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

[Al-manar]

Hugo .. Hugo

my point was clear, why the so called inspired writers contradict each others in the narratives of the resurrection, you insist that they are trustworthy and telling the truth and I shown you just one example of the contradictions in their narratives which shows they were neither inspired nor trustworthy....


do you need to read again the consequences of a text claimed to be inspired containing contradictions, errors from any kind ? http://www.islamicboard.com/compara...tive-study-arranged-items-10.html#post1341209



anyway I know you won't ever answer me. why?

because the problem I highlighted (the Mary Magdalena problem)is the one that the biggest names in the scholarly world of the NT ,failed miserably to solve.... I know you realize that, that is why you avoided it like a plague

anyway I won't behave childish , remindin you time after time that you failed to clear it up, I would just pretend that I never asked you ......

 

[Hugo]

my point was clear, why the so called inspired writers contradict each others in the narratives of the resurrection, you insist that they are trustworthy and telling the truth and I shown you just one example of the contradictions in their narratives which shows they were neither inspired nor trustworthy....do you need to read again the consequences of a text claimed to be inspired containing contradictions, errors from any kind ? http://www.islamicboard.com/compara...tive-study-arranged-items-10.html#post1341209

I have not deviated - I saw it that you were making two points, one about the writers and one about supposed contradictions. I have answered the first in post 160 and either you have not read it or you have nothing further to say one way or the other.

Tomorrow I will deal with your other finding regarding difficulties of reconciliation on the question of Mary Madeline. No one in the Christian church from its beginning would question your comment that the Matthew and John accounts differ but at the same time that has not driven us to conclude that they are false accounts. The problem for you is that you have assume only one conclusion is possible and that the two accounts cannot be reconciled. This of course is a a common mistake and from time to time we all make it. However, tomorrow I will reply on the Mary Madeline issue fully.

 

[Al-manar]

I have not deviated - I saw it that you were making two points,one about the writers

and did you get the first regarding the writers?!

I doubt it..... the one regarding the writers was no more than (the writers weren't eyewitnesses to what they wrote)... it is your own imagination ,misreading my posts that led you to post :

Your Argument 1 - Witnesses and writers may not be the same person so reports are unreliable.

your argument is that all second hand accounts are false or unreliable and all first hand ones are true and may be trusted.

Hugo it is time to know that Al-manar care more for the text not its writers....

tomorrow I will reply on the Mary Madeline issue fully..

Ok I trust your promise that time..

 

[Hugo]

and did you get the first regarding the writers?! I doubt it..... the one regarding the writers was no more than (the writers weren't eyewitnesses to what they wrote)... it is your own imagination ,misreading my posts that led you to post

I find this post almost offensive given that after you accused me of not following your argument I stated what I understood as your arguments but YOU refused to to confirm or deny what I said.

 

[Hugo]

Here is my response to your question regarding difficulties with harmonising two Gospel accounts relating to the resurrection. In this case I have used as essay written by Bishop Ryle in 1880 and if you want to explore it further see Ryle's Expository thoughts on the Gospels Volume 4 ISBN 085234 0788. If you want further accounts you can do no better than read "Who Moved the Stone" by Frank Morison ISBN 978-0571032594. If you care to visit Amazon you will find many other similar texts. YOu may also be aware that Ahmed Deedat has written a book with the same name. In attempting to harmonizing the accounts which the four Evangelists give of the appearances of Jesus, after He rose again from the dead, there is undeniably some difficulty. But it is probably far more apparent than real. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, each tell their own story; with no appearance of any concert or collusion about them. How to reconcile the seeming discrepancies in their narratives, has exercised the skill of commentators in every age. We might begin by listing the order of Christ's eleven appearances between His resurrection and ascension are as follows :

1. To Mary Magdalene alone (Mark 16:9, John 20:14);
2. To certain women returning from the sepulchre (Matt 28:9,10);
3. To Simon Peter alone (Luke 24:34);
4. To two disciples going to Emmaus (Luke 24:18);
5. To ten Apostles at Jerusalem, and some other disciples, Thomas being absent (John 20:19);
6. To eleven Apostles at Jerusalem, Thomas being present (John 20:26-29);
7. To seven disciples fishing at the sea of Tiberias (John 21:1);
8. To eleven Apostles on a mountain in Galilee, and perhaps some others with them (Matt, 28:16);
9. To above five hundred brethren at once (1 Cor 15:7);
10. To James only (1 Cor 15:7);
11. To all the Apostles, and probably some others, on Mount Olivet, at His ascension.

Most of these eleven appearances require little or no explanation. The ninth and tenth in the list are only recorded by Paul; and some think that the appearance to five hundred at once, is the same as that to the eleven in Galilee, though I doubt it. The appearance to Peter is one of which we know nothing except the fact. However, the only appearances, about which there is any difficulty, are first two in the list and to my own mind the difficulty is by no means insurmountable.

The knot to be untied is this. Mark expressly says that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene. (Mark 16:9.) John also describes this appearance; and it is quite plain from his account that Mary Magdalene was alone. (John 20:11-13.) Yet Matthew says that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to the sepulchre together, saw an angel, and heard that Jesus had risen, ran to tell disciples, and were met on the way by Jesus, and both saw Him at the same time. Now how is this to be explained? How can the account of these three witnesses be made to harmonize and agree? Bishop Ryle begins each section with "I believe" and so is acknowledging that he does not from the Gospel record have everything that is needful but at the same time it is undeniable that a reconciliation is possible.

1. I believe that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary did not go alone to the sepulchre, on the morning of the resurrection. By comparing Mark 16:1, and Luke 23:55, and 24:1, with Matt 28:1, it is evident that several "other women" accompanied them.
2. I believe that, on arriving at the sepulchre, the company of women saw the stone rolled away from its mouth. At once, on seeing this, Mary Magdalene realised that the body of Jesus had been removed from the tomb, and, without waiting a moment, she ran off to Peter and John, and told them, as recorded in John 20:1,2, This incidentally is the view of Chrysostom and Cyril (both writing c. 370)
3. I believe that, while Mary Magdalene ran off to tell Peter and John, the other women went up to the sepulchre, found the body gone, saw a vision of angels, were told that Jesus had risen, and were commanded to go and tell the disciples. They departed to tell the news. Some went in one direction and some in another; Mary and Salome with one party; Joanna with another.
4. I believe that while this was going on, Mary Magdalene, who had run off alone to tell Peter and John, found them, and then all three came to the sepulchre shortly after the other women went away. Whether Mary got there at the same time as Peter and John, perhaps admits of doubt.
5. I believe that Peter and John saw the empty sepulchre, and went away, leaving Mary Magdalene weeping there.
6. I believe that, as soon as Peter and John went away, Mary Magdalene saw the two angels, and immediately after saw Jesus himself, and was told to carry a message to His brethren. (John 20:17.)
7. I believe that in the meantime the other women had gone in two or three directions, to tell the other disciples who lived in different parts of Jerusalem from that of Peter and John. Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Salome, were yet on their way when Jesus met them, very shortly after He had appeared to Mary Magdalene.
8. I believe that one party of women, with Joanna at their head, saw nothing of our Lord, but went to the disciples and told them the message of the angels.
9. I believe that, shortly after this, Jesus appeared to Simon Peter, who very likely had gone again to the grave on hearing Mary Magdalene's report.
10. I believe that in the course of the same day our Jesus appeared to the two disciples on the way to Emmaus, who had left Jerusalem after Joanna and the women reported the vision of angels, but before Jesus appeared to Peter.
11 Finally, I believe that on the evening of the same day that Jesus appeared to the Apostles, and others with them, Thomas being absent. Luke says, "The eleven Apostles were gathered together." But he evidently means the Apostles generally, as a, body. This was our the fifth appearance on the day that He rose.

I don't know whether this scheme of reconciliation will satisfy everyone. I content my-self with saying that I see far fewer difficulties in it than in any other scheme that I have met with. I see, moreover, nothing unfair or unreasonable about it, and nothing which is not consistent with the variety that may justly be expected from the testimony of four independent witnesses.

 

[Al-manar]

Here is my response to your question regarding difficulties with harmonising two Gospel accounts relating to the resurrection.

well,thank you for keeping your promise,though I didn't ask you to give a supposed harmony between all the contradictions(which you call difficulties) in the narratives...
I do intend to deal in details with the resurrection later,as the problem with the crucifixion,resurrection is bigger than mere contradictions.... contradictions is just one aspect of the problem(details later)....

In this case I have used as essay written by Bishop Ryle in 1880 and if you want to explore it further see Ryle's Expository thoughts on the Gospels Volume 4 ISBN 085234 0788. If you want further accounts .........................

I needn't read any further apologetic work on the resurrection,I read all the old and new supposed scenarios of harmonization, and they all fail to make the narratives trustful ...
unlike many people(even some muslims) who insist on just one possible understanding of a text, I'm very tolerant with varied understandings to the same text ,in the condition that there must be a support .......

the scenarios supposed by the christian Apologists are all pure conjecture,not only unsupported by the text but against the text itself.....

I would address the point of Mary Magdalena(the one that I asked specifically) according to Bishop Ryle

2. I believe that, on arriving at the sepulchre, the company of women saw the stone rolled away from its mouth. At once, on seeing this, Mary Magdalene realised that the body of Jesus had been removed from the tomb, and, without waiting a moment, she ran off to Peter and John, and told them, as recorded in John 20:1,2,

you know why the writer gets the chapter and number of John and none else from the other writers?
cause the problem is there where Matthew 28 etc...

the Bishop argues that Mary Magdalena departed before getting the message of the angels,Is that possible?

yes it is possible with John's narrative but impossible with Matthew etc...narratives...

this is the narrative of Matthew in context:

Matthew 28

1And on the eve of the sabbaths, at the dawn, toward the first of the sabbaths, came Mary the Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre, 2and lo, there came a great earthquake, for a messenger of the Lord, having come down out of heaven, having come, did roll away the stone from the door, and was sitting upon it, 3and his countenance was as lightning, and his clothing white as snow, 4and from the fear of him did the keepers shake, and they became as dead men.
5And the messenger answering said to the women, `Fear not ye, for I have known that Jesus, who hath been crucified, ye seek; 6he is not here, for he rose, as he said; come, see the place where the Lord was lying; 7and having gone quickly, say ye to his disciples, that he rose from the dead; and lo, he doth go before you to Galilee, there ye shall see him; lo, I have told you.' 8And having gone forth quickly from the tomb, with fear and great joy, they ran to tell to his disciples; 9and as they were going to tell to his disciples, then lo, Jesus met them, saying, `Hail!' and they having come near, laid hold of his feet, and did bow to him.


What does (they) in bold refer to? the answer that both contextually and grammatically, refers to the Mary Magdalena and the other Mary......

Matthew 28:1-10 grammatically requires the understanding that Mary Magdalene was present throughout this part of Matthew’s narrative. since Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were the only women mentioned in this passage, Mary Magdalene was necessarily a part of the antecedent of the pronouns they and them.
the grammatical structure of Matthew's text will not allow this early departure of Mary Magdalene or the other Mary. If they departed before "the angels popped in," then just who the hell were the women whom the angel spoke to in Matthew 28:5? The two Marys were the only women that Matthew mentioned in his narrative.

1. By names, who were “the women” who went to the tomb in Matthew’s narrative?

2. What is your textual basis for this answer?

3. If you excluded Mary Magdalene from your answer to number 1, what was your textual basis for this exclusion.

4. By names, who were “the women” whom the angel told that Jesus had risen (v:5)?

5. If you excluded Mary Magdalene from your answer to number 4, what was your textual basis for this exclusion?

6. By names, who were “the women” who ran from the tomb and encountered the resurrected Jesus (vs:8-10).

7. If you excluded Mary Magdalene from your answer to number 6. what was your textual basis for this exclusion?

8. If you included Mary Magdalene in your answers, how do you explain Mary Magdalene’s telling Peter and John that the body of Jesus had been stolen if she had by this time encountered both the angel and the risen Jesus?

I don't know whether this scheme of reconciliation will satisfy everyone

It might appear satisfactory to the simple-minded, but not the critically minded .

I see, moreover, nothing unfair or unreasonable about it, and nothing which is not consistent with the variety that may justly be expected from the testimony of four independent witnesses.

You are at it again !

depend upon what the variations are. Variations that involve only the inclusion or exclusion of details may very well not contradict the idea of inerrancy, but variations that involve rank inconsistencies do contradict the idea of inerrancy

As I have repeatedly pointed out, all of the gospel writers were allegedly inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent entity, so the "knowledge" of each writer should have been equal. Whatever Mark knew, Matthew, Luke, and John would have known, and whatever Matthew knew, Mark, Luke, and John would have known, and so on, because they were all "inspired" by the same omniscient entity. If not, why not?

If the Bible is indeed "the word of God," as biblical inerrantists claim, then it can be the word of God only if it is the word of God and not the word of Isaiah or Jeremiah or John or Mark or the apostle Paul. If the gospel of Mark contains only what Mark knew from his own personal experiences or familiarity with "oral traditions" and included by choices that he himself made, then what was the purpose of divine "inspiration"?

If the gospel writers were indeed "inspired" by the omniscient, omnipotent "Holy Spirit," then they were not writing what they chose to write or what they knew from "oral traditions" or their own personal experiences but were writing what they were directed by the omni-one to write..

Well, hugo presented what he think to be satisfactory reconciliation,and I presented the refutation to such scenario.....

the difference between both ,is that the one suggested by the christian apologists is mere a conjecture goes against the text while the critical view has a solid textual support...

 

[muslim787]

what you have attempted was to copy hearsay which really back fired on you and as such the challenge really still stands, you don't have to make a separate thread when you can pick up exactly where you have left off with my challenge the last time. I told you that I'll be waiting for the errors and contradiction .. you ran away after two failed attempts.. Only you can be faulted for that!
​

​

​

​

Salams Sister,

Smashing effort all you fine Muslims are putting into this thread. Could you kindly direct me to the other thread, so I may slowly catch up.

Jazak Allah Kharin​

 

[جوري]

is anyone else getting this message when they attempt to post a large post/

Fatal error: Maximum execution time of 30 seconds exceeded in /home/islamicf/public_html/includes/functions_wysiwyg.php on line 266

 

[جوري]

Salams Sister,

Smashing effort all you fine Muslims are putting into this thread. Could you kindly direct me to the other thread, so I may slowly catch up.

Jazak Allah Kharin

I am having a difficult time posting, pls. go into my profile or his and you'll find them that way insha'Allah

:w;

 

[Hugo]

well,thank you for keeping your promise,though I didn't ask you to give a supposed harmony between all the contradictions(which you call difficulties) in the narratives...
I do intend to deal in details with the resurrection later,as the problem with the crucifixion,resurrection is bigger than mere contradictions.... contradictions is just one aspect of the problem(details later)....

I don't suppose we can go further here. The Bible presents 11 recorded incidents of very many people seeing Jesus after the resurrection and all of these people were sceptical to begin with with Thomas being perhaps the most outspoken critic of the sightings. If you now for whatever reason decide that all of this is a fiction well that is for you alone. However, it does seem to me that you are not entirely objective. Let me cite two examples that will illustarte what I mean:

1. The Qu'ran was an entirely private revelation (just like any revelation or vision) so it is technically hearsay yet YOU I assume believe it absolutely even though the revelation events are impossible to corroborate. So you are not bringing any criticality because one cannot apply one set of criteria of reliability to the Bible and another to the Qu'ran.

2. If I confine myself the the hadith accounts that speak of your prophet then they are all second-hand accounts, none were written by him. Now it is quite permissible to find a chain of narrators and feel certain that someone is reporting his words or deeds accurately but these reports often, very often contain mystical elements that cannot be corroborated yet you accept them I guess without question. For example in the following did Aisha see Gabriel or did the prophet tell he this later or what?

Sahih Al-Bukhari (Volume 5, Book 59, Number 443)

Narrated 'Aisha: When the Prophet returned from Al-Khandaq (i.e. Trench) and laid down his arms and took a bath, Gabriel came and said (to the Prophet ), You have laid down your arms? By Allah, we angels have not laid them down yet. So set out for them." The Prophet said, "Where to go?" Gabriel said, "Towards this side," pointing towards Banu Quraiza. So the Prophet went out towards them.

So I ask you again, are you being intellectuality honest? Please note this is not about what you believe because that is entirely a matter for you as you weight up whatever evidence you have within your own conscience. But once we move into the supernatural no proof is ultimately possible.

 

[Al-manar]

I don't suppose we can go further here.

I agree, as the matter of harmonizing the resurrection narratives is a hopeless case .....

The Bible presents 11 recorded incidents of very many people seeing Jesus after the resurrection and all of these people were sceptical to begin with

You have just brought another problem with the narratives.... the so called apostles' skepticism of a resurrection is one of the obvious defects of the narratives..... read the following interesting article:

John's account of the resurrection has Peter and another disciple running to the empty tomb after hearing from Mary Magdalene that the body of Jesus was gone. The unnamed disciple, outrunning Peter, arrived at the tomb first and waited:

Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, and the cloth that had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; for as yet they did not understand the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. Then the disciples returned to their homes (20:6-10, NRSV).
Luke also indicated that the disciples of Jesus had not expected his resurrection, for Luke said that after Peter looked inside at the linen cloths, "he went home, wondering at that which had come to pass" (24:12). Numerous references to the apostles' skepticism of a resurrection appear elsewhere in the New Testament (Lk. 24:11,38; Jn. 20:24-25; Matt. 28:17).
From one perspective, that the disciples did not yet understand the scripture that Jesus must rise from the dead, as John alleged, is not at all surprising, for the simple reason that there were no scriptures that said he would rise from the dead. Luke had Jesus telling his disciples the night of the resurrection that "it is written that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day" (24:46). The Apostle Paul also alleged that the scriptures said that Christ would be raised on the third day (1 Cor. 15:4). That is the claim, but the claim and the reality are two different things. One could search the OT scriptures until doom's day, and he would find nothing written about a Messiah who would rise from the dead on the third day.

One will find nothing in the OT scriptures about a risen Messiah, period! Bibliolaters like to point to Psalm 16, which Luke claimed that both Peter and Paul quoted as proof of Jesus's resurrection (Acts 2:25-31; 13:35-37), but the context of the whole psalm does not support the application that the apostles gave to the verses they quoted. In my booklet, Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled, I have analyzed in detail this psalm and Peter's and Paul's application of it, so I won't repeat myself here except to say that anyone who reads the apostles' quotation in context will see a dubious connection at best between it and the alleged resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Despite the often repeated New Testament claim, there just are no prophecies of a resurrected Messiah in the OT scriptures.

From another perspective, however, if the resurrection really did catch the apostles by surprise, one has to wonder why. Certainly they had been told enough that it would happen. In the context of the famous passage where Jesus promised Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, it was clearly said that Jesus told his disciples that he would be killed and then resurrected:


From that time began Jesus to show unto his disciples that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes and be killed, and the third day be raised up (Matt. 16:21).
Parallels to this passage are found in Mark 8:31 and Luke 9:22. Jesus even repeated the statement to his apostles at least twice:

And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be delivered up into the hands of men; and they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised up. And they were exceeding(ly) sorry (Matt. 17:22-23).
And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples apart, and on the way he said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him unto the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify: and the third day he shall be raised up (Matt. 20:17-19).

Some parallel accounts of these passages (Mk. 9:31; Luke 18:32-34) say that the disciples didn't understand what Jesus was saying, but this is just another case of textual discrepancies in the Bible, because Matthew clearly indicated that they did understand him. The first time they were told, for example, Peter took Jesus aside, rebuked him, and said, "God forbid it Lord! This must never happen to you" (Matt. 16:22). The second time Jesus told them, Matthew said that they were "exceedingly sorry," but how could they have been exceedingly sorry about something they didn't even understand? Besides, considering the general acceptance of the phenomenon of resurrection in those times (Mk. 6:14-16), what was there to misunderstand when a man said he would "rise again" after he had been killed?
In view of what Jesus said in the last passage cited above, the postcrucifixion conduct of the apostles is almost impossible to understand. On the way to Jerusalem, he took them aside, told them that he would be (1) delivered up to the chief priests and scribes, (2) condemned to death, (3) delivered to the Gentiles to be mocked, (4) scoured, (5) crucified, and (6) raised on the third day. After their arrival in Jerusalem, the apostles saw Jesus (1) delivered up to the chief priests and scribes, (2) condemned to death, (3) delivered to the Gentiles and mocked, (4) scoured, and (5) crucified, yet somehow, after personally witnessing these five specific fulfillments of Jesus's statement, they didn't expect him to be resurrected. Why? One would think that if Jesus had really told them to expect all of these things, after witnessing the precise fulfillment of the first five of his predictions, they would have surely expected at least a possibility of the sixth. So rather than the women's having to run to tell the apostles about the empty tomb they had found, one would think that the apostles would have been on the scene themselves that third-day morning at least waiting to see if Jesus would come forth.

But they weren't there (according to the story). They had to be sought out and told, and even then they considered the news the women brought to them to be only "idle talk" (Luke 24:11). The women were telling them exactly what Jesus had said would happen, and they thought their words were just idle talk! At the tomb, the angels said to the women, "(R)emember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying that the Son of man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again" (Luke 24:7). The next verse says that "they remembered his words." So the women were able to remember that Jesus had said this, but the apostles whom Jesus had taken aside on the way to Jerusalem expressly for the purpose of telling them to expect his death and resurrection apparently couldn't remember that he had said it. They just looked into the tomb and went home, "for as yet they did not understand the scripture, that he must rise from the dead." Is that what we are supposed to believe?

If the apostles didn't yet understand that Jesus had been destined to rise from the dead, they were a pretty exclusive club, because just about everybody else knew what to expect. As we just noticed, the women remembered immediately that Jesus had said that he would rise from the dead, and they weren't the only disciples (disciples, not apostles) who understood this. In the conversation that Jesus had with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus on resurrection day, Cleopas, after summarizing the events surrounding the trial and crucifixion of Jesus, clearly indicated that he understood a resurrection was supposed to happen the third day:


But we hoped that it was he who should redeem Israel. Yea and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things came to pass (Luke 24:21).
It seems, then, that just about everyone who had been associated with Jesus knew that he was supposed to be resurrected except the apostles. Jesus had apparently entrusted the furtherance of his important cause to a bunch of dimwits who couldn't understand plain language.
Even the enemies of Jesus understood that he had predicted his resurrection. After Jesus had been put into the tomb, they came to Pilate to ask that precautions be taken to prevent a staged fulfillment of the prediction:

The next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate and said, "Sir, we remember what that impostor said while he was still alive, 'After three days I will rise again.' Therefore command the tomb to be made secure until the third day; otherwise his disciples may go and steal him away, and tell the people, 'He has been raised from the dead,' and the last deception would be worse than the first" (Matt. 28:62-64, NRSV).

So the women remembered that Jesus had predicted his resurrection, the disciples at Emmaus remembered it, and the enemies of Jesus remembered it. Everyone apparently remembered it except Jesus's own handpicked apostles. That's a little hard to believe.
Bibliolaters preach that the Bible is an inerrant work of unity and harmony so perfect that it can be explained only by the doctrine of verbal inspiration. It makes great sermon fodder to feed to gullible pulpit audiences, but this discrepancy in what the apostles didn't know but should have known about an impending resurrection of their leader is a glitch in the Bible that must be explained before rational people can accept the inerrancy theory.

To be continued

 

[Hugo]

I agree, as the matter of harmonizing the resurrection narratives is a hopeless case ..... You have just brought another problem with the narratives.... the so called apostles' skepticism of a resurrection is one of the obvious defects of the narratives..... read the following interesting article:

As usual you don't give the source in full and your long Farrell Till insert can be found everywhere and in this case it looks as if you copied it from infidels.org so I guess you regard that avowedly atheist site as authoritative. If so one can also copy from that site and I will quote using your method.

Flew argues that Islam is one of the "Great and terrible systems of divinity and philosophy that lie round about us, which, if true, might drive a wise man mad." He demonstrates the Koranic basis for Islamic hatred of infidels and then points out why this religion is not credible.

This perhaps illustrates your whole method of flawed research, you only look for items that support your own pre-disposition. In this case Farrell is well known and atheist and so we have to take seriously what he says but also see it in the context of his world view. In this case he puts huge emphasis on 'understand' and cannot it seems fathom how you could know something, how you could remember something but not understand it or even believe it can happen. The problem with you and Farrell is that you assume that there is only one possible explanation and conveniently it is the one you would like to be true.

If you are keen on web sites why not have a look at Islam Watch - here is the forward for the site, see if you can find something there that will be if use to you.

We are a group of Muslim apostates, who have left Islam out of our own conviction when we discovered that Islam is not a religion at all. Most of us took a prolong period of time to study, evaluate, and contemplate on, this religion of our birth. Having meticulously scrutinized Islam, we concluded that it is not a religion of peace at all, as touted by smooth-talking, self-serving Muslims and their apologists from non-Muslim from backgrounds. The core of Islam—that is, the Qur'an, Hadis and Sharia—is filled with unbounded hatred for the unbelievers, unbelievably intolerant toward them and extremely cruel and merciless to Muslims, who dare to deviate from its doctrine.

 

[جوري]

As usual you don't give the source in full and your long Farrell Till insert can be found everywhere and in this case it looks as if you copied it from infidels.org so I guess you regard that avowedly atheist site as authoritative. If so one can also copy from that site and I will quote using your method.

this is coming from a guy who quotes the likes of 'ibn waraq' as authoritative.. there is a difference indeed.. one is dispensing with an opinion (additives as you yourself are so fond of taking recorded history and spinning it in a new weave) and the other gives your side by side parallels which you can check for yourself to draw your own conclusion..

question is why are you such a hypocrite Hugo (I mean how do you live with yourself and reconcile your hypocrisy)? what is your criteria for scholarship?

all the best

 

[Al-manar]

As usual you don't give the source in full and your long Farrell Till insert can be found everywhere and in this case it looks as if you copied it from infidels.org so I guess you regard that avowedly atheist site as authoritative.

This perhaps illustrates your whole method of flawed research, you only look for items that support your own pre-disposition.

Hugo, Hugo

I'm gonna give you a sincere advice,why?cause ,in spite of what comes obvious to me post after post of how limited your knowledge in not only the Quran but the bible as well,your tactic of personal attack ,your attempts by all means shifting to other offtopic arguments to escape my irrefutable points, still I need you(with all your cons) in the thread !........ your presence as a christian is better than one sided conversation....

now back to my advice which I direct to you and even some muslims:

one of sad Phenomenon is that some people would sacrifice interesting,solid knowledge merely cause the scholar(as the source) said something that they would disagree with......

your naive argument is when atheists criticize the bible ,their arguments would be nonsense and the reasons? well,they are athiest....

that is surely absured......and not the way we think....

truth is where you find,and nonesense is where you find too.............

by the way such naive,narrow minded approach is not confined to you as I said before,but even some radical muslims suffer from it.....

just the muslim x who follow the school x of thought ,find any other work from another school of thought , immediately avoid it as hell !!!

even if he may find within the work a breath of fresh air that hardly found in the works of his school of thought...
those narrow minded persons deprived themselves from knowledge ,and sacrificed the whole package of the other schools (which surely contains things they agree on)......


Farrell till (the ex-christian missionary) though now atheist,but believe it or not ,would say the truth about the bible that he studied for 50 years !.....

not only Farrell,but Satan, the father of lies ,sometimes tells the truth:

Holy Quran :He said: "Because thou hast thrown me out of the way, lo! I will lie in wait for them on thy straight way:Then will I assault them from before them and behind them, from their right and their left: Nor wilt thou find, in most of them, gratitude

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

now would you enlighten me and farrell till , showing how you sentence ( one could remember something but not understand it or even believe it can happen) be applicable to the so called disciples who didn't know but should have known about an impending resurrection of their leader?


next time I need direct biblical quotations,otherwise don't bother....

 

[Hugo]

I'm gonna give you a sincere advice,why?cause ,in spite of what comes obvious to me post after post of how limited your knowledge in not only the Quran but the bible as well,your tactic of personal attack ,your attempts by all means shifting to other offtopic arguments to escape my irrefutable points, still I need you(with all your cons) in the thread !........ your presence as a christian is better than one sided conversation....

I am not aware that I made personal attacks but I do question you logic and consistency in applying the same principles everywhere. We can see also what can only be arrogance since you know nothing about what I know or don't know and your 'irrefutable' arguments. In the case of the resurrection there are 11 sightings to dozens of people but your reject every one and that does not even sound reasonable and the least a reasonable person would be agnostic. I have then contrasted why might be you attitude to the Qu'ran and shown that based on Muslim accounts it is irrefutable that the Qu'ran was an entirely private revelation, there were no witnesses to what was said and no one saw the messenger - but you accept this without question and at least I would go as far as being agnostic.

your naive argument is when atheists criticize the bible ,their arguments would be nonsense and the reasons? well,they are athiest....that is surely absured......and not the way we think....

There is nowhere in my post where I say this and you are inventing it. My whole point was that you chose an atheist site; presumably because you regard it as trustworthy yet the same site contains a large number of articles that show that Islam is sham and false - so there is no consistency in your way of working and it amounts to cherry picking because in this site all the articles on Christianity cannot be right whilst all the ones on Islam must be wrong.

truth is where you find,and nonesense is where you find too.............by the way such naive,narrow minded approach is not confined to you as I said before,but even some radical muslims suffer from it.....

I have shown above where the narrow mind occurs and it is arrogant and dangerous for anyone to think as you do that somehow they are above all this and its the rest who are ignorant and narrow minded. Do you think you are the only one who can uncover truth, does it every occur to you that your knowledge and insight is as limited as the next man? Perhaps you would be wise to take what Socrates said, one of the clearest and most honest thinkers that ever lived and he could only say "if I have any authority it is based on the certain knowledge that I know nothing".?

Now would you enlighten me and farrell till, showing how you sentence (one could remember something but not understand it or even believe it can happen) be applicable to the so called disciples who didn't know but should have known about an impending resurrection of their leader?

It is simple and it is obscured in your mind because you cannot even imagine that other explanation are possible. There is no doubt that for the disciples the death of Jesus was very traumatic, their hopes dashed in a matter of days and hours. Do you not at least appreciate this; cannot you see how devastating it was - do you understand what Aeschylus meant when he said "Ah, mortal affairs: in times of good fortune you may compare them to a shadow; but ill fortune, a watery sponge wipes out the picture at a stroke." Have you never had disappointment and hopes dashed in front of your eyes and found it almost impossible to go on (if not then your turn will come)? Here in the gospel story we have one day people shouting praises and throwing palm leaves in his way and the next day they are calling for crucifixion and so why is it so far fetched to you or Till that they might doubt the words of Jesus that he would rise again? (event mentioned by all four Canonical Gospels (Mark 11:1-11, Matthew 21:1-11, Luke 19:28-44, and John 12:12-19) the triumphant entry of Jesus into Jerusalem in the days before his Passion. For the crowds calling for crucifixion see Matthew 27:20-31).

 

[Al-manar]

We can see also what can only be arrogance since you know nothing about what I know or don't know

I'm afriad your posts have introduced you to me and the other readers ,well... I judge the person based on what he says or write not what is in his brain...

My whole point was that you chose an atheist site; presumably because you regard it as trustworthy

Hugo,You are at it again. When will you ever learn?

Do I need to reset myself again?!

quoting from a work,site,person something doesn't neccesarily require the whole work,author etc .... to be a fountain of truth that above criticism ....
If Satan once tells the truth I would quote him...

There is no doubt that for the disciples the death of Jesus was very traumatic,

what has that to do with his prediction of a resurrection?

their hopes dashed in a matter of days and hours.

What were those hopes? and upon what basis they built such hopes?don't forget to support your answer from the gospels?

you never had disappointment and hopes dashed in front of your eyes

I don't know how his death disappointed them ,if he predicted in several occasions a resurrection and victory over death..... don't you think resurrection should build the greatest hope ever?....


(Matt. 16:21). From that time began Jesus to show unto his disciples that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes and be killed, and the third day be raised up

Mark 8:31-38
31He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. 32He spoke plainly about this


Luke 9:22
21 And he strictly charged and commanded them to tell this to no one,22 saying, "The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised."


(Matt. 17:22-23). And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be delivered up into the hands of men; and they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised up. And they were exceeding(ly) sorry

(Matt. 20:17-19). And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples apart, and on the way he said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him unto the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify: and the third day he shall be raised up


Hugo, in that point,If you can't come up with anything better, I suggest that you come up with nothing at all. Enough is enough.

 

[Al-manar]

Item :7

Biblical Errancy vs Quranic Inerrancy P.3


Having shown both what the Quran and bible claim about themselves regarding inerrancy, the following step we need to show how they view each others ....


The Quran on Bible corruption

Is it true that in the Quran ,the Bible is referred to as being corrupted?

what is the nature of that corruption?is it tahreef -Lafthi ( adding,omitting, substituting words ) or false Interpretations or both?

Is it true that in the Quran ,the Bible is referred to as being corrupted?

yes ,the bible(both old and new testaments) ,according to the Quran, is partially corrupted:

we can get such fact through both direct accusation and inference :


1- Any time the Quran mentions something biblical yet contradicts,denies it ,then we can safely infer that the Quran accuses the bible indirectly to be tampered with ...

Jesus was crucified ,according to the bible yet wasn't crucified ,according to the Quran etc.... a huge list of such disagreements between both the books showing the Quran affirms a biblical corruption....


2- Though I think the previous inference should be, and alone, a proof of a Quranic accusation of biblical tampering,yet the Quran talks even directly and accuses the human tampering with the word of God in several ways:


1- attacking the false claims of inspiration:

Holy Quran :

6:21 Who doth more wrong than he who inventeth a lie against God.

6:93 Who can be more wicked than one who inventeth a lie against God, or saith, "I have received inspiration," when he hath received none.

[003:078] Among them(the Jews) are those who twist their tongues to imitate the scripture, that you may think it is from the scripture, when it is not from the scripture, and they claim that it is from GOD, when it is not from GOD. Thus, they utter lies and attribute them to GOD, knowingly.

[002:079] Woe, then, to those who write the book with their hands and then say: This is from Allah, so that they may take for it a small price; therefore woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.

In that category we can include Paul who claimed to be inspired 1 Thessalonians 2:13when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men

also the writer of 2 Peter 1:21...

not only with the bible ,the verse could be applied safely with any human being who falsely claimed to be inspired ..

eg; The mormon founder ,the Qadiany sect and their founder who claimed in his book to be receiving inspiration,also the radical Sufi sects and their claims of divine inspiration ...... etc etc etc..


2- Attacking the textual corruption ( adding,omitting, substituting words ) :


[002:075] Do you ( believers) covet that they will believe in your religion inspite of the fact that a party of them (Jewish religious figures) used to hear the Word of Allah (the Taurat), then they used to change it knowingly after they understood it .

the previous verse could be applied to the textual corruption and the interpretation(comes later) as well..


[004:046] Of the Jews there are some who pervert words from their times and places; and say, we have heard, and have disobeyed.


but the Jews referred to are those jews living the time of Muhammad or ?

[005:013] But because of their breach of their covenant(the Jews before Islam), We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for God loveth those who are kind.


3- attacking false interpretations:

What is that, changing the words from their right times and places? it is to misquote, misinterpret, twist, distort, pervert, misapply , and concoct an existing text..

it is the third category of corruption after 1-providing a text from nowhere divine 2-altering,adding,omitting the text

such third category is the most interesting one,and I never got its meaning clearly till recent years after studying profoundly the matter ...

due to the huge importance of such matter ,we gonna have a long run with it in next posts Inshallah

peace

 

[Hugo]

Having shown both what the Quran and bible claim about themselves regarding inerrancy, the following step we need to show how they view each others ....Is it true that in the Quran ,the Bible is referred to as being corrupted? what is the nature of that corruption?is it tahreef -Lafthi (adding, omitting, substituting words) or false Interpretations or both? Is it true that in the Quran ,the Bible is referred to as being corrupted? yes ,the bible(both old and new testaments) ,according to the Quran, is partially corrupted:

1- Any time the Quran mentions something biblical yet contradicts,denies it ,then we can safely infer that the Quran accuses the bible indirectly to be tampered with ...

If one is going to be involved in a critical exercise like this then it requires a high degree of discipline, intellectual honesty and knowledge and sadly these all seem to be missing here. The Bible is much much older than the Qu'ran and there are many extant copies of it - some complete some partial but all you are able to say is the tendentious phrase "we can safely infer". Here we have a book, the Qu'ran, whose content cannot be corroborated in any way as the revelation, like any revelation, was an entirely private affair.

In ANY historical setting the older documents take precedence and so you have zero justification for what you say. There are many copies of the NT that are are perhaps 500 years older that the Qu'ran and for the OT as much as 1,000 years older - what do you have for the Qu'ran, given that if we take away events related to Muslim history there is nothing in it that cannot be found elsewhere in earlier literature.

If I now take your point about Jesus not dying on the cross and I take it you are referring to Q4:156-159 "That they rejected Faith; That they uttered against Mary A grave false charge; That they said 'We killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messenger of Allah.' But they killed him not, Nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. Nay, Allah raised him up Unto Himself; and Allah Is Exalted in Power, Wise. And there is none of the people of the book (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him Before his death; And on the Day of Judgement He will be a witness Against them."

Here we have a very odd statement indeed. I think we might agree that God is the creator of the unimaginable vastness of the Universe and you would say that the Qu'ran was written before even time began, held in heaven. Yet here we have verses that say that God before time began wrote in the book that something did not happen, why would God say to himself, "I must make a note that something did not happen" - it makes no sense and no historian writes about what did not happen for the simple reason there is zero evidence to support it.

 

[Al-manar]

If one is going to be involved in a critical exercise like this then it requires a high degree of discipline, intellectual honesty and knowledge and sadly these all seem to be missing here.

In spite of such supposed cons, there is something would attract you to be a regular reader to my posts,isn't it?

The Bible is much much older than the Qu'ran

What has that to do with the Question of infallibility? there are other so called inspired books more older than the bible, would you accept them as truly inspired? if not why not?

If I now take your point about Jesus not dying on the cross and I take it you are referring to Q4:156-159
Here we have a very odd statement indeed. I think we might agree that God is the creator of the unimaginable vastness of the Universe and you would say that the Qu'ran was written before even time began, held in heaven. Yet here we have verses that say that God before time began wrote in the book that something did not happen, - it makes no sense and no historian writes about what did not happen for the simple reason there is zero evidence to support it.

you erred twice


1- the burden of proofs is on the shoulder of the one who makes the allegation...
It is the bible that makes the allegation of a crucifiction,resurrection moreover alledges significance to the alledged event ...

its allegations are rejected due to several reasons including clear,direct contradictions (and other factors dicussed later)

it is not the Quran that has to prove something never happened, the burden of proofs is on the shoulder of the bible ...


2-

why would God say to himself, "I must make a note that something did not happen"

you refer to Quran 4:156-159 ,well,it seems you find it strange that God has a preknowledge of the falshoods spread by some people sometimes,isn't it?

well,do I need to quote a biblical passages where God exposing some falshoods spread by the Jews and other people?

I won't do this time,I trust you can find them,but if you will insist next post,then I will have to quote the bible and give you a hand.

all the best

 

[Hugo]

What has that to do with the Question of infallibility? there are other so called inspired books more older than the bible, would you accept them as truly inspired? if not why not?

I think you miss the point, it is usual when looking at documents to accept the earliest ones as more authentic that later ones. In the case of the Qu'ran we have a document that was written thousands of years after the OT and several hundred years after the NT. If therefore the Qu'ran recounts a biblical story with differences then how can the Qu'ranic version be correct? There would have to be very compelling reasons to think so and I can find none.

1- the burden of proofs is on the shoulder of the one who makes the allegation... It is the bible that makes the allegation of a crucifiction,resurrection moreover alledges significance to the alleged event ... its allegations are rejected due to several reasons including clear,direct contradictions (and other factors dicussed later)

The NT simply reports that fact attested by many eye witnesses that is proof enough in any court of law and as usual you assume that because there are difficulties with the accounts that the ONLY explanation is that it did not happen. At the same time you accept what the Qu'ran says when it is impossible to verify what it says and indeed you do not even seem to understand that it is impossible to prove that something did not happen.

you refer to Quran 4:156-159 ,well,it seems you find it strange that God has a preknowledge of the falshoods spread by some people sometimes,isn't it?

No I don't find it odd that God knows everything from eternity to eternity. What I find strange is that God in a supposed book that was written before time began would bother to tell us about something that did not happen. Yes I think there are cases where the Bible records false beliefs but it is always done in an historical setting and never as far as I know because "God had foreknowledge" of particular instances and I don't know of a single case where the Bible tells us about something that did not happen. But there are warnings such as those found in Acts 13:10 "And said, O full of all subtlety and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?" Galatians 1:7 "Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ." So there have always been those who refuse to accept the Gospel so you not a new phenomenon are you?