FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups  Who is OnlineWho is Online   Join! (free) Join! (free)  
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
  • Welcome
  • Guest

  • Main Menu
  • Sticky Articles
  • Open Support Tickets
19:36
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> The Qur'an
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
BMZ
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 436



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:18 pm    Post subject: Re: 19:36  Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Mutley
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 249


Location: US
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
_________________
If it is peace you want, seek to change yourself, not other people. It is easier to protect your feet with slippers than to carpet the whole of the earth. --Anthony DeMello
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
David
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Posts: 157



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:07 am    Post subject: Re: 19:36 Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
David
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Posts: 157



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 4:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fathom
Regular Member
Regular Member


Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 106



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
David
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Posts: 157



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fathom
Regular Member
Regular Member


Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 106



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 11:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
David
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Posts: 157



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 4:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fathom
Regular Member
Regular Member


Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 106



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2008 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
David
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 19 Jan 2008
Posts: 157



Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments


online/offline
PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 3:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

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.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT Forum Index -> The Qur'an All times are GMT + 11 Hours
Page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 7 of 9
 
 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Card File  Gallery  Forum Archive
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum