[Katoabralia]

The language of Jesus (Esa (AS) was more likly to be aramic and as such more akeen to Arabic and Hebrew (the semetic language). So how could the greek context be applied.
Also some of the gosple are ignored/ rejected. For instance the one found in ezypt few years ago. What are the authentication and validation process of such process.

But does the word "paraklytos" have anything to do with Aramaic? Wasn't the idea that "paraklytos" is quite close to the Greek word "parakleetos" and that's why we can ignore the differences in vowels?

Probably the one founded in Egypt was a Gnostic writning. It is clear that those are from the second century. You should acknowledge this too, because they teach for example dualism.

The Bible has been corrupted on 4 levels
1. By means of Translation - the original Aramaic has been lost, and thus, the earliest codices can not be verified as authentic - much can be lost in just the translation alone from Aramaic => Hebrew => Greek => Latin - not to mention the inability to authenticate the original message being translated with the loss of the originals.

I know that this goes a bit offtopic, but I just want to clarify this issue:

The New Testament was originally written in Greek, the Gospel according to Matthew may be the only exception to the rule. Of course the translation from Jesus' Aramaic words to Greek can be a problem for a Non-Christian. I believe that the original Greek of the NT is just as inspired as Jesus' Aramaic preaching.

The Original message is still there! There isn't a single manuscript that could question the essential doctrines of Christianity.

2. Human Error - Biblical scholars (christian and secular alike) have found many passages in the Bible which did not originate from the divine, but originated from scribal errors - such errors the variance between 666 and 616 as the mark of the beast, and the tale of Jesus(AS) walking on water, in ancient versions of the bible, this story was written in the margains - as a sort of side note, but not authenticated - later it was merged into the text itself and became a part of the bible.

It is true that the are some human errors in copying the text, but what makes the text reliable is that we know about these errors. We have so many manuscripts that we can spot some words or verses that can be questionable.

3. authentication and compilation - the bible was not formed, compiled and codified until 367 years after Jesus(AS) had left this world (thats longer than the US has been a country) - There are tons of books known to christians as the Apocrypha which were not included in the protestant bible - between the Catholics, The Protestants, The Eastern Orthodox, The Coptic, and The Etheopian Orthodox curches - they all have varying books - and each sect deems books the others hold as divine, as false. The books that were denied entry into the cannon were deemed to be fabricated by the council of carthage - but the books that were granted entry were not authenticated 100% either - they were just seen as "most likely not fabricated" by the council.

The date of canonization is wrong. If I remember correctly the year 367 is the year when the 27 books of today's NT were first mentioned in a same list and as the canonical books of the NT. BUT the Muratorian canon from the year 180 gives us a list of the canonical books and there are just some books that are disputed, for example the MC mentions the four gospels as canonical and all Pauline letters. So the canon was pretty much the same already in the second century. We can go even earlier with the Church Fathers who quote the books of the NT as the Word of God.

4. Revelation - The bible is not the writings of Jesus(AS) - it is more like a commentary by men who are said to have been with Jesus(AS). The system of revelation of the NT texts is a major departure from the way previous books were revealed to Anbiya in the past. For example, the book of revelation is not a revelation to Jesus(AS) that was passed on to his Hawaryeen - it was a revelation to John the evangelist - so much of the bible is no more divine then taleemul Haqq or Bahishti Zewar or the tafsir of Ibn Kathir. The bible we have today is no more the Injeel spoken of in the Quran, than an English translation of Tafsir Jalalayn is the Quran.

You probably realise that this argument is based solely on the presupposition that Jesus Christ was just a prophet. God has always delivered his revelation through humans so I see problem with that that the revelation was written under the authority of the apostles of Jesus who were messangers of God.

So the question I have, which has been posed to me by christians also, is why do we Muslims use verses from a book we find corrupted (with due merit, as the evidence is overwhelming) to authenticate Islam - for one the word "Paraclete" is the translation of a translation of a commentary on something Jesus(AS) is said to have said - so how do we know Jesus(AS) even said it, unless the quran and hadeeth say he said it? I dont have an answer to this question, the best thing I can think of that some elements from the divine Injeel are still preserved in the modern Bible.

Could be, because the Qu'ran claims that Muhammad is prophesied in the NT?

7:157 "Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who have believed in him, honored him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him - it is those who will be the successful."

I think the verse presupposes that the NT isn't corrupt at the time of Muhammad.

What is interesting to note is that Biblical Scholars believe in the existence of a mysterious document called 'Q'. This is a source document, believed to have been the source of much of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke. Document 'Q' was probably a document consisting of nothing more than the sayings of Isa and may actually have been the written form of the Book given to him. However, we do not have this document in any form.

Not all biblical scholars believe in it. It is just a theory without any manuscript evidence. But I don't think that you should turn to the alledged "Q-source" in order to prove Islam to be truth, because these same scholars are certain that if there is a Q-source, crucifixion is most certainly mentioned in it, because it is found in all gospels. So Q-source theory is really against teaching of the Qu'ran.