Archive for FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT BREAK THE CHAINS OF IGNORANCE AND FEAR
 


       FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> The Qur'an
Pazuzu bin Hanbi

19:36

According to Islamic doctrine, every single word in the Qur’an apparently came to Muhammad from Allah, who then recited it all ad verbatim. What then, explains this passage in the surah called Maryam?

God is my Lord and your Lord, so serve Him: that is a straight path.”

God has now called God his Lord? And to show I haven’t taken it out of context, the previous ayah simply mentions that God wouldn’t have a child, and 19:36 does not start with the word QUL (= say), which a fair few passages do to denote that Allah has instructed Muhammad to recite a specific phrase.
All_Brains

Re: 19:36

Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
According to Islamic doctrine, every single word in the Qur’an apparently came to Muhammad from Allah, who then recited it all ad verbatim. What then, explains this passage in the surah called Maryam?

God is my Lord and your Lord, so serve Him: that is a straight path.”

God has now called God his Lord? And to show I haven’t taken it out of context, the previous ayah simply mentions that God wouldn’t have a child, and 19:36 does not start with the word QUL (= say), which a fair few passages do to denote that Allah has instructed Muhammad to recite a specific phrase.


This is a big dilemma in the Quran in general, as Allah sometimes speaks in a first person format, then suddenly changes to a third person!!!!
brainout

Golly, I wish I could debunk this like you guys, but I can't.  It's a rhetorical style to talk of self in the third person.  Let me know if you want more details.

On the other hand, the "My lord and your lord" phrase is a problem.  It's a refrain, and I just ran across it also in 5.117.  It's right up there with the requirement that one believe in Allah AND his prophet, essentially equating the two.

Yikes, Pazuzu you raise a good point, I gotta think this over!  Thanks!
Pazuzu bin Hanbi

I think, though I can’t say for sure, that the refrain in 5:117 occurs as part of a speech that God commands Muhammad to give. But it doesn’t occur in that sort of a context in 19:36.

As for the shifting of perspective in the Qur’an, Muhammad Abdel Haleem has a lot to say about it in his book Understanding The Qur’an: Themes and Styles, an excellent and well–written work on various themes of the Qur’an. It also contains the only decent stab I’ve read at explaining the ayat allowing men to hit their wives. A pity because it doesn’t, ultimately, convince me on that particular point.

I’ll have to dig it out of storage tomorrow when I have time so that I can quote from it regarding the shifting perspectives. I can’t even recall the official ‘Arabic word he uses to denote it, but do remember he remarks that old scholars have discussed the phenomenon a lot, and expresses surprise Western scholars never have.
AhmedBahgat

Re: 19:36

All_Brains wrote:
Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
According to Islamic doctrine, every single word in the Qur’an apparently came to Muhammad from Allah, who then recited it all ad verbatim. What then, explains this passage in the surah called Maryam?

God is my Lord and your Lord, so serve Him: that is a straight path.”

God has now called God his Lord? And to show I haven’t taken it out of context, the previous ayah simply mentions that God wouldn’t have a child, and 19:36 does not start with the word QUL (= say), which a fair few passages do to denote that Allah has instructed Muhammad to recite a specific phrase.


This is a big dilemma in the Quran in general, as Allah sometimes speaks in a first person format, then suddenly changes to a third person!!!!


Of course and it is called Isloob Ilttifat, if you really studied Balagha you should know it

Pzu is ignorant and knows nothing about the religion of Islam, I actually believe that all ex Muslims knew nothing, including you.

it seems to me that they don't understand the difference between a believer and a submitter, a Mumin and a Muslim

Salam
Pazuzu bin Hanbi

You love hurling abusive ad hominems about, don’t you? I know PLENTY about Islam, having studied it extensively and tried to inculcate it into my thoughts over the years.

But I threw off my shackles and can approach it with a more open–minded viewpoint. Take the massive strides made in contemporary Islamic scholarship and revisionist History. Why does the list of luminaries (such as Crone, Cook, Rippin, Wansborough, Calder, etc.) not include even a single muslim?
AhmedBahgat

Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
You love hurling abusive ad hominems about, don’t you? I know PLENTY about Islam, having studied it extensively and tried to inculcate it into my thoughts over the years.

But I threw off my shackles and can approach it with a more open–minded viewpoint. Take the massive strides made in contemporary Islamic scholarship and revisionist History. Why does the list of luminaries (such as Crone, Cook, Rippin, Wansborough, Calder, etc.) not include even a single muslim?


It is not shame to be an ignorant, what is shame is to insist on your ignorance
brainout

Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
I think, though I can’t say for sure, that the refrain in 5:117 occurs as part of a speech that God commands Muhammad to give. But it doesn’t occur in that sort of a context in 19:36.

As for the shifting of perspective in the Qur’an, Muhammad Abdel Haleem has a lot to say about it in his book Understanding The Qur’an: Themes and Styles, an excellent and well–written work on various themes of the Qur’an. It also contains the only decent stab I’ve read at explaining the ayat allowing men to hit their wives. A pity because it doesn’t, ultimately, convince me on that particular point.

I’ll have to dig it out of storage tomorrow when I have time so that I can quote from it regarding the shifting perspectives. I can’t even recall the official ‘Arabic word he uses to denote it, but do remember he remarks that old scholars have discussed the phenomenon a lot, and expresses surprise Western scholars never have.


I just came back here before resuming work.  I would very much love to see that book, so when you find it, will you give me publisher and correct full name and title, so I can buy the book?  This is JUST the kind of thing one needs.  The Christian counterpart is the classic by Thorleif Boman, Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek, available at Amazon for only $12.  Don't let the small size of the book fool you.  Every sentence in it is crammed with meaning, since the author knows how to write pithy statements.  That book wows me, and it's a classic in Christian theology.

Please let ibnishaq know of that Haleem book as well, because he's confused, thinking the Qu'ran should be interpreted literally all the time, not realizing that if a book is from God (real or fake), it MUST SHOW LITERARY GENIUS in its very words.  I really wish the Muslims who so twist Qu'ran to make its words literally scientific would instead appreciate the LITERARY USES of the text, because the claim of genius is a literary one.  False or true, that's the claim.

Bible has been around longer, and even its critics claim it as one of the greatest literary works of all time, especially since it had something like what -- 74 authors (?) over 1500 years.  So you would expect the Qu'ran to be literary, as well.

If you find any other books on the literary/rhetorical styles in the Qu'ran, please (if you're willing) list them.  This is a really important topic.  I may be against the Qu'ran's claim to be from God -- but that doesn't mean whatever it gets right/good, should be dismissed.

Whatever is good in anything should be noted.  Even if a thing is from a devil!
Pazuzu bin Hanbi

From Amazon.com:

Product Details

Title: Understanding the Qur’an: Themes and Styles (Paperback)
Author: Muhammad Abdel Haleem
Paperback: 240 pages
Publisher: I. B. Tauris (April 21, 2001)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 1860646506
ISBN-13: 978-1860646508
Product Dimensions: 9.2 x 6.2 x 0.7 inches
Shipping Weight: 13.4 ounces
brainout

Thanks, Pazuzu.  I put it on my Wishlist.  Once a year I buy from my Wishlist as a present to moi.  I can't do that right now, but will.  (I want a lot of stuff, lol.)

When logging it on my wishlist, Amazon brought up this information:  click here to see it.  What's below, for a combined cost of $176 US, looks quite interesting.

And with that, I'm over and out.  Will be back hopefully in a few days, maybe longer.
BMZ

Re: 19:36

Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
According to Islamic doctrine, every single word in the Qur’an apparently came to Muhammad from Allah, who then recited it all ad verbatim. What then, explains this passage in the surah called Maryam?

God is my Lord and your Lord, so serve Him: that is a straight path.”

God has now called God his Lord? And to show I haven’t taken it out of context, the previous ayah simply mentions that God wouldn’t have a child, and 19:36 does not start with the word QUL (= say), which a fair few passages do to denote that Allah has instructed Muhammad to recite a specific phrase.


"God is my LORD and your LORD" is a continuation of what Jesus was talking in that section. The section started with Jesus saying, "Qala, 'Inni abdullah" meaning "I am a slave of Allah".

Qala at the start refers to Jesus. So Jesus said all that.
All_Brains

Re: 19:36

BMZ wrote:
Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
According to Islamic doctrine, every single word in the Qur’an apparently came to Muhammad from Allah, who then recited it all ad verbatim. What then, explains this passage in the surah called Maryam?

God is my Lord and your Lord, so serve Him: that is a straight path.”

God has now called God his Lord? And to show I haven’t taken it out of context, the previous ayah simply mentions that God wouldn’t have a child, and 19:36 does not start with the word QUL (= say), which a fair few passages do to denote that Allah has instructed Muhammad to recite a specific phrase.


"God is my LORD and your LORD" is a continuation of what Jesus was talking in that section. The section started with Jesus saying, "Qala, 'Inni abdullah" meaning "I am a slave of Allah".

Qala at the start refers to Jesus. So Jesus said all that.


makes sense and good point! I would accept this as a good logical argument.
Pazuzu bin Hanbi

http://www.openburhan.net/ob.php?sid=19&vid=36

Look at the ayat itself and the interpolations (bits in brackets that don’t actually appear in the ‘Arabic text) and you can see that Jesus quotes something in the previous ayat, but 19:36 goes unquoted. Embarrassed by this, some translations add “(Jesus said this:)” in, as you can see in the link above — but most of them don’t.
BMZ

Re: 19:36

All_Brains wrote:
BMZ wrote:
Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
According to Islamic doctrine, every single word in the Qur’an apparently came to Muhammad from Allah, who then recited it all ad verbatim. What then, explains this passage in the surah called Maryam?

God is my Lord and your Lord, so serve Him: that is a straight path.”

God has now called God his Lord? And to show I haven’t taken it out of context, the previous ayah simply mentions that God wouldn’t have a child, and 19:36 does not start with the word QUL (= say), which a fair few passages do to denote that Allah has instructed Muhammad to recite a specific phrase.


"God is my LORD and your LORD" is a continuation of what Jesus was talking in that section. The section started with Jesus saying, "Qala, 'Inni abdullah" meaning "I am a slave of Allah".

Qala at the start refers to Jesus. So Jesus said all that.


makes sense and good point! I would accept this as a good logical argument.


Thanks, A_B

I appreciate your interjection. That is what we need when such points are being discussed.

Thanks, again.
All_Brains

Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
http://www.openburhan.net/ob.php?sid=19&vid=36

Look at the ayat itself and the interpolations (bits in brackets that don’t actually appear in the ‘Arabic text) and you can see that Jesus quotes something in the previous ayat, but 19:36 goes unquoted. Embarrassed by this, some translations add “(Jesus said this:)” in, as you can see in the link above — but most of them don’t.


My Father is a very famous Lawyer and Criminologist in a Western country and he taught me one thing! Don't debate a highly disputable piece of evidence.

When the Quran was first written there was no punctuation, dots on top of letters, commas or even full stops!!
The entire text was just like a block words linked together and it was only few decades later that today's Quran started to emerge.

When I read the couple of Surah's before it in Arabic, it clearly shows as if Allah speaks out the "words or thoughts" of Jesus and therefore referring to himself in a third party form, as it's narrated from Jesus point of view.

Of course it can also be seen as Allah talking about himself in a third party at the end of the day. Hence it's disputable.

There are many other surahs in the Quran that clearly shows Allah talking about himself directly in a 3P form!

Again Ahmed disputed that as "Balagha" of the Arabic Quran. I see it as confusing and mainly down to the fact that the Quran was authored by men claiming it to be from God.

The alternation between 1P and 3P indicates to me that the Quran was written by forgetful humans and hence the famous abrogation verse, where Allah justifies the act of abrogation by causing Muhammad to forget his verses and as
a result comes up with better ones!!!
brainout

I just came back here as my last trip of the night.  All-Brains, you need to look up "antiphony".  It's a liturgical style of one group or person being answered lyrically by another, and is a very common rhetorical style in the Bible.

When in the Bible there is a sudden switch from first person to second or third, you're looking at a speak-and-reply format.  So MORE THAN one person is in view.  Alternatively, when someone is speaking of himself and suddenly switches to third person, that SAME person is speaking of himself IMPERSONALLY, to stress justice, an official role, or something else.  You'll see Jesus do this a lot in the Gospels when suddenly He refers to Himself as the "Son of Man".

We do this often today even in common speech, so it's an actual rhetorical style in all languages, sourced from ancient times.  It's not unique to Bible, and I'm sure it's used in the Qu'ran.

The "We" usages, antiphony, switch-to-impersonal-3P are likely all evocative of Bible, and certainly part of common rhetorical patterns then and now.  So they aren't "forgetful humans" due to that style.  Maybe forgetful humans for other reasons, but not due to the switch in which person is referenced.  

With that I leave you all, and to all a good day/night.
Baal

Re: 19:36

AhmedBahgat wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
According to Islamic doctrine, every single word in the Qur’an apparently came to Muhammad from Allah, who then recited it all ad verbatim. What then, explains this passage in the surah called Maryam?

God is my Lord and your Lord, so serve Him: that is a straight path.”

God has now called God his Lord? And to show I haven’t taken it out of context, the previous ayah simply mentions that God wouldn’t have a child, and 19:36 does not start with the word QUL (= say), which a fair few passages do to denote that Allah has instructed Muhammad to recite a specific phrase.


This is a big dilemma in the Quran in general, as Allah sometimes speaks in a first person format, then suddenly changes to a third person!!!!


Of course and it is called Isloob Ilttifat, if you really studied Balagha you should know it

Pzu is ignorant and knows nothing about the religion of Islam, I actually believe that all ex Muslims knew nothing, including you.

it seems to me that they don't understand the difference between a believer and a submitter, a Mumin and a Muslim

Salam

Uslub Iltifat - Style of Turning

The Uslib of Iltifat is not an excuse Ahmed. Not in the way the koran is doing it. It only explains some of the times Muhammad seems to be talking about himself, not all of them.

The worst part is, you are apologizing on behalf of allah or muhammad yet still swearing and calling people ignorant.
Pazuzu bin Hanbi

All_Brains wrote:
My Father is a very famous Lawyer and Criminologist in a Western country and he taught me one thing!
Too busy with the Legal Lifestyle to teach you anything else? Laughing Just kidding!

All_Brains wrote:
When I read the couple of Surah's before it in Arabic, it clearly shows as if Allah speaks out the "words or thoughts" of Jesus and therefore referring to himself in a third party form, as it's narrated from Jesus point of view.

Of course it can also be seen as Allah talking about himself in a third party at the end of the day. Hence it's disputable.

There are many other surahs in the Quran that clearly shows Allah talking about himself directly in a 3P form!

Again Ahmed disputed that as "Balagha" of the Arabic Quran. I see it as confusing and mainly down to the fact that the Quran was authored by men claiming it to be from God.

The alternation between 1P and 3P indicates to me that the Quran was written by forgetful humans and hence the famous abrogation verse, where Allah justifies the act of abrogation by causing Muhammad to forget his verses and as
a result comes up with better ones!!!

In which case I shall bow to your superior knowledge on this occasion Wink.
AhmedBahgat

Re: 19:36

Baal wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
According to Islamic doctrine, every single word in the Qur’an apparently came to Muhammad from Allah, who then recited it all ad verbatim. What then, explains this passage in the surah called Maryam?

God is my Lord and your Lord, so serve Him: that is a straight path.”

God has now called God his Lord? And to show I haven’t taken it out of context, the previous ayah simply mentions that God wouldn’t have a child, and 19:36 does not start with the word QUL (= say), which a fair few passages do to denote that Allah has instructed Muhammad to recite a specific phrase.


This is a big dilemma in the Quran in general, as Allah sometimes speaks in a first person format, then suddenly changes to a third person!!!!


Of course and it is called Isloob Ilttifat, if you really studied Balagha you should know it

Pzu is ignorant and knows nothing about the religion of Islam, I actually believe that all ex Muslims knew nothing, including you.

it seems to me that they don't understand the difference between a believer and a submitter, a Mumin and a Muslim

Salam

Uslub Iltifat - Style of Turning

The Uslib of Iltifat is not an excuse Ahmed. Not in the way the koran is doing it. It only explains some of the times Muhammad seems to be talking about himself, not all of them.

The worst part is, you are apologizing on behalf of allah or muhammad yet still swearing and calling people ignorant.


Why I have to appologise for you ignorance?

I offerd no appolgy, it's really total crap by the ignorant kafirs like you that when the Muslims try to clear their ignornace they accuse them of beoing appologetic

you didn't applogise regarding your ignroacce of the words Nijis and Rijsun

well, I know what to do, just dismiss those low kafirs and never reply to their ignorant arses
Baal

Re: 19:36

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Baal wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
According to Islamic doctrine, every single word in the Qur’an apparently came to Muhammad from Allah, who then recited it all ad verbatim. What then, explains this passage in the surah called Maryam?

God is my Lord and your Lord, so serve Him: that is a straight path.”

God has now called God his Lord? And to show I haven’t taken it out of context, the previous ayah simply mentions that God wouldn’t have a child, and 19:36 does not start with the word QUL (= say), which a fair few passages do to denote that Allah has instructed Muhammad to recite a specific phrase.


This is a big dilemma in the Quran in general, as Allah sometimes speaks in a first person format, then suddenly changes to a third person!!!!


Of course and it is called Isloob Ilttifat, if you really studied Balagha you should know it

Pzu is ignorant and knows nothing about the religion of Islam, I actually believe that all ex Muslims knew nothing, including you.

it seems to me that they don't understand the difference between a believer and a submitter, a Mumin and a Muslim

Salam

Uslub Iltifat - Style of Turning

The Uslib of Iltifat is not an excuse Ahmed. Not in the way the koran is doing it. It only explains some of the times Muhammad seems to be talking about himself, not all of them.

The worst part is, you are apologizing on behalf of allah or muhammad yet still swearing and calling people ignorant.


Why I have to appologise for you ignorance?

I offerd no appolgy, it's really total crap by the ignorant kafirs like you that when the Muslims try to clear their ignornace they accuse them of beoing appologetic

you didn't applogise regarding your ignroacce of the words Nijis and Rijsun

well, I know what to do, just dismiss those low kafirs and never reply to their ignorant arses

What is there to apologize for? There is absolutely no indication tin indicate that Najis implies ANYTHING remotely close to spiritual dirtiness.

Kaffir and Disbelievers are Najis and they are created from Base Matter. There is nothing spiritual about that. The koran hardly ever touches on the spiritual side. It is all about physical things. wash this. Bend over this way. pray when the sun is up. when the sun is down (Of course in countries where the sun stays up for days and weeks, the muslim is fvcked now isn't he?). Divide this. Witness this. Fountains of water. Rivers of wine. Golden Thrones(!!?!). Nothing Spiritual. Now all of a sudden you want to claim that this word is referring to something spiritual?
All_Brains

Re: 19:36

AhmedBahgat wrote:


you didn't applogise regarding your ignroacce of the words Nijis and Rijsun



Why would he apologise Ahmed. I have responded to you regarding this with reference from the Quran and you have not commented!!!!

Najis = Physically dirty
Rijs = morally / spiritually corrupted
Pazuzu bin Hanbi

More:

I decided to post this here because it fits in with the theme of this thread.

Surah The Cattle

[6.104] Indeed there have come to you clear proofs from your Lord; whoever will therefore see, it is for his own soul and whoever will be blind, it shall be against himself and I am not a keeper over you.

[6.114] Shall I then seek a judge other than Allah? And He it is Who has revealed to you the Book (which is) made plain; and those whom We have given the Book know that it is revealed by your Lord with truth, therefore you should not be of the disputers.

Again, I have highlighted the passages I consider pertinent. Some Qur’anic translations (such as the one I have in my hand here) and the one on Openburhan interpolate a “Say” before the emphasised phrases and placed them in quotation marks, but the Arabic original does NOT include the word ‘Qul’ before them!

Clearly this shows Muhammad himself speaking to his followers, and not Allah speaking through him.
brainout

Pazuzu, again like antiphony, sudden switch in speaker, maybe?  Seems in context it's Jibreel talking.  I get that impression a number of times, but you decide.

I see three speakers in the Qu'ran:  Allah, Jibreel, and Muhammed.  In the case of the first two, Jibreel is still reporting/passing on Allah's words to Muhammed.  Sometimes Muhammed talks.  But often it sure seems Jibreel is talking -- authorized to say what he says as coming from Allah, to be sure -- but it's Jibreel.

Your thoughts?  I've not spent a whole lot of time on this, so at present am but speculating based on similar rhetorical styles I see in Bible.
Pazuzu bin Hanbi

The simple fact that translators interpolate a “Say” into it (always in square brackets to denote that it doesn’t exist in the ‘Arabi original) tells me that it troubled them, and they had to make it seem as though god had commanded Muhammad to say these things. But a straightforward reading of those passages does not lend itself to that. Less so if Gabri–El does the talking!
brainout

Ok, Pazuzu, but you find that same kind of style in Bible, too.  I keep on comparing Qu'ranic style TO the Bible, since the Qu'ran claims to be an upgrade ON the Bible.  So by that claim, it must exhibit the same rhetorical characteristics, which largely it delibertately apes.  That's not a bad thing, but instead a way to assert Divine Authenticity (whether true or false assertion).

So, going on that basis, you don't have to INSERT a "say" in Bible to know when the speaker switches to God or that it's a command from God to say something.  At least, not in the Hebrew or Greek.  English Bibles also often insert words to show the meaning, but you don't need the actual extra words in the source language.

Since Arabic and Hebrew are close cousins, even sibling languages, I would bet the reason you don't see Qul or Qala as much is that it's not needed in Arabic.  But, later translators might feel the need to insert it.

When a translator inserts text, it's not always wrong.  Can be.  Might not be.  When I translate from the Hebrew or Greek I almost always have to add text because the original-language words won't neatly translate into English.  The published Bibles CUT OUT meaning which is in the original, in order to conform to a stupid rule that you only use one English word per original-language word.  Big mistake.  Bible thus looks horrifically petty and legalistic, in translation.  I'd have to assume something of the same problem exists in Qu'ranic translations, as they follow the same rules as Bible translators do.

You're lucky to have learned it in the Arabic, from the getgo.  It will be much easier to parse and understand, therefore.
Baal

brainout wrote:
Pazuzu, again like antiphony, sudden switch in speaker, maybe?  Seems in context it's Jibreel talking.  I get that impression a number of times, but you decide.

I see three speakers in the Qu'ran:  Allah, Jibreel, and Muhammed.  In the case of the first two, Jibreel is still reporting/passing on Allah's words to Muhammed.  Sometimes Muhammed talks.  But often it sure seems Jibreel is talking -- authorized to say what he says as coming from Allah, to be sure -- but it's Jibreel.

Your thoughts?  I've not spent a whole lot of time on this, so at present am but speculating based on similar rhetorical styles I see in Bible.

Brainout, Jibreel and Muhammad have nothing to do talking in the koran. The text is supposedly preserved and (unchanged) on some tablet since creation. To imply it is Jibreel or Muhammad talking is exactly supporting the accusation we make that the writers of the book slipped.
Pazuzu bin Hanbi

Exactly. Hence why I maintain that these things have slipped through, in the same way numerous Biblical scholars dig up more authentic passages in the Gospels that have slipped through the editing process. Muhammad clearly DOES talk in the Qur’an. I should try and find supporting ahadith for this. Plenty of times I’ve read narrators state that Muhammad (or Apostle of God, etc.) has said or ordered them to do something — and not that Allah did.
brainout

hey, Paz and Baal:  I would disagree.  As usual, the reason is that since Qu'ran claims to upgrade/replace the Bible, then you have to evaluate its rhetoric in the same manner AS the Bible's.

So:  Bible is really a collection of LEGAL books and contracts, its narratives or quotes being mostly of depositionary nature.  That is, statements from witnesses are recorded.

Sometimes, God is witnessing, directly.  Sometimes, an angel.  Sometimes, a human.  Now, in a deposition, the point is accuracy of a) recording what is said, and b) content of what is said.

Hence if a witness says something falsely or incorrectly, it still must be accurately recorded under a).  So when those dippy magi (no number stated) come to JERUSALEM (never Bethlehem) at Chanukah in 4BC (Matthew 2), they REPORT seeing a "star" -- but that doesn't mean there actually was one.  Which you know, because no one else in Jerusalem saw it, and this alleged "star" moves forward to LEAD these magi and then hovers over a BIG HOUSE (Greek word oikon, no stable, baby!) in Nazareth (end of Matt2, tied by the later end of the later Luke 2).

So:  in the Qu'ran, you have different Witness Testimony.  God, Jibreel, Muhammed.  Or, God to Muhammed, or (more often) Jibreel to Muhammed.  Or, God or Jibreel reporting to Muhammed something in past or future;  when Jibreel quotes, it often looks like Allah speaking directly, but it's really Jibreel quoting him.

Whether this is valid testimony is quite a different question.  But the rhetorical style, I'd argue, is that of witnessing.  In which case, it's not odd that the person switches suddenly, or that there are multiple persons.  Because, it's all being RECORDED as a WITNESS for posterity.  

Anyone can make it all up, of course.  That again is a separate question.

Paz, please name me a verse in Bible which has slipped through the editing process;  name me a verse which has been edited out?  I know of some false verses and words which have been STUCK IN, such as the last half the last chapter in Mark, and the 4th century scribe who changed a letter in 1Corthinians 13:3 (from chi to theta, rendering the verb non-existent in the first century), and I know of some dingdong who messed with the math of Genesis 5's LXX, adding 100 years up front and subtracting it at the back, none too well either.

But no verse I know of, has been excised from the Bible, nor has the text been edited.  Copies of the original-language text inserted vowel points in the Hebrew, and there are qere and kethib readings, but I've yet to see a verse where those changes altered the meaning in the text.  And you always had the more-reliable LXX, which is actually an older version of the Hebrew OT, translated.

So help me out here?  I love collecting information like this.  Thanks!
Pazuzu bin Hanbi

My apologies, I didn’t mean edited out of the Bible, but that genuine sentiments of Jesus have slipped through the editors’ fingers and have remained. For example, the exhortations to his followers never to go amongst Gentiles, or even to Samaritans. Such things would have proved deeply confusing for Gentile converts and yet it remained in the Gospels — though you can’t ever prove it, you can see it as carrying the weight of Jesus’ actual words, hence why the editors left it in.
brainout

Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
My apologies, I didn’t mean edited out of the Bible, but that genuine sentiments of Jesus have slipped through the editors’ fingers and have remained. For example, the exhortations to his followers never to go amongst Gentiles, or even to Samaritans. Such things would have proved deeply confusing for Gentile converts and yet it remained in the Gospels — though you can’t ever prove it, you can see it as carrying the weight of Jesus’ actual words, hence why the editors left it in.


Pazuzu, again I don't know what you're talking about.  In the Bible Jesus was notorious for GOING to the Gentiles when the Jews would not go, it's not an editing, but something that got Him in trouble with the Jews at the time.  Maybe you are thinking instead of the passage wherein He explains that He is FIRST SENT to the Jews.  He was first sent to them, because He's the Promised Son of David, aka Messiah promised in 2 Samuel 7.

I mean, this anti-Gentile idea doesn't even make any sense, because to become a Jew all you had to do was believe in Judaism.  It wasn't ever racial.  Jewishness is also a race, but ever since the Exodus (which was 2/3rds NON-Jewish by race), you became Jewish merely by believing.  They usually circumcised the males as well.

Now maybe some wanna-be-bible book (aka Apochrypha) has silly anti-Gentile claims.  But it sounds like that information comes from a white-supremacist hate site (or someone influenced by those people) rather than from the Bible.  Those people are always into defaming the Jews.

Tell  you what:  I have both the Bible and the wanna-be Bibles in the original-language texts.  Maybe not all of the wanna-be's, for there are many copycats.  But if you give me specifics of this claim, I'll chase it down for you to source, and give you that source material.  Okay?  That way you can evaluate it for yourself.

Lots of people call Bible, what's actually in some later book.  You can usually tell what's not valid, as the wanna-be books are lurid, and tabloid in nature.  So you always gotta look at the source material.

Lots of people make claims about what Qu'ran says, what Bible says, what Joe Blow says.  So it's important to track to source.

Good to see you again!
AhmedBahgat

Re: 19:36

All_Brains wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:


you didn't applogise regarding your ignroacce of the words Nijis and Rijsun



Why would he apologise Ahmed. I have responded to you regarding this with reference from the Quran and you have not commented!!!!

Najis = Physically dirty
Rijs = morally / spiritually corrupted


I guess you had it the other way around, it should be like this:


Najis = morally / spiritually corrupted
Rijs = Physically dirty
AhmedBahgat

The word Qul is not required all the times under the balagha

in fact if you read the Quran, you should read that Allah told Mohammed, Wa Iza Saalaka Ibady Anni, i.e. and if my slaves asked you abut Me,

now Allah did not say to Mohammed, Say: I'm near

rather Allah took the stand and replied without telling Mohammed to Say first, this is very common in Arabic, only those who lack Arabic will struggle with such balagha, but that is their problem not the language, they just need to learn more and stop being ignorant and arrogant
Pazuzu bin Hanbi

Try arguing your case WITHOUT reference to the Gospel of John and see where you get… Wink
brainout

Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
Try arguing your case WITHOUT reference to the Gospel of John and see where you get… Wink


Is this addressed to me, Paz the beloved?  If yes, would you rephrase?  I'm not sure what you're saying, or what "case" I'm supposedly making.  Maybe you weren't talking to me? Thanks!
Baal

brainout wrote:
hey, Paz and Baal:  I would disagree.  As usual, the reason is that since Qu'ran claims to upgrade/replace the Bible, then you have to evaluate its rhetoric in the same manner AS the Bible's.

So:  Bible is really a collection of LEGAL books and contracts, its narratives or quotes being mostly of depositionary nature.  That is, statements from witnesses are recorded.

Sometimes, God is witnessing, directly.  Sometimes, an angel.  Sometimes, a human.  Now, in a deposition, the point is accuracy of a) recording what is said, and b) content of what is said.

Hence if a witness says something falsely or incorrectly, it still must be accurately recorded under a).  So when those dippy magi (no number stated) come to JERUSALEM (never Bethlehem) at Chanukah in 4BC (Matthew 2), they REPORT seeing a "star" -- but that doesn't mean there actually was one.  Which you know, because no one else in Jerusalem saw it, and this alleged "star" moves forward to LEAD these magi and then hovers over a BIG HOUSE (Greek word oikon, no stable, baby!) in Nazareth (end of Matt2, tied by the later end of the later Luke 2).

So:  in the Qu'ran, you have different Witness Testimony.  God, Jibreel, Muhammed.  Or, God to Muhammed, or (more often) Jibreel to Muhammed.  Or, God or Jibreel reporting to Muhammed something in past or future;  when Jibreel quotes, it often looks like Allah speaking directly, but it's really Jibreel quoting him.

Whether this is valid testimony is quite a different question.  But the rhetorical style, I'd argue, is that of witnessing.  In which case, it's not odd that the person switches suddenly, or that there are multiple persons.  Because, it's all being RECORDED as a WITNESS for posterity.  

Anyone can make it all up, of course.  That again is a separate question.

Paz, please name me a verse in Bible which has slipped through the editing process;  name me a verse which has been edited out?  I know of some false verses and words which have been STUCK IN, such as the last half the last chapter in Mark, and the 4th century scribe who changed a letter in 1Corthinians 13:3 (from chi to theta, rendering the verb non-existent in the first century), and I know of some dingdong who messed with the math of Genesis 5's LXX, adding 100 years up front and subtracting it at the back, none too well either.

But no verse I know of, has been excised from the Bible, nor has the text been edited.  Copies of the original-language text inserted vowel points in the Hebrew, and there are qere and kethib readings, but I've yet to see a verse where those changes altered the meaning in the text.  And you always had the more-reliable LXX, which is actually an older version of the Hebrew OT, translated.

So help me out here?  I love collecting information like this.  Thanks!

Brainout, you have no problem accepting that it is muhammad or jibreel narrating. You think it is normal just like in the Bible. You take that fact for granted.

But that is the ONLY thing I want muslims to realize. That their koran is NOT the direct word of a god, but it is transferred to them through witnesses, just like the hadith.
brainout

Ok, Baal.  I thought everyone knew that about the Qu'ran too, since it's so obvious.  To me, anyway.  Sure, in the Bible often God's literal words are quoted, but just as often the writer is GIVEN to write God's meaning in the writer's own way.  In theology that's called "Verbal Plenary Inspiration".

So, say you rephrase what I write in a post, and I see it and approve what you said.  Then it becomes MY WORD, in YOUR mouth, but I'm responsible because I approved it.  And if what you said was what I wanted said anyway, then of course I would approve it.  That's what "Verbal Plenary Inspiration" encompasses.  It's not dictation.

So from what you and some others have said, the Koran is meant to be dictation?  Wow.  Then all this business of different speakers is a problem.

In any event, I guess my approach to everything is to go to God with it.  If one doesn't believe in God, of course this doesn't happen.  But if one does, honestly -- anything claimed to be OF God should be verified WITH God. If someone claims I said something, you'd come to me about it, and vice versa.  So how much more, if the claim is "God says..."?
HomoErectus

I just asked "god"...
"Did you really speak out all the nonsenese in this book they call 'qur'an'... ?"

I received no reply  -  I take this as a "NO !"
Pazuzu bin Hanbi

brainout wrote:
Ok, Baal.  I thought everyone knew that about the Qu'ran too, since it's so obvious.  To me, anyway.

To any rational–minded person. I grew up as a muslim and the point about the Qur’an as the word of God — literal, with no other narrator — constituted a doctrinal point in Islam.
brainout

Wow, Pazuzu.  That's shocking.  I posted a point about this in "Specific Defenses" thread under "Qu'ran" saying that if it's taught that Qu'ran is a literal dictation of one voice, the teaching is proven wrong by the Qu'ran itself.

It should be taught like "Verbal Plenary Inspiration", even if that claim is untrue, for that's the style which the Qu'ran exhibits.  You don't need to know Arabic to know that, and what Arabic is there, demonstrates VPI even more.

The idea behind VPI is that God can communicate Himself, you can understand Him when He does, because He ENABLES you to do so.  Then, the writer is INSPIRED (enabled) to write out the complete, coherent, infallible message of God Himself using the writer's own intelligence and personality, without loss of meaning, and without error.

The point of VPI is to show how SPIRITUAL INTIMACY upgrades the soul such that a) the soul can actually cycle the thoughts of God, and b) can have RAPPORT with God.  The b) is the goal of the spiritual life.

Not much point in worship, if it's not based on rapport.  Worship would be what one WANTS to do, as a result of Love.  Not a mandate, but a privilege.  Then again, to kids one must give mandates, and when the kids grow up they realize those orders were privileges one lives for, and won't want to live without.
All_Brains

Re: 19:36

AhmedBahgat wrote:
All_Brains wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:


you didn't applogise regarding your ignroacce of the words Nijis and Rijsun



Why would he apologise Ahmed. I have responded to you regarding this with reference from the Quran and you have not commented!!!!

Najis = Physically dirty
Rijs = morally / spiritually corrupted


I guess you had it the other way around, it should be like this:


Najis = morally / spiritually corrupted
Rijs = Physically dirty


Ahmed

Before I show the evidence of your wrong interpretation from the Quran itself....please look up the final abrogated verse of abolishing alcohol and gambling....I am sure you know what I am talking about...

also, as a native Arabic speaker and Egyptian you should know why dogs noses are considered dirty in Islam...and ah...are they called rijs or najis???? The dogs that is!!!
All_Brains

brainout wrote:


The idea behind VPI is that God can communicate Himself, you can understand Him when He does, because He ENABLES you to do so.  Then, the writer is INSPIRED (enabled) to write out the complete, coherent, infallible message of God Himself using the writer's own intelligence and personality, without loss of meaning, and without error.


That's really ironic considering that God chose his last messenger to be an illiterate man who could not read or write!!!

It's recorded in the Islamic sirah and hadith that Muhammad had scribers and one of them, a Christian revert, converted back to Christianity as he thought Muhammad was very "flexible" when dictating the "literal" words of Allah to him!!! Laughing
brainout

LOL All-Brains.  ummiya, right?  (I don't remember the exact spelling of the Arabic word, just remember Baal and Ahmed going over it.)  UnScriptured, right?

To be honest, anyone can claim to be stating the Words of God.  There's this huge passage in Bible about that, in Jeremiah (great book to read, the sarcasm is scathing).  So here's how you tell a looney-tunes from a real prophet:  you can prove true what he says if God gave it to him.  Not saying it would be easy to prove true -- often the one trying to prove needs to be reading properly, first --  but it should be easy to prove false.

Case in point:  you know Book of Mormon is not from God, for the Holy Spirit would not do what's claimed of Him in 1 Nephi 4:6 and following, to murder someone, dress up in the victim's clothing, then God imitates the dead man's voice for purposes of STEALING from the victim, as well?  LOL.

Case in point:  you know Qu'ran is not from God, for "Allah" would not command you to go kill the disbelievers, especially since that violates the very Bible which Qu'ran claims to improve on.  For in the Bible, you are only to execute criminals (i.e., the child-burning Canaanites in the Land circa 1400BC).

Like-testing of the Bible is outside this thread, but of course the same testing rules would apply to it, and maybe especially to it.  Smile
Pazuzu bin Hanbi

All_Brains wrote:
It's recorded in the Islamic sirah and hadith that Muhammad had scribers and one of them, a Christian revert, converted back to Christianity as he thought Muhammad was very "flexible" when dictating the "literal" words of Allah to him!!! Laughing

Of course!

Check this out, for example:

Quote:
Volume 6, Book 61, Number 512:
Narrated Al-Bara:

There was revealed: 'Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and those who strive and fight in the Cause of Allah.' (4.95)

The Prophet said, "Call Zaid for me and let him bring the board, the inkpot and the scapula bone (or the scapula bone and the ink pot)."' Then he said, "Write: 'Not equal are those Believers who sit..", and at that time 'Amr bin Um Maktum, the blind man was sitting behind the Prophet . He said, "O Allah's Apostle! What is your order For me (as regards the above Verse) as I am a blind man?" So, instead of the above Verse, the following Verse was revealed:

'Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame etc.) and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah.' (4.95)

So a blind man complains and god suddenly sends a changed verse?
brainout

Wow, contrast that with this passage in Bible:  
New American Standard Bible wrote:
1 Samuel 30:23-25  23 Then David said, "You must not do so, my brothers, with what the LORD has given us, who has kept us and delivered into our hand the band that came against us.  24 "And who will listen to you in this matter? For as his share is who goes down to the battle, so shall his share be who stays by the baggage; they shall share alike."  25 So it has been from that day forward, that he made it a statute and an ordinance for Israel to this day.


How petty of Mo, reversing what David set up, yet lauding David in Qu'ran?  LOL.  Ok, "12 Monkeys" is coming on cable, I wanna watch it, good bye!
Pazuzu bin Hanbi

AMAZING film. What did you think of it?
David

Re: 19:36

Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
According to Islamic doctrine, every single word in the Qur’an apparently came to Muhammad from Allah, who then recited it all ad verbatim. What then, explains this passage in the surah called Maryam?

God is my Lord and your Lord, so serve Him: that is a straight path.”

God has now called God his Lord? And to show I haven’t taken it out of context, the previous ayah simply mentions that God wouldn’t have a child, and 19:36 does not start with the word QUL (= say), which a fair few passages do to denote that Allah has instructed Muhammad to recite a specific phrase.


“Truly, God is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him (alone).  This is the straight path.” (Quran 3:51)

These are the words attributed to "Isa" in the Quran.  Notice "alone" is not in the original Arabic text and has been added.

Of course Jesus Christ never said that, although it looks like some kind of a knock-off of a passage in the Gospel of John.
Mutley

Re: 19:36

David wrote:
Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
According to Islamic doctrine, every single word in the Qur’an apparently came to Muhammad from Allah, who then recited it all ad verbatim. What then, explains this passage in the surah called Maryam?

God is my Lord and your Lord, so serve Him: that is a straight path.”

God has now called God his Lord? And to show I haven’t taken it out of context, the previous ayah simply mentions that God wouldn’t have a child, and 19:36 does not start with the word QUL (= say), which a fair few passages do to denote that Allah has instructed Muhammad to recite a specific phrase.


“Truly, God is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him (alone).  This is the straight path.” (Quran 3:51)

These are the words attributed to "Isa" in the Quran.  Notice "alone" is not in the original Arabic text and has been added.

Of course Jesus Christ never said that, although it looks like some kind of a knock-off of a passage in the Gospel of John.


It's just inventing quotes in order to artificially support Muhammad's legitimacy. An interesting part is when the Quran quotes Jesus talking in the cradle. Curiously enough, he uses very common verbage found in the Quran that is rarely found in the NT, if at all. For example, the word "enjoined". It's not too difficult to see who wrote that "supposed" quote.
Mutley

All_Brains wrote:


It's recorded in the Islamic sirah and hadith that Muhammad had scribers and one of them, a Christian revert, converted back to Christianity as he thought Muhammad was very "flexible" when dictating the "literal" words of Allah to him!!! Laughing


That is entirely correct. There were three different scribes that left him. In this particular case, the scribe claimed that Muhammad would tell him what to write, and sometimes the scribe would know a better way to say the sentence, and Muhammad would accept his recommendations. The only answer that Muslims have for the strange occurrence is that the scribe converted back to Islam later. Of course, what they won't tell you is, that the scribe didn't convert back until the Muslims conquered Mecca, where he was living. Read between the lines
David

Re: 19:36

Mutley wrote:
David wrote:
Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
According to Islamic doctrine, every single word in the Qur’an apparently came to Muhammad from Allah, who then recited it all ad verbatim. What then, explains this passage in the surah called Maryam?

God is my Lord and your Lord, so serve Him: that is a straight path.”

God has now called God his Lord? And to show I haven’t taken it out of context, the previous ayah simply mentions that God wouldn’t have a child, and 19:36 does not start with the word QUL (= say), which a fair few passages do to denote that Allah has instructed Muhammad to recite a specific phrase.


“Truly, God is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him (alone).  This is the straight path.” (Quran 3:51)

These are the words attributed to "Isa" in the Quran.  Notice "alone" is not in the original Arabic text and has been added.

Of course Jesus Christ never said that, although it looks like some kind of a knock-off of a passage in the Gospel of John.


It's just inventing quotes in order to artificially support Muhammad's legitimacy. An interesting part is when the Quran quotes Jesus talking in the cradle. Curiously enough, he uses very common verbage found in the Quran that is rarely found in the NT, if at all. For example, the word "enjoined". It's not too difficult to see who wrote that "supposed" quote.


Jesus speaking in the cradle is a weird story.  I know where it comes from.  The clay birds that fly is another weird one and I know where that one comes from too.  Apparently these stories were flying around Mecca during the period of Muhammad and he thought they were true and used them as if they were.

I once wanted to do a comparison of how God spoke in the Old Testament and how Allah spoke in the Quran in order to compare the differences.  I never got around to it, but it is obvious that they communicated differently, so my conclusion is that they are not the same God.
BMZ

Re: 19:36

Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
God has now called God his Lord?


How did you conclude that God had called God his Lord?  Laughing Which verse gave you that impression?

Is Jesus the Almighty God in your view?  

BMZ
BMZ

Re: 19:36

David wrote:
Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
According to Islamic doctrine, every single word in the Qur’an apparently came to Muhammad from Allah, who then recited it all ad verbatim. What then, explains this passage in the surah called Maryam?

God is my Lord and your Lord, so serve Him: that is a straight path.”

God has now called God his Lord? And to show I haven’t taken it out of context, the previous ayah simply mentions that God wouldn’t have a child, and 19:36 does not start with the word QUL (= say), which a fair few passages do to denote that Allah has instructed Muhammad to recite a specific phrase.


“Truly, God is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him (alone).  This is the straight path.” (Quran 3:51)

These are the words attributed to "Isa" in the Quran.  Notice "alone" is not in the original Arabic text and has been added.

Of course Jesus Christ never said that, although it looks like some kind of a knock-off of a passage in the Gospel of John.


Greetings & Welcome, David

The word, "alone" in English, is a translator's choice. It has been added in English translations to explain that one should worship God alone. The word "alone" can also be replaced by "only".

Of course Jesus never said anywhere that he was God. I think this verse knocks off the doubter Thomas' remark in John 20:28"Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" "  

Jesus, himself, never said or uttered that he was the Lord and the God. Nowhere do we find him saying so in the gospels or the NT.

However, the most important verse, after the Shema declared by Moses and repeated by Jesus, is John 17:3 which clearly knocks off all other verses by John in clarifying that Jesus was not God.


John 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

John 17:3 clearly mentions that the true God sent Jesus. It does not say that God sent God or Himself.

Cheers

BMZ
BMZ

Re: 19:36

David wrote:
Jesus speaking in the cradle is a weird story.  I know where it comes from.  The clay birds that fly is another weird one and I know where that one comes from too.  Apparently these stories were flying around Mecca during the period of Muhammad and he thought they were true and used them as if they were.


Almost all the stories, in the New Testament, are weird anyway. How weirder can it get if he made birds out of clay and spoke when he was an infant?

He could perform miracles. Right? There was no prophecy that the child born to the virgin would perform miracles only when he was thirty.

If God could make Balaam's donkey speak, why could not God make Jesus speak as an infant to clear his mother's name and lecture people to let them know who he was?  

BMZ
Pazuzu bin Hanbi

Re: 19:36

David wrote:
Jesus speaking in the cradle is a weird story.  I know where it comes from.  The clay birds that fly is another weird one and I know where that one comes from too.

Infancy Gospel of Thomas, by any chance?
David

Re: 19:36

Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
David wrote:
Jesus speaking in the cradle is a weird story.  I know where it comes from.  The clay birds that fly is another weird one and I know where that one comes from too.

Infancy Gospel of Thomas, by any chance?


Yes.  You know what "Jesus" actually said in that book, don't you?  Seems what he said was changed into a more "Islamic" statement.
David

Re: 19:36

[quote="BMZ"]
David wrote:
Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
According to Islamic doctrine, every single word in the Qur’an apparently came to Muhammad from Allah, who then recited it all ad verbatim. What then, explains this passage in the surah called Maryam?

God is my Lord and your Lord, so serve Him: that is a straight path.”

God has now called God his Lord? And to show I haven’t taken it out of context, the previous ayah simply mentions that God wouldn’t have a child, and 19:36 does not start with the word QUL (= say), which a fair few passages do to denote that Allah has instructed Muhammad to recite a specific phrase.


“Truly, God is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him (alone).  This is the straight path.” (Quran 3:51)

These are the words attributed to "Isa" in the Quran.  Notice "alone" is not in the original Arabic text and has been added.

Of course Jesus Christ never said that, although it looks like some kind of a knock-off of a passage in the Gospel of John.


BMZ wrote:


Greetings & Welcome, David

The word, "alone" in English, is a translator's choice. It has been added in English translations to explain that one should worship God alone. The word "alone" can also be replaced by "only".


Makes no difference.  A word was added that is not in the text.

BMZ wrote:


Of course Jesus never said anywhere that he was God. I think this verse knocks off the doubter Thomas' remark in John 20:28"Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" "  


No, it doesn't.  Thomas clearly realized that Jesus was his Lord and his God.

BMZ wrote:


Jesus, himself, never said or uttered that he was the Lord and the God. Nowhere do we find him saying so in the gospels or the NT.  


You call me Teacher and Lord - and you are right, for that is what I am. (John 13:13)

Jesus claimed deity.  No doubt about it.  The Jews understood Jesus' claims.

BMZ wrote:


However, the most important verse, after the Shema declared by Moses and repeated by Jesus, is John 17:3 which clearly knocks off all other verses by John in clarifying that Jesus was not God.


John 17:3 does no such thing.

BMZ wrote:


John 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.


According to Jesus, can you have eternal knowing only the Father?  Yes or no?

BMZ wrote:


[i]John 17:3 clearly mentions that the true God sent Jesus. It does not say that God sent God or Himself. Cheers BMZ  


The Father did send his Messiah.  Read John 1.  Jesus is the Word of God incarnate.

Also, read John 17:5 where Jesus claims he is eternal.  Who is eternal but God?
David

Re: 19:36

BMZ wrote:
David wrote:
Jesus speaking in the cradle is a weird story.  I know where it comes from.  The clay birds that fly is another weird one and I know where that one comes from too.  Apparently these stories were flying around Mecca during the period of Muhammad and he thought they were true and used them as if they were.


Almost all the stories, in the New Testament, are weird anyway. How weirder can it get if he made birds out of clay and spoke when he was an infant?  


The fact is it isn't true.  These thoughts came out of the imagination of the writer.  If they had been true, they would have been noted in the New Testament.

BMZ wrote:


He could perform miracles. Right? There was no prophecy that the child born to the virgin would perform miracles only when he was thirty.  


The fact is the stories are not true.  If Jesus had performed miracles as a child they would have been for a purpose.  Performing miracles as a child served no purpose.

BMZ wrote:


If God could make Balaam's donkey speak, why could not God make Jesus speak as an infant to clear his mother's name and lecture people to let them know who he was?  

BMZ


God can do anything, but Jesus did not perform miracles as a child.  God made sure Jesus had a normal childhood.  His miracles started when he began his ministry at the age of 30.

I see your problem though.  The Quran includes these fanciful stories and you need some way to justify them.
Fathom

Re: 19:36

David wrote:
BMZ wrote:
David wrote:
Jesus speaking in the cradle is a weird story.  I know where it comes from.  The clay birds that fly is another weird one and I know where that one comes from too.  Apparently these stories were flying around Mecca during the period of Muhammad and he thought they were true and used them as if they were.


Almost all the stories, in the New Testament, are weird anyway. How weirder can it get if he made birds out of clay and spoke when he was an infant?  


The fact is it isn't true.  These thoughts came out of the imagination of the writer.  If they had been true, they would have been noted in the New Testament.

BMZ wrote:


He could perform miracles. Right? There was no prophecy that the child born to the virgin would perform miracles only when he was thirty.  


The fact is the stories are not true.  If Jesus had performed miracles as a child they would have been for a purpose.  Performing miracles as a child served no purpose.

BMZ wrote:


If God could make Balaam's donkey speak, why could not God make Jesus speak as an infant to clear his mother's name and lecture people to let them know who he was?  

BMZ


God can do anything, but Jesus did not perform miracles as a child.  God made sure Jesus had a normal childhood.  His miracles started when he began his ministry at the age of 30.

I see your problem though.  The Quran includes these fanciful stories and you need some way to justify them.


Actually, Muhammad got his information regarding the clay birds from the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew which had been translated into early Arabic just a few years before Muhammad began his religion.

This particular gospel was written at least 300 years before the time of Muhammad, and then was translated into the Arabic Infancy Gospel just before Muhammad began his religion.

In the Arabic Infancy Gospel we read the following regarding Jesus from chapter 36:


Quote:
And He had made figures of birds and sparrows, which flew when He told them to fly, and stood still when He told them to stand, and ate and drank when He handed them food and drink. After the boys had gone away and told this to their parents, their fathers said to them: My sons, take care not to keep company with him again, for he is a wizard: flee from him, therefore, and avoid him, and do not play with him again after this.


The above came from the earlier Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew which says in in chapter 27 regarding Jesus:

Quote:
And it came to pass, after these things, that in the sight of all Jesus took clay froth the pools which He had made, and of it made twelve sparrows. And it was the Sabbath when Jesus did this, and there were very many children with Him.

When, therefore, one of the Jews had seen Him doing this, he said to Joseph: Joseph, dost thou not see the child Jesus working on the Sabbath at what it is not lawful for him to do? for he has made twelve sparrows of clay. And when Joseph heard this, he reproved him, saying: Wherefore doest thou on the Sabbath such things as are not lawful for us to do? And when Jesus heard Joseph, He struck His hands together, and said to His sparrows: Fly! And at the voice of His command they began to fly.


Upon reading either of these early Christian works we can also see where Muhammad got much of his information. Since we know that Catholicism was the ruling Christian sect at the time of Muhammad, and all other Christian sects were persecuted by the Catholics, we also know that the biblical gospels were not available to just anyone but almost exclusively only to Christian clergy. The biblical gospels were written in Latin at the time of Muhammad, and stayed that way until the 15th century, with only Christian priests having the authority and knowledge to read from them.

As a result of this exclusion, many pseudo gospels were written and were spread around the land, including the two aforementioned gospels. The narrative of the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew is prefaced by a series of letters between the early Church father Jerome and the Bishops Comatius and Heliodorus. In these letters the Bishops request that Jerome translate a "Hebrew volume, written by the hand of the most blessed Evangelist Matthew," concerning the birth of the virgin mother and the infancy of Jesus.

If you noticed, I underlined the words "Hebrew volume" to illustrate a very important forthcoming point. Listed below are two Hadiths regarding Muhammad and his uncle:


Quote:
Narrated 'Aisha: Volume 4, Book 55, Number 605: Sahih Al-Bukhari

The Prophet returned to Khadija while his heart was beating rapidly. She took him to Waraqa bin Naufal who was a Christian convert and used to read the Gospel in Arabic …”


As you can see above, Waraqa bin Naufal used to read the Gospel in Arabic. How did he get a gospel in Arabic? That is answered in another Hadith:

Quote:
Narrated 'Aisha: Volume 1, Book 1, Number 3: Sahih Al-Bukhari

Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, who, during the pre-Islamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as Allah wished him to write.


The only gospels that would have been available to Waraqa would have been those which had not been included into the biblical canon, and none of the biblical gospels existed in Hebrew at the time of Muhammad.

The only known Hebrew Gospel from that time period is indeed the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, and as you can see, Waraqa was translating this Hebrew gospel into Arabic. This translated Gospel is most likely the Arabic Infancy Gospel, and Waraqa is the most likely author.

So here we have Muhammad's uncle writing from the Hebrew gospel and translating it into Arabic, and within the Quran we see the very evidence of this gospel.

This is not a matter of disputing the origins of the Quran but instead it is documented history from both Christian and Islamic sources, and we cannot change history.

Welcome to the truth.
David

Re: 19:36

Fathom wrote:
David wrote:
BMZ wrote:
David wrote:
Jesus speaking in the cradle is a weird story.  I know where it comes from.  The clay birds that fly is another weird one and I know where that one comes from too.  Apparently these stories were flying around Mecca during the period of Muhammad and he thought they were true and used them as if they were.


Almost all the stories, in the New Testament, are weird anyway. How weirder can it get if he made birds out of clay and spoke when he was an infant?  


The fact is it isn't true.  These thoughts came out of the imagination of the writer.  If they had been true, they would have been noted in the New Testament.

BMZ wrote:


He could perform miracles. Right? There was no prophecy that the child born to the virgin would perform miracles only when he was thirty.  


The fact is the stories are not true.  If Jesus had performed miracles as a child they would have been for a purpose.  Performing miracles as a child served no purpose.

BMZ wrote:


If God could make Balaam's donkey speak, why could not God make Jesus speak as an infant to clear his mother's name and lecture people to let them know who he was?  

BMZ


God can do anything, but Jesus did not perform miracles as a child.  God made sure Jesus had a normal childhood.  His miracles started when he began his ministry at the age of 30.

I see your problem though.  The Quran includes these fanciful stories and you need some way to justify them.


Actually, Muhammad got his information regarding the clay birds from the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew which had been translated into early Arabic just a few years before Muhammad began his religion.

This particular gospel was written at least 300 years before the time of Muhammad, and then was translated into the Arabic Infancy Gospel just before Muhammad began his religion.

In the Arabic Infancy Gospel we read the following regarding Jesus from chapter 36:


Quote:
And He had made figures of birds and sparrows, which flew when He told them to fly, and stood still when He told them to stand, and ate and drank when He handed them food and drink. After the boys had gone away and told this to their parents, their fathers said to them: My sons, take care not to keep company with him again, for he is a wizard: flee from him, therefore, and avoid him, and do not play with him again after this.


The above came from the earlier Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew which says in in chapter 27 regarding Jesus:

Quote:
And it came to pass, after these things, that in the sight of all Jesus took clay froth the pools which He had made, and of it made twelve sparrows. And it was the Sabbath when Jesus did this, and there were very many children with Him.

When, therefore, one of the Jews had seen Him doing this, he said to Joseph: Joseph, dost thou not see the child Jesus working on the Sabbath at what it is not lawful for him to do? for he has made twelve sparrows of clay. And when Joseph heard this, he reproved him, saying: Wherefore doest thou on the Sabbath such things as are not lawful for us to do? And when Jesus heard Joseph, He struck His hands together, and said to His sparrows: Fly! And at the voice of His command they began to fly.


Upon reading either of these early Christian works we can also see where Muhammad got much of his information. Since we know that Catholicism was the ruling Christian sect at the time of Muhammad, and all other Christian sects were persecuted by the Catholics, we also know that the biblical gospels were not available to just anyone but almost exclusively only to Christian clergy. The biblical gospels were written in Latin at the time of Muhammad, and stayed that way until the 15th century, with only Christian priests having the authority and knowledge to read from them.

As a result of this exclusion, many pseudo gospels were written and were spread around the land, including the two aforementioned gospels. The narrative of the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew is prefaced by a series of letters between the early Church father Jerome and the Bishops Comatius and Heliodorus. In these letters the Bishops request that Jerome translate a "Hebrew volume, written by the hand of the most blessed Evangelist Matthew," concerning the birth of the virgin mother and the infancy of Jesus.

If you noticed, I underlined the words "Hebrew volume" to illustrate a very important forthcoming point. Listed below are two Hadiths regarding Muhammad and his uncle:


Quote:
Narrated 'Aisha: Volume 4, Book 55, Number 605: Sahih Al-Bukhari

The Prophet returned to Khadija while his heart was beating rapidly. She took him to Waraqa bin Naufal who was a Christian convert and used to read the Gospel in Arabic …”


As you can see above, Waraqa bin Naufal used to read the Gospel in Arabic. How did he get a gospel in Arabic? That is answered in another Hadith:

Quote:
Narrated 'Aisha: Volume 1, Book 1, Number 3: Sahih Al-Bukhari

Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, who, during the pre-Islamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as Allah wished him to write.


The only gospels that would have been available to Waraqa would have been those which had not been included into the biblical canon, and none of the biblical gospels existed in Hebrew at the time of Muhammad.

The only known Hebrew Gospel from that time period is indeed the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, and as you can see, Waraqa was translating this Hebrew gospel into Arabic. This translated Gospel is most likely the Arabic Infancy Gospel, and Waraqa is the most likely author.

So here we have Muhammad's uncle writing from the Hebrew gospel and translating it into Arabic, and within the Quran we see the very evidence of this gospel.

This is not a matter of disputing the origins of the Quran but instead it is documented history from both Christian and Islamic sources, and we cannot change history.

Welcome to the truth.


Thank you.  I have read some of these books.  One is "The First Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ."  It was noted as the one Muhammad used.  It is the one where Jesus speaks from the cradle.  

Another one is: "Thomas's Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ" and this is the one that has Jesus making the clay birds that fly.  It was originally written in Greek.

I haven't read the "The Narrative of the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew," although it sure rings a bell.

Do you know what form of Christianity Waraqa bin Naufal practiced?
Mutley

Re: 19:36

BMZ wrote:
David wrote:
Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
According to Islamic doctrine, every single word in the Qur’an apparently came to Muhammad from Allah, who then recited it all ad verbatim. What then, explains this passage in the surah called Maryam?

God is my Lord and your Lord, so serve Him: that is a straight path.”

God has now called God his Lord? And to show I haven’t taken it out of context, the previous ayah simply mentions that God wouldn’t have a child, and 19:36 does not start with the word QUL (= say), which a fair few passages do to denote that Allah has instructed Muhammad to recite a specific phrase.


“Truly, God is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him (alone).  This is the straight path.” (Quran 3:51)

These are the words attributed to "Isa" in the Quran.  Notice "alone" is not in the original Arabic text and has been added.

Of course Jesus Christ never said that, although it looks like some kind of a knock-off of a passage in the Gospel of John.


Greetings & Welcome, David

The word, "alone" in English, is a translator's choice. It has been added in English translations to explain that one should worship God alone. The word "alone" can also be replaced by "only".

Of course Jesus never said anywhere that he was God. I think this verse knocks off the doubter Thomas' remark in John 20:28"Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" "  

Jesus, himself, never said or uttered that he was the Lord and the God. Nowhere do we find him saying so in the gospels or the NT.

However, the most important verse, after the Shema declared by Moses and repeated by Jesus, is John 17:3 which clearly knocks off all other verses by John in clarifying that Jesus was not God.


John 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

John 17:3 clearly mentions that the true God sent Jesus. It does not say that God sent God or Himself.

Cheers

BMZ


You missed the point. He was talking about the Quranic account being a knockoff, possibly, from John, as this was his first guess. Then, you take his unimportant guess and try to spin the topic of conversation over to whether Jesus was divine or not. Nice try. Busted. Quit it, it's annoying and disingenuous. You're not as bright as you think you are. Try to understand that and quit wasting your's and our time.

Now, the other posters are correct. It came from the sources they cited. Generally speaking, it falls into the category of the Gnostics. Muhammad's understanding of Christianity came from the Gnostics to a certain degree.
BMZ

Re: 19:36

BMZ wrote:
The word, "alone" in English, is a translator's choice. It has been added in English translations to explain that one should worship God alone. The word "alone" can also be replaced by "only".


David wrote:
Makes no difference.  A word was added that is not in the text.


[i]Was the word 'alone' added in the Arabic text of Qur'aan? Did you find that something new and foreign to the New Testament? You find the same thing done in the gospels.
Laughing

BMZ wrote:
Of course Jesus never said anywhere that he was God. I think this verse knocks off the doubter Thomas' remark in John 20:28"Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" "  


David wrote:
No, it doesn't.  Thomas clearly realized that Jesus was his Lord and his God.


Don't chery-pick a verse, which has no precedence, no proof and sounds silly.

Look at this passage: 12When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. "Do you understand what I have done for you?" he asked them. 13"You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet."

Thus Jesus clearly tells us that his disciples knew very well how to address him and also knew well who is was. So, they knew him only as their "Teacher and Lord". This Lord has nothing to do with the LORD Almighty.

Thus the statement from the famous DT "My Lord and my God" is a forgery in the mishmash of John's gospel.


BMZ wrote:
Jesus, himself, never said or uttered that he was the Lord and the God. Nowhere do we find him saying so in the gospels or the NT.  


David wrote:
You call me Teacher and Lord - and you are right, for that is what I am. (John 13:13)

Jesus claimed deity.  No doubt about it.  The Jews understood Jesus' claims.


Saying that Jesus claimed divinity is meaningless and is just a post-Jesus innovation. You have to see if the man declared any divinity or not himself. It is a very poor cop out. Laughing

BMZ wrote:
However, the most important verse, after the Shema declared by Moses and repeated by Jesus, is John 17:3 which clearly knocks off all other verses by John in clarifying that Jesus was not God.


David wrote:
John 17:3 does no such thing.


Don't try to be evasive. Explain please. The one-liner does not clarify anything.

BMZ wrote:
John 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.


David wrote:
According to Jesus, can you have eternal knowing only the Father?  Yes or no?


Anyone can have eternal life without knowing Jesus, as long as one knows and believes in God Almighty. Eternal life was known to people before Jesus. It is nothing new. The message in John 17:3 is that Jesus wants people to know the true God. Eternal life did not end with Jesus. I have already made taht easy for you in my quote below.  

BMZ wrote:
John 17:3 clearly mentions that the true God sent Jesus. It does not say that God sent God or Himself. Cheers BMZ  


David wrote:
The Father did send his Messiah.  Read John 1.  Jesus is the Word of God incarnate.

Also, read John 17:5 where Jesus claims he is eternal.  Who is eternal but God?


The Father sent quite a few of his Messiahs to the Jews. Jesus was not the only one. John 17:5 is another claim of John's. Do you seriously believe that John1:1-14 are the sayings direct from the mouth of Jesus? That is John's own spin.

BMZ
BMZ

Re: 19:36

BMZ wrote:
David wrote:
Pazuzu bin Hanbi wrote:
According to Islamic doctrine, every single word in the Qur’an apparently came to Muhammad from Allah, who then recited it all ad verbatim. What then, explains this passage in the surah called Maryam?

God is my Lord and your Lord, so serve Him: that is a straight path.”

God has now called God his Lord? And to show I haven’t taken it out of context, the previous ayah simply mentions that God wouldn’t have a child, and 19:36 does not start with the word QUL (= say), which a fair few passages do to denote that Allah has instructed Muhammad to recite a specific phrase.


“Truly, God is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him (alone).  This is the straight path.” (Quran 3:51)

These are the words attributed to "Isa" in the Quran.  Notice "alone" is not in the original Arabic text and has been added.

Of course Jesus Christ never said that, although it looks like some kind of a knock-off of a passage in the Gospel of John.


Greetings & Welcome, David

The word, "alone" in English, is a translator's choice. It has been added in English translations to explain that one should worship God alone. The word "alone" can also be replaced by "only".

Of course Jesus never said anywhere that he was God. I think this verse knocks off the doubter Thomas' remark in John 20:28"Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" "  

Jesus, himself, never said or uttered that he was the Lord and the God. Nowhere do we find him saying so in the gospels or the NT.

However, the most important verse, after the Shema declared by Moses and repeated by Jesus, is John 17:3 which clearly knocks off all other verses by John in clarifying that Jesus was not God.


John 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.

John 17:3 clearly mentions that the true God sent Jesus. It does not say that God sent God or Himself.

Cheers

BMZ


Mutley wrote:
You missed the point. He was talking about the Quranic account being a knockoff, possibly, from John, as this was his first guess. Then, you take his unimportant guess and try to spin the topic of conversation over to whether Jesus was divine or not. Nice try. Busted. Quit it, it's annoying and disingenuous. You're not as bright as you think you are. Try to understand that and quit wasting your's and our time.


For your information, Qur'aan has no hocus pocus or any mishmash taken from John or any other gospels. There is no Paul, no Matthew, no Mark, no Luke and no John in it.  Laughing

Could you avoid personal attacks? I don't like people who behave like the self-loathing sinner Paul.
Mutley

Fine, at least we are sticking with the point of the conversation. Now the other users here have done an effective and convincing job showing where these ideas such as Jesus the talking baby originally came from. and they are right. Read the scriptures that they suggest and you'll see it all right there.

But I would also like to raise a point of common sense logic for a moment. According to the more accepted, more mainstream canonized versions of Jesus, Jesus did not perform any miracles until he was around 30. There is, however, a story of Jesus staying behind at the temple and John and Mary losing him, and he speaking to all of the Rabbis in the temple when he was 12 and them being amazed at his knowledge. But he wasn't performing miracles for these Rabbis. But if he was doing all of these things that the Gospel of Infancy suggested at a young age, which was subsequently picked up and used by Muhammad, then he surely would have performed miracles in front of the Rabbis. If he was performing miracles in front of the other mere neighborhood kids, then surely he would have performed miracles for the Rabbis as well. But apparently, he didn't.

But it gets even more nonsensical. The parents told their kids not to play with Jesus anymore, but nobody outside of these kids and parents ever found out about the miraculous talking baby and the little kid who makes living birds from clay? Nobody couldn't resist telling someone? Oh come on, the King would have eventually known. "Bring me the talking Baby". People don't see things like this and then just shut up about them. In fact, according to what I believe to be the logical, plausible and legitimate account, the first time Jesus performed a miracle for the blind guy, he told the guy not to tell anybody. Now obviously, this guy owes Jesus big time, so you would think that he would at least honor Jesus' request. But he didn't, he was so amazed and overjoyed that he couldn't keep quiet about it. Makes perfect sense to me.

And on a last logical note, if one recognizes the underlying spirit or general message of the NT, they will see this problem in two seconds. Jesus never performed a miracle unless he was trying to help someone in some way. Have you ever noticed that across the board consistency? But in the Gospels of Infancy, Jesus performs miracles that help no one, and there really doesn't seem to be any strong underlying reason for him doing these. The person who create the Gospel of Infancy didn't recognize this flaw in his logic, because he didn't recognize what Jesus was doing. He failed to make the connection between the miracle, and the help that it did someone. That was his fatal flaw, and of course, seeing the holes in the logic, one could never, nor should ever canonize it. It becomes creative rubbish.

So the Gospel of Infancy, upon logical examination just doesn't add up. And people back then weren't stupid in terms of logic. They probably saw the same holes that I just identified in the stories, and this could be one of many reasons that they were never canonized.

But Muhammad didn't see this hole. He thought he was recounting true stories of Jesus, stories from books that weren't considered legitimate, probably for reasons mentioned above, and a whole host of others. So Muhammad was being fed the wrong stuff, but he didn't realize that.
David

Re: 19:36

BMZ wrote:
BMZ wrote:
The word, "alone" in English, is a translator's choice. It has been added in English translations to explain that one should worship God alone. The word "alone" can also be replaced by "only".


David wrote:
Makes no difference.  A word was added that is not in the text.


[i]Was the word 'alone' added in the Arabic text of Qur'aan? Did you find that something new and foreign to the New Testament? You find the same thing done in the gospels.
Laughing

BMZ wrote:
Of course Jesus never said anywhere that he was God. I think this verse knocks off the doubter Thomas' remark in John 20:28"Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" "


David wrote:
No, it doesn't.  Thomas clearly realized that Jesus was his Lord and his God.


Don't chery-pick a verse, which has no precedence, no proof and sounds silly.

Look at this passage: 12When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. "Do you understand what I have done for you?" he asked them. 13"You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet."

Thus Jesus clearly tells us that his disciples knew very well how to address him and also knew well who is was. So, they knew him only as their "Teacher and Lord". This Lord has nothing to do with the LORD Almighty.

Thus the statement from the famous DT "My Lord and my God" is a forgery in the mishmash of John's gospel.


BMZ wrote:
Jesus, himself, never said or uttered that he was the Lord and the God. Nowhere do we find him saying so in the gospels or the NT.


David wrote:
You call me Teacher and Lord - and you are right, for that is what I am. (John 13:13)

Jesus claimed deity.  No doubt about it.  The Jews understood Jesus' claims.


Saying that Jesus claimed divinity is meaningless and is just a post-Jesus innovation. You have to see if the man declared any divinity or not himself. It is a very poor cop out. Laughing

BMZ wrote:
However, the most important verse, after the Shema declared by Moses and repeated by Jesus, is John 17:3 which clearly knocks off all other verses by John in clarifying that Jesus was not God.


David wrote:
John 17:3 does no such thing.


Don't try to be evasive. Explain please. The one-liner does not clarify anything.

BMZ wrote:
John 17:3 Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.


David wrote:
According to Jesus, can you have eternal knowing only the Father?  Yes or no?


Anyone can have eternal life without knowing Jesus, as long as one knows and believes in God Almighty. Eternal life was known to people before Jesus. It is nothing new. The message in John 17:3 is that Jesus wants people to know the true God. Eternal life did not end with Jesus. I have already made taht easy for you in my quote below.  

BMZ wrote:
John 17:3 clearly mentions that the true God sent Jesus. It does not say that God sent God or Himself. Cheers BMZ


David wrote:
The Father did send his Messiah.  Read John 1.  Jesus is the Word of God incarnate.

Also, read John 17:5 where Jesus claims he is eternal.  Who is eternal but God?


The Father sent quite a few of his Messiahs to the Jews. Jesus was not the only one. John 17:5 is another claim of John's. Do you seriously believe that John1:1-14 are the sayings direct from the mouth of Jesus? That is John's own spin.

BMZ


Mutley is right.  This thread is about the Quran and you have tried to steer it elsewhere.

I'll leave you with something to think about.  I asked you:

According to Jesus, (in John 17:3) can you have eternal life knowing only the Father?  Yes or no?

And you replied:

Anyone can have eternal life without knowing Jesus, as long as one knows and believes in God Almighty.

I didn't ask your opinion, I asked you "according to Jesus."   Jesus is saying that in order to have eternal life you must know the Father and   Jesus the Messiah, the Son of God.

Your answer is wrong according to what Jesus said.

But, as I said this subject is off-topic for this thread.
David

Mutley wrote:
Fine, at least we are sticking with the point of the conversation. Now the other users here have done an effective and convincing job showing where these ideas such as Jesus the talking baby originally came from. and they are right. Read the scriptures that they suggest and you'll see it all right there.

But I would also like to raise a point of common sense logic for a moment. According to the more accepted, more mainstream canonized versions of Jesus, Jesus did not perform any miracles until he was around 30. There is, however, a story of Jesus staying behind at the temple and John and Mary losing him, and he speaking to all of the Rabbis in the temple when he was 12 and them being amazed at his knowledge. But he wasn't performing miracles for these Rabbis. But if he was doing all of these things that the Gospel of Infancy suggested at a young age, which was subsequently picked up and used by Muhammad, then he surely would have performed miracles in front of the Rabbis. If he was performing miracles in front of the other mere neighborhood kids, then surely he would have performed miracles for the Rabbis as well. But apparently, he didn't.

But it gets even more nonsensical. The parents told their kids not to play with Jesus anymore, but nobody outside of these kids and parents ever found out about the miraculous talking baby and the little kid who makes living birds from clay? Nobody couldn't resist telling someone? Oh come on, the King would have eventually known. "Bring me the talking Baby". People don't see things like this and then just shut up about them. In fact, according to what I believe to be the logical, plausible and legitimate account, the first time Jesus performed a miracle for the blind guy, he told the guy not to tell anybody. Now obviously, this guy owes Jesus big time, so you would think that he would at least honor Jesus' request. But he didn't, he was so amazed and overjoyed that he couldn't keep quiet about it. Makes perfect sense to me.

And on a last logical note, if one recognizes the underlying spirit or general message of the NT, they will see this problem in two seconds. Jesus never performed a miracle unless he was trying to help someone in some way. Have you ever noticed that across the board consistency? But in the Gospels of Infancy, Jesus performs miracles that help no one, and there really doesn't seem to be any strong underlying reason for him doing these. The person who create the Gospel of Infancy didn't recognize this flaw in his logic, because he didn't recognize what Jesus was doing. He failed to make the connection between the miracle, and the help that it did someone. That was his fatal flaw, and of course, seeing the holes in the logic, one could never, nor should ever canonize it. It becomes creative rubbish.

So the Gospel of Infancy, upon logical examination just doesn't add up. And people back then weren't stupid in terms of logic. They probably saw the same holes that I just identified in the stories, and this could be one of many reasons that they were never canonized.

But Muhammad didn't see this hole. He thought he was recounting true stories of Jesus, stories from books that weren't considered legitimate, probably for reasons mentioned above, and a whole host of others. So Muhammad was being fed the wrong stuff, but he didn't realize that.


I agree with your logic.

I think the writers of the infancy gospels tried to imagine what Jesus would have been like as a child.  Making clay birds that flew is similar to God forming man out of "clay."  What God could do, so could Jesus.   They both created life from nothing.  The writer probably believed in the divinity of Jesus.

If you had a baby who could talk that baby would be the talk of the town.  No one could keep that quiet.

According to the infancy gospel Jesus' first words were:

"Mary, I am Jesus the Son of God, that word which thou didst bring forth according to the declaration of the angel Gabriel to thee, and my father hath sent me for the salvation of the world."

Muhammad had to change this account.  He was very clever.

These stories in the Quran are glaring proof that the Quran is the man-made invention of Muhammad.
Fathom

David wrote:
These stories in the Quran are glaring proof that the Quran is the man-made invention of Muhammad.


The very reason we do not find any canonical references to Jesus in the Quran is for precisely the reason that I outlined in my previous post; Muhammad could not read Latin, nor could anyone he knew. The Oldest Arabic Bible, the Mt. Sinai Arabic Codex 151 dates to the late 9th century, more than 200 years following the death of Muhammad.

Muhammad was clearly an avid student of Judaism, as much of the Quran details and rehashes many of the stories from the Torah. The area where Muhammad lived was saturated with Jews as illustrated by the Sunnah, Hadith, and Quran. Muhammad wanted desperately to be a prophet, and thus used Jewish scripture as the basis for his Islamic religion.

But the type of Christianity that Muhammad understood and agreed with for the most part was not Catholicism, but apostolic & gnosticism. Muhammad was not so much anti-Christianity, but instead, was anti-Catholicism. The evidence of this is glaringly obvious in the Quran where Muhammad makes the following references:


5.116: GOD will say, "O Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to the people, `Make me and my mother idols beside GOD?' " He will say, "Be You glorified. I could not utter what was not right. Had I said it, You already would have known it. You know my thoughts, and I do not know Your thoughts. You know all the secrets.

As many Christians are aware, it is Catholicism which encourages their worshipers to pray to Mary, the mother of Jesus. The "Hail Mary" is a staple prayer in Catholic worship. Catholicism is the origin of almost all modern Christian sects, but almost all sects aside from Catholicism have diminished the importance of Mary and do not encourage the worship of her at all.

One of the key words which related directly to Muhammad's disdain for Catholicism is found in verse 57.27:


Then We caused Our messengers to follow in their footsteps; and We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow, and gave him the Gospel, and placed compassion and mercy in the hearts of those who followed him. But this monasticism they invented - We ordained it not for them - only seeking Allah's pleasure, and they observed it not with right observance. So We give those of them who believe their reward, but many of them are evil-livers.

The word "monasticism" originates with the word "monk." In Christianity at that point in time, it can only refer to the Catholic way of life, since they were the predominant sect at the time, and the only sect which practiced monasticism with both priests and nuns living communally and observing celibacy.

The "Injeel," or Gospel which Muhammad refers to in the Quran has very little to do with canonical scriptures.  Since Muhammad was clearly anti-Catholic, then we already know that the only Holy Bible in use at the time was the Catholic Holy Bible. Muhammad rejected the Catholic Holy Bible in favor of the Apostolic and Gnostic Christian scriptures, which are precisely what we see in the Quran. In order to contest the scriptures of the Catholics, he resorted to texts which were rejected from the biblical canon so that he could then point the finger at the Catholics and accuse them of false worship.

Most Christians are quick to point at verse 57.27 (noted above) and laugh because they believe that Muhammad was speaking about Mary as being a part of the Holy Trinity. But that is not the truth, for the evidence speaks towards Catholicism as the very reason for verse 57.27.

A little more truth to ponder.
David

Fathom wrote:
David wrote:
These stories in the Quran are glaring proof that the Quran is the man-made invention of Muhammad.


The very reason we do not find any canonical references to Jesus in the Quran is for precisely the reason that I outlined in my previous post; Muhammad could not read Latin, nor could anyone he knew. The Oldest Arabic Bible, the Mt. Sinai Arabic Codex 151 dates to the late 9th century, more than 200 years following the death of Muhammad.

Muhammad was clearly an avid student of Judaism, as much of the Quran details and rehashes many of the stories from the Torah. The area where Muhammad lived was saturated with Jews as illustrated by the Sunnah, Hadith, and Quran. Muhammad wanted desperately to be a prophet, and thus used Jewish scripture as the basis for his Islamic religion.

But the type of Christianity that Muhammad understood and agreed with for the most part was not Catholicism, but apostolic & gnosticism. Muhammad was not so much anti-Christianity, but instead, was anti-Catholicism. The evidence of this is glaringly obvious in the Quran where Muhammad makes the following references:


5.116: GOD will say, "O Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to the people, `Make me and my mother idols beside GOD?' " He will say, "Be You glorified. I could not utter what was not right. Had I said it, You already would have known it. You know my thoughts, and I do not know Your thoughts. You know all the secrets.

As many Christians are aware, it is Catholicism which encourages their worshipers to pray to Mary, the mother of Jesus. The "Hail Mary" is a staple prayer in Catholic worship. Catholicism is the origin of almost all modern Christian sects, but almost all sects aside from Catholicism have diminished the importance of Mary and do not encourage the worship of her at all.

One of the key words which related directly to Muhammad's disdain for Catholicism is found in verse 57.27:


Then We caused Our messengers to follow in their footsteps; and We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow, and gave him the Gospel, and placed compassion and mercy in the hearts of those who followed him. But this monasticism they invented - We ordained it not for them - only seeking Allah's pleasure, and they observed it not with right observance. So We give those of them who believe their reward, but many of them are evil-livers.

The word "monasticism" originates with the word "monk." In Christianity at that point in time, it can only refer to the Catholic way of life, since they were the predominant sect at the time, and the only sect which practiced monasticism with both priests and nuns living communally and observing celibacy.

The "Injeel," or Gospel which Muhammad refers to in the Quran has very little to do with canonical scriptures.  Since Muhammad was clearly anti-Catholic, then we already know that the only Holy Bible in use at the time was the Catholic Holy Bible. Muhammad rejected the Catholic Holy Bible in favor of the Apostolic and Gnostic Christian scriptures, which are precisely what we see in the Quran. In order to contest the scriptures of the Catholics, he resorted to texts which were rejected from the biblical canon so that he could then point the finger at the Catholics and accuse them of false worship.

Most Christians are quick to point at verse 57.27 (noted above) and laugh because they believe that Muhammad was speaking about Mary as being a part of the Holy Trinity. But that is not the truth, for the evidence speaks towards Catholicism as the very reason for verse 57.27.

A little more truth to ponder.


Do you think Muhammad could have come in contact with some Collyridians who really did worship Mary?  These people were heretics and a very small group.

Roman Catholics insist they do not worship Mary.  They do ask her to pray for them similar to one asking their own mother to pray for them.

Your posts are very informative.

I have to re-read some of those Gnostic gospels again, especially the infancy ones, and compare them to the Quran.
Fathom

David wrote:
Fathom wrote:
David wrote:
These stories in the Quran are glaring proof that the Quran is the man-made invention of Muhammad.


The very reason we do not find any canonical references to Jesus in the Quran is for precisely the reason that I outlined in my previous post; Muhammad could not read Latin, nor could anyone he knew. The Oldest Arabic Bible, the Mt. Sinai Arabic Codex 151 dates to the late 9th century, more than 200 years following the death of Muhammad.

Muhammad was clearly an avid student of Judaism, as much of the Quran details and rehashes many of the stories from the Torah. The area where Muhammad lived was saturated with Jews as illustrated by the Sunnah, Hadith, and Quran. Muhammad wanted desperately to be a prophet, and thus used Jewish scripture as the basis for his Islamic religion.

But the type of Christianity that Muhammad understood and agreed with for the most part was not Catholicism, but apostolic & gnosticism. Muhammad was not so much anti-Christianity, but instead, was anti-Catholicism. The evidence of this is glaringly obvious in the Quran where Muhammad makes the following references:


5.116: GOD will say, "O Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to the people, `Make me and my mother idols beside GOD?' " He will say, "Be You glorified. I could not utter what was not right. Had I said it, You already would have known it. You know my thoughts, and I do not know Your thoughts. You know all the secrets.

As many Christians are aware, it is Catholicism which encourages their worshipers to pray to Mary, the mother of Jesus. The "Hail Mary" is a staple prayer in Catholic worship. Catholicism is the origin of almost all modern Christian sects, but almost all sects aside from Catholicism have diminished the importance of Mary and do not encourage the worship of her at all.

One of the key words which related directly to Muhammad's disdain for Catholicism is found in verse 57.27:


Then We caused Our messengers to follow in their footsteps; and We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow, and gave him the Gospel, and placed compassion and mercy in the hearts of those who followed him. But this monasticism they invented - We ordained it not for them - only seeking Allah's pleasure, and they observed it not with right observance. So We give those of them who believe their reward, but many of them are evil-livers.

The word "monasticism" originates with the word "monk." In Christianity at that point in time, it can only refer to the Catholic way of life, since they were the predominant sect at the time, and the only sect which practiced monasticism with both priests and nuns living communally and observing celibacy.

The "Injeel," or Gospel which Muhammad refers to in the Quran has very little to do with canonical scriptures.  Since Muhammad was clearly anti-Catholic, then we already know that the only Holy Bible in use at the time was the Catholic Holy Bible. Muhammad rejected the Catholic Holy Bible in favor of the Apostolic and Gnostic Christian scriptures, which are precisely what we see in the Quran. In order to contest the scriptures of the Catholics, he resorted to texts which were rejected from the biblical canon so that he could then point the finger at the Catholics and accuse them of false worship.

Most Christians are quick to point at verse 57.27 (noted above) and laugh because they believe that Muhammad was speaking about Mary as being a part of the Holy Trinity. But that is not the truth, for the evidence speaks towards Catholicism as the very reason for verse 57.27.

A little more truth to ponder.


Do you think Muhammad could have come in contact with some Collyridians who really did worship Mary?  These people were heretics and a very small group.

Roman Catholics insist they do not worship Mary.  They do ask her to pray for them similar to one asking their own mother to pray for them.

Your posts are very informative.

I have to re-read some of those Gnostic gospels again, especially the infancy ones, and compare them to the Quran.


It is very unlikely that Muhammad was speaking about the Collyridians since there is very little evidence of them existing into the 5th century, let alone the 7th, during the time which the Quran was supposedly written. There is also nothing in Islamic history which eludes to the Collyridians directly. The evidence within the Quran itself clearly points to Muhammad speaking of an apostolic and gnostic Christianity with concentration directed towards the infancy gospels with the highlight mainly on Jesus, including the Surah which is supposed to be about Mary.

There are two sects of Christianity which the Quran represents: The Roman Catholics, which the Quran speaks out against, and Apostolic/Gnostics, which the Quran supports. But the Apostolic/Gnostics nor the Collyridians were characterized as a monasticism, and this is how we know that it can only be the Catholics which Muhammad was speaking against in 57.27.

Although the Roman Catholics claim that they do not worship Mary, the mere fact that they prayed to her is construed as a form of worship to Muslims and the Islamic religion, as Islam itself proclaims Allah as a singular entity and that he alone is the only one worthy of worship. Islam follows a strict code of monotheism and the worship of anyone else through prayer is a violation of their beliefs. According to Islam, Allah alone is the only one worthy of prayer, and therefore praying to Mary is blasphemy in Islam because it makes her a god/goddess equal to Allah.

Also, during the time of Muhammad the Catholics were singing praises to Mary in the form of hymns. These hymns on Mary are from the Syriac Churches, and although the manuscripts themselves date to the 9th century, the textual evidence clearly indicates an origin of hundreds of years previous.

We can trace the worshiping of Mary all the way back to Saint Jerome, and although the Catholics deny it, they did in fact offer worship to Mary and in fact still do, espcially from an Islamic perspective.
David

Fathom wrote:


It is very unlikely that Muhammad was speaking about the Collyridians since there is very little evidence of them existing into the 5th century, let alone the 7th, during the time which the Quran was supposedly written. There is also nothing in Islamic history which eludes to the Collyridians directly. The evidence within the Quran itself clearly points to Muhammad speaking of an apostolic and gnostic Christianity with concentration directed towards the infancy gospels with the highlight mainly on Jesus, including the Surah which is supposed to be about Mary.

There are two sects of Christianity which the Quran represents: The Roman Catholics, which the Quran speaks out against, and Apostolic/Gnostics, which the Quran supports. But the Apostolic/Gnostics nor the Collyridians were characterized as a monasticism, and this is how we know that it can only be the Catholics which Muhammad was speaking against in 57.27.

Although the Roman Catholics claim that they do not worship Mary, the mere fact that they prayed to her is construed as a form of worship to Muslims and the Islamic religion, as Islam itself proclaims Allah as a singular entity and that he alone is the only one worthy of worship. Islam follows a strict code of monotheism and the worship of anyone else through prayer is a violation of their beliefs. According to Islam, Allah alone is the only one worthy of prayer, and therefore praying to Mary is blasphemy in Islam because it makes her a god/goddess equal to Allah.

Also, during the time of Muhammad the Catholics were singing praises to Mary in the form of hymns. These hymns on Mary are from the Syriac Churches, and although the manuscripts themselves date to the 9th century, the textual evidence clearly indicates an origin of hundreds of years previous.

We can trace the worshiping of Mary all the way back to Saint Jerome, and although the Catholics deny it, they did in fact offer worship to Mary and in fact still do, espcially from an Islamic perspective.


I did a little research and it confirms what you said about the Collyridians, which leaves the Quran objecting to the Catholics and their behavior.

What do you make of this?

Quote:
... Khadija then accompanied him to (her cousin) Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza bin Qusai. Waraqa was the son of her paternal uncle, i.e., her father's brother, who during the Pre-Islamic Period became a Christian and used to write the Arabic writing and used to write of the Gospels in Arabic as much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. ... (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 87, Number 111)


Could Waraqa have had a copy of the Christian Gospels written in Coptic (Egypt) or Syria (Syria) because the Gospels were translated into those languages during the 200's AD?

I think during Muhammad's time many Christians in SA were either associated with the Monophystic Church in Egypt or the Nestorian Church in Constantinople.

There could have been some Ebonites as well.
Fathom

David wrote:
What do you make of this?

Quote:
... Khadija then accompanied him to (her cousin) Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza bin Qusai. Waraqa was the son of her paternal uncle, i.e., her father's brother, who during the Pre-Islamic Period became a Christian and used to write the Arabic writing and used to write of the Gospels in Arabic as much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. ... (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 87, Number 111)


Could Waraqa have had a copy of the Christian Gospels written in Coptic (Egypt) or Syria (Syria) because the Gospels were translated into those languages during the 200's AD?

I think during Muhammad's time many Christians in SA were either associated with the Monophystic Church in Egypt or the Nestorian Church in Constantinople.

There could have been some Ebonites as well.


The above Hadith is a variation of the very same Hadith below:

Quote:
Narrated 'Aisha: Volume 1, Book 1, Number 3: Sahih Al-Bukhari

Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, who, during the pre-Islamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as Allah wished him to write.


These Hadiths are considered "authentic" by Islamic scholars. If you take into consideration that, according to the above variation, Waraqa wrote from the Gospel in Hebrew then you will understand that he had in his possession a Hebrew Gospel. He was writing from a Hebrew Gospel and translating it into Arabic, when you take the information from both Hadiths into consideration.

None of the canonized gospels were available in Hebrew, for all of them were written in Greek or Latin prior to the canon, with the original Gospel of Mark most likely written in Aramaic. This immediately tells us that Waraqa was not using the gospels from the Holy Bible since no "Hebrew Holy Christian Bible" is known in any way to have existed at that time. Logically, if Waraqa had been translating from the gospels in the Holy Bible, he would not have a Holy Bible written in Hebrew.

This leaves only the apocrypha/gnostic texts as Waraqa's source. Therefore, we must ask a very important question:

Q: If Waraqa's source was a gospel written in Hebrew, which one would it be?

A: The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew is a part of the New Testament apocrypha, and sometimes goes by the name of The Infancy Gospel of Matthew, but the actual name of the text in antiquity was The Book About the Origin of the Blessed Mary and the Childhood of the Savior.

The narrative is prefaced by a series of letters between the early Church father Jerome and the Bishops Comatius and Heliodorus. In these letters the Bishops request that Jerome translate a "Hebrew volume, written by the hand of the most blessed Evangelist Matthew."

Here, according to Christian church history, we find that a gospel written in Hebrew was indeed available, and we also find the stories from Pseudo Matthew written into the Quran. There can be no doubt whatsoever that Muhammad used Pseudo Matthew as his source, and with Waraqa in possession of a Hebrew gospel which we know cannot be from the Holy Bible, it's only a small matter to make the jump to understanding that Waraqa had the Hebrew Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew and was using it to teach Muhammad.

The Quran itself is its own best witness against itself, for even in the Quran we find accusations against Muhammad because people knew that someone was teaching him:

And We know well that they say: Only a man teaches him. The speech of him at whom they falsely hint is outlandish, and this is clear Arabic speech (Holy Qur'an 16:103)

Since Waraqa could read Hebrew, he could undoubtedly speak it as well, and Hebrew was most likely his language since SA was saturated with Hebrew speaking Jews at the time. Waraqa was most likely a Jew who converted to a sect of Christianity which followed the apocrypha.
David

Fathom wrote:
David wrote:
What do you make of this?

Quote:
... Khadija then accompanied him to (her cousin) Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza bin Qusai. Waraqa was the son of her paternal uncle, i.e., her father's brother, who during the Pre-Islamic Period became a Christian and used to write the Arabic writing and used to write of the Gospels in Arabic as much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. ... (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 87, Number 111)


Could Waraqa have had a copy of the Christian Gospels written in Coptic (Egypt) or Syria (Syria) because the Gospels were translated into those languages during the 200's AD?

I think during Muhammad's time many Christians in SA were either associated with the Monophystic Church in Egypt or the Nestorian Church in Constantinople.

There could have been some Ebonites as well.


The above Hadith is a variation of the very same Hadith below:

Quote:
Narrated 'Aisha: Volume 1, Book 1, Number 3: Sahih Al-Bukhari

Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, who, during the pre-Islamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as Allah wished him to write.


These Hadiths are considered "authentic" by Islamic scholars. If you take into consideration that, according to the above variation, Waraqa wrote from the Gospel in Hebrew then you will understand that he had in his possession a Hebrew Gospel. He was writing from a Hebrew Gospel and translating it into Arabic, when you take the information from both Hadiths into consideration.

None of the canonized gospels were available in Hebrew, for all of them were written in Greek or Latin prior to the canon, with the original Gospel of Mark most likely written in Aramaic. This immediately tells us that Waraqa was not using the gospels from the Holy Bible since no "Hebrew Holy Christian Bible" is known in any way to have existed at that time. Logically, if Waraqa had been translating from the gospels in the Holy Bible, he would not have a Holy Bible written in Hebrew.

This leaves only the apocrypha/gnostic texts as Waraqa's source. Therefore, we must ask a very important question:

Q: If Waraqa's source was a gospel written in Hebrew, which one would it be?

A: The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew is a part of the New Testament apocrypha, and sometimes goes by the name of The Infancy Gospel of Matthew, but the actual name of the text in antiquity was The Book About the Origin of the Blessed Mary and the Childhood of the Savior.

The narrative is prefaced by a series of letters between the early Church father Jerome and the Bishops Comatius and Heliodorus. In these letters the Bishops request that Jerome translate a "Hebrew volume, written by the hand of the most blessed Evangelist Matthew."

Here, according to Christian church history, we find that a gospel written in Hebrew was indeed available, and we also find the stories from Pseudo Matthew written into the Quran. There can be no doubt whatsoever that Muhammad used Pseudo Matthew as his source, and with Waraqa in possession of a Hebrew gospel which we know cannot be from the Holy Bible, it's only a small matter to make the jump to understanding that Waraqa had the Hebrew Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew and was using it to teach Muhammad.

The Quran itself is its own best witness against itself, for even in the Quran we find accusations against Muhammad because people knew that someone was teaching him:

And We know well that they say: Only a man teaches him. The speech of him at whom they falsely hint is outlandish, and this is clear Arabic speech (Holy Qur'an 16:103)

Since Waraqa could read Hebrew, he could undoubtedly speak it as well, and Hebrew was most likely his language since SA was saturated with Hebrew speaking Jews at the time. Waraqa was most likely a Jew who converted to a sect of Christianity which followed the apocrypha.


You present a very convincing case.

There are lots of verses in the Quran which say something like the following one:

He sent down to you this scripture, truthfully, confirming all previous scriptures, and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel. S. 3:3 Khalifa

I have always believed these verses referred to the Gospels in the Christian canon, but according to you they do not, so these verses are meaningless.

I'm beginning to feel very sorry for the Muslims.  No wonder what is said in the Quran about Jesus contradicts the true Christian Gospels and the Muslims accuse Christians of changing their Scriptures.

I knew the Quran seemed to copy the apocrypha, but I didn't know Muhammad did not have access to the Gospels in the Canon.  This explains a lot.

Why can't the Muslims see this?  Surely they have done the kind of research you have done.
BMZ

David wrote:
There are lots of verses in the Quran which say something like the following one:

He sent down to you this scripture, truthfully, confirming all previous scriptures, and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel. S. 3:3 Khalifa

I have always believed these verses referred to the Gospels in the Christian canon, but according to you they do not, so these verses are meaningless.

I'm beginning to feel very sorry for the Muslims.  No wonder what is said in the Quran about Jesus contradicts the true Christian Gospels and the Muslims accuse Christians of changing their Scriptures.

I knew the Quran seemed to copy the apocrypha, but I didn't know Muhammad did not have access to the Gospels in the Canon.  This explains a lot.

Why can't the Muslims see this?  Surely they have done the kind of research you have done.


David,

It is a good thing Muhammad did not have access to the gospels, otherwise he would have been accused of copying the gospels.

When Qur'aan refers to Injeel, it does not refer to the four gospels and the entire NT. The gospels are not the Injeel. NT is basically stories about Jesus. However, we can read and pick out the true Injeel part, no matter how little that content is.

Injeel is the part which was spoken out by Jesus. All else written and told by the four writers does not constitute Injeel.

Qur'aan does not talk much about Jesus. It just tells us that he was neither God nor a son of God.
Why should God have a son, anyway? What was the need of having a son? That is the thrust.

How do we know what belongs to Injeel, meaning what was said by Jesus? I will give you an example:


Quote:
John 20:17 Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' "


This sounds like a part of Injeel, directly uttered by Jesus. And look at what Mary said in John 20:18. She did not say she had seen her Lord and God. Also no other disciple said so.

Quote:
Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: "I have seen the Lord!"


Quote:
John 20:28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"


This definitely is not a part of Injeel. Also the doubting Thomas' alleged statement, which does not make any sense, goes against what Jesus declarede by repeating and confirming the Shema and said earlier. The gospels are full of such contradictions.

BMZ
David

BMZ wrote:
David wrote:
There are lots of verses in the Quran which say something like the following one:

He sent down to you this scripture, truthfully, confirming all previous scriptures, and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel. S. 3:3 Khalifa

I have always believed these verses referred to the Gospels in the Christian canon, but according to you they do not, so these verses are meaningless.

I'm beginning to feel very sorry for the Muslims.  No wonder what is said in the Quran about Jesus contradicts the true Christian Gospels and the Muslims accuse Christians of changing their Scriptures.

I knew the Quran seemed to copy the apocrypha, but I didn't know Muhammad did not have access to the Gospels in the Canon.  This explains a lot.

Why can't the Muslims see this?  Surely they have done the kind of research you have done.


David,

It is a good thing Muhammad did not have access to the gospels, otherwise he would have been accused of copying the gospels.

When Qur'aan refers to Injeel, it does not refer to the four gospels and the entire NT. The gospels are not the Injeel. NT is basically stories about Jesus. However, we can read and pick out the true Injeel part, no matter how little that content is.

Injeel is the part which was spoken out by Jesus. All else written and told by the four writers does not constitute Injeel.

Qur'aan does not talk much about Jesus. It just tells us that he was neither God nor a son of God.
Why should God have a son, anyway? What was the need of having a son? That is the thrust.

How do we know what belongs to Injeel, meaning what was said by Jesus? I will give you an example:


Quote:
John 20:17 Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' "


This sounds like a part of Injeel, directly uttered by Jesus. And look at what Mary said in John 20:18. She did not say she had seen her Lord and God. Also no other disciple said so.

Quote:
Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: "I have seen the Lord!"


Quote:
John 20:28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"


This definitely is not a part of Injeel. Also the doubting Thomas' alleged statement, which does not make any sense, goes against what Jesus declarede by repeating and confirming the Shema and said earlier. The gospels are full of such contradictions.

BMZ


Please stick to the topic of this thread.  How did so much of the apocrypha end up in the Quran as revelation?
BMZ

David wrote:
BMZ wrote:
David wrote:
There are lots of verses in the Quran which say something like the following one:

He sent down to you this scripture, truthfully, confirming all previous scriptures, and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel. S. 3:3 Khalifa

I have always believed these verses referred to the Gospels in the Christian canon, but according to you they do not, so these verses are meaningless.

I'm beginning to feel very sorry for the Muslims.  No wonder what is said in the Quran about Jesus contradicts the true Christian Gospels and the Muslims accuse Christians of changing their Scriptures.

I knew the Quran seemed to copy the apocrypha, but I didn't know Muhammad did not have access to the Gospels in the Canon.  This explains a lot.

Why can't the Muslims see this?  Surely they have done the kind of research you have done.


David,

It is a good thing Muhammad did not have access to the gospels, otherwise he would have been accused of copying the gospels.

When Qur'aan refers to Injeel, it does not refer to the four gospels and the entire NT. The gospels are not the Injeel. NT is basically stories about Jesus. However, we can read and pick out the true Injeel part, no matter how little that content is.

Injeel is the part which was spoken out by Jesus. All else written and told by the four writers does not constitute Injeel.

Qur'aan does not talk much about Jesus. It just tells us that he was neither God nor a son of God.
Why should God have a son, anyway? What was the need of having a son? That is the thrust.

How do we know what belongs to Injeel, meaning what was said by Jesus? I will give you an example:


Quote:
John 20:17 Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.' "


This sounds like a part of Injeel, directly uttered by Jesus. And look at what Mary said in John 20:18. She did not say she had seen her Lord and God. Also no other disciple said so.

Quote:
Mary Magdalene went to the disciples with the news: "I have seen the Lord!"


Quote:
John 20:28 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"


This definitely is not a part of Injeel. Also the doubting Thomas' alleged statement, which does not make any sense, goes against what Jesus declared by repeating and confirming the Shema and said earlier. The gospels are full of such contradictions.

BMZ


Please stick to the topic of this thread.  How did so much of the apocrypha end up in the Quran as revelation?


List and detail here all the so-called "apocrypha" which you say has ended up in Qur'aan! Itemise it.  Laughing
David

BMZ wrote:


List and detail here all the so-called "apocrypha" which you say has ended up in Qur'aan! Itemise it.  Laughing


You already have enough in this thread to respond to.  Get busy.
BMZ

David wrote:
BMZ wrote:


List and detail here all the so-called "apocrypha" which you say has ended up in Qur'aan! Itemise it.  Laughing


You already have enough in this thread to respond to.  Get busy.


That is a cop out!  Laughing

You wrote and made this statement: "How did so much of the apocrypha end up in the Quran as revelation?"

The onus is now on you. Show us the apocrypha and show us how much?  Laughing

Do you know that most of the existing Christian Scripture was also picked up entirely from Apocrypha? It was all picked up from the debris known then as Apocrypha. The four gospels were cherry-picked from the many floating around in those days.
AhmedBahgat

Dear Brother BMZ

Don't watse your time with such fools who can't comprehend that the God who sent Judaism and Christianity is the same God who sent Islam, i.e. there must be a lot of similarties between all three religions but they just too dumb and blind to see it

Salam
BMZ

AhmedBahgat wrote:
Dear Brother BMZ

Don't watse your time with such fools who can't comprehend that the God who sent Judaism and Christianity is the same God who sent Islam, i.e. there must be a lot of similarties between all three religions but they just too dumb and blind to see it

Salam


Wa alaikum assalaam, bro

You are right.

Just like to remind them once in a while otherwise they tend to forget that Christianity, a runaway cult, is the odd one out.  Very Happy
Cheers, mate
BMZ
Tvebak

BMZ wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Dear Brother BMZ

Don't watse your time with such fools who can't comprehend that the God who sent Judaism and Christianity is the same God who sent Islam, i.e. there must be a lot of similarties between all three religions but they just too dumb and blind to see it

Salam


Wa alaikum assalaam, bro

You are right.

Just like to remind them once in a while otherwise they tend to forget that Christianity, a runaway cult, is the odd one out.  Very Happy
Cheers, mate
BMZ


Hi BMZ

David is right. Look at David and Fathoms discussion at the last couple of pages and you will see that Fathom has listed and detailed some examples of how the the "so-called "apocrypha"" have entered the quran. If you still have problems finding them I will copy-paste the comment for you.

Cheers.
HomoErectus

BMZ wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Dear Brother BMZ

Don't watse your time with such fools who can't comprehend that the God who sent Judaism and Christianity is the same God who sent Islam, i.e. there must be a lot of similarties between all three religions but they just too dumb and blind to see it

Salam


Wa alaikum assalaam, bro

You are right.

Just like to remind them once in a while otherwise they tend to forget that Christianity, a runaway cult, is the odd one out.  Very Happy
Cheers, mate
BMZ





You guys present a good reason to DUMP ALL religions !

and no reason to keep any of 'em !

Cool
David

Tvebak wrote:
BMZ wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Dear Brother BMZ

Don't watse your time with such fools who can't comprehend that the God who sent Judaism and Christianity is the same God who sent Islam, i.e. there must be a lot of similarties between all three religions but they just too dumb and blind to see it

Salam


Wa alaikum assalaam, bro

You are right.

Just like to remind them once in a while otherwise they tend to forget that Christianity, a runaway cult, is the odd one out.  Very Happy
Cheers, mate
BMZ


Hi BMZ

David is right. Look at David and Fathoms discussion at the last couple of pages and you will see that Fathom has listed and detailed some examples of how the the "so-called "apocrypha"" have entered the quran. If you still have problems finding them I will copy-paste the comment for you.

Cheers.


You are correct.  BMZ has enough to work on until I can gather the rest.  This should be a separate topic.
David

HomoErectus wrote:
BMZ wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Dear Brother BMZ

Don't watse your time with such fools who can't comprehend that the God who sent Judaism and Christianity is the same God who sent Islam, i.e. there must be a lot of similarties between all three religions but they just too dumb and blind to see it

Salam


Wa alaikum assalaam, bro

You are right.

Just like to remind them once in a while otherwise they tend to forget that Christianity, a runaway cult, is the odd one out.  Very Happy
Cheers, mate
BMZ





You guys present a good reason to DUMP ALL religions !

and no reason to keep any of 'em !

Cool


Your choice.
David

BMZ wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Dear Brother BMZ

Don't watse your time with such fools who can't comprehend that the God who sent Judaism and Christianity is the same God who sent Islam, i.e. there must be a lot of similarties between all three religions but they just too dumb and blind to see it

Salam


Wa alaikum assalaam, bro

You are right.

Just like to remind them once in a while otherwise they tend to forget that Christianity, a runaway cult, is the odd one out.  Very Happy
Cheers, mate
BMZ


Problem is the Quran proves that Allah is not the God of Christianity or Judaism, but you can continue to believe it if it will make you feel better.
BMZ

David wrote:
HomoErectus wrote:
BMZ wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Dear Brother BMZ

Don't watse your time with such fools who can't comprehend that the God who sent Judaism and Christianity is the same God who sent Islam, i.e. there must be a lot of similarties between all three religions but they just too dumb and blind to see it

Salam


Wa alaikum assalaam, bro

You are right.

Just like to remind them once in a while otherwise they tend to forget that Christianity, a runaway cult, is the odd one out.  Very Happy
Cheers, mate
BMZ





You guys present a good reason to DUMP ALL religions !

and no reason to keep any of 'em !

Cool


Your choice.


lol! Enjoyed that.

Not really. I look at religions in terms of God only. The Jews have got God right. Muslims have got God right too. It is just that Christianity has not got God right.

Cheers
BMZ
Fathom

BMZ wrote:
List and detail here all the so-called "apocrypha" which you say has ended up in Qur'aan! Itemise it.  Laughing


You might be able to pull off that Islamic act of intentional deception with David, since he was never a Muslim, but you don't have a hope in hell of ever pulling it off on me.

The evidences of the apocrypha have already been itemized in this thread, so don't even try to pretend they haven't as a means of avoiding the fact that they have. I know this trick of Muslims all too well;

"DENY DENY DENY!"

But you see, I understand you. You have no choice but to deny anything that opposes your understanding of the Quran and your Islamic teachings. You are, after all, a Muslim, and to agree with anything that doesn't conform to the teachings of the mullahs will guarantee you a place in hell, as far as Islam is concerned.

You are not allowed to believe the truth. You must deny every last bit of truth even if it makes you look like a fool. Come hell or high water, the truth is absolutely meaningless when it goes up against your Islamic beliefs. It doesn't matter how much evidence is provided; you have absolutely no choice but to deny it even exists.

Or else, you will go to hell.

So yes, I understand you. But you want to know something else? I also understand that in your heart you know that what I have said is true, but you can never admit to it out of your fear of going to hell.

And for that, I forgive you. After all, your fear is what controls you, and you have no choice in the matter whatsoever.

Peace.
BMZ

Fathom wrote:
BMZ wrote:
List and detail here all the so-called "apocrypha" which you say has ended up in Qur'aan! Itemise it.  Laughing


You might be able to pull off that Islamic act of intentional deception with David, since he was never a Muslim, but you don't have a hope in hell of ever pulling it off on me.

The evidences of the apocrypha have already been itemized in this thread, so don't even try to pretend they haven't as a means of avoiding the fact that they have. I know this trick of Muslims all too well;

"DENY DENY DENY!"

But you see, I understand you. You have no choice but to deny anything that opposes your understanding of the Quran and your Islamic teachings. You are, after all, a Muslim, and to agree with anything that doesn't conform to the teachings of the mullahs will guarantee you a place in hell, as far as Islam is concerned.

You are not allowed to believe the truth. You must deny every last bit of truth even if it makes you look like a fool. Come hell or high water, the truth is absolutely meaningless when it goes up against your Islamic beliefs. It doesn't matter how much evidence is provided; you have absolutely no choice but to deny it even exists.

Or else, you will go to hell.

So yes, I understand you. But you want to know something else? I also understand that in your heart you know that what I have said is true, but you can never admit to it out of your fear of going to hell.

And for that, I forgive you. After all, your fear is what controls you, and you have no choice in the matter whatsoever.

Peace.


No worries and no fear.  Laughing I like and enjoy intellectual exchanges. I expected a better post from you, not a childish one that shows a sense of despair.

Don't give me the usual card.  Laughing I don't need a Mullah or a Christian to tell me if I am going to hell or heaven. I believe in my God, the Lord Almighty Allah and that gets me a place in heaven, for the Lord Almighty is enough for me.

Now, you are free to list the so-called "apocrypha", which according to David, fills Qur'aan. Go ahead and list/write down the apocrypha and we will discuss.

Do keep in mind that the Christian Scripture is itself a pick out of Apocrypha. Other unselected scriptures/gospels were left in the Apocrypha garbage.

Proceed and stick to Qur'aan and the NT.
BMZ

David wrote:
BMZ wrote:
AhmedBahgat wrote:
Dear Brother BMZ

Don't watse your time with such fools who can't comprehend that the God who sent Judaism and Christianity is the same God who sent Islam, i.e. there must be a lot of similarties between all three religions but they just too dumb and blind to see it

Salam


Wa alaikum assalaam, bro

You are right.

Just like to remind them once in a while otherwise they tend to forget that Christianity, a runaway cult, is the odd one out.  Very Happy
Cheers, mate
BMZ


Problem is the Quran proves that Allah is not the God of Christianity or Judaism, but you can continue to believe it if it will make you feel better.


How so?  Smile What makes you conclude that? Would you like to substantiate your statement? Qur'aan mocks and rejects the triune god of Christians who believe in a trinity.
Tvebak

BMZ wrote:


Proceed and stick to Qur'aan and the NT.


Hi BMZ

You must have missed something. Fathom is talking about a gospel which did not enter the NT.

Quote:
Apocrypha (from the Greek word ἀπόκρυφα, meaning "those having been hidden away"[1]) are texts of uncertain authenticity or writings where the authorship is questioned. In Judeo-Christian theology, the term apocrypha refers to any collection of scriptural texts that falls outside the canon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha

So Fathom is refering to what you understand as "Other unselected scriptures/gospels were left in the Apocrypha garbage. ". Those unselected scriptures is exactly what Fathom and David is refering to in this debate.

Quote:
Now, you are free to list the so-called "apocrypha", which according to David, fills Qur'aan. Go ahead and list/write down the apocrypha and we will discuss.


Again, BMZ, some have been listed, look at the last couple of pages of this thread. You might also have missed my earlier post, where I made an offer to do the copy-paste job for you, but anyways you really don't have any excuse, except if the buttons used to browse in this thread are missing on your website or is default, not to start commenting on Fathoms earlier comments.

And again the "apocrypha" mentioned is not the ones in the canonical bible, but exactly the oppossite. And again as Fathoms says:

Quote:
The evidences of the apocrypha have already been itemized in this thread, so don't even try to pretend they haven't as a means of avoiding the fact that they have.


Cheers.
Tvebak

Re: 19:36

Hi BMZ I don't know why you keep ignoring this. You actually made a response to David after Fathom made the comment quoted below. Well here it is. So start debating. I'm also gonna post this comment by Fathom in the thread David started, where he linked to some articles of "dr" Campbells website. You can choose where you want to continue the debate.

Fathom wrote:
David wrote:
BMZ wrote:
David wrote:
Jesus speaking in the cradle is a weird story.  I know where it comes from.  The clay birds that fly is another weird one and I know where that one comes from too.  Apparently these stories were flying around Mecca during the period of Muhammad and he thought they were true and used them as if they were.


Almost all the stories, in the New Testament, are weird anyway. How weirder can it get if he made birds out of clay and spoke when he was an infant?  


The fact is it isn't true.  These thoughts came out of the imagination of the writer.  If they had been true, they would have been noted in the New Testament.

BMZ wrote:


He could perform miracles. Right? There was no prophecy that the child born to the virgin would perform miracles only when he was thirty.  


The fact is the stories are not true.  If Jesus had performed miracles as a child they would have been for a purpose.  Performing miracles as a child served no purpose.

BMZ wrote:


If God could make Balaam's donkey speak, why could not God make Jesus speak as an infant to clear his mother's name and lecture people to let them know who he was?  

BMZ


God can do anything, but Jesus did not perform miracles as a child.  God made sure Jesus had a normal childhood.  His miracles started when he began his ministry at the age of 30.

I see your problem though.  The Quran includes these fanciful stories and you need some way to justify them.


Actually, Muhammad got his information regarding the clay birds from the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew which had been translated into early Arabic just a few years before Muhammad began his religion.

This particular gospel was written at least 300 years before the time of Muhammad, and then was translated into the Arabic Infancy Gospel just before Muhammad began his religion.

In the Arabic Infancy Gospel we read the following regarding Jesus from chapter 36:


Quote:
And He had made figures of birds and sparrows, which flew when He told them to fly, and stood still when He told them to stand, and ate and drank when He handed them food and drink. After the boys had gone away and told this to their parents, their fathers said to them: My sons, take care not to keep company with him again, for he is a wizard: flee from him, therefore, and avoid him, and do not play with him again after this.


The above came from the earlier Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew which says in in chapter 27 regarding Jesus:

Quote:
And it came to pass, after these things, that in the sight of all Jesus took clay froth the pools which He had made, and of it made twelve sparrows. And it was the Sabbath when Jesus did this, and there were very many children with Him.

When, therefore, one of the Jews had seen Him doing this, he said to Joseph: Joseph, dost thou not see the child Jesus working on the Sabbath at what it is not lawful for him to do? for he has made twelve sparrows of clay. And when Joseph heard this, he reproved him, saying: Wherefore doest thou on the Sabbath such things as are not lawful for us to do? And when Jesus heard Joseph, He struck His hands together, and said to His sparrows: Fly! And at the voice of His command they began to fly.


Upon reading either of these early Christian works we can also see where Muhammad got much of his information. Since we know that Catholicism was the ruling Christian sect at the time of Muhammad, and all other Christian sects were persecuted by the Catholics, we also know that the biblical gospels were not available to just anyone but almost exclusively only to Christian clergy. The biblical gospels were written in Latin at the time of Muhammad, and stayed that way until the 15th century, with only Christian priests having the authority and knowledge to read from them.

As a result of this exclusion, many pseudo gospels were written and were spread around the land, including the two aforementioned gospels. The narrative of the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew is prefaced by a series of letters between the early Church father Jerome and the Bishops Comatius and Heliodorus. In these letters the Bishops request that Jerome translate a "Hebrew volume, written by the hand of the most blessed Evangelist Matthew," concerning the birth of the virgin mother and the infancy of Jesus.

If you noticed, I underlined the words "Hebrew volume" to illustrate a very important forthcoming point. Listed below are two Hadiths regarding Muhammad and his uncle:


Quote:
Narrated 'Aisha: Volume 4, Book 55, Number 605: Sahih Al-Bukhari

The Prophet returned to Khadija while his heart was beating rapidly. She took him to Waraqa bin Naufal who was a Christian convert and used to read the Gospel in Arabic …”


As you can see above, Waraqa bin Naufal used to read the Gospel in Arabic. How did he get a gospel in Arabic? That is answered in another Hadith:

Quote:
Narrated 'Aisha: Volume 1, Book 1, Number 3: Sahih Al-Bukhari

Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, who, during the pre-Islamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as Allah wished him to write.


The only gospels that would have been available to Waraqa would have been those which had not been included into the biblical canon, and none of the biblical gospels existed in Hebrew at the time of Muhammad.

The only known Hebrew Gospel from that time period is indeed the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, and as you can see, Waraqa was translating this Hebrew gospel into Arabic. This translated Gospel is most likely the Arabic Infancy Gospel, and Waraqa is the most likely author.

So here we have Muhammad's uncle writing from the Hebrew gospel and translating it into Arabic, and within the Quran we see the very evidence of this gospel.

This is not a matter of disputing the origins of the Quran but instead it is documented history from both Christian and Islamic sources, and we cannot change history.

Welcome to the truth.

       FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> The Qur'an
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum
Home|Home|Home|Home|HomeHome|Home|Home|Home|Home