Jews, Ezra and Qur'an

[Godobeyer]

so wait, your "proof" is 1 Jew who is known as a blunderer...and other non-Jews who used their scholarship to "prove" that the text is not from God. Why don't you just claim "documentary hypothesis" and be done with it. None of what you posted is a proof that any Jew ever hid, corrupted or changed anything, just that

1. A Jew thinks that an "unknown person" ADDED a list
2. Others who think that there were other authors besides Moses

If I publish a website that says that other Suras were added well after the year 1000, does that "prove" that Muslims corrupted their texts?

You have much to learn about claims and proofs.

Without looking for it's claim or not,it's obviouslly can't be belong to God.
because it's represent God as ignorant and weak.

 

[Godobeyer]

"Allahu a'lam"

Alright. Fair enough.

Indeed thats right

Jews translated their own scriptures into Greek (the Septuagint [or LXX] which the Orthodox Church uses as its Old Testament) and also used 'targums' when they ceased speaking Hebrew for a time (RFer Jews may correct me if I am wrong); Daniel is partially written in Aramaic. The NT was written by Jews and they used Greek, but they also preached in the language of the people to whom they went. No problem with it.

When Jews translated their own scpirtures (Talmud) it's revealed it's contain racist/hatefull teaching, burned many time during history.especially by Churchs.


Actualty I don't know why it's important for ealriest Christians to adopt Torah (which is book belong to other religion),made other intpretations by, and most of time don't follow their instructions, Why was not Gospel enough ?

 

[rosends]

Without looking for it's claim or not,it's obviouslly can't be belong to God.
because it's represent God as ignorant and weak.

so then you reject the entire thing, right?

 

[Rival]

Indeed thats right


When Jews translated their own scpirtures (Talmud) it's revealed it's contain racist/hatefull teaching, burned many time during history.especially by Churchs.


Actualty I don't know why it's important for ealriest Christians to adopt Torah (which is book belong to other religion),made other intpretations by, and most of time don't follow their instructions, Why was not Gospel enough ?

One needs the Tnach in order to interpret and understand the Gospel.

I don't know Talmud, so I have no opinion

 

[mojtaba]

So you are saying that this was a group of Jews and not the whole nation?
Then why does the ayah compare them to the Christians who for the most part all believe that Jesus is the son of god? Why doesn't it make clear that this is only a small group? That would be a great answer, but the language that the Qur'an uses, does not indicate what you are saying.

If I say that Jews are killing Muslims of Ghaza, does this mean that all the Jews are killing, or a group of Jews?

I think the issue is clear, except you want to twist it.

 

[Rival]

If I say that Jews are killing Muslims of Ghaza, does this mean that all the Jews are killing, or a group of Jews?

I think the issue is clear, except you want to twist it.

So let's say, for the sake of argument, that the verse in question means 'some Jews', there is:

a) still no evidence that any Jews considered Ezra/Uzair a son of G-d

b) the problem of the Qur'an being outdated and unintelligible. (If it's referring to a group of Jews that once existed and now no longer do the ayat is irrelevant, plus the fact of no evidence or proof of such a group of Jews having existed at all). Why include an irrelevant ayat in an eternal kitab?

c) the problem that the Jews in question are being lumped with Christians, who, past, present and future (from Qur'anic time) worshipped Jesus as the Son of God. Why would Allah compare a huge group with a tiny, tiny splinter group? This makes no sense.

d) The other Muslim idea that this was something the Jews did in the past and no longer do, yet Allah in the next verse still condemns them, along with the Christians, to hell.

e) Qur'an says 'the' Jews.

 

[firedragon]

still no evidence that any Jews considered Ezra/Uzair a son of G-d

There is no evidence for Abraham as well right? Not even Eve. There are many like that with no actual archeological evidence, or historical evidence. There is no evidence that Solomon perversely married a woman he saw bathing naked and maliciously got her husband find death. I know both books cites his name, but the stories are completely different.

I understand that someone considering another as a begotten son of God is a huge thing but looking for rational evidence is a questionable hypothesis for accepting or rejecting a scripture. Its a valid claim for an atheist and perfectly understood, but not to a theist who believes in another book that has many many life stories that have no such evidence

If we think like a historian, these are purely theological discussions which no historian as much banking on.

Thats the way it is.

 

[mojtaba]

So let's say, for the sake of argument, that the verse in question means 'some Jews', there is:

a) still no evidence that the Jews considered Ezra/Uzair a son of G-d

Those two verses of Quran which I previously mentioned say that there were a group of Jews that had that believe in the time of Prophet Muhammad. Those Jews have became extincted and do not live in our time.

If there is not any historical evidence besides Quran, this does not mean that there were not such that Jews at all.

b) the problem of the Qur'an being outdated and unintelligible. (If it's referring to a group of Jews that once existed and now no longer do the ayat is irrelevant, plus the fact that no evidence or proof of such a group of Jews existed at all).

The context of the verse is intelligible and is not outdated, that is ' not believing in a divine nature for a human '. This is the true context of the verse which is fresh until the Last Day.

c) the problem that the Jews in question are being lumped with Christians, who, past, present and future (from Qur'anic time) worshipped Jesus as the Son of God.Why would Allah compare a huge group with a tiny, tiny splinter group? This makes no sense.

When a huge group have a commen point with a tiny group, the comparition between them makes a sense. For example, both mans and whales are in the Mammalia class, while they have many differences and have some critical commen characteristics.

d) The other Muslim idea that this was something the Jews did in the past and no longer do, yet Allah in the next verse still condemns them, along with the Christians, to hell.

Godobeyer is making mistake.

e) Qur'an says 'the' Jews.

Read the post #285.

God bless those are seeking the guidance.

 

[rosends]

When Jews translated their own scpirtures (Talmud) it's revealed it's contain racist/hatefull teaching, burned many time during history.especially by Churchs.

Clearly, you don't know what the talmud is, then. Disco records were also burned; I guess that is proof positive that what was in them was racist. Well done.

 

[Rival]

The context of the verse is intelligible and is not outdated, that is ' not believing in a divine nature for a human '. This is the true context of the verse which is fresh until the Last Day.

Couldn't Allah just have said 'Don't ascribe a son to me'?

When a huge group have a commen point with a tiny group, the comparition between them makes a sense. For example, both mans and whales are in the Mammalia class, while they have many differences and have some critical commen characteristics.

If you say so.

 

[Godobeyer]

One needs the Tnach in order to interpret and understand the Gospel.

I don't know Talmud, so I have no opinion

But when your interpretation is not same/contradict to Jews interpretation to Torah ?

Btw I can say Jews also used Talmud to interpret from Torah!
is this coincidence ?

 

[Godobeyer]

Clearly, you don't know what the talmud is, then. Disco records were also burned; I guess that is proof positive that what was in them was racist. Well done.

Thats not funny
So you ignore your history !
Burning of the Talmud
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/TalmudBurning.html

 

[Rival]

But when your interpretation is not same/contradict to Jews interpretation to Torah ?

The first Christians were Jews. Do you think that once a new scripture is written, the old one becomes useless? There are, according to Christian interpretation, fulfilled prophecies in the NT. How would anyone know this without having to go to the Jewish Scriptures? In other words, the Jewish Scriptures provide the context for the Christian ones.

The Qur'an has this too, by the way, it needs the Jewish and Christian scriptures in order to be understood. Pity, the Muslims threw them out and called then corrupted.

 

[mojtaba]

Couldn't Allah just have said 'Don't ascribe a son to me'?

Allah said this issue in the time of Prophet Muhammad through that sentence which is in the verse. The context of two sentences are same, so the verse in not outdated. Indeed, the verse says, 'Don't ascribe a son to God.' We as Muslim now use the meaning of the verse and learn its context. Use your head and get the point.

 

[Godobeyer]

The first Christians were Jews. Do you think that once a new scripture is written, the old one becomes useless? There are, according to Christian interpretation, fulfilled prophecies in the NT. How would anyone know this without having to go to the Jewish Scriptures? In other words, the Jewish Scriptures provide the context for the Christian ones.

Just be honest in this.

Christians interpretation Torah to use it to prove trinity and Messiah ...etc, which contraditing Jewish believe, right ?

The Qur'an has this too, by the way, it needs the Jewish and Christian scriptures in order to be understood. Pity, the Muslims threw them out and called then corrupted.

Never,ever it's happened before, we don't need Jewish and Christian scriptures in order to understand Quran , this is unneccesry accusation. you need to check about it.

 

[firedragon]

Just be honest in this.

Christians interpretation Torah to use it to prove trinity and Messiah ...etc, which contraditing Jewish believe, right ?




Never,ever it's happened before, we don't need Jewish and Christian scriptures in order to understand Quran , this is unneccesry accusation. you need to check about it.

I agree with you in some of the things bro. But would you be kind enough to give me an ear.

When we accuse the OT to be corrupted, what do we mean? Was it the Jews who corrupted it? In that case, were they not Muslims?? The Quran cites Abraham as calling his followers Muslim right!! And Islam is time immemorial right? Quran cites our deen, religion or system as miillat ibrahim.

Now were they Muslims who corrupted the bible?

See, if we are on a discussion like 'is the bible corrupted' then we can debate this issue with facts. But even then, we who call ourselves Muslims who believe in a Quran that says Islam is time immemorial must also realise that we are actually pointing at our own ancestors, Muslims. They are the culprits or irresponsible people who allowed the scripture to be corrupted.

Do you understand? I mean as a Muslim.

 

[Rival]

Just be honest in this.

Christians interpretation Torah to use it to prove trinity and Messiah ...etc, which contraditing Jewish believe, right ?

No, the NT proves the Trinity for us. Of course we need to OT to prove the Messiah. Why is this bad to you? The Gospel only makes sense in light of the Tnach, how is this difficult? In order to understand Saw II, you have to watch Saw I.

Never,ever it's happened before, we don't need Jewish and Christian scriptures in order to understand Quran , this is unneccesry accusation. you need to check about it.

No, the Qur'an needs the preceding Scriptures for context. How would we know who Moses was, for example, without Tnach?

 

[Godobeyer]

so then you reject the entire thing, right?

As book contain God name,and prophets names I do respect it.
it's does not consider as saint book to me,for many reasons.

 

[Godobeyer]

No, the NT proves the Trinity for us. Of course we need to OT to prove the Messiah. Why is this bad to you? The Gospel only makes sense in light of the Tnach, how is this difficult? In order to understand Saw II, you have to watch Saw I.

So you need to fix your information .
Some Christians used Torah to prove Trinity and Jesus(pbuh) is Messiah....etc

No, the Qur'an needs the preceding Scriptures for context. How would we know who Moses was, for example, without Tnach?

From Quran, we don't use Torah or Gospel ever to explain our belief,not like the Christians used Torah to explain their beliefs.

Maybe you got confused by my signature links ?
that just for making a points about Christianity and Judaism. NOT to explain Islam.

 

[Rival]

So you need to fix your information .
Some Christians used Torah to prove Trinity and Jesus(pbuh) is Messiah....etc

No. No Christian need use the OT to prove the Trinity. The Trinity is proven using the New Testament. Is that clear?

Of course we need the Torah to prove Jesus' Messiahship. The whole concept of a Messiah is from the Old Testament. Why does this confuse you?! The prophecies are in the Old Testament, they are fulfilled in the New Testament. One therefore needs the Old Testament (TORAH) to prove the New Testament's claims. The New Testament makes no sense on its own. It's not supposed to!

By Allah!

From Quran, we don't use Torah or Gospel ever to explain our belief,not like the Christians used Torah to explain their beliefs.

Maybe you got confused by my signature links ?
that just for making a points about Christianity and Judaism. NOT to explain Islam.

There are stories in Qur'an that make no sense without the Torah. Seriously. Qur'an does not explain Moses, what he did, what rules he laid down, how he died etc. Qur'an just rips off stories from the Torah, muddles them up, and calls itself scripture. Can Qur'an explain why not to eat porc? No.