Anti-Semitism in Religions

[Veritas Aequitas]

Islam was started by a group of men who wanted to establish a new religion or ideology [Islam] in the late 600s [for whatever the purpose] and simply pick up bits of pieces from the existing religions, i.e. plagiarized from them with changing a few words and terms here and there.

The Quran came about because the Ebionites had, after their flight from Cyprus, lost access to the last extant copy of the Ebionite Gospel.

Where is the evidence for this?

Whatever, the Quran was written long after the death of Muhammad and compiled by a group of men from bits and pieces of doctrines from the existing religions then.
Note there are many versions of the Quran and all were burned [by Uthman] except the present one.
Even the present Quran has many versions and variations where the meanings differ between them.

[godelian]

Islam was started by a group of men who wanted to establish a new religion or ideology [Islam] in the late 600s [for whatever the purpose] and simply pick up bits of pieces from the existing religions, i.e. plagiarized from them with changing a few words and terms here and there.

The Quran came about because the Ebionites had, after their flight from Cyprus, lost access to the last extant copy of the Ebionite Gospel.

Where is the evidence for this?

Whatever, the Quran was written long after the death of Muhammad and compiled by a group of men from bits and pieces of doctrines from the existing religions then.
Note there are many versions of the Quran and all were burned [by Uthman] except the present one.
Even the present Quran has many versions and variations where the meanings differ between them.

No, it was a replacement for the lost Ebionite Gospel.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The Quran came about because the Ebionites had, after their flight from Cyprus, lost access to the last extant copy of the Ebionite Gospel.

Where is the evidence for this?

Whatever, the Quran was written long after the death of Muhammad and compiled by a group of men from bits and pieces of doctrines from the existing religions then.
Note there are many versions of the Quran and all were burned [by Uthman] except the present one.
Even the present Quran has many versions and variations where the meanings differ between them.

No, it was a replacement for the lost Ebionite Gospel.

?? where is the evidence to support your claim?

[godelian]

?? where is the evidence to support your claim?

The Ebionite Gospel was lost: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_the_Ebionites

They still had copies while they were in Cyprus:

Epiphanius is believed to have come into possession of a gospel that he attributed to the Ebionites when he was bishop of Salamis, Cyprus.[6] He alone among the Church Fathers identifies Cyprus as one of the "roots" of the Ebionites.[6]

The Muslims called the Ebionites, the Hanif:

In Islam, a ḥanīf (Arabic: حنيف, romanized: ḥanīf; plural: حنفاء, ḥunafā'), meaning "renunciate", is someone who maintains the pure monotheism of the patriarch Abraham. The word is found twelve times in the Quran (ten times in its singular form and twice in the plural form) and Islamic tradition tells of a number of individuals who were ḥunafā.[2] According to Muslim tradition, Muhammad himself was a ḥanīf and a descendant of Ishmael, son of Abraham.[3]

According to the Encyclopædia Britannica, "some of Muḥammad's relatives, contemporaries, and early supporters were called hanifs"[13] – examples including Waraqah ibn Nawfal, "a cousin of the Prophet’s first wife, Khadija bint Khuwaylid,[13] and Umayyah ibn Abī aṣ-Ṣalt, "an early 7th-century Arab poet".[13]

About the Ebionite origins of Islam:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/469 ... he-prophet

Waraqa Ibn Nawfal, cousin of Muhammad's first wife Khadija, led an Ebionite Christian sect who didn't believe in Jesus' divinity. In "The Priest and the Prophet," Joseph Azzi traces Waraqa's influence on Muhammad and Islam. It was a dry read for me with plenty of boring references, but his theories were intriguing. Azzi claims that Waraqa mentored Muhammad and chose him as a successor. He even goes so far as to say the Quran was representative of unorthodox Arab Christians.

The first followers of Islam were Ebionite Christians of the congregation of which the prophet became the leader in succession to Waraqa Ibn Naufal.

Until the 12th century Islam was correctly viewed as a so-called "heresy" of Christianity:

https://www.forerunner.com/blog/islam-a ... c-ebionism

The concern of Ireneaeus against the Cerinthians and Ebionites was not their eschatology, but their Judaistic heresies and their denial of the divinity of Jesus.

This goes counter to the grain of the dispensationalist “messianic” movement. Dr. Michael Brown even wrote a book in which he accuses the Church Fathers of being anti-Semitic because they opposed the Judaizers. (Go figure). I admire Dr. Brown for many of his other stances, but he has mischaracterized the Church Fathers here. They were against the Judaistic heretical influences on the fledgling Church, but were not anti-Semitic.

However, a more likely interpretation is that the sects of Christians that tried to maintain “Jewishness” succumbed to anti-Trinitarian heresies and legalism. They became known as the Nazarenes and the Ebionites. They gradually disappeared, but in the 8th century some Ebionites survived in Arabia.

Islam is essentially a Dynamic Monarchian heresy, teaching one God, but denying the Trinity. The root teaching of Islam places Jesus in a very high role as an important prophet and even states that He was born of a virgin and will come again in an eschatological role as a judge. So Islam isn’t a new religion. It’s actually a form of “Jewish Christianity” that gradually became more heretical as time went by and then incorporated Mohammed’s teachings. One of the first to believe in the prophethood of Muhammad was an Ebionite monk named Waraqah ibn Nawfal, the distant cousin of Mohammad. He is said to have been a pious man with deep knowledge of the Christian scriptures.

Islam did not arise from a historical vacuum:

https://historum.com/t/islam-as-an-esot ... ect.78483/

So, is it possible Islam started out as a Christian sect?

The Romans certainly saw it in that manner. Byzantine theological writing was discussing Islam as a Christian heresy in the 8th and 9th centuries, and as late as the 12th whether Islam was separate or not from Christianity remained an issue. The genesis of Islam needs to be seen in the fertile religious climate of the late antique Near East. Mecca and Medina were located between three civilizations: Christian Rome, Jewish Yemen, and Christian (but non-Chalcedonian) Axum. Modern scholarship sees a large degree of interaction in the Red Sea and the Hijaz in this period, so there is no reason to consider Islam as coming out of a historical vacuum.

The first Christian to write about Islam is John of Damascus, who calls it "the heresy of the Ishmaelites":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_of_Damascus

As stated above, in the final chapter of Concerning Heresy, John mentions Islam as the Heresy of the Ishmaelites. He is one of the first known Christian critics of Islam. John claims that Muslims were once worshipers of Aphrodite who followed after Muhammad because of his "seeming show of piety," and that Mohammad himself read the Bible and, "likewise, it seems," spoke to an Arian monk that taught him Arianism instead of Christianity. John also claims to have read the Quran, or at least parts of it, as he criticizes the Quran for saying that the Virgin Mary was the sister of Moses and Aaron and that Jesus was not crucified but brought alive into heaven.

Until the 12th century, the difference between Chalcedonian Christianity and Islam was considered by Christian scholars to be similar as the difference between Catholicism and Protestantism, i.e. a heretical deviation.

[godelian]

?? where is the evidence to support your claim?

The term Gospel in the Quran refers to the lost Gospel of the Ebionites:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_in_Islam

More commonly, Muslim scholars have argued that the Injil refers to a text now lost or hopelessly corrupted. For example, Abdullah Yusuf Ali wrote:

The Injil (Greek, Evangel equals Gospel) spoken of by the Qur'an is not the New Testament. It is not the four Gospels now received as canonical. It is the single Gospel which, Islam teaches, was revealed to Jesus, and which he taught. Fragments of it survive in the received canonical Gospels and in some others, of which traces survive (e.g., the Gospel of Childhood or the Nativity, the Gospel of St.Barnabas, etc.)."[4]

[Veritas Aequitas]

?? where is the evidence to support your claim?

The term Gospel in the Quran refers to the lost Gospel of the Ebionites:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_in_Islam

More commonly, Muslim scholars have argued that the Injil refers to a text now lost or hopelessly corrupted. For example, Abdullah Yusuf Ali wrote:

The Injil (Greek, Evangel equals Gospel) spoken of by the Qur'an is not the New Testament. It is not the four Gospels now received as canonical. It is the single Gospel which, Islam teaches, was revealed to Jesus, and which he taught. Fragments of it survive in the received canonical Gospels and in some others, of which traces survive (e.g., the Gospel of Childhood or the Nativity, the Gospel of St.Barnabas, etc.)."[4]

It is typical there are all sorts of claims.
I have researched and read about Islam quite extensively.
I have not come across this 'Islam evolved from the Ebionites' angle and it is because it is not a generally accepted claim.

I believe [from the perspective of mainstream Islam] it is an insult to Islam to make such a claim.


Here from AI:

The claim that Islam evolved from the Ebonite Gospels is widely considered inaccurate by scholars of both Islam and Christianity. Here's a breakdown:

Ebonite Gospels: These are lost early Christian texts associated with a sect called the Ebionites. Their exact content is unknown, but they likely emphasized the following:
Jesus as a human Messiah, not divine.

Following Jewish law.
Islam: Islam emerged in the 7th century CE, centuries after the Ebionites and established Christianity. It emphasizes:
Monotheism with Allah as the one God.
The prophethood of Abraham, Moses, Jesus (considered a prophet, not divine), and ultimately Muhammad as the final prophet.
The Quran as the direct word of God revealed to Muhammad.

Here's why the connection is weak:
Timeline: Islam developed much later than the Ebionites and established Christianity.
Core Beliefs: Islam has distinct core beliefs about God, Jesus, and scripture that differ significantly from the Ebionites' views.
Counter Claims:

Historical evidence points to the development of Islam in the Arabian Peninsula, influenced by Judaism and Christianity, but not solely derived from the Ebionite tradition.
The Quran itself presents a different lineage of prophets and revelations than the Ebonite Gospels would have.

[godelian]

?? where is the evidence to support your claim?

A good book about exactly this subject:

https://postbarthian.com/2019/05/02/the ... hans-kung/

The repression of early Jewish Christianity and the succession of Islam as its rightful heir (ft. Hans Küng)

In kind, Hans Küng argues that the marginalization of early Jewish-oriented Christianity sects indicates a systematic repression of early Jewish Christianity groups such as the Nestorians, Nazarenes, Ebionites, and the Elkesaites.

The succession of Islam

Hans Küng believes that the rise of Islam corresponds to the suppression of early Jewish Christianity, and therefore Islam is not a "Christian Heresy" (as John of Damascus argued in the seventh century) but the rightful heir and divinely appointed successor of early Jewish Christianity; Muhammad's reforming work was also a restoration of early Jewish Christianity, and early Jewish Christianity's beliefs lives on today in Arabic garb through the rise of Islam.

Hans Küng introduces this argument by quoting Adolf Schlatter thesis for the correspondence between the repression of early Jewish-Christianity to the rise of Islam:

"Even its leading men who lived and taught in Caesarea, like Origen and Eusebius, remained amazingly ignorant about the end of Jerusalem and its church. Similarly, their reports about the ongoing existence of Jewish Christianity are sparse. They (sic!) were heretics, because they did not submit to the law which held elsewhere in Christianity, and were therefore set apart from that Christianity. . . . None of the leaders of the imperial church guessed that the day would come for this Christianity which they despised on which it would shake the world and destroy a great deal of the church which they had built. It came when Muhammad took over their prize possession of the Jewish Christians, their consciousness of God, their eschatology proclaiming the day of judgment, their morality and their legends, and established a new apostolate as "the one sent by God". [3]

Küng explains that the form and beliefs of Jewish Christianity was far closer to the Qur'an.

Küng writes, "Monotheism instead of the doctrine of the Trinity, servant christology instead of a two-nature christology: the thesis of the influence of Jewish Christianity on the Qur'an had already been discussed and consolidated earlier by Adolf von Harnack, and by Hans-Joachim Schoeps." [4]

In the Qur'an, Jesus is understood in a similar way to the transjordan Churches (such as the Nestorians, Nazarenes, Ebionites, Elkesaites, etc.) that were deemed heretical by the Hellenized and Romanized Churches.

Küng believes that Muhammad did not have a defective understanding of Christianity (as many have argued), but actually had a highly developed understanding of Jewish-Christianity (that was distinctively Jewish and Christian) that has not been influenced by Nicea or Chalcedon.

Küng argues that if Christians would relax their defensive polemics against Islam, then we may realize there is redemptive and restorative bond between Christianity and Islam that is possibly achieved by recognizing Muhammad (and Islam) as a legitimate and revelatory heir of an early form of Jewish Christianity that was wrongly repressed, suppressed and oppressed by hellenization and romanization. Is it possible (and a surprising hope) that Muhammad may finally be understood as a Christian prophet? After all, Muhammad has resurrected early Jewish Christianity from death.

[godelian]

I have not come across this 'Islam evolved from the Ebionites' angle and it is because it is not a generally accepted claim.

It was the mainstream Christian view until the 12th century. The Byzantines certainly saw it like that.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have not come across this 'Islam evolved from the Ebionites' angle and it is because it is not a generally accepted claim.

It was the mainstream Christian view until the 12th century. The Byzantines certainly saw it like that.

It may be some Christian-sect's view of Islam but it is not the mainstream view of Muslims.

There are some similarities between the Bible and Quran; this is due to plagiarization.
The Quran-proper claims the then Books of Christianity [all] were corrupted, thus it would be an insult to relate the then-Ebionites' Gospels to Islam.

Note the comments from AI above.

[godelian]

There are some similarities between the Bible and Quran; this is due to plagiarization.

The idea of plagiarism rests on the complete ignorance of the history of Messianistic Judaism. Pauline Christianity is just one branch that emerged out of it. It did not have the monopoly on early Christianity.

The Quran-proper claims the then Books of Christianity [all] were corrupted

The extant copies of the Gospels are indeed corrupted. We know this for sure. For example, it is well known that Origin doctored the Gospels. For example, "Barabbas" was mentioned as "Jesus Barabbas" in the original Gospels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barabbas

However the variations (Biblical Greek: Ἰησοῦς Bαῤῥαββᾶν, romanized: Iēsoûs Bar-rhabbân, Biblical Greek: Ἰησοῦς Bαραββᾶς, romanized: Iēsoûs Barabbâs, Biblical Greek: Ἰησοῦς Bαῤῥαββᾶς, romanized: Iēsoûs Bar-rhabbâs) found in different manuscripts of the Matthew 27:16–17 give this figure the first name "Jesus", making his full name "Jesus Barabbas" or "Jesus Bar-rhabban", and giving him the same first, given name as Jesus. The Codex Koridethi seems to emphasise Bar-rhabban as composed of two elements in line with a patronymic Aramaic name.[17][18] These versions, featuring the first name "Jesus" are considered original by a number of modern scholars.[19][20] Origen seems to refer to this passage of Matthew in claiming that it must be a corruption, as no sinful man ever bore the name "Jesus" and argues for its exclusion from the text.[21]

It is possible that scribes when copying the passage, driven by a reasoning similar to that of Origen, removed this first name "Jesus" from the text to avoid dishonor to the name of the Jesus whom they considered the Messiah.[22]

There were two Jesus figures presented to the Roman governor. The Christ was obviously "Jesus Barabbas" (or Jesus Baradam) and not the other "Jesus". So, the Christ was not crucified. He was released.

The Quran emphasizes that the Christ was never crucified. The view that he was crucified is only supported by doctoring the Gospels. This also means that he never resurrected from the dead. He came back after three days because he was not dead to begin with.

So, yes, the canonical Gospels were doctored. The Quran is absolutely right about that.

[Veritas Aequitas]

There are some similarities between the Bible and Quran; this is due to plagiarization.

The idea of plagiarism rests on the complete ignorance of the history of Messianistic Judaism. Pauline Christianity is just one branch that emerged out of it. It did not have the monopoly on early Christianity.

The Quran-proper claims the then Books of Christianity [all] were corrupted

The extant copies of the Gospels are indeed corrupted. We know this for sure. For example, it is well known that Origin doctored the Gospels. For example, "Barabbas" was mentioned as "Jesus Barabbas" in the original Gospels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barabbas

However the variations (Biblical Greek: Ἰησοῦς Bαῤῥαββᾶν, romanized: Iēsoûs Bar-rhabbân, Biblical Greek: Ἰησοῦς Bαραββᾶς, romanized: Iēsoûs Barabbâs, Biblical Greek: Ἰησοῦς Bαῤῥαββᾶς, romanized: Iēsoûs Bar-rhabbâs) found in different manuscripts of the Matthew 27:16–17 give this figure the first name "Jesus", making his full name "Jesus Barabbas" or "Jesus Bar-rhabban", and giving him the same first, given name as Jesus. The Codex Koridethi seems to emphasise Bar-rhabban as composed of two elements in line with a patronymic Aramaic name.[17][18] These versions, featuring the first name "Jesus" are considered original by a number of modern scholars.[19][20] Origen seems to refer to this passage of Matthew in claiming that it must be a corruption, as no sinful man ever bore the name "Jesus" and argues for its exclusion from the text.[21]

It is possible that scribes when copying the passage, driven by a reasoning similar to that of Origen, removed this first name "Jesus" from the text to avoid dishonor to the name of the Jesus whom they considered the Messiah.[22]

There were two Jesus figures presented to the Roman governor. The Christ was obviously "Jesus Barabbas" (or Jesus Baradam) and not the other "Jesus". So, the Christ was not crucified. He was released.

The Quran emphasizes that the Christ was never crucified. The view that he was crucified is only supported by doctoring the Gospels. This also means that he never resurrected from the dead. He came back after three days because he was not dead to begin with.

So, yes, the canonical Gospels were doctored. The Quran is absolutely right about that.

The Quran claim the OT and Gospels were corrupted in contrast to the original from God which God only knows. This is a weakness because there is no empirical evidence of the original to compare the difference to claim there was corruption.
This is just an excuse by those who compile to Quran to make it look good in order to promote itself as the better religion.

I say again, the Quran was compiled by a group of men who merely pick up large portions of pieces from the then existing religions, this is laziness, a quick fix and plagiarization.

The ultimate point with Christianity and Islam is the whether there is the presence of evilness inherent the ideology that trigger SOME* believers to commit evil acts in the name of the religion.
* if only 10% that would be a pool of >150 millions within both Christianity or Islam.

Fortunately, for Christianity, its overriding maxim is pacifistic, i.e. there is no room for Christians to kill in the name of Jesus or God.

Unfortunately, for Islam, the Quran contains loads of verses that sanction believers to kill non-believers upon the slightest threats [fasadin], e.g. drawing of cartoon and even being a disbeliever.

[godelian]

The Quran claim the OT and Gospels were corrupted in contrast to the original from God which God only knows. This is a weakness because there is no empirical evidence of the original to compare the difference to claim there was corruption.

Wrong. The Codex Koridethi is complete evidence that Origin doctored the Gospels and corrupted the account of the Passover night. The Codex Koridethi is evidence that Christ was not crucified and never resurrected. Of course, the other branches that emerged out of Messianistic Judaism knew this very well. That is why the Quran also mentions the true account of the Passover night and clarifies that the Pauline Gospels narrate a forgery.

I say again, the Quran was compiled by a group of men who merely pick up large portions of pieces from the then existing religions, this is laziness, a quick fix and plagiarization.

You keep repeating the same nonsense. Pauline Christianity was not even the main branch that emerged out of Messianistic Judaism. The main branch was the branch of Jerusalem, i.e. Ebionite Christianity.

What you are saying on the matter, are prefabricated conclusions that rests on absolutely nothing tangible. Where is your evidence?

[Veritas Aequitas]

The Quran claim the OT and Gospels were corrupted in contrast to the original from God which God only knows. This is a weakness because there is no empirical evidence of the original to compare the difference to claim there was corruption.

Wrong. The Codex Koridethi is complete evidence that Origin doctored the Gospels and corrupted the account of the Passover night. The Codex Koridethi is evidence that Christ was not crucified and never resurrected. Of course, the other branches that emerged out of Messianistic Judaism knew this very well. That is why the Quran also mentions the true account of the Passover night and clarifies that the Pauline Gospels narrate a forgery.

I say again, the Quran was compiled by a group of men who merely pick up large portions of pieces from the then existing religions, this is laziness, a quick fix and plagiarization.

You keep repeating the same nonsense. Pauline Christianity was not even the main branch that emerged out of Messianistic Judaism. The main branch was the branch of Jerusalem, i.e. Ebionite Christianity.

What you are saying on the matter, are prefabricated conclusions that rests on absolutely nothing tangible. Where is your evidence?

My evidence is from the Quran itself.
To paraphrase, the Quran itself claim the Quran is the perfect knowledge from God to M via Gabriel.

The fact is, that the Quran is from God to M via Gabriel is a falsehood.
There is no real Allah.
It is Impossible for God to be Real
viewtopic.php?t=40229
If there is a God, Allah is not the one.

What you have been showing are claims [Islam evolved from Ebionites] by certain Christians.
Per AI, these claims are inaccurate.

Since this is about Islam, show me supporting evidences from Islamic Scholars [Sunni: Ḥanafī, Mālikī, Shāfiʿī, Ḥanbalī, Shia: ...] with authority to support your claim.

[godelian]

My evidence is from the Quran itself.

You are not particularly quoting. Instead, you are repeating prefabricated conclusions.

The fact is, that the Quran is from God to M via Gabriel is a falsehood.
There is no real Allah.
It is Impossible for God to be Real.

Again prefabricated conclusions that do not necessarily follow from anything.

What you have been showing are claims [Islam evolved from Ebionites] by certain Christians.
Per AI, these claims are inaccurate.

Is AI a new form of "justification"?

Since this is about Islam, show me supporting evidences from Islamic Scholars [Sunni: Ḥanafī, Mālikī, Shāfiʿī, Ḥanbalī, Shia: ...] with authority to support your claim.

Muslim scholars are generally not interested in this matter. It is mostly Jewish and Christian scholars who investigate it. I have given you ample references to their publications. Why does it even matter whether the scholar is Jewish, Christian, or Muslim? If his conclusions necessarily follow from the evidence, then that is all that should matter, shouldn't it?

[Veritas Aequitas]

My evidence is from the Quran itself.

You are not particularly quoting. Instead, you are repeating prefabricated conclusions.

I have analyzed the Quran into >1400 themes, what I asserted is based on the specific themes which I can extract the related verses.
It is just that I am lazy in this case but very confident.
If you have mastered the 1236 verses of the Quran you would readily agree with what I said.

The fact is, that the Quran is from God to M via Gabriel is a falsehood.
There is no real Allah.
It is Impossible for God to be Real.

Again prefabricated conclusions that do not necessarily follow from anything.

I have provided the argument in the post I raised.

What you have been showing are claims [Islam evolved from Ebionites] by certain Christians.
Per AI, these claims are inaccurate.

Is AI a new form of "justification"?

Btw, I always qualify AI with "With Reservations" wR but did not do it in this thread.
The AI also has the caveat "AI may be wrong". I believe AI is also programmed with 'woke' biasness.

AI is just like WIKI but its coverage is more wider in the sense, it can gather from whatever information is available in the internet. We cannot give AI a 100% confidence level, maybe 75% depending on the context discuss.
I believe the information given by AI herein is sufficient for the current purpose.
If want rigor we can go into the details. AI in general will not state anything without having access to the details.

Since this is about Islam, show me supporting evidences from Islamic Scholars [Sunni: Ḥanafī, Mālikī, Shāfiʿī, Ḥanbalī, Shia: ...] with authority to support your claim.

Muslim scholars are generally not interested in this matter. It is mostly Jewish and Christian scholars who investigate it. I have given you ample references to their publications. Why does it even matter whether the scholar is Jewish, Christian, or Muslim? If his conclusions necessarily follow from the evidence, then that is all that should matter, shouldn't it?

What?? This is weird for a Muslim.
Is it Islam and you are an official believer of Islam [a Muslim] and you want to rely on Jewish and Christian scholars which may be bias views for whatever reasons?
It is already stated in the Quran and Allah asserted, the Jews and Christians cannot be trusted; they are the worst of creatures condemned and dehumanized as apes.

It is also an unforgivable sin to rely on Jews and Christians for Islamic knowledge. There are loads of warning in the Quran on this. If you do it you will be sent to Hell for that.

The proper authority for Islam must be from the expert Islamic scholars and historians.

At this point I am not quoting from the Quran [save time and effort], but when I refer to the Quran, I have the supporting verses. But if rigor is needed then I can refer to my Excel Analysis or from the web.