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!

Featured The Gospel and the Torah, the Quran, Christian, Bahai, and other apologetics.

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by firedragon, May 2, 2021.

?
  1. Yes

  2. No

  3. Other

Results are only viewable after voting.
  1. InvestigateTruth

    InvestigateTruth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2010
    Messages:
    7,081
    Ratings:
    +2,293
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    @Meandflower , @Rival

    I found this:
    I quote from Wikipedia:


    "Muslim historians and hagiographers (such as Ibn Ishaq) maintained that the people of Medina accepted Islam because of their awareness of these prophecies, and because they saw Muhammad as fulfilling them.[1]"

    Muhammad and the Bible - Wikipedia
     
    • Useful Useful x 2
  2. adrian009

    adrian009 Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2014
    Messages:
    10,457
    Ratings:
    +9,748
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    We’ve discussed this important question on previous occasions. I believe Muhammad was referring to the Gospel and Torah that were well known to the people of that time (early seventh century). The term Gospel and Torah could also be considered more generally as part of the Tanakh and New Testament.

    The Christian Canon was well established and had been finalised by the third and fourth centuries. The Jewish Canon was agreed on many centuries earlier. So the Torah and Gospel that was in circulation during the seventh century when God Revealed the Quran through Muhammad was very similar to the Torah and Gospel we have available today. The other Canonical works associated with the Torah and Gospel were also similar to what is available today.

    However the majority of Muslims don’t believe the Quran refers to the Torah and Gospel that was in circulation, rather books attributable to Moses and Jesus that have been lost or corrupted and are no longer available. Early Muslim scholars were not able to reconcile the Quran with Jewish and Christian scriptures so they considered the Torah and Gospel as not truly representative of what Moses and Jesus really taught.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    10,781
    Ratings:
    +2,942
    Does that mean you dont believe the Quran was Gods word? If Muhammed wrote the Quran and you take a naturalistic approach, then of course any atheist and Christian would think there is no way the Quran is speaking about some other book but only the existing and readable documents at the time of Muhammed. SO that's the approach you are taking.

    Thats all good. But is the Quran referring to the Bible? Thats the question.

    Lets discuss what the Quran says because people here seem to have various ideas about "what muslims believe".

    **For example, the Quran does not say the Taurath was given to Moses.

    Anyway, which early muslim scholar did you refer to at the end who could not reconcile the Hebrew scripture and the New Testament scripture with the Quran and that resulted in considering them as being not what Moses and Jesus taught?
     
  4. adrian009

    adrian009 Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2014
    Messages:
    10,457
    Ratings:
    +9,748
    Religion:
    Baha'i
    As you know I agree with the official Baha'i view that the Quran is the 'Word of God.' I suspect that has a different meaning for Baha'is and Muslims. For Baha'is it means God revealed Himself and His purpose through Muhammad. So the Quran is God speaking to Muhammad's audience, initially Arabs living on the Arabian Peninsula, predominantly from the Quraysh tribe. Of course some of the words God guided Muhammad to speak can be generalised to a much wider audience (eg humanity).

    Muhammad's audience were not well acquainted with the religion of the Christian and Jewish peoples and so Muhammad educated them in language they could understand using concepts that were acceptable to the people of that time. So of course Muhammad or God speaks of the Jesus and Moses we are all familiar with. He speaks of Judaism and Christianity. He refers to the Gospel and Torah the people were familiar with.

    The idea that Muhammad spoke about another Gospel or Torah makes as much sense to Christians, atheists and Baha'is as if Muhammad were speaking of another Judaism and Christianity, or an entirely different Moses and Jesus.

    Just because the Words were spoken by Muhammad doesn't negate their Divine origins. The Words clearly were spoken by Muhammad.

    He is either referring to the Gospel and Torah that form part of the Christian and Jewish scriptures and/or the Jewish and Christian scriptures more widely to encompass the Tanakh and New Testament.

    I agree that Muslims as a general rule have a completely different understanding about the origins of the Torah and Gospel compared to Christians, atheists and Baha'is.

    We could easily examine the Quranic verses in regards Moses and the Torah. How useful a conversation would that be for us?

    As I understand history, Muslims thinkers and scholars had departed from the obvious conclusions about the Quran's references to the Gospel and Torah to what is acceptable to most Muslims today within the first few centuries after Muhammad's passing. How exactly that happened and who were the key Muslim scholars is a question I have not deeply studied. The history of Muslim thought does interest me though.

    Something @Rival said earlier in this thread resonated. You need to reveal your hand to enable this conversation to progress.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    10,781
    Ratings:
    +2,942
    Right. So its divine Origin, which means God could have revealed about an Injeel that was revealed to Jesus and of other scripture revealed to many other prophets in the past. God revealed. Not that Muhammed read some what ever manuscripts that were in circulation in the Arabian Peninsula. That is why you taking the absolute naturalistic approach when it comes to the trial of proving the Quran was definitely referring to the Bibles that were in circulation at the time, is conflicting with your theology. Unless of course, your theology teaches that the Quran was Muhammeds own work, not Gods, and Muhammed read some books that were there at the time and wrote the Quran on his own.

    When you say "He", are you referring to Muhammed as a human being or is it "God"?

    You can of course examine the Quran about "Moses and the Torah", but there are no verses saying that the Torah was revealed to Moses. None.

    I made that clear because you brought the revelation of the Torah to Moses up in your post.

    Which scholar? Which early muslim scholar did you refer to at the end who could not reconcile the Hebrew scripture and the New Testament scripture with the Quran and that resulted in considering them as being not what Moses and Jesus taught? Which early scholar were you referring to? I asked because you said "early muslim scholars".

    There were no scholars who did that as far as I have known. I have never come across any scholar in my entire life who as you said "who could not reconcile the Hebrew scripture and the New Testament scripture with the Quran and that resulted in considering them as being not what Moses and Jesus taught". So Adrian, it is your responsibility to give these early scholars names and which literature you are referring to. It could be that you were taught wrong, or it could be you are right so only if you quote these early scholars one could make the assessment of what you say. Otherwise it is just a belief you have.

    You said the Quran "Obviously concludes". What does it obviously conclude? If you take a completely naturalistic approach, then you can argue that Muhammed just was referring to the existing Bible. Then Muhammed was just a writer who claimed to be a prophet, and the Quran has nothing to do with God, and it is only natural that he was referring to the Bible.

    Otherwise, if the Quran is Gods word, and God exists as you state your theology is, it is very possible that God was referring to his original message he named the Taurath and Injeel among others mentioned in the Quran, and not the physical books in the Bible.

    Consider it and I would like to see your response.
     
  6. Link

    Link Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2019
    Messages:
    1,853
    Ratings:
    +538
    Religion:
    Twelver seeker
    The Quran comments on what agrees with the Torah and Gospel, and what it disagrees with translations, interpretation or outright states is a modification of the story. For example Saul/Talut and Harun, it disagrees what the Torah says about them. In my view, slavery, for example, is never allowed by God and even Abraham having a slave is a made up fabrication. Lot and sleeping with daughters is also not true.

    But if you take away all that, and focus on the main theme of the Torah and Gospels, you will find most of it intact and is from God.
     
  7. firedragon

    firedragon Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2013
    Messages:
    10,781
    Ratings:
    +2,942
    The problem is brother, the Bahai's seem to believe that the Qur'an is exactly referring to the Bible.
     
Loading...