Muslim views on Jesus

[Augustus]

No. You dont even know who he is. How can you call him a scholar and philologist if you dont even know who he is?

Because he has published scholarship on an issue of course

There are many people who have written under a pseudonym throughout history, and their work is judged on its merits. CL's work is not widely accepted, but seeing as I've never argued for its accuracy this is irrelevant to my point.

Anyway, none of the other scholars I mentioned uses a pseudonym, and most if not all have held positions at recognised universities. So unless you plan on making your 'no true Scotsman' arguments against anyone who says something you don't agree with then CL doesn't even matter.

 

[firedragon]

Because he has published scholarship on an issue of course

There are many people who have written under a pseudonym throughout history, and their work is judged on its merits. CL's work is not widely accepted, but seeing as I've never argued for its accuracy this is irrelevant to my point.

Anyway, none of the other scholars I mentioned uses a pseudonym, and most if not all have held positions at recognised universities. So unless you plan on making your 'no true Scotsman' arguments against anyone who says something you don't agree with then CL doesn't even matter.

Nope. Just because you wish someone to be a scholar he doesn't become a scholar.

You dont know who he is to call him a scholar because "your assessment" is purely based on him being a scholar and philologist, not on the merit of the writing. It was I who was trying to discuss the merits of his writing but you earlier refused to based on your claim that you were only claiming he is a scholar/philologist of Classical Arabic.

So now you are changing your foundation.

Have a good day.

 

[Augustus]

Nope. Just because you wish someone to be a scholar he doesn't become a scholar.

You dont know who he is to call him a scholar because "your assessment" is purely based on him being a scholar and philologist, not on the merit of the writing. It was I who was trying to discuss the merits of his writing but you earlier refused to based on your claim that you were only claiming he is a scholar/philologist of Classical Arabic.

So now you are changing your foundation.

Seeing as my 'foundation' doesn't rely on CL whatsoever, just 1 or more scholars existing who disagree with you, I'm not changing it in the slightest. You are the one who is fixated on him.

Let's see if a respected Muslim Professor/scholar agrees with me or you:

Many scholars hint at the possibility that heretical Jewish-Christian sects like the Ebionites-Elchasaites112 and Nazorean-Essenes,113 dualist sects including Mar- cionites114 and Manichaeans,115 Gnostics116 and other ill-defined groups117 played a significant role in the development of the Qur’ān... Taking this a step further, Günter Lüling believes that the pre-Islamic monotheists of the Qur’ān’s milieu were “central Arabian Christians.”119 He further argues that the ur-Qur’ān, marked by an anti-Trinitarian angel-Christology, was originally composed of ancient Arabian Christian strophic hymns that went through progressive stages of Islamization by later exegetes.120 ...

In fact, while Luxenberg’s book provides rich—though often unsubstantiated—insights, and a handful of solutions to previously problematic passages, his work produces more problems in their place and is so methodologically problematic as it maintains an exclusive focus on philology, with little regard for the Qur’ān “as a literary text...that has to be de- coded and evaluated historically.”144 This is not the place to assess the strengths and limitations of Luxenberg’s work. Several scholarly reviews and responses have done this job sufficiently.145 What remains to be said about Luxenberg is that his flawed—and some would say polemical146—study finally delivered a rude awakening to the field of Qur’ānic Studies concerning the importance of Syriac. Despite his marginalization, at least some scholars equally skeptical about the Qur’ān’s origins have gravitated towards Luxenberg’s approach.147

Emran el-Badawi - The Quran and the Aramaic Gospel Traditions

Feel free to make a rational, evidence based case against all the other names if you like rather than just repeating 'that doesn't count because I say so'.

 

[firedragon]

Seeing as my 'foundation' doesn't rely on CL whatsoever, just 1 or more scholars existing who disagree with you, I'm not changing it in the slightest. You are the one who is fixated on him.

Let's see if a respected Muslim Professor/scholar agrees with me or you:

Many scholars hint at the possibility that heretical Jewish-Christian sects like the Ebionites-Elchasaites112 and Nazorean-Essenes,113 dualist sects including Mar- cionites114 and Manichaeans,115 Gnostics116 and other ill-defined groups117 played a significant role in the development of the Qur’ān... Taking this a step further, Günter Lüling believes that the pre-Islamic monotheists of the Qur’ān’s milieu were “central Arabian Christians.”119 He further argues that the ur-Qur’ān, marked by an anti-Trinitarian angel-Christology, was originally composed of ancient Arabian Christian strophic hymns that went through progressive stages of Islamization by later exegetes.120 ...

In fact, while Luxenberg’s book provides rich—though often unsubstantiated—insights, and a handful of solutions to previously problematic passages, his work produces more problems in their place and is so methodologically problematic as it maintains an exclusive focus on philology, with little regard for the Qur’ān “as a literary text...that has to be de- coded and evaluated historically.”144 This is not the place to assess the strengths and limitations of Luxenberg’s work. Several scholarly reviews and responses have done this job sufficiently.145 What remains to be said about Luxenberg is that his flawed—and some would say polemical146—study finally delivered a rude awakening to the field of Qur’ānic Studies concerning the importance of Syriac. Despite his marginalization, at least some scholars equally skeptical about the Qur’ān’s origins have gravitated towards Luxenberg’s approach.147

Emran el-Badawi - The Quran and the Aramaic Gospel Traditions

Feel free to make a rational, evidence based case against all the other names if you like rather than just repeating 'that doesn't count because I say so'.

Another authors fleeting mention of the word scholar/scholars and the name Christoph not related to each other, in a large piece of writing with over 300 pages has made you help yourself to an attempt to make your original mistaken claim that someone is a scholar/philologist is substantiated.

And I shall not take the step and ask "at least have you read this book".

Peace.

 

[Augustus]

Another authors fleeting mention of the word scholar/scholars and the name Christoph not related to each other, in a large piece of writing with over 300 pages has made you help yourself to an attempt to make your original mistaken claim that someone is a scholar/philologist is substantiated.

He does clearly note CL's work as philology though

Once again though you are badly missing the point with your obsession over one person out of many. The point of that text was to note a respected Muslim scholar acknowledging multiple scholars have made arguments that contradict your completely unsubstantiated and objectively false assertion that "any philologist reading the Quran will affirm that its written by one person."

So if you can't do any better than saying "you are wrong because I say so" I'll leave it to others to decide which one of us has made a better case.

Not sure why it's even so important to you to argue against the idea that "some scholars disagree on a highly technical and somewhat subjective issue".

And I shall not take the step and ask "at least have you read this book".

And I won't ask you either, even though for a self-appointed arbiter of all scholarship and expertise you seem remarkably ill informed on such a basic issue.

Even someone as ignorant as me who *apparently* has never read a thing and just copies stuff off the internet that they don't understand seems to have a better grasp of the sources

 

[firedragon]

He does clearly note CL's work as philology though

Once again though you are badly missing the point with your obsession over one person out of many. The point of that text was to note a respected Muslim scholar acknowledging multiple scholars have made arguments that contradict your completely unsubstantiated and objectively false assertion that "any philologist reading the Quran will affirm that its written by one person."

So if you can't do any better than saying "you are wrong because I say so" I'll leave it to others to decide which one of us has made a better case.

Not sure why it's even so important to you to argue against the idea that "some scholars disagree on a highly technical and somewhat subjective issue".



And I won't ask you either, even though for a self-appointed arbiter of all scholarship and expertise you seem remarkably ill informed on such a basic issue.

Even someone as ignorant as me who *apparently* has never read a thing and just copies stuff off the internet that they don't understand seems to have a better grasp of the sources

Cheers.

 

[Jollybear]

"if we assume"

A big if and an impossible assumption, Jesus neither did write NT Gospels nor did he dictate it.

Jesus did not write it, true, or dictate it, true. But the apostles who knew jesus, they got others to write it for them. There witness should know.

So, it demonstrates that Quran is right and is the Word of G-d. Right, please?
Cheers!

Regards

How does this demonstrate that the koran is the word of God? You lost me there.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

You mean there are several Gods?

No, there is only one God. He told Moses his name was YHWH.