http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y40X6ykSQlE&feature=player_embedded
I am not making myself an expert on the field of Qur'anic textual criticism, yet I think this issue demands our consideration.
This youtube video reveals that Qur'anic experts in textual criticism assume based upon early Qur'anic manuscripts and the earliest Qur'anic manuscript in existence that the Qur'anic text was manipulated and formulated from an earlier version to the standard version we possess today. They estimate that this corruption which preceeds other later Qur'anic manuscripts took place within the fifty earliest years of Islam. When considering the Hadiths and Sira and the vast corruption and fabrication of material, this is not all surprising.
It seems that the matter of Qur'anic textual criticism is a future field of study that will greatly challenge the traditional claim of Islam that the Qur'an has suffered zero corruption.
Let me in addition refer the reader to this particular debate which took place in London this summer between Bassam Zawadi and Nabeel Quershi:
http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/07/bassam-zawadi-vs-nabeel-qureshi-has.html
Bassam was well prepared for this debate, however, the very matter which Nabeel wished to pin point was firmly established, namely that the early Qur'an's contain variants and to this Bassam agreed, yet he dared to refer to these as divine variants. I have to say that such a reply to Nabeel's argument does not impress me at all, it goes against both logic and history. Bassam seemed here to point out a reply later stressed by Muslims to avoid the difficulties. In fact even if the Qur'an originally existed in multiple forms (which is logical but hardly is connected to this matter raised by German scholars) there is no clear evidence that these forms constitute the variants and textual inconsistencies which have been detected with early Qur'anic manuscripts and from the early historical sources.
Bassam and the Muslims present sought to argue that these variants were parts of revelations revealed in different forms to Arabic tribes of different dialects and that each form has been perfectly preserved wherever possible.
There are nevertheless a number of refuting points to this argument.
Firstly, Nabeel pointed out effectively that there forty different views among Muslims concerning these variants, and certainly no evidence that these were merely dialectical variants. In fact why would Allah commit such a foolish error in the first place, an error, which later almost lead to civil war. And if it was Allah's will to reveal the Qur'an in seven forms, based upon what revelatory authority did Uthman and later Islamic leaders discredit these forms and burn them?
It also came across rather clearly that the best reciters of Muhammad transmitted Qur'ans in dialects that later were burned; that is if the matter relates to dialects only. However, early Islam gives no real evidence that this was only a matter of dialects, and the reaction toward the Islamic rulers who inagurated this Qur'anic reform and revision of the text seem to reveal an attempt to cover up a real problem, namely that the early Qur'an was not preserved, which led to the corruption and later stratums of periods in which Qur'ans were burned; hence a development in textually formulating the Qur'anic text within the first fifty years of Islam.
Furthermore, the German scholars have effectively established that under the printed text they have discovered a text that has been erased, which reveals a number of stages in which the text has been polished and reformulated, hence the variants are not resulted from divine logic in providing a number of texts for various dialectics but the result of an early corruption of the text. This refutes the claim of the Muslims that the existing variants reveal dialectic form, rather the variants reveal a fluid transmission and a text that underwent a lengthy development.
We need also to reject the claim of Muslims that the variants reveal seven variant forms, which despite their variants remain in each their own preserved form. In fact the scrutiny of the early manuscripts reveal that the variants result from rewriting and rearranging the text, which in the typical Muslim mindset is corruption.
While I am not a keen favorit of source criticism and the typical theoretical methods behind it, this certainly rekindles my desire to consider the works of Chrone and a number of scholars who propose that the present Qur'an was fabricated under a Syriac influence and that much of the transmitted transmission related to the earlist history of Islam and the biography of Muhammad is early fabrication and corruption of reality.
26 comments:
Hogan, if we apply these same standards to the New Testament, then the New Testament goes out of the window as divine or authorative.
To Quote Bassam Zawadi:
In Islam these variants in our Qira'at are not "basic problems", rather they are inspired by God. This in no way contradicts the concept of perfect preservation.
As for the other kinds of variants, due to things like marginal notes, scribal errors, etc. well again we know how to detect them and they haven't entered our transmission of the Qur'anic text. So again, this doesn't affect our claim of perfect preservation.
1- Qur'an was written during the lifetime of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and canonized by his companions who knew him personally. The NT was written after the death of Jesus and canonized by people who never knew him.
2- The mode of revelation is different. The Qur’an was not revealed as a written text, while the Bible was.
3- The mode of transmission is different for the two books. The NT is transmitted via manuscripts only. When an error occurs in one manuscript, be it deliberate or unintentional, many times it is copied by the next scribe making a copy of this manuscript. However, the Quran is transmitted both orally and in writing. The two keep a check on each other, thus eliminating errors.
4- The Qur'an is preserved in its original language, while the Gospels cite people speaking in a different language. Thus, much could be lost through translation, while this doesn’t apply to the Qur’an.
5 - The New Testament is a collection of books authored by multiple authors in different locations over a rough estimated range of 20 to 80 years, whereas the Quran is one book with one author in no more than 2 locations within in a time span of no more than 23 years.
So you can see the Quran is much better preserved than the New Testament Gospels.
Also for the problems of the New Testament read Misquoting Jesus: The story of who changed the Bible and Why. Bart Examines and shows the differences in the manuscripts and how these 5,700 or so manuscripts are different from one another.
Hi again Etheshaam
Based upon your reply, I don't think you have inadequately studied these matters!
I will reply to you later today or tomorrow.
For example you say:
"Hogan, if we apply these same standards to the New Testament, then the New Testament goes out of the window as divine or authorative"
Elijah replies:
The problem with your statement is that Muslims do apply this in their criticism of the Bible, hence it does backfire upon the Qur'an.
Etheshaam wrote:
In Islam these variants in our Qira'at are not "basic problems", rather they are inspired by God. This in no way contradicts the concept of perfect preservation
Elijah replies:
Now, try to listen to yourself.
According to the Hadiths two of Muhammad's closesth followers find themselves disagreeing about the very first hand transmission of Muhammad. Muhammad simply responds that Allah revealed it in 7 forms.
The problem: this statement from Muhammad came out of nowhere, nobody knew about this matter until the damage had been done.
We are not told however that these were merely dialectical variants.
Also consider, why would Allah even do this? Does that not seem odd to you.
And 30 years later the Muslims have to burn all these forms and even the form in which the Qur'anic revised standard form was fabricated from.
If Allah revealed the seven forms there must have been a significant purpose to reveal them, yet Muslims saw it necessary to burn and destroy this divine purpose; did Allah order these forms to be burned, and if he did why reveal them in the first place?
You do not find this occuring within the first century Christian community, there was not need or urgency to burn books and threaten even the most reliable successors.
Ethesham wrote:
'As for the other kinds of variants, due to things like marginal notes, scribal errors, etc. well again we know how to detect them and they haven't entered our transmission of the Qur'anic text. So again, this doesn't affect our claim of perfect preservation'
Elijah replies:
This is not what the German scholars are saying.
When they look at the manuscripts and the erased wording they clearly see a text that has been embellished, polished, rearranged.
Since this is evident in your earliest manuscript, this reveals that the Muslims within the first 50 years of Islam actually developed the text.
As to the New Testament if you read Ehrman and Metzger they will tell you that most of the variants within the manuscripts are exactly these errors you now exclaim are of no significance.
As to the variants which are of significance I am happy to argue these with you.
etheshaam wrote:
1- Qur'an was written during the lifetime of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and canonized by his companions who knew him personally. The NT was written after the death of Jesus and canonized by people who never knew him.
Elijah replies:
This is not honest answer Etheshaam. While there are passages in your traditions that claim that something was written down. The sources also tell us that they were written on leaves bones, etc, in other words this was not an orderly recording. Furthermore, Bukhari clearly reveals that when Muhammad was dead there was written Qur'an, even Zaid states that Muhammad never collected or ordered the Qur'an, furthermore, much of the Qur'an had been lost since a number of reciters were.
Well you may reject this information, but derives from the early Muslims and your relible sources.
Furthermore, the canonization of the Qur'an was political move to unite the people in which a number of variant manuscripts were burned and close followers of Muhammad threatend and silenced.
I don't call this canonization but conspiracy and cover-up.
That the New Testament was written after Jesus. This is not entirely correct. A number of scholars believe that Jesus' sayings were written down in his lifetime.
Writings and revelation continued after Jesus through the apostles, which is why we have writings after Jesus, our sources do not end with Jesus. In that sense we are not even solely dependent upon Jesus as you are upon Muhammad.
There are good second century evidence that the early Christian community had an excellent grasp about the canon and still scrutinized them, which is the right thing to do.
Ethesham wrote:
3- The mode of transmission is different for the two books. The NT is transmitted via manuscripts only. When an error occurs in one manuscript, be it deliberate or unintentional, many times it is copied by the next scribe making a copy of this manuscript.
Elijah replies:
There are number of errors here.
If you read, the early church fathers (those who were disciples of the apostles and those who were apostolic disciples), the gospels and apostolic writings were transmitted by writings and memorization right into the third century.
The failure in writing as you refer to, did occur (and occured particularly when you consider the Latin translation and Western text), yet the Christian scholars of the third century knew the original text, which is why majority of the variants you refer to belong to local Western texts and were not included in the over all publishing of the text.
Furthermore, the Alexandrian Christian were much more accurate and skilled in textual preservation than the Western Christians.
Also I thought you said that this was not a problem, if it is, then the Qur'an fails since it contains a number of variants and copy errors which you said you had detected. In fact based upon your methodology if only one variant enters a Qur'anic manuscript then the Qur'an has been corrupted, end of story.
In the same way Christian scholars throughout the century have detected and removed such errors.
Ethesham wrote:
However, the Quran is transmitted both orally and in writing. The two keep a check on each other, thus eliminating errors.
Elijah replies:
That is not what I read in the early Muslim sources, what you are claiming here is later wishful thinking.
The Qur'an was fabricated, forgotten, lost, later collected in parts which all differed, then the majority of parts were burned and the one remaining part rewritten, whereup the manuscript was burned too.
This hardly reveals any preservation.
Ethesham wrote:
4- The Qur'an is preserved in its original language, while the Gospels cite people speaking in a different language. Thus, much could be lost through translation, while this doesn’t apply to the Qur’an.
Elijah wrote:
based upon what I have already discovered and written in this thread already I even doubt that the Qur'an is based upon a specific language.
The Qur'an is packed with foreign words, there is certainly a Syriac connection and the Qur'an is packed with typical philosophical and scientific ideas which flourished among the Syriac Christians.
I doubt this also since a number of Qur'ans had to be burned based upon what? Dialects! Are you really sure you are reading a book based upon one language.
As to Jesus and the Greek writings. Jesus and the apostles would be aquainted with Greek, Greek was as much spoken in Israel as Aramaic and Hebrew.
Most Jews even had a Jewish and a Greek name.
We simply do not know if Jesus also taught in Greek.
Furthermore it would be of no problem to translate from Aramaic to Greek, the Gospel of Mark is a typical example of that. Also if you do a indept analyzis of Luke and Matthew you will find that they utilize the same source, and sometimes translate it differently, but the problem is easily solved when you consider the Aramaic language (If you have a chance read someone called Matthew Black on the Aramaic roots in the Gospels).
Furthermore, writings such as the writings of Josephus were first written in Aramaic and then translated to Greek, it was done so well that you hardly notice its Aramaic roots.
You may also wanna check this link:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/injil_israel.html
Ethesham wrote:
5 - The New Testament is a collection of books authored by multiple authors in different locations over a rough estimated range of 20 to 80 years, whereas the Quran is one book with one author in no more than 2 locations within in a time span of no more than 23 years.
Elijah replies:
I honestly don't see the problem here, and if there was a problem, would it be impossible for God to preserve his revelations over time and in different locations;
I think you are undermining the ability of God and himself, and this is what I find Muslims doing all the time.
You claim that God is supreme and all powerful yet he cannot protect his revelation, and especially if they are written long time ago and in different location; in other words time and locations are too much of a challenge for Allah?
Worse, the original words of Jesus were in Aramaic. Jesus did not speak Greek.
There is NO way the N.T. Gospels are translations from Aramaic to Greek. It is simply absurd to think that three independent translations would agree in wording and sequence to such a degree.
Moreover the Q Documents were written about 20 years after Jesus-- the earliest form of Q was written in 50 C.E.
The Four Gospels were based off unreliable Oral Traditions.
As for the Church Fathers, they really don't prove anything since we don't know their sources or whether they were truthful, for example the Church father Eubiesus was known to be a liar.
Moreover the Quran was written in Arabic the language of Prophet Muhammad. The N.T. was written in Greek-- which was NOT the language of Jesus.
There are many forgeries inserted into the New Testament such as the Ending of Mark, the Mary Magadelne story, the 1 John 5:7 trinity passage, etc.
Moreover what early sources are you talking about? Don't tell me Ibn Ishaq, Al Waqidi or Al-Tabarari since these are rejected sources. You can read about it here:
http://answering-christian-claims.com/The-Problems-With-Ibn-Ishaq.html
Thanks
Ehteshaam
Ethesham wrote:
Worse, the original words of Jesus were in Aramaic. Jesus did not speak Greek.
Elijah replies:
There is no evidence that the original words of Jesus were only Aramaic.
As I said before: Jews living in both Galilee and Judea would be Greek speakers as well as Aramaic speakers; there is a common consent among scholars as to this factor. Galilee was surrounded by Greek culture, in fact Nazareth was only a few miles from Sepphoris which was a Greek cultural centre. Greek culture and language also flourished within the Jewish community.
The author of Mark's Gospel, Mark the disciple of Peter the apostle is an excellent example of a Jewish Aramaic speaker who also spoke and wrote Greek.
Etheshaam wrote:
There is NO way the N.T. Gospels are translations from Aramaic to Greek. It is simply absurd to think that three independent translations would agree in wording and sequence to such a degree.
Elijah wrote:
You are assuming too much. The fact is that the three Synoptic gospels are not that similar, they have different focus, and are written to different recipients.
They are also very similar because Christianity in the first and second century was based upon the Jewish rabbinic structure of discipleship which emphasised highly memorization and preservation.
Ethesham wrote:
Worse, the original words of Jesus were in Aramaic. Jesus did not speak Greek.
Elijah replies:
There is no evidence that the original words of Jesus were only Aramaic.
As I said before: Jews living in both Galilee and Judea would be Greek speakers as well as Aramaic speakers; there is a common consent among scholars as to this factor. Galilee was surrounded by Greek culture, in fact Nazareth was only a few miles from Sepphoris which was a Greek cultural centre. Greek culture and language also flourished within the Jewish community.
The author of Mark's Gospel, Mark the disciple of Peter the apostle is an excellent example of a Jewish Aramaic speaker who also spoke and wrote Greek.
Etheshaam wrote:
There is NO way the N.T. Gospels are translations from Aramaic to Greek. It is simply absurd to think that three independent translations would agree in wording and sequence to such a degree.
Elijah wrote:
You are assuming too much. The fact is that the three Synoptic gospels are not that similar, they have different focus, and are written to different recipients.
They are also very similar because Christianity in the first and second century was based upon the Jewish rabbinic structure of discipleship which emphasised highly memorization and preservation.
Etheshaam wrote:
Moreover the Q Documents were written about 20 years after Jesus-- the earliest form of Q was written in 50 C.E.
Elijah wrote:
Firstly there is no evidence for Q, there is no evidence for an early form of Q.
If you are gona apply the theory of Q stratums as proposed by Streeter and more radically by Burton Mack, Jesus ends up not even as a prophet but as a Jewish teacher who performed no miracles; according to Mack Jesus was a Jewish-Greek Cynic philosopher.
I would be very careful to apply such theories as they will backfire against the religion of Islam if they are true.
Q nevertheless does not prove a problem to Christianity, at least the sayings of Jesus whether the categories of Q, M, L and the Triple tradition reveals that Jesus sayings were transmitted very accurately.
Furthermore, Kloppenborg who is a notorious critic but slightly ignorant when it comes to the form-critical theories, shoots himself in the foot.
He claims very much like the form-critics that Christianity went through a chaos period (this chaos period is essential for critics but there is no evidence for it, quite the opposite).
Kloppenborg nevertheless maintains that the Q source reveals propably the most significant and professionally writen document of the first century.
You see this causes a number of problems for the critic: it reveals that Christians in the 40-50 AD were highly organised and highly skilled in their literary skills.
This suggests that there was no chaos period, secondly it refutes Ehrman's book 'Misqouting Jesus' (which you love), a book which presumes that the earliest Christians were not professional writers. However Q proves completely otherwise.
Etheshaam wrote:
The Four Gospels were based off unreliable Oral Traditions.
Elijah replies:
Again you need to prove that oral traditions were unreliable. Based upon the Jewish Rabbinic methods of discipleship, the traditions of early Christianity were preserved and transmitted very accurately.
Furthermore, oral tradition is not easily corrupted within the first 70 years, particularly if the eyewitnesses are alive and apply the methods of the 'living and abiding word'.
In fact Mark which was written about 50-55 AD according to Hegesippus and Matthew-Luke containing a triple tradition also reveals how effectively the information was preserved.
Etheshaam wrote:
As for the Church Fathers, they really don't prove anything since we don't know their sources or whether they were truthful, for example the Church father Eubiesus was known to be a liar.
Elijah replies:
Again you are assuming too much. If you tell me to doubt the Church Fathers, you cannot trust any tradition of Islam.
There are links between these church fathers and the apostles and there are links between the successors of the apostles up to the end of the second century.
Critics commonly reject the church fathers since their existence and function challenges the atheist-naturalistic position, funny you should follow their reasoning.
When you say that we do not know their sources, then what exactly are you referring to? Clement and Polycarp refer to the Old Testament and the Gospels, so we know the sources. Ignatius simply writes to contemporary successors and Christian leaders (I do not know what you mean by sources here), Irenaeus clearly reveals his sources.
By challenging the source factor it sounds more that you are merely throwing a useless argument up into the air.
As to Eusebius being a liar, again you are following a response of atheist or naturalist scholars toward details that challenge their position.
Euesbius is not a liar, he was wrong in a few aspect, such as some of his use of Gaius and some details related to the Odessa Christian leadership, but there is no evidence that Eusebius was a corrupt writer, he simply used the sources he had access to.
Etheshaam wrote:
There are many forgeries inserted into the New Testament such as the Ending of Mark, the Mary Magadelne story, the 1 John 5:7 trinity passage, etc.
Elijah replies:
Now this argument is just so easy to refute.
Christian scholars new in the early days that the end of Mark 16 was not part of the particular Gospel of Mark that was brought to Alexandria in 50-55 AD. This is why third century scholars who were accustomed to the superior Alexandrian text and the Caesaran text did not approve it as part of the very original text.
However, the end of Mark is simply a summary of the oral transmission, the transmission utilized by Luke, hence the end of Mark is as much a reliable source as the rest of Mark, whether he was part of the earliest Mark or not.
The very fact that early Christians distinguished between this passage and the rest of Mark simply confirms that the early Christians were skilled and able in preservering the original form.
What Magdalena passage are you talking about?
And as to 1 John 5: 7. This was a footnote that was added to one family text by mistake, but understand that this was not added to the Gospel addition and its presence in 1 John 5 came as far as I am aware of late.
Etheshaam wrote
Moreover what early sources are you talking about? Don't tell me Ibn Ishaq, Al Waqidi or Al-Tabarari since these are rejected sources. You can read about it here:
http://answering-christian-claims.com/The-Problems-With-Ibn-Ishaq.html
Elijah wrote:
Etheshaam,
This new approach by muslims is becoming more and more laughable.
"This new approach by muslims is becoming more and more laughable."
How so? I explain the problems with Ibn Ishaq in that essay I posted.
As Bassam states just because something is early doesn't mean its reliable. Why do you think I reject the New Testament? Its based off unreliable oral traditions, it has fictional elements in it, it suffers from
editorial and scribal errors, etc.
Moreover we don't know who wrote the Gospels, when they were written or where they were written. We don't know what their sources were.
Same with Ibn Ishaq-- his sources weren't always properly cited and most of his sources were not reliable. Why do you think Bukhari never used his work?
Firstly, I don't think you have effectively dealt with the actual topic of this thread.
Etheshaam wrote:
As Bassam states just because something is early doesn't mean its reliable. Why do you think I reject the New Testament? Its based off unreliable oral traditions, it has fictional elements in it, it suffers from
editorial and scribal errors, etc.
Elijah replies:
Exactly my point Etheshaam, if all these assumptions are a problem for your acceptance of the Gospel writings, you need to reject the Qur'an as well.
Look at your Bukhari sources, look at textual criticism in Islam, everything points toward a transmission that was fabricated, lost and collected in varied forms, then corrupted again and the evidence burned.
You may say that we have early manuscripts of the Qur'an, but you just said that 'just because something is early does not mean its reliable', and concerning the Qur'an you are absolutely correct.
Scholars have detected within the earliest Qur'anic manuscripts, not merely scribal errors or mistaken footnotes, etc, but actual tampering with the text, which is evidence that the earliest Qur'anic text went through a development within the first 50 years, and you have the nerve to say that the Gospels are corrupt.
Furthermore, can you point out the fiction in the Gospel?
Furthermore, you have already agreed in a previous post that the Qur'an suffered editorial errors, so why do you believe the Qur'an? How can you apply one requirement for Bible and not to the Qur'an?
Etheshaam wrote:
Moreover we don't know who wrote the Gospels, when they were written or where they were written. We don't know what their sources were.
Elijah replies:
So we don't know who wrote the Gospels could you elaborate on that with primary sources? Because contrary to what the humanist scholars exclaims we possess solid evidence from the primary sources as to the authorship of the Gospels. Hence in this case the burden of proof is on you, can you provide actual evidence from history (not modern philosphical conjecture) that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did not write these Gospels?
We do know that the Gospels were written in the first century. Even if all four Gospels were written in 90-100 AD they would be written no less than 60-70 years after the incident. At this time eyewitnesses were still alive and eyewitness successors who were protectors of the transmission were still alive up to 100 AD. Furthermore, historians do not consider corruption of a source in terms of including myths to occur until at least 150 years after the event. And that would still be difficult if successors were involved and the account was written down.
In fact most critical scholars only provide two evidence for the late first century date of the Gospels, namely the Q theory, which is not factual anyway and which backfires if accurate, and Jesus prediction of Jerusalem's fall since these scholars you adore do not believe in the supernatural. Based upon these scholars the Gospels had to be written post 75 AD since prophecies break the natural laws. Hence based upon your use of the dating methods of the Gospels as applied by critical scholars you are in fact implying that the Qur'an itself cannot be a revelation.
There is good and solide evidence that Mark was written in Rome, we know that Matthew was written in the Aramaic speaking community and we know that John lived in Ephesus. If this is a vital argument you also have to provide solid evidence for every location where the Qur'an was revealed or written down. But of course it was written down in varied form in different places.
You also ask about the sources, Matthew was an eyewitness, Peter the source of Mark was an eyewitnesses, Luke clearly explains his sources and John was an eyewitnesses.
I wonder can you provide the actual source of the Qur'an. Can you provide multiple evidences of eyewitnesses of those who saw Gabrial convey the Qur'an to Muhammad? Here the Gospel account is much more reliable than the Qur'an.
Etheshaam wrote:
Same with Ibn Ishaq-- his sources weren't always properly cited and most of his sources were not reliable. Why do you think Bukhari never used his work?
Elijah replies:
I have never used Ibn Ishaq, but I have used Bukhari.
Etheshaam wrote:
Same with Ibn Ishaq-- his sources weren't always properly cited and most of his sources were not reliable. Why do you think Bukhari never used his work?
Elijah wrote:
I will take upon your word here. You seem to presume that Ibn Ishaq is not enterily reliable because we are ignorant of his source and because he does not cite everything properly, which renders him unreliable but not entirely reliable.
How would you then differentiate between what is reliable and what is not?
You would at least have to say that we cannot be sure about some of this material. But then again if you apply this to the Gospel, how can you differentiate between what is reliable in the Gospel and what is not? You cannot use the Qur'an that appears 600 years later, you need to consider the Gospels in their fulness and those who were aquainted with Jesus, the apostles and the early Christian community.
I am just curious what is the criterion that something in the gospels is wrong and something is accurate?
Also I have brought up a great number of issues and details in this thread which you have avoided to comment on.
Hogan,
Did you really watch the debate with Bassam vs. Nabeel on the Quranic preservation? I don't think you did. Bassam already answers all your claims against the preservation of the Quran. As for the other topics you bring up, let's stay on topic-- the preservation of the Quran. Soon I'll be writing some essays on the preservation of the Quran on my site, which you can read.
Hogan said "Furthermore, can you point out the fiction in the Gospel?"
My Response: Have you read the Gospels? They are filled with myths and legends with no basis in history. For example When Jesus died, "the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints" arose. But they stayed in their graves until Jesus rose from the dead, when they began to walk around, appearing to many in Jerusalem (See Matthew 27:53-54.) Where is this in history?
Also in Mark 3:21, it states that Jesus friends think he is insane. Why would you take Jesus to be your lord and savior if he is insane?
Jesus claims that Moses wrote about him in John 5:46. Where is this in the O.T? Its not found anywhere.
Evil spirits know Jesus and Paul. They also jump on people and strip them of their clothes see Acts 28:3-6.
Of course the New Testament is filled with these myths and fairytales.
Etheshaam wrote:
Did you really watch the debate with Bassam vs. Nabeel on the Quranic preservation? I don't think you did.
Elijah replied:
Actually I was there, in the debate, you might even see me if you watch the video.
Etheshaam wrote:
Bassam already answers all your claims against the preservation of the Quran.
Elijah replies:
I don't think so
Etheshaam wrote:
As for the other topics you bring up, let's stay on topic-- the preservation of the Quran. Soon I'll be writing some essays on the preservation of the Quran on my site, which you can read.
Elijah replies:
See that is what I keep emphasizing, lets stay on the topic.
Etheshaam wrote:
Hogan said "Furthermore, can you point out the fiction in the Gospel?"
My Response: Have you read the Gospels? They are filled with myths and legends with no basis in history. For example When Jesus died, "the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints" arose. But they stayed in their graves until Jesus rose from the dead, when they began to walk around, appearing to many in Jerusalem (See Matthew 27:53-54.) Where is this in history?
Elijah replies:
Now this is getting interesting, you say that this is fiction because it is not mentioned elsewhere in history.
Now let me first show you that this is in fact history.
When Papias (AD 100) gets the information about Matthew and Mark transmitted to him from John the Elder and Aristion, this information is categorized by Papias as the 'living and abiding word' which according to historical methods of the first and second century was the most credible method of obtaining historical information, since it implied that the information was handed onto the recipient by an eyewitnesses.
This proves that Christians until 100 AD applied the most effective historical methods of the time.
Furthermore, lets consider the inconsistency of your approach here.
If the resurrection of holy individuals is fiction and legend because history is silent about it, then how about God separating the Red Sea, that is not recorded in history either, are you implying that you do not believe in such an occurance?
Or how about Jesus' virgin birth, that is not confirmed by history either, are you saying that Jesus was not born by a virgin?
How about the cave-experience of Muhammad when he supposedly received the first revelation, is that story recorded in history?
Or how about Jesus the baby talking in the cradle, is that not history either?
Or the Qur'anic reference to the Jews whom Allah turned into pigs and monkeys? Can you show me where that is mentioned in history?
Are you implying that you do not believe in these Qur'anic passages since they are not mentioned in history?
I think you have shot yourself in the foot once again.
The reason you referred to the particular passage in Matthew 27 is becuase this is a favorite passage quoted in the articles of popular atheists.
Yet based upon your methodology and conclusion the Qur'an appears to be filled with legends and fiction.
Ethesham wrote:
Also in Mark 3:21, it states that Jesus friends think he is insane. Why would you take Jesus to be your lord and savior if he is insane?
Elijah replies:
Are you out of your mind brother?
Did you even read Mark chapter 3?
I thought you to claimed to handle information like a scholar. Now I am getting slightly disappointed about you.
The particular passages says:
'Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said: "he is out of his mind"' (Mark 3: 20-21).
Notice firstly that these were not Jesus' disciples but his family. We do know that his brothers did not accept him at least in the beginning of his ministry years.
Furthermore, notice when they say he is out of his mind, it is not because of his person or words and deeds but because of his devotion to his cause even to abstain from rest and food, which lays in the wording: ‘When his family heard about this’
Etheshaam wrote:
Jesus claims that Moses wrote about him in John 5:46. Where is this in the O.T? Its not found anywhere.
Elijah replies:
I think it is clearly established when you read John that Jesus is the prophet referred to in Deuteronomy. Furthermore, Jesus is the fulfilmen of the sacrifices in the Mosaic writings.
Etheshaam wrote:
Evil spirits know Jesus and Paul. They also jump on people and strip them of their clothes see Acts 28:3-6.
Elijah replies:
I am at loss as to your argument here? I am sure that demons also knew about Muhammad if Muhammad was the last prophet of God. The demons also know the most high God.
Etheshaam wrote:
Of course the New Testament is filled with these myths and fairytales.
Elijah replies:
Well, now you need to give me some historical references to the Jews transformed into monkeys and pigs.
That sounds a fairytale to me, and based upon your conclusion so are most of the references to miracolous events in the Old Testament history, whether found in the Old Testament or the Qur'an.
My advise is Etheshaam, think, think carefully before you simply utilize the sources and arguments of those who deny what theists are to hold onto.
"Or the Qur'anic reference to the Jews whom Allah turned into pigs and monkeys? Can you show me where that is mentioned in history?"
This is a metaphor. You think this actually happened? Rather what this verse is saying is that some Jews started to behave so badly that they were turned into pigs and apes METAPHORICALLY not LITERALLY. This passage of the Quran is NOT to be taken literally.
Moreover the virgin birth is found in Matthew and Luke- so Christians as well as Muslims have to believe it.
As for Deuteronomy 18-- its not talking about Jesus. Jews already covered this arguement:
http://messiahtruth.org/deut1815.html
Thanks
Ehteshaam Gulam
Etheshaam wrote:
"Or the Qur'anic reference to the Jews whom Allah turned into pigs and monkeys? Can you show me where that is mentioned in history?"
This is a metaphor. You think this actually happened? Rather what this verse is saying is that some Jews started to behave so badly that they were turned into pigs and apes METAPHORICALLY not LITERALLY. This passage of the Quran is NOT to be taken literally.
Elijah replies:
Prove it. Bring me the passage from the Qur'an that this is only a metaphor. If I had told you that the resurrection of the holy at the resurrection of Jesus was a metaphor you would laugh at me.
etheshaam wrote:
Moreover the virgin birth is found in Matthew and Luke- so Christians as well as Muslims have to believe it.
Elijah replies:
But based upon your approach to Matthew 27 the virgin birth cannot be historical either unless it is included in external sources, but if you change approach now, you have reason to reject the passage of Matthew 27!
but if you are to believe in narrative gospel about the virgin birth, why do you reject revelatory passages about e.g. Jesus' death and resurrection?
Etheshaam wrote:
As for Deuteronomy 18-- its not talking about Jesus. Jews already covered this arguement:
http://messiahtruth.org/deut1815.html
Elijah replies:
I find it funny that you should post this link. If this refutation of Jewish apologists is credible, it clearly points out that it debunks Christianity and islam alike. Hence if the website is accurate you have just posted information that refutes the muslim claim that Muhammad is found in the Torah. This again proves your inconsistencies in utilizing sources.
However, I guess that every Christian apologist will probably agree with the Jewish site, that the prophet is any prophet emerging after Moses. However, in Christian theology Jesus is the last of those prophets in the prophetic line of Moses. Also as I mentioned Jesus is the fulfilment of sacrificial and temple system of the Jewish religion, which is described in details within books of Moses.
Post a Comment