Discussion with Orangeduck

[Al-manar]

In fact, when it comes to theology from any religion, no one can be sure. No muslim can be sure of the theology of Islam. No Jew can be sure of theology from Judiasm..

I understand what you mean ..... you want to say that you left Islam and adapted chritianity because you FEEL that christianity is better ...

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

on one hand you don't believe that there are discrepancies in the resurrection story

As for alleged discrepancies in the resurrection story

on the other hand you don't believe the bible as the inerrant word of God.

As for the Bible, I don't believe any book is the inerrant word of any God.

would you tell us what makes you not to believe the bible as the inerrant word of God?

 

[Orangeduck]

I understand what you mean ..... you want to say that you left Islam and adapted chritianity because you FEEL that christianity is better ...

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

on one hand you don't believe that there are discrepancies in the resurrection story




on the other hand you don't believe the bible as the inerrant word of God.




would you tell us what makes you not to believe the bible as the inerrant word of God?

Christianity does "feel" better and more authentic to me, but also the historical aspect appealed to me.

As for why don't find the Bible to be the inerrant word of God is due to the fact that every single book in the history of the universe was written by men. God did not written the Bible, the Quran or any book.

 

[Al-manar]

As for why don't find the Bible to be the inerrant word of God is due to the fact that every single book in the history of the universe was written by men. God did not written the Bible.

That, not only goes flatly against what the bible clearly teaches about itself (as the verbal ,plenary inspired word of God) but also leads to a dangerous,misleading premise ...... that is not my opinion alone,but the opinion of the vast majority of christians .....

take a look

while an error-free book won't alone prove it as divine, errancy from any kind should get the book under suspicion ..
both the bible and The Quran claims inerrancy:

Holy Quran 41:42 No falsehood can approach it(the Quran) from before or behind it: It is sent down by One Full of Wisdom, Worthy of all Praise.

in the clearest of terms the bible also claims to be the verbal ,plenary inspired word of God
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.

not only inerrancy is specifically affirmed in the bible and the Quran but an inference as well:
the belief of a divine, error-free book is the one that is held by the church for seventeen centuries.
Due to the produced indisputable evidence of inaccuracies in the bible, a tiny minority of modern Christian scholars , began to be more realistic denying the concept that the bible is an error-free book…. Such concept, though realistic, has a tremendous obstacle to gain popularity among Christians ,as it Ignores the serious consequences for declaring that the bible is errant,the consequences would be the answer to the question:

Does Biblical Errancy matter?

quotes by some of the scholars of mainstream Christianity :

“the very nature of inspiration renders the bible infallible, inspiration involved infallibility from start to finish, if inspiration allows for possibility of errors ;then inspiration ceases to be inspiration.
Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible

“Even if the errors are supposedly in ‘minor’ matters, any error opens the Bible to suspicion on other points which may not be so ‘minor.’ If inerrancy falls, other doctrines will fall too.” If we can’t trust Scripture in things like geography, chronology, and history, then how can we be sure we can trust it in its message of salvation and sanctification?
Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, Victor Books, Wheaton, IL, 1987, electronic media.


Again. a belief in limited inerrancy demands the impossible__that a fallible exegete become an infallible discerner and interpreter of (the word of God)within the scripture .This opens the door for confusion and uncertainty ,undergirded by either subjectivism or personal bias.
Indeed can the holy spirit inspire error; can the spirit of truth inspire untruth.?
Handbook of Biblical Evidences By John Ankerberg, John Weldon


“By this word ( inerrancy) we mean that the Scriptures possess the quality of freedom from error. They are exempt from the liability to mistake, incapable of error. In all their teachings they are in perfect accord with the truth.
E. J. Young, Thy Word Is Truth, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1957, p. 113

‘Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives’ (James Montgomery Boice, Does Inerrancy Matter?, Oakland: International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1979, p. 13.)


If the biblical record can be proved fallible in areas of fact that can be verified, then it is hardly to be trusted in areas where it cannot be tested. As a witness for God, the Bible would be discredited as untrustworthy. What solid truth it may contain would be left as a matter of mere conjecture, subject to the intuition or canons of likelihood of each individual. An attitude of sentimental attachment to traditional religion may incline one person to accept nearly all the substantive teachings of Scripture as probably true. But someone else with equal justification may pick and chose whatever teachings in the Bible happen to appeal to him and lay equal claim to legitimacy. One opinion is as good as another. All things are possible, but nothing is certain if indeed the Bible contains mistakes or errors of any kind (Gleason Archer ,Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties pp. 23-24).


Some say that the Bible is inspired in the same sense that great literature is inspired, as the plays of Shakespeare or the poems of Tennyson and Browning. Such people sometimes say, "I know the Bible is inspired because it inspires me." Really they mean that the Bible is not the infallible Word of God but that it is a good inspiring book even though it has mistakes. Some say that God gave the general thought and left it to men to write it down so that of necessity there would be some slight errors. Some say that the New Testament is authoritative and true, but the Old Testament is imperfect and is simply a survival of primitive religious thinking. Some so-called scholars, who are not scholars enough to know what the Bible claims for itself nor the evidence that it is true, teach a so-called "progressive revelation" and say that none of the Bible is reliable except the very words of Jesus, and they doubt many of the statements of the gospels. Many good men are deceived by these theorists and quote them. Some people say that the Bible contains the Word of God but that not all of it is the Word of God. If one must find for himself or depend upon some modernistic scholar to say just how much of the Bible is really the Word of God and authoritative, of course no two living men, on that plan, would perfectly agree as to what was true and what was not. Some good men very foolishly say that the Bible is inspired and reliable for religious knowledge but is not necessarily true in scientific matters, or in history (John R. Rice, Verbal Inspiration of the Bible, Sword of the Lord Publishers, p. 1).


"The Bible is the inerrant... Word of God. It is absolutely infallible, without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc." (Jerry Falwell,Finding Inner Peace and Strength,Doubleday, 1982, p. 26, ).


It(The Bible) does not err in its revelation, its assertions relative to doctrine, ethics, history, et al. The autographs were absolutely and totally free from error. The Bible gives a faultless record of everything with which it deals (including lies and faults, at times); it chronicles the record of those errors but does not sanction them. It does claim infallibility in all that it does teach, however. Further, when accurately transmitted/translated, the translation is also inspired, the Word of God" (Biblical Inerrancy: The First Annual Gulf Coast Lectures, Church of Christ, Portland, Texas, 1993, pp. 33-34).


I believe that God moved the men who wrote the Holy Bible so that the very words they wrote and the very thoughts they expressed were given to them by God and miraculously preserved from every possibility of error. I further believe that Holy Scriptures "since they are the Word of God, contain no errors or contradictions, but are in all their parts and words infallible truth, also in those parts that treat of historical, geographical, and other secular matters" . I will go even further since Jesus went further. I believe that the Bible is not only verbally inspired, but is also totally accurate in its tense, mood, voice, and case (in the original autographs) because Jesus says so
William Bischoff, a pastor in Bridgeton, Missouri.


"... But how do you know Jesus except as he is presented to you in the Bible? If the Bible is not God's Word and does not present a picture of Jesus Christ that can be trusted, how do you know it is the true Christ you are following? You may be worshipping a Christ of your own imagination." (Does Errancy Matter by James Boice, page 24)

Once conceding there are errors in the Bible, you have opened a Pandora's Box. How do you know which parts are true if you admit some parts are false. As ICBI said: "... But this position (claiming truthfulness for those parts of the Bible where God, as opposed to men has spoken-ed). is unsound. People who think like this speak of Biblical authority, but at best they have partial Biblical authority since the parts containing errors obviously cannot be authoritative. What is worse, they cannot even tell us precisely what parts are from God and are therefore truthful and what parts are not from God and are in error. Usually they say that the "salvation parts" are from God, but they do not tell us how to separate these from the non-salvation parts." (Does Errancy Matter by James Boice, page 8)

 

[Orangeduck]

After all that copy and paste, are you really going to tell me that God wrote the Bible and / or the Quran?

Seriously? I don't say that to be mean, but how can you honestly tell me that humans didn't write either book?

It's an absolute know fact that 40 people wrote the Bible and your own hadiths record the fact that humans re-wrote the Quran. If you choose to believe allah composed the Quran, that's fine with me, but:

1) There is no evidence for that
2) The Ciaro text of the Quran (the standard version) was absolutly written and copied by humans. It did not fall out I the sky in its current form.


As for insperation, other than extreme fundamential Christian denominations, "insperation" in Christianty and Islam are different concepts. In Islam, insperation refers to the fact that Allah literally spoke the Quran with no room for any other input. In Christianity, insperation refers to the fact that God inspired men to write what they saw, heard, read and learned. Most Christians do not believe that God literally spoke the Bible into existence.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I do believe Christ rose from the dead

The belief that somebody rose from the dead has never really bothered me so much. That is a belief that lots of people have had, inside and outside of religions.

What I get more alarmed by is the whole "He died for our sins" bit. As if an innocent volunteer should be allowed to pay for my wrongdoing, and that the payment should be based on pain and suffering instead of good works. :hiding:

 

[Pygoscelis]

would you tell us what makes you not to believe the bible as the inerrant word of God?

Why would God need to write a book? Could he not just make you know what he wants you to know? What is with the need to write it down on paper or send a messenger (angel or prophet)? That sounds like a human limitation to me, and one the devine should transcend.

I believe that the holy texts' existence is evidence against their claims. That God wrote holy texts and sent prophets etc instead of just putting the knowledge he wasnts us to have in our heads (we would then be truly free on how to act on that information and make informed choices) seems to indicate that either God can't or does not want to do the latter. So he either isn't as powerful as he is made out to be or he doesn't truly want his message to be understood by all and intends all the confusion and conflict caused by competing religious claims.

 

[Orangeduck]

The belief that somebody rose from the dead has never really bothered me so much. That is a belief that lots of people have had, inside and outside of religions.

What I get more alarmed by is the whole "He died for our sins" bit. As if an innocent volunteer should be allowed to pay for my wrongdoing, and that the payment should be based on pain and suffering instead of good works. :hiding:

In Koine Greek, the word for "faith" is a verb, which means its an action. In English we say "have faith". In Koine Greek (a language Christ, the Apostles, and the entire Eastern Roman Empire spoke and the language of the New Testament) we say "do faith". Faith is not something you "have", it's something you "do".

Why do I say this? I say it because good deeds ARE important and required. The 2 deeds Christ said that are required are love your neighbor and your enemies, and help those that need help (charity).

As for Christ dieing for our sins...that is a highly involved concept that I will be more than happy to talk to you about it in detail, but only if you want to. If you have any questions, let me know

 

[Person1001]

One thing I never got. How was Jesus the messiah distinguished from Jesus Barrabas (literal translation 'son of the father') as the miracle worker. Barrabas seems infinitely more likely (by name) to be the miracle worker since the word 'messiah' could be used to indicate any leader such as a jew leading a rebellion etc. in fact many people are called the messiah by name. It seems highly likely that the authors got it wrong :S

 

[Person1001]

Barabbas*

 

[Muhammad]

Greetings Orangeduck,


If you don't mind I'd like to go back and comment on some of the statements you have made in this thread.

As I said before, I don't mean to offend, but this is what secular scholars say. I will always trust a scholar over an apologestist (and so should everyone else)

Firstly, let us be clear on our sources. Muslim ‘apologists’ are also scholars who have researched and studied just as much if not more than their non-Muslim counterparts. The fact that a scholar speaking about Islam happens to be non-Muslim does not automatically mean his view will be more correct. To the contrary, such Orientalists, as they are called, have been exposed to be most unscrupulous when it comes to using information to discredit and cast doubts on Islam.

The idea of a perfect quran is purely apologetical and not historical. Muslim apologestists say that the quran was memorized, but historians reject that idea.

To reject such a clear fact demonstrates sheer ignorance. In fact, orientalists acknowledge very clearly that the Qur’an was memorised:

A.T. Welch, a non-Muslim orientalist, writes:

“For Muslims the Quran is much more than scripture or sacred literature in the usual Western sense. Its primary significance for the vast majority through the centuries has been in its oral form, the form in which it first appeared, as the “recitation” chanted by Muhammad to his followers over a period of about twenty years…The revelations were memorized by some of Muhammad’s followers during his lifetime, and the oral tradition that was thus established has had a continuous history ever since, in some ways independent of, and superior to, the written Quran… Through the centuries the oral tradition of the entire Quran has been maintained by the professional reciters (qurraa). Until recently, the significance of the recited Quran has seldom been fully appreciated in the West.”
The Encyclopedia of Islam, ‘The Quran in Muslim Life and Thought.’


The Quran is perhaps the only book, religious or secular, that has been memorized completely by millions of people. Leading orientalist Kenneth Cragg reflects that:

“…this phenomenon of Quranic recital means that the text has traversed the centuries in an unbroken living sequence of devotion. It cannot, therefore, be handled as an antiquarian thing, nor as a historical document out of a distant past. The fact of hifdh (Quranic memorization) has made the Quran a present possession through all the lapse of Muslim time and given it a human currency in every generation, never allowing its relegation to a bare authority for reference alone.”
Kenneth Cragg, The Mind of the Quran, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1973, p.26


Please refer back to post #15 in this thread for further details on this point: http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/134312592-discussion-orangeduck.html#post1512610

Muslim apologestists say that the quran was written down early in the life of Islam, and while scholars agree with this, the quran that was written down is not the quran of today.

The vast majority of non-muslim orientalists, many of whom were quite hostile and quite vehement in their attacks on Islam, have yet agreed that the Qur'anic text is unaltered (note: obviously since they are non-muslim they will refer to the Qur'an as the words of Muhammad peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

'This Text of the Qur'an is the purest of all works of alike antiquity' (Wherry, Commentary on the Koran, I. p. 349).

'Othman's recension has remained the authorised text from the time it was made until the present day' (Palmer, The Qur'an, p. lix).

'The text of this recension substantially corresponds to the actual utterances of Muhammad himself' (Arnold, Islamic Faith, p. 9).

'All sects and parties have the same text of the Qur'an' (Hurgronje, Mohammedanism, p. 18).

'It is an immense merit in the Kuran that there is no doubt as to its genuineness That very word we can now read with full confidence that it has remained unchanged through nearly thirteen hundred years' (LSK., p.3)

'The recension of 'Othman has been handed down unaltered. There is probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries with so pure a text' (Muir, Life of Mohammed, pp. XXII-XXIII).

'In the Kuran we have, beyond all reasonable doubt, the exact words of Mohammed without subtraction and without addition' (Bosworth Smith, Mohammamed and Mohammedanism, p. 22)

'The Koran was his own creation; and it lies before us practically unchanged from the form which he himself gave it' (Torrey, Jewish Foundations of Islam, p.2).

'Modern critics agree that that the copies current today are almost exact replicas of the original mother-text as compiled by Zayd, and that, on the whole, the text of the Koran today is as Muhammad prodcued it. As some Semitic scholar remarked, there are probably more variations in the reading of one chapter of Genesis in Hebrew than there are in the entire Koran' (Hitti, History of the Arabs, p. 123).

The oldest quran (the older the more authentic and closer to the original) is just 1 of 4 major metropolitan codex copies, none of which were identical.

There could be any number of reasons why they are not identical, such as the fact that they may be personal copies owned by certain individuals, and never something they declared to be a complete and authoritative copy of the Qur’an. Moreover, in the early days, Mushafs (copies of the Qur’an) were scribed on parchment much heavier than paper and there are many examples (such as the Yemeni collection) where the Qur’an is written in such large calligraphy that an entire Mushaf’s thickness would easily exceed one metre. Library shelves throughout the world are filled with partially written Qur’ans. And we can conclude that anyone desiring to scribe a partial Mushaf would have felt at liberty to place the surahs in whichever order he saw fit. This is because anyone desiring to copy the Qur’an in its entirety has to follow that sequence, but for those who seek to copy only particular surahs, following the arrangement outlined in Uthman’s Mushaf is no longer necessary.

On the topic of variances, here is an interesting narrative which M M Al-Azami quotes in his book:

In the 20th century the University of Munich set up an Institute of Qur’anic Research. Its halls lay host to over 40,000 copies of the Qur’an, spanning different centuries and countries, mostly as photos of originals, while its staff busied themselves with the collation of every word from every copy in a relentless excavation for variants. Shortly before the Second World War, a preliminary and tentative report was published that there are of course copying mistakes in the manuscripts of the Qur’an, but no variants. During the war, American bombs fell on this Institute, and all was destroyed, director, personnel, library and all... But this much is proved – that there are no variants in the Qur’an in copies dating from the first to the present century.
M. Hamidullah, ‘The Practicability of Islam in this World’, Islamic Cultural Forum, Tokyo, Japan, April 1977, p. 15; See also A. Jeffrey, Materials, Preface, p. 1.

Are familiar with the sana quran (sometimes called the sana manuscripts)? Unless you get invited to see them, your only option is look at photo copies online.

It's the oldest quran inexistance.

Several dozen first-century manuscripts of the Qur’an exist in various libraries around the world. M Al-Azami believes there are at least 250,000 partial or complete Mushafs covering all eras. So while the Mushafs in San’a are a great treasure, they do not add anything new or substantial to the body of proof which already demonstrates the Qur’an’s completion within the first decades of Islam.

Here is something else to keep in mind. The quran, according to the hadiths, was spoken in several different dialects. The Hadith said to write the quran in the dialect of mohammd (I have no idea how to spell it). Here is the problem. Arabic, at that time didnt have vowels. It is linguistically impossible to tell 1 dialect apart from another in a written form without vowels.

This is incorrect – dialects are also distinguished based upon spellings of the words where extra letters or different letters are used. It is even possible that Uthman’s Mushaf was purposely written without dots and vowel points so that it would encompass different readings. By the way, writing without vowels was the traditional manner of writing at that time – the Arabs were accustomed to such a script and would substitute the appropriate letter and vowel depending on the context.

If you want proof from islam itself, all you have to do is read Bukhari (spelling might not be correct). He makes it very clear that parts of the quran were forgotten and that the quran had been re-written.

Before commenting on this, please show us these 'very clear' hadeeth.


It should be clear from the above that what you think you know about Islam is very far from being historically correct, and you should re-consider your claimed reasons for leaving it.

Regards.

 

['Abd-al Latif]

Why would God need to write a book? Could he not just make you know what he wants you to know? What is with the need to write it down on paper or send a messenger (angel or prophet)? That sounds like a human limitation to me, and one the devine should transcend.

I believe that the holy texts' existence is evidence against their claims. That God wrote holy texts and sent prophets etc instead of just putting the knowledge he wasnts us to have in our heads (we would then be truly free on how to act on that information and make informed choices) seems to indicate that either God can't or does not want to do the latter. So he either isn't as powerful as he is made out to be or he doesn't truly want his message to be understood by all and intends all the confusion and conflict caused by competing religious claims.

God didn't 'write' a book, He spoke the message in the literal sense and it was recorded on Earth by those whom it was revealed to. The Qur'an was not revealed in a written form but an oral one. It remained largely as an oral message until those whom had memorised Qur'an were dying in battles, long after the Messenger had passed away. It was only then, to preserve the message revealed, when the was Qur'an written in manuscript form to be preserved through the ages.

 

['Abd-al Latif]

I want to add to my post above that I have meant exactly what I have said. When I say largely, I meant that it was written down by some of the companions. Exactly how many I don't know. And when the Qur'an was put together, it was not according to the whims of the majority but it was compiled exactly the way the Messenger had dictated it during his lifetime: the order that he was commanded to order it by, by Allah Himself.

I also want to clarify that in this and my previous post, I have left out a great deal of detail and history for the sake of brevity. So do not assume that the history of Qur'an is an obscure and vague one.

 

[dqsunday]

One reason we have prophets/messengers chosen among humanity by Allah, and not just have the message 'beamed' into all our heads by Allah himself, is it takes its toll. When Mohammad received his first revelation, it affected him quite intensely physically, not to mention rather frightened him too. So much so he ran home and hid under his cloak.

 

[YusufNoor]

Re: Easter.

Hello my friend. Being a HUGE history buff, Christianity held a certain allure to me. The quran says that Christ didn't die in the cross, but historical records say He did. Being a history nut, I saw Christianity as a religion that had a historically sound and mostly verifiable foundation. This was very appealing to me.

If I didn't appreciate history as much as I do, I might not have every studied religion from a secular and historical point of view...and I might still be a muslim.

There is more than just the historical aspect, but that was probably the biggest influence. I never saw Christ in a dream where He spoke to me. None of the Saints ever appeared to me. I don't really have any grand conversion story. It's quite boring actually

please provide us with 1, JUST 1, contemporaneous, historical record that proves Jesus, pbuh, died on the cross.

:wa:

 

[Orangeduck]

Re: Easter.

please provide us with 1, JUST 1, contemporaneous, historical record that proves Jesus, pbuh, died on the cross.

:wa:

All 4 Gosspels record the Crucifixtion and scholars have concluded they are historically reliable. If you want other exames or Romans or Persians that record the Crucifixtion, read any accredited encyclopedia on the subject. You will get several examples. Other than the 4 Biblical accounts, I know of 5 other sources.

 

[YusufNoor]

Re: Easter.

All 4 Gosspels record the Crucifixtion and scholars have concluded they are historically reliable. If you want other exames or Romans or Persians that record the Crucifixtion, read any accredited encyclopedia on the subject. You will get several examples. Other than the 4 Biblical accounts, I know of 5 other sources.

i asked for 1 CONTEMPORANEOUS source, just 1. the Gospels were written some 35 + years after for Mark, 50+ years for Matthew and Luke and 65+ years for John. that is NOT CONTEMPORANEOUS! what else you got???

 

[Orangeduck]

Re: Easter.

i asked for 1 CONTEMPORANEOUS source, just 1. the Gospels were written some 35 + years after for Mark, 50+ years for Matthew and Luke and 65+ years for John. that is NOT CONTEMPORANEOUS! what else you got???

You are opening a huge can I worms. If you want to say that a document written 35 years after the fact is not "contemporary", then you ABSOLUTLY can not trust the quran (written 600 years after the fact). 35 years years after the event written by someone alive durring the event is considered contemporary. Like I said, read an accredited encyclopedia on the subject for many more examples. There are several non-Biblical documents.

Historians are not divided on the subject. They all agree Christ died in the cross, which means they all agree the Quran makes a massive historical error.

 

[YusufNoor]

Re: Easter.

You are opening a huge can I worms.

no, i'm just asking a single question.

If you want to say that a document written 35 years after the fact is not "contemporary",

well, it isn't CONTEMPORANEOUS, now is it?

then you ABSOLUTLY can not trust the quran (written 600 years after the fact).

i didn't ask you anything about that. i'm asking you to back up a statement that you wrote.


35 years years after the event written by someone alive durring the event is considered contemporary.

i'm looking specifically for a CONTEMPORANEOUS historical document to support the "crucufiction", one made by an EYEWITNESS!

Like I said, read an accredited encyclopedia on the subject for many more examples.

i'm sorry, i'm just laughing here. i don't mean to be rude...sorry, can't stop laughing...i'm trying to stop. really...

There are several non-Biblical documents.

nothing CONTEMPORANEOUS though, eh?

Historians are not divided on the subject.

hurray, group error!

They all agree Christ died in the cross,

see above comment...

which means they all agree the Quran makes a massive historical error.

that, and $3.95 will get you an espresso at starbucks!

[4.157] And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

so, based upon hearsay, written a generation later [and more!] by anonymous writers, it actually DOES appear to you and others that the crucifiction is true.

exactly how does that make the Qur'an wrong? ;D

that is actually a rhetorical question, cuz A) i wouldn't want you to strain yourself with any more encyclopedias and B) you're about as full of poop as a jam packed chicken coop!

but, thanks for the laugh!

cheers,
Sam

 

[GodIsOne]

Re: Easter.

i asked for 1 CONTEMPORANEOUS source, just 1. the Gospels were written some 35 + years after for Mark, 50+ years for Matthew and Luke and 65+ years for John. that is NOT CONTEMPORANEOUS! what else you got???

Your assumptions are quite amusing and foolish. There are a number of Muslims including myself who believe in the historical crucifixion of يَسُوعَ ... The Qu'ran itself never explicitly says that يَسُوعَ was not physically crucified.

The entire purpose of crucifixion was to humiliate the crucified and terrify their followers or those who thought of following them. The Qu'ran refers to the Jew's failed plot to eradicate the spirit and word of Allah.

[2:155] And say not of those who are killed in the cause of Allah that they are dead; nay, they are living; only you perceive not.

 

[GodIsOne]

Re: Easter.

Your assumptions are quite amusing and foolish. There are a number of Muslims including myself who believe in the historical crucifixion of يَسُوعَ ... The Qu'ran itself never explicitly says that يَسُوعَ was not physically crucified.

The entire purpose of crucifixion was to humiliate the crucified and terrify their followers or those who thought of following them. The Qu'ran refers to the Jew's failed plot to eradicate the spirit and word of Allah.

[2:155] And say not of those who are killed in the cause of Allah that they are dead; nay, they are living; only you perceive not.

I Misquoted that was meant for Orangeduck.