en-USur-PK
  |  
04

اسرائیل کا خدا رحیم ہے محمد کا نہیں

posted on
اسرائیل کا خدا رحیم ہے محمد کا نہیں

Israel’s God is merciful

Muhammad’s is not

اِسرائیل کا خدُا رحیم ہے محمد کا نہیں

’’اور     داؤد نے سلیمان  سے کہا اے میرے بیٹے میں جو ہوں سو میرے دل میں  تھا کہ خداوند اپنے خدا کے نام کے لئے ایک گھر بناؤں۔ لیکن خداوند کاکلام  اس مضمون کا مجھ  پر اُترا کہ تو نے بہت سے خونریزی کی اور بڑی لڑائیاں لڑیں تجھے میرے نام  کے لئے  گھر بنانا ہو گا  کیونکہ تو نے زمین پر میرے آگے بہت لُہو بہایا ہے۔ دیکھ تجھ سے  ایک بیٹا  پیدا ہو گا۔ وہ صاحب صُلح  ہو گا۔ اور میں اُسے اُس کی چاروں طرف کے سارے دشمنوں  سے صُلح دونگا۔  کہ سلیمان اُس کا نام ہوگا اور امان اور آرام میں اُس کے دنِوں میں اسرائیل کو بخشونگا۔ وہی میرے نام کے لئے  گھر بناویگا۔  وہ میرا بیٹا ہو گا اور میں اُس کا باپ ہونگا۔ اور میں اسرائیل  پر اُس کی سلطنت کا تخت  ابدتک ثابت رکھونگا[1]‘‘۔ 1۔تواریخ 22باب 7سے 10آیت۔

وہ رحیم خدُا۔ جس نے داؤد کو اجازت  دی کہ اُس کے نام کے لئے زمین  پر پتھر اور لکڑی  کا ایک گھر بنائے۔ کیونکہ داؤد  نے خدُا  کے دشمن  کافر  فلسطیوں کے خون کئے تھے۔ وہ رحیم خدا۔ جس نے یوناہ نبی کو کہا تھا  ’’ کیا مجھے لازم نہ تھا کہ میں اتنے بڑے شہر نینوہ  پر جس میں ایک لاکھ بیس ہزار  آدمیوں سے زیادہ  ہیں جواپنے  دہنے  بائیں ہاتھ کے درمیان امتیاز  نہیں کر سکتے اور مویشی بھی بہت ہیں  شفقت نہ کروں‘‘ یوناہ ۴ باب ۱۱ آیت۔ جبکہ یوناہ نبی چاہتا تھا کہ نینوہ کے لوگ خدا کے غضب سے برباد ہو جاویں۔ وہ رحیم  خدا ہے۔ جس نے شرط مقرر کی تھی ۔ کہ اُس کے پاک نام کے لئے گھر وہی  شخص بنائیگا جو صاحب  صُلح ہو گا۔ وہ رحیم  خُدا  کیونکر اپنی رحمت کے برخلاف محمد صاحب اور محمدیوں  کو حکم  دے سکتا تھا کہ میرے نام کے لئے مکّہ میں ایک خانہ کعبہ بناؤ  جس حال میں کہ اُنہوں نے روئے زمین پر آدمیوں کے خون کےدریا بہا دیئے۔  اور نہ محمد صاحب  نہ عمر نہ علی نہ حسن حسین اور نہ دیگر محمدی صاحبان  صاحب صلح ہوئے۔

جب میں نے یہ بات ایک  مولوی صاحب کی خدمت میں عرض کی تو اُنہوں نے جواب دیا کہ گنہگار کو سزا دینا ظلم نہیں انصاف  ہے اگر محمد صاحب اور مسلمانوں نے کافروں  کو مارا اور اُن کامال لوٹ لیا تو یہ کچھ بیجا نہیں کیا خدا کے عدل کو پورا کیا ۔ میں نے عرض  کی جناب جب کسی رحیم بادشاہ   نے اپنی  رعّیت کے ساتھ محبے کرنی ہوتی ہے تو بھوکھوں کو روٹی اور ننگوں کو کپڑا اور یتیموں اور بیواؤں کی خدمت اپنے بیٹے کے ہاتھ سے کرواتا  ہے لیکن جب کسی مجرم کو سزا دلوانی ہوتی یا پھانسی دلانا ہوتا ہے  تو  چوڑھے  جلاو  کے ہاتھ سے دلواتا ہے۔ اب آپ ہی  انصاف  فرمائے کہ بیوائیں اور یتیم  غریب مسکین۔ بادشاہ کے بیٹے کو کس نظر سے دیکھیں گے۔  اور مجرم لوگ جلاو کو کس نظر سے۔

قرآن کی ان آیات نے۔ فَخُذُوهُمْ وَاقْتُلُوهُمْ حَيْثُ وَجَدتُّمُوهُمْ وَلَا تَتَّخِذُوا مِنْهُمْ وَلِيًّا وَلَا نَصِيرًا۔جہاں پاؤ انہیں پکڑو اور قتل کرو اور ان میں سے کسی کو اپنے دوست اور مددگار نہ بناؤ۔ اور وَقَاتِلُوهُمْ حَتَّىٰ لَا تَكُونَ فِتْنَةٌ وَيَكُونَ الدِّينُ لِلَّهِ۔ اور ان سے لڑو یہاں تک کہ فساد باقی نہ رہے اور الله کا دین قائم ہو جائے۔  ( البقر رکوع ۲۴) محمد صاحب اور مسلمانوں سے بہت ہی بہت سخت ظلم  غیر دین والوں  پر کروائے ہیں۔ ممکن نہیں کہ جن کے عزیز رشتہ داروں کی گردنیں اُن کی آنکھوں  کی سامنے کاٹی گئیں۔ اور جن کے گھر بار لوٹے  گئے اور اُن سے جبراً  کلمۂ  محمدی پڑھوایا گیا۔  کسی طرح سے محمد اور اُس کے خدا کی طرف محبت کی آنکھوں سے دیکھ  سکیں یا کعبہ میں جا کر صدق دل سے محمد ساحب کے خدا  سے اپنی بھلائی کے واسطے  کوئی دعا مانگ سکیں۔  ایسوں سے محمد  صاحب  کے خدُا کی شکایت  بالکل بجا  ہے۔

إِنَّ الْمُنَافِقِينَ يُخَادِعُونَ اللَّهَ وَهُوَ خَادِعُهُمْ وَإِذَا قَامُوا إِلَى الصَّلَاةِ قَامُوا كُسَالَىٰ يُرَاءُونَ النَّاسَ وَلَا يَذْكُرُونَ اللَّهَ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا مُّذَبْذَبِينَ بَيْنَ ذَٰلِكَ لَا إِلَىٰ هَٰؤُلَاءِ وَلَا إِلَىٰ هَٰؤُلَاءِ وَمَن يُضْلِلِ اللَّهُ فَلَن تَجِدَ لَهُ سَبِيلًا ۔ منافق الله کو فریب دیتے ہیں اور وہی ان کو فریب دے گا اور جب وہ نماز میں کھڑے ہوتے ہیں تو سست بن کر کھڑے ہوتے ہیں لوگو ں کو دکھا تے ہیں اور الله کو بہت کم یاد کرتے ہیں۔ کفر اور ایمان کے درمیان ڈانوں ڈول ہیں نہ پورے اس طرف ہیں اور نہ پورے اس طرف اور جسے الله گمراہ کر دے تو اس کے واسطے ہرگزکہیں راہ نہ پائے گا۔ ( لنساء  ۲۱ رکوع)

’’ خدُا نے جہان کو ایسا پیار کیا ہے کہ اُس نے اپنا اکلوتا بیٹا بخشا تا کہ  جو کوئی اُس پر ایمان لاے ہلاک نہ ہو بلکہ ہمیشہ کی زندگی پائے۔ کیونکہ خدا نے اپنے بیٹے کو جہان میں اِس لئے نہیں بھیجا کہ جہان پر سزا کا حکم کرے بلکہ اس لئے کہ جہان اُس کے سبب نجات پاوے‘‘ ( یوحنا کی انجیل ۳ باب ۱۶، ۱۷ آیت)  ’’ خداوند کی روح مجھپر ہے اُس  نئ اِس لئے مجھے مسح کیا کہ غریبوں کو خوشخبری  دوں۔ مجھکو بھیجا کہ ٹوٹے دلوں کو درست کروں۔ قیدیوں کوچھوٹنے اور اندھوں کو  دیکھنے  کی خبر سناؤں۔ اور جو بیڑیوں سے گھایل ہیں اُنہیں چھڑُاؤں اور خداوند کے سال مقبول  کی مُنادی کروں۔ ‘‘ ( لوقا ۴ باب ۱۸، ۱۹ آیت )

’’یسوع نے جواب دیا کہ میری بادشاہت اس جہان کی نہیں اگر میری بادشاہت اس جہان کی ہوتی تو میرے نوکر لڑائی  کرتے‘‘ ۔ ( یوحنا ۱۸ باب ۲۶ آیت) ۔

’’ تب یسوع نے اُس سے کہا اپنی تلوار میان میں کر کیونکہ جو تلوار کھینچتے ہیں تلوار  ہی سے مارے جائینگے‘‘ (متی ۲۶ باب ۵۲ آیت)۔

میرے پیارے مسلم بھائیو ہم آپکی  منّت کرتے ہیں کہ اِس دنُیا کے بادشاہ محمد کی پیروی چھوڑ دو اور تلوار  کو توڑ کر دور پھینکو۔ اور آسمان کے بادشاہ صَلح اور سلامتی   کے مالک مسیح کے پاس آؤ۔ سُنو وہ کیس میٹھی  آواز سے آپکو  بلاُ رہا ہے۔ ’’ اے تم لوگو  جو تھکے  اور بڑے  بوجھ سے دبے ہو سب میرے پاس آؤ کہ میں تمہیں آرام دونگا۔ میرا جوُا اپنے اوپر لے لو اور مجھ سے سیکھو کیونکہ میں حلیم اور دل سے خاکسار ہوں تو تم اپنے جیؤن میں آرام پاؤگے۔ کیونکہ میرا جوُا ملایم اور میرا بوجھ  ہلکا ہے‘‘۔ ( متی ۱۱ باب ۴۸ سے ۳۰ آیت تک) ’’ مبارل وہ جو صُلح کرنے والے ہیں کیونکہ وہ خُدا  کے فرزند کہلائینگے‘‘ (متی ۵ باب ۹ آیت) ’’دیکھو کیسی محّبت باپ نے ہمسے کی کہ ہم خدا کے فرزند کہلاویں‘‘ ( ایوحنا ۳ باب آیت)۔

راقم۔۔۔۔ ب صَالح



[1] خداوند رات کے وقت سلیمان کو خواب میں دکھائی دیا اور خدا نے کہا جو تو چاہے کہ میں  دوں سو مانگ سلیمان عرض کی ۔۔۔۔۔۔ اے خداوند میرے خدا تو نے اپنے بندے  کو میرے باپ داؤد  کی جگہ بادشاہ کیا اور میں ہنوز لڑکا ہوں اور باہر   جانے  اور بھتیرے آنے کا طور میں نہیں جانتا اور تیرا بندہ تیرے لوگوں کے بیچ میں ہے جنہیں تو نے چنُ لیا  ہے وے لوگ بہت اور بیشمار ہیں کہ کثرت کے باعث  اُن  کا حساب نہیں ہو سکتا۔ سو تو اپنے بندے کو ایسا سمجھنے والا دل عنایت کر کے وہ تیرے  لوگوں کی عدالت کرئے تاکہ میں نیک اور بد میں اِمتیاز کروں کہ تیری  ایسی بھاری  گروہ کا انصاف کون کر سکتا۔ اور  یہ بات  خداوند کے آگے خوش آئی۔ کہ سلیمان نے یہ چیز مانگی۔ اور اپنی عمر کی درازی نہ چاہی اور نہ اپنے لئے دولت کا سوال کیا  اور نہ اپنی دشمنوں  کے  ما بعد ھوٹیکی درخواست کی بلکہ اپنے لئے عقل مندی مانگی  تاکہ عدالت میں  خبر دار رہو۔ سو دیکھ کہ میں  نے تیری باتوں کےمطابق عمل کیا‘‘   ا۔ سلاطین ۳ باب ۵ آیت  سے۔ 

محمد صاحب  نے کہاں  اے روئے زمین کے لوگو( مشت نمونہ خبردار) سُنو کہ میرے رحیم خدا نے میرے دشمنو کے حق  میں کیا کیا فرمایا ہے۔ ولید بن مغیرہ حلاؔف جھوٹی قسمیں  کھانے والا۔ہینؔ زلیل ہے ہمازؔ  عیب کرنے والا ہے لوگوں  کو مشاء بنیم چغل خورہے۔ متاع للخلیو منع کرنے  والا ہے بھائی سے معتؔہ     ظالم  کرنے والا اور حد سے گزرجانا والا  ہے اثیم  گنہگار ہے عُتُلؔ بدر اور زشت خوہی ( گویا یہ سب باتیں ولید کو خرا ب دخوار کرنے کے واسطے کافی نہ تھیں) اور بعد ان عیبوں کے وہ  دلدالزنا  یعنے حرام کا  کا لطفہ بھی ہے۔ ‘‘ ( سورہ نؔ اور القلم ارکوع) تَبَّت یَدٔاَ انی لہَب وَّتُّبَّ ( سورة ا للہب الخ) ٹوٹ جایں دونوں ہاتھ ابی لہب کے اور وہ آپ مر جاے۔  نہ دفع کریگا اُس سے اِس بددعا کی تاثیر  کو اور اس پھٹکار  کو اُس کا مال اور جو اُس نے کمائی کی ششاب داخل ہو گا آگ شعلے والی یعنے دوزخ میں۔ اور جو رو اُسکی  جہنم کا ایندھن  اُٹھانے والی۔اور بیچ گردن  اُس کی کے پوست کھجور کی رسّی  یعنے دوزُخ کا زنجیر‘‘ ابی لہب نے دونوں ہاتھ سے پتھراُٹھا کر محمد صاحب کو  مارا تھا اور اُس کی بیوی محمد صاحب کے راہ میں کانٹے ڈالتی تھی۔

 

 

Posted in: مسیحی تعلیمات, خُدا, بائبل مُقدس, یسوع ألمسیح, نجات, اسلام, غلط فہمیاں, تفسیر القران | Tags: | Comments (25) | View Count: (6653)

Comments

  • How strange that th God of Israel is kind and yet the Israelis(Jews)call jesus as Bastard while GHod of Muhammad is not and yet they call Hazrat Isa alaih assalam and believe what their God in Quran says that Don't discriminate among any of the prophets,love them all and respect them equally.
    3/29/2017 1:37:25 PM Reply
    • @abdul basit: Thank you for the comparison, but unfortunately you missed the article, please read the article and respond to the subject. Jews rejected Jesus, and called him Bastard, but that does not mean that the God of Jews really agree with that. Actually Christian has to follow the God of the Prophets, and all of them were Jews. There are many Muslims who do bad stuff, but we do not blame their God? or their scripture. we read what their scripture say and deal with that. So please read the article and share your thoughts.
      5/9/2017 10:17:35 AM Reply
  • Dear christian brothers and sisters I want to ask you a question.There are many thousands of denominations in christianity.Why?Because there is no one original text(Jesus taught in Aramaic)so text written after him some say 65 years and around translated from Aramaic,to Hebrew to Greek to English.Ask any linguist when some script is translated form one language to another it can't carry 100 % same meanings.But due to this discrepancy in meanings so many sects are formed.So have any one of you,there are some thinking scholars here e.g Br.Raheem and Br.Dr.Daniel.who should say OK let us search what Jesus himself said(not what others said about him)and base our beleif system on that.It is not difficult,there is a gosepl called "Red Letter Bible"meaning every thing what Jesus (peace be upon him)said is written in Red letter,while what is written in black letter is what others wrote about him>So if you put this red letter together and take out duplicates(as pretty much every thing is written in around 4 times)then you don't have whole writing more than 2 columns of a newspaper.And base your belief system on this.You will be surprised to see that what Jesus said doesn't contradict Quran at all.Point I am trying to make is to find common grounds(based on truth) and develop a good relationship with Jesus(follow what he taught)and with others.
    1/28/2017 7:45:51 AM Reply
  • I think though we Pakistani christians are angry on Muslims of Pakistan but we should never let the hatred come above our presenting christ to them.BEcuase the hatred blocks their interest and we have no one to blame except us.Br.Raheem Khan when ever he writes or Dr.Daniel speaks it is nothing but hatred actually this site is pushing Muslims away from us.,and therefore defeats the purpose.Either we change or close the site.
    1/25/2017 9:06:15 AM Reply
    • @Jimmy: Thank you for the message. This site and channel has been amazing as for for me, many things to learn and how i can talk to my Muslim friends. I have never heard any time from Dr. Daniel that he has hatred for the Muslim. but i can see the fear of Muslims have made you think that asking question openly some how is hatred. No christian with clear faith can hate a Muslim, only those who do not know Christ can act like this, but in Love many christians are asking questions and helping Muslim to see the truth which has been hidden from them for centuries.
      5/9/2017 10:38:00 AM Reply
  • I think,Mr.Raheem instead of being just emotional and nothing else we should learn from other people's views esp of Muslims because we are focusing on them therefore I am writing this link. http://www.thedeenshow.com/
    1/22/2017 10:09:53 AM Reply
  • You can't invite Muslims for discussion if u start conversation in a disrespectful way by insulin their two prophets Muhammad an d Jesus (peace be upon them all)by talking about them in 3rd person.
    1/16/2017 7:54:12 AM Reply
    • @Ahmad: ,You are so right.First step in any conversation should be mutual respect.Muslims call Jesus Peace be upon him or Hazrat Isa.Quran says don't discriminate among any prophets of God.The only dispute between Muslims and Christians is Muslims follow Jesus while Christians follow Church.
      1/16/2017 12:50:26 PM Reply
  • ONe request I have to make to my christian brothers. At one hand are we Muslims whom you hate day in day out,yet we call Jesus name with respect we say"Hazrat Isah ALaieh assalam"means peace be on Jesus (this we say in english)We believe that even christians who believe in One God(without partners,sons wife etc) and do good deeds will also go to heaven.I say this thing to you.Think impartially if there was no accountability on human being then what was the reason to create human being,in that case creation of human being was senseless.Without accountability in any work where you do in what ever department you work it will be chaos and the office or business will get destroyed and same wil happen with the world.It is only the rigid accountability that is keeping the system of the world going.The concept of "saved people" in christianity only helps its followers to loose spiritiuality,create emptyness,and leads to depression,fights in homes and suicides etc.Think about it.This concept of "believe in Jesus as saviour" and get a free pass to eternal kingdom was not taught by Jesus,He taught believe in One God(not three) and he said do good deeds(read book of James).His teachings are nothing but Islam.
    1/15/2017 10:49:06 AM Reply
  • Look there are those people who are born in their faith and die init yet there are those who are born in one and change into another.What ever happens one should follow a faith only after studying it and comparing it..Here is one good such example.:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVWShgimuro
    1/15/2017 9:58:44 AM Reply
  • The biggest threat to christianity are one Jehovas witness and even bigger Atheist.Islam is the religion that is closest to christianity and teachings of Jesus.
    1/9/2017 8:20:26 AM Reply
    • @Jimmy: You are so right.I have read bible.As a matter of fact,if u read red letter gospel and take out all the,duplicates it comes to be less than 2 columns of newspaper.There is no contradiction in it with Quran.Like one Bible scholar said Gospel does not contradicts with Quran except where it contradicts itself.Let us both Muslims and Christians read Quran and Bible and and focus on commonalities rather than differences.There are no two ogher religions that have so much on common.Accusations are not goid.
      1/11/2017 1:30:39 PM Reply
    • @Jimmy: You are so right.I have read bible.As a matter of fact,if u read red letter gospel and take out all the,duplicates it comes to be less than 2 columns of newspaper.There is no contradiction in it with Quran.Like one Bible scholar said Gospel does not contradicts with Quran except where it contradicts itself.Let us both Muslims and Christians read Quran and Bible and and focus on commonalities rather than differences.There are no two ogher religions that have so much on common.Accusations are not goid.
      1/11/2017 1:27:10 PM Reply
  • Here is how the new testament was formed and upto now so much deviations has gotten in it..Below is copy paste from the blog of Dr.Bart Ehrman.,Professor of religious studies and Bible at University of North Carolina,USA *************************************************************************************************** 1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (11 votes, average: 4.91 out of 5) How We Got the New Testament (and not some other books!) Many people (most people?) don’t realize that the collection of the books into the New Testament did not take a year or two. It was *centuries* before there was any widespread agreement about which books to include and which to exclude (why include the Gospel of John but not the Gospel of Thomas? Why include the Apocalypse of John but not the Apocalypse of Peter?). Yesterday I started to explain how it all happened. In this post I finish the task, by explaining the grounds on which the decisions were made and something of the historical process involved. I’ve always thought this topic was unusually interesting – it was my first passion in my graduate school days (and the first topic I ever wrote a scholarly article on). Again, this discussion is taken from my Introduction to the Bible, published a couple of years ago. *************************************************************** The Criteria Used The “orthodox” church fathers who decided on the shape and content of the canon applied several criteria to determine whether a book should be included or not. Four criteria were especially important. Antiquity. A book had to go back to the very beginning of the Christian movement or it could not be accepted. If a really good and important book that was fully informed and “true” were written, say, last year, that would not be good enough for it be part of Scripture. The canon of Scripture … THE REST OF THIS POST IS FOR MEMBERS ONLY. If you don’t belong yet, NOW is your chance!! Join! It won’t cost much, and every penny goes to help those in need! The canon of Scripture contained books from the beginning of the Christian movement. Apostolicity. Only books that were written by apostles could be accepted as part of the canon; this included the disciples of Jesus and their followers of the first generation. And so, for example, the writings of Paul were obviously acceptable; so too were the writings of the disciples Matthew, John, and Peter; and so too were the books of Mark, Peter’s companion, and Luke, Paul’s companion. If books were anonymous (such as the Gospels) they had to be attributed to apostles or they could not be considered canonical. Catholicity. Only books that were universally used throughout the church could be accepted as part of the canon. (Recall: the term “catholic” means “universal.”) Local favorites were not to be accepted by the church at large; a book had to be utilized by a broad range of churches throughout all of Christendom. Orthodoxy. Most important of all, a book had to be “orthodox” in its perspectives and teachings if it were to be accepted as part of the canon of sacred Scripture. Any book that taught a “heretical” view could obviously not be from God or written by a true apostle. And so books had to be judged as presenting the “right teachings,” or they had no chance at all of being included as canonical. The Canonical Process We have seen that there was a movement toward having distinctively Christian authorities already during the New Testament period itself and that early on, different Christian groups accepted and promoted different written texts as embodying those authorities. In almost every instance these texts were attributed to apostles. The first person who was actually known to have come up with a canon of Scripture, and to insist that these books and only these books were to be seen as canonical, was not a member of the orthodox church but, in fact, was a person who was later branded as one of the arch-heretics, Marcion. In an earlier chapter I pointed out that Marcion accepted Paul as the apostle par excellence, and rejected all things Jewish as being not Christian. Marcion’s views were very popular, and the Marcionite church spread far and wide in the late second century c.e. In about the middle of the century Marcion had relocated from his home in Sinope (northern Asia Minor) to Rome, the capital city of the empire and already home to one of the largest and most influential churches in the Christian world. Marcion spent some five years in Rome developing his theology and writing his books. No book was more important than a collection of sacred writings that he put together and then claimed was “the” Christian Bible. Since, for Marcion, the Jewish God was not the true God, Marcion’s Bible did not include any of the writings of the Old Testament. And since Paul was his hero, he included all of the writings of Paul that he knew—ten of them (all except the Pastoral epistles, which may not have been available to him). Throughout Paul’s writings, of course, he refers to his “gospel,” and so Marcion included a Gospel along with Paul’s ten letters; this was a form of the Gospel of Luke. (Possibly because Luke was thought of as Paul’s companion? Possibly because it was the Gospel Marcion grew up with?) That was the entirety of Marcion’s canon of Scripture: eleven books altogether. He claimed that his view of the Christian faith was rooted in this canon and that it was authentic because these were the authoritative writings of the church. Marcion’s orthodox opponents had a different view of things, and it may have been Marcion himself who compelled other church leaders to argue for a different canon of Scripture. It was not long after Marcion that his opponents claimed that he had a skewed view of the Christian faith because he had eliminated from consideration books of Scripture that showed his views to be wrong. In the orthodox opinion, there was not just one Gospel (Luke); there were four, and Christians needed to heed what was said in all four to come away with a true understanding of the faith. Moreover, Paul was not the only “apostle” to be included in the canon: there were the writings of Peter, James, John, and Jude, as well. Marcion may have provided the impetus for orthodox communities to decide on which books to be included, but there was not an immediate response that led to the finalization of the twenty-seven-book canon as we have it today. Quite the contrary, that did not happen for centuries. Still, by the end of the second century most of the orthodox churches agreed on the fourfold Gospel canon, the letters of Paul (including the Pastorals, which were seen as opposing Marcion), and the letters of 1 Peter and 1 John. There continued to be debates for a long time over other books. Some church fathers wanted to include the Apocalypse of John, others wanted instead to include an apocalypse allegedly written by Peter, others wanted to include them both, and yet others wanted to include neither. Some church fathers thought Hebrews was written by Paul and so should be included; others thought it was not by Paul and should not be included. Some church fathers wanted to include a book called the Shepherd of Hermas; others wanted the letter allegedly written by Paul’s companion Barnabas; others wanted a book known as 1 Clement. Some wanted the letters of 2 Peter, Jude, and James; others did not. These debates went on for a very long time. The first time any church father of record indicated that there are twenty-seven books of the New Testament—and who named the twenty-seven books that we today have as the New Testament—was in the year 367 c.e., in the writings of an influential bishop of Alexandria, Egypt, Athanasius. In a letter sent to his churches, Athanasius specified that while other books (like the Shepherd) were worth reading, only the twenty-seven could be accepted as canonical. It cannot be stressed enough that this letter was written nearly three hundred years after the individual books of the New Testament were first put into circulation. The New Testament did not drop from the sky a few weeks after Jesus died or after Paul finished writing his books. It was a matter of ongoing debate for decades and decades and, well, centuries. Even Athanasius’s letter did not end the debates. It was not until the fifth century or so that most Christians agreed on the twenty-seven books that now are almost universally considered to be the canon of the New Testament. image_pdfimage_print inShare Did the Council of Nicaea Take Away Reincarnation and Give us the Bible? Why Did We Get a New Testament? 6 JAN 2017 4 Comments
    1/8/2017 10:44:29 AM Reply
  • The Old Testaments and new testaments are so much corrupted from their formed to this time that we don't know if we are reading a certain line,is it from God,or from scribe,or from historian,thats why more and more christians are becoming Atheist and then they openly start cursing christianity,Jesus etc.WHicle those who become Muslim still respect and love Jesus. HOw was old testament formed.Here is copy paste from the blog of Dr.Bart Ehrman. The Bart Ehrman Blog Membership why & how to join Philanthropy assist the needy Latest Posts member & public Member Forum discussions Bart´s Books reviews & publishers 1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (12 votes, average: 4.50 out of 5) How We Got the Hebrew Bible Here at last I can summarize what modern scholars say about the formation of the canon of the Hebrew Bible (the Christian Old Testament). It’s a fascinating topic, of relevance, of course, to Jews, Christians, and anyone else who thinks the history of our civilization matters! This summary is taken from my book The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction (If the terms I use here don’t make sense: read the preceding two posts!) ************************************************************* Contemporary Views of the Formation of the Canon Today scholars tend to present a somewhat fuzzier picture of when and why the canon came to be formed, although there do seem to be some fixed points. It is widely held that the five books of the Torah were accepted by nearly all Jews as a set canon by the fifth century b.c.e., in the early postexilic period. One piece of evidence comes from the Bible itself, in a post-exilic book, Ezra. The scribe Ezra himself is described as being “skilled in the Torah of Moses that the LORD the God of Israel had given” (Ezra 7:6). This suggests that it was widely known that there was a “Torah of Moses” and that the educated elite were sometimes being trained in understanding and interpreting it. The Torah is and always has been the same five books, and they have always been given in the same sequence (Genesis-Exodus-Leviticus-Numbers-Deuteronomy), since they trace a chronological tale. And so by the fifth century b.c.e., most Jews probably accepted the Torah as an authoritative group of texts connected principally with Moses. The next sub-collection to be finalized was the … The Rest of this Post is for Members Only. If you don’t belong yet, JOIN NOW, or you may never know!!! It does not cost much to join, and every penny goes to charity! The next sub-collection to be finalized was the Nevi’im, both Former Prophets (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings) and Latter Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve), and this appears to have happened by the second century b.c.e. Evidence for this comes from a range of sources. The prologue to Sirach refers to “the Law and the Prophets and the others”; and books that were later to become the New Testament speak of the “Law and the Prophets” (e.g., Matthew 5:17; Luke 16:16). The reasons for thinking that the Nevi’im were finalized by the second century b.c.e., and not later, is that there are books of the Hebrew Bible that could have been included in this collection—given their subject matter—but in fact are not. Thus, for example, Daniel seems to be a prophetic book but it is not included in the “prophets.” Why not? Probably because the canon of the prophets was fixed already by the time the book of Daniel appeared on the scene in the middle of the second century b.c.e. Daniel was accepted as a Scriptural book eventually, of course. It just could not belong to a portion of the Bible that had already been “fixed.” It and the other books were loosely connected with one another—unlike the Torah, the Former Prophets, and the Latter Prophets, which all cohere closely to one another in terms of subject matter. But even after the Law and the Prophets had been accepted as canonical texts, there were these other writings on the “margins”—the eleven books of the Kethuvim. That some of these were seen as authoritative by the second century b.c.e. is shown in the passage from Sirach quoted earlier, which speaks of “the others” (or “the other books”) without giving them a firm designation. So too, Luke 24:44 speaks of “the Law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms”—a threefold categorization of the sacred Scriptures, the third part of which is identified by its longest and presumably most important book, the Psalms. There were uncertainties about which books to include in this third group of Kethuvim. This is suggested, among other things, by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Among the Dead Sea Scrolls were numerous copies of biblical books—some 200 of the scrolls contain books of the Bible (usually in fragmentary state). Every book that eventually came to be included in the Bible can be found among these scrolls—except for the book of Esther. Even though Esther is not found there, the scrolls contain numerous copies of a book known as “Jubilees” that some Jews considered to be a sacred text as well. Did the Jews at Qumran accept Jubilees as canonical, but not Esther? It is hard to say. Other books of the Kethuvim were debated among Jews. The Song of Songs, for example, was a secular book celebrating the sexual love of an unmarried man and a woman. Was that really to be seen as part of canonical Scripture—even if Solomon did write it? Eventually Jews came to interpret the book in a different way, as we have seen, so that it no longer referred to human sexual love but to God’s deep and profound love for Israel. There remains even today the question of whether the Song of Songs was eventually accepted as part of the canon because it was interpreted in this way (and so was relatively harmless as a love poem) or whether it was interpreted in this way because it was accepted as part of the sacred canon. Most scholars agree that by the time of the destruction of the second Temple in 70 c.e. most Jews accepted the final three-part canon of the Torah, Nevi’im, and Kethuvim. From that time on, books could not be added and books could not be taken away. This was a twenty-four-book canon that came to be attested widely in Jewish writings of the time; eventually the canon was reconceptualized and renumbered so that it became the thirty-nine books of the Christian Old Testament. But they are the same books, all part of the canon of Scripture. Grounds for Inclusion It is very hard to know what criteria ancient Israelites used in order to decide which of their books should be accepted as parts of Scripture, in no small measure because we simply do not have any records of their discussions, debates, and disagreements (unlike for the New Testament). Some scholars have suggested that there were several criteria that were almost certainly applied by various Jewish leaders in making these decisions: Language. Only books written in Hebrew (even if they had portions in Aramaic) could be accepted. None of the Jewish books written in Greek, for example, would be considered part of the sacred canon. Age. Books had to have venerable authority. They could not be recent compositions. And so only books written before the fourth century c.e. could be accepted (books that were in fact written later—such as Daniel—were mistakenly taken to be older, as we have seen). Usage. The books that became the canon were the ones most widely used in Jewish communities as authoritative tradition. In some ways the formation of the canon is a grassroots phenomenon: if books functioned as Scripture for a wide range of Jewish communities, they were eventually accepted as Scripture by the leaders who could make such decisions. The Final Product of the Tanakh The result of the Hebrew canon is what we have seen throughout our study. The Jewish Scriptures are a treasure trove of ancient Israelite writings. They were written at different times, by different authors, using different sources, embracing different points of view, advancing different understandings of major issues. They embrace different genres and they serve different functions. Together they may make up one thing—the Hebrew Bible—but in fact they are an entire array of things, the corpus of writings that cover the traditions, creations, thoughts, beliefs, and opinions of generations and centuries of ancient Israelite authors. image_pdfimage_print inShare Why Did We Get a New Testament? How We Got the Hebrew Bible: The Older View 3 JAN 2017 36 Comments
    1/8/2017 10:41:18 AM Reply
  • See the blog of Dr.Bart Ehrman,who is professor of bible and religious studies at university of North Carolina. You being christians should become a member of this blog and learn a lot from his knowledge. His blog is "Ehrmanblog.org"
    1/8/2017 10:36:13 AM Reply
  • How western countries are creating bad image for themselves visit. www.informationclearinghouse.info
    1/8/2017 9:32:40 AM Reply
  • How western countries are creating bad image for themselves visit. www.informationclearinghouse.info
    1/8/2017 9:32:39 AM Reply
  • Hi,Mr Raheem.You didn't post my reply.If u run blog then have moral courage to hear the other side based on.logic and reasoning as,well.
    1/8/2017 4:12:56 AM Reply
    • @Raheem Khan: See when you start a conversation with negative attitude that "You are wrong but I am right"you get no where because you force the other person to be defensive.So first step should be to tell otehr that you are impartial so other should also be impartial.In all honesty this is truth that most of the people who follow a certain faith is because of their being born into it.Yet out of them most have not read their divine book.So we should be impartial and be open minded.ALso the other approach is reasoning and logic with open mind.Think about it.God bless you.
      1/20/2017 9:31:19 AM Reply
    • @Abdul: I understand the situation. everything is not the bed of roses. since I am also in the west, one thing I can assure you that with all the challenges, USA still better than Islamic countries. isn't? will you be happy to stay in Saudia, Pakistan or in Iraq? well let us chat here. we both have different understanding of respect. even if I accept that Muhammad was a brave, handsome, intelligent and influential man but reject him as a true prophet, Muslims take this as a insult while this my choice and right. accepting Jesus as a prophet can be respectful for Muslims but as a Christian we believe HE is more than a Prophet. but we don't take your decision calling him prophet as a insult towards Christianity. I am sure you would agree that Christian world provided much freedom to accept and reject whatever Muslims want while in every Islamic country non Muslims hardly have freedom. thanks Raheem
      1/19/2017 10:35:25 PM Reply
    • @Raheem Khan: Bhai I live in USA and work 2 jobs monday to friday and one job on saturday I leave home around 7 am and return around 11.30pm walking inf ear that no criminal may attack me in quiet night as it commonly happens.Sunday which is my day off,I am exhausted and tired lying on the bed hoping if the owner of my store calls me to come I will go and go running.Actually in USA the struggle for survival is very hard.The standard of living in USA is lower than many countries in the world because cost of living is higher than many countries in the world.The rent alone of one bed room apartment in New york city is 1500 dollars a month.I can't give you my phone because if you call me and my other room mates who are sleeping may wake up then they will become upset with me.So please excuse me yes if you will give me your phone I will call you when I get time.
      1/16/2017 12:47:41 PM Reply
    • @Abdul: do I need to post your objection? we all can see that I am talking to you and responding you. would you please come back for what I have responded to your initial objection? I can call you on your cell if you want to talk. hope to have fruitful chat with you. thanks
      1/11/2017 12:13:22 AM Reply
  • This article of yours sadly reflects bankruptcy of knowledge and overflowing of hatred towards Islam/Muslims?prophet Muhammad.Here are the few points I write and please think alone carefully if it makes sense or not. YOu wrote this خُدا کیونکر اپنی رحمت کے برخلاف محمد صاحب اور محمدیوں کو حکم دے سکتا تھا کہ میرے نام کے لئے مکّہ میں ایک خانہ کعبہ بناؤ جس حال میں کہ اُنہوں نے روئے زمین پر آدمیوں کے خون کےدریا بہا دیئے۔ اور نہ محمد صاحب نہ عمر نہ علی نہ حسن حسین اور نہ دیگر محمدی صاحبان صاحب صلح ہوئے۔ But Kaaba was not made by Prophet Muhammad ,it was made by Abraham(ibrahim and his son Ismael) سخت ظلم غیر دین والوں پر کروائے ہیں۔ ممکن نہیں کہ جن کے عزیز رشتہ داروں کی گردنیں اُن کی آنکھوں کی سامنے کاٹی گئیں۔ اور جن کے گھر بار لوٹے گئے اور اُن سے جبراً کلمۂ محمدی پڑھوایا گیا۔ کسی طرح سے محمد اور اُس کے خدا کی طرف محبت کی آنکھوں سے دیکھ سجا کر صدق دل سے محمد ساحب کے خدا سے اپنی بھلائی کے واسطے کوئی دعا مانگ سکیں۔ ایسوں سے محمد صاحب کے خدُا کی شکایت بالکل بجا ہے۔ Islam is different than christianity.In Islam if you convert from any other faith to christianity,publicly you have to confirm that you are not under any influence of money,pressure or greed to accept and if you say yes there is no pressure then only you are accepted into Islam while christianity has a hsitory of spreading through crusades,inquest,mslavery,colonilaisation.First came crusaders and white christian european armies and killed all men raped all women(this is what a catholic from south America told me.I live in USA) then came priest holding bread in one hand and bible in the other saying accept Jesus as your saviour and if someone didn't agree he was not given bread.Christianity is the only religion that spread with violence,cruelty,deceit and greed.Because there is no other way this religion can spread,there is nothing in it.The White Christians in Europe and America are leaving it for Atheism and this its the biggest and fast growing sect of christianity.Atheism.Yes. کوئی اُس پر ایمان لاے ہلاک نہ ہو بلکہ ہمیشہ کی زندگی پائے۔ کیونکہ خدا نے اپنے بیٹے کو جہان میں اِس لئے نہیں بھیجا کہ جہان پر سزا کا حکم کرے بلکہ اس لئے کہ جہان اُس کے سبب نجات پاوے‘‘ ( یوحنا کی انجیل ۳ باب ۱۶، ۱۷ آیت) ’’ خداوند کی Islam is the continuation of the left work of Jesus.Jesus came and jews became his enemy.They suceeded according to you to put him on the cross.According to Muslims no.Jesus was a mighty respectable prophet of God so God would not allow him to be put on the cross with thieves hanging next to him.According to bible that who is hung by tree is a thief. میرے پیارے مسلم بھائیو ہم آپکی منّت کرتے ہیں کہ اِس دنُیا کے بادشاہ محمد کی پیروی چھوڑ دو اور تلوار کو توڑ کر دور پھینکو۔ اور آسمان کے بادشاہ صَلح اور سلامتی کے مالک مسیح کے پاس آؤ۔ سُنو وہ کیس میٹھی آواز سے آپکو بلاُ رہا ہے۔ ’’ اے تم لوگو جو تھکے اور بڑے بوجھ سے دبے ہو سب میرے پاس آؤ کہ میں تمہیں آرام دونگا۔ میرا جوُا اپنے اوپر لے لو اور مجھ سے سیکھو کیونکہ میں حلیم اور دل سے خاکسار ہوں تو تم اپنے جیؤن میں آرام پاؤگے۔ کیونکہ میرا جوُا ملایم اور میرا بوجھ ہلکا ہے‘‘۔ ( متی ۱۱ باب ۴۸ سے ۳۰ آیت تک) ’’ مبارل وہ جو صُلح کرنے والے ہیں کیونکہ وہ خُدا کے فرزند کہلائینگے‘‘ (متی ۵ باب ۹ آیت) ’’دیکھو کیسی محّبت باپ نے ہمسے کی کہ ہم خدا کے فرزند No one is more peace loving than Muslims.CHristianity is the religion of big words but no action.That's why all over the world all the problems that mans sees and faces is because of them.I wonder who said "A tree is known by the fruit it bears"Was it Gandhi or Budha>?کہلاویں‘‘ ( ایوحنا ۳ باب آیت)۔
    1/4/2017 2:31:58 PM Reply
    • @Abdul: @Abdul: Dear Abdul. I am thankful that you are in the USA and not in Saudi Arabia. neither you will go and reside for your entire life nor they will permit you residency. of course these are the kafir and their principles towards Muslims/humanity that despite majority of the Muslims hate American and Jews, they still remains merciful towards Muslims. well I am not here to justify American or Jew. I am here to discuss with you for what you have wrote in your response to the article. if you go back and see your respond, unfortunately,you did not even provide one authentic historical proof to dispute what the author wrote about Muhammad, Jihadis and terrorist. even if you prove that Christianity spread by forceful conversion with offering bread on conditional motive, this still does not prove Islam is religion of peace or does it? so let us begin by discussing what the author said is wrong or right. shall we? 1: please provide that the Quran does not teach violence? 2: please advice if Islam did not spread by force or by offering financial support? 3: please inform me that how Crusades begin and what was their motives? thanks if you don't mind, give me your cell no and I will gladly contact you. Raheem from Zindagi TV. Deeper Blessings
      1/6/2017 6:55:50 AM Reply

Post a Comment

English Blog