Why does the Quran direct Muslims to Bible?

[Pegg]

We Muslims believe in the Gospel of Jesus(pbuh) which is not the Bible----Half of the Bible is written by Paul who had never met Jesus(pbuh) and was born 300 years after Christ's death----He claims what he's writing are god's words inspired to him by holy spirit , but that's absurd as God only inspires his messengers(pbuh all)---And point to be noted when you open up the red letter Bible which is supposed to be Jesus(pbuh) words they clearly contradicts with Paul's teachings--------The Glorious Quran Says:

"Woe to those who write the book with their own hands and then say ‘This is from Allah’ TO SELL IT FOR A PALTRY PRICE. Woe to them for what their hands have written! Woe to them for what they earn!" [Surat al-Baqara, 79]

I've said this before and i'll say it again, Paul lived in the 1st century. He didn't live 300 years after Jesus. He associated with Jesus Apostles. Yes, it was after Jesus death, but it was only a few years after Jesus death, not 300.

Paul learnt Judaism at the Rabbinical school under the tutelage of Gamaliel, a famous teacher of the 1st century.

 

[Bowman]

And from two people (who may not be interested in theology and in Islam anyway, and may be paying only lip service) you generalize to 150,000,000 Muslims in India. Great.

These two represent the whole, from what I have seen.

They go through the motions...pray to their god the alloted number of times facing mecca...go to the mosques, perform the wudu, etc, etc...

You can find many, if you really want to bother and not twist facts around to suit yourself. In India, the major exegesis which comes to my mind, done in the last century was the Tarjamanul Quran by Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. You can find many more in a list here.

Can you select the one that you use?

Rubbish and nonsense. I think you dont know even the basics about Islam.

You deny Jesus' deity....yes...or....no...?

I disagree and find it immature to say that a religion's purpose is to promote some deity. The purpose of all religions in my view is to build a path from the individual towards God. I agree with Meister Eckhart's views on Christianity, where the central theme is the presence of God in the individual soul.

Either you take Jesus as God, or you do not....and if you deny Jesus' deity it is most assuredly not due to what the Koran tells us...

Moreover I see Jesus Christ's(pbuh) role as analogous to Muhammad (pbuh) role, internally they had both achieved perfection in spiritual union with God. Hence as Imam Ghazali hinted, the union of Jesus(pbuh) with God should be concieved not at the level of essence, but at the level of ethics. Being totally in harmony with the metaphysical Reality (which Christians and Muslims call God) Jesus' own individuality has vanished and in effect, the spiritual union with God had been affected. This does not mean that Jesus(pbuh) was God in the fullest sense. A similar spiritual union with God was achieved by Prophet Muhammad(pbuh), who said, "I am ‘Arab without (the letter) ‘ayn, i.e., Rabb (meaning God), and I am Ahmad without (the letter) meem, i.e., Ahad (meaning Unity). Whoseover hath seen me, the same hath seen the truth." There is no reason for me to compare whose "union with God" was greater, in fact, in my view the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) forbade such comparison when he said "Do not give me preference over the other prophets." (Bukhari 9:83:52).

Regards

According to the Koran, 'Muhammad' is Jesus.

The God-man.

 

[A-ManESL]

These two represent the whole, from what I have seen.

They go through the motions...pray to their god the alloted number of times facing mecca...go to the mosques, perform the wudu, etc, etc...

Even so two people dont represent the whole. There is a literally huge number of Muslims who regularly study the scripture, you can visit any Islamic seminary to see this for yourself. Ask these two people how many madarsa's are there in India, what do people do there, do Muslims study the Quran etc.

Can you select the one that you use?

Yes.

According to the Koran, 'Muhammad' is Jesus.

The God-man.

Are you saying Quran is 2000 years old or 1400 years old. Can you give a straight answer, I am not getting a handle of what you think.

 

[Bowman]

Even so two people dont represent the whole. There is a literally huge number of Muslims who regularly study the scripture, you can visit any Islamic seminary to see this for yourself. Ask these two people how many madarsa's are there in India, what do people do there, do Muslims study the Quran etc.

If Muslims actually studied scripture, then they could not possibly still call themselves followers of islam.

Are you saying Quran is 2000 years old or 1400 years old. Can you give a straight answer, I am not getting a handle of what you think.

The Koran is neither.

 

[A-ManESL]

The Koran is neither.

How old do you think the Quran is? If you think it isnt divinely revealed then who do you think wrote it? Can you give simple answers please.

 

[TJ73]

I know this opinion will get lost in all the deeper scriptural arguments,but just like in the natural world; something may appear one way when perceived from a microscopic level but vastly different when you look at the whole picture. When you look at the prophets and study every detail you get conflicting ideas that you don't get when you look at the big picture. Fundamentally all prophets gave a message of acknowledging God and recognizing your actions in life will be called into account someday. They showed us a means of coming out on Gods most favorable side in the end.If we look a the most reoccurring themes we are shown how merciful and just God is.

 

[Bowman]

How old do you think the Quran is?

The oldest fragment of a single sura is dated to over a century after islam's alleged 'prophet'...thus, the 1400 year assertion is pure myth.

Further, inscriptions on the inner octagon wall of the Dome of the Rock predate any extant Koran..and were only later copied as ayahs into the Koran.

If you think it isnt divinely revealed then who do you think wrote it? Can you give simple answers please.

Sure thing, brother.

Fact#1

No one claims ownership of the Koran, according to the Koran.


Fact#2

No one named 'Muhammad' had anything to do with the Koran, according to the Koran.


Fact#3

No one claimed to be an eye-witness to any of the events recorded in the Koran, according to the Koran.


Fact#4

The Koran never claims to be divinely inspired, according to itself.


Fact#5

The Koran repeatedly gives only kudos to the Holy Bible and states that it merely copied from it.



Considering the above, and the fact that Jesus' divinity is repeated over and over....can only lead us to the conclusion that early Arab Christians wrote the text.

 

[A-ManESL]

The oldest fragment of a single sura is dated to over a century after islam's alleged 'prophet'...thus, the 1400 year assertion is pure myth.

So you think the Quran is 1200-1300 years old?

 

[Bowman]

So you think the Quran is 1200-1300 years old?

It's as old as the oldest extant copy.

 

[A-ManESL]

It's as old as the oldest extant copy.

What is your view of this article then? In view of this, how old would you date the Quran. Can you quote a year or not?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

What is your view of this article then? In view of this, how old would you date the Quran. Can you quote a year or not?

I wouldn't worry about it unless someone can produce the originals of the NT scrolls instead of the copies of copies of copies we have today....or can some one produce the long lost books that the Old Testament make reference to? I'm sure, at this point in time, such scrolls are lost in antiquity.....

 

[Bowman]

What is your view of this article then? In view of this, how old would you date the Quran. Can you quote a year or not?

Islamic awareness is a complete mess, is it not?

You referenced it, and yet, you are still confused as to how to draw a conclusion...yes?

The reason is clear brother....the authors of Islamic awareness don't want you to know that there are no original Korans in existence...all they talk about on your link
are mere fragments...all dated a hundred+ years after the islamic 'Muhammad' supposedly lived...

 

[A-ManESL]

Islamic awareness is a complete mess, is it not?

You referenced it, and yet, you are still confused as to how to draw a conclusion...yes?

lol, dont worry about me. I have my conclusions worked out. What intrigues me, is that you never clearly answer any question posed to you and seek to deflect it. Can you give a date to the Quran or not? If you can, can you tell me the year (or an estimate of it)?

 

[Bowman]

lol, dont worry about me. I have my conclusions worked out. What intrigues me, is that you never clearly answer any question posed to you and seek to deflect it. Can you give a date to the Quran or not? If you can, can you tell me the year (or an estimate of it)?

The oldest fragment of a Koran is dated to circa the year 172 of the Arabian era.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The oldest fragment of a Koran is dated to circa the year 172 of the Arabian era.

Dating issues exist with the bible as well. The oldest complete bible is the Codex Sinaiticus which is said to be dated 330-350 AD. Now the oldest (known) "fragment" of the NT is P52 dating 125-150 AD. While attention is called to the Quran and it's (known) earliest writings the bible is not without its scrutiny either. We have no (original) writings of the bible rather the copies of copies and sparse fragments of slightly older scrolls. Let's not forget the work of the multitude of Christian organizations gathering to render the RSV who called attention to the problems in the KJV and have since cited and removed various verse from the NT regarded as interpolations. While the faithful were going around boasting the bible to be the word of "God"...unbeknownst to them their scriptures were riddled with inserted verses and it's without a doubt that the translations leave a lot to be desired....

 

[Bowman]

Dating issues exist with the bible as well. The oldest complete bible is the Codex Sinaiticus which is said to be dated 330-350 AD. Now the oldest (known) "fragment" of the NT is P52 dating 125-150 AD. While attention is called to the Quran and it's (known) earliest writings the bible is not without its scrutiny either. We have no (original) writings of the bible rather the copies of copies and sparse fragments of slightly older scrolls. Let's not forget the work of the multitude of Christian organizations gathering to render the RSV who called attention to the problems in the KJV and have since cited and removed various verse from the NT regarded as interpolations. While the faithful were going around boasting the bible to be the word of "God"...unbeknownst to them their scriptures were riddled with inserted verses and it's without a doubt that the translations leave a lot to be desired....

I already brought to your attention Sinaiticus over a month ago, brother.

Fact is, all the components that were used in constructing the Koranic opus are contained within Sinaiticus, which existed centuries before the Koran was even penned.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I already brought to your attention Sinaiticus over a month ago, brother.

Fact is, all the components that were used in constructing the Koranic opus are contained within Sinaiticus, which existed centuries before the Koran was even penned.

You missed the whole point as usual. You have no originals when it comes to the NT. All that exist is Sinaiticus, which is not an original and dates 3 centuries after the fact and as far as anything earlier, all that exist are fragments dating 120 years after the fact. Additionally, all that exist are copies of copies with some Christian Interpolations. For years the devout were touting what they had in their possession to be the inspired word of "God" but later Christian denominations scrutinized the scriptures and discovered these interpolations...So you don't have any original works and what works you do have, have been doctored. If you're goal is to shed a negative light on the Quran you should be aware that your own scripture is not without its issues either.

 

[Bowman]

You missed the whole point as usual. You have no originals when it comes to the NT. All that exist is Sinaiticus, which is not an original and dates 3 centuries after the fact and as far as anything earlier, all that exist are fragments dating 120 years after the fact. Additionally, all that exist are copies of copies with some Christian Interpolations. For years the devout were touting what they had in their possession to be the inspired word of "God" but later Christian denominations scrutinized the scriptures and discovered these interpolations...So you don't have any original works and what works you do have, have been doctored. If you're goal is to shed a negative light on the Quran you should be aware that your own scripture is not without its issues either.

Thanks for not denying that the Biblical material which comprises the Koran existed centuries before the Koran was even penned.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Thanks for not denying that the Biblical material which comprises the Koran existed centuries before the Koran was even penned.

Again, missing the obvious point. And for the record....NO ONE has ever said the Quran existed before or during the material found in the Bible. The Quran says it bears witness to previous scripture. Even your own Old Testament makes mention of scrolls that are lost to antiquity. You seem to not know how scriptural revelation works. Shucks, if you want to get technical I'd say your creation myth and flood myth as listed in your scripture is nothing new and had been told way before the version that made it into your bible. We can even see similarities in the Code of Hammurabi and the later work that made it into your bible called the (Ten Commandments). While you ponder over the age of the Quran and where it came from don't forget to use that same critical eye concerning your own scripture and it's history.

 

[Bowman]

Again, missing the obvious point. And for the record....NO ONE has ever said the Quran existed before or during the material found in the Bible.

You just did.

The Quran says it bears witness to previous scripture.

Where?

Even your own Old Testament makes mention of scrolls that are lost to antiquity.

Where?

You seem to not know how scriptural revelation works. Shucks, if you want to get technical I'd say your creation myth and flood myth as listed in your scripture is nothing new and had been told way before the version that made it into your bible. We can even see similarities in the Code of Hammurabi and the later work that made it into your bible called the (Ten Commandments). While you ponder over the age of the Quran and where it came from don't forget to use that same critical eye concerning your own scripture and it's history.

We've already been over this with you in other dedicated threads.

Try to stick to the OP...even though you know absolutely nothing about the Koran...even less than your brother who has now completely abandoned you...