Challenge met?

[inJESUS]

3:44 This is an account of things [about Mary’s childhood] beyond your knowledge that We [Allah] revealed to you [Muhammad]: you were not present . . .

In effect, Muhammad says, “I wasn’t there, so believe that I got these events in Mary’s life from Allah! I did not get these info from human sources, so don’t come along after me and research my claims!”

But what is reality? that these accounts were **already **written in apocryphic gospels and Muhammad did **NOT **need to be present at all; he only needed to read or listen to these passages In other words, Allah’s “reason” is wrong. He, supposedly an all-knowing, must have known that people already wrote these thing and Muhammad did not need to be present hundreds of years before to know about these ficticious accounts.

As to Muhammad’s challenge about bringing a sura/passage like it, let’s read this :

19:29-31 The people said, “How shall we talk with him, who is but an infant in the cradle?” Whereupon the child spoke out, "I am a servant of Allah: He has given me the Book and He has appointed me a Prophet, and He has made me blessed wherever I may be. He has enjoined upon me to offer Salat and give Zakat so long as I shall live.

Jesus spake when He was in the cradle, and said to Mary His Mother, “Verily I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Word which thou hast borne, according as the angel Gabriel gave thee the good news; and My Father hath sent Me for the salvation of the world.”

the apocryphal Arabic Infancy Gospel

Muhammad surely transformed Jesus into a muslim baby by chanfing some words, but notice the similarity in style and phrase sequence between the 2 passages thus i believe the apocryphic passage written in some apocrypha matches Allah’s style in the Quran which means it met the challenge (1) and (2) proved Allah’s reasoning as wrong since Muhammad did not need to live at Mary’s time to hear this fiction.

 

[Khalfan]

3:44 This is an account of things [about Mary’s childhood] beyond your knowledge that We [Allah] revealed to you [Muhammad]: you were not present . . .

In effect, Muhammad says, “I wasn’t there, so believe that I got these events in Mary’s life from Allah! I did not get these info from human sources, so don’t come along after me and research my claims!”

But what is reality? that these accounts were **already **written in apocryphic gospels and Muhammad did **NOT **need to be present at all; he only needed to read or listen to these passages In other words, Allah’s “reason” is wrong. He, supposedly an all-knowing, must have known that people already wrote these thing and Muhammad did not need to be present hundreds of years before to know about these ficticious accounts.

As to Muhammad’s challenge about bringing a sura/passage like it, let’s read this :

19:29-31 The people said, “How shall we talk with him, who is but an infant in the cradle?” Whereupon the child spoke out, "I am a servant of Allah: He has given me the Book and He has appointed me a Prophet, and He has made me blessed wherever I may be. He has enjoined upon me to offer Salat and give Zakat so long as I shall live.

Jesus spake when He was in the cradle, and said to Mary His Mother, “Verily I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Word which thou hast borne, according as the angel Gabriel gave thee the good news; and My Father hath sent Me for the salvation of the world.”

the apocryphal Arabic Infancy Gospel

Muhammad surely transformed Jesus into a muslim baby by chanfing some words, but notice the similarity in style and phrase sequence between the 2 passages thus i believe the apocryphic passage written in some apocrypha matches Allah’s style in the Quran which means it met the challenge (1) and (2) proved Allah’s reasoning as wrong since Muhammad did not need to live at Mary’s time to hear this fiction.

No wonder, why is it in apocrepha.

 

[inJESUS]

No wonder, why is it in apocrepha.

rather the question is : why are many Quranic passages taken from various apocrypha written in the 4th and 5th centuy when they are supposed to be the eternal words of Allah and not humans? do you understand now why Muhammad was accused of forgeries?You understand now why he was accused of telling myth and legends? because the people who heard him knew that he is tellingJudeo-Christian legends and putting them as God’s words.

2- do NOT underestimate the apocrypha and think that they resemble Muhammad’s teachings. On the contrary, some apocryphic gospels say explicitly Jesus is God, and none deny his crucifixion or his being the Son of God yet they are not canonical. Why? because they are not apostolic, which means they were not passed down by the apostles,

 

[gallardo]

rather the question is : why are many Quranic passages taken from various apocrypha written in the 4th and 5th centuy when they are supposed to be the eternal words of Allah and not humans? do you understand now why Muhammad was accused of forgeries?You understand now why he was accused of telling myth and legends? because the people who heard him knew that he is tellingJudeo-Christian legends and putting them as God’s words.

2- do NOT underestimate the apocrypha and think that they resemble Muhammad’s teachings. On the contrary, some apocryphic gospels say explicitly Jesus is God, and none deny his crucifixion or his being the Son of God yet they are not canonical. Why? because they are not apostolic, which means they were not passed down by the apostles,

1. the term apocripha is invented/used by Christians (not all Christians, ofcourse). So what is apocrypha to Christians myay not necessarily apocrypha to non-Christians.
2. Koran is also called Al-furqan (which means the book which makes distinction between right and wrong). So acording to Muslims, whatever Koran says is Truth and if some of it’s Truths are also found/shared in Christian apocrypha/non-apocrypha, then it simply means that Koran is either pointing out those shreds of truth prevailed/existed in pre-koranic scriptures/literature/beliefs or simply Koran is showing what is actually truth if truth is not known until then.

So your post is meaningless and baseless.

 

[Abraxsis]

What it looks like to me is Muhammed stole certain Gnostic scriptures, twisted what they said, and then boldly declared he spoke to God in a drunken stupor.

 

[Khalfan]

rather the question is : why are many Quranic passages taken from various apocrypha written in the 4th and 5th centuy when they are supposed to be the eternal words of Allah and not humans? do you understand now why Muhammad was accused of forgeries?You understand now why he was accused of telling myth and legends? because the people who heard him knew that he is tellingJudeo-Christian legends and putting them as God’s words.

2- do NOT underestimate the apocrypha and think that they resemble Muhammad’s teachings. On the contrary, some apocryphic gospels say explicitly Jesus is God, and none deny his crucifixion or his being the Son of God yet they are not canonical. Why? because they are not apostolic, which means they were not passed down by the apostles,

Do you say, if the Quran is indeed from God, it should be exactly opposite to the known history and known facts? Thats illogical.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Khalfan,
That’s the problem. The apocrypha are not generally accepted to be true narratives of historical events.

 

[pro_universal]

Khalfan,
That’s the problem. The apocrypha are not generally accepted to be true narratives of historical events.

Who generally does not accept them?

 

[inJESUS]

Do you say, if the Quran is indeed from God, it should be exactly opposite to the known history and known facts? Thats illogical.

no, i am saying that if the Quran is indeed the eternal words of God, why then do we find many apocrypha written in the 4th century in addition to legends put as God’s word? do you know how many apocrypha is found in the Quran? i can list more than 5 apocrypha and gnostic gospels written by non-apostolic people and gnostic authors. Did Allah reveal to all these authors the truth as well when non of them was an apostle or prophet?

bear in mind that the apocryphic gospels are NOT a case against Christianity since many have orthodox teachings like Jesus being God, that he was crucified, that he performed miracles, that he was born to a virgin ecc.Christians reject them because they are not apostolic, which was the criteria, even if the content is correct and orthodox.
Yet many have ficticious claims about Jesus like talking in the cradle or breathing life into birds which Muhammad thought were correct but if you read the rest of the gospel from which Muhammad took his info, you’d laugh at their absurdity. How can the same author who wrote absurd things about Jesus in many passages, how can he be inspired in others? how can the erternal word of Allah be from unispired men here and there? how can the Judeo-Christian legends created by men be the eternal word of Allah?

.

In other words, Allah is saying that Muhammad did not receice these info from men because he was not present at Jesus’ time, which is a flawed reason because these same info were written by men and Muhammad only needed listen to them without living at Jesus’ time.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Please butt out, pro.

Apocrypha

In biblical literature, works outside an accepted canon of scripture. In modern usage the Apocrypha refers to ancient Jewish books that are not part of the Hebrew Bible but are considered canonical in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Among the various books included are Tobit, Judith, Baruch, and the Maccabees as well as Ecclesiasticus and the Wisdom of Solomon. Protestant churches follow Jewish tradition in judging these works apocryphal or noncanonical. The term deuterocanonical is used to refer to works accepted in one canon but not all. Pseudepigrapha are spurious works for which biblical authorship is claimed.

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia

Here is a Catholic definition - I believe they are the largest Christian group:

catholic-forum.com/saints/ncd00648.htm
catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=31877

apocrypha
(Greek: apokryphos, hidden)

Originally writings that claimed a sacred origin and were supposed to have been hidden for generations; later, a well-defined class of literature with scriptural or quasi-scriptural pretensions, but lacking genuineness and canonicity, which were composed during the two centuries before Christ and the early centuries of our era. Protestants apply the term improperly to denote also Old Testament books, not contained in the Jewish canon, but received by Catholics under the name of deuterocanonical.

The term is also used to denote 7 additional books accepted by the Catholic Church as being ‘inspired’ but these are not what we’re talking about.

Apocrypha

The word apocrypha means hidden. It is used in a general sense to describe a list of books written by Jews between 300 and 100 B.C. More specifically, it is used of the seven additional books accepted by the Catholic church as being inspired. The entire list of books of the apocrypha are: 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the Rest of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, (also titled Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, The Letter of Jeremiah, Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Additions to Daniel, The Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.

The books accepted as inspired and included in the Catholic Bible are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees Wisdom of Solomon Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch

The Jews never recognized these books as being canonical (inspired). There is no record that Jesus or the apostles ever quoted from the apocryphal books. The Septuagint (LXX) includes the books, not as scripture, but as part of the translation of the Hebrew manuscripts as a whole.

experiencefestival.com/a/Apocrypha/id/68161

 

[Montalban]

1. the term apocripha is invented/used by Christians (not all Christians, ofcourse). So what is apocrypha to Christians myay not necessarily apocrypha to non-Christians.

That’s irrelevant to the Koran showing plagarism.

1. Koran is also called Al-furqan (which means the book which makes distinction between right and wrong). So acording to Muslims, whatever Koran says is Truth and if some of it’s Truths are also found/shared in Christian apocrypha/non-apocrypha, then it simply means that Koran is either pointing out those shreds of truth prevailed/existed in pre-koranic scriptures/literature/beliefs or simply Koran is showing what is actually truth if truth is not known until then.

That’s still not the point. The point being made is that the Koran’s claiming to reveal things already known.

So your post is meaningless and baseless.

No, your objection is, as you miss the point!

 

[Montalban]

Who generally does not accept them?

Generally accepted means in ‘general’ the population at large.

 

[Montalban]

What it looks like to me is Muhammed stole certain Gnostic scriptures, twisted what they said, and then boldly declared he spoke to God in a drunken stupor.

That’s the point of the OP which several Moslems here have missed. Pro_universal will now seek to draw people into debates over the validity of the apocryphya

 

[kellie]

Do you say, if the Quran is indeed from God, it should be exactly opposite to the known history and known facts? Thats illogical.

Why would God give us His story twice though?
If the Quran is from God, of course it would be different, as God would not need to tell us His story to 2 prophets.

But we know His final word was Jesus, so we therefore know the Quran is false, and most copied from the Bible

 

[pro_universal]

Generally accepted means in ‘general’ the population at large.

Yeah, unfortunately for you and Rodrigo, there is no such “general acceptance” except amongst Christian faithful. Which obviously you should not expect a Muslim poster to just accept at face value.

It’s like saying the apocrypha are wrong only because most Christians say they’re wrong. That obviously does not constitute disproof of the apocryphal accounts.

 

[pro_universal]

That’s the point of the OP which several Moslems here have missed. Pro_universal will now seek to draw people into debates over the validity of the apocryphya

As Khalfan rightly pointed out, similarities between Islamic accounts of Jesus and the apocrypha make the validity of the apocrypha central to the question posed above. The Islamic account being in line with historically accurate apocryphal texts supports Khalfan’s claim here-the similarity could be a product of the fact that both accounts are true.

 

[pro_universal]

Please butt out, pro.

Britannica Concise Encyclopedia

Here is a Catholic definition - I believe they are the largest Christian group:

catholic-forum.com/saints/ncd00648.htm
catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=31877

The term is also used to denote 7 additional books accepted by the Catholic Church as being ‘inspired’ but these are not what we’re talking about.

experiencefestival.com/a/Apocrypha/id/68161

Posting as to what is considered Canonical does not constitute a demonstration of anything other than the fact that orthodox Christians accept the orthodox Christian version of the story. It’s totally irrelevant to Khalfan’s point.

 

[Montalban]

Yeah, unfortunately for you and Rodrigo, there is no such “general acceptance” except amongst Christian faithful. Which obviously you should not expect a Muslim poster to just accept at face value.

You’re absolutely right there, I would not accept your word for it

It’s like saying the apocrypha are wrong only because most Christians say they’re wrong. That obviously does not constitute disproof of the apocryphal accounts.

But it would show that they’re not generally accpeted though! LOL It would indeed be EXACTLY that point.

So the claim:
“they’re not generally accepted” is refuted by you “Just because most Chrisitans don’t accept them!”
ROFL

Can we get back to the OP?

 

[Montalban]

As Khalfan rightly pointed out, similarities between Islamic accounts of Jesus and the apocrypha make the validity of the apocrypha central to the question posed above. The Islamic account being in line with historically accurate apocryphal texts supports Khalfan’s claim here-the similarity could be a product of the fact that both accounts are true.

That’s
a) not germane to the OP which is that the Koran claims a ‘revelation’ when it’s already ‘revealed’. It’s not relevant that they’re ‘true’ but that they’re copied. The Koran is claiming a unique knowledge of things that are already known.
and
b) doesn’t even address your own off-topic interjection that they’re not accepted by most Christians… unless you contend that because it’s accepted by Islam as fact it’s accepted by the majority of Christians.


You’re still pressing points not relevant to the OP, then you’re missing your own points:thumbsup:

 

[Montalban]

Posting as to what is considered Canonical does not constitute a demonstration of anything other than the fact that orthodox Christians accept the orthodox Christian version of the story. It’s totally irrelevant to Khalfan’s point.

Khalfan’s point is irrelevant to the OP

And you repeat a refutation that they’re not ‘generally accepted’