of authorship around the fifteenth century.

5.) Mistakes

There are a lot of mistakes that show that the author just did not know about first century Israel and was therefore not from the first century Israel as claimed, these include the following:

• According to the description in the Gospel of Barnabas, Nineveh lies near the Mediterranean coast. It, however, is to be found in the interior on the banks of the Tigris more than 600 kilometres from the Mediterranean.

• The Gospel of Barnabas reports 600,000 Roman soldiers in Palestine. There were, however, perhaps so many soldiers only in the entire Roman Empire, but certainly not in Palestine.

• The Gospel of Barnabas also reports 17,000 Pharisees at the time of the Old Testament. However the party of the Pharisees, originated only in the second century before Christ. The last book of the Old Testament was written by Malachi around 450 B.C.

• The Gospel of Barnabas describes a European summer: “everything bears fruit”. In Palestine, however, it rains in winter, and in the summer the land is dry.

• The Gospel of Barnabas cites Bible verses according to the Latin Vulgate translation, which was completed only at the end of the fourth century and became the official Catholic Bible.

• The Gospel of Barnabas reports that Jesus and his disciples had “kept the forty days”. The forty-day fast before Easter was introduced only in the fourth century and is supposed to be a reminder of the suffering and death of Jesus, which was impossible before his death.

• The Barnabas gospel mentions a gold coin: the dinar, comprised of 60 minuti. This coin was used for just a short time in medieval Spain, a point of argument which appears to support the thesis of a Spanish origin for the Gospel of Barnabas.

• The forbidden fruit in Paradise, which the Old Testament does not specify by name, is said in the Gospel of Barnabas to be an apple, also a development from later church history.

• There are conspicuous parallels between the Barnabas gospel and the works of the great Italian poet Dante Alighieri (1265-1321),

• According to the description in the Gospel of Barnabas, the “year of jubilee” is celebrated every one hundred years, while the Old Testament names a period of fifty years. In the year 1300, Pope Boniface VIII fixed the date for the celebration of the year of jubilee as once in every hundred years. But already in 1343, Clement VI shortened the period to fifty years and announced the next jubilee celebration for 1350. Thus, the interval between celebrations of the year of jubilee was fixed at one hundred years, as the Gospel of Barnabas describes it, only in the period between 1300 and 1343.

 And the list goes on

  

The so called “Gospel of Barnabas” is not an authentic Gospel of Jesus. The book is a rewrite of the Biblical Gospel most likely by a Muslim around the 14th, 15th or 16th century who wanted to portray Jesus as a Muslim who taught Islam and predicted the coming of Muhammad.

(Note:  It’s important that we not confuse the Gospel of Barnabas with the Epistle of Barnabas.  These are two separate documents with two very different authors - the Epistle of Barnabas was written A.D. 70–90).