Challenge met?

[Khalfan]

The same way you accept your original scriptures.

No. We don’t match Quran with any original concept. Quran itself proves its divinity. Matching and scraching are the job for those who doubt, if the Quran is the same that got revealed 1400 years ago. And that too is available for testimony. But in your case, it is hopeless than to make assumptions. Not only for apocrypha, but also for non-apocrypha books.

In most cases the apocrypha (not the seven hidden books) were written long after the event and are clearly fictional.

Who said that?

 

[Montalban]

Did I say it met the challenge of Quran? I met your challenge, not of Quran.

But remarkably that *is *the Koran’s challenge to meet it with something like it, and I did, and so did you; in our own way.

You posit a ‘challenge’ that you already believe can’t be met, based on a priori that whatever’s in the Koran is superior to anything else and you restrict this too, to Arabic - else you loose the meaning.

You have no right to judge something in any other language (you’re not familiar with) as you’re unable to know just how good it is. My poem can’t be judged by its own merits unless you understand the language it’s in. You don’t know the language therefore you can’t judge it.

And I can’t judge your poem because I don’t know it’s language.

Therefore

Koranic verse - I can’t judge 'cause I don’t speak Arabic
Montalban verse - you can’t judge 'cause you don’t speak Montalbanese (known only to myself)

And as my poem can’t be met with anything ‘like it’, it shows how ‘valid’ the challenge is. Same for the Koran.

However even if I understood Arabic it’s all a matter of taste, anyway. There’s judgment that the Koran is great poetry, but there’s no *real *test that its superior.

Either way the challenge of the Koran’s a dud. Thanks for demonstrating this!

 

[Montalban]

Quran itself proves its divinity.

Circular reasoning!

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

No. We don’t match Quran with any original concept. Quran itself proves its divinity. Matching and scraching are the job for those who doubt, if the Quran is the same that got revealed 1400 years ago. And that too is available for testimony. But in your case, it is hopeless than to make assumptions. Not only for apocrypha, but also for non-apocrypha books.

I was talking of the hadiths - how you decide which are sahih and which are not sahih. It’s a similar process.

Khalfan:

Who said that?

I do. I have done a research on the relevant apocrypha and they are all without exception written at the earliest in the third century.

If you note the definition of apocrypha (except for the 7 hidden books) one of the clues to their non-genuine status is their relatively late stage of appearance. Christian writers are quite prolific and discuss all sorts of things. Theologians can track when approximately a piece of writing was probably written by the accounts of various scholars. Hence textual dating of apocrypha provides an important clue as to whether they are genuine or false (i.e. apocrypha).

 

[Khalfan]

But remarkably that *is *the Koran’s challenge to meet it with something like it, and I did, and so did you; in our own way.

You posit a ‘challenge’ that you already believe can’t be met, based on a priori that whatever’s in the Koran is superior to anything else and you restrict this too, to Arabic - else you loose the meaning.

You have no right to judge something in any other language (you’re not familiar with) as you’re unable to know just how good it is. My poem can’t be judged by its own merits unless you understand the language it’s in. You don’t know the language therefore you can’t judge it.

And I can’t judge your poem because I don’t know it’s language.

Therefore

Koranic verse - I can’t judge 'cause I don’t speak Arabic
Montalban verse - you can’t judge 'cause you don’t speak Montalbanese (known only to myself)

Let’s say I am third party that want to check both Quran and your revelation. I know Arabic and if not, the translations are available in any language to understand the concept/message. Now, since I don’t understand Montalbanese, can you translate it for me? Let me Judge atleast for myself, if you met the challenge to make a like Quran.

And as my poem can’t be met with anything ‘like it’, it shows how ‘valid’ the challenge is. Same for the Koran.

However even if I understood Arabic it’s all a matter of taste, anyway. There’s judgment that the Koran is great poetry, but there’s no *real *test that its superior.

How did you say, a poem like yours cannot be made? I made it already. Any comment on the beauty of that?

In Quran, it is not only the arabic or the poetic beauty that makes it special as uncreatable. But the Message in it.

Either way the challenge of the Koran’s a dud. Thanks for demonstrating this!

Read the Quran atleast once. Then you will understand what the real challenge is.

 

[Khalfan]

Circular reasoning!

I think you don’t know the meaning of ‘Circular reasoning’. Quran proves its truth with evidence mentioned in it. You have to examine that evidence to check if it is truly from God or can be man made. It is not circular, when you have provable evidence for reasoning. Circular reasoning is something like Trinity. You say, it is true becasue Bible say it is true. Then you have to prove Bible is true. You have to have Spirit in you to understand Bible. So, you have to understand Bible to believe in trinity. But you have to believe in Trinity to have Spirit in you. (again) But you have to have Spirit in you to understand Bible. And this is what we call ‘Circular reasoning’.

 

[inJESUS]

That’s illogic. What Quan says about the birth or life of Jesus (pbuh) is history. It doesn’t mean only God knew those things and not even Mary or Jesus (pbut). There was indeed other people too, who witnessed the event in cradle, other events in the life of Jesus (pbuh). If any of those wrote what they saw, that supports the claim of Quran as historical evidence from an outer source. On what basis you said, those apocrypha also supposed to be from God

, since it says the similar stories? Muhammad’s words are supposed to be Allah’s words, not other men’s words. Allah gives this criteria to prove that the words are not Mohamad’s :“you were not there”.

Example : i write events taken from Shakespeare’s work and i attribute them to my wyself. People accuse me of forgery so i respond :how could i forge Shakespeare if i did not live at his time?

Absurd right?that’s what the Quran does. It says Muhammad couldn’t have known these events and hence they "must"be the words of the Divine when fact is these events were recorded by humans before Muhammad and he only needed listen to them. In other words, the criteria is false.
And since when are the words of the apocrypa divine? was it Allah who revealed all the apocrypha Muhammad took from if the Quran is the literal word of Allah?

AND what Muhammad took is not history- it is faiery tales written in superstitious and absurd gospels.

Not sources, but source -God.

 

[Khalfan]

I was talking of the hadiths - how you decide which are sahih and which are not sahih. It’s a similar process.

Who heard it originally from Prophet, then who heard it from whome and chain it gets written is recorded. The life those persons in the chain is verified if they were true and rightuose people. If there is any gape in the chain, like name of a person, words of anyones is not trustworthy, then the hadees will go under non-saheeh.

If we do that same process with books in the Bible, most of it will go under non-saheeh including entire OT and 4 gospels.

I do. I have done a research on the relevant apocrypha and they are all without exception written at the earliest in the third century.

If you note the definition of apocrypha (except for the 7 hidden books) one of the clues to their non-genuine status is their relatively late stage of appearance. Christian writers are quite prolific and discuss all sorts of things. Theologians can track when approximately a piece of writing was probably written by the accounts of various scholars. Hence textual dating of apocrypha provides an important clue as to whether they are genuine or false (i.e. apocrypha).

So you are an authority for Bible books. Good. Let me ask you few questions.

1. When was the first compiled books ‘bible’ came into existence? Do you have copy of that? How many OT, NT and apocrypha was in it?
2. How do you mesure the divine/spiritual inspiration in any book dated today or 2000 year old?
3. When was Mark 16:9-20 was written sice the scholars of NIV says it is a later addition?
4. How can the date prove the truth of any writing?
5. Who wrote 4 gospels? How do you prove it was Mark, Matthew nd John? Did they give their name in it atleast?

 

[inJESUS]

Did I say it met the challenge of Quran? I met your challenge, not of Quran.

he meant that you proved the absurdity of the Quranic claim without even realizing it.

 

[inJESUS]

I think you don’t know the meaning of ‘Circular reasoning’. Quran proves its truth with evidence mentioned in it. You have to examine that evidence to check if it is truly from God or can be man made. It is not circular, when you have provable evidence for reasoning. Circular reasoning is something like Trinity. You say, it is true becasue Bible say it is true. Then you have to prove Bible is true. You have to have Spirit in you to understand Bible. So, you have to understand Bible to believe in trinity. But you have to believe in Trinity to have Spirit in you. (again) But you have to have Spirit in you to understand Bible. And this is what we call ‘Circular reasoning’.

nop.The difference is that we have scripture written by non-Christians to back up our belief. You don’t. But that can be discussed in the other thread.

 

[crisco]

Quran proves its truth with evidence mentioned in it. You have to examine that evidence to check if it is truly from God or can be man made. It is not circular, when you have provable evidence for reasoning.

…and the OP has demonstrated that the author of the Quran could have easily forged and modified an available apocryphal text to advance his ideological position. Thus, the evidence has been examined and cannot be used to support a God only revelation, since it could have been ‘man made’.

 

[inJESUS]

this is not a thread about the Apocrypha Khalfan. Choose ANY apocrypha and it will still oppose what Muhammad taught about Jesus.

You talk about Muhammad’s sahaba. We got sahaba too. We got the writings of the disciples’ disciples in our tradition. These people wrote about the fake gospels.

Muhammad simply picked from here and there and not surprisingly he quoted absurd apocrypha thinking the info in it are correct. Some of these apocryphas are based on the NT,but others are the fruit of a wide imagination that has nothing to do with real history.

Take the example of Jesus talking in the cradle.

The one who wrote it wanted to give a scenario that defeats the Jews’ claim that Mary is unchaste so he created the Jesus talking in the cradle scenario when REAL history proves that Mary was married to Joseph and no one accused her of being unchaste except **after **Jesus started his ministry. So that’s a simple historical mistake that Muhammad thought was correct.

 

[Khalfan]

Muhammad’s words are supposed to be Allah’s words, not other men’s words. Allah gives this criteria to prove that the words are not Mohamad’s :“you were not there”.

Example : i write events taken from Shakespeare’s work and i attribute them to my wyself. People accuse me of forgery so i respond :how could i forge Shakespeare if i did not live at his time?

Absurd right? that’s what the Quran does. It says Muhammad couldn’t have known these events and hence they "must"be the words of the Divine when fact is these events were recorded by humans before Muhammad and he only needed listen to them. In other words, the criteria is false.

Indeed it is. But before that you have to prove, when the apocrypha was written. Then you have to prove prophet (pbuh) got it from those apocrypha. Otherwise it is just a possibility. As I have already said, the reason that the history was written by someone before it revealed in Quran, doesn’t prove prophet copied it from those apocrypha or anywhere else. If it is, it will prove one thing that the whole Quran was manmade. Until we prove that, your question will remain just as a possibility. And if Quran proves it is from God, not man made, your question fails to be proven. Why we say it is from God is becasue of the known facts that we can testify today; the scintifical facts that man could only know recently. These facts are impossible to be written by men 1400 years ago unless it is revealed by God.

And since when are the words of the apocrypa divine? was it Allah who revealed all the apocrypha Muhammad took from if the Quran is the literal word of Allah?

AND what Muhammad took is not history- it is faiery tales written in superstitious and absurd gospels.

so it was God who revealed all the apocrypha and legends Muhammad took his ideas from?

Who said the apocrypha is divine? It is not only apocrypha but the whole OT and NT is apocrypha or non-saheeh for Muslims since many of the human additions and errors are confirmed.

If there is any true word of God in those books, the source of that and the source of Quran is what I said, is God.

Your allegation of copying apocrypha or any other source will remain worthless since, he was supposed to copy all the errors too that we find in the Bible, if he was indeed copying stories from it. The other souces are just unprovable claims, so doesn’t required to be answered.

 

[Khalfan]

he meant that you proved the absurdity of the Quranic claim without even realizing it.

He didn’t know what he was saying. He didn’t understand the challenge even. I met his challenge in every way that you can examin the likeness. Until he too is able to prove the likeness of Quran and his ‘poem’ challenge remains. Otherwise it is just like an ANT challenging an ELEPHANT for Boxing. The fight will never happen.

 

[Khalfan]

nop.The difference is that we have scripture written by non-Christians to back up our belief. You don’t. But that can be discussed in the other thread.

Check those documents for an evidence for the claim that Jesus (pbuh) dead on the cross and resurrected. Discussion will be done in another thread.

 

[Khalfan]

…and the OP has demonstrated that the author of the Quran could have easily forged and modified an available apocryphal text to advance his ideological position. Thus, the evidence has been examined and cannot be used to support a God only revelation, since it could have been ‘man made’.

But you still have to prove when the apocrypha was written. Becsue, what if I say, those stories in apocrypha was written later than Quran to disprove it by giving the same claim of OP? Unless he do that, OP failed.

 

[Khalfan]

this is not a thread about the Apocrypha Khalfan. Choose ANY apocrypha and it will still oppose what Muhammad taught about Jesus.

You talk about Muhammad’s sahaba. We got sahaba too. We got the writings of the disciples’ disciples in our tradition. These people wrote about the fake gospels.

Muhammad simply picked from here and there and not surprisingly he quoted absurd apocrypha thinking the info in it are correct. Some of these apocryphas are based on the NT,but others are the fruit of a wide imagination that has nothing to do with real history.

Take the example of Jesus talking in the cradle.

The one who wrote it wanted to give a scenario that defeats the Jews’ claim that Mary is unchaste so he created the Jesus talking in the cradle scenario when REAL history proves that Mary was married to Joseph and no one accused her of being unchaste except **after **Jesus started his ministry. So that’s a simple historical mistake that Muhammad thought was correct.

What is those writings of disciples’ disciples? How do you prove he was truly a disciples’ disciple? What if he was misunderstood of the events or sayings? Can you give name of any person? If not, it is just as non-saheeh hadees.

You are still ignoring the fact that, you don’t know Jesus (pbuh) until he was 30 years of age.

 

[crisco]

Why we say it is from God is becasue of the known facts that we can testify today; the scintifical facts that man could only know recently. These facts are impossible to be written by men 1400 years ago unless it is revealed by God.

umm…if those are the ‘facts’ on which the validity of the Quran as a divine revelation stand or fall, then such an assertion is in serious trouble. I can’t speak for all of the examples, but take the embryonic development assertion for instance. Is this meant to be a sincere attempt? The verse is at best a vague allusion, and the chewed gum example is desperate.

 

[Khalfan]

umm…if those are the ‘facts’ on which the validity of the Quran as a divine revelation stand or fall, then such an assertion is in serious trouble. I can’t speak for all of the examples, but take the embryonic development assertion for instance. Is this meant to be a sincere attempt? The verse is at best a vague allusion, and the chewed gum example is desperate.

I don’t need your certification, but from an accredited authority and I got it. It is there in the same site as the words of world renowned professors in embryology.

 

[crisco]

I don’t need your certification, but from an accredited authority and I got it. It is there in the same site as the words of world renowned professors in embryology.

I’m sorry but those assertions remain just that - assertions devoid of any scientific scrutiny.