Koran v. Bible

[bigbadgirl]

Is it not strange that all of your sources are Christians looking for confirmation of their own beliefs. Eusebius was a lapdog for the pagan Constantine. He was not a church historian but a Roman historian. Constantine was not baptized until he was dead on his deathbed (when he could not do anything about it). Eusebius was given a high paying job for his services to the Pagan emporer Constantine. Your history is slanted to say the least. What has this to do with the Koran?

 

[1robin]

Is it not strange that all of your sources are Christians looking for confirmation of their own beliefs. Eusebius was a lapdog for the pagan Constantine. He was not a church historian but a Roman historian. Constantine was not baptized until he was dead on his deathbed (when he could not do anything about it). Eusebius was given a high paying job for his services to the Pagan emporer Constantine. Your history is slanted to say the least. What has this to do with the Koran?

Are you actually asking what a defence of the gospel's authorship has to do with a bible/Quran debate? Amazing. My post was a reply to a request from a Muslim in an ongoing debate. If you are going to comment on a discussion at least read that discussion first.

This is a post from Oryander to which you agreed with in another thread: "Eusebius was exiled for non acceptance of Constantines edict." So which one is it. Was Euesubias an enemy or lapdog of Constantine or was he whatever you need him to be at the time? He was not the only source I posted and Constantine had no dog in the race as to who authored the gospels so his allegience was irrelevant.

The Church History (Latin: Historia Ecclesiastica or Historia Ecclesiae) of Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea was a 4th-century pioneer work giving a chronological account of the development of Early Christianity from the 1st century to the 4th century. It was written in Koine Greek, and survives also in Latin, Syriac and Armenian manuscripts.[1] The result was the first full-length historical narrative written from a Christian point of view.[2] In the early 5th century two advocates in Constantinople, Socrates Scholasticus and Sozomen, and a bishop, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Syria, wrote continuations of Eusebius' church history, establishing the convention of continuators that would determine to a great extent the way history was written for the next thousand years. Eusebius' Chronicle, that attempted to lay out a comparative timeline of pagan and Old Testament history, set the model for the other historiographical genre, the medieval chronicle or universal history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_History_(Eusebius) Apparently the entire internet thinks that Euesubias was a Church historian and a bishop despite your position but don't let that stop you.


How in the world do you justify your assertion that I can not use Christian sources to defend Christianity. That's obsurd. I do not tell Muslims that they shouldn't use Islamic scholars. However there are non Christian sources that agree with what I posted. If you had actually read what I posted you would have noticed that some of the info specifically says it was from non-Christian sources. It has nothing to with a source that none of the Gospels mention the destruction of the temple and so were likely written prior to 70AD.

In 2 Thessalonians 2:10, "they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved."

 

[F0uad]

I will just wait on the rest before i reply.

 

[waitasec]

These two books have had more of an impact on humanty than any other books in human history. But I am sure you are right. Christ has contributed more to morality, meaning, and purpose than the contrabutions of all the philosophers in history put together, but I am sure you know the real truth. Islam, Christianity, and Judaism have contributed more to science than any other group and maybe all other groups in the history of man, but you are apparently above such mundain things.

ah no.

any idea of god came from man at the inception of critical thinking, as a means to explain their limited understanding of the world, and somewhere along the way critical thinking became the enemy of religious thought and sciences best friend

 

[F0uad]

ah no.

any idea of god came from man at the inception of critical thinking, as a means to explain their limited understanding of the world, and somewhere along the way critical thinking became the enemy of religious thought and sciences best friend

I disagree and certainly if you look back at history. Islam had defiantly a huge impact on science i can say that without doubt, without the Islamic Empire you wouldn't even had a computer since they invented the Algebra we use now and fine-tuned the pure mathematics of the Greeks and neighbouring countries.

There are many things i can mention but i am pretty sure it wouldn't fit on one or two pages. Yes Christianity didn't have a strong rising in that time in science but surely in the Golden Age of the West Christianity brought much new things to the world and Jews were always great thinkers even in the Islamic Empire Jews were known as smart people and respected for it.

 

[waitasec]

I disagree and certainly if you look back at history. Islam had defiantly a huge impact on science i can say that without doubt, without the Islamic Empire you wouldn't even had a computer since they invented the Algebra we use now and fine-tuned the pure mathematics of the Greeks and neighbouring countries.

There are many things i can mention but i am pretty sure it wouldn't fit on one or two pages. Yes Christianity didn't have a strong rising in that time in science but surely in the Golden Age of the West Christianity brought much new things to the world and Jews were always great thinkers even in the Islamic Empire Jews were known as smart people and respected for it.

oh i know...up until a certain iman claimed math was the work of the devil

 

[F0uad]

oh i know...up until a certain iman claimed math was the work of the devil

Lol no this never happened in Islam, islam promotes science and using the intellect.

The Islamic Empire was from 700 till 1100/1200 after 1200 people forgot Mercy and were only judged with Law therefore changing the whole atmosphere Muslims lived in, people became hard and stubborn anyway there is a whole video on this on you-tube with a lecture of some of some intelligent people explaining the downfall of the Caliphate.

 

[waitasec]

Lol no this never happened in Islam, islam promotes science and using the intellect.

The Islamic Empire was from 700 till 1100/1200 after 1200 people forgot Mercy and were only judged with Law therefore changing the whole atmosphere Muslims lived in, people became hard and stubborn anyway there is a whole video on this on you-tube with a lecture of some of some intelligent people explaining the downfall of the Caliphate.

can you tell me a little more about hamid al ghazali

 

[1robin]

I will just wait on the rest before i reply.

Very well.

 

[1robin]

ah no.

any idea of god came from man at the inception of critical thinking, as a means to explain their limited understanding of the world, and somewhere along the way critical thinking became the enemy of religious thought and sciences best friend

Well to take a pathetic chapter from your play book. Prove it. Just because you assert some strange claim then that doesn't mean it is true. Religous people have always been some of the most critical thinkers in history. It is the dogmatic materialist that is less open to ideas not the spiritual person. It was Christian, Jewish, and Islamic scientists that have made the major breakthroughs in science history. From: Kepler, Galelei, Descarte, Pascal, Boyle, Newton plus many more and that is just the Christians. Here is a list of just the Christians, it reads like a whos who in science.
List of Christian thinkers in science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many breakthroughs in Mathematics and medicine were made by Islam, and the Jews have contributed more to science in relation to their population than any race in human history.

 

[1robin]

oh i know...up until a certain iman claimed math was the work of the devil

This is a silly claim. Islam (which I don't even agree with) saved and studied Greek learning and then took many of the next steps that led to break throughs in medicine and mathematics. I believe the first accurate and comprehensive work on medicine was completed by a Muslim. Even if some crazy Imam said something different later on their record is a matter of fact.

 

[waitasec]

Well to take a pathetic chapter from your play book. Prove it. Just because you assert some strange claim then that doesn't mean it is true. Religous people have always been some of the most critical thinkers in history. It is the dogmatic materialist that is less open to ideas not the spiritual person. It was Christian, Jewish, and Islamic scientists that have made the major breakthroughs in science history. From: Kepler, Galelei, Descarte, Pascal, Boyle, Newton plus many more and that is just the Christians. Here is a list of just the Christians, it reads like a whos who in science.
List of Christian thinkers in science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many breakthroughs in Mathematics and medicine were made by Islam, and the Jews have contributed more to science in relation to their population than any race in human history.

hmmm. i thought it was the church that insisted the earth was the center of the universe...



here is a lecture with neil degrasse tyson

The Perimeter of Ignorance

[youtube]1te01rfEF0g[/youtube]
Neil deGrasse Tyson: The Perimeter of Ignorance - YouTube

 

[arthra]

The Koran does not perfectly represent the original, Muslim scholars are unable to take the stance that the Bible is corrupted, and the Koran in not more theologically unified then the Bible.

For these reasons, the accusation that the Bible has been corrupted and standards that set the Koran higher must be ignored when comparing both books. They have to be treated minimally as equals in terms of historical accuracy and authenticity.

I would have to say the Qur'an is more "theologically unified then the Bible". Qur'an was revealed in a much shorter span of time and as a scripture is an authentic revelation.... The Bible while inspired and a record of past revelations was revealed over a thousand years and was verbally transmitted over a long period of time before being set to writing. So inaccuracies have found there way into the Bible due to the scribal copying adding notes and also due to inaccurate translations say from Aramaic to Greek and such.

I want to emphasize that I strongly feel there is a need to transcend polarized thinking however such as "Koran vrs. Bible" as that seems to cause a lot of animosity and division....Baha'is accept the Bible as inspired as well as the Qur'an and the Baha'i Writings which include numerous references to both (the Bible and the Qur'an) earlier scriptures.

 

[1robin]

hmmm. i thought it was the church that insisted the earth was the center of the universe...



here is a lecture with neil degrasse tyson

The Perimeter of Ignorance

[youtube]1te01rfEF0g[/youtube]
Neil deGrasse Tyson: The Perimeter of Ignorance - YouTube

Do you actually think this one claim you listed overcomes all the cutting edge scientific breakthroughs over hundreds of years in every field by religous scientists. That is rediculous. For one thing it was a Christian that proved the earth centered solar system wrong. A cardinal (Nicholas of Cusa) actually knew it before the Christian Copernicus discovered it. I never claimed that every Christian who ever lived was a great scientist and you know that, so your comment is meaningless. A few theologians claiming something scientific that is false says nothing about God or the faith. The bible itself says the earth was round and (never says it was the center of anything) long before any scientist of any kind discovered that fact. The fact that the abrahamic faiths have contributed more to science than any other group is unaffected by your pointless point. I can't stand Neil Tyson, not because of anything he believes, but because he has an annoying arrogant personality. And no matter what he or you or anyone else says the faiths contributions to science are a matter of record even if that is inconvienient for you. I can't watch videos where I am at.

 

[waitasec]

Do you actually think this one claim you listed overcomes all the cutting edge scientific breakthroughs over hundreds of years in every field by religous scientists. That is rediculous. For one thing it was a Christian that proved the earth centered solar system wrong. A cardinal (Nicholas of Cusa) actually knew it before the Christian Copernicus discovered it. I never claimed that every Christian who ever lived was a great scientist and you know that, so your comment is meaningless. A few theologians claiming something scientific that is false says nothing about God or the faith. The bible itself says the earth was round and (never says it was the center of anything) long before any scientist of any kind discovered that fact. The fact that the abrahamic faiths have contributed more to science than any other group is unaffected by your pointless point. I can't stand Neil Tyson, not because of anything he believes, but because he has an annoying arrogant personality. And no matter what he or you or anyone else says the faiths contributions to science are a matter of record even if that is inconvienient for you. I can't watch videos where I am at.

do you think that your bible is true, if so by what criteria do you determine this to be so, if you say it's through faith that is not scientific.

:foot:

 

[1robin]

I would have to say the Qur'an is more "theologically unified then the Bible". Qur'an was revealed in a much shorter span of time and as a scripture is an authentic revelation.... The Bible while inspired and a record of past revelations was revealed over a thousand years and was verbally transmitted over a long period of time before being set to writing. So inaccuracies have found there way into the Bible due to the scribal copying adding notes and also due to inaccurate translations say from Aramaic to Greek and such.

I want to emphasize that I strongly feel there is a need to transcend polarized thinking however such as "Koran vrs. Bible" as that seems to cause a lot of animosity and division....Baha'is accept the Bible as inspired as well as the Qur'an and the Baha'i Writings which include numerous references to both (the Bible and the Qur'an) earlier scriptures.

I appreciate your equanimity but if a belief system tries to validate two contradictory statements about core truth then it can't be true. The bible says Jesus was killed and is the son of God. The Quran says he was not killed and is only a prophet. There is no possability that both can be true. So any faith that says they are is wrong.

 

[arthra]

I appreciate your equanimity but if a belief system tries to validate two contradictory statements about core truth then it can't be true. The bible says Jesus was killed and is the son of God. The Quran says he was not killed and is only a prophet. There is no possability that both can be true. So any faith that says they are is wrong.

Thanks for your post... but I think you may be taking too much of a literal interpretation of what Qur'an is really saying and ergo is not so contradictory as you may be suggesting....and you therefore have overlooked the possibility that both can be true.

When the Qur'an is reporting the crucifixion I believe it refers to the Spirit of Christ that cannot be crucified or killed. So in this way there is no real contradiction:

and their boast, "Behold, we have slain the Christ Jesus, son of Mary, [who claimed to be] an apostle of God!" However, they did not slay him, and neither did they crucify him, but it only seemed to them [as if it had been] so; and, verily, those who hold conflicting views thereon are indeed confused, having no [real] knowledge thereof, and following mere conjecture. For, of a certainty, they did not slay him:

Qur'an 4:157

"...but it only seemed to them [as if it had been] so.." They believed they had killed the Cause of Messiah but they were wrong...

"...nay, God exalted him unto Himself - and God is indeed almighty, wise."

Qur'an 4:148

Jesus committed His Spirit to God.

So there is not so much a contradiction as you suggest I believe.

 

[1robin]

do you think that your bible is true, if so by what criteria do you determine this to be so, if you say it's through faith that is not scientific.

:foot:

Now that is misdirection on steroids. You answer no points I made and ask your own unrelated one. If you can prove that there is no reality outside the detection of materialistic scientific testing then I will do so. Someone who limits their reality to only the scientific is far more closed minded than me who allows for possible realities that our limited intellect can not access. Neither love, astetic value, nor morality can be scientifically verified so I assume you do not believe in them either. Quite a system you got yourself. This reminds me of a statement by David Hume probably a hero of yours, he said If a statement is not scientific nor mathematic then it should be discarded. He failed to realise that that statement itself is neither scientific nor mathematic and so is discarded. Much of science its self is based on non scientific faith in the rationality of the universe.

 

[1robin]

Thanks for your post... but I think you may be taking too much of a literal interpretation of what Qur'an is really saying and ergo is not so contradictory as you may be suggesting....and you therefore have overlooked the possibility that both can be true.

When the Qur'an is reporting the crucifixion I believe it refers to the Spirit of Christ that cannot be crucified or killed. So in this way there is no real contradiction:

and their boast, "Behold, we have slain the Christ Jesus, son of Mary, [who claimed to be] an apostle of God!" However, they did not slay him, and neither did they crucify him, but it only seemed to them [as if it had been] so; and, verily, those who hold conflicting views thereon are indeed confused, having no [real] knowledge thereof, and following mere conjecture. For, of a certainty, they did not slay him:

Qur'an 4:157

"...but it only seemed to them [as if it had been] so.." They believed they had killed the Cause of Messiah but they were wrong...

"...nay, God exalted him unto Himself - and God is indeed almighty, wise."

Qur'an 4:148

Jesus committed His Spirit to God.

So there is not so much a contradiction as you suggest I believe.

I understand your point but I rely on Muslims for interpretation of their own verses normally. They have several explanations to account for the crucifixion. Some muslim scholars say a substitute was crucified, others say that he was just knocked out and later revived. Neither of these are consistent with the bible. No matter what you claim is the case the Quran says no physical death and the bible says there was physical death. You also forgot to include the bibles view that Christ is God or at least God's devine son and Islam claims he is a mere prophet. These can't both be true. These are only two of the hundreds of contradictions that make either the Bible or the Quran correct but not both. Look at whether Ishmael or Isaac was the one to be sacrificed by Abraham. The bible also says that anyone who denies the devine nature and savior status of Christ is the anti-Christ. Islam am most other religions do not believe in his specific nature as recorded in the bible even though many consider him a prophet. Christ also said that he is the ONLY way to heaven. I am quite sure that Judaism and Islam and many others deny this fact.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I understand your point but I rely on Muslims for interpretation of their own verses normally. They have several explanations to account for the crucifixion. Some muslim scholars say a substitute was crucified, others say that he was just knocked out and later revived. Neither of these are consistent with the bible. No matter what you claim is the case the Quran says no physical death and the bible says there was physical death. You also forgot to include the bibles view that Christ is God or at least God's devine son and Islam claims he is a mere prophet. These can't both be true. These are only two of the hundreds of contradictions that make either the Bible or the Quran correct but not both. Look at whether Ishmael or Isaac was the one to be sacrificed by Abraham. The bible also says that anyone who denies the devine nature and savior status of Christ is the anti-Christ. Islam am most other religions do not believe in his specific nature as recorded in the bible even though many consider him a prophet. Christ also said that he is the ONLY way to heaven. I am quite sure that Judaism and Islam and many others deny this fact.

There have been some sects of Islam that also believed Jesus was cruicified and died and His spirit went to God.

You are saying, you are relying on Moslems interpretations, because, that is their own Book. Well, according to the Author of Quran, it was sent to Mankind, not Moslems only!

And We sent down to you the Reminder so that you may clarify to mankind what We have sent down to them} [16:44]


Moreover, if someone else uses you reasoning, then they should reject Jesus christ, based on interpretation of OT by the Jews. Because they can say Torah is owned by Jews, and we rely on their interpretation, not others!