Fundamental Principle 1: Does Authorship Knowledge Matter?

[Umar001]

Howdy,

I have wondered, do people think knowing the author/provider of a 'Holy Book' matters?

Does it matter who wrote/brought forth the Qur'an/Gospels,Epistles/Torah,Psalms and other scriptures?

I am not asking whether we know who wrote them, that is a discusion within itself I guess.

But I am just asking on principle, is it important to know how did wrote/bring forth the books?

I would have thought everyone would think it did, but I've read works which claim it doesn't. So what's yall's view and why?

Eesa

[Woodrow]

Howdy,

I have wondered, do people think knowing the author/provider of a 'Holy Book' matters?

Does it matter who wrote/brought forth the Qur'an/Gospels,Epistles/Torah,Psalms and other scriptures?

I am not asking whether we know who wrote them, that is a discusion within itself I guess.

But I am just asking on principle, is it important to know how did wrote/bring forth the books?

I would have thought everyone would think it did, but I've read works which claim it doesn't. So what's yall's view and why?

Eesa

Just my opinion, but to me the knowing of the origin of a book is as important as knowing the content. By knowing the Author, we understand the purpose.

Because most Holy books are quite ancient, our guide to finding the author often comes from tracing the historical passage of the book. We need to know how it was preserved and throught whose hands it was transmitted and perpetuated. Only then can we have reason to decide if what we have is the original work or if it is an explanation of a previous work. There needs to be a clear easily followed path to the original and from there we can evaluate the claim of authorship and decide on the purpose and validity of the book.

[Umar001]

Just my opinion, but to me the knowing of the origin of a book is as important as knowing the content. By knowing the Author, we understand the purpose.

You mean the purpose of why the author wrote? But with some books it is possible to know the purpose without knowing the author, i.e. Gospel of John makes clear its purpose.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Al Habeshi; thanks for starting this thread

In a way the many authors of the Bible are not so important to me, I place my trust in God who I believe had the power of edit.

It almost seems a miracle that the Bible was ever written at all, and I find it truly remarkable. Above all else Jesus inspired people, and that message comes across though out the Bible today.

The Jewish authority opposed Jesus, and he lived in a land occupied by the Romans, yet there are no stories of Jesus carrying a sword to protect himself. It seems that he trusted in a higher authority to look after him. Stories of having faith in God and trusting in God run throughout the Bible. Jesus knew his destiny and his impending death and resurrection, which left him free to fulfil God’s work day to day.

Jesus came with a powerful message and he knew who he was. It might seem strange that he did not have the need to write this story down himself so it would be passed onto others as he wanted. But if you stop and think a little further, it just empathises his trust in God. He knew that he would inspire others to write it on his behalf. Jesus performed so many miracles, his parables carried a real power, his life experiences where extraordinary by any standards. He must have trusted in God to have this story written in the way that God wanted.

After the ascension of Jesus into heaven his disciples where given the gift of the spirit and they went of in all directions doing things and preaching the word of God. Because they wrote their stories from many countries over a period of years, we have to contend with translations from many languages. It seems the disciples did not consciously work together with the intention of writing the Bible, because like Jesus they were people of action and they spread the word in a more convincing way by doing things. These disciples were not able to complete writing the Bible and they inspired a next generation to continue.

Any communication between the disciples when they where scattered around different countries could have taken weeks or months to arrive, they could also have moved on. Their stories seem written very much from an individual perception as to how Jesus inspired each of them, and these individual inspirations are what inspire me.

Over the years I have been inspired more by one author in the Bible, then years later something written by another author about the same story helps me to understand another perception. Atheists, Buddhists, Hindu, Muslims have somehow helped me to understand the Bible from their opposing views, and I find this strange.

Over the last two thousand years language has changed, and scholars with all truthful sincerity have done their very best to faithfully translate the Bible in the way God intended. I believe that the message today remains extremely powerful and inspiring even though it is impossible to get an exact translation. There are footnotes throughout the Bible giving alternative translations so that the individual can try and find a best meaning and purpose.

I would struggle to learn Latin or any other language sadly it seems very difficult for me. I am so pleased that the Bible is available in just about every language, despite what people would call contradictions in translations, it was meant for all people, of all languages and not just scholars.

When I first started to think about the life of Jesus I wondered why he did not use all his powers of miracles to gain a status in life, become a ruler, a general or great high priest with people following him. He could have achieved a power base and written his own story. But now I look on the story of Jesus as not relying on the power of man to spread his word, rather he relied on the power of God. Jesus claimed no power on Earth. I wondered why Jesus had to die he could have avoided it.

But I believe that the destiny of Jesus was planned before the creation of the universe began, and he went through with God’s plan that was set out before creation began.

The question that remains is did Jesus truly trust in God to have his story written, and was God powerful enough to have the story edited in the way he wanted?

The very fact that there are translations and varying shades of meanings keep people searching, and striving to understand more. The Bible was written to inspire people to do things; and I believe that it has always had that power.

In the spirit of searching for a greater meaning

Eric

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Umar001]

Greetings and peace be with you Al Habeshi; thanks for starting this thread

In a way the many authors of the Bible are not so important to me, I place my trust in God who I believe had the power of edit.

And with you Eric! So in conclusion would it be your view that knowing the authors of a book is not a neccesity?

Jesus came with a powerful message and he knew who he was. It might seem strange that he did not have the need to write this story down himself so it would be passed onto others as he wanted. But if you stop and think a little further, it just empathises his trust in God.

Or it could be that he never had the desire to pass his message on to others outside those who he did pass it to? Or that he thought the end of th world was imminent and thus didn't waste time on spreading the message.

I just want to stick to the main part of the thread though, whether knowing the authors and their life is important to people when believing or coming to believe in a faith.

[Woodrow]

You mean the purpose of why the author wrote? But with some books it is possible to know the purpose without knowing the author, i.e. Gospel of John makes clear its purpose.

Often the apparant purpose of a book is not what is stated. Sometimes the author may use a misdirection in order to disguise his/her true purpose.
Or the reader may misunderstand the purpose and read something that was not intended.

To carry to an extreme, the Gospel of John does have a stated purpose, that is in accordance with who you believe to be the Author. Now, suppose that (this is an exaggeration and not true) it were discovered the Book was actually written in the 1800s by Karl Marx. The purpose of the book would be totally different even though the words were the same.

[Umar001]

Often the apparant purpose of a book is not what is stated. Sometimes the author may use a misdirection in order to disguise his/her true purpose.
Or the reader may misunderstand the purpose and read something that was not intended.

To carry to an extreme, the Gospel of John does have a stated purpose, that is in accordance with who you believe to be the Author. Now, suppose that (this is an exaggeration and not true) it were discovered the Book was actually written in the 1800s by Karl Marx. The purpose of the book would be totally different even though the words were the same.

Okey, I see and I agree if I understand correctly.

[Trumble]

Often the apparant purpose of a book is not what is stated. Sometimes the author may use a misdirection in order to disguise his/her true purpose.

True, but I wouldn't consider that a significant criticism in the case of dubious authorship unless you can produce a plausible alternative intention of the author and purpose of the book that is considerably more probable than the generally accepted one.

It would all depend on how certain you are as to authorship, anyway... and that's usually as much a faith issue as a historical one.

[Umar001]

True, but I wouldn't consider that a significant criticism in the case of dubious authorship unless you can produce a plausible alternative intention of the author and purpose of the book that is considerably more probable than the generally accepted one.

So you would accept something as genuinely sincere/accurate unless evidence is brought that the author may not have been sincere/accurate?

What if the purpose which is generally accepted is wrong? I mean, how would you know, I'm confused as to how you'd decide that as a principle.

[Trumble]

So you would accept something as genuinely sincere/accurate unless evidence is brought that the author may not have been sincere/accurate?

What if the purpose which is generally accepted is wrong? I mean, how would you know, I'm confused as to how you'd decide that as a principle.

I think you need to consider the context somewhat. We are talking about religious works; some of, if not the, most important books in history. They have been studied in great depth by many brilliant minds over many centuries. With that in mind I think I would certainly accept them as 'sincere' in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary simply because any convincing evidence would have emerged long before now. "Accurate" is a little different, you can be perfectly sincere without always being accurate.

Likewise, I think the chances of the generally accepted purpose being wrong are remote. The traditions are documented too well in the case of all the works mentioned and the Eastern religions as well, and I don't consider it likely that such a misunderstanding could arise unless there was a deliberate deception right at the start. That's always possible for any author (other than God, of course) but, again, I suspect that's a matter of faith rather than history. At some point you have to "accept" on trust, that's what religion is all about.

None of that would apply to other sorts of writing or even more recent religious (or 'religious') writing such as, say L. Ron Hubbard's stuff or the Urantia book.

[Ebrahim]

I think authorship makes a difference, although may not be necessary, in EVERY text.

In terms of human writers, analysis of text is done much more deeply and differently when the person writing is analyzed. (e.g. Shakespeare's "Hamlet" is analyzed one way as just text, and then completely differently when the reader knows that Shakespeare wrote it soon after his son died).

In terms of divine authorship, this obviously matters since the divinity of authorship says something of the divinity of the text.

[Umar001]

I think you need to consider the context somewhat. We are talking about religious works; some of, if not the, most important books in history. They have been studied in great depth by many brilliant minds over many centuries. With that in mind I think I would certainly accept them as 'sincere' in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary simply because any convincing evidence would have emerged long before now. "Accurate" is a little different, you can be perfectly sincere without always being accurate.

If you mean that due to the works being of a religious nature one should thus be safe in knowing that the author was most likely sincere, then that is absurd. There are people who make money from religion, go to Pakistan for example you will find 'friends of God' who sell amulets for a costly price, you can look at televangelists, some of whom, make a large amount of money. If we don't know the authors then would it not be possible that the reasons for any of them to bring forth a book/religion could be for material gain and thus they were not sincere?

What if the evidence if their lack of sincerity was supressed? Example being someone starts a religion, people find faults in the religion and bring their evidences, but by this time, the founder of the religion has got so much power so as to destroy such works which hold evidences against his sincerity. It would be a hard thing to do now, what with internet and news, but in the olden days it wouldn't have been so.

Likewise, I think the chances of the generally accepted purpose being wrong are remote. The traditions are documented too well in the case of all the works mentioned and the Eastern religions as well, and I don't consider it likely that such a misunderstanding could arise unless there was a deliberate deception right at the start. That's always possible for any author (other than God, of course) but, again, I suspect that's a matter of faith rather than history. At some point you have to "accept" on trust, that's what religion is all about.

But what if the generally accepted purpose only arised due to misunderstanding at an earlier stage?

I mean there is always going to be an element of 'faith' in what decisions we make when speaking on most ancient matters, but there is a difference between saying I hold this view due to just hope to saying I hold this view as most possible due to the evidence, or better yet, I don't know due to the lack of conclusive evidence.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Al Habeshi;

So in conclusion would it be your view that knowing the authors of a book is not a neccesity?

Despite all the doubts of some scholars as to who might have written the Bible, despite all the stories of it being written two or three centuries after Jesus, I believe it to be the inspired work of God. I believe that the Bible I read today could not exist without God; its message is so powerful about this life and the life after death. To me the human authors are not so important.

Or it could be that he never had the desire to pass his message on to others outside those who he did pass it to? Or that he thought the end of th world was imminent and thus didn't waste time on spreading the message.

Jesus knew that his message would get to me two thousand years later.

Mathew 28
18Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

I just trust this to be true.

In the spirit of praying for greater interfaith friendship,

Eric

[Umar001]

Greetings and peace be with you Al Habeshi;

Despite all the doubts of some scholars as to who might have written the Bible, despite all the stories of it being written two or three centuries after Jesus, I believe it to be the inspired work of God. I believe that the Bible I read today could not exist without God; its message is so powerful about this life and the life after death. To me the human authors are not so important.

Hey :)

Of course if one believes/knows that a book/message is from God it does not matter who brought the book/message forth. But if one did not, if one was just simply searching around, do you then think your view would change?

I just trust this to be true.

I guess that is where we disagree :)

Eesa.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Al Habeshi;

I guess that is where we disagree :)

Eesa

I believe that Allah has given you a sincere faith through Islam, but the same God has also given me a sincere faith through Christianity.

I believe there is a great need to pray for each other that we might all reach salvation despite our differences.:)

I shall leave it at that as I am straying from your opening post

In the spirit of praying to the one loving and merciful God,

Eric

[Trumble]

If you mean that due to the works being of a religious nature one should thus be safe in knowing that the author was most likely sincere, then that is absurd. There are people who make money from religion, go to Pakistan for example you will find 'friends of God' who sell amulets for a costly price, you can look at televangelists, some of whom, make a large amount of money. If we don't know the authors then would it not be possible that the reasons for any of them to bring forth a book/religion could be for material gain and thus they were not sincere?

I'm sorry, but you need to re-read my last post. I made perfectly clear which "works of a religious nature" I was talking about. If you don't know who L.Ron Hubbard was, or what the Urantia book is I suggest you go Google them. Your examples are irrelevant as they would clearly be excluded.

What if the evidence if their lack of sincerity was supressed? Example being someone starts a religion, people find faults in the religion and bring their evidences, but by this time, the founder of the religion has got so much power so as to destroy such works which hold evidences against his sincerity. It would be a hard thing to do now, what with internet and news, but in the olden days it wouldn't have been so.

I don't understand how that is relevant to the identity of the author? Were that founder to gain such power, how could there be any doubt as to his identity?

But what if the generally accepted purpose only arised due to misunderstanding at an earlier stage?

I mean there is always going to be an element of 'faith' in what decisions we make when speaking on most ancient matters, but there is a difference between saying I hold this view due to just hope to saying I hold this view as most possible due to the evidence, or better yet, I don't know due to the lack of conclusive evidence.

I don't see your point. Yes, there is a difference but I said nothing about "just hoping". If views are based on preponderance of evidence, which is reasonable enough, how can a scenario for which there is no evidence be relevant at all? If there is evidence that the assigned authorship is wrong, or that some sort of cover-up or conspiracy occurred, then that obviously needs to be taken into account. The weight given to evidence will vary among individuals, usually according to what you believed in the first place. Not very scientific, maybe, but very human. Religion is not science, or philosophy, or history. Hence all the 'conclusive proof' that believers in religion A present that religion B is 'wrong' which believers in religion B think irrelevant or absurd. And all the 'conclusive proof' that believers in religion B present that religion A is 'wrong' which believers in religion A think irrelevant or absurd.

[Umar001]

Howdy,

I'm sorry, but you need to re-read my last post. I made perfectly clear which "works of a religious nature" I was talking about. If you don't know who L.Ron Hubbard was, or what the Urantia book is I suggest you go Google them. Your examples are irrelevant as they would clearly be excluded.

I read your post and still am confused at what you are talking of here. I understood that by works of a religious nature you were speaking of, the books I had mentioned in the ealier post?

I don't understand how that is relevant to the identity of the author? Were that founder to gain such power, how could there be any doubt as to his identity?

I was speaking with regards to sincerity of the author;

With that in mind I think I would certainly accept them as 'sincere' in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary simply because any convincing evidence would have emerged long before now.

What if the evidence if their lack of sincerity was supressed? Example being someone starts a religion, people find faults in the religion and bring their evidences, but by this time, the founder of the religion has got so much power so as to destroy such works which hold evidences against his sincerity. It would be a hard thing to do now, what with internet and news, but in the olden days it wouldn't have been so.

Just knowing a name is not enough to know the condition of an indvidual, you spoke of, if there is no evidence to say that the individual may be insincere then I'll accept it as sincere, or at least thats how it seems you wrote, what I am saying is that, if the individual's religion became popular enough, strong enough, it could in turn supress, not his identity, but the true nature of who he was.

I don't see your point. Yes, there is a difference but I said nothing about "just hoping". If views are based on preponderance of evidence, which is reasonable enough, how can a scenario for which there is no evidence be relevant at all? If there is evidence that the assigned authorship is wrong, or that some sort of cover-up or conspiracy occurred, then that obviously needs to be taken into account. The weight given to evidence will vary among individuals, usually according to what you believed in the first place. Not very scientific, maybe, but very human. Religion is not science, or philosophy, or history. Hence all the 'conclusive proof' that believers in religion A present that religion B is 'wrong' which believers in religion B think irrelevant or absurd. And all the 'conclusive proof' that believers in religion B present that religion A is 'wrong' which believers in religion A think irrelevant or absurd.

As much as I disagree wih some parts I dont think theres a point in delving into it. I guess in some places, I can only assume, I have misunderstood your sentences.

I wanted to discuss the principle, not neccesarily the evidence, i.e. does one agree in principle that knowing the author of a sacred text/message is of importance.

I still fail to understand how anyone may think it is not, how we can assume sincerity because it is a religious text or because followers of the text claimed s/he was sincere, how we can say, if there's no evidence to say s/he was a liar I will think he is truthful.

[glo]

I just want to stick to the main part of the thread though, whether knowing the authors and their life is important to people when believing or coming to believe in a faith.

Many parts of the Bible were written by people completely unknown to us.
Therefore, for me as a Christian, the question who wrote the Bible and what their lives were like, cannot be of great importance.

What is more important is how - given that the 66 books in the Bible were written by numerous different authors over several millenia, people of different backgrounds, different times and circumstances - the Bible remains amazingly coherent and clear in the message it gives.
Namely that of God's relationship with his people, and his continued revelation to us, finally ending in his direct salvation through Jesus Christ.

That is, to me as a Christian, the true sign of God's divine working in the Bible as the holy book which I believe in.
In comparison to that the authorship (other than God's promise to us that all authors were divinely inspired - see below), seems much less important.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
(2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Peace :)

[Umar001]

Many parts of the Bible were written by people completely unknown to us.
Therefore, for me as a Christian, the question who wrote the Bible and what their lives were like, cannot be of great importance.

What is more important is how - given that the 66 books in the Bible were written by numerous different authors over several millenia, people of different backgrounds, different times and circumstances - the Bible remains amazingly coherent and clear in the message it gives.
Namely that of God's relationship with his people, and his continued revelation to us, finally ending in his direct salvation through Jesus Christ.

That is, to me as a Christian, the true sign of God's divine working in the Bible as the holy book which I believe in.
In comparison to that the authorship (other than God's promise to us that all authors were divinely inspired - see below), seems much less important.



Peace :)

So for you, you would hold that since the Bible is so consistent with itself over the numerous books, the individual authors of each books are not relevant. Adding to that that God himself promised the inspiration of all scripture.

Ok. If the Bible was just one book, would the authorship matter?

[Trumble]

I understood that by works of a religious nature you were speaking of, the books I had mentioned in the ealier post?

Yes, although I would include many others as well such as the Hindu and Buddhist scriptures, the Tao Te Ching, and so on.

Just knowing a name is not enough to know the condition of an indvidual, you spoke of, if there is no evidence to say that the individual may be insincere then I'll accept it as sincere, or at least thats how it seems you wrote

Yes, pretty much.

what I am saying is that, if the individual's religion became popular enough, strong enough, it could in turn supress, not his identity, but the true nature of who he was.

Yes, that is concievable. But you could think of a thousand scenarios that might be concievable, none are of any relevance unless there is evidence they might have actually occurred.

I wanted to discuss the principle, not neccesarily the evidence, i.e. does one agree in principle that knowing the author of a sacred text/message is of importance.

In principle, then, no I don't think it is of essential importance, although it might well be of some significance. The sacred/text message should stand on it's own merits, if it can't do that it is worthless anyway.

I still fail to understand how anyone may think it is not, how we can assume sincerity because it is a religious text or because followers of the text claimed s/he was sincere, how we can say, if there's no evidence to say s/he was a liar I will think he is truthful.

I don't see how it is not possible to (generally) make that assumption as the alternative simply makes no sense. In your everyday life do you refuse to make any sort of judgement about what people tell you, being constantly suspicious, even when there is no reason to suspect they may not be telling the truth? Of course not. If you read, say, an important article in political philosophy, are you always worried about lack of sincerity or hidden motives? I can read Marx and believe him mistaken about many things, but I have no reason to doubt his sincerity.

The only case where I can see the authorship of the sort of religious work we are talking about of being of any real significance is if that author is supposed to be God.

[Umar001]

Yes, although I would include many others as well such as the Hindu and Buddhist scriptures, the Tao Te Ching, and so on.

Okey,

Yes, that is concievable. But you could think of a thousand scenarios that might be concievable, none are of any relevance unless there is evidence they might have actually occurred.

I agree, we simply would not know, that's what I am saying, anything could have been possible. We have to try and see what actually was most probable. I'm not saying we should believe that x.y.z happend, rather, we should refrain from thinking someone is/done x.y.z till we can see reasons to think that.

In principle, then, no I don't think it is of essential importance, although it might well be of some significance. The sacred/text message should stand on it's own merits, if it can't do that it is worthless anyway.

Merits like?

I don't see how it is not possible to (generally) make that assumption as the alternative simply makes no sense. In your everyday life do you refuse to make any sort of judgement about what people tell you, being constantly suspicious, even when there is no reason to suspect they may not be telling the truth? Of course not. If you read, say, an important article in political philosophy, are you always worried about lack of sincerity or hidden motives? I can read Marx and believe him mistaken about many things, but I have no reason to doubt his sincerity.

In our everyday life we come across the equivilent of the authors. When I see an individual with a British Gas badge, full gear, and so forth, I am more inclined to trust him, due to seeing his credentials, then a stranger selling me something off the back of a lorry.

In everyday life we read symbols on individuals which allow us to make decisions. We see a group of youths who ask if I would like to buy a phone, I'd say no, because of this suspicion. I try not to read articles on philosophy or anything unless I can be assured that the author has some credibility, you see? I reference my work in essay due to that.

The only case where I can see the authorship of the sort of religious work we are talking about of being of any real significance is if that author is supposed to be God.

Well to some degree the three Abrahamic Religions do claim that.

Thank you for your patience.

[glo]

Ok. If the Bible was just one book, would the authorship matter?

I'm not sure if I can answer that question.

If the Bible was only written by one man, I might think that it was just that ... one book written by one author.
I would be inclined to believe it may be of human origin, rather than divine ... :X

[Umar001]

I'm not sure if I can answer that question.

If the Bible was only written by one man, I might think that it was just that ... one book written by one author.
I would be inclined to believe it may be of human origin, rather than divine ... :X

In the early days when the books had not been yet compiled, if you had been born then you migt have not believed in the Gospel of Mark. I guess we can never know since it would be a different place and time. But its interesting.

[MustafaMc]

If the Bible was only written by one man, I might think that it was just that ... one book written by one author.
I would be inclined to believe it may be of human origin, rather than divine ... :X

I have heard the argument that the NT must be Divinely inspired because several different writers were saying basically the same thing. I take it that you are implying the Qur'an does not have Divine origins because it came through only Muhammad (saaws).

That definitely raises a critical point and that is the prophethood/ messengership of Muhammad (saaws). I find it odd that Christians reject the messengership of Muhammad (saaws) even though prior to his receiving the Message first in the cave, he was known as an honest and trustworthy person. Yet, they accept, but don't publicly declare, the messengership of Paul even though prior to his receiving the "Gospel" on the road to Damascus, he hated "the Way" and was basically a bounty hunter, hunting down Christians. He even held Stephen's clothes while he was being stoned.

[Trumble]

Merits like?

Principally, if not exclusively, just making sense I think. In a very specific way in the case of religious teachings; the sort of deeply affecting "makes sense" that can change and dictate the whole way you lead your life. That is why I am a Buddhist, because Buddhist teachings make total sense to me at every level, rational, intuitive and experiential. I assume exactly the same is true of muslims, Christians or anyone else in relation to their own scriptures.

In our everyday life we come across the equivilent of the authors. When I see an individual with a British Gas badge, full gear, and so forth, I am more inclined to trust him, due to seeing his credentials, then a stranger selling me something off the back of a lorry.

True, but in that case you would a good reason to believe the stranger might be dishonest. Same with the gas man; they always present identification so you would be very suspicous of someone who did not. But the 'credentials' thing seems rather irrelevant in the case of religion - indeed it seems usually exactly the opposite was true. What 'religious credentials' did Jesus present, other than his words? Or Mohammed? Neither had a little badge that identified them as God's messengers!

I try not to read articles on philosophy or anything unless I can be assured that the author has some credibility, you see? I reference my work in essay due to that.

It's a wise policy in relation to student work, certainly. But how do you think people get credibility? On the merits of what they write!

Many 'great ideas' were dreamed up by people with no 'credibility' with their peers prior to doing so. Many never got it until long after they were dead. The credibility comes from the ideas themselves, everyone has to start somewhere. A great example is Einstein.. he had no academic 'credibility' prior to publishing. He got it because his papers were read, they made sense, explained what hadn't been explained before, and could not be refuted. In other words his papers made sense. Any piece of philosophy, religious or otherwise, can be assessed in the same way. By always relying on someone having 'credibility' you are merely letting other people decide whether they are right on your behalf. Good ideas stand on their own merit and are not dependent on who first thought of them.

Thank you for your patience

And thank you for a very interesting debate!

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Al Habeshi;

I have thought of all kinds of ways to say this, but I can’t find a good way to explain what I mean, I pray that I will not offend anyone with my clumsy words.

In a way it is not so important that Prophet Mohammed wrote the Holy Quran, rather it is the belief that it is the word of Allaah (swt).

If Karl Marx had written the Holy Quran in the 1800s it would still be believed if Allaah (swt) was behind it.

I still struggle to understand as to why the same one God allows so many religious texts to come into existence; attracting millions of followers in all kind of diverse ways.

Somewhere in each text is the message that this is the only way to salvation and every other way is wrong.

There is a great need that we should all pray for each other, in the hope that we might all achieve salvation.

In the spirit of praying for a greater interfaith friendship.

Eric

[MustafaMc]

In a way it is not so important that Prophet Mohammed wrote the Holy Quran, rather it is the belief that it is the word of Allaah (swt).

If Karl Marx had written the Holy Quran in the 1800s it would still be believed if Allaah (swt) was behind it.

Peace, Eric, I understand what your are saying, but I seriously doubt that a book written by one perceived as an evil man, for example Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler could ever be declared the Word of God. I don't believe that Allah would choose to send a Divine Message through just any ordinary-old-Joe and particularly not through an evil man. Messengership is uniquely the highest honor bestowed upon any man and is not to be taken lightly.

[YusufNoor]

Greetings and peace be with you Al Habeshi;

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance


I have thought of all kinds of ways to say this, but I can’t find a good way to explain what I mean, I pray that I will not offend anyone with my clumsy words.

In a way it is not so important that Prophet Mohammed wrote the Holy Quran, rather it is the belief that it is the word of Allaah (swt).

we, as Muslims, DO NOT believe, IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, that Muhammad ibn Abdullah[pbuh] is the "author" of the Qur'an, rather we believe IT IS EXACTLY the WORD of Allah[SWT] as delivered to the Messenger of Allah[pbuh] by the Angle Gibreel[pbuh]!

If Karl Marx had written the Holy Quran in the 1800s it would still be believed if Allaah (swt) was behind it.

actually, Arabian history and the companions of the Prophet[may Allah be pleased with them], tells us the Muhammad ibn Abdullah[pbuh] was called Al Amin, the Trusted one. he[pbuh] was known for his honesty and integrity. and again, Muhammad ibn Abdullah[pbuh] IS NOT the author if the Qur'an!


I still struggle to understand as to why the same one God allows so many religious texts to come into existence; attracting millions of followers in all kind of diverse ways.

actually, that's part of the teachings of Islam in that the "messages" brought by previous Prophets[pbut] had been corrupted and replaced by messages from men. prior to Abraham, [pbuh] Messengers were sent to ALL nations! by the time of Jacob/Israel all prophets have been descended from Abraham, including Muhammad ibn Abdullah[pbuh]. the Qur'an is still preserved as it was transmitted to Muhammad ibn Abdullah[pbuh]!

Somewhere in each text is the message that this is the only way to salvation and every other way is wrong.

Jesus/Isa ibn Mariam[pbuh] was the capstone of ALL of the Jewish Messengers and thus his way supersedes previous Messages, and Muhammad ibn Abdullah[pbuh] is the Seal of ALL the Prophets and thus his way supersedes Jesus/Isa ibn Mariam[pbuh]'s way as well.

There is a great need that we should all pray for each other, in the hope that we might all achieve salvation.

indeed, as Muslims we should pray that Allah[SWT] guides the non-believers to Islam as well as praying that He[SWT] continue to guide the believers on the straight path!

In the spirit of praying for a greater interfaith friendship.

Eric

Peace be upon those who follow the guidance,

i just wanted to make those clarifications,

:w:

Yusuf

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Yusuf,

indeed, as Muslims we should pray that Allah[SWT] guides the non-believers to Islam as well as praying that He[SWT] continue to guide the believers on the straight path!

There is our problem, you should be praying for me that I might turn to Islam, and I should be praying for you that you might turn to Christianity. The same God hears both our prayers, the same God gave us both our faith to start with.

I don’t know you, but the chances are you will remain a Muslim with a sincere faith for the rest of your life. My prayers are that even if you remain a Muslim for life that you will also achieve salvation.

I have family and friends who are not Christian, and I pray that they might also achieve salvation, even if they do not become a Christian.

It is by God’s mercy and love, that any of us achieve salvation, our own efforts fall short.

In the spirit of praying for salvation for all people,

Eric

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you MustafaMc;

I take it that you are implying the Qur'an does not have Divine origins because it came through only Muhammad (saaws).

I struggle to understand God’s intentions when it comes to religion, if the message is from God it will blossom, if it is from man it will die. In the Bible there is a way to test if a message is from God or from man. It appears that the message of the Prophet pbuh. also comes from God when judged by the same standard.

Acts 5
27Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. 28"We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name," he said. "Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man's blood."
29Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men! 30The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree. 31God exalted him to his own right hand as Prince and Savior that he might give repentance and forgiveness of sins to Israel. 32We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him."

33When they heard this, they were furious and wanted to put them to death. 34But a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, who was honored by all the people, stood up in the Sanhedrin and ordered that the men be put outside for a little while. 35Then he addressed them: "Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. 36Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. 37After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. 38Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. 39But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God."

40His speech persuaded them. They called the apostles in and had them flogged. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.

And just to repeat the passage that glo posted.

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
(2 Timothy 3:16-17)

In the spirit of praying for greater interfaith friendship

Eric

[Umar001]

Sorry for the delay, I've been doing some stuff,

Bismillah..

Principally, if not exclusively, just making sense I think. In a very specific way in the case of religious teachings; the sort of deeply affecting "makes sense" that can change and dictate the whole way you lead your life. That is why I am a Buddhist, because Buddhist teachings make total sense to me at every level, rational, intuitive and experiential. I assume exactly the same is true of muslims, Christians or anyone else in relation to their own scriptures.

Do you think making sense alone is enough? Different things make sense to different people, it makes sense to some that God would consider homosexuality a sin, to others it does not. What if a single tenet of the religion does not make sense should one then disregard the religion?

True, but in that case you would a good reason to believe the stranger might be dishonest. Same with the gas man; they always present identification so you would be very suspicous of someone who did not.

I think generally in life we withold giving trust before having known the person. If I just meet someone and they ask me, 'do you trust me' I generally would say, if I felt comfortable and honest, 'I dont know you, to be able to say I whether I trust you or not'.

Life experiences don't happen in vaccums as Im sure you'll agree, so when we see a uniform we may trust the individual more than someone without a uniform, but, this trust is not based on nothing, it is based on the knowledge of seeing the individual with a uniform, a symbol of something.

If we had yet to meet the individuals, we would not be able to trust either. This is what I argue for, I have not seen anything with regards to some authors/compilers, so how can I trust them? This coming from a general world view, and even more so when speaking of religion since we know some people fake their beliefs and others are genuinly wrong, so this is why I think it is compulsary to know the individuals, otherwise what can we rely on?

But the 'credentials' thing seems rather irrelevant in the case of religion - indeed it seems usually exactly the opposite was true. What 'religious credentials' did Jesus present, other than his words? Or Mohammed? Neither had a little badge that identified them as God's messengers!

I'm am not speaking with regards to credintials for being a Prophet/God or anything else, I am speaking about the credintials for being honest or reliable. I am not at the stage in this thread of speaking about whether x.y or z was God or anything, rather, I am speaking about whether x.y or z was reliable and honest that when he/she says 'I heard....' that he/she was speaking the truth, even if they were truthfully wrong.

It's a wise policy in relation to student work, certainly. But how do you think people get credibility? On the merits of what they write!

Many 'great ideas' were dreamed up by people with no 'credibility' with their peers prior to doing so. Many never got it until long after they were dead. The credibility comes from the ideas themselves, everyone has to start somewhere. A great example is Einstein.. he had no academic 'credibility' prior to publishing. He got it because his papers were read, they made sense, explained what hadn't been explained before, and could not be refuted. In other words his papers made sense. Any piece of philosophy, religious or otherwise, can be assessed in the same way. By always relying on someone having 'credibility' you are merely letting other people decide whether they are right on your behalf. Good ideas stand on their own merit and are not dependent on who first thought of them.

The key difference here is, reading something with background knowledge and reading something without it. As I said in my example, I meaning me as a lay man, this is important, why because if I have no background in the field then I cannot seperate and decide the credabilty of something. Whereas scholars can do that with other scholar's work. So yes you are right, scholars do check people's works and new ideas come forth, but this work is checked in the light of certain methods, there is methodology and so forth.

If I do not know nothing about the knowledge being spoken of, then I can neither verify nor falsify.

And thank you for a very interesting debate!

And thank you.

Greetings and peace be with you Al Habeshi;

I have thought of all kinds of ways to say this, but I can’t find a good way to explain what I mean, I pray that I will not offend anyone with my clumsy words.

In a way it is not so important that Prophet Mohammed wrote the Holy Quran, rather it is the belief that it is the word of Allaah (swt).

If Karl Marx had written the Holy Quran in the 1800s it would still be believed if Allaah (swt) was behind it.

I understand, and I agree, the individual concerned is not important, if God wished to inspire anyone, it would not change the fact that the person was inspired. But, the thing Eric is, if God is going to send us a message, and we assume God is Just, he will deal with us in a just way. From this, it would then be the next step that God would not just ask us to believe in authors/compilers we are not aware of, people who could have lied about God, or people who could have made serious errors, because think about it, if this was the case then how could we be sure we are following God? This is why I say it is important to know who wrote what, not because we dictate who God chooses, but because we believe God wouldn't ask us to follow someone we dont know the truthfulness of.

I still struggle to understand as to why the same one God allows so many religious texts to come into existence; attracting millions of followers in all kind of diverse ways.

Somewhere in each text is the message that this is the only way to salvation and every other way is wrong.

If you'll allow me to share why I think this mess has come up, or rather how,

Verily! We have made that which is on earth as an adornment for it, in order that We may test them (mankind) as to which of them are best in deeds. [i.e.those who do good deeds in the most perfect manner, that means to do them (deeds) totally for Allāh's sake and in accordance to the legal ways of the Prophet SAW ]. (Al-Kahf 18:7)

Also, the people of hell will say;

And they will say: "Had we but listened or used our intelligence, we would not have been among the dwellers of the blazing Fire!" (Al-Mulk 67:10)

It is my belief Eric, that Allah, God, had sent forth for mankind evidences, instances where they know, they should not just follow something because of an experience which they might have had which could have been wrong, or because their parents said to, rather, it was upon those individuals, at that time to use their intelligence, to listen to the reasoning, and follow a path, withouth worry in submission and reaching the end.

It is not about people not having had the chance Eric, everyone who will be punished will have had a fair chance and rejected it, whether through insulting God directly, or through following their own ambitions with disregard for using their gift of intelect.

There is a great need that we should all pray for each other, in the hope that we might all achieve salvation.

Yes, for we are all the children of Adam, with, God willing, a common goal, to worship God.

And Allah knows best about everything I have said.

Edit:

Forgot this:

Many parts of the Bible were written by people completely unknown to us.
Therefore, for me as a Christian, the question who wrote the Bible and what their lives were like, cannot be of great importance.

What is more important is how - given that the 66 books in the Bible were written by numerous different authors over several millenia, people of different backgrounds, different times and circumstances - the Bible remains amazingly coherent and clear in the message it gives.
Namely that of God's relationship with his people, and his continued revelation to us, finally ending in his direct salvation through Jesus Christ.

That is, to me as a Christian, the true sign of God's divine working in the Bible as the holy book which I believe in.
In comparison to that the authorship (other than God's promise to us that all authors were divinely inspired - see below), seems much less important.

Peace :)

I was thinking the other night in bed about this concept, i.e. that since so many authors wrote and so forth it seems near impossible for them to have all made a mistake or lied. I was startled, because this is exactly, almost word for word the definition of a mutawatir hadith, a hadith which is transmitted at each level by a number of people so that it indicates that it is impossible for all these individuals to conspire to lie or that they have all made a mistake.

But what arose in my mind with you, what if, there were more normal explanations for why the 40 odd authors did not seem to contradict one another? Would that then drive you to think about authorship?

And Allah still knows best about everything I have said.

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Al Habeshi;

But what arose in my mind with you, what if, there were more normal explanations for why the 40 odd authors did not seem to contradict one another? Would that then drive you to think about authorship?

You can bring up all the “what if questions about the Bible” the bottom line is faith that God wanted it this way; and it is.

Even if someone like Adolph Hitler conspired to do things to the Bible, he would fail because God is in control; not man.

That is my faith.

In the spirit of searching for God.

Eric

[Umar001]

Greetings and peace be with you Al Habeshi;

You can bring up all the “what if questions about the Bible” the bottom line is faith that God wanted it this way; and it is.

Even if someone like Adolph Hitler conspired to do things to the Bible, he would fail because God is in control; not man.

That is my faith.

In the spirit of searching for God.

Eric

Well Eric, this is why I think there are many different religions, yes I agree that faith is important, but where we place this faith is of equal importance, and is a matter of thinking. Noone claims that God cannot protect something, but some would argue the question is, is it God's intention to protect that something.

I cannot see how any individual can believing in a Just and All Powerful God, and yet still hold that this God would expect mankind to follow something which contains substancial doubt in foundatioins. Just like I would not expect of a mere normal human to be unjust and punish people for not following his instructions when there was reasonable doubt as to whether his instructions were from him.

Moreover then, if we do not know the author(s)/compiler(s) of a text, we have justified doubt, yet God will punish us for not following people we knew nothing about, who for all we know could be writing/compiling for greed or personal purposes. I cannot comprehend belief in such a system and God.

Then again, if faith is the only component, than this matter is of no value. I have to be honest with you, my percieved harshness stems only from roots of love, as I see it as my duty as your brother in humanity, but this is exactly what I understand to be captured in the words I quoted earlier with regards to the inhabitants of hell speaking about having used their mind.

And God knows best.

[Umar001]

I know Glo is not here much now days, so this is more general than particularly to her, though if it's God's Will I'm sure she'll return sometime,

Many parts of the Bible were written by people completely unknown to us.
Therefore, for me as a Christian, the question who wrote the Bible and what their lives were like, cannot be of great importance.

Would you say you start then with your belief and then derive whether authorship is important, i.e. I believe the Bible is right/from God, I don't know the authors, thus authors are not important to knowing whether a message is right or wrong/from God.

What is more important is how - given that the 66 books in the Bible were written by numerous different authors over several millenia, people of different backgrounds, different times and circumstances - the Bible remains amazingly coherent and clear in the message it gives.
Namely that of God's relationship with his people, and his continued revelation to us, finally ending in his direct salvation through Jesus Christ.

That is, to me as a Christian, the true sign of God's divine working in the Bible as the holy book which I believe in.
In comparison to that the authorship (other than God's promise to us that all authors were divinely inspired - see below), seems much less important.


Peace :)

The reason I have come back to discuss this part is due to the fact that I have heard alot of people mention this. I also had mentioned about my thoughts on this method and the similarity between this and some styles of ahadith (pl. hadith).

I asked what if there is an explanation though. Let me elaborate, the concept works that, since all these people from different places and times wrote books which when put together make it still coherent and so forth it is evidence. But since we don't know the authors, then how do we know the times or places they were from?

How do we know for example that later authors did not use the books from earlier authors, which would thus make it appear coherent? (as is assumed in the case of Matthew and Luke taking from Mark). If we don't know the authors then how can we be know that this did not happen?

The answer I have found within the ahadith areas is that the individuals would be known.

As I said earlier anyone can discuss this,

And God Almighty knows best,

Eesa

[Faye]

If a book contained all verifiable facts, (like a math book), then who cares who the author was.

However, if some facts are unverifiable, (like a history book), then to believe in what it says requires knowledge of the author, his motivations, etc.

In the case of the divine books, a lot of what they say is obviously unverifiable (ask any atheist if you don't believe me) and so we take what they say on trust.

This means that you must trust the author personally (his character), as well as his knowledge, and anybody who had opportunities to edit it on the way.

In the case of the Quran, this worry does not apply, as Allah promises to protect Quran from random editing till Qiyamat, and we believe in His All-Powerness.

But if I believed that, for example, Imaam Abu Hanifa had written the Quran, I, despite my belief in his basic goodness, trustworthiness and knowledge, would not consider his text absolute proof of anything, as humans can commit errors, and what about the chain of narration?

However, (as in the case of the Bible) not trusting it and not placing any belief on it at all is not the same thing. Obviously, many many presumably intelligent people believe in it and have done so over the ages, which at least indicates something. (what that something is, is open to debate).

Possibly, (probably), some of what the Bible says is true. Definitely it has historic significance, due to the mountainous weight of belief placed on it. But ... lots of people believe really strange things, and their belief does not make it true. (for example, people believing for years that the earth was a disk.

<quote>Surah Hujraat Ayat 6. O you who believe! If a rebellious evil person comes to you with a news, verify it, lest you harm people in ignorance, and afterwards you become regretful to what you have done.</quote>