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

[Al-manar]

Al-manar, are you suggesting that because each of the 4 gospel recount the story of the discovery of the empty tomb and Jesus' resurrection differently that it there could not have happened? did not happen? or that we simply can't determine which of them is most accurate in telling the story?

I think that gets us back to the Question do errors in scripture matter? which I answered(in accordance with the opinion of all muslims and the vast majority of christians) before..

http://www.islamicboard.com/compara...tive-study-arranged-items-10.html#post1341209

by the way ,

1- the problems with the crucifiction,resurrection is far bigger than the textual contradictions, contradictions is mere one aspect of the problem ,other aspects will be exposed eg; misapplication of prophecies etc , that shows Resurrection story was shaped by the theological aims of the evangelists.....in future posts...


2- Islam's problem with the issue crucifiction,resurrection is profound to the limit that I will once(in future posts) say ,what if the Quran says Jesus was crucified and resurrected ? showing how profound the problem which can't be resolved even if the Quran agree with the bible regarding the crucifiction,resurrection (details later)..

peace

 

[Grace Seeker]

Al-manar, are you suggesting that because each of the 4 gospel recount the story of the discovery of the empty tomb and Jesus' resurrection differently that it there could not have happened? did not happen? or that we simply can't determine which of them is most accurate in telling the story?

I think that gets us back to the Question do errors in scripture matter? which I answered(in accordance with the opinion of all muslims and the vast majority of christians) before..

http://www.islamicboard.com/compara...tive-study-arranged-items-10.html#post1341209

And in that post you write:

Item :7

Biblical Errancy vs Quranic Inerrancy


while an error-free book won't alone prove it as divine, errancy from any kind should get the book under suspicion ..

This view is why I continue to seek a more definitive answer than I have yet to receive regarding the ahadith. I understand that most Muslims accept an authenticated hadith as being on par with the Qur'an in terms of its efficacy in providing guidance. Is that true?

 

[Woodrow]

This view is why I continue to seek a more definitive answer than I have yet to receive regarding the ahadith. I understand that most Muslims accept an authenticated hadith as being on par with the Qur'an in terms of its efficacy in providing guidance. Is that true?

Peace Gene,

I personally personally believe that is true for many of us. However, there is a somewhat qualifying condition. If something is ever found in any Hadith that contradicts the Qur'an, we are to follow the Qur'an and not the Hadith.

A quick summation We believe the Qur'an contains the actual words of Allaah(swt) exactly as He spoke them through the Angel Jibreel. The ahadith are the eye witness accounts of humans. We believe those are what the witnesses heard and saw. While we accept the authenticated and reliable accounts of what was witnessed, we must keep in mind a Witness can be in error. Which is why we place the highest reliability in the Ahadith that have the most witnesses reporting the same.

 

[Hiroshi]

They asked each others "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?"

A question reveals total ignorance of the questioners regarding what had happened(the stone removed) on the scene by the tomb ,yet Mary before (according to that theory) is said to have found the stone removed and the body missing and informed the disciples about that ..and that gets no hope for that theory to work.....

Mary in her first visit found the stone removed and the body missing and informed the disciples about that

John 20:1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"

yet in her second visit with the women

Mark 16:1 they ( Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome ) were saying to one another, "Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?" !

Obviously there is a whole chunk of narrative in John's account that the other gospel writers do not include. John included it perhaps partly to record his own experiences of what happened that day. The missing narrative covers the time from the women's question: " Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?" before the first visit to the tomb up until the time of their second visit when they see angels and also the resurrected Jesus.

 

[Al-manar]

This view is why I continue to seek a more definitive answer than I have yet to receive regarding the ahadith. I understand that most Muslims accept an authenticated hadith as being on par with the Qur'an in terms of its efficacy in providing guidance. Is that true? .

I'm aware of your thread regarding Hadith, though I have sufficient knowledge in the science(the most complex Islamic science) to contribute to the thread , pardon me from not joining there.....

Obviously there is a whole chunk of narrative in John's account that the other gospel writers do not include. John included it perhaps partly to record his own experiences of what happened that day. The missing narrative covers the time from the women's question: " Who will roll away the stone for us from the entrance of the tomb?" before the first visit to the tomb up until the time of their second visit when they see angels and also the resurrected Jesus.

Hiroshi ,why you reset your argument again ?!

I understood you ,you argue for a supposed missing narrative (Mary visiting the tomb before revisiting it again with the women ) from Mark ....

and I told you , adding that missing narrative to Mark will get a basic problem of harmony, I showed twice that adding the supposed missing narrative of John to Mark wont make any sense...

Let's add the missing narrative! of John to Mark and let the reader judge:

JohMark 20:16 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him! Afterwards, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome , just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3 and they ( Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome ) asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?” ...

Does that make sense? yes sometimes it does,as pure faith turns the impossible into possible ! ....

Regards

 

[Al-manar]

Just to add something...

while I said ( errancy from any kind should get the book under suspicion) ,but that doesnt mean the whole book has to be false from cover to cover.....

we dont have such concept in Islam (A bible fully false) ... just Just cause the gospels contain false stories of crucifiction,resurrection.... false prophecies etc.... doesnt mean there arent parts, we think are valid.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Just to add something...

while I said ( errancy from any kind should get the book under suspicion) ,but that doesnt mean the whole book has to be false from cover to cover.....

we dont have such concept in Islam (A bible fully false) ... just Just cause the gospels contain false stories of crucifiction,resurrection.... false prophecies etc.... doesnt mean there arent parts, we think are valid.

but how such process of filtering be made?

So, you really can't say that John is false. You agree that there could be truth in the Bible. It is just that you see Matthew and John being in disagreement and thus you hold that they can't both be true. AND, since without some other filter you have no independent way of verifying which is true, your disposition is to not trust either of them.

Is that a correct interpretation of your position and rationale for that position?

 

[Al-manar]

I dunno why the explorer keep crashing while editing my post !

So, you really can't say that John is false. You agree that there could be truth in the Bible. It is just that you see Matthew and John being in disagreement and thus you hold that they can't both be true. AND, since without some other filter you have no independent way of verifying which is true, your disposition is to not trust either of them.

Is that a correct interpretation of your position and rationale for that position?

1- the consistency of the accounts , I find the story to be contradictory based on hearsay testimony.

2- the extent to which the author's purpose may have influenced his reliability ,I find compelling proofs that the story was shaped by the theological aims of the evangelists

3- The rejection of the Quran (which been proven to me to be divine) of the story.

4- It is not a well-established historical event ,based on independent eyewitnesses..

those are the basic factors for me to deny the story .


but that again doesnt mean that I dont buy other stories in the New Testament.....

 

[Woodrow]

I'm aware of your thread regarding Hadith, though I have sufficient knowledge in the science(the most complex Islamic science) to contribute to the thread , pardon me from not joining there.....




Hiroshi ,why you reset your argument again ?!

I understood you ,you argue for a supposed missing narrative (Mary visiting the tomb before revisiting it again with the women ) from Mark ....

and I told you , adding that missing narrative to Mark will get a basic problem of harmony, I showed twice that adding the supposed missing narrative of John to Mark wont make any sense...

Let's add the missing narrative! of John to Mark and let the reader judge:

JohMark 20:16 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him! Afterwards, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome , just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3 and they ( Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome ) asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?” ...

Does that make sense? yes sometimes it does,as pure faith turns the impossible into possible ! ....

Regards

Akhi Al-manar.

Quoting from above and putting high emphasis on the obvious:

SIZE="4"]JohMark 20:16 [/SIZE]Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him! Afterwards, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome , just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3 and they ( Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome ) asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?” ...

If those 2 things I highlighted are true, can there be any other conclusion, except what you are showing?

 

[Al-manar]

Akhi Al-manar.

If those 2 things I highlighted are true, can there be any other conclusion, except what you are showing?

Akhi

The 2 things highlighted ,can't be true ,they are yet another problem (timing)

while it was still dark & just after sunrise , can't be the same ,that is just another contradiction .....

for example : one can create another theory claiming that as long as Matthew tells that the visit was at dawn , then he was talking about a visit preceded a Markan visit after the sun had risen...
but that is far fetched ,just comparing them reveals they were talking about one visit ,arguing otherwise needs a textual support ....

the same way with the case of John and Mark .... the theory that suggested Hiroshi ,in order to work needs to get the narratives consistent....

A simple reading to Mark reveals that the man was talking about only one visit ,that is impossible to be preceeded by another visit........ it is the visit that was preceded by the women(including Mary Magdalene) buying spices ,and due to their ignorance that the large stone been removed (which is a logical thing ,as long as they were absent from the scene,just they were on their way to visit it for the first time) ,they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?

the Markan text is clear enough to get us sure he was talking about a visit unpreceded by another by any of the women:

1- the women arranged TOGETHER :

1-bought spices to anoint him.
2-together walked the way to the tomb while asking themselves who is gonna move such heavy stone from the entrance of the tomb.
3- Only when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away.

Mark 16: 1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body. 2 Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb 3 and they asked each other, “Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?” 4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away.

the theory of a missing visit ,suggests that Mary who arranged to annoint jesus and bought spices with the help of the other women , suddenly decided to go while it was dark to the tomb ,but hasn't she already planned to annoint him with the women? ...!!!what is the sense of her going alone in the dark to the tomb?
and if she went , found out no corpse to annoint (John 20), why would she get back again with the women asking themselves who will help them moving the stone ,in order to get into the tomb annointing the corpse(Mark 16) ?!!!

It is logically for them not talking about rolling the stone away but instead talking about the bad news that the body had been stolen.....

to add more to the problem Matthew(28) had the angel descending to roll away the stone, whereas Mark (16)had the women been surprised, arriving to find that the stone had already been rolled away.



Akhi Woodrow any comment, note is welcome..

 

[Hiroshi]

Akhi Al-manar.

Quoting from above and putting high emphasis on the obvious:



If those 2 things I highlighted are true, can there be any other conclusion, except what you are showing?

Matthew 28:1 says that they came to the tomb "when it was growing light". Obviously John 20:1 doesn't mean that it was pitch black when Mary and the others reached the tomb. Rather it was just at sunrise when there was still some darkness. But the darkness was fading as it was growing light. All the gospel accounts agree that it was very early in the day.

 

[Woodrow]

Matthew 28:1 says that they came to the tomb "when it was growing light". Obviously John 20:1 doesn't mean that it was pitch black when Mary and the others reached the tomb. Rather it was just at sunrise when there was still some darkness. But the darkness was fading as it was growing light. All the gospel accounts agree that it was very early in the day.

JohMark 20:16 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark,

So still "dark" means "while it was growing light." I guess my English is poorer than I thought it was.

 

[جوري]

So still "dark" means "while it was growing light." I guess my English is poorer than I thought it was.

sometimes I come here for a chuckle and instead I receive a hearty guffaw...

lol sorry about this.. I assure you, your condition seems to plague me too..

 

[Hiroshi]

JohMark 20:16 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark,

So still "dark" means "while it was growing light." I guess my English is poorer than I thought it was.

I think everyone has got the picture that it was a completely cloudless sky. Nisan 16 would be the tail end of the rainy season in Palestine and there could well have been clouds darkening any light from the sunrise.

 

[Al-manar]

Going back to our discussion about the origin of christianity ..............................

we have exposed the problems with the concept that the Jews before the mission of Jesus were stict monotheist ,we have provided direct quotation from the Jewish writings (other writings are saved for future arguments) ,showing that the Jews not only venerated Angels,dead saints but also thought of a character called (son of man) as divine and be worshipped !!....

Satan fulfilled his work with them gradually , he knew that getting them to worship other gods than Yahweh is difficult ..... so he gradually convinced them to turn Yahwah himself into idol !! ....

he didn't tell them go worship krishna, tammuz ,osiris etc ...
Just go find out the physical aspect of Yahweh that been hidden from you, and it is high time to be revealed among you !!!

what a tragedy !!

............................................................................



Our next post is the discussion about the THIRD duty The Quranic Jesus was supoosed to do:

our discussion has a guide line ,it is the following verse:

Holy Quran 003.050 And (I come) confirming that which was before me of the Torah, and to make lawful some of that which was forbidden unto you. I come unto you with a sign from your Lord, so keep your duty to Allah and obey me.

till next post

peace

 

[IAmZamzam]

Al-manar, are you suggesting that because each of the 4 gospel recount the story of the discovery of the empty tomb and Jesus' resurrection differently that it there could not have happened? did not happen? or that we simply can't determine which of them is most accurate in telling the story?

I think the bigger issue here is not that there are contradictions, nor even how many there are, but the mere fact that up until the point of the crucifixion the four Gospels remain primarily consistent with each other (for the most part—sort of) about the majority of key issues, and then once you get into the passion the contradictions suddenly start piling up out of nowhere and just keep on increasing until the resurrection saga at the end where hardly anything is consistent. It seems to strongly support the notion, held by Muslims, Gnostics, and many secular writers, that this part is the least reliable and most mythically embellished section of the whole saga.

 

[Hiroshi]

Going back to our discussion about the origin of christianity ..............................

we have exposed the problems with the concept that the Jews before the mission of Jesus were stict monotheist ,we have provided direct quotation from the Jewish writings (other writings are saved for future arguments) ,showing that the Jews not only venerated Angels,dead saints but also thought of a character called (son of man) as divine and be worshipped !!....

Satan fulfilled his work with them gradually , he knew that getting them to worship other gods than Yahweh is difficult ..... so he gradually convinced them to turn Yahwah himself into idol !! ....

I think that I agree with you. Christianity became corrupted and Jesus began to be (wrongly) identified as the same God that Yahweh is.

 

[Hiroshi]

I think the bigger issue here is not that there are contradictions, nor even how many there are, but the mere fact that up until the point of the crucifixion the four Gospels remain primarily consistent with each other (for the most part—sort of) about the majority of key issues, and then once you get into the passion the contradictions suddenly start piling up out of nowhere and just keep on increasing until the resurrection saga at the end where hardly anything is consistent. It seems to strongly support the notion, held by Muslims, Gnostics, and many secular writers, that this part is the least reliable and most mythically embellished section of the whole saga.

We know from history that great numbers of early Christians perished in the Roman arenas rather than deny their faith. Christ's resurrection was a guarantee for them (Acts 17:31) They must have seen solid evidence of this, not false stories and myth.

 

[Woodrow]

We know from history that great numbers of early Christians perished in the Roman arenas rather than deny their faith. Christ's resurrection was a guarantee for them (Acts 17:31) They must have seen solid evidence of this, not false stories and myth.

I believe you already know that most if not all Muslims are willing to die than deny our faith. Many have throughout the centuries and do so today.

Based on what you just said I assume you you will accept this as solid evidence of the truth of our belief.

 

[Hugo]

I believe you already know that most if not all Muslims are willing to die than deny our faith. Many have throughout the centuries and do so today. Based on what you just said I assume you you will accept this as solid evidence of the truth of our belief.

Not quite sure what you mean here: truth in the sence that your faith is real or truth that Islam itself is truth?