Comparing the Koran with the Bible

[Byzantine_Wolf]

To scottm:

I’ve seen how you addressed some of these issues. For example, in #4 you take the idea that Jesus is only a prophet and jump to other verses that talk about other traits of Jesus - essentially, you tell people to ignore the problem passages. Again, that’s eisegesis and lying. This isn’t a matter of playing “us and them,” this is remaining consistent and true to our own scripture. According to the logic you are presenting us, Athanasius should have cooled it with the Arians because there could have been ways to find similar beliefs in scripture. The idea that “we can work things out” is a post-modern mindset that has no place in comparative religion. To do so is dishonest not only to your Christian brethren but to our Muslim friends. When a holy book says the Trinity is a damnable heresy and Jesus was not divine, there is no way to comply it to Christianity without great intellectual dishonesty, and in using the tactics you have suggested us, that is precisely what you are putting forward.

 

[scottm]

To scottm:
I’ve seen how you addressed some of these issues. For example, in #4 you take the idea that Jesus is only a prophet and jump to other verses that talk about other traits of Jesus - essentially, you tell people to ignore the problem passages.

What in the world are you reading??? Here’s #4: “We all know those verses in the Gospels, but none of us get tripped up by them. Read the Koran the same way.”

If those verses are NOT a problem in the Gospels, then they ought not be a problem anywhere else. And in fact they are not a problem in the Gospels. So my conclusion follows.

According to the logic you are presenting us, Athanasius should have cooled it with the Arians because there could have been ways to find similar beliefs in scripture.

No, because the Arians could not reconcile those verses with the divinity verses. The NT has both sets of verses: divinity, and “my Father is in heaven.” I’m using both sets. The Koran only has one set, but the set that the Koran has is also in the NT. (That’s what the Arians were reading! Come on now, the Arians were reading the very same NT that you and I read!)

Again, if the Arians’ proof-texts are not a problem for us, and if the Koran’s verses are the same sort of verses as the Arians’ proof-texts, then the Koran’s verses are not a problem for us either.

When a holy book says the Trinity is a damnable heresy and Jesus was not divine, there is no way to comply it to Christianity without great intellectual dishonesty, and in using the tactics you have suggested us, that is precisely what you are putting forward.

That would be a problem, except that (a) the Koran does not damn the Christian trinity. The Koran doesn’t even address the Christian trinity. The Koran addresses a heretical concept only. And (b) the divinity of Jesus is compatible with the Koran. Christians do not have to give it up. So you’re not arguing against me – you’re arguing against a strawman. That’s not cool.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Let me take you up on one point…

That would be a problem, except that (a) the Koran does not damn the Christian trinity. The Koran doesn’t even address the Christian trinity. The Koran addresses a heretical concept only. And (b) the divinity of Jesus is compatible with the Koran. Christians do not have to give it up. So you’re not arguing against me – you’re arguing against a strawman. That’s not cool.

With all due respect…have you read the Quran?

Christ the son of Mary was no more than a messenger; many were the messengers that passed away before him… [S. 5:75]

O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: Nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him: so believe in Allah and His messengers. Say not “Trinity” : desist: it will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah: Glory be to Him: (far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is Allah as a Disposer of affairs. [S. 4:171]

They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them. [S. 5:73]

There is no way to compliment these things without ignoring them. I am not presenting a straw man, I’m quoting the Quran in context. The Trinity is condemned in the Quran, and the divinity of Jesus is not compatible with the Quran - in fact the Quran condemns the belief in a divine Jesus.

Again, there is no way to say the Bible and Quran teach the same things without closing your eyes and ears and saying, “I won’t listen to what you say! I’ll just keep claiming you’re close-minded! La la la!”

 

[elwill]

To pick on Moslems for a moment:

In my experience they COMPLETELY IGNORE the Koran’s repeated call to read and follow the Bible, both OT and NT alike. That’s shameful. Any Moslem who ignores the Bible is disobeying Allah – flat out. There, I said it publicly. And nobody can fully understand the Koran without knowing the Bible stories. It’s not possible. The Koran references the Bible too many times. You have to know the Bible stories in order to know what the Koran is talking about. That’s objectively true and obvious!

quran told us to believe in the Injeel which revealed to jesus (pbuh) , and to believe in torah which was revealed to mosa (pbuh) , in the same time quran informs us that original torah or injeel was corrupted by hands of men ( not in it’s original form as it was revealed to prophet , some verses may be added and others may be omitted or lost and others may be altered )
however still it contains most of the truth , and most of the original teaching , so that we respect the entire scripture as a divine book , but not pure one .

and quran is suffecient scripture for our faith , may be bible is a good source for historic consideration not for principle of faith .

 

[autdrew]

I agree with BW, in reading Scotts posts, I had the same thought he did.

You may WANT to read things & only see the similar parts but if the muslims only believe what their book & tradition says it means, & it is the literal word of God, you arent going to change the meaning of things for anyone. I just cannot deny Jesus is the Son of god or the Holy Trinity.

 

[rinnie]

It’s not fair to go off on a tangent like that with a partisan position. That is not how the verse was ever interpreted in Eastern Christianity where all 12 Apostles started churches. All twelve of them. Including Peter. All twelve. Western Christianity does not have churches founded by all twelve Apostles.

This really is not the place for partisan disputes. It would be better to stick to that which unites everyone, to wit, it is undisputed that Jesus the prophet of Allah as mentioned in the Koran and the Bible alike, started a single Church that still exists today, and has always existed: Orthodoxy and Catholicism. The fact of the existence of 22 Eastern Catholic Churches proves that Orthodoxy and Catholicism are compatible right now today, the same as they were for the first 1000 years of Christian history. Anything more than that is an in-house dispute.

Okay Scottm, then how would you explain to them that we do not just read the word of God and take off with it to mean what we feel it should mean. We do not have the Holy Spirit to teach us scripture we have the Church. That is what the bible itself teaches.

My question was how do you learn the word of God if you do not READ it, I said we do not have to READ it Jesus left us the Church to TEACH it. The Church is led by the Power of the Holy Spirit.

Do you disagree with the Holy Spirit being our leader of the Faith? If you do not which I am sure you do not, I do not see why you would be offended with what I said. My Point was the RCC is led by the Holy Spriit not the Apostles. Just like the Apostles were led by Jesus when he was here, we have leaders here (Apostles of today) leading the same exact way.

When did our Bishops quit becoming Apostles of Christ?

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Elwill, my post got a bit buried in the last page, but I was wondering if you could answer a question I had regarding a statement you made:

it was his plane to reserve only the massage of his last prophet

Why, and where is that written?

 

[scottm]

You may WANT to read things & only see the similar parts but if the muslims only believe what their book & tradition says it means, & it is the literal word of God, you arent going to change the meaning of things for anyone. I just cannot deny Jesus is the Son of god or the Holy Trinity.

(bold face mine) Moslems would be wrong to not interpret the Koran in the light of the Bible, just as homosexual pedophile priests represents only a perverted and wrong form of Catholicism, and just as Terry Jones (the Florida pastor) represents only a perverted and wrong form of Christianity, and just as and just as and just as — history is full of examples of people not fulfilling their religion. It’s a safe bet that every single Catholic parish in the USA has hypocrites on its membership rolls, but that doesn’t mean that the Gates of Hell have prevailed over the Church. **Peoples’ mistakes do not negate the religion itself. **

To Elwill – the Koran does not say that the Bible printed today is corrupted, nor does it say that the words of Allah/God were actually even lost. The Koran says only that the message of Allah/God was corrupted – **but the actual literal explicit words of the Bible itself say that too!!! **That actually is what Isaiah and Jeremiah and bunch of other prophets said in the Old Testament. That actually is what John and Paul and even Jesus said in the New Testament. You have to read the Bible with the Koran, or you are not getting the message of Allah.

 

[scottm]

My question was how do you learn the word of God if you do not READ it, I said we do not have to READ it Jesus left us the Church to TEACH it. The Church is led by the Power of the Holy Spirit.
…
My Point was the RCC is led by the Holy Spirit not the Apostles. Just like the Apostles were led by Jesus when he was here, we have leaders here (Apostles of today) leading the same exact way.

The Church teaches it, yes, but one of the things that the Church teaches you is to read it yourself.

The RCC is led by the Holy Spirit, but so are the 22 other Catholic Churches, and so are the many Orthodox Churches.

When did our Bishops quit becoming Apostles of Christ?

“Have you stopped beating your spouse yet?” types of questions are not cool. If I ever did it myself I’m sorry.

 

[gmcbroom]

When it comes to comparing the two books I think there are elements of morality in both. However, each has its own unique qualities some good some bad. For me as a Christian I can go that far.
Now comes the hard part. There is a lot of killing in the Old Testament and there is alot of killing in the Koran. The OT is part of the Bible since it foretells the New Testament in various books. So a muslim is correct is using it as reference to killing. I’m not saying its moral or that it’s Christian but it is very Old Testament. The OT and the Koran is not just about GOD but on how to live in society both during and after war.
Christianity is unique in that it is more on the individual and Faith. It deals with love and mercy and living a humble life. That’s why I love christianity so much. Of the three, it is the most difficult to follow because it requires faith even during times of persecution. Christ said it was the centurian’s faith that healed his servant. Christians have to turn the other cheek. We don’t have to like it but we should. We honor God when we do it. Too me the Koran speaks of God that is what Allah means in arabic God. Yet, I don’t believe what it teaches, and as a Christian I have the Bible and Tradition as my guide. Just as Jews don’t look at the Christians or the Moslems as anything other than heretics. But I love them all just the same. That’s what we’re called to do as well as making disciples of all nations. It’s not easy, but it’s not supposed to be.
Besides didn't I read somewhere that Mohammed actually had to consult an Arian Priest to see if what he was hearing was actually an Angel? That has always been a stumbling block for me. After all in the OT and NT it was never in doubt when an Angel spoke to the people. So why in the Koran? And since Arianism was a major heresy back then its not too surprising that some of that is reflected in the Koran. Just a thought.

 

[elwill]

Elwill, you haven’t responded to my response to your post here:

page 8 post 111

 

[scottm]

page 8 post 111

Unfortunately in posts 111 and 113 your facts are wrong. You are operating from false information. When the facts are wrong the conclusion will be wrong.

 

[gmcbroom]

Elwill, Actually the Catholic faith has been handed down in such a way through the imposition of hands and scripture thus we have sacred tradition and scripture working together with the Holy Spirit that guides our path In fact the Catholic church selected the Hebrew books in the Old and New Testament to be included in the Bible. Also, just an FYI, Aramaic is still spoken today in some villages of Lebanon as well as well in the Maronite Catholic Church of which I am a member. But be that as it may I’ll go one step further there is a time is a time in the Liturgical year where I believe it its either around Lent or Easter where its mention the Gospel being proclaimed in all the languages of men and some looked on bewildered and some in understanding so its not meant to be locked into just one language. So there you have it. God Bless.

 

[viveret]

Also, the miracle of Pentecost is documented in Christian scripture.
It is part of the history of the Church.

 

[elwill]

Unfortunately in posts 111 and 113 your facts are wrong. You are operating from false information. When the facts are wrong the conclusion will be wrong.

the fact for me may be not a fact for you
i believe that islam is the only relegion in the world which it’s scripture (quran) kept pure in it’s original language and in it’s original form without alterations.

and i think that the question was forwarded to me as a muslim , to respond from my islamic point of view

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

page 8 post 111

The post doesn’t really answer “why,” since it merely repeats that the former people tarnished what happened after the prophet left. Are we to assume it was merely as a judgment for them?

I also asked where this idea was written. Your one quotation of the Quran (or rather, your large quotation from another page, which you don’t show was a quote) does not, in fact, refer directly to that issue nor does it substantiate what you said. In fact, going back to Christ and the apostles, they never spoke of the scripture being tarnished. This only became an issue when Mohammad appears on the scene.

I ask again - where is it written that God allowed the previous holy scriptures to be tarnished?

 

[elwill]

The post doesn’t really answer “why,” since it merely repeats that the former people tarnished what happened after the prophet left. Are we to assume it was merely as a judgment for them?

when i said
it was his plane to reserve only the massage of his last prophet
you asked
Why, and where is that written?

it means that your question is : why God reserve only the massage of last prophet not the others
and part of my answer was

Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) was the last prophet whom Allah sent, and he was not sent to a particular people or a particular time. He was sent to all of mankind until the end of the world.

Thus, his book of revelation, the Quran, had to be specially preserved from any form of change or loss **so that it would be available to all the generations of man until the last day of the world. **

The Quran was the main miracle given to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) to prove that he was a true prophet of Allah and not an imposter. So, the Quran had to be saved to prove to the later generations that Muhammad (peace be upon him) was really the last prophet of Allah.

how this respond not answering your “why” question

 

[sedonaman]

First of all, let me say that I am the sort of person who is heavy into research. If I’m curious about something, I’ll ask questions, and I will also look it up online or otherwise. …
Tiffany

If you want to compare the Koran with the Bible, try to find the Sermon on the Mount in the Koran. Muslims claim that Jesus was a great prophet. If so, the Sermon should be in it, shouldn’t it?

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

when i said
it was his plane to reserve only the massage of his last prophet
you asked
Why, and where is that written?

it means that your question is : why God reserve only the massage of last prophet not the others

I think that’s a misconception of what I was asking. My question was what this plan was, yes, but also where in scripture it is written that this was God’s plan. You respond again in this post that the Quran and Mohammad were the final message, and yes, I understand that. However, my question was: why would God allow two major revelations given by two major prophets to just completely be corrupted beyond recognition to send a third one. It presents the idea of a fallible God who has to get three revelations done to get it done right. It likewise does not go with how we see God working in scripture itself. Again, as I said earlier, we see Christ and the apostles continually quoting what came before. Only when we get to the Quran do we see a complete absence of direct quotations, and only when we get to the hadith sources do we see Muslim authorities telling followers to just avoid the previous revelations altogether and simply stick with the Quran. The idea that scripture or revelation is corrupted does not come about until the seventh century with the arrival of Mohammad and his new revelations, given outside of the Judeo-Christian context.

So my question was: why would God allow this to happen, and if He did it for the reasons you said, where is that written in Jewish or Christian scripture, let alone Islamic scripture?

 

[elwill]

I think that’s a misconception of what I was asking. My question was what this plan was, yes, but also where in scripture it is written that this was God’s plan.

“I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. How be it when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will show you things to come. He shall glorify me” (Luke16:12-14).

John 14: 15-16. It says: “14- If you love Me, keep My commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another comforter” (Helper in other versions), that he may abide with you forever".

You respond again in this post that the Quran and Mohammad were the final message, and yes, I understand that. However, my question was: why would God allow two major revelations given by two major prophets to just completely be corrupted beyond recognition to send a third one.

it’s a question like . why he allows for some people to disbelieve
God didn’t promise them that he will preseves these books , he left this mission for the people to preseve it to test them .
this kind of test shouldn’t be in the last massage , because their musn’t be any options for it’s corruptence because it will be the last scripture ever , that’s why theire are many verses in quran where allah says that he will preserve this revelation by himself
is such verses exist in your bible ?

as I said earlier, we see Christ and the apostles continually quoting what came before. Only when we get to the Quran do we see a complete absence of direct quotations,

do you think that theire are complete absence about what came before?

The idea that scripture or revelation is corrupted does not come about until the seventh century with the arrival of Mohammad and his new revelations, given outside of the Judeo-Christian context.

are you sure ?