S
Sister_Amy
Guest
Huh?
- Status
S
seraphime2008
Guest
Huuuuhhhh? could you clarify that referring to Koran that says Zacharias even talk to God directly about the future son of him (John) while Muhammad himself couldn’t, but only able to meet the version of Gabriel??
Mumbo jumbo of Quran, trying to imitate lots of sources and fail to recognize the message!!
S
seraphime2008
Guest
wowww…I can see how shallow your understanding of parental relationships now that your mind is tight in Islamic “cloud”. So apparently to you the creation of human by God is just a matter of a creation of robot or some animal in the Kingdom of universe, you don’t share any qualities of God since we are not made in His image or perhaps God is just a matter of “energy” without anything similar to a “person”, I wonder how He was so jealous and requires you to worship Him 5 times a day and so many things unnecessary if He was just a “zat” or matter. For us
Jesus is different because He represents the “word” of God, exist with Him, and became Human.
I don’t think I misread my Book, you’re the one who wants to look something preconceived in your mind to prove something which you don’t understand.
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
Something about mumbo jumbo…?
D
dzheremi
Guest
Hmm…it seems that everyone in this thread has gone deaf. How sad! 
R
Reuben_J
Guest
"Reuben J:
Six hundred years later Mohammad came out with the Quran. He rejected the Bible that was before him and he tried to rewrote the story of the Bible. And full of error in that. So why should the Quran be believed and not the Bible which were written by the people who were there and involved in it?
Mohammad calimed to receive divine revelation, so too the writers of the Bible and yet the two Books are anything but complimenting each other. Natural logic would tell us to go for the one that was written by the people who was there, not someone who was wrongly informed about it 600 years later. As the other poster says it, that would only lead to numbo jumbo …
I don’t have the energy to shout so I have to keep on going to get this through.
Six hundred years later Mohammad came out with the Quran. He rejected the Bible that was before him and he tried to rewrote the story of the Bible. And full of error in that. So why should the Quran be believed and not the Bible which were written by the people who were there and involved in it?
Mohammad calimed to receive divine revelation, so too the writers of the Bible and yet the two Books are anything but complimenting each other. Natural logic would tell us to go for the one that was written by the people who was there, not someone who was wrongly informed about it 600 years later. As the other poster says it, that would only lead to numbo jumbo …
D
dzheremi
Guest
You’re wasting your time, Reuben. If that argument worked on Muslims, there wouldn’t be anymore Muslims. Just move on.
There’s no point in explaining politely to Muslims. Father Zakariya is right.
There’s no point in explaining politely to Muslims. Father Zakariya is right.
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
Well, you have an interesting fanciful theory which isn’t backed up by any factual sources that I know of.I don’t have the energy to shout so I have to keep on going to get this through.
Six hundred years later Mohammad came out with the Quran. He rejected the Bible that was before him and he tried to rewrote the story of the Bible. And full of error in that. So why should the Quran be believed and not the Bible which were written by the people who were there and involved in it?
Mohammad calimed to receive divine revelation, so too the writers of the Bible and yet the two Books are anything but complimenting each other. Natural logic would tell us to go for the one that was written by the people who was there, not someone who was wrongly informed about it 600 years later. As the other poster says it, that would only lead to numbo jumbo …
It’s a problem for your theory that Muhammad never had access to a Bible, moreover he couldn’t even read. And the Qur’an is pretty different in a lot of remarkable ways which belie even the possibility that Muhammad was trying to “copy” or “rewrite” anything.
Then you said about the Bible that it was “written by the people who were there and involved in it?” The big (and I’ll argue the most important but that might be subjective) parts of the Bible are most essentially the first five books, the Torah, the books of Moses (whichever you’d like to call them), and the Gospels.
The book of Genesis tells you about a lot of prophets–whether or not you call them as such. For instance, we can read about Adam, we can read about Noah, about Abraham, Ishmael and Isaac, about Jacob (and his brother too), and about the 12 sons of Jacob, including Joseph. But none of them were there writing their own stories, right? So how did Moses know what happened? He wasn’t involved; he didn’t witness it.
How did Muhammad know what happened?
There are lots of things in the Qur’an which aren’t in the Bible. That’s another flaw in your theory, by the way. There are stories about occasions in the life of Noah and Abraham which don’t appear in the Bible.
Muhammad wasn’t there to witness the events–the ones recorded in the Bible, and the ones not recorded. So I guess you could suppose that (1) he made it up, (2) he had some source (and combinations of the two) or (3) it’s from Allah.
The problem with the first two is what we should discuss. And we have to take both of them because it’s not possible to argue fully one or the other. If he made it all up, then why is some of it so similar to, in places identical and parallel to the Bible? Wouldn’t be possible. So what if he had a source for the similar parts, and then made up the rest? Then the question arises: how is it that in 23 years, nobody (including his multiple wives, many friends, and countless followers) saw him using a source?
I mean, the beginnings of the Qur’an–the first passages–they don’t sound much at all like the Bible. (Do you know what they were? Have you read them?) So if he was just out to piggyback on Christianity then why not mention it for so long? But really–how did nobody ever witness him using a source (in 23 years, I’ll repeat)? But yet, there were witnesses to miraculous revelation? His wife while he rested against her observed the revelation, for instance.
So when we talk about the Bible, it’s not fair to say it’s “written by” people involved in it. One poster told me today or yesterday that (according to her, anyway) only one of the Gospel writers even witnessed the crucifixion. Which means three canonical Gospels are hearsay, not eye-witness. The rest of the New Testament was written much later, not by people who ever actually met Jesus.
So I for one will take the message that’s directly from God and which is preserved, instead of the one written by men who heard it from someone else.
J
John_Paul_Jones
Guest
How can the koran with less information than the Bible be more authoritative? The koran does not mention any women by name from Bible (except for one.) The Bible doesn’t mention the genealogy of the ancient Hebrews that includes Abraham or the sons of Jacob, (the twelve tribes of Israel) like the Bible does. The koran does not mention God or address Him as Father that is used in the Bible. They are only a few examples, but how can it more reliable with less information? I know you won’t see that koran contains less information as an issue, but to me the fact the Bible has more information contained in it than the koran, is one of the reason the Bible is more authoritative.
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
Ah, despair. So sad for you.
But I’m actually enjoying a very interesting discussion with Reuben.
He doesn’t know it yet, but he actually helped me reach a really interesting opinion about a particular issue through his posts a while back regarding the so-called “assassination” of some poet. He did a lot of research on the subject and brought up some really insighful arguments.
(Not to me, I wasn’t participating in the thread so much, just reading.)
So don’t despair.
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
Tell me how important the names of Biblical women and Biblical genealogy impacts your daily life? Does it bring you closer to God?
Moreover, if Muhammad wanted an authoritative book, and were just copying besides, why not include all that (fairly useless) information?
The Qur’an mentions God quite a lot. You might even say it’s a book about God, instead of a book about… people. The way you refer to the Bible, it sounds like a book about people–lineage, names, etc.
The Bible is a lot longer than the Qur’an–but how often do people really read the whole thing? Not too much. Muslims who are just a little bit religious read the Qur’an at least once a year. Once a month if they’re educated. And once a week if they’re scholarly. Usually.
But anyway. Here’s a thought, totally off the wall. The telephone book has more information than the Constitution. But does that make it more authoritative? According to your logic…?
D
dzheremi
Guest
At least some of the non-Biblical stories in the Qur’an are taken from various apocryphal gospels, so there’s no miracle there. For instance, the story of Jesus creating birds out of clay and bringing them to life that is referenced in Qur’an 5:110 comes from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (c. 5th century)
Similarly, Jesus’ speaking from the crib in the Qur’an is a corruption/manipulation of a story that originally appeared in the Arabic Infancy Gospel, which was a translation of the Syriac Infancy Gospel (5th-6th century), itself based around the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and the Protoevangelium of James (c.150 AD).
So again…no miracles there, just manipulation and corruption, as is the hallmark of Muhammad’s supposed “revelation”.
The Arabic Gospel Of The Infancy Of The Savior:
v2
“He has said that Jesus spoke, and, indeed, when He was lying in His cradle said to Mary His mother: I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos, whom thou hast brought forth, as the Angel Gabriel announced to thee; and my Father has sent me for the salvation of the world.”
Similarly, Jesus’ speaking from the crib in the Qur’an is a corruption/manipulation of a story that originally appeared in the Arabic Infancy Gospel, which was a translation of the Syriac Infancy Gospel (5th-6th century), itself based around the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and the Protoevangelium of James (c.150 AD).
So again…no miracles there, just manipulation and corruption, as is the hallmark of Muhammad’s supposed “revelation”.
The Arabic Gospel Of The Infancy Of The Savior:
v2
“He has said that Jesus spoke, and, indeed, when He was lying in His cradle said to Mary His mother: I am Jesus, the Son of God, the Logos, whom thou hast brought forth, as the Angel Gabriel announced to thee; and my Father has sent me for the salvation of the world.”
D
dzheremi
Guest
Nobody’s despairing over here, Amy. I just recognize that at their base our respective religions make mutually exclusive claims. Only one can be right, and it isn’t Islam. You obviously feel exactly the opposite, so there’s little point in becoming exasperated over it, as Reuben seemed to be. It really isn’t worth it.Ah, despair. So sad for you.
But I’m actually enjoying a very interesting discussion with Reuben.
He doesn’t know it yet, but he actually helped me reach a really interesting opinion about a particular issue through his posts a while back regarding the so-called “assassination” of some poet. He did a lot of research on the subject and brought up some really insighful arguments.
(Not to me, I wasn’t participating in the thread so much, just reading.)
So don’t despair.
T
thedarknight
Guest
For those who are interested, Father Zakaria Botros may be found on youtube as he discusses Islam; very informative and a courageous man. There’s an article on National Review about him: Islam’s ‘Public Enemy #1′
Here’s a recording of Fr. Botros on air that adds to discussion: Father Zakaria: Islamic Scholars Hide Muhammad’s Misbehavior
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
COOL!!!
You have an “apocryphal gospel” which agrees with the Qur’an!
What I think is that these things happened, and they made it into some of those Gospels which the lucky few decided not to include in the final version of the New Testament. And the other Gospel writers didn’t hear about those things so they left them out.
But God revealed them to Muhammad.
Because you still haven’t overcome the problem of Muhammad being illiterate, and not ever have been witnessed using any source.
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
Because youtube is the source of all knowledge.
D
dzheremi
Guest
Wow. That is so far off from what I wrote, I don’t know what to say. The Infancy Gospel does not agree with the Qur’an, either. Read the verse again. Does it sound like it agrees with the Qur’an? It says Jesus calls Himself the Son of God! Where is that in the Qur’an?
Actually, Amy, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was incredibly popular. Did you somehow miss the part of my post that said it is was the basis of the Syriac Infancy Gospel, which was the basis of the Arabic Infancy Gospel which was popular in Muhammad’s time? There were also Coptic versions of the various infancy gospels. With Syriac, Coptic, and Arabic, you have pretty much all the languages of the ancient Christian Near East covered.
Then why did Muhammad get them so very wrong? Again, read the verse. It does not at all confirm or agree with Muhammad’s warped, infantile theology.
What does this have to do with anything? I never wrote anything about your prophet being illiterate. That’s your religion’s issue, not mine. Muhammad could have very well been illiterate, as he did famously use scribes to record his “revelations”. That means exactly nothing.
T
thedarknight
Guest
It came from your mouth.
S
Sister_Amy
Guest
Basically you start pulling stuff out and saying “Muhammad copied this” when clearly he didn’t. Well, it’s clear to me, but let’s discuss. In fact, you don’t think Muhammad copied it because it doesn’t agree. With all of it. So I guess you think he just picked and chose randomly or whatever.Wow. That is so far off from what I wrote, I don’t know what to say. The Infancy Gospel does not agree with the Qur’an, either. Read the verse again. Does it sound like it agrees with the Qur’an? It says Jesus calls Himself the Son of God! Where is that in the Qur’an?
Actually, Amy, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was incredibly popular. Did you somehow miss the part of my post that said it is was the basis of the Syriac Infancy Gospel, which was the basis of the Arabic Infancy Gospel which was popular in Muhammad’s time? There were also Coptic versions of the various infancy gospels. With Syriac, Coptic, and Arabic, you have pretty much all the languages of the ancient Christian Near East covered.
Then why did Muhammad get them so very wrong? Again, read the verse. It does not at all confirm or agree with Muhammad’s warped, infantile theology.
What does this have to do with anything? I never wrote anything about your prophet being illiterate. That’s your religion’s issue, not mine. Muhammad could have very well been illiterate, as he did famously use scribes to record his “revelations”. That means exactly nothing.
My theory remains: that people heard stuff (baby speaking), interpreted it however (like that “son of God” bit), and wrote it down.
And some of that stuff actually happened.
But you probably wouldn’t know about it because it’s not in the Bible. Couldn’t say what’s true and what’s not.
Conveniently, Allah revealed the Qur’an, clarifying such things.
And if Muhammad was illiterate–and while there’s tons of evidence to support this statement, there’s none to contradict it, it’s quite a big problem for him to have been reading any of these texts, even if they existed where he was in a language he could read. (Though, he couldn’t read.) Or even to have been studying them with someone who could read.
All my objections to the copying theory stand. How come nobody was aware of it, and yet they were aware of the Qur’an being revealed?
D
dzheremi
Guest
Quit taking my words out of context. You wrote that the Arabic Infancy Gospel “agrees with the Qur’an”, so I wrote in reply to that statement that it absolutely does not, because…well, it absolutely does not.
Okay.
What are you talking about? I’m the one who wrote about it in this thread just now.
For you, sure.
This has nothing to do with anything. I never wrote about Muhammad reading anything, or studying with anyone. I’ve been through the differences in the Christian and Muslim versions of the Bahira legend. I’m done with that. I don’t really care how Muhammad received anything. None of it matters because what he produced is false.
I’m not even sure what you’re asking. It doesn’t seem like you know what is actually being discussed here. Here’s what I did say:
1.) Some of the extra-Biblical stories in the Qur’an were taken from apocryphal gospels. (I didn’t say how because I don’t see how that matters.)
2.) The Qur’an jumbled them up/distorted them/manipulated them. (Obvious, when you compare the content that has already been presented to the Qur’anic recensions.)
That’s it. Don’t reply with a bunch of nonsense that doesn’t have anything to do with what I’ve posted, please. It does nothing but muddy the waters with a bunch of unrelated arguments I don’t want to have with you (or anybody).
- Status