Giant Islam Discussion>.>

[Hassan]

[quote name='mortify' post='1603953' date='Jul 20 2008, 10:31 AM']Hassan,

I too have many a Muslim friend and have delved into the religion myself. It is true that many Muslims are intelligent and polite human beings, however even the "moderates" have said some shocking things. I was told by a Jordanian American friend, and I want to emphasize that if you saw him you would not think he was Muslim (i.e. no beard, contemporary clothes, etc), told me quite frankly there are *many* ways to spread Islam, Jihad is just one of them. Simply overpopulating a native population is a means of its spread. Now, this guy was not a physical threat, by all means I'd call him a moderate, but even he had a desire to spread Islamic dominion. Any large portion of human beings that are set on taking over the world trouble me, otherwise I'd just take it as a wacko response. The reality is Islam teaches and has always taught Islam is the true religion that is to dominate over all others. Muslims are called to fight against christians and jews until they are subjugated (surah 9 aya 29) So this nonsense about Islam being a peaceful religion is simply ridiculous, imho, it's a carnal and worldly religion that seeks world control.[/quote]

I really don't have a problem with the Muslims trying to spread Islam and have the entire globe turn Muslim so long as they do so in a non coercive manner. Just like I don't have a problem with your, I assume, desire that the world turn Catholic so long as you intend to do this peacefully. I think if this disturbs you then perhaps you can understand why non-religious people often get concerned when Christians speak of "Conquering the world through love".

You don’t think the Muslim migration is part of some unified conspiracy to conquer Europe do you?

As for Surah 9: 29 I have heard of three interpretations.

A Saudi Wahhabist I read said that it is indeed the duty of Muslims to spread Islam and fight (physically) in God's cause, which he felt included combating Jews and Muslims until they submit themselves to Islamic rule. This was written, as I said, in Saudi Arabia during the 60's and had seemed to have a political/ideological drive behind it besides Islamic Scholarship. His phrasings seemed to suggests he had in mind the Arab/Israeli conflicts and wanted to encourage support for them. I understand that other scholars have agreed with him however most Scholars I know of why do also had a distinct political agenda, like Qutb. That does not discount their view, and this view has existed in Islamic thought.

The second interpretation is that this is something like Christians "conquering the world through love". "Fighting" need not be physical, they are to strive to bring moral laws to the state and this can be through non-violent means. I find this response the weakest because firstly it just doesn’t fit the context of the Surah which is clearly speaking about physical conflict, and I have been told by a Muslim that the Arabic verb also indicates physical conflict.
The Third seems as reasonable as the first and I give it equal weight. That this was God giving the Muslims permission to fight the Roman Empire which was made up of Christians and the subjugated Jews living under Christian rule. It is then an injunction for a specific historical event, but also gives Muslims permission to fight Jews and Christians if they Jews and Christians are the aggressors or, as Muslims claim about the Roman Empire, they seem to be preparing for an attack, or supporting insurrection in the Muslim countries. I find this interpretation to fit much more with the context both of the larger Surah and other Islamic call to arms in the Qur'an.

Ultimately I think it merits more study. Like the verses pertaining to concubine I feel it is a somewhat murky issue.

Beyond the historical and textual evaluation so long as Muslims interpret this verse in either of the later two ways I see no problem (reguardless of Muhammad’s original intent, he’s long dead, he can’t pop up and scold Muslims for reinterpreting their scripture). Jesus said that he did not come to bring peace, but the sword. While this passage seems very literal Christians have, with few exceptions, taken this to be symbolic of God's Word (from what I understand). The fact that this verse has been interpreted as a physical call to arms against injustice at certain periods of Christian history (like some liberation theology movements in Latin America) does not demolish the other interpretations, which I feel fit much better with the context of the New Testament.


[quote]As for concubines, Muhammad himself had them, and they're referred to in the Quran when it says "women of your right hand."[/quote]

Here is one counter argument I know of(page 490 of the book)

[url="http://aaiil.org/text/books/mali/religionislam/religionofislam.pdf"]http://aaiil.org/text/books/mali/religioni...gionofislam.pdf[/url]

[quote]Btw hassan, are you interested in sufism/tasawuf?
God bless[/quote]

I like Dr. Akbar Ahmed. Most of his work involves anthropological studies of the Muslims world but he does interject his own beliefs and does have flirtations with Sufism. That and Rumi accounts for most of my experience with it. So I really can't say.

Do you have opinions on it?

[Hassan]

[quote name='mortify' post='1604564' date='Jul 21 2008, 01:22 PM']Hassan said,
I heard a debate with Dr William Lane Craig were he said something like 92% of the bible has been verified to accurately represent the original text. I don't know how this number was established, but I assume it has to do with comparing manuscripts with older manuscripts and fragments. Overall I believe the Bible is a reliable and credible historical source on the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, even if you don't have faith in it's inspiration and inerrancy. The fact is when a secular scholar decides to write a book about Jesus they turn to the Bible, not the Qur'an which was written six centuries after Christ.[/quote]

The earliest copies of New Testament texts (not complete texts so far as I know) come from about two centuries after Jesus(again, so far as I know). I would hope that no secular scholar rests their entire research one four Gospels chosen by the Church with numerous internal contradictions for their whole research.

Most textual discrepancies in the Gospel texts (anywhere from 30,000 to 400,000) are utterly insignificant. Slight spelling differences, slight change of word order. Some are important. The question of weather Hebrews says Christ dies by God's Grace or apart from God is, I would say, Important. I don't think this is a problem for Catholic. You all have Tradition. In fact when John Mill first published his work showing the discrepancies one French Catholic Theologian touted it triumphantly as proof of the folly of Protestantism and the necessity of the Church.

I don't know if I agree with his analysis, but whatever.

[quote]One of my biggest problems with the Islamic revelation is the fact that it rejects the Crucifixion. This event is so well established that even if LARGE portions of the gospels were forged, it would not cast doubt on the Crucifixion account. Muslims are so desperate to find some evidence for their position that they have to turn to gnostic literature that was written centuries after Jesus. They of course have no idea what the gnostics believed otherwise they would not rely on their writing! But it shows just how far they are willing to go in order to continue in their blind obedience to Muhammad.[/quote]

I really don't think that is true or fair. This has been corruption of the Gospels. The story of the woman caught in adultery, certain verses relating to the trinity, the question of weather Jesus felt compassion or anger for the leper in Mark's Gospels, the internal contradictions in the Gospel (was Jesus crucified before or after Passover), Mark's quoting Jesus incorrectly citing scripture, the issue of Hebrews I mentioned before, the last 12 lines of Mark, the Question of weather Paul went to Jerusalem after Damascus, how Judas died, certain references to the Trinity.

All things brought up by secular critics, it is not necessarily blind obedience to Muhammad to believe such things. That doesn’t mean that Christians don't have answer. Plenty of great textual critics I'm sure are Christians, and textual criticism was founded by Christians. However this is not a black and white issue. Even Origen admits there were problems with transcribing the Gospels. I'm not saying that the original Gospels didn't say what you all believe; I'm just saying a reasonable person can doubt it.

Furthermore the Muslim story claims God tricked the crowed into believing the cricified Jesus, even if there were strong historical evidence that Jesus was crucified that would not affect their beliefs to much.

[quote]Lastly, Muslims believe the Qur'an to be 100% preserved, even though their ancient manuscripts *differ* from contemporary Qurans![/quote]

I don't know about this. Even if the Qur'an were preserved that wouldn’t prove Muhammad's claims. I just don't know about Quranic textual criticism.

[quote]I'm just going to comment on this specific statement. It has to be remembered that Muhammad preached to the Meccans for THIRTEEN years, he was incredibly unsuccessful. The Pagans showed incredible tolerance towards him, even though he attacked all their traditions. The persecutions we're talking about, amounts to mockery and ostracizing Muhammad and his group of followers, to the point where they had nothing to eat and had to journey out to Yathrib. It was in Yathrib, which is now called Medinah, that Muhammad gained a force of men that were capable of raiding caravans, and this ultimately led to the battle of Badr which Muhammad won. The point is, the victimization of Muhammad during those thirteen years is simply ridiculous, especially since a Christian wouldn't last THIRTEEN SECONDS if they started preaching against Islam in Mecca today.[/quote]

Actually as you recall Ali switched places and Muhammad fled because the Quarish were going to kill him. The biographies recorded Abu Bakr being persecuted, several deat attempts on Muhammad, and numerous acts of violence against him and his followers. I have never heard the Quarish touted as great models of tolerance. Muhammad later as long as he did through tribal protections, after those were lost the Muslims had it fairly bad.

Perhaps those biographical reports are false. Certainly his biographers had reason to, and did, exaggerate events in his life. However I think "incredible tolerance" is an overstatement.

[Hassan]

[quote name='mortify' post='1604565' date='Jul 21 2008, 01:25 PM']The Muslim claim that the Bible is corrupted is ironic, since the Qur'an quotes the Bible. Compare the story of Zechariah and Mary in Surah Maryam and Luke's Gospel. Likewise, the Qur'an also quotes from many *apocryphal* sources, further undermining its claims.[/quote]

I don't know of any direct quotes in the Bible.

Beyond that they don't claim the Gospels are totally corrupt, just certain parts

[Hassan]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1604600' date='Jul 21 2008, 02:16 PM']He was referring to the old, "How-do-we-know-the-Gospels-we-have-are-the-true-Gospels-of-Christ?", Debate thingy, which alot of Catholics get involved with in debating with Gnostics. (Not to be confused with Agnosticism), When he said that he was referring that he thinks he figured out why you are so inquisitive, questioning and challenging in your relation to other members of this Forum and your somewhat loaded Forum posts.[/quote]

And what is the reason I do all those things (according to him). I don't know how my posts have been loaded (as in I don't know what you mean by the phrase)


[quote]On the topic as a whole, i'm not touching this, I don't want to end up in Madam V's position in the Islam's Global War with Christianity Thread.[/quote]


What position is that?

[mortify]

Peace,

Hassan said,
[quote]I really don't have a problem with the Muslims trying to spread Islam and have the entire globe turn Muslim so long as they do so in a non coercive manner. Just like I don't have a problem with your, I assume, desire that the world turn Catholic so long as you intend to do this peacefully. I think if this disturbs you then perhaps you can understand why non-religious people often get concerned when Christians speak of "Conquering the world through love".[/quote]

It obviously disturbs me because I view faith in Christ to be absolutely necessary, if not at least implicitly necessary, to assure someone's salvation. Islam is different from other religions in that it explicitly denies the Divine Sonship of Christ and His Crucifixion.

[quote]You don’t think the Muslim migration is part of some unified conspiracy to conquer Europe do you?[/quote]

No, I don't.

[quote]As for Surah 9: 29 I have heard of three interpretations.[/quote]

The word there is to "fight," and it's not a metaphorical fighting, how do we know? Because it does refer to a historical event where the Muslims of Muhammad's time fought Christians. Likewise, how did Islam get into Egypt and the Middle East, which was predominantly Christian? By conquer. Who lead the conquering armies? Muhammad's four "rightly guided" khalifs, and so I find it undeniable that an offensive war against non-Islamic countries for the sole reason of spreading Islamic dominion is contrary to the religion. Muhammad and his companions engaged in it, and its written in the Qur'an and hadith, dissenters can only offer weak interpretations that require looking at these ayat in a vacuum.

[quote]Beyond the historical and textual evaluation so long as Muslims interpret this verse in either of the later two ways I see no problem (reguardless of Muhammad’s original intent, he’s long dead, he can’t pop up and scold Muslims for reinterpreting their scripture). Jesus said that he did not come to bring peace, but the sword. While this passage seems very literal Christians have, with few exceptions, taken this to be symbolic of God's Word (from what I understand). The fact that this verse has been interpreted as a physical call to arms against injustice at certain periods of Christian history (like some liberation theology movements in Latin America) does not demolish the other interpretations, which I feel fit much better with the context of the New Testament.[/quote]

Friend, Jesus often used hyperboles like this to emphasize a point. The reality is His message did violently uproot traditions and separated family members, but not in the sense of Christians slaughtering their enemies, but by the fact that many rejected Truth. Many family members were ostracized for believing in Jesus, and were in fact executed and reviled by others, this is simply the nature of the world and the one who rules over it.

The same can't be said for Muhammad.

[quote]Here is one counter argument I know of(page 490 of the book)[/quote]

First of all are you aware that book is written by the Ahmadis? Ahmadis are not considered Muslim.

To me this issue is irrefutable for the simple fact that Muhammad had concubines as did his followers. Now, I looked into sunnipath.com to find an answer on this, but the closest I found was regarding how many wives a Muslim will have in paradise, the fact that they also will have concubines means it can't be wrong to have them on earth.

[quote]Do you have opinions on it?[/quote]

I associated with a Naksibendi dergah for about a year, so I have some insights into it. There is a real difference between genuine tasawuf and "American Sufism."

Edited July 21, 2008 by mortify

[Hassan]

[quote name='mortify' post='1604669' date='Jul 21 2008, 03:47 PM']Peace,

Hassan said,
It obviously disturbs me because I view faith in Christ to be absolutely necessary, if not at least implicitly necessary, to assure someone's salvation. Islam is different from other religions in that it explicitly denies the Divine Sonship of Christ and His Crucifixion.[/quote]

Judaism?

I understand your point.


[quote]No, I don't.[/quote]
just checking, I have been told that by some.


[quote]The word there is to "fight," and it's not a metaphorical fighting, how do we know? Because it does refer to a historical event where the Muslims of Muhammad's time fought Christians. Likewise, how did Islam get into Egypt and the Middle East, which was predominantly Christian? By conquer. Who lead the conquering armies? Muhammad's four "rightly guided" khalifs, and so I find it undeniable that an offensive war against non-Islamic countries for the sole reason of spreading Islamic dominion is contrary to the religion.[/quote]

I said I considered that second interpretation weak because of both the context and the Arabic, both which describe physical fighting. However it is deniable. The very book I cited does deny it. That is not necessarily Muslims "watering down" their fath, that is just how they take it.

[quote]Muhammad and his companions engaged in it, and its written in the Qur'an and hadith, dissenters can only offer weak interpretations that require looking at these ayat in a vacuum.[/quote]

With all due respect I think it is looking at the verses in a vacuum that makes them sound offensive.

9:29 is different. All others that I know of make very explicit reference to the Muslims having to defend themselves this one is not so clear. I have given you the two best interpretations I know of and one bad one. I don't think that either interpretation is better than the other, very strong cases can be made for both arguments by very competent Islamic Scholars.




[quote]Friend, Jesus often used hyperboles like this to emphasize a point. The reality is His message did violently uproot traditions and separated family members, but not in the sense of Christians slaughtering their enemies, but by the fact that many rejected Truth. Many family members were ostracized for believing in Jesus, and were in fact executed and reviled by others, this is simply the nature of the world and the one who rules over it.[/quote]

I understand that.

It has been interpreted by Christians as giving sanction to armed revolt against oppression. I am not saying that view is contextually supported.


[quote]The same can't be said for Muhammad.
First of all are you aware that book is written by the Ahmadis? Ahmadis are not considered Muslim.[/quote]


They certainly consider themselves Muslim. There are two sects of Ahmadis. This one is written by a leader of the sect that took their leader's claim to Prophethood metaphorically and shy away from his more pronounced breaks from Orthodox Islam and aren’t universally condemned as unbelievers.

More importantly the text itself has been certified by Al-Azhar University as good and beneficial for the student of Islam, and approved by quite a few Muslim scholars who's Orthodoxy is sound. I believe Al-Azhar even translated it into Arabic. Irrespective of Maulana Muhammad Ali’s personal heresy or lack there of, the text itself is good.

[quote]To me this issue is irrefutable for the simple fact that Muhammad had concubines as did his followers. Now, I looked into sunnipath.com to find an answer on this, but the closest I found was regarding how many wives a Muslim will have in paradise, the fact that they also will have concubines means it can't be wrong to have them on earth.[/quote]

I'll see what I can find

[quote]I associated with a Naksibendi dergah for about a year, so I have some insights into it. There is a real difference between genuine tasawuf and "American Sufism."[/quote]

Never heard of them sorry.

But anything you have to say about them would be welcome

Now. I did not sleep at all last night and I have a headache from that and being on the computer so long. I am going to have a nice run and talk to you all again tomorrow. Have a nice day.

[mortify]

[quote]The earliest copies of New Testament texts (not complete texts so far as I know) come from about two centuries after Jesus(again, so far as I know). I would hope that no secular scholar rests their entire research one four Gospels chosen by the Church with numerous internal contradictions for their whole research.[/quote]

There is is a papyri fragment of John's Gospel called P52 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_52) that some date around 100AD. Whether it was written earlier or later isn't as interesting as noting this fragment was found in Egypt. Getting the Gospel of John to Egypt takes time, and since these fragments are based off copies, it means the original is much older.

Now there's more than just this. The largest body of Christian writing outside of the New Testament are the early Patristics, such as the first letter of St Clement, the 7 letters of St Ignatius, the letter of Polycarp, etc. These authors paraphrase from the New Testament. Now if for example St Ignatius, who was 50 years old at the time of he wrote his letter to the Ephesians in around 110AD, quotes the New Testament books, obviously they must have been composed before his letters.

This is why even secular scholars confidently date the gospels to well within the first century AD. Even the modernist commentary in the NAB dates most of the gospels to around 70AD. This is simply what the evidence points to.

Now what about the Quran? Prior to Uthman's canonized text, Abu Bakr had a canon that compiled the Qur'an into the written form. The fascinating thing, is that after Uthman's canon Abu Bakr's grandaughter who was in possession of the first written canon, had it BURNED because she feared it would cause discord in the future. What this tells me is that there were differences between the two. Uthman had four copies of his canon made and they were sent to various provinces, Muslims believe (if I'm not mistaken) that two of these manuscripts survived, one in Tashkent, Uzbekistan and the other in Topkapi in Turkey. There are differences between these manuscripts and the contemporary Qur'an.

The point is, the Qur'an is not as well established as our Bible, there are few if any manuscripts, and when they exist, they contradict the notion of complete preservation. Personally this issue has little affect on me, because even if the Qur'an was 100% preserved it still wouldn't remove the fact that there are errors in it!

[quote]I really don't think that is true or fair. This has been corruption of the Gospels. The story of the woman caught in adultery, certain verses relating to the trinity, the question of weather Jesus felt compassion or anger for the leper in Mark's Gospels, the internal contradictions in the Gospel (was Jesus crucified before or after Passover), Mark's quoting Jesus incorrectly citing scripture, the issue of Hebrews I mentioned before, the last 12 lines of Mark, the Question of weather Paul went to Jerusalem after Damascus, how Judas died, certain references to the Trinity.[/quote]

Hassan, as you are probably aware I believe in the inspiration and protection of the Bible canon, but I'm not going to rely on this faith to answer you. Let's look at the bible simply as a book. The fact that there are apparent discrepancies doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bath water. ALL gospels agree that Jesus was before the sanhedrin, found guilty, ultimately ordered by Pontius Pilate to be executed via crucifixion, buried in Joseph of Aramathea's tomb, three days later his female followers found his tomb empty, and His apostles and disciples were convinced that they saw the resurrected Jesus. Different perpsectives give slightly different acccounts and therefore apparent discrepancies, but ultimately the essential facts are the same. There are many things in the gospels that a secular mind could find impossible, but Christ being crucified for blasphemy is not one of them. In fact, the crucifixion is at the very center of our religion, the consistency in the passion narrative points to it being very important to the early Christians. It's simply unimaginable that Christians could have forgotten EVERYTHING, especially something as important as Jesus' crucifixion. Imagine being an Apostle telling the Jews of Jerusalem of the resurrection, how easy would have been to simply say He wasn't crucified? Amazingly the Jews don't deny the crucifixion, nor do the Romans!

The first century Roman historian Tacitus records in his annals of history, that Galilean named Christus was executed under the procurator Pontius Pilate. Why would an astute Roman affirm Christian belief?

It goes against reason to believe Jesus was not crucified.

[quote]Furthermore the Muslim story claims God tricked the crowed into believing the cricified Jesus, even if there were strong historical evidence that Jesus was crucified that would not affect their beliefs to much.[/quote]

Do they believe Allah tricked his own followers as well?

[quote]Actually as you recall Ali switched places and Muhammad fled because the Quarish were going to kill him. The biographies recorded Abu Bakr being persecuted, several deat attempts on Muhammad, and numerous acts of violence against him and his followers. I have never heard the Quarish touted as great models of tolerance. Muhammad later as long as he did through tribal protections, after those were lost the Muslims had it fairly bad.[/quote]

Muhammad has his own nephew lie in his bed knowing that the Quraysh wanted to killed him in his sleep, brave man, eh? But this event was just prior to Muhammad's emigration to Yathrib. After thirteen years the Mekkan's had enough of him and agreed that one person from each tribe would spear Muhammad while he slept, so that the blame would fall on all of them. Now what happened prior to this? Honestly the only thing I'm aware of is mockery and ostracizing the him and his followers. It's better than getting executed for apostatizing from Islam, and I can assure you, you would not get thirteen years to speak against their religion.

[quote]I don't know of any direct quotes in the Bible.[/quote]

Compare Luke 1:5-38 and Surah 19:2-22. The similarities are startling.

Edited July 21, 2008 by mortify

[mortify]

Hassan said,
[quote]Judaism?[/quote]

I don't find Rabbinical Judaism as bad because for them it's a matter of interpretation, they don't reject the OT canon. The Muslim sacred text explicitly rejects the crucifixion and Divinity, and when their text disagrees with ours, they claim ours is corrupted!

[quote]I said I considered that second interpretation weak because of both the context and the Arabic, both which describe physical fighting. However it is deniable. The very book I cited does deny it. That is not necessarily Muslims "watering down" their fath, that is just how they take it.[/quote]

Hassan, it's very easy to prove these are modern attempts of watering down Islam, all you have to do is turn to early commentaries and books of fiq. The Quran says to fight Jews and Christians until they are subjugated and pay the jizya, this is exactly what happened:

From Ibn Kathir's Tafsir ([url="http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20980"][u]LINK[/u][/url])
==QUOTE==
(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture,)
[color="#0000FF"]This honorable Ayah was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination. The Messenger sent his intent to various Arab areas around Al-Madinah to gather forces, and he collected an army of thirty thousand. Some people from Al-Madinah and some hypocrites, in and around it, lagged behind, for that year was a year of drought and intense heat. The Messenger of Allah marched, heading towards Ash-Sham to fight the Romans until he reached Tabuk, where he set camp for about twenty days next to its water resources. He then prayed to Allah for a decision and went back to Al-Madinah because it was a hard year and the people were weak, as we will mention, Allah willing.[/color]
==END==
[quote]They certainly consider themselves Muslim. There are two sects of Ahmadis. This one is written by a leader of the sect that took their leader's claim to Prophethood metaphorically and shy away from his more pronounced breaks from Orthodox Islam and aren’t universally condemned as unbelievers.[/quote]

"Ahmadis are considered non-believers because they reject one of the obligatory articles of the Religion of Islam (daruriyyat), namely, the fact that the Prophet Muhammad is the last Prophet and that there is no new Prophet after him whatsoever, upon him blessings and peace, which constitutes belying the Qur'an (takdhib al-Qur'an) according to the Consensus of the Muslim Umma."
From: [url="http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=3213&CATE=203"]http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=...13&CATE=203[/url]

Even if your author isn't a fully convinced Ahmadi, why would you rely on the interpretation of a small sect which broke from another small sect? Isn't there anything from the [i]Ahl sunnah wa'al jammat[/i] that supports your views?

[quote]More importantly the text itself has been certified by Al-Azhar University as good and beneficial for the student of Islam, and approved by quite a few Muslim scholars who's Orthodoxy is sound.[/quote]

Where did you read this?
[quote]Never heard of them sorry.

But anything you have to say about them would be welcome

Now. I did not sleep at all last night and I have a headache from that and being on the computer so long. I am going to have a nice run and talk to you all again tomorrow. Have a nice day.[/quote]

If you have any questions about them you may ask, I certainly don't know everything. If you live by NYC you can visit them.

Enjoy your run and God bless.

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1604600' date='Jul 21 2008, 04:16 PM']He was referring to the old, "How-do-we-know-the-Gospels-we-have-are-the-true-Gospels-of-Christ?", Debate thingy, which alot of Catholics get involved with in debating with Gnostics. (Not to be confused with Agnosticism), When he said that he was referring that he thinks he figured out why you are so inquisitive, questioning and challenging in your relation to other members of this Forum and your somewhat loaded Forum posts.

On the topic as a whole, i'm not touching this, I don't want to end up in Madam V's position in the Islam's Global War with Christianity Thread.[/quote]

Thank you, kind sir!

Peace

Kiris

[Hassan]

[quote name='mortify' post='1604695' date='Jul 21 2008, 04:56 PM']There is is a papyri fragment of John's Gospel called P52 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_52) that some date around 100AD. Whether it was written earlier or later isn't as interesting as noting this fragment was found in Egypt. Getting the Gospel of John to Egypt takes time, and since these fragments are based off copies, it means the original is much older.[/quote]

You are correct and I was in error, I should have said second century and not two centuries after Christ.

Sure. The problem isn’t that there were no Gospel's, the question is what that text looked like. Ancient Athens at it's cultural climax had a literacy of 15%. This was also a time when literacy was used rather loosely, it could mean one can actually read a written script or it could mean they were able to write their name and a sentence of certification. We know that many of the early Christians did come from the lower and uneducated class and some discrepancies in some copies of the New Testament suggest that some early Christian scribes seem to simple copy the letters with no comprehension of what they were writing. To make matters worse our script which makes spaces between words was not present at the time

You did not have something like this

B u t s o m e t h i n g l i k e t h i s

with many textual abbreviations thrown in.

The problem is not that no Gospels existed, but their transmission and the affects willfull editing and slips of the pen had on those texts.



[quote]Now there's more than just this. The largest body of Christian writing outside of the New Testament are the early Patristics, such as the first letter of St Clement, the 7 letters of St Ignatius, the letter of Polycarp, etc. These authors paraphrase from the New Testament. Now if for example St Ignatius, who was 50 years old at the time of he wrote his letter to the Ephesians in around 110AD, quotes the New Testament books, obviously they must have been composed before his letters.[/quote]

You seem to know more about this than I. However this seems like somewhat dubious methodology. If they are quoting key passages I think that would be important, if they are simply giving general ideas that the present Christians believe in then this seems somewhat question begging. There were numerous Christian sects after Christ’s death. Quoting the group that managed to come to the head, and then using their propositions to support the textual claims of texts that their followers choose to be set in a cannon considerably after the fact seems like somewhat circular reasoning.

Are their any direct quotes from the Gospels in the earliest Christian writers? That would be very interesting.

[quote]This is why even secular scholars confidently date the gospels to well within the first century AD. Even the modernist commentary in the NAB dates most of the gospels to around 70AD. This is simply what the evidence points to.[/quote]

NAB is the New American Bible correct? That is the copy I have. I wouldn’t describe them as modernist as that are Roman Catholic.

[quote]Now what about the Quran? Prior to Uthman's canonized text, Abu Bakr had a canon that compiled the Qur'an into the written form. The fascinating thing, is that after Uthman's canon Abu Bakr's grandaughter who was in possession of the first written canon, had it BURNED because she feared it would cause discord in the future. What this tells me is that there were differences between the two. Uthman had four copies of his canon made and they were sent to various provinces, Muslims believe (if I'm not mistaken) that two of these manuscripts survived, one in Tashkent, Uzbekistan and the other in Topkapi in Turkey.[/quote]

I really don't know much about this. If you know any good books or academic articles I'd be happy to look at them.

[quote]There are differences between these manuscripts and the contemporary Qur'an.[/quote]

The ones that were burned or the one of Uthman? I know that Muslims admit he allowed differences relating to phonics/pronunciation of text. But beyond that you'd need to show me something specific. This isn’t something I have been able to study unfortunately.

[Hassan]

[quote]The point is, the Qur'an is not as well established as our Bible, there are few if any manuscripts, and when they exist, they contradict the notion of complete preservation. Personally this issue has little affect on me, because even if the Qur'an was 100% preserved it still wouldn't remove the fact that there are errors in it![/quote]

Alright.


[quote]Hassan, as you are probably aware I believe in the inspiration and protection of the Bible canon, but I'm not going to rely on this faith to answer you. Let's look at the bible simply as a book.

The fact that there are apparent discrepancies doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bath water. ALL gospels agree that Jesus was before the sanhedrin, found guilty, ultimately ordered by Pontius Pilate to be executed via crucifixion, buried in Joseph of Aramathea's tomb, three days later his female followers found his tomb empty, and His apostles and disciples were convinced that they saw the resurrected Jesus. Different perpsectives give slightly different acccounts and therefore apparent discrepancies, but ultimately the essential facts are the same. There are many things in the gospels that a secular mind could find impossible, but Christ being crucified for blasphemy is not one of them.[/quote]

I really have no problem with miracles in the Bible. I have never understood secularists acted like the idea an omnipotent God could cause a virgin birth was absurd.

However the discrepancies are not simply different perspectives. Some are I suppose. Mark portraying a somewhat angry Jesus who's last words were "My God my God why hast thou forsaken me" while Luke depicts Him as a figure of almost unwavering calm who comforts the women on the way to crucifixion and who's last words are "Into your hands I command my spirit" is a different perspective. However I don't believe Mark reports the women going to the men and them seeing Christ risen. It's a somewhat dark Gospel. His last words are either a cry of desperation at being abandoned by God or quoting a Psalm describing a righteous man crying out to God in persecution and the women seeing an empty tomb and running away. That is a somewhat different picture.

But other things are outright contradictions. I admit that the smaller things are not to important to Christian theology. However the different perspectives seem to me to be more damaging. The seem, to me, to show a Christian community that is still, decades after Jesus’ death, trying to come to terms with who or what Jesus was. I don't think that is too much of a problem for Christians, I just find it odd.

[quote]In fact, the crucifixion is at the very center of our religion, the consistency in the passion narrative points to it being very important to the early Christians. It's simply unimaginable that Christians could have forgotten EVERYTHING, especially something as important as Jesus' crucifixion. Imagine being an Apostle telling the Jews of Jerusalem of the resurrection, how easy would have been to simply say He wasn't crucified? Amazingly the Jews don't deny the crucifixion, nor do the Romans![/quote]

The only Jewish commentators I know of is Josapheus. I really don’t know any sources of Roman or Jewish authorship that really testify to the Christians claims in any major way. I would say that if you would use the standard that as we don't have any contradictory reports they must not have denied it then you must accepts the trouble with the argument. The Gospels report numerous extraordinary phenomena such as the dead rising, a man healing dozens of people, including a Roman official’s daughter, and the Resurrection of a crucified blasphemer. I do not know of any Jewish or Roman reports of these events.

[quote]The first century Roman historian Tacitus records in his annals of history, that Galilean named Christus was executed under the procurator Pontius Pilate. Why would an astute Roman affirm Christian belief?[/quote]

This is the only quote I can find on Christ:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."

I think that is interesting however it was written 80 years after the fact, is rather vague, and makes a mistake regarding the Title of Pontius which I think suggests he was not well studied in the area. I don't mean to dismiss it, it is important. He also seems to confuse Jesus’ title as the Christ with his name. He doesn’t seem to put much credit in the Christians claims as he refers to them as "mischievous superstition"



[quote]It goes against reason to believe Jesus was not crucified.[/quote]

I'm sorry I just don't see that claim as being firmly supported. There is some evidence. I'd be happy to look at whatever else you know of or see your response to what I wrote on Tacitus.




[quote]Do they believe Allah tricked his own followers as well?[/quote]

That is a very interesting question. I haven't any idea.


[quote]Muhammad has his own nephew lie in his bed knowing that the Quraysh wanted to killed him in his sleep, brave man, eh?[/quote]

It seems a bit schizophrenic to claim he is both a coward and a warrior "prophet" considering the battles he fought I'd say calling him a coward is a bit much.

As I understand it Ali was never to be in any danger. He was simply to lie there so the Quarish wouldn’t know Muhammad had fled until he was out of town.

That's juts how I understand it

[quote]But this event was just prior to Muhammad's emigration to Yathrib. After thirteen years the Mekkan's had enough of him and agreed that one person from each tribe would spear Muhammad while he slept, so that the blame would fall on all of them. Now what happened prior to this? Honestly the only thing I'm aware of is mockery and ostracizing the him and his followers. It's better than getting executed for apostatizing from Islam, and I can assure you, you would not get thirteen years to speak against their religion.[/quote]

He was strangled until his eyes bulged Abu Bakr chastised the attacker and shamed him to letting Muhammad go. Also a man attempted to smash his head with a rock while Muhammad was praying when (from what I gather) a vision of a stallion camel frightened him away. I know of a few assassination attempts (assuming the reports are accurate) and his people were sometimes beaten and forced to flee.

[quote]Compare Luke 1:5-38 and Surah 19:2-22. The similarities are startling.[/quote]


I'd certainly say it is the same story. I thought you were claiming it was a quotation or near quotation.

[Hassan]

[quote name='mortify' post='1604734' date='Jul 21 2008, 05:24 PM']Hassan said,
I don't find Rabbinical Judaism as bad because for them it's a matter of interpretation, they don't reject the OT canon. The Muslim sacred text explicitly rejects the crucifixion and Divinity, and when their text disagrees with ours, they claim ours is corrupted![/quote]

Alright

[quote]Hassan, it's very easy to prove these are modern attempts of watering down Islam, all you have to do is turn to early commentaries and books of fiq. The Quran says to fight Jews and Christians until they are subjugated and pay the jizya, this is exactly what happened:

From Ibn Kathir's Tafsir ([url="http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20980"][u]LINK[/u][/url])
==QUOTE==
(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture,)
[color="#0000FF"]This honorable Ayah was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination. The Messenger sent his intent to various Arab areas around Al-Madinah to gather forces, and he collected an army of thirty thousand. Some people from Al-Madinah and some hypocrites, in and around it, lagged behind, for that year was a year of drought and intense heat. The Messenger of Allah marched, heading towards Ash-Sham to fight the Romans until he reached Tabuk, where he set camp for about twenty days next to its water resources. He then prayed to Allah for a decision and went back to Al-Madinah because it was a hard year and the people were weak, as we will mention, Allah willing.[/color]
==END==[/quote]

?

That passage makes explicit reference to fighting the Roman Empire.

[quote]"Ahmadis are considered non-believers because they reject one of the obligatory articles of the Religion of Islam (daruriyyat), namely, the fact that the Prophet Muhammad is the last Prophet and that there is no new Prophet after him whatsoever, upon him blessings and peace, which constitutes belying the Qur'an (takdhib al-Qur'an) according to the Consensus of the Muslim Umma."
From: [url="http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=3213&CATE=203"]http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=...13&CATE=203[/url][/quote]

Yes, Maulana's sect doesn’t claim any Prophet came after Muhammad.

E[quote]ven if your author isn't a fully convinced Ahmadi, why would you rely on the interpretation of a small sect which broke from another small sect? Isn't there anything from the [i]Ahl sunnah wa'al jammat[/i] that supports your views?[/quote]

Because the University which is highly Orthodox approves them.

More importantly the things that Orthodox claim they are heretical have nothing to do with concubinage.

[quote]Where did you read this?[/quote]

I'll see if I can find the certificate. That and his historical works are approved.

[mortify]

God bless you Hassan, this is becoming a long discussion, which is fine but for the night Ill have to limit myself to this post!

[quote name='Hassan' post='1604841' date='Jul 21 2008, 08:09 PM']Sure. The problem isn’t that there were no Gospel's, the question is what that text looked like. Ancient Athens at it's cultural climax had a literacy of 15%. This was also a time when literacy was used rather loosely, it could mean one can actually read a written script or it could mean they were able to write their name and a sentence of certification. We know that many of the early Christians did come from the lower and uneducated class and some discrepancies in some copies of the New Testament suggest that some early Christian scribes seem to simple copy the letters with no comprehension of what they were writing. To make matters worse our script which makes spaces between words was not present at the time[/quote]

I honestly don't know what the literacy rate was back then, it's clear however, that the early Christians weren't a bunch of mindless copying machines. They were competent enough to realize the importance of using a codex instead of a scroll, and although many probably weren't at the level of a Roman scriptorum it's not that difficult to copy text, though naturally some errors creep in. The important thing to remember is that Christianity is not a religion of the book, it's a religion of the Church, and the Bible is a tool the Church uses for various purposes.

It's important to understand this because it's important to understand the teaching has not changed. Our Faith in the Divinity, the Crucifixion, and Resurrection has not changed.

[quote]The problem is not that no Gospels existed, but their transmission and the affects willfull editing and slips of the pen had on those texts.[/quote]

There's really only so far you can go. A scribe might be able to change the wording to emphasize a certain doctrine that the Church already believes, such as transcribing, "the Mother of Jesus and Joseph" instead of the "the parents of Jesus" but there's not way a whole section about Jesus being crucified and then resurrected can be added in without objection, unless this is what the early Church believed. This is one of the reasons the belief in the Virgin Birth of Christ must have stemmed from a Apostolic origin, but it would have been very difficult to time to have elapsed and then people suddenly accepting such a difficult teaching.

[quote]You seem to know more about this than I. However this seems like somewhat dubious methodology. If they are quoting key passages I think that would be important, if they are simply giving general ideas that the present Christians believe in then this seems somewhat question begging. There were numerous Christian sects after Christ’s death. Quoting the group that managed to come to the head, and then using their propositions to support the textual claims of texts that their followers choose to be set in a cannon considerably after the fact seems like somewhat circular reasoning.[/quote]

We don't just look at quotes but their source. Even Muslims have the concept of isnad, or a chain of narration. I mentioned St Polycarp in my original post. He was martyred around mid second century at the age of 80 or so, there was a lot of supernatural events surrounding his execution that were recorded by eyewitnesses but it's not important to get into, what is important is that St Polycarp personally new St John the APOSTLE. St Ignatius of Antioch, another person I mentioned, wrote one of his letters to St Polycarp, so they new each other, and St Polycarp was also known by another great saint, St Ireneus, who defended the authority of John's Gospel. (He actually quoted Polycarp's saying that the same John that rested his head on the bosom of Christ is the same John that wrote the Gospel). The whole point of this is that it's not simply quotations, and YES St Polycarp and these other figures do quote from the NT books and they also paraphrase from them. These men were so family with them that at times they just went according to memory.


[b]Are their any direct quotes from the Gospels in the earliest Christian writers? That would be very interesting.[/b]

YES!

Click here: [b]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm[/b]
It's St Polycarp's letter to the Phillipians. You'll notice some things he quotes, and other things he paraphrases. In both cases the Catholic Encyclopedia was convenient enough to cross reference them to the biblical books. Notice how the Saint quotes from the gospels, epistles, and even the books the protestants reject (i.e. Tobit)!

You can also click here: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/[/url] And look up the letters of St Ignatius, St Clement, etc.

[b]NAB is the New American Bible correct? That is the copy I have. I wouldn’t describe them as modernist as that are Roman Catholic.[/b]

I don't want to comment too much about the commentary because I'm not sure what the regulators will think. Sufficient to say I'm amazed it got an imprimatur!

[quote]The ones that were burned or the one of Uthman? I know that Muslims admit he allowed differences relating to phonics/pronunciation of text. But beyond that you'd need to show me something specific. This isn’t something I have been able to study unfortunately.[/quote]

It's recorded in Islamic tradition, unfortunately I have some of the story wrong. The woman who kept Abu Bakr's compilation was Hafsa, the daughter of Umar and wife of Muhammad, and she refused to have it destroyed when Uthman made his "official" text. It wasn't destroyed until she died, and it was done so out of fear it might cause future quarrels.

Here is part of the account here: [url="http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e27.html"]http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e27.html[/url]

I didn't get a chance to spell check so pardon all errors.


Glory be to Christ,
Mort

[mortify]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1604854' date='Jul 21 2008, 08:19 PM']That passage makes explicit reference to fighting the Roman Empire.[/quote]

Yes, which means "fighting" is not metaphorical.

Furthermore, it serves as precedent to attacking Christians and Jews until they are subjugated.

[Deb]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1604359' date='Jul 21 2008, 06:36 AM']HE and the early Muslims endured quite a few years of oppression in Mecca. I really don't think that is a fair criticism. If we assume for a moment that their is some resone to believe the Exodos story has any basis in fact then I'd say Moses and the Jews high tailed it out of Egypt nice and quick.

[b]Please, the jews were in slavery for 400 years. Now, the Koran was revealed in 610 a.d. yet, the Muslim calendar does not begin until the year 622 a.d. which is when Muhammed went to Medina. So, 22 years vs 400 doesn't exactly compare. Muhammed, in Mecca was very concillatory to the jews and christians as he hoped that they would decide to turn from Christ and follow him. They didn't of course because they knew God was to send no more prophets after he sent his Son. He even had his followers bow towards Jerusalem when they prayed. Muhammed was trying to win over the people of the 'book" as well as the pagan Arabs. This is when he claimed that Satan made him avow the three pagan gods of the arabs. You will not find the text where Muhammed praises these false Gods in the Koran. It was documented however by his earliest biographer in the year 622. Not everything is in the Koran, especially anything that would not make Muhammed look like the prophet he pretended to be. The advocay of worship of any God other than the God of abraham is an unforgiveable sin in Islam, unless of course it was committed by the founder. Eh?
Muhammed, after being so concillatory to the jews and christians then turned to violence and beheading. He did not turn on the pagan Arabs like that however. He not only acknowledged their Gods, he promoted them!
It is historical fact that while in Mecca, Muhammed turned rich people's lives into misery, he offended everyone in bitter rages. (probably due to the humilation that no one believe him except a few) He underminded the sacred practices and he angererd the rich by preaching against the slave trade in which Mecca was grand central station. When his uncle and wife both died in 619 his life quickly fell apart. His uncle ( who did not follow Muhammeds prophetic direction) was his protector and he did not have the support of his own clan. Then he began taking multiple wives. He was openly mocked when he tried to win conversions from his own clan. Seeing he was not gaining any ground, he then turned and started attacking the gods of the Arabs. This is when his persecution started and he got about two years of that when he ran.
There is history and then there is the Koran. What exactly is your knowledge base for the history of Islam?

[/b]
You not giveing me any Qur'anic references.

[b]See above[/b]


Again. Unless you cite specific verses in the Qur'an and line them up Chronologically with historical events this is your conjecture. If you give me something to go on I'd be happy to try and answer your question.

[b]No, not conjecture. Just stuff you don't know. Maybe you should try another religion to defend?

[/b]
[b][b]So, explain this passage from Muhammed's apostle, Abu Darda,: Abu Darda' reported God's messenger as saying, "God created Adam when He created him and struck his right shoulder and brought forth his offspring white like small ants. And he struck his left shoulder and brought forth his offspring BLACK as though they were charcoal. Then He said to the party on his right said,'To paradise, and I do not care', and He said to the party in his left shoulder 'To hell, and I do not care'."[/quote][/b][/b]

Edited July 22, 2008 by Deb