Muslim Q And A

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='extempers' date='13 December 2009 - 07:25 PM' timestamp='1260757512' post='2020011']
From a secular historical perspective, is there proof that Jesus (as) met St. Paul?
From what I understand, the answer is a definitive no.
[/quote]
Yes, since the New Testament is an historical document - like early Muslim religious texts - it serves as proof. If you are going to quibble about accepting the historicity of the New Testament . . . I can do the same with early Muslim texts (e.g., the fanciful Muslim texts concerning the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius and his desire to convert to Islam).

Edited December 14, 2009 by Apotheoun

[extempers]

You cannot force your own methodology of analyzing sources and the historical accuracy of scriptural texts upon Global Academia.

But again, insignificant point. There is no comparison to be had even if one were to accept your post-resurrected Jesus example.

[mortify]

[quote name='extempers' date='13 December 2009 - 09:25 PM' timestamp='1260757512' post='2020011']
From a secular historical perspective, is there proof that Jesus (as) met St. Paul?
From what I understand, the answer is a definitive no.[/quote]

Since when do you give credence to the secular historical perspective? Does this perspective support your view on the crucifixion? If not, why do you continue to believe what the Qur'an has to say about the crucifixion?

Are you aware secular scholars place great value on St Paul's letters because they were written as early as 50 AD? Have you ever seen one of these scholars use the Quran as a primary source for learning about Jesus?

Overall I'm not impressed with the way you support your position, first you used a fabricated "gospel" and now you want to use the opinions of scholars who would discredit your religion in it's entirety.


[quote]Umar (ra) had no need to write theological books because he stayed on message and the Book of Guidance was memorized by hundreds (if not thousands) and was already compiled by Abu Bakr (ra) [/quote]

This is of course what Islamic tradition, recorded centuries later, had to say about Umar and the Qur'an's compilation. Consider this, if the Quran was so well preserved by Abu Bakr's time, why did Uthman have to develop a recension and burn numerous disagreeing copies? I'm working off memory here, but I believe it was Ibn Masud who protested to his copy's destruction and even criticized one of the lead compilers Uthman had ordered to work on the recension, I believe his first name was Zaid. The whole point is even your own tradition casts doubt on whether Uthman preserved the Quran.

As for Umar, he is usually depicted as a violent man, whenever someone slights Muhammad, no matter how small, Uthman is the first to ask whether he can behead them.

[quote]
It is he who protected the Holy Church in Jerusalem and when invited by the Christians to pray in there he did not so there would no evidence to future Muslims that they can turn it into a mosque or tear it down.
[/quote]

Why don't you remind us how Umar got to Jerusalem in the first place.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='extempers' date='13 December 2009 - 08:05 PM' timestamp='1260759946' post='2020036']
You cannot force your own methodology of analyzing sources and the historical accuracy of scriptural texts upon Global Academia.

But again, insignificant point. There is no comparison to be had even if one were to accept your post-resurrected Jesus example.
[/quote]
Muslim texts are religious texts just like Christian texts are. Why should I accept the accounts of Muslims, when there is nothing in Byzantine sources to corroborate the details of the story?

[Socrates]

Jesus Christ's claim to be the Son of God was indeed intended literally, and this claim was why He was put to death by the high priest for blasphemy.
The Jews regarded this claim as blasphemous, as do the Muslims today.
If Jesus meant this simply metaphorically, surely He could have explained this to the court to save His skin, yet He did not retract or clarify His statement, but accepted death instead.

This is clear in the Gospels.

[quote]And the high priest rising up, said to him: Do you answer nothing to the things which these witness against you? 63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest said to him: I adjure you by the living God, that you tell us if you be the Christ the Son of God. 64 Jesus said to him: You have said it. Nevertheless I say to you, hereafter you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God and coming in the clouds of heaven. 65 Then the high priest rent his garments, saying: He has blasphemed: what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66 What think you? But they answering, said: He is guilty of death. 67 Then did they spit in his face and buffeted him.[/quote] ~ Matt. 26:62-76

[quote]Again the high priest asked him and said to him: Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed God? 62 And Jesus said to him: I am. And you shall see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of the power of God and coming with the clouds of heaven. 63 Then the high priest rending his garments, says: What need we any further witnesses? 64 You have heard the blasphemy. What think you? Who all condemned him to be guilty of death.[/quote] ~ Mark 14:61-64

[quote]And as soon as it was day, the ancients of the people and the chief priests and scribes came together. And they brought him into their council saying: If you be the Christ, tell us. 67 And he says to them: If I shall tell you, you will not believe me. 68 And if I shall also ask you, you will not answer me, nor let me go. 69 But hereafter the Son of man shall be sitting on the right hand of the power of God. 70 Then said they all: Are you then the Son of God? Who said: You say that I am. 71 And they said: What need we any further testimony? For we ourselves have heard it from his own mouth.[/quote] ~ Luke 22:66-71

While I'm aware the Muslims reject the Gospels as being "falsified," and also claim, contrary to all four Gospels, that Jesus was never crucified, I ask this question to the Muslims here:
Why should we, as Christians, believe that the Gospels are lies, and that the constant Christian teaching tradition of Christ's divinity is false, but instead believe that the Qu'ran, written over 600 years later, is true?

Edited December 14, 2009 by Socrates

[Guest dishdash]

[quote name='Socrates' date='14 December 2009 - 02:29 PM' timestamp='1260761378' post='2020054']
I ask this question to the Muslims here:
Why should we, as Christians, believe that the Gospels are lies, and that the constant Christian teaching tradition of Christ's divinity is false, but instead believe that the Qu'ran, written over 600 years later, is true?
[/quote]

No-one is saying you should. Allah will guide whom He will.

Do you think the timeline is any reflection upon a text's veracity?

[Didacus]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='13 December 2009 - 09:10 PM' timestamp='1260756637' post='2020001']
Who says? You?

I accept the appearance of Christ to St. Paul as historical fact.
[/quote]


So do I...







back to you Bob...

[Didacus]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='13 December 2009 - 09:12 PM' timestamp='1260756774' post='2020002']
Well I cannot help it that Umar was not able to write any theological books.

P.S. - Again, I do not accept the idea that St. Paul "adapted" the message of Christ, because after his conversion to Christianity St. Paul met with the other Apostles and they accepted his gospel as accurate.
[/quote]

Didn't they make him the leader of the apostles after Peter died?

I mean, if that 'is' the case, it must count for 'something'...

[Didacus]

OK

I've read through now... and I have one thing to say;

If you wish to object to the muslim beliefs expressed in this thread, please do so elsewhere. This thread, if I am not mistaken, is to ask questions and get the 'muslim point of view' so to speak is it not?

Let those who have questions ask the questions, and those who swish to start a debate do so elsewhere.

If anyone agrees, then I maybe I can ask a few questions of my own...

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Didacus' date='16 December 2009 - 09:31 AM' timestamp='1260981114' post='2021781']
Didn't they make him the leader of the apostles after Peter died?[/quote]
No.

St. Paul met all the Apostles - including St. Peter - in Jerusalem (i.e., at the Council of Jerusalem) at which time the Apostles approved St. Paul's message as conforming to their own gospel teaching. The Apostles then composed a letter for him to take to the Christians in Antioch indicating the decision of the Apostolic Council, while also sending two representatives of the Church in Jerusalem to Antioch, one named Judas, called Barsab'bas, and the other one named Silas. St. Paul later interacted with again with St. Peter while working in Antioch (See Acts 15:4-35, Galatians 1:18-19 and 2:1-21).

St. Paul and St. Peter were martyred around the same time in Rome.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Didacus]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='16 December 2009 - 12:13 PM' timestamp='1260983626' post='2021795']
No.

St. Paul met all the Apostles - including St. Peter - in Jerusalem (i.e., at the Council of Jerusalem) at which time the Apostles approved St. Paul's message as conforming to their own gospel teaching. The Apostles then composed a letter for him to take to the Christians in Antioch indicating the decision of the Apostolic Council, while also sending two representatives of the Church in Jerusalem to Antioch, one named Judas, called Barsab'bas, and the other one named Silas. St. Paul later interacted with again with St. Peter while working in Antioch (See Acts 15:4-35, Galatians 1:18-19 and 2:1-21).

St. Paul and St. Peter were martyred around the same time in Rome.
[/quote]

sshhhhh... I want to see what the other guy is going to say...

[mortify]

[quote name='dishdash' date='16 December 2009 - 08:29 AM' timestamp='1260970188' post='2021745']
Do you think the timeline is any reflection upon a text's veracity?
[/quote]

Yes.

If you have to choose between a text written by eye witnesses or those who knew personally, or a text written 500 years later by a self proclaimed prophet totally unfamiliar with 1st century Judea, who would you choose?

For me the answer is obvious, and it's why I don't accept Muhammad's false notion of a substitution on the cross.