Let's say much of Islam and Quran is "bad" even then...

[AveRegina]

So the basic message for christianity is that you must only believe in 1 God (not three), that jesus is a slave of god and that the people of the book (meaning the christians) should not transgress

I thought the basic message is believe in 3 persons, jesus died for your sins and believe in it. Hmm maybe im wrong

Yes and no. You are wrong in that indeed part of the Christian message is that
"you must only believe in 1 God (not three), that Jesus is a slave of God and that the people of the book should not transgress."

You are correct in that _trinitarian_ Christians believe that this 1 God consists of 3 persons. Yes, weird, I agree, but once you understand the history behind the Trinity it _sort_ of makes sense. Look up Platonism and hypostasis.

You are also correct that Christians believe that "Jesus died for your sins". Today this is a strange concept, but in ancient times it was not. It is actually a very old and common idea. Look up Inanna and Tammuz.

 

[AveRegina]

So instead of agreeing you would just repeat your nonsense right? Of course everything is about jesus christ according to you right?
You might want to read the veda's and translate it, I think jesus is also chrishna or some of their gods.

The Qur'an _explicitly_ names Jesus. Lots of times. The Vedas do not. The Qur'an was written _after_ Jesus, the Vedas were written _before_. So we are talking about a completely different situation.

By the way, just calling something "nonsense" does not help much. So far I have not seen any refutation of what ApplePie has written.

For instance, can you name a manuscript of the Qur'an that is older than the inscription? Otherwise how are you going to prove that the Qur'an is older?

Please, no appeals to authority or posting of quotes, only data: dated manuscripts and/or archaeology.

 

[alhamdullilah]

No it does not. As I wrote previously, quotes do not prove anything. Not convinced? Here is a proof:

"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty." 2 Peter 1:16

So, after reading this quote now you believe in the Christian gospel? Are you going to to believe in the Bible? Thought so....

I think you dont understand, you gave an argument where you said that it has a aramaic past or something like that. I just gave you a simple quote from the chapter Yusuf wich sais that the quran is revealed in arabic.

Simple like that.

 

[alhamdullilah]

Yes and no. You are wrong in that indeed part of the Christian message is that
"you must only believe in 1 God (not three), that Jesus is a slave of God and that the people of the book should not transgress."

You are correct in that _trinitarian_ Christians believe that this 1 God consists of 3 persons. Yes, weird, I agree, but once you understand the history behind the Trinity it _sort_ of makes sense. Look up Platonism and hypostasis.

You are also correct that Christians believe that "Jesus died for your sins". Today this is a strange concept, but in ancient times it was not. It is actually a very old and common idea. Look up Inanna and Tammuz.

In case you haven't noticed, i was being sarcastic.
I am aware of the history and so on. also about the "strange concept" about dying for someone else.

read my post again, you should see the sarcasme. Me and applepie go way back. He always is atacking islam/quran etc. and im always defending it (also other muslims) and refuting him.
his problem is that he keeps repeating his weird ideas (which nobody backs up)

I say the sky is purple, you give me proof and show me that it is indeed blue, and I won't talk about it anymore
the next day i come back and say its purple again. This is what he is doing.
very strange

 

[alhamdullilah]

The Qur'an _explicitly_ names Jesus. Lots of times. The Vedas do not. The Qur'an was written _after_ Jesus, the Vedas were written _before_. So we are talking about a completely different situation.

By the way, just calling something "nonsense" does not help much. So far I have not seen any refutation of what ApplePie has written.

For instance, can you name a manuscript of the Qur'an that is older than the inscription? Otherwise how are you going to prove that the Qur'an is older?

Please, no appeals to authority or posting of quotes, only data: dated manuscripts and/or archaeology.

You don't catch the sarcasme.

You should read up some more history here, I can see that you are new here. Just check out some threads by applepie and see how many times he got refuted. Its almost ridiculous to even mention it again.

If you want to debate about the quran and the preservation, we can do this, this is no problem. Just open up a new thread.

 

[AveRegina]

I think you dont understand, you gave an argument where you said that it has a aramaic past or something like that. I just gave you a simple quote from the chapter Yusuf wich sais that the quran is revealed in arabic.

Simple like that.

I do understand, I do. The issue is that you can not settle historical issues with quotes.

I gave you a quote from the Bible stating that it is true. Are you now going to believe the Bible? I hope you understand the logic. If you do not believe a quote from the Bible, why should I believe a quote from the Qur'an?

 

[AveRegina]

In case you haven't noticed, i was being sarcastic.
I am aware of the history and so on. also about the "strange concept" about dying for someone else.

read my post again, you should see the sarcasme. Me and applepie go way back. He always is atacking islam/quran etc. and im always defending it (also other muslims) and refuting him.
his problem is that he keeps repeating his weird ideas (which nobody backs up)

I say the sky is purple, you give me proof and show me that it is indeed blue, and I won't talk about it anymore
the next day i come back and say its purple again. This is what he is doing.
very strange

1. I certainly noticed that you were sarcastic. I also hoped you would notice that your logic was not bringing you where you thought you were going.

2. I understand well that ApplePie7 is attacking and you are defending. However, you are _not_ refuting him. To refute something you need logic backed up with data. You have provided neither. At best you come up with arguments from authority. Those have little weight with me because, as I already explained, this is all within a framework of power structures.

 

[AveRegina]

You don't catch the sarcasme.

You should read up some more history here, I can see that you are new here. Just check out some threads by applepie and see how many times he got refuted. Its almost ridiculous to even mention it again.

If you want to debate about the quran and the preservation, we can do this, this is no problem. Just open up a new thread.

I do, I do catch the sarcasm. What you are not catching is that you are deluding yourself in that you are refuting him. You are not. To refute you need to provide data placed within a logical framework. You have not provided anything except arguments from authority.

I am just wondering why you are actually not refuting him? Why are you not showing us that the Qur'an is _older_ than the inscription? Why are you not able to do so? And why are you not worried by this? What is this lack of proof from your part showing us all? Why is your position so weak?

Please show us something besides bluster and rhetoric.

 

[Islam_mulia]

I am just wondering why you are actually not refuting him?

I dont blame alhamdulillah for not replying Applepie. In fact, I would advise my brothers and sisters to just ignore him for he is not interested in discussing Islam but is vent on twisting the Quranic words to suit some strange conclusion.

Please take a look at some of his postings and replies coming from Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and his defeatist replies when a Christian showed that his conclusion makes Christ less than a what a Christian should view Him.

Why are you not showing us that the Qur'an is _older_ than the inscription? Why are you not able to do so? And why are you not worried by this? What is this lack of proof from your part showing us all? Why is your position so weak?

The inscription on the Dome of the Rock can be dated to 72 AH/692 CE. It contains mainly full Quranic texts, except for the verse on Isa, son of Maryam, which was changed from first to third person.

One of the Inscriptions In The Outer Octagonal Arcade, contain the full Quranic verse:

Qul hū Allāhu ahad Allāhu al-ṣamad lam yalid wa-lam yulad wa-lam yakun lahu kufūwan aḥad [Complete Qur’an 112]....

The same Surah inscription can be found at a tombstone in Cyprus, dated 29 AH/650 CE. (See An Arabic Inscription From Cyprus, 29 AH / 650 CE)

You can find other inscriptions of the Quran from 1 to 100 AH/622 - 719 CE here: Dated Texts Containing The Qur'an From 1-100 AH / 622-719 CE

 

[AveRegina]

I dont blame alhamdulillah for not replying Applepie. In fact, I would advise my brothers and sisters to just ignore him for he is not interested in discussing Islam but is vent on twisting the Quranic words to suit some strange conclusion.

Please take a look at some of his postings and replies coming from Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and his defeatist replies when a Christian showed that his conclusion makes Christ less than a what a Christian should view Him.

I am new on this forum and have not read much. I will try to find some of the postings of ApplePie7 and read them and their replies.

Nonetheless, I still see that you are using rhetoric by using the words "twisting", "strange", "defeatist". That his conclusions do not agree with the theology of some (most) Christians again is not relevant. History does not care about theology.

The inscription on the Dome of the Rock can be dated to 72 AH/692 CE. It contains mainly full Quranic texts, except for the verse on Isa, son of Maryam, which was changed from first to third person.

One of the Inscriptions In The Outer Octagonal Arcade, contain the full Quranic verse:

Qul hū Allāhu ahad Allāhu al-ṣamad lam yalid wa-lam yulad wa-lam yakun lahu kufūwan aḥad [Complete Qur’an 112]....

Are the inner and outer inscription dated to the same time? Is maybe one older than the other? This is a sincere question, I do not know the answer.

The same Surah inscription can be found at a tombstone in Cyprus, dated 29 AH/650 CE.

You can find other inscriptions of the Quran from 1 to 100 AH/622 - 719 CE here:

Inscriptions are important and thanks for the references. However:

(1) the dating is internal, based on the AH reference in the inscription itself. I am not sure that at the beginning 1 AH = 622 CE. I find the date 72 AH in the Dome of the Rock suspicious. Of course I could be wrong here.

(2) the inscriptions, whatever their date, only prove that language that later would appear in the Qur'an existed at that time. It does NOT prove that the Qur'an existed by that time. For that you need to show manuscripts that are dated earlier.

 

[alhamdullilah]

I do understand, I do. The issue is that you can not settle historical issues with quotes.

I gave you a quote from the Bible stating that it is true. Are you now going to believe the Bible? I hope you understand the logic. If you do not believe a quote from the Bible, why should I believe a quote from the Qur'an?

You still don't understand. Some of the things in the bible I off course do believe, so it still doesn't matter.

 

[alhamdullilah]

I do, I do catch the sarcasm. What you are not catching is that you are deluding yourself in that you are refuting him. You are not. To refute you need to provide data placed within a logical framework. You have not provided anything except arguments from authority.

I am just wondering why you are actually not refuting him? Why are you not showing us that the Qur'an is _older_ than the inscription? Why are you not able to do so? And why are you not worried by this? What is this lack of proof from your part showing us all? Why is your position so weak?

Please show us something besides bluster and rhetoric.

Uhm you are new here my friend, you should really look into what applepie has posted and the numerous posts from muslims and non-muslims to him. He has been refuted so many times, just read up on it. You can't just come here and be all new and say we have not refuted him. His threads go way back for years.

 

[alhamdullilah]

I am new on this forum and have not read much. I will try to find some of the postings of ApplePie7 and read them and their replies.

Nonetheless, I still see that you are using rhetoric by using the words "twisting", "strange", "defeatist". That his conclusions do not agree with the theology of some (most) Christians again is not relevant. History does not care about theology.

after a few years you just get tired of refuting him, that's why I posted that example of him repeating himself.

 

[Islam_mulia]

I am new on this forum and have not read much. I will try to find some of the postings of ApplePie7 and read them and their replies.

Nonetheless, I still see that you are using rhetoric by using the words "twisting", "strange", "defeatist". That his conclusions do not agree with the theology of some (most) Christians again is not relevant. History does not care about theology.

Those words described his actions well.

Since you are new here, you can read his postings. His premise was that Christians wrote the Quran (can you believe that?) and Applepie changed the words of the Quran to suit his agenda.

Nonetheless, this is not a topic on Applepie and I have stopped responding to him.

Are the inner and outer inscription dated to the same time? Is maybe one older than the other? This is a sincere question, I do not know the answer.

Possibly around the same time.

Inscriptions are important and thanks for the references. However:

(1) the dating is internal, based on the AH reference in the inscription itself. I am not sure that at the beginning 1 AH = 622 CE. I find the date 72 AH in the Dome of the Rock suspicious. Of course I could be wrong here.

Give me another date, then.

(2) the inscriptions, whatever their date, only prove that language that later would appear in the Qur'an existed at that time. It does NOT prove that the Qur'an existed by that time. For that you need to show manuscripts that are dated earlier.

(i) The inscriptions are part of the Quran.

(ii) The earliest Quran found is, I believe, the Sana'a Quran. Carbon dating of some of the parchments to 645-690 AD. You can google to find out more about the Sana'a Quran.

 

[CreedIsChrist]

It seems the idea of Jesus as "servant":
1) early Syrian Christian traditions with roots in the 6th Century "Servant Songs" based on book of Isaiah.
2) 1 Clement, an apostolic father, 80-140AD, wrote on the "servant". "his beloved servant Jesus Christ, our Lord."
3) The Didache, dated around 200AD, speaks of "servant of G*d",
4) Martyrdom of Polycarp makes mention of "praised servant of G*d"

All early christian ideas.

There are many titles for Jesus.

• 3 True God
  • 3.1 Immanuel [Emmanuel]
  • 3.2 Almighty
  • 3.3 Alpha and Omega
  • 3.4 Creator
• 4 Messiah
• 5 Christ
  • 5.1 Christ Jesus
  • 5.2 Christ Jesus our Lord
  • 5.3 Christ of God
  • 5.4 Christ Our Passover
  • 5.5 Christ the Lord
  • 5.6 Christ the Power of God
• 6 Savior
  • 6.1 God our Savior
  • 6.2 Jesus Christ our Savior
  • 6.3 Lord and Saviour
  • 6.4 Prince and Savior
  • 6.5 Savior of the World
• 7 Other titles in the New Testament
  • 7.1 Advocate
  • 7.2 Amen
  • 7.3 Anointed
  • 7.4 Apostle
  • 7.5 Atoning Sacrifice for our Sins
  • 7.6 Author and Finisher of Our Faith
  • 7.7 Author of Eternal Salvation
  • 7.8 Author of Life
  • 7.9 Beginning
  • 7.10 Beginning and End
  • 7.11 Beloved
  • 7.12 Beloved Son
  • 7.13 Blessed and Only Potentate (Ruler)
  • 7.14 Blessed Hope
  • 7.15 Bread of God
  • 7.16 Bread of Life
  • 7.17 Bridegroom
  • 7.18 Bright and Morning Star
  • 7.19 Chief Cornerstone
  • 7.20 Chief Shepherd
  • 7.21 Chosen of God
  • 7.22 Christ, the new Adam
  • 7.23 Deliverer
  • 7.24 Door
  • 7.25 Door of the Sheep
  • 7.26 Eternal Life
  • 7.27 Faithful and True
  • 7.28 Faithful Witness
  • 7.29 Firstborn of All Creation
  • 7.30 Firstborn of Many Brothers
  • 7.31 Firstborn from among the Dead
  • 7.32 Fullness of the Godhead
  • 7.33 Good Shepherd
  • 7.34 Great Shepherd of the Sheep
  • 7.35 Head of the Church
  • 7.36 Head of all Principality and Power
  • 7.37 Heir of all things
  • 7.38 High Priest | Chief Priest
  • 7.39 Holy and Righteous One
  • 7.40 Holy One
  • 7.41 Holy One of God
  • 7.42 Holy One of Israel...In Israel
  • 7.43 Horn of Salvation
  • 7.44 I AM
  • 7.45 Image of God
  • 7.46 Image of The Invisible God
  • 7.47 Immanuel
  • 7.48 Jesus Christ the Righteous
  • 7.49 Judge
  • 7.50 Judge of the Living and the Dead
  • 7.51 King of Kings
  • 7.52 King of Saints
  • 7.53 King of the Jews
  • 7.54 Lamb of God
  • 7.55 Lamb that was Slain
  • 7.56 Lamb Slain from the Foundation, the 7 Spirits of God, the Seven Lamps, Seven Horns, Seven Eyes
  • 7.57 Lamb without Blemish
  • 7.58 Light of Men
  • 7.59 Light of the World
  • 7.60 Lion of Judah
  • 7.61 Living Bread
  • 7.62 Living One
  • 7.63 Living Stone
  • 7.64 Logos
  • 7.65 Lord God Omnipotent
  • 7.66 Lord of Glory
  • 7.67 Lord of Lords
  • 7.68 Lord
  • 7.69 Mediator
  • 7.70 Offspring of David
  • 7.71 Only Begotten Son
  • 7.72 Paraclete
  • 7.73 Passover Lamb
  • 7.74 Power of God
  • 7.75 Prince of Life
  • 7.76 Prophet
  • 7.77 Propitiation for our Sins
  • 7.78 Rabboni/Rabbi
  • 7.79 Resurrection and Life
  • 7.80 Righteous Judge
  • 7.81 Righteous One
  • 7.82 Ruler of the Kings of the Earth
  • 7.83 Son of David, Son of Abraham
  • 7.84 Son of God
  • 7.85 Son of Man

 

[AveRegina]

You still don't understand. Some of the things in the bible I off course do believe, so it still doesn't matter.

So, some parts of the Bible you believe and some parts you do not. Why do you not grant me the same privilege? Some parts of the Qur'an I believe and some I do not.

I would be especially suspicious of a statement in Arabic that affirms that the book it is part of was in Arabic. Why would some one make such a statement? Obviously because some accusations were made.

The same with the verse from the 2nd Letter of Peter that I quoted on purpose. Why is the author stating that the New Testament stories are not myth? Obviously because the accusation was made. Was it a valid accusation? Maybe yes, maybe not. In any case you would not take the statement from the Bible at face value, i suppose. I hope you see the parallelism.

 

[AveRegina]

Uhm you are new here my friend, you should really look into what applepie has posted and the numerous posts from muslims and non-muslims to him. He has been refuted so many times, just read up on it. You can't just come here and be all new and say we have not refuted him. His threads go way back for years.

I spent some time reading the older posts by ApplePie7 and their responses. I did not see that he was refuted. What I saw was the posting of translations that were different from his translation. That does not make him wrong, though.

He could be wrong, he could be wright. Just posting different translations does not settle the matter. I am aware of a verse of the Letter to the Hebrews that I am convinced is wrongly translated by all Bible translations.

The only fact that you have shown is that his translations are different from the ones you are used to. They are, to say the least, non-traditional. That does not make them wrong or right.

Then the postings descended into rhetoric with close to no content.

 

[AveRegina]

after a few years you just get tired of refuting him, that's why I posted that example of him repeating himself.

You are assuming that you refuted him

 

[AveRegina]

Those words described his actions well.

Since you are new here, you can read his postings. His premise was that Christians wrote the Quran (can you believe that?)

Actually I could at least consider it as a working hypothesis. There is nothing historically strange about it. After all:

1. Islam is younger than Christianity
2. Large part of Qur'an is based on the Bible and other Christian literature
3. Christians lived in that time in that place

So, what is strange about that? The New Testament was written, at least in great part, by Jews.

and Applepie changed the words of the Quran to suit his agenda.

What do you mean? Did he change the Arabic text? I sincerely doubt that unless he had any manuscript evidence to back that up.

Give me another date, then.

I expressed a doubt. The fact that I do not know the answer to a question does not make your answer automatically correct. It could be, but you would need some supporting evidence.

(i) The inscriptions are part of the Quran.

(ii) The earliest Quran found is, I believe, the Sana'a Quran. Carbon dating of some of the parchments to 645-690 AD. You can google to find out more about the Sana'a Quran.

Concerning (i) you have provided no evidence for that. Concerning Sana'a, thanks for the information. I will have to read about it. Of course if (ii) is correct, then you are correct about (i)

 

[ApplePie7]

Not exactly what you are asking for, but a good start: Christoph Luxenberg. See Wikipedia




OK, I see you do not want to be specific. Fair enough, there is not much information there to begin with. Well, we agree that the inscription is pre-Qur'anic. Now what? What is the motivation for the writing of this inscription? Is it Chalcedonian or non-Chalcedonian? Was it directed at Unitarian Christians? Why would the political authority of that time and place, let us assume it was Abd al-Malik, have made this structure in the first place? How does this understanding affect the understanding of the origin of the Qur'an and Islam? Those are the interesting questions.

I do not think that you can just write that the inscription is "trinitarian" and that just stop there. You have to make it part of a historical hypothesis, otherwise it just hangs there and no one can take it seriously.

Have you noticed the name "Abd al-Malik"? Does it mean "servant of the king?" It that is so, who is this king? Could it mean that he considered himself to be a representative of the Roman Emperor in Constantinople? Sort of like Odoacer in Italy?

Thanks for your continued replies and interest brother…

Yes…the essays from Luxenberg are most compelling – especially his Dome of the Rock re-evaluation….and the conclusion that the original Muhammad was the Biblical Jesus Christ.

Same conclusion that I came to by simple Koranic exegesis years ago.

Different method, same conclusion.


As you are probably already aware, there are numerous other scholars who are into similar types of research, such as Popp, Gilliot, Pre’mare, Warraq, Larcher, Noseda, Fedeli, Puin, and Ohlig.

It would be great to uncover some lectionaries that exactly followed the Koranic suras. If you ever come across some, be sure to let me know…

From my own studies, I believe that the Koran was merely directly translated from the original Biblical languages of Hebrew & Greek. The Koran just follows too closely to these languages to have been derived from an intermediate language. The Greek, especially, follows the Majority text versions and Westcott-Hort, over that of the Textus Receptus.


From the wording in the Dome of the Rock and later in the Koran, there seems to have been the need to set the Biblical record straight. As such, the concept of the Trinity is entirely Biblical and permeates all the way through from Genesis to Revelation.

Thus, when both the Dome of the Rock and the Koran make numerous statements of a plural entity – even the most obvious “we” statements, we can be sure of the Triune concept coming through – as 'Plural of Majesty' simply did not exist anywhere in the ANE, including Arabia, at this time.

As for who claims responsibility…we do have the name of Abd Al-Malik – which seems a likely candidate for a new Christian movement intended to unite all the Christians in the Arabian empire.