>>17750430
>So the hypothetical Jay poses is: assuming this is the case, if a 7th century Arabian Christian or Jew was present when Mohammed recited the Quran, would this hypothetical person see the Quran as consistent with the biblical texts that they were familiar with at that time?
I mean there are reports of Christians back then doing exactly that and they became companions of the prophet.
> two possibilities if yes: if it is judged so by the texts spoken of by the church fathers and what we have now, then the Quran is wrong because there are many inconsistencies
From amongst the synoptic gospels, the main point of contention would be the death and resurrection of Jesus. A belief which would not have undermined the faith of its followers in the sight of God because they couldn't have known otherwise. John with its much more developed christology would be problematic but we don't have to take it as the injeel. That being said I still don't see the problem with this given the fact that we can still identify prophecies and theological points that would fit our interpretation more than yours even with the bible you have in your hands. We can always do a general confirmation anyway
>and if a “lost Injeel/Torah” is hypothesized which would have been closer to the uncorrupted version, then the conclusion is implausible since no such work is found or cited by Christian writers in history or archaeology
If we are going by what texts we have today then the reconstructed Q doesn't say anything that would be problematic for us afaik. And there would be no reason to expect the church fathers to quote it since they went with later texts. But speaking of them they do quote variants that are not used today in various places and I mean even the bible authors themselves do that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible?useskin=monobook I am sure you're aware that we have teachings that are very similar to those in some of these apocrypha