Irrelevent question because it never said it was written in Aramaic. But this begs a good question. See, sometimes, when it suits your ideas or needs, you can put your thinking cap on and be logical. Asking where the Aramaic scriptures are at is a good, logical question even if it ends up being irrelevant to this particular discussion. So how come you don't ask the same logical question when Muslims claim the real Biblical scriptures get corrupted and lost? Ask the same question. Where are they? Why don't we find one single trace of them?
It's very much related if you admit that NT was in Aramaic.
But it wasn't and nobody said it was. What does it take to get it through your head? What is the major block (or even cinder block) in your head?
In order to argue for Yeshua one would have to assume that NT was written in Aramaic and not in Greek; so the question was very related.
dummy, he's trying to discover the origin of Isa, and since it's not in any of the Greek writings, then some, like MastaBlaster suggest that it came from his native tongue of Aramaic. He did not suggest the bible was written in Aramaic, he simply suggested that the Quran chose the Aramaic because that was the language Jesus spoke in, not the language that any of the gospels were written in. But it turns out, that the Aramaic of Jesus does not support the Quran or the name Isa, and this was what aksel was pointing out. you seem to be stuck on the notion that there had to have been a Gosdpel written while Jesus was alive and therefore written in Aramaic, but that's utter nonsense and there's no scriptural or historical evidence for this at all that I am aware of..
Well, if they are corrupted and lost how are you going to find it? The fact that there isn't any Aramaic NT is a good start?
How about if we instead say they're not lost and Muhammad was lying when he leveled the charge and that he had to make this charge because the scriptures didn't correctly suit his prophethood? Do you think that's even remotely possible? Of course you don't.
You don't even understand what the Gospels are. They never were supposed to be the letter for letter dictation of Allah like the Quran "claim" to be. Jesus never mentioned any book and never commanded that one be written. In fact, he even said that in the new covenant "the law shall be written on the hearts of men". All that the Gospels were, was the retelling of the story of Jesus, supposedly according to witnesses which could even be the apostles themselves. And it's natural to assume that people would tell of what happened to Jesus and what he said. This is why nobody ever even attempted to create a Gospel named "Gospel of Jesus" or even "Gospel of God" and instead, they were all named "Gospel of "apostle's name"". So that alone should tell you something right there. And they are all written in third person narrative form. The Quran is in first person form where it is supposed to be Allah talking directly to you. The Gospels are all in third person narrative form where a narrator is telling you a story. So it's interesting that the Quran doesn't say the scriptures are entirely corrupted it onlky says they changed some of the words and their places. but if there was an orginal Gospel, penned in heaven, then it would be in first person form like the Quran. Therefore, not just some parts of this would have hasd to have been altered, every single verse would have had to have been altered to change it from first person form to third person. Can you understand the problem with the claim as it was made? Muhammad obviously didn't.
See how Muhammad didn't even really understand what the Gospels were supposed to be? If he did, he wouldn't have made the charge the way he did and would have said the entire thing was rewritten. Yet another example that we're talking about Muhammad, not God.
Well, now Quran claim of Bible corruption on the other hand is completely irrelevant, but I thought you said something interesting there
It was just an additional example of the same pattern of errors
. Yes, Torah and Quran is in first person form.
No, the Torah is essentially wtitten in third person narrative form with the exception of a few smalll spots. Do you understand what third person narrative means? For example, in Genesis, it says "and then God did and then God said.....". That's third person narrative where a narrator is telling you what God did and said. The Quran, however, says "then I or We did and then I or We said". See the difference? And you're telling me the Torah is in first person form just like the Quran. Boy, the m,ore you look at this, the more you're going to see the big fat problem lying underneath.
And in many places the tone seems like as if it is the OT god in Quran speaking.
Forget about tone fudgy as that is not the issue. See above.
Well actually Quran usually refers to specific Jews who changed words from their places. And it does attest that quite a bit of OT message is corrupted.
It only says some of them. And in other places, Muhammad attests that there is truth left in the books they possessed during his day because he told them that he is found in their books, not their past books because he asks them to look, which has to mean in their present books. But if they were originally penned in heaven and therefore in first person form as something penned in heaven can't have a narrator, then the entire thing would have to be rewritten to change it from first person to third. Wow!!!
Regardless, Judaism is very much similar to Islam.
I agree. Seems like Jesus tried to evolve the religion to the next step and Muhammad contradicted him all over the place and sent us right back into the opposite direction of blind obedience over compassion and understanding. I'm glad you brought that up.
On the case of Christians though the main corruption is directed in crucifixion story--at the heart of its main theology! Thus indicating that Christians corruption of the Message was to an greater extent than Jews,
One of the most important goals of Islam was to wipe Christianity out and give Jesus a nice 16 gun salute (so to speak) and mention some really nice words about him before it essentially buries him by burying his words and replacing them with the Quran. How are we really supposed to know anything of any detail about what Jesus thought, taught, etc......from the Quran? We're not. The Quran was designed to bury Jesus' wisdom and replace it with an imposter Jesus who just so happens to sound a heck of a lot like good old Mo himself. Hmmm.......Any Christian worth a salt can see through this obvious scam attempt in two seconds.
which obviously is true.
How can you say anything is obvious when you often aren't even following the crux of a conversation? Sometimes i'm not sure if you even know what you are agreeing to.
Well now you are putting your thinking cap on,
Oh brother. The black kettle and the pot.
but you needed to dig like one depth deeper. Just changing Bible from first person to third person form would not indicate that is completely corrupted;
You would have to rewrite every single third person verse and change it to first person, dummy. This would practically constitute and entire rewrite, not just changing some of the words and their places. But Muhammad didn't realize this little problem which is why he made this error in his little cockamanie bull story. Often, Muhammad did not think things out thoroughly enough, and maybe that's why you don't either
in fact it would indicate very little change. A complete corruption would be to completely change the words and its meaning...ie to say something like Jesus was not born of virgin but died on cross for sins of mankind.
That sort of corruption you're talking about is what the Quran attempted. Wipe the old scriptures out and retell the story and change things as you need them. Like, if Muhammad needed to be part of the Abrahamic line, then the covenant has to switch to Ishmael and it is he who God asked Abraham to sacrifice.
Anyway, Quran claim is that quite a bit of OT is corrupted even though it usually refers to some specific Jews changing words from their places,
Verse? You don't have it.
which evidently accumulated into something bigger.Yet, still the Christian corruption was at much greater extent.
The Gospels are entirely in third person form, and don't you find it kind of odd that nobody ever attempted to call their corrupted version the Gospel of Jesus? Why was it always that they clearly said Gospel of Luke or Mark instead of ever even attempting to say Gospel of Jesus? Think about that. Muhammad had no idea of what the scriptures he was trashing were really supposed to be in the first place. So Mo exposes his ignorance of Chriatianity yet again while masquerading as God's direct, letter for letter messenger. I'm sure Allah understood what the Gospels were supposed to be very well.