Muslim views on Jesus

[firedragon]

1. Some of its content predates Muhammad, generally viewed as being part of Syriac Christian lectionary.
2. Some of its content post-dates Muhammad and reflects later editing of the text over the next 100-200 years

Please quote direct reasons and arguments that proves these two points. One at a time. If you know the subject.

 

[exchemist]

Bible OT+NT both are already revised with Quran-the Word of G-d. Right, please?

Regards

What?

 

[exchemist]

It will be an exercise in futile. Quran is Word of G-d to Muslims, so it will be an interference with Islam Religion. It will not be acceptable to Muslims the world over.I don't figure they will do an exercise in futility. Right, please?

Regards

Is it not an interference with anyone to do research. It would be unacceptable self-censorship to put a religious text off-limits for research, just because some people might not like it.

 

[exchemist]

Please quote direct reasons and arguments that proves these two points. One at a time. If you know the subject.

You have misunderstood. Nobody has said this is the case, so the issue of "proof" does not arise. Augustus has said it is what some scholars in the field think and has provided examples of them. That is all.

 

[exchemist]

Well. If you are looking for lists of people's names or critics you very well know anyone can search for them and post them here.

But if you have you studied them? If not why do you accept them? Is it because of your bias? If you have studied them, state what their thesis is and why you agree.

One by one. First you quoted Christoph Luxemburg.

1. Who is he what is his background?
2. Whats his thesis and why is it correct?

Lets wait and see if you resort to not addressing the questions.

Cheers.

I find your tone inappropriate. I suggest you re-read what was actually said.

 

[firedragon]

You have misunderstood. Nobody has said this is the case, so the issue of "proof" does not arise. Augustus has said it is what some scholars in the field think and has provided examples of them. That is all.

Thanks. What you are basically saying is that he has not made a study of the points but is saying what others have said. Namely from the scholars he has listed. And thats the end of discussion?

Great.

 

[firedragon]

I find your tone inappropriate. I suggest you re-read what was actually said.

Well. People can say things about tones all day and make general comments about a topic all they want. But some people can be analytical and precise in what they are proposing.

If you cannot be analytical in it just state it so that one could withdraw from that conversation. And while you characterise people also go back in retrospect and understand the conversation.

Cheers.

 

[exchemist]

Thanks. What you are basically saying is that he has not made a study of the points but is saying what others have said. Namely from the scholars he has listed. And thats the end of discussion?

Great.

Yes, exactly.

I find it interesting that there are these theories, because I did not know that this sort of research had been done on the Quran, or by whom. Terry Sampson has also mentioned some interesting connections between the Quran and various apocryphal Christian - or proto-Christian - texts. So it seems there is at least some evidence for where some of the ideas later expressed in the Koran may have come from. It is part of the picture of the history of the interconnections between the three Abrahamic religions.

But for me at least, it is the end of the discussion for the time being. I don't have the time just now to follow up these leads. Maybe I will at some later date. I have read a bit on the history of Christianity but have not yet done the same for Islam.

 

[wizanda]

People can say things about tones all day

31:19 And be moderate in your pace and lower your voice; indeed, the most disagreeable of sounds is the voice of donkeys."

make general comments about a topic all they want.

16:125 Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is [rightly] guided.

In our opinion.

 

[exchemist]

Well. People can say things about tones all day and make general comments about a topic all they want. But some people can be analytical and precise in what they are proposing.

If you cannot be analytical in it just state it so that one could withdraw from that conversation. And while you characterise people also go back in retrospect and understand the conversation.

Cheers.

What I mean is it is inappropriate to suggest "bias" on the part of someone who is simply drawing attention to some of the scholarship has been done. In fact Augusts has at been at pains to point out he is not endorsing any particular theory.

 

[MJFlores]

Bible OT+NT both are already revised with Quran-the Word of G-d. Right, please?

Regards

Say what?
Who said that?
Please elucidate....
The OT+NT are passe and the Quran is the new thing?

 

[firedragon]

Yes, exactly.

I find it interesting that there are these theories, because I did not know that this sort of research had been done on the Quran, or by whom. Terry Sampson has also mentioned some interesting connections between the Quran and various apocryphal Christian - or proto-Christian - texts. So it seems there is at least some evidence for where some of the ideas later expressed in the Koran may have come from. It is part of the picture of the history of the interconnections between the three Abrahamic religions.

But for me at least, it is the end of the discussion for the time being. I don't have the time just now to follow up these leads. Maybe I will at some later date. I have read a bit on the history of Christianity but have not yet done the same for Islam.

This kind of study has been happening for a long time. Since around 1100 years as we know but maybe even earlier. But the cited authors like Christoph Luxemburg are theories. Fleetingly mentioning a list of authors is something anyone could do. You should read one author and go to the depth otherwise you dont know what they are talking about or if they are valid.

For example Gunter was mentioned. But the person who mentioned it doesn't have a clue of Gunters theories. It was just mentioned because Gunter is mentioned on the internet. Thats all. Gunters theories about the poetic composition of the Quran were pretty interesting and I have read it from cover to cover. But his thesis was completely disregarded and thrown out by the German university.

And about Christoph (Pen name. Author unknown), his thesis is that the Quran has borrowed from Syriac. Obviously. All sister languages has borrowed from some language. What does that prove? Anyway it is not a scholarly analysis because of the meagre understanding of Classical Arabic and history. He has referred dictionaries and made allusions. For example, you look at the word Anaconda in the English dictionary and you find out that the word has come from another asian language in the 19th century. Does that prove a book written in the 20th century has directly borrowed that word and means there are two sources? I am talking like this because I assume you dont understand Classical Arabic. Lets say the word anaconda is asian, and sperm is Greek (Sperma as in biblical koine greek). You make a sentence "Anacondas Sperm". So where has the author of that sentence borrowed the words from? What does it say about the author?

No thats stupid. Both words have an etymology that spans two ends of the world, but its the current language. Saying that its not English because the word Anaconda is borrowed from Asia is stupid. Luxemburg makes the same thesis. For example he says that Houri or those called "72 virgins" that every one keeps talking about means "Raisins", not virgins and thats based on looking at a Syriac dictionary and finding a similar word, not going to Classical Arabic which he is a novice of anyway.

We can cite a lot of things picked off the internet but we should study them. If not it's useless.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

31:19 And be moderate in your pace and lower your voice; indeed, the most disagreeable of sounds is the voice of donkeys."

16:125 Invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction, and argue with them in a way that is best. Indeed, your Lord is most knowing of who has strayed from His way, and He is most knowing of who is [rightly] guided.

In our opinion.

Great. Thanks for cherrypicking comments and misrepresenting them. You have done a great job. Excellent.

Peace.

 

[wizanda]

Thanks for cherrypicking comments and misrepresenting them.

31:2-3 These are verses of the wise Book, As guidance and mercy for the doers of good...

In our opinion.

 

[exchemist]

This kind of study has been happening for a long time. Since around 1100 years as we know but maybe even earlier. But the cited authors like Christoph Luxemburg are theories. Fleetingly mentioning a list of authors is something anyone could do. You should read one author and go to the depth otherwise you dont know what they are talking about or if they are valid.

For example Gunter was mentioned. But the person who mentioned it doesn't have a clue of Gunters theories. It was just mentioned because Gunter is mentioned on the internet. Thats all. Gunters theories about the poetic composition of the Quran were pretty interesting and I have read it from cover to cover. But his thesis was completely disregarded and thrown out by the German university.

And about Christoph (Pen name. Author unknown), his thesis is that the Quran has borrowed from Syriac. Obviously. All sister languages has borrowed from some language. What does that prove? Anyway it is not a scholarly analysis because of the meagre understanding of Classical Arabic and history. He has referred dictionaries and made allusions. For example, you look at the word Anaconda in the English dictionary and you find out that the word has come from another asian language in the 19th century. Does that prove a book written in the 20th century has directly borrowed that word and means there are two sources? I am talking like this because I assume you dont understand Classical Arabic. Lets say the word anaconda is asian, and sperm is Greek (Sperma as in biblical koine greek). You make a sentence "Anacondas Sperm". So where has the author of that sentence borrowed the words from? What does it say about the author?

No thats stupid. Both words have an etymology that spans two ends of the world, but its the current language. Saying that its not English because the word Anaconda is borrowed from Asia is stupid. Luxemburg makes the same thesis. For example he says that Houri or those called "72 virgins" that every one keeps talking about means "Raisins", not virgins and thats based on looking at a Syriac dictionary and finding a similar word, not going to Classical Arabic which he is a novice of anyway.

We can cite a lot of things picked off the internet but we should study them. If not it's useless.

Peace.

This is not just "off the internet", like some 3rd rate YouTube video.

These are serious scholars, with a reputation that can easily be verified.

 

[Augustus]

Lets wait and see if you resort to not addressing the questions.

Let's wait and see if you can actually understand what I said and prevent yourself from resorting to fallacious argumentation

FD: All scholars think X
A: Other scholars, such as 1, 2, & 3, think Y or Z
FD: Prove Y & Z are true then!
A: I didn't say Y or Z was true, I said 1, 2, & 3 exist, so it is completely irrelevant to ask me to prove Y & Z are true because I never made that claim in the first place.

What does any of this have to do with Quran being authored by several authors?

Provide specific details if you can.

If you didn't take 1/2 a sentence out of context, and actually looked at the entire post in context, you wouldn't need to ask that and could realise your own mistake

Please quote direct reasons and arguments that proves these two points. One at a time. If you know the subject.

ditto

 

[firedragon]

Let's wait and see if you can actually understand what I said and prevent yourself from resorting to fallacious argumentation

FD: All scholars think X
A: Other scholars, such as 1, 2, & 3, think Y or Z
FD: Prove Y & Z are true then!
A: I didn't say Y or Z was true, I said 1, 2, & 3 exist, so it is completely irrelevant to ask me to prove Y & Z are true because I never made that claim in the first place.



If you didn't take 1/2 a sentence out of context, and actually looked at the entire post in context, you wouldn't need to ask that and could realise your own mistake



ditto

You said that Scholars think that Quran was written by many authors, through time and you quoted Christoph and Gunter.

But you haven't read what they alluded or studied them (Thats fine). Do you agree with them?

 

[firedragon]

This is not just "off the internet", like some 3rd rate YouTube video.

These are serious scholars, with a reputation that can easily be verified.

I said the names of the scholars were taken off the internet. Not that the theories were taken off the internet. Many things like this can be taken off the internet but we as thinking individuals must study them not take them at face value. Did you at least understand what I wrote? What did you understand from that at least?

 

[firedragon]

31:2-3 These are verses of the wise Book, As guidance and mercy for the doers of good...

In our opinion.

Very good.

 

[paarsurrey]

Oh boy.......im not discounting the old testament.

Also, if we assume (although theres arguments that are made) the New Testament contains Jesus words, then it makes sense that the NT is right and the koran is not.

Also, the koran came about 500 years later.

Who knows better? The ones closest to the events or the ones further from it? Its the former.

"if we assume"

A big if and an impossible assumption, Jesus neither did write NT Gospels nor did he dictate it. So, it demonstrates that Quran is right and is the Word of G-d. Right, please?
Cheers!

Regards