Other Issues > Christianity/Judaism/Others
Jesus VS Isa
huruf:
--- Quote from: MaverickMonotheist on April 01, 2012, 05:58:59 PM ---Ok, then instead of saying history doesn't matter, focus on the bad use of history by traditionalists in comparison to Qur'an.
--- Quote --- For example, in the verses we've been discussing,
--- End quote ---
That is it, you keep discussing those verses, which is obvious are a matter of you interpetation and inserting of the events of the gospels into it, but refuse that we are even discussing the whole Qur'an. You do not seem to want to get away from those verses and take all other verses from Qur'an. It seems that we have to say yes or yes to those verses some of you are discussing and never for any reason take any other part of the Qur'an.
As said previously, two lists, one with facts and data from the Qur'an regarding 3isa, one with the facts and data from the Gospels or other christian sources regarding Jesus. See the matches and dismatches.
--- Quote ---So let's look at our sources. Those who follow Jesus claimed he died by crucifixion. Even the most critical readings of the earliest manuscripts don't question this. The resurrection is another matter. Even with interpolations, Titus Flavius Josephus attests to the crucifixion. The sources of the Jews claiming to have crucified him? They are a mess. Go read the Talmud sometime. Some sayings say the character most likely Jesus was stoned, another said he was hanged, and so forth. The extant sources from history point to one conclusion. Were this a bad use of source material, then it would not be hard to prove.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote ---If an interpretation says that something which is solidly historically documented did not happen, it is guilty of historical revision. If it appropriates Judeo-Christian material, removes it from it's appropriate context, and makes it say something that it was not meant to say for its own ends, then it commits theft.
--- End quote ---
Again that 3isa and Jesus are the same person is takeng as a given but that is what we are discussing.
--- Quote ---I find it interesting that the notion of Qur'an alone comes out here, after praise of research that Pazuzu and others have made about the names and events described in the Qur'an from outside sources.
--- End quote ---
The Qur'an alone is sufficient proof of what it says, and that has been shown by Pazuzu and others, but between that and forbidding those who do not agree with somebody else to use other material, not to uphold the qur'an but rather to make sense of some things straneous the Qur'an.
--- Quote ---And I think the ground has been well-covered about how the Qur'an calls the Torah and Gospel a "light and a guidance", and there is not a scintilla of evidence to support any notion that the texts we have now are anything other than what the prophet had at the time of the revelation of the Qur'an.
--- End quote ---
True, that has been said many times, and it does not make it tru. By thgeir own admission neither the books of the bible that are called the tora nor the gospels, are the same as the tawrat and the injil mentionned in the Qur'an.
The tora and the gospels are not texts revealed by God, but narrations and renditions by people of thing that purportedly happened and some speeches attributed to God, or in the gospels to Jesus. THAT MOST CERTAINLY ARE NOT THE TAWRAT AND INJIL, which are supposed to be revealed by God and therefore not narrated by anybody after the fact.
Of course that poses no problems morally or spiritually to anybody, because all of us, within our capacity can feel if something brings light and is morally and espiritually upbring or not.
In that sense the texts are useful as they are, but what the cannot in any way do, is bound the Qur'an and exact from the Qur'an for them a guarantee that the Qur'an does not give.
--- Quote ---All texts, even revelatory ones, are revealed in time and describe events in that time period. What would have been known, discussed, and debated at the time of revelation is relevant to what it means.
--- End quote ---
Sure, and the Qur'an and what it says, lends to the idea that in fact there is a lot of merit to what Pazuzu hs been saying, that the events narrated in the Qur'an refer to Arabia, and not to Palestine.
--- Quote ---Gentlemen, this will be my last post on the subject in this thread or any other. Not that I am not enjoying our exchange...actually, I take that back. I don't really enjoy the broken record that the conversations related to previous scripture have become. Feel free to respond to what I've said here. I will read it and consider it with diligence, but I have a hectic work week ahead, and I simply have grown tired of these kinds of discussions here and have made attempts to generally avoid them for this very reason. Threads like this make me question my place in relationship to the Qur'an. The more I read and studied the Qur'an, the more continuity I saw with the texts that I had studied academically as a Christian - even though I was actually looking to disprove the Qur'an. But if you are right and there is no continuity of revelation, then I have no business here and am making serious errors in interpretation and eisegesis. Time will tell, hopefully sooner than later.
Peace,
Joel
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
It is important to make the part of spirituallity, morality, and the anecdotical part. History, everywhere is full of traps. Fortunatelly we do not need history in order to believe. God is here and now, and His rahma pervades everything. There are important things and less important things. The fivine rahma here and now is more important than other things.
I am sure, maverick, you are an honest searcher. The searching that you do is also important, it is part of our human destiny. I am sure it will bring fruit to you and to others. Do continue, by all means, but do not get upset, although we all get upset many times. However, God gives us these things for comfort, not for distress.
May best regards and wishes, and I understand your feelings, I think, at least some part of them, very well. Many of us have gone trough that, or something akin, and that is why I think that Christianity, spiritual christianity has a lot to offer and carries important truths, but it is a very tall order and not everyone is up to it.
Salaam
noshirk:
Let's continue with funny things about Joshua bin nun , Jesus and fishes
http://www.jesusfamilytomb.com/forum/_Chevron_the_Christian_Fish-11-218-0-0/
and
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Grammar/Unit_One/Aleph-Bet/Nun/nun.html
and principally this
http://pluto.huji.ac.il/~stroumsa/Fish.pdf
please read , it is amazing.
savage_carrot:
--- Quote from: MM ---Ok, then instead of saying history doesn't matter, focus on the bad use of history by traditionalists in comparison to Qur'an. For example, in the verses we've been discussing, it says that those who follow Isa will be more highly regarded than those who disbelieve (by context here, the Jews claiming to have crucified Jesus). And it is those who say these things that are in confusion.
So let's look at our sources. Those who follow Jesus claimed he died by crucifixion. Even the most critical readings of the earliest manuscripts don't question this. The resurrection is another matter. Even with interpolations, Titus Flavius Josephus attests to the crucifixion. The sources of the Jews claiming to have crucified him? They are a mess. Go read the Talmud sometime. Some sayings say the character most likely Jesus was stoned, another said he was hanged, and so forth. The extant sources from history point to one conclusion. Were this a bad use of source material, then it would not be hard to prove.
--- End quote ---
Like I said, it's not exactly news that 'extant' history may be incorrect. We have a very extant piece of history that claims Isa wasn't (not that God claims Isa was Jesus) but it wasn't at the same time you say? 'At the same time' we have little to no evidence that 'Jesus' as known today even existed...plenty of discussion on that. Some say a Bishop forged entries in Josephus' work, some even doubt crucifixion means crucifixion. Most of these 'extant' sources are not even at the same time anyways, so many parallels between this and the hadith controversies.
--- Quote from: MM ---If you are claiming that this peace on his day of death is a situational one, then the implications are that anyone who suffers situational discord is without God's peace. If one is true, then so must the other. Are you prepared to tell every rape victim, every child who is molested, every victim of economic, social, and racial oppression that God's peace is far from them? I think it is safe to say that this peace is one of experience free from existential angst, regardless of the external circumstances. So this really doesn't make your case. That is, unless you are going to argue that God's peace is purely situational and any discord or suffering is proof of it's absence.
--- End quote ---
Are you alright? The verse was presented to state that Jesus had to die, thus in response to your specific quote of people claiming he never died. He was a man that would die like any other. Not the first time you've taken my words to mean things I doubt I could even get them to.
--- Quote ---If an interpretation says that something which is solidly historically documented did not happen, it is guilty of historical revision. If it appropriates Judeo-Christian material, removes it from it's appropriate context, and makes it say something that it was not meant to say for its own ends, then it commits theft.
--- End quote ---
Solidly historical documentation is debatable as you well know. Many things get revised with time, it's not the end of the world. This refusal to budge from something considered 'solid/not to be questioned' is a very well known issue in plenty of circles, inclusive of history. Certain parts of history don't hold a monopoly on other parts. Not meant to say? Surely you don't decide what it should and shouldn't say for 'it's own ends'. And no, it commits no theft...that is another one of your wild extrapolations.
--- Quote ---I find it interesting that the notion of Qur'an alone comes out here, after praise of research that Pazuzu and others have made about the names and events described in the Qur'an from outside sources. And I think the ground has been well-covered about how the Qur'an calls the Torah and Gospel a "light and a guidance", and there is not a scintilla of evidence to support any notion that the texts we have now are anything other than what the prophet had at the time of the revelation of the Qur'an.
--- End quote ---
What are you on about? Even after I've clearly said and have maintained that in my posts: I don't give a crap what you say as long as it's logical and in line with the quran. You may stop your sad attempt at attributing hypocritical motives and take a good hard look at what you're writing. It's debatable what the Torah and Gospel is. There's been plenty of discussion on it. What I've read of them, I've a hard time reconciling the author of the quran to that stuff. There is a markedly different feel to the narrative. Far as the content, hits and misses.
--- Quote ---All texts, even revelatory ones, are revealed in time and describe events in that time period. What would have been known, discussed, and debated at the time of revelation is relevant to what it means.
--- End quote ---
Once again, different approaches. In your case, we need extra quranic material to understand the quran. In my case, I don't. I additionally consider the quran as universal and not constrained to any time period.
--- Quote ---Gentlemen, this will be my last post on the subject in this thread or any other. Not that I am not enjoying our exchange...actually, I take that back. I don't really enjoy the broken record that the conversations related to previous scripture have become. Feel free to respond to what I've said here. I will read it and consider it with diligence, but I have a hectic work week ahead, and I simply have grown tired of these kinds of discussions here and have made attempts to generally avoid them for this very reason. Threads like this make me question my place in relationship to the Qur'an. The more I read and studied the Qur'an, the more continuity I saw with the texts that I had studied academically as a Christian - even though I was actually looking to disprove the Qur'an. But if you are right and there is no continuity of revelation, then I have no business here and am making serious errors in interpretation and eisegesis. Time will tell, hopefully sooner than later.
--- End quote ---
Your choice. I would however suggest that the opinion: if the quran revises alleged history then it's a deal breaker...be the focus. It would clarify the issues that are created if the quran dares step out of line compared to any other text, historical or otherwise. Perhaps a new thread.
Jack:
--- Quote from: MaverickMonotheist on April 01, 2012, 04:42:16 AM ---
Seriously, explain to me from the text why it is logically allowable from the verses from Sura 4 to take its rebuttal of the claim that the Jews killed him a step further and say he was not crucified and did not die at all?
--- End quote ---
That logic just doesn't work--at all. According to your logic, based off just ONE verse of which there is no evidence supporting your position, only conjecture, what does the quran say about conjecture? No matter, let's look at 3:144. Now we can clearly determine that Muhammad was an immortal, right? It doesn't say that he died in THAT verse. This is the fallacy of burden of proof. You don't prove a NEGATIVE. You and the supporter of your view keep spouting this you're just following 'traditional islam' nonsense, yet, you are repeatedly forcing interpretations into the Quranic text based on other sources, based on your own preconceptions, based on other sources. Hypocritical much? Yeah I can insinuate whatever the heck I want about whomever I want, because that's such an honest debater I am, you know! ::)
Furthermore, check out 41:37, do you see anywhere that The quran shows us that Allah doesn't equate to a moon god? No? Well OBVIOUSLY allah means a moon god, based on some these other sources (yes there are loads of archaeological evidence supporting this, surely you can't explain that?!) This is how ridiculous your argument sounds.
--- Quote ---Lol. Redditor.
--- End quote ---
loln00b tldr and other memes precede Reddit ;) Learn to internet, damn you.
GODsubmitter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0DTT3u2JZ8
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version