• 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!

Muslim views on Jesus

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
"if we assume"

A big if and an impossible assumption, Jesus neither did write NT Gospels nor did he dictate it. So, it demonstrates that Quran is right and is the Word of G-d. Right, please?
Cheers!

Regards
No, Jesus not dictating the Gospels does not demonstrate that the Quran or the Norse Eddas or any other book are the word of God, how silly of you to suggest such an obviously fallacious line of reasoning.
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Yes, exactly.

I find it interesting that there are these theories, because I did not know that this sort of research had been done on the Quran, or by whom. Terry Sampson has also mentioned some interesting connections between the Quran and various apocryphal Christian - or proto-Christian - texts. So it seems there is at least some evidence for where some of the ideas later expressed in the Koran may have come from. It is part of the picture of the history of the interconnections between the three Abrahamic religions.

But for me at least, it is the end of the discussion for the time being. I don't have the time just now to follow up these leads. Maybe I will at some later date. I have read a bit on the history of Christianity but have not yet done the same for Islam.

It is just a conjecture, I contemplate. and it holds no water. Right, please?

Regards
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
The first 5 books are identical clones?

Sorry sis. You cannot be more further from the truth. Read it critically.

The where did you get this figure of 85% of the bible is based on the Torah? 85% out of 34 (without the pentateuch) books is 30. What are the 30 books you are speaking of and what is the analysis to say they are all based on the "Torah"


You don't seem to know much about the bible.

85% is OT, the OT is cloned from Hebrew scriptures
 

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
No, Jesus not dictating the Gospels does not demonstrate that the Quran or the Norse Eddas or any other book are the word of God, how silly of you to suggest such an obviously fallacious line of reasoning.
The poster gave the reason
"Also, if we assume (although theres arguments that are made) the New Testament contains Jesus words, then it makes sense that the NT is right and the koran is not."

Since, Jesus did not write or dictate NT Gospels, so with that reason NT Gospels is excluded and Quran is right.

One may not like it for obvious reasons.

Regards
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The poster gave the reason
"Also, if we assume (although theres arguments that are made) the New Testament contains Jesus words, then it makes sense that the NT is right and the koran is not."

Since, Jesus did not write or dictate NT Gospels, so with that reason NT Gospels is excluded and Quran is right.

One may not like it for obvious reasons.

Regards
The obvious reason being that it is obviously not true.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The poster gave the reason
"Also, if we assume (although theres arguments that are made) the New Testament contains Jesus words, then it makes sense that the NT is right and the koran is not."

Since, Jesus did not write or dictate NT Gospels, so with that reason NT Gospels is excluded and Quran is right.
Suppose if I dictated a story to my secretary about Jesus and said, “this is from God” then said, “Jesus did not dictate the NT, so the NT is not true and excluded leaving my story which is right” would that make my story right?

That’s the same line of reasoning you are using in a vain attempt to prove the Quran is true
 

MJFlores

Well-Known Member
"if we assume"

A big if and an impossible assumption, Jesus neither did write NT Gospels nor did he dictate it. So, it demonstrates that Quran is right and is the Word of G-d. Right, please?
Cheers!

Regards

giphy.gif


THE CHRISTIANS REGARD the Bible as their Sacred Scriptures, where the words of God are written. For true Christians, the Bible is the sole basis of their faith. Muslims also regard Qur’an as their Sacred Scriptures, where the words of God are written. So, what the differences between the two books?


PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES

The Bible is a library (a collection) of sixty-six (66) books. Written in a span of 1,500 years (Genesis, the first book, was written about 1447-1407 BC, and Revelation, the last book, was written about 90-95 AD). The Bible is written by more than forty (40) inspired writers.

Qur’an is a single book. It is comparable in length with the New Testament. The “standard Qur’an” was done by a single man.

Take note that if you going to read the whole Bible, you can see that it seems it was written by a single writer in particular period or time because of its unity. Remarkable for the Bible is not a single book but a collection of 66 books, written by 40 men in a span of 1,500 years. If there is a unity in Qur’an, what’s remarkable about that for it was done by a single man in a particular time or period?


ON DIVINE INSPIRATION

The Christians firmly believe that the Bible is divinely inspired. The Muslims also claim that Qur’an is divinely inspired. “Divine inspiration” means that the one who wrote was truly inspired by God as prophet or apostle.

The Bible is divinely inspired for the those who wrote the books are the inspired prophets and apostles themselves. The first five books (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) are written by the inspired prophet Himself, Prophet Moses. The Book of Joshua was written by Joshua, The books of Samuel written by the prophets Nathan and Gad, the Book of Isaiah written by Isaiah, and so on.

Contrary to popular belief, it was not Muhammad who wrote Qur’an, and he never wrote anything. The book called “Qur’an” never existed during his lifetime. That Qur’an was written during the lifetime of Muhammad was only a claim of Muslims today, but their hadith and sahih don’t agree with it. Let us first quote the admission of modern Muslims. In a book entitled, “Islam in Focus” this is what they admitted

“…he consulted (Abu Bakr) the leading authorities and then entrusted Zayd Ibn Thabit, Muhammad’s Chief Scribe of Revelations, to compile a standard and complete copy of the Book...” (Islam in Focus, p. 219)

This book authored and published by Muslims admitted that the “standard Qur’an” was done by Zayd Ibn Thabit who Abu Bakr commissioned to do so. Abu Bakr was the “first caliph” (he succeeded Muhammad). Thus, Qur’an was done after the death of Muhammad. But did Zayd only “collected” and “compiled” those already written during the lifetime of Muhammad? This is what Sahih Al-Bhukari admitted (Sahih Al-Bhukari, together with Sahih Al-Muslim, these two are considered by many Muslims as semi-canonical books, these are collections of Hadith or Islamic traditions):

“Accordingly, I sought out the Qur’an: I gather it together from leafless palm-branches and thin white stones and men’s breasts.” (Sahih Al-Bhukari, Book 66, Hadith 8)

According to the testimony of Zayd himself, when he was requested by Abu Bakr to search out the various Qur’an and gather it together, he responded “I sought out the Qur’an: I gather it together from leafless palm-branches and thin white stones and men’s breasts.”

Remember that the “Qur’an” they were referring was not the “book” called Qur’an, but “Qur’an” that recited by Muhammad as “divine revelations” revealed to him. He seek out those “ur’an” and what he found were those in “leafless palm-branches, thin white stones and men’s breasts.” Divine revelation of God written in “leafless palm-branches and thin white stones”? Are these reliable and credible? Actually great numbers came from “men’s breasts” as we will see later.

Now, let us first see why the sudden move of collecting the “Qur’an” that resulted in having a “standard written Qur’an”? This is what the Islamic traditions tell us:

“Abu Bakr sent someone to call me when Yamama people were killed. Umar was there with him. Abu Bakr said: ‘On the day of Yamama, Umar came to me and said that the reciters of the Qur’an were killed. He was afraid that others might be killed elsewhere. This indicates the loss of much of the Qur’an. He suggested that I command that the Qur’an be compiled.’ I asked Umar: ‘How would you do something that the Prophet of Allah did not do?’ Umar kept telling me to think about it until Allah made my heart cheerful. I took on Umar’s perspective. Abu Bakr said to me: ‘We do not doubt that you are a wise young man. You used to write down the revelation for the Prophet of Allah. So trace the Qur’an and compile it.’ I said: ‘By Allah, if they had chosen me to move the mountain from its place, it would have been easier than compiling the Qur’an. I argued: ‘How would you do something the Prophet of Allah did not do?’ He replied: ‘By Allah, this is good!’ Therefore, I continued compiling it from palm branched, thin stones, and the chests of men....The leaves (suhuf) were with Abu Bakr until he died; then they were handed down to Umar, then to Hafsah, Umar’s daughter.” (Sahih Al-Bhukari, Book 66, Hadith 8)

Let us be reminded that the “Qur’an” compiled by Zayd were not “written Qur’an.” The book “Qur’an” were not written or it does not exist during the lifetime of Muhammad. If there are “revelations” of Muhammad that were put in writing during his lifetime, very few, a small fraction. Great numbers were found in “men’s breast” or “memorized” only in their hearts by Muhammad’s companions and followers. As a proof, when Abu Bakr commanded Umar to tell Zayd the task of compiling the “Qur’an”, he replied “How would you do something that the Prophet of Allah did not do?

When Abu Bakr said to Zayd that “We do not doubt that you are a wise young man. You used to write down the revelation for the Prophet of Allah. So trace the Qur’an and compile it.” Zayd answered, “By Allah, if they had chosen me to move the mountain from its place, it would have been easier than compiling the Qur’an…How would you do something the Prophet of Allah did not do?” Take note that if Zayd have been written all or many of the “revelations” recited by Muhammad during the latter’s lifetime, he would not say such words, “if they had chosen me to move the mountain from its place, it would have been easier than compiling the Qur’an.” Zayd again said, “How would you do something the Prophet of Allah did not do?” This only proves that “Qur’an was not written and compiled during the lifetime of Muhammad.” The book called "Qur'an" does not exist during the lifetime of Muhammad. The Qur’an was put in writing after Muhammad’s death by a young man commissioned by Abu Bakr, named Zayd Ibn Thabit.

Why did Abu Bakr commissioned Zayd to make the book that is now called Qur’an? During the Battle of Yamama many Muslims were killed. Abu Bakr said, “‘On the day of Yamama, Umar came to me and said that the reciters of the Qur’an were killed. He was afraid that others might be killed elsewhere. This indicates the loss of much of the Qur’an.” This proves (1) many “revelations” recited to them by Muhammad were not put in writing during his lifetime but only memorized by his followers, and (2) and not all recited by Muhammad were included in the book made by Zayd (thus refuting the alleged “perfect preservation" of Muhammad’s revelations or of Qur’an).

Although the Lord Jesus Christ did not wrote any book in the Bible, however, the writers of the New Testament books were apostles and ministers of the Gospel, like Apostle John, Apostle Paul and Apostle Peter. Was Zayd Ibn Thabit “an apostle of Allah”? Apostle Paul said, “Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God.” (II Corinthians 5:20, NKJV) Can Zayd Ibn Thabit say the same for Muhammad?
Arab%2Bscribe.jpg

Therefore, if the books of the Bible were written by the prophets and the apostles themselves, the Qur’an was not written by the prophet of Islam, not written by Muhammad himself, but only by a young man commissioned by Abu Bakr when Muhammad was already dead. So, the books of the Bible claimed “divine inspiration” because the writers of the book were the divine prophets and apostles themselves. How about Qur’an? How can it claim “divine inspiration” if it is not written by Muhammad himself but by a young man commissioned by Abu Bakr? Was Zayd himself an inspired prophet or apostle of Allah?

Truly, there are great differences between the Bible and Qur’an. The basis of the Bible’s divine inspiration is greater than the basis (if they have) of the Qur’an’s divine inspiration.

There are still many great differences between the Qur’an and the Bible, but these are enough for now, and these are enough to show that the Bible rises over and above the Qur'an.

 

Terry Sampson

Well-Known Member
You mean now! But people were persecuted for it earlier. All religions have done that. So being bias will hinder your scholarship.

My words: "are able and move about with freedom" are written in the present tense, so yes, I mean now.
"Bias", like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder. Where bias in scholarship is perceived, the scholar's results can offend some readers and not others, and affect reception of and response to the results. Nothing new under the sun, eh?
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I said the names of the scholars were taken off the internet. Not that the theories were taken off the internet. Many things like this can be taken off the internet but we as thinking individuals must study them not take them at face value. Did you at least understand what I wrote? What did you understand from that at least?
I think I understood it well enough.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
It is just a conjecture, I contemplate. and it holds no water. Right, please?

Regards
No, it will the outcome of a good deal of careful scholarly research. That does not make it right, but it does mean it cannot be dismissed as mere conjecture.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
My words: "are able and move about with freedom" are written in the present tense, so yes, I mean now.
"Bias", like beauty, is often in the eye of the beholder. Where bias in scholarship is perceived, the scholar's results can offend some readers and not others, and affect reception of and response to the results. Nothing new under the sun, eh?

Yes. Now, there are many societies that Muslims will find it difficult to have revolutionary scholarly studies and write extensively on the Quran (Mainly). Depends where though. But there are many, and there have been many since the Quran. The world is a big place. And we should be open and study. Not take anyone at face value.

Cheers.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
PHYSICAL DIFFERENCES

The Bible is a library (a collection) of sixty-six (66) books. Written in a span of 1,500 years (Genesis, the first book, was written about 1447-1407 BC, and Revelation, the last book, was written about 90-95 AD). The Bible is written by more than forty (40) inspired writers.

Qur’an is a single book. It is comparable in length with the New Testament. The “standard Qur’an” was done by a single man.

Take note that if you going to read the whole Bible, you can see that it seems it was written by a single writer in particular period or time because of its unity. Remarkable for the Bible is not a single book but a collection of 66 books, written by 40 men in a span of 1,500 years. If there is a unity in Qur’an, what’s remarkable about that for it was done by a single man in a particular time or period?

I think, read up on the documentary hypothesis fathered by Wellhausen. No, im not quoting Muslim scholarship or random unrecognised scholarship, this is academic and some of the most highly recognised and established scholarship of the pentateuch. It breaks your theory that the whole of the bible looks as if its written by one person. Sorry, I know that you didnt say this, it was a cut and paste from somewhere. But what you posted is a faith based statement. And is highly rhetoric than analytic.

The Bible is divinely inspired for the those who wrote the books are the inspired prophets and apostles themselves. The first five books (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) are written by the inspired prophet Himself, Prophet Moses.

Again, read on the documentary hypothesis. Read up and analyse. You dont need to believe it.

The Bible is divinely inspired for the those who wrote the books are the inspired prophets and apostles themselves. The first five books (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) are written by the inspired prophet Himself, Prophet Moses. The Book of Joshua was written by Joshua, The books of Samuel written by the prophets Nathan and Gad, the Book of Isaiah written by Isaiah, and so on.

Contrary to popular belief, it was not Muhammad who wrote Qur’an, and he never wrote anything. The book called “Qur’an” never existed during his lifetime. That Qur’an was written during the lifetime of Muhammad was only a claim of Muslims today, but their hadith and sahih don’t agree with it. Let us first quote the admission of modern Muslims. In a book entitled, “Islam in Focus” this is what they admitted

What you are doing here is agreeing with some Muslims due to your convenience (again I am not addressing you, but the writer of wherever you cut and pasted this from). Some muslims said the Quran was written during Muhammed lifetime, but some others said that it was not, so you go with the latter out of convenience, not scholarship and good reasoning.

Abu Bakr said, “‘On the day of Yamama, Umar came to me and said that the reciters of the Qur’an were killed. He was afraid that others might be killed elsewhere. This indicates the loss of much of the Qur’an.”

While you are taking a document (Buhari) dated to the 14th century to provide you a historical story about another book that was written in the 7th century and you take the 14th century document as authentic enough for you to use it against a book that is closer to Muhammed by 700 years. That cannot be even considered double standard. While using a double standard like that your writer has misread the quote of that story. Actually intentionally misquoted it. This part that says "This indicates the loss of much of the Qur’an" is an interpolation and an assumption of your author. This so called hadith only says that Abu Bakr was afraid, not that Quran was lost. And your writer has not understood the system of haafiz. A Kurra does not memorise part of the Quran. He memorises the whole book. So if there were 1000 people, and 900 died, still there will be 100 who remember the whole Quran. this is a famous apolegetic tactic but a sophomore mistake.

Although the Lord Jesus Christ did not wrote any book in the Bible, however, the writers of the New Testament books were apostles and ministers of the Gospel, like Apostle John, Apostle Paul and Apostle Peter.

No. Absolutely wrong. The four gospels are author-less. So you dont know who wrote it. There is a study called the Synoptic problem. Read up and understand another issue with it. Thats standard textbook study. Nothing new. And no one knows who wrote John. It is "assumed". there are some books attributed to Peter but not written by him. Same goes to Paul.

Was Zayd Ibn Thabit “an apostle of Allah”? Apostle Paul said, “Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ's behalf, be reconciled to God.” (II Corinthians 5:20, NKJV) Can Zayd Ibn Thabit say the same for Muhammad?

Absurd point. Because Zayd (accodding to your own source though you have not definitely read it at all) was the prophets companion. So more authentic. Paul has never met Jesus. No one who wrote the Bible has ever said or indicated that they have ever met Jesus. So this is an absurd point.

There are still many great differences between the Qur’an and the Bible, but these are enough for now, and these are enough to show that the Bible rises over and above the Qur'an.

Yes. Where you cut and pasted this from has a lenghthier discussion.

Peace.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Ah. 85% is OT? Thats what you meant. Alright.

Nevertheless, what do you mean the OT is cloned from Hebrew Scriptures? It "IS" the Hebrew scripture.

Picky... There are some changes, some omissions, (only a few) perbut is none the less, 'tiz a clone

And like i said 85% of the bible is Hebrew scriptures, thanks for the agreement, eventually
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Picky... There are some changes, some omissions, (only a few) perbut is none the less, 'tiz a clone

And like i said 85% of the bible is Hebrew scriptures, thanks for the agreement, eventually

No sis. I dont agree. Not at all. The OT is absolutely the Tanah. The Hebrew scripture. There are no omissions, no changes.
 
Top