Response: But you just said that nobody is saying that these are truthful accounts of people who were originally there and in the same sentence you say that they have a more basis of truth than someone who came hundreds of years later! That does not make any sense. If you are not saying they are true then how can they have any basis of truth at the same time?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jesus in the Qur'an and the Bible
- Thread starter Fatihah
- Start date
Response: But you just said that nobody is saying that these are truthful accounts of people who were originally there and in the same sentence you say that they have a more basis of truth than someone who came hundreds of years later! That does not make any sense. If you are not saying they are true then how can they have any basis of truth at the same time?
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Breathtaking, as usual, Fatihah. :flirt:Now - did you feel like addressing what I am saying or not? It is relative to the topic of the thread after all.
Now - did you feel like addressing what I am saying or not? It is relative to the topic of the thread after all.
Response: Refer to post 180.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
That post does not address my comments about the credibility of sources. Please have your people dig into posts 176 and 179 and get back to my people, as time permits.
As always, I will breathlessly await your brilliant exposition of logic and reason.
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
Oh, sorry if you misunderstood me
What I meant when I said "more truthful" (not truthful accounts), means that I believe they are more likely to be true than Muhammad's story of them - simply because someone who never met Jesus or immediate successors of those who did then comes and says "Jesus was like this" does not make sense; I didn't mean that the Bible was true or anything, but it's more reliable in what people thought of Jesus in that time.
I don't doubt there is exaggeration and distortion in the Bible, but then again, I'm not a Christian.
Oh, sorry if you misunderstood me
What I meant when I said "more truthful" (not truthful accounts), means that I believe they are more likely to be true than Muhammad's story of them - simply because someone who never met Jesus or immediate successors of those who did then comes and says "Jesus was like this" does not make sense; I didn't mean that the Bible was true or anything, but it's more reliable in what people thought of Jesus in that time.
Response: What makes it more reliable? The account of Jesus according to man does not compare to the account of Allah(God).
Of course it does not.
You forget that most non-Muslims (though I'll say not ALL non-Muslims) believe the Qur'an to be an account of man.
Not everyone believes the Qur'an to be the word of God.
Response: Yes, I know.
So, when using that kind of thinking, the accounts that are closer to Jesus are more reliable than the one (note the singular tense) written 600 years afterwards.
Though my two cents are that the Qur'an's account is a bit more accurate because it's the one that paints Jesus as a human. ^_^ But I'd say that neither account is a perfect portrayal of him.
Last edited:
love
tri-polar optimist
[
Fatihah, that is not my concept at all. I do not believe the Quran to be the word of God.
In the book of Acts (which doubt you have read) the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples and all who were gathered at the Pentecost. From there the Word spread like a flood without the use of the sword.
Six hundred years later Muhammed comes along with a watered down version that trys to discredit the most important parts i.e., death on the cross, ressurection, bapitism in the Holy Spirit, and salvation by grace.
To Muslims, Muhammed stands alone and you must have total faith in his version of the truth. God gave him no one to back him up.
Fatihah, that is not my concept at all. I do not believe the Quran to be the word of God.
In the book of Acts (which doubt you have read) the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples and all who were gathered at the Pentecost. From there the Word spread like a flood without the use of the sword.
Six hundred years later Muhammed comes along with a watered down version that trys to discredit the most important parts i.e., death on the cross, ressurection, bapitism in the Holy Spirit, and salvation by grace.
To Muslims, Muhammed stands alone and you must have total faith in his version of the truth. God gave him no one to back him up.
[QUOTE:love]
Fatihah, that is not my concept at all. I do not believe the Quran to be the word of God.
In the book of Acts (which doubt you have read) the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples and all who were gathered at the Pentecost. From there the Word spread like a flood without the use of the sword.
Response: I have read the book of acts and have my own copy of the bible which I've studied as well. If your claim is that the story in the bible concerning Jesus is true, how do you know?
Quote: love
Six hundred years later Muhammed comes along with a watered down version that trys to discredit the most important parts i.e., death on the cross, ressurection, bapitism in the Holy Spirit, and salvation by grace.
To Muslims, Muhammed stands alone and you must have total faith in his version of the truth. God gave him no one to back him up.
Response: Yes Muhammad(pbuh) came to restore the true identity of Jesus which was distorted people before him. So much so that Allah had to reveal it again through someone else and Muhammad(pbuh) was chosen who is the same prophet predicted to come in the bible and by Jesus himself.
Fatihah, that is not my concept at all. I do not believe the Quran to be the word of God.
In the book of Acts (which doubt you have read) the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples and all who were gathered at the Pentecost. From there the Word spread like a flood without the use of the sword.
Response: I have read the book of acts and have my own copy of the bible which I've studied as well. If your claim is that the story in the bible concerning Jesus is true, how do you know?
Quote: love
Six hundred years later Muhammed comes along with a watered down version that trys to discredit the most important parts i.e., death on the cross, ressurection, bapitism in the Holy Spirit, and salvation by grace.
To Muslims, Muhammed stands alone and you must have total faith in his version of the truth. God gave him no one to back him up.
Response: Yes Muhammad(pbuh) came to restore the true identity of Jesus which was distorted people before him. So much so that Allah had to reveal it again through someone else and Muhammad(pbuh) was chosen who is the same prophet predicted to come in the bible and by Jesus himself.
For us, the Qur'an is not a revelation from God(Allah), but a set of teachings from Mohammad. You keep forgetting that. If the Qur'an is from God, then yes it is more reliable. But if it is not from God, as many believe, then it is not AS reliable.
ayani
member
Fatihah, i did answer you. i responded by saying that i would believe what the Bible said, and not a scholar's opinion on the Bible.
i gave you a similar situation as it would apply to a Muslim, as a way of asking you what you would chose, if a scholar said "this is in the Quran" when you knew it to be untrue.
and i do not accept the Bible by convenience, friend. i accept it as a former skeptic and rather sarcastic critic of the Gospels, and Christian faith. and i don't accept the Bible or any aspect of Christian faith by convenience. it would have actually been very convenient and expected for me to remain a Muslim.
it is not as practically convenient at all to leave behind beloved friends, a cherished community, and many things to shift gears spiritually. to say that i accept Christian faith for the sake of convenience really seeks to cheapen my faith, and the long and difficult process involved in seeking answers, and finally making a decision which might one day cost me my life.
but thankfully, Fatihah, no one's opinion can truly cheapen my faith. faith can not be bought or sold. it is something precious, priceless, and deeply personal.
no one can put a price on your imaan or your love for Islam, Fatihah. neither should anyone try to do so.
i gave you a similar situation as it would apply to a Muslim, as a way of asking you what you would chose, if a scholar said "this is in the Quran" when you knew it to be untrue.
and i do not accept the Bible by convenience, friend. i accept it as a former skeptic and rather sarcastic critic of the Gospels, and Christian faith. and i don't accept the Bible or any aspect of Christian faith by convenience. it would have actually been very convenient and expected for me to remain a Muslim.
it is not as practically convenient at all to leave behind beloved friends, a cherished community, and many things to shift gears spiritually. to say that i accept Christian faith for the sake of convenience really seeks to cheapen my faith, and the long and difficult process involved in seeking answers, and finally making a decision which might one day cost me my life.
but thankfully, Fatihah, no one's opinion can truly cheapen my faith. faith can not be bought or sold. it is something precious, priceless, and deeply personal.
no one can put a price on your imaan or your love for Islam, Fatihah. neither should anyone try to do so.
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
If you know most non-Muslims don't believe that the Qur'an is the word of God, then perhaps you should judge it from that perspective.
Why would what was written 600 years after, by man, be any more reliable than something written 60 - 120 years after, by men?Response: And that is the point. The time in which it was revealed has nothing to do with it's reliability as you have suggested when you say that the qur'an is less reliable because it came 600 years later. The time it came about is not the issue. The issue would be whether or not it came from Allah(God).
If you know most non-Muslims don't believe that the Qur'an is the word of God, then perhaps you should judge it from that perspective.
Response: Because as I have said before, it came from Allah. If it is from Allah than it is reliable. The time in which it came about has nothing to to with it's reliability. It's reliability relies on whether or not it is actually from Allah and not the time in which it was revealed.
[QUOTE:ayani]Fatihah, i did answer you. i responded by saying that i would believe what the Bible said, and not a scholar's opinion on the Bible.
Response: From post 152 to 156 your responses read more to me as if you were speaking of what others would do and not yourself. However, if you did answer the question directly, I must have misread and thank you for your response.
I never said that it's the scholar's "opinion" of the bible in the question. I'm saying that these scholars have discovered actual scripture that says that God tortures little babies for fun. If you don't accept these manuscripts of these scholars and instead accept the manuscripts of the bible, my simple question would be why?
Response: From post 152 to 156 your responses read more to me as if you were speaking of what others would do and not yourself. However, if you did answer the question directly, I must have misread and thank you for your response.
I never said that it's the scholar's "opinion" of the bible in the question. I'm saying that these scholars have discovered actual scripture that says that God tortures little babies for fun. If you don't accept these manuscripts of these scholars and instead accept the manuscripts of the bible, my simple question would be why?
Last edited:
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
I agree; if it came from God, then it is reliable - but unfortunately, most don't believe it is; and you don't have any actual evidence that it was. All you have is the Qur'an to prove the Qur'an, and vague passages in the Qur'an that are used to show "scientific miracles". That's all very nice and good for you as a Muslim, but for non-Muslims, it's not very convincing.
And what if it wasn't? If it was from God, then that would be great. Unfortunately it's not so convincing. It's up to you to prove it is, just repeating "it came from Allah" does not make it so. Until you can prove it is, this is a baseless statement. As I said, you have to judge it from a non-religious point of view. For someone who doesn't believe the Qur'an from God, how is its conception of Jesus more reliable than the Bible?
In that case I could be visited by God and write down what he says and you could not refute it because it doesn't matter when it is written as long as it is from God. There is no reason why God couldn't do this and in fact there is no way you could prove that he didn't do this. After all, contradiction of earlier writings are allowed because God did that when he dictated the Quran and made the Bible and Torah obsolete. So there is no reason why he will not come to me 1400 years after the Quran and say that it was not right and that it was filtered incorrectly and then proceed to give me the correct version. After all, God can do that if he wants to.