Quran VS Bible , a thoroughly comparative study,arranged by items

format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran

Realy where?

Hope I'm not offending anybody.

في شرب النبيذ وتخمير الإناء الأشربة صحيح مسلم


حدثنا ‏ ‏أبو بكر بن أبي شيبة ‏ ‏وأبو كريب ‏ ‏واللفظ ‏ ‏لأبي كريب ‏ ‏قالا حدثنا ‏ ‏أبو معاوية ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏الأعمش ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏أبي صالح ‏ ‏عن ‏ ‏جابر بن عبد الله ‏ ‏قال ‏ ‏كنا مع رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏فاستسقى فقال رجل يا رسول الله ألا ‏ ‏نسقيك ‏ ‏نبيذا ‏ ‏فقال بلى قال فخرج الرجل ‏ ‏يسعى فجاء ‏ ‏بقدح ‏ ‏فيه ‏ ‏نبيذ ‏ ‏فقال رسول الله ‏ ‏صلى الله عليه وسلم ‏ ‏ألا ‏ ‏خمرته ‏ ‏ولو ‏ ‏تعرض عليه عودا ‏ ‏قال فشرب ‏

Sahih Muslim: "Drinks, Drinking wine and fermentation"
Narrated by Gaber bin Abdullah:
We were with the messenger of Allah, PBUH and he asked for a drink. One of his men said: "Oh Messenger of Allah, Can we offer you wine to drink?" He said Yes. He (Gaber) went out looking for the drink and came back with a cup of wine. The messenger (Peace Be Upon him) asked, “Have you covered it with a twig in a transverse manner” He (Gaber) said, “Yes” and he (Muhammad) drank.

Sahih Muslim - Hadith #3753

format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar

Jesus was a teacher, and he did not want his people to imitate him?

Interesting conclusion you have. Did you get this from the passages of the bible where Jesus clearly, UNAMBGIOUSLY say "You need not do what I do, You need not act how I act, you need not believe what I believe"?

More deviation from jesus real teachings? you betcha!

Yes, that is exactly where I found my conclusion. You can read it too; you'll find that quote on the page opposite where Jesus said, "All you who are followers of mine, imitate everything I do exactly!"

format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar

I agree, You are right that Jesus is sent for the lost sheep of israel, and not for the mankind.

You are not agreeing to something I said. And you are mis-representing Jesus as well. Jesus does NOT say that he was sent FOR the lost sheep of Israel, but TO them. Prepositions are important here. As far as whom he came for:

For the Son of man came to save that which was lost. (Matthew 18:11)

There appears no limitation on this to just the lost of Israel.

Jesus parables of the lost sheep, lost coin, and lost son recorded in Luke 15 again are universal in their application. God is actively seeking those who are lost, even sometimes to the exclusion of watching over those who are already in the fold (i.e. perhaps a reference to the nation of Israel). Jesus' own response to the passage you reference "I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel." (Matthew 15:24) was to recognize the woman's faith and grant her request, but notice she was NOT a member of the nation of Israel, but a Canaanite woman.

So, are we to do as Jesus did? If so, then that would tell me that we are to share his grace with more than just the nation of Israel. With whom then? A hint comes again from reading more scripture than just Matthew 15:24. We've examine Luke 19:10 in other threads, let's try John 3:17 in this one: "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him." Jesus came to the lost sheep of Israel, but in doing so he came to save the world, not just one small part of it. And so, he sends us who are his followers out to that same world: "But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth" (Acts 1:8). The Holy Spirit has come, and we who are filled with his power are now going where we have been sent, to the ends of the earth as witnesses for Jesus.

format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar

it is sunnah that we fasted on that day [Passover].

Interesting. I did not know that. I've had Muslims who lived in my house and they never practiced that. So, I learned something new today.

format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar

uh, jesus never drank wine.

Another difference between the Qur'an and the Bible then, for whatever the Muslim texts say in this regard the Bible clearly shows that Jesus did drink wine:

For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.' The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and "sinners." ' (Luke 7:33-34)

There is also a parallel passage in Matthew the promotes the same conclusion. And though Jesus not specifically mentioned as drinking wine, my conclusion is that he probably did and surely he must not have had anything against it based on his willingness to perform the miracle of turning water into wine (see John 2).

format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar

We are not prophets. All prophets did that anyway. not exclsuive to Jesus, because all prophets were sent to save their people, with the exception of the last prophet, Muhammad SAW who was sent as blessings for the mankind.

Are you drawing a distinction not only between who the earlier prophets were sent to vis-a-vis to whom Muhammad (pbuh) was sent, but also between what there missions were: "to save their people" vs. "as blessings for the mankind"? Or do you mean that their missions where the same (though their target audiences were different) and are just using different ways to express the same idea? I ask merely for edification.



As to that portion which you have excluded yourself from by saying, "we are not prophets", what you said in your previous post was:

format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar

Name me ONLY 1 Christian, ANYBODY knows, which does ALL those things that JESUS (as) used to do and PRESCRIBE on us to do as well... only ONE !!! I know I do them all, and all true Muslims do!

I then tested whether that was indeed a true statement. Do you know and do all "Jesus used to do and prescribed on us to do as well"? Saying "we are not prophets" does not excuse anyone from doing something that Jesus taught for all to do, and among those teachigns that I listed was to "turn the other cheek". That fact that we are not prophets is irrelevant to the measure of one's obedience.

I asked: "Really Muslims do ALL the things that Jesus used to do?" and you responded:

format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar

I did not say ALL

But in point of fact you did:

format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar

I know I do them all, and all true Muslims do!

format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar

in the very basic he was like a muslim:
belief in one Absolute Undivided God, the way he prayed and worshiped, the way he fasted and give alms.

Yes. With that I would agree. He was LIKE a Muslim. Jews are very much like Muslims. And Jesus was a Jew.

format_quote Originally Posted by naidamar

It is NOT muslims who followed Jesus, it IS CHRISTIANS, and yet NO CHRISTIANS are like him in the very basic.

The BIG THUNDERING FACT still:
NO christian today are believing and acting the same ways Jesus did.
This despite the ubiquitous ridiculous wristbands, bumper stickers, buckles etc that say: WWJD - What Would Jesus Do?

You are correct that NO Christian today acts the same way Jesus did. This despite the not so ridiculous WWJD slogans which abound. Why not? For multiple reasons. Some I've given above. Despite that you refuse to accept them, that doesn't lessen their validity. Another reason is that the slogan WWJD is not asking "What Was Jesus Did?", but "What Would Jesus Do?". if he were here in my shoes today. The answer to that question is not always going to be that Jesus would do the same thing today as what he did at some point in the past. And then others reasons for our not living up to the WWJD slogan speak of our imperfectness in doing what we know we should but don't do. Christians continue to be imperfect followers. Christian continue to still be in rebellion against God's will. This is not something we should condone. We still sin and that sin needs to be rooted out.

I doubt if you would even disagree with those last couple of statements. Where we disagree is in what practices of Jesus are expected of people today. The Muslim no longer drinks wine, though Jesus did. The (gentile) Christian may eat pork, though Jesus did not. We have both received revelation subsequent to the Torah which Jesus followed, and that subsequent revelation has changed the set of practices which we feel compelled to keep so that they are different from that which Jesus honored.

format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran

Yes i meant



different/original meaning.

With regard to what (I think the majority, but probably only slim majority of) Christians understand to be the prohibitions against homosexuality in the Bible, the question over interpretation arises from the uses of the terms which have been translated as referring to homosexuality:

Do a word search for the term "homosexual" or "homosexuality" in the Bible and you'll be hard pressed to actually find either of those terms. Indeed it doesn't occur at all in most translations: King James, American Standard, Revised Standard. But one can find it used in the NIV translation exactly one time:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (New International Version)


9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

That English phrase "homosexual offenders" is a translation of the single Greek word αρσενοκοιται [arsenokoitai]. The word itself is not found any other place in Greek literature, and appears to have been created by Paul, just like people coin words today. But, if a word is not found any other place in any other setting, then how does one know what it means? And so it has been translated many different ways by many different folks, each getting what help they can from the context, but the exact meaning for it that Paul had in mind is hard to discern absent any other usage anywhere.

What does "arsenokoitai" really mean?

Nobody knows for certain.
"Arsenokoitai" is made up of two parts: "arsen" means "man"; "koitai" means "beds."
Although the word in English Bibles is interpreted as referring to homosexuals, we can be fairly certain that this is not the meaning that Paul wanted to convey. If he had, he would have used the word "paiderasste." That was the standard Greek term at the time for sexual behavior between males. We can conclude that he probably meant something different than people who engaged in male-male adult sexual behavior.

Many sources have speculated about the meaning of "arsenokoitai:"

• "Homosexual offenders:" The NIV contains this phrase. Suppose for the moment that Paul had attacked "heterosexual offenders" or "heterosexual sexual offenders." We would not interpret this today as a general condemnation of heterosexuality. It would be seen as an attack only on those heterosexuals who commit sexual offences. Perhaps the appropriate interpretation of this verse is that it does not condemn all homosexuals. Rather it condemns only those homosexuals who engage in sexual offences (e.g. child sexual abuse).
• Male prostitutes in Pagan temples: One source states that the Septuagint (an ancient, pre-Christian translation of the Old Testament into Greek made between the 3rd and 1st century BCE) translated the Hebrew "quadesh" in I Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46 into a Greek word somewhat similar to "arsenokoitai." This passage referred to "male temple prostitutes" - people who engaged in ritual sex in Pagan temples. 1 Some leaders in the early Christian church also thought 1 Corinthians was referring to temple prostitutes. Some authorities believe that it simply means male prostitutes with female customers - a practice which appears to have been a common practice in the Roman empire.
• Pimp: Another source refers to other writings, written later than 1 Corinthians, which containe the word "arsenokoitai:" This includes the Sibylline Oracles 2.70-77, Acts of John, and Theophilus of Antioch's Ad Autolycum. The source suggests that the term refers "to some kind of economic exploitation by means of sex (but not necessarily homosexual sex)." 2 Probably "pimp" or "man living off of the avails of prostitution" would be the closest English translations. It is worth noting that "Much Greek homosexual erotic literature has survived, none of it contains the word arsenokoitai." 3
• Masturbators. At the time of Martin Luther, "arsenokoitai" was universally interpreted as masturbator. But by the 20th century, masturbation had become a more generally accepted behavior. So, new translations abandoned references to masturbators and switched the attack to homosexuals. The last religious writing in English that interpreted 1 Corinthians 6:9 as referring to masturbation is believed to be the [Roman] Catholic Encyclopedia of 1967.

(source: Religious Tolerance.org)

format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran

Woodroow when Hugo says this

Since I am certain the Bible is true, I have no concern at all over the validity or fallacy of the Qu'ran because in the end truth well out.

When he has no concerns of the validity of the Quran then it is very confusing why he even is comming to a camparative Bibe vs Quran thread - If he realy has no concern with the Quran then whats the point of actually debating about it? Its a fallacy to even talk about the Quran when he has no concern about it?

Zafran, you understand that any critique you have of Hugo's views, is likewise a critique of Woodrow's. For all Hugo did was take what Woodrow wrote with regard to the Quran and Bible and reverse the terms so that it now reflects Hugo's view of the Bible and Quran. So, it was originally Woodrow expressing no concerns over the validity of the Bible, which, following your way of thinking would make it very confusing why Woodrow "even is comming to a camparative Bibe vs Quran thread - If he realy has no concern with the Bible then whats the point of actually debating about it? Its a fallacy to even talk about the Bible when he has no concern about it?" Is that really the critique you want to deliver here?

format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran

what about sodamy?

See the link to the website I quote from above. They already discuss this in much better depth than I have time to go into.

format_quote Originally Posted by **muslimah**

We believe in the Gospel which was revealed to Allah's messenger, prophet Jesus (peace be upon him). On the contrary, Hugo doesn't believe in the Qur'aan in any form. Your argument would be valid if we were debating a holy book which would have nothing to do with Islam.

So you think that to critique Hugo's statement: "Since I am certain the Bible is true, I have no concern at all over the validity or fallacy of the Qu'ran because in the end truth well out." with: "When he [Hugo] has no concerns of the validity of the Quran then it is very confusing why he even is comming to a camparative Bibe vs Quran thread - If he realy has no concern with the Quran then whats the point of actually debating about it? Its a fallacy to even talk about the Quran when he has no concern about it?" is valid.

But at the same time you think that to critique Woodrow's statement: "Since I am certain the Quran is true, I have no concern at all over the validity or fallacy of the Bible because in the end truth well out." with "It is very confusing why Woodrow even is comming to a camparative Bibe vs Quran thread - If he realy has no concern with the Bible then whats the point of actually debating about it? Its a fallacy to even talk about the Bible when he has no concern about it?" Is that really the critique you want to deliver here?" to be invalid.

Is that really what you are saying?

format_quote Originally Posted by **muslimah**

Therefore, I was telling the difference between Hugo and uncle Woodrow.

Well, if you were to believe their posts, that's apparent: Hugo has no concern for the Qur'an and Woodrow none for the Bible. Given their respective beliefs, that might even be reasonable, but I highly doubt either of them actually feel that way.

format_quote Originally Posted by Zafran

whatever Hugo wrote is true to his beliefs.

Since Woodrow posted first the passage that Hugo later parodied, don't you think that what Woodrow wrote is true to his beliefs.

But at the same time he will critic other people that use the same mode of thinking that he does. Whats worse he does it in a mimicking fashion - which clearly shows what he thinks of woodrow, but has no clue that he is clearly showing hypocricy.

Give that what Hugo wrote was a mirror to what Woodrow wrote, I don't understand how one can be critical of what Hugo wrote and applaude what Woodrow wrote.

Woodrow's own response was "Touche!", and I believe implied that Woodrow had been able to see himself in Hugo's reply. I don't see how using Woodrow's own words that he spoke in reference to the Bible and applying them to the Qur'an are hypocritical in the slightest. Christians don't view the Qur'an the same way that Muslims do. Nothing at all hypocritical in a non-Muslim applying the same words toward the Qur'an, as a Muslim applies to another's persons' holy text. If you think they speak dismissively, derisively, or otherwise inappropriately, then please understand that is just how such words might be heard by others when first used to describe one's views of the Bible.