1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Koran v. Bible

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by Desfox, May 15, 2012.

  1. F0uad

    F0uad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2012
    Messages:
    3,401
    Ratings:
    +139

    Wow serious i have explained that in my previous post... :facepalm:
    I will just copy/paste my answer from the previous answer since you like to copy from articles hehehe.. :D

    This reference to the Itqan is untraceable as no edition of it is in less than two volumes to my knowledge.

    The above refers to a famous saying of Ibn `Umar, once again deceptively/ignorantly mistranslated so as to mislead readers to think it means other than its actual meaning.
    The words used by Ibn `Umar for the terms given as "acquired," "disappeared," and "what has survived" above were -- I am quoting from memory -- respectively "ahattu" (I have encompassed), "faatahu" (escapes him), and "ma tayassara minhu" (whatever amount of it has been facilitated).

    The actual meaning of Ibn `Umar's words is:

    "Let no one say: I have encompassed the whole of the Qur'an [= its meanings]. How does he know what all of it is when much of the Qur'an escapes him? Rather, let him say: I have encompassed whatever amount of it has been facilitated [for me to know]."


    Ibn `Umar was famous for his strictness in refraining from interpreting the Qur'an, even criticizing Ibn `Abbas's interpretive zeal in the beginning, then accepting its authority. He was not referring to the collection of the Qur'an! But only to the ethics of the exegete, in the same line as Ibn `Abbas's saying narrated by al-Tabari and cited by al-Suyuti and al-Zarkashi: "There are ambiguous verses in the Qur'an which no one knows besides Allah. Whoever claims that he knows them, is a liar."

    If you took time to read the article and hes book it refutes itself in the start area where its explained that some of the companions had there own personal Qurans(codex´s) written down because they knew the entire chapter and didn't want to write it down due to much text if you read the Sahih Muslim Hadith further it explains itself in much more details.



    Read: Codex Sana?a I - A Qur'anic Manuscript From Mid-1st Century Of Hijra

    fully detailed information about a the Quranic manuscript coming from 15 years after Mohammed(saws).

    Highlighted area: Subsequently in 2010 Sadeghi and Bergmann had published their article analysing the four auction folios, specifically the Sotheby’s 1993 / Stanford 2007 folio, where details were given of a radiocarbon study corroborating the early date already assigned to the manuscript. Analysis was done at the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) Laboratory at the University of Arizona.[41] According to Sadeghi and Bergmann, the results indicated that the parchment had a 68% (1σ) probability of belonging to the period between 614 CE to 656 CE. It had a 95% (2σ) probability of belonging to the period between 578 CE and 669 CE. The carbon dating was applicable to the scriptio inferior[42] The date which the scriptio superior text was written could be the first or second half of the 7th century or even the early 8th century (more generally the 1st century hijra). Sadeghi then pointed out, “For historical reasons, however, what is of greater interest is the probability that the parchment is older than a certain date. … The probability that the parchment is older than AD 646 is 75.1 %, or a three-to-one likelihood. It is highly probable therefore, that the Ṣanʿāʾ I manuscript was produced no more than 15 years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad.”[43] He concluded that the scriptio inferior text belonged to the period of the companions of Prophet Muhammad, whilst the scriptio superior text belonged to the ʿUthmānic tradition, and using stemmatics, the ʿUthmānic tradition was shown to give the most accurate reproduction of the Prophetic prototype.

    Now you have to remember that over 15million Muslims know the Quran word by word, letter by letter that mean´s that Islam has a very strong oral tradition hence people in Africa knew the Quran without even having one by hearing it from there fore-fathers they got it from there fore-fathers till the time of the prophet(saws) and its actually the same with the present and off-course that in time of the prophet(saws), its a Islamic obligation to recite the whole Quran, learn and pray from the Quran so i am pretty sure Islam has a real advantage on that case (remember prayer is 5days a time reciting different surahs) so even without the scripture the Quran is more likely to be preserved then the bible, i will be waiting from you to show me anything biblical that is 15years after Jesus(p) or even 30years as i clearly did above.

    Remember this is not a real ´´debate´´ for me or muslims since there is no Bible vs Quran its the Bible and Quran.

    Ps: That german has been refuted along time ago seriously hes so called ´´evidence and book´´ were published around 1988 and as you can see is used by Christian websites and articles i found more then over 10 Christian websites using the same argument that you did... hehehe :eek:
     
    #61 F0uad, May 21, 2012
    Last edited: May 21, 2012
  2. 1robin

    1robin Christian/Baptist

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    Messages:
    14,144
    Ratings:
    +358
    Religion:
    Christian
    Well at first glance it looks like a good reply. I am sorry if I missed your original rebuttal, I am so busy with work stuff and other threads I can't devote enough time to any one in particular. I will have to spend some time digging into this. I post articles to make certain points for times sake but I dig into everything myself. The fact that Christian sites use something is not in itself an argument against something. I will check your statements out and reply but 1988 doesn't sound old to me.

    Are you saying in your debate comment that you believe that the bible we have is reliable or else how can you adopt the "and the bible" stance if the bible is a mess?
     
  3. kellykep

    kellykep Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2012
    Messages:
    151
    Ratings:
    +1
    "E=Desfox;2927104]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.[/QUOTE]

    Consider this Who created Islam 1/3 - YouTube as well.
     
    #63 kellykep, May 23, 2012
    Last edited: May 23, 2012
  4. kellykep

    kellykep Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2012
    Messages:
    151
    Ratings:
    +1
    Consider this Who created Islam 1/3 - YouTube as well.
     
    #64 kellykep, May 23, 2012
    Last edited: May 23, 2012
  5. Dirty Penguin

    Dirty Penguin Master Of Ceremony

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2007
    Messages:
    12,073
    Ratings:
    +615
    :facepalm:...really...a wack propaganda video with an obvious agenda,,,,???

    Look, Islam is no more created than Christianity, Judaism or any other religion on the planet....:rolleyes:

    Let me equally share how Christianity was made. Whether I believe this or not isn't the point but I can equally show how Christianity was an invented religion....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvnuVWakVkc
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhTgDuRxEUM&feature=relmfu
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2pU2FHj2Iw&feature=relmfu
     
    #65 Dirty Penguin, May 23, 2012
    Last edited: May 23, 2012
  6. 1robin

    1robin Christian/Baptist

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    Messages:
    14,144
    Ratings:
    +358
    Religion:
    Christian
    F0uad
    Fouad, I just don't have the time it will take to follow up on this initial point. Instead I would rather concentrate of the most important area of dissagrement in the quran. The Crucifixion.

    The Quran states that Christ was for sure not crucified. The bible says that anyone who claims this is the antiChrist. Since the bible was written by several contemporaries of Christ and mentions over 512 witnesses, and the quran was given to a guy in a cave 600 years later WHY DO YOU TRUST THE QURAN ON THIS ISSUE? Outside of Allah said not, which is no better than God said did, what do you rely on for this?
     
  7. F0uad

    F0uad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2012
    Messages:
    3,401
    Ratings:
    +139
    I am sorry to say this but your dodging my arguments and my questions and this has nothing to do with the (preservation of the Quran or the bible) but ill reply on this also.

    Your claim is that its written by contemporaries is false by definition.

    Firstly we have no biblical scripture that is written in the time of Jesus(p) the most ancient one is 60 years after Jesus(p) that means that even the most ancient could have been changed/corrupted and altered in those 60years and now consider the other ones that are 200years after him.

    Who are the 512 witnesses do we have records of them? Do not forget that Mark (oldest scripture says there were no witnesses)

    I am not even going to reply on why i trust Mohammed(saws) because the list is to big even to mention.. I can ask you the same why would you belief John, Luke, Matthew and Mark... Who even didn't wrote the gospels Or Jesus(p) if you want to go that far.

    Can you also explain to me how the Biblical stories contradict each other on the case of the (Crusifiction) or do not mention the same things and yet you see them as reliable.

    And can you also explain when Jesus(p) said: I will be the same as Jonah(p) meaning alive instead of dead being a direct contradiction to the idea of the crucifixion
     
  8. 1robin

    1robin Christian/Baptist

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    Messages:
    14,144
    Ratings:
    +358
    Religion:
    Christian
    I can't argue with that except it's time verses relevant importance that is determining it not the quality of your arguments. These issues take so much time to research I would rather spend it on the important ones.

    It is definately not false by definition. The synoptics were written by people who knew Jesus.

    Have you ever researched the writings of the early church fathers. They contain 95% of the new testament text and are within just a few years of the event. However even your 200yrs date is 400yrs closer to the events.

    Yep
    However, the apostles were not the only ones who saw the risen Jesus. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James were the first (Mark 16). Paul lists several witnesses in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Among Jesus' disciples, there were 500 other witnesses. And the Jewish Law of Moses required at least two or three witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6).
    Witness to the Resurrection

    Thing they all have that Muhammad does not is: Multiple attestations, were eyewitnesses to Christ, were 600yrs closer the event, etc..... No matter what fault you find with the bible account the one in the quran is far worse.

    Yes, but keep in mind even Muhammad is believed by many scholars to have contradicted his own self (and he was just one guy). You will have to give me one or two, and I will explain them.

    That was not the sign of Jonah (Deedat) just kidding. The time frame is the sign. This is hair splitting gone nuts. It is a far greater miracle (for a far greater event and being) to rise from the dead than to get spit out by a fish.

    If you use Deedats spook argument I am going to run away from home.
     
  9. F0uad

    F0uad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2012
    Messages:
    3,401
    Ratings:
    +139
    I think your saying this because the Biblical preservation is flaud? Because you were the one who wanted to talk about the preservation and copied/pasted a article that i already refuted and never answered any of my questions.

    :facepalm: Some proof please... Since some of the scriptures inside mark are dated back to 60years after Jesus(p) and all the others are much later included Mark therefore we conclude they didn't know Jesus(p)

    :facepalm: Do you know how silly your argument sounds when the (records) themselves contradict each other on the subject..

    So your saying that Mark contradict himself by saying first there is no one (What is a older scripture) and then later on says Mary magdalen and the mother of James were the first..

    Paul wasn't even a eye-witness so how could he ever name them.. makes no sense again

    The Jewish law mentioned in Deuteronemy 17:6 isn´t speaking about the crucifixion so there was no need to mention it speaks about breaking the law (Stoning to death) as sentence.

    Since we can say that the bible is corrupted and the Quran not because you never tackled the preservation and accepted above that there are different kind of testimonies i would say that the Quran is more reliable since it doesn't contradict itself on this case.

    :facepalm: Scholars? debaters or scholars? You know having a scholarship of Quranic text is different then in-caging debates only for the pleasures and fame for it.
    I never found time miraculous i found being alive over and over more miraculous when you should have been dead.. This isn't a deedat argument it was well known and is still known.
     
    #69 F0uad, May 23, 2012
    Last edited: May 23, 2012
  10. 1robin

    1robin Christian/Baptist

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    Messages:
    14,144
    Ratings:
    +358
    Religion:
    Christian
    That is fine if you want, I never claimed perfect biblical preservation. I even claimed it isn't perfect. Most muslims won't do the same, but I think you at least did. If you want your questions answered on the other topic I guess it would be rude to refuse. Please post them again and I will.

    Actually John is the oldest gospel known. The one most damageing to Islam. God has a sence of humor.
    The earliest extant fragment of the New Testament is the Rylands Library Papyrus P52, a piece of the Gospel of John dated to the first half of the 2nd century. Dating the composition of the texts relies primarily on internal evidence, including direct references to historical events, as resorting to textual criticism, philological and linguistic evidence is very subjective.
    Dating the Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Some scholars even date P52 as early as 90 AD.
    What is the oldest manuscript that we have of the New Testament? « « Ethos ApologeticsEthos Apologetics
    Paul is even earlier and is more damageing to Islam than John:
    From the internal testimony of the texts, the individual books of the 27-book New Testament canon are likely dated to the 1st century CE. The first book written was probably 1 Thessalonians, written at around 50 CE.
    Dating the Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    However there are even earlier unofficial dates than these.

    I asked you to provide one of these so-called contradictions and I will show you how you are wrong. Since you didn't do so I will take it that you can't. I can't guess what you are thinking about.


    This is the acual text of Mark:
    v9 Jesus became alive again early on the first day of the week, Sunday. He appeared first to Mary from Magdala. Jesus had caused 7 bad *spirits to leave her. v10 She went to the people who had been with Jesus. They were all very sad and they were crying. Mary spoke to them. v11 She told them that Jesus was alive. And she told them that she had seen him. But they did not believe it.
    v12 After these things had happened, Jesus appeared to two other *disciples. They were walking away from the town. He seemed to be different to them. v13 Those two *disciples went and they told all the other *disciples. But the other *disciples also did not believe them.
    Free Bible Version with Notes of the book of Mark in simple English
    I don't understand what you are saying here.


    He didn't name them he said they were witnesses. He was told this by other apostles. I used to know which ones but I forgot. He was chosen as an apostle by Jesus himself and accepted by all the other apostles. He wrote more of the new testament than anyone else. Are you saying Jesus chose a liar for his apostle? Keep in mind most of these 500 were still around and could have been asked.


    Wrong again.
    New International Version (©1984)
    On the testimony of two or three witnesses a man shall be put to death, but no one shall be put to death on the testimony of only one witness. New Living Translation (©2007)
    But never put a person to death on the testimony of only one witness. There must always be two or three witnesses
    No, it addresses as a specific case in order to give a general mandate. That is why he used the words I bolded and not "women" This principle was used throughout the history of Jewish jurisprudence.

    My answering or not answering a question does not determine anything about the bible or quran. This is desperate. Once again no examples. As you can see from my post examples of verses make a big difference.


    The point I was makeing is about a favorite tactic of Islamic debaters. They say the bible is incorrect based on some author or another but that same author says the quran is incorrect but they don't mention that. There is no point saying the bible is incorrect because the same can be said about the quran. It is pointless. That is why I have not used the corruption of the quran as evidence for anything, I was trying to move our disussion to a higher level.
     
  11. F0uad

    F0uad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2012
    Messages:
    3,401
    Ratings:
    +139
    I did where?

    God has a sense of humour?.. typical.. Muslims do not even belief in the Gospel of John so therefore it doesn't damage it nor does it damage Judaism or Christians who do not follow Trinity and the Son of a God Theory

    O it is John now Christians really like to change there views since most Historians agreed that Mark was the oldest gospel and John is not even a gnostic gospel and do a quick search why its not a gnostic gospel.

    However, most contemporary scholars now regard it as the earliest of the canonical gospels[1] (c 70)

    Source

    Your sources are all biassed since John is the gospel that promotes Jesus(p) as god and Mark makes him more human.. this is a well known fact because the first thing Christians do is turn to the gospel of John to save there skins when Mark or Matthew is quoted against them so these articles promoting John is not a surprise to me its the same what the Early Church did.

    Since we were talking about the Crucifixion story inside the Bible i will quote the stories that do not match or contradict

    Mark 15:21 Matthew 27:32, Luke 23:26 - Jesus gets help from Simon of Cyrene
    John 19:17 - Jesus carries his own cross the whole way

    Who is right?

    Some gospels say Jesus was crucified with two thieves,though the Romans never crucified thieves.

    Mark - The two thieves are mentioned, but there is no conversation
    Matthew 27:44 - The two thieves taunt Jesus
    Luke 23:39-42 - One thief taunts Jesus and is criticized by the other. Jesus promises the 2nd thief that they would be in Paradise that day, though John and Acts say he did not ascend to heaven until 40 days after his resurrection
    John - The two men aren’t described as thieves

    Who is right?

    Mark 15:39 - A centurion cited as saying: “Truly this man was the son of God!”
    Matthew 27:54 - A centurion is cited as saying: “Truly this was the son of God.”
    Luke 23:47 - A centurion is cited as saying: “Truly this man was innocent.”
    John - No centurions say anything

    Who is right?

    The gospels describe several woman as having followed Jesus around, but what did they do when Jesus was crucified?

    Mark 15:40, Matthew 27:55, Luke 23:49 - Several women watch Jesus from afar
    John 19:25-26 - Several woman are close enough that Jesus could talk to his mother, contrary to Roman practices

    Who is right?

    Mark 15:25- Jesus was crucified on the “third hour.”
    John 19:14-15 - Jesus was crucified on the “sixth hour.”
    Matthew, Luke - It’s not stated when the crucifixion starts, but the “sixth hour” occurs during the crucifixion

    Who is right?

    We can clearly see that Johns gospel only by these few verses i quoted disagrees or has a different testimony then Luke, Matthew and Mark that's why these three are called gnostic gospels because they don´t follow up the words of John.. Yet you are holding John like a candle in the dark when most historians agreed that hes gospel was one of the latest not the earliest.
    This is after the crucifixion? Mark states that everyone fled when Jesus(p) was arrested.


    I don´t belief Jesus(p) ever made Paul a apostle the only one who did is he himself according to hes own scripture.. yeah real credibility he never met Jesus(p) in real-life only true a vision he had when riding to Damascus..

    I know that Paul has more then 45% writings of the Bible yet only the sayings of Jesus(p) exist of 9% kinda funny don´t you think.. Most Christians uphold Paul higher then Mark, Matthew, Luke or John because its Paulism you follow my friend.

    Lol wrong? Read the context i am aware of the witness obligation because it exist in Islam also i am pretty sure there are some Jewish people around here who can clarify it to you that its speaking about the law and not the crucifixion but by using logic you can come to the same conclusion.

    :confused:


    First of all its not a Islamic debater tactic its well accepted and you accepted it also read your first message i quoted above. Secondly since you think you can use it as a argument like i can lets talk about it. Thirdly since you started and are now running away from it i come to the conclusion that you are just spouting things to make yourself happy.
     
  12. Dirty Penguin

    Dirty Penguin Master Of Ceremony

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2007
    Messages:
    12,073
    Ratings:
    +615
    How is it damaging to Islam?
     
  13. Dirty Penguin

    Dirty Penguin Master Of Ceremony

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2007
    Messages:
    12,073
    Ratings:
    +615
    Also try these out......

    Mark 16:2-3
    And they said among themselves, Who shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great.

    Matthew 28:1(in part) - 2
    ........came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.


    Luke 24:1-2
    Now upon the first [day] of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain [others] with them. And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.


    John 20:1
    The first [day] of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.


    They all contradict each other.....Was it an angel that descended or not? Was it an earthquake or not? Was the stone rolled back by itself or did the angel or earthquake do it?

    Mark 16:5-8
    And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any [man]; for they were afraid.


    Matthew 28:8-10
    And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you. And they departed quickly from the sepulchre with fear and great joy; and did run to bring his disciples word. And as they went to tell his disciples, behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and held him by the feet, and worshipped him. Then said Jesus unto them, Be not afraid: go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and there shall they see me.

    Luke 24:4-9
    And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: And as they were afraid, and bowed down [their] faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. And they remembered his words, And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.


    Was it two men or one man/angel as the other gospels say? Did the women run in fear telling NO ONE what they saw or did they run in fear and Joy to tell the disciples? Did Yeshua meet them before telling the disciples or not?

    Luke 24:12
    Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass.

    John 20:3
    Peter therefore went forth, and that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre. So they ran both together: and the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre.

    Did peter go to the sepulcher or did ALL the disciples go? Did the one or all go or did none of them go? Other gospels are silent on this event and seem to not record the disciples going back to the tomb......So much contradiction here....:sad:
     
  14. sumaidi

    sumaidi ashabul yamin

    Joined:
    May 3, 2012
    Messages:
    158
    Ratings:
    +3
    fouad already give some contradicts in bible. i have some other contradicts in bible, unfortunately i lost it.
    i agree that as it has contradicts in itself, or as there some statement contradicts it should be there is the CORRECT one and the other one is WRONG. or it's all WRONG. and it's IMPOSSIBLE they all (the statements) CORRECT.
    so IT's IMPOSSIBLE all the statements in the bible today is CORRECT. i believe it has been corrupted
     
  15. waitasec

    waitasec Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2010
    Messages:
    21,038
    Ratings:
    +475
    the koran vs. the bible...
    how entertaining.
     
  16. 1robin

    1robin Christian/Baptist

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    Messages:
    14,144
    Ratings:
    +358
    Religion:
    Christian
    Are you saying that you believe the Quran you have today is exactly the same as the one Muhammad had produced originally? If so I will have to reevaluate my discussing things with you. Because the modern Quran is not perfect and neither is the bible. period.

    I don't care what Muslims believe because it seems to be what they like is what they believe. That is why I said God has a sense of humor by our finding that John is a very early gospel. I do not recognize your authority to dismiss John because he says things you do not like. He was chosen by Christ accepted by the apostles and their credentials exceed yours.
    First of all that fragment was recently dated, so your quip about the change from Mark to John being the earliest is completely Bogus. Both claims were absolutely true when they were made. You seem to be confused, no one claimed John is a Gnostic gospel. Gnostic Gospels are a group of writings that are believed to be uninspired by God (but still wind up in the quran anyway) and are not included in the bible. The word Gnostic means knowledge about God but not from God.
    This is exactly what I said. I think you might be confusing synoptic with gnostic. Your comments about John don't make any sense.
    You are getting close to convincing me you are just like most other Islamic scholars. You just reject anything you don't happen to like. I will argue against the whole Quran not remove the parts I don't like. The Gospels are supposed to cover different aspects of Jesus's ministry. They were written for different audiences and purposes. This is grammar school biblical exegesis. Mark believed in the divinity and resurrection of Jesus. 9 When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, 14 Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.
    Mark 16 NIV - Jesus Has Risen - When the Sabbath was - Bible Gateway
    This is from Mark. He obviously believed Jesus was resurrected. Which the much later and much less attested Quran denies.
    Well well, John is no good unless it contradicts something else. Great scholarship. Typical, not even consistent. This is stuff even Sunday school kids know. Both are true. The two gospel accounts are recording two different chronological portions of the same sequential event. Jesus left the hearing before Pilate carrying His cross. However as He neared the city limits of Jerusalem He was physically unable to continue at a fast enough pace to suit the roman centurion in charge of the crucifixion procession. Therefore, a bystander,Simon of Cyrene, was pressed into service.
    http://usminc.org/images/136BC.pdf (this is a well known literary technique referred to as telescoping) Some things are detailed accounts some are general overview that do not include details.
    Crucifixion was in use at a comparatively high rate among the
    Seleucids, Carthaginians, and Romans from about the 6th century BC to the 4th century AD. As a deterrent (not even criminal but political)in the ancient world, many of it’s victims were crucified where the criminal event took place as was the case with thieves or along the cities busiest thoroughfares. The situation can perhaps best be summed up by Quintilian (35-95 CE.) Crucifixion in Antiquity -The Anthropological Evidence
    The Romans crucified hundreds of thousands and there are only records for a few of these. There is no way whatsoever you know they did not crucify thieves.
    There is no contradiction here both things happened at different times.
    Look at where the comma is in that verse about paradise.
     
  17. 1robin

    1robin Christian/Baptist

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    Messages:
    14,144
    Ratings:
    +358
    Religion:
    Christian
    This is getting silly. Again this is a case of the two gospels focusing on two different chronological portions of the same lengthy sequential event. Early on, when the crowd was at its antagonistic worst the women stood off from the cross. Later, after the crowd calmed down and began to thin, the women moved closer to Jesus and actually talked to Him.
    http://usminc.org/images/136BC.pdf
    Mark in his gospel uses the Jewish hour designation, sunrise at approximately 6:00 a.m. being the "first" hour of the "day" (daylight hours). Note: the Jewish "day" or twenty four hour period ran from sundown to sundown. John’s gospel uses the roman hour designation, midnight being the "first "hour, with the twenty four hour "day" running from midnight to midnight. (See Pliny the Elder Natural History 2:77). It is clear that John uses Roman time designation throughout his gospel.
    http://usminc.org/images/136BC.pdf
    This is kindergarten stuff.
    No, what we see is you don't know much about textual criticism.
    You are very definitely confusing gnostic and synoptic. John is not considered synoptic many times because his purpose and information was different than the others not because it is wrong. He had a different purpose. Synoptic incorporates (synonym) as a root which means similar, not right or wrong. The only reason I brought up John was to show your Mark claim was wrong. I could disprove your position without him.
    I couldn't figure out what you were talking about with the English you used, still can't. I guessed but said I wasn't sure. If you will make it clear I will show you why you are wrong.
    All the other apostles excepted his commission and writings. You don’t even come close to being able to dismiss what they accepted. Your position is meaningless.

    Nope, Paul as every amateur biblical scholar knows was primarily concerned with the structure and foundation of the early church. Were you there? We already had 4 gospels giving more than enough info about Christ’s earthly ministry. That was not Paul's role. Are you familiar with biblical exegesis at all. Paul is the only apostle that had a formal education in Jewish Law. He was taught by Gameliel himself. The greatest Jewish scholar of the time. Paul was more qualified than anyone to integrate Christianity with Judaism. That is exactly what he did.
    Good lord. It was a universally accepted requirement where witness testimony was concerned. Jesus knew about and did this.
    English Standard Version(©2001)
    I am the one who bears witness about myself, and the Father who sent me bears witness about me." http://bible.cc/john/8-18.htm
    He was stating the fact that he knew even his testimony alone wasn't legal, and so he stated his father as the second witness which made it legal.

    It most certainly is. F0uad this was very disappointing. I enjoy a good challenge, this isn’t one. Your contradictions are easily disproven and the other points I can even understand were wrong in a very simple way. Up until recently you have made some impressive arguments. What happened? From now on please limit your "supposed contradictions" to your two best. They only take a second to clear up but it takes forever to type it out.
     
  18. 1robin

    1robin Christian/Baptist

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    Messages:
    14,144
    Ratings:
    +358
    Religion:
    Christian
    Because it is the primary reference for the devineity of Christ and his resurection. That is why F0uad can't allow it to be accepted, even though it was excepted by Christ, and all the apostles. The others speak on the devinity and the ressurection but John and Paul are the prime sources. That is also why F0uad can't stand Paul either. Islam besically requires 60% of the new testament be removed on no authority whatsoever except they don't like it, and it makes Muhammad look like a lunatic.
     
  19. 1robin

    1robin Christian/Baptist

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2012
    Messages:
    14,144
    Ratings:
    +358
    Religion:
    Christian
    Hello dirty penguin. Please limit your supposed contradictions to two at a time. It only takes a second to clear them up but it takes a lot of typeing and is usually too long for one post.
     
  20. F0uad

    F0uad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2012
    Messages:
    3,401
    Ratings:
    +139
    I would reconsider the period...

    Because the bible isn't doesn't mean the Quran isn't, yes its actually the same that Abu Bakr and Uthman had didn't you look into the link i gave or read anything i said before or at-least searched up or asked what muslims belief?

    I know that the idea of the bible being the dictated word has changed in time like many others things but this isn't the case for the Quran its fully preserved as i can show from the Hadiths and the dating of the Quran.

    What do you mean.. i didn't quote a Muslim source i was quoting what most scholars believed first of all i don´t dismiss John specific i dismiss everything inside bible that contradicts the Quran or the lies about previous prophets/messengers having acted in a way they would never do i can only accept the parts that agree what sounds logical when you belief that the Quran is from God right?
    Yes it was a spelling error my bad and like i said there are many disagreements between Historians and Scholars themselves.

    I don´t see your point... We were talking about eye-witnesses not if Mark believed in a certain teaching... Since mark didn't even write it how can you be so sure of your case that Mark really though that Jesus(p) was crucified?

    Islamic scholars? Have you ever searched up the definition of scholar-ship since a debater is not always a scholar nor does generalizing benefits you.

    I already know the tele-scoping argument but it doesn't works on some of the verses i quoted because if Person A says A and Person B says B its not telescoping but a direct contradiction, you also forgot that i said stories aren't fully mentioned in some testimonies you agreed above as i can see but rather call it (telescoping).

    Its funny how you quote something just to argue, my point wasn't that they weren't crucified i said that thieves generally weren't crucified but yes outside of Rome it did happen

    while many English translations of the Bible does use the word 'thief', the original Greek had "lestai" - which has a broader connotation than the English word (the Greek word for a common petty thief is "kleptai") and could also mean 'insurrectionist', 'revolutionary', or 'bandit'; the sense would be somewhere close to our modern-day "terrorist" or "guerilla fighters".

    Thus, we can infer that these two were not mere burglars (i.e. like bank robbers), but are political insurrectionists who did acts of terrorism in public. That act would have fallen under the charge of sedition; enough to get them their own crosses.

    Matthew and Mark use "lestai", while Luke uses the broader "kakourgoi" ("criminal"). 'Criminal' by itself is vague, but that does not contradict Matthew and Mark's use of "lestai" or 'bandit'.

    So i would agree that it could have happen and certainly because it was outside of Rome (in Jerusalem).

    Its not out of silence you have yourself stated that John destroys Islam :eek:.

    I would say Classical Arabic, Classical Hebrew or even Chinese is more Descriptive but you forget the point that even now people look into the Greek scriptures and tell us that verses have been incorporated so there goes your reliable Greek scripture
     
Loading...