Hurrah for Wheaton's faculty!

[smaneck]

I know Hadith are not Scripture, but the Quran is incomplete.

Nonsense.

There are not many Quran only Muslims.

No, there aren't. That doesn't mean the Qur'an is incomplete. Still less does it mean Muhammad actually did the things ascribed to him in the hadith.

Bukhari is the most trusted and those following the word sahih which means authentic.

For Sunnis, not Shi'ites.

If you were to speak truth of the violent half of Mohammad and Islam - wouldt that destroy your religion?

Does the fact the Bible authorized genocide in the Old Testament destroy your religion?
We don't question the fact that Muhammad defended his community militarily. But his actions were certainly much more circumscribed than those of the Prophets of the Old Testament.

 

[simplegifts]

Nonsense.

No, there aren't. That doesn't mean the Qur'an is incomplete. Still less does it mean Muhammad actually did the things ascribed to him in the hadith.

For Sunnis, not Shi'ites.

Does the fact the Bible authorized genocide in the Old Testament destroy your religion?
We don't question the fact that Muhammad defended his community militarily. But his actions were certainly much more circumscribed than those of the Prophets of the Old Testament.

LOL! I know. We are not even sure the Quran was composed by Mohammad..

The majority of Muslims view the Quran as incomplete. Just one comment from many:
http://askthescholar.com/question-details.aspx?qstID=665
"Hadith is integral to the Qur’an; since they are inseparably linked to each other, it is impossible to understand the Qur’an without reference to Hadith. The Qur’an is the message, and the Hadith is the explanation of the message by the Messenger himself.
.....
Therefore, Hadith explains, clarifies, and removes ambiguities about the Qur’an. Hence, once we reject the Hadith, we may never be able to figure out the whole meaning of the Qur’an.

2. Much of Islam will remain mere abstract concepts without Hadith. We would never know how to pray, fast, pay zakah, or make pilgrimage without the illustration found in Hadith, for these acts of worship remain as abstract imperatives in the Qur’an.

3. The Qur’an tells us the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) has taught not only the Book but also the wisdom (See Qur’an: 96:2; 33:34; 4:113, etc.) As Imam Shafi`i stated, the wisdom mentioned here is the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him); so if we were to reject the Hadith, we would be rejecting the Qur’an itself.

4. The Qur’an tells us to obey the Messenger and abide by his decision:
...
the Qur’an orders the faithful to emulate the role model of the Messenger and reckons it as the only way to gain the pleasure of Allah. It is therefore imperative that we look up to his morals and behavior and emulate them in our lives. We can never do so without studying the Hadith."

I am surprised you don't understand the Old Testament commands. The information as to why something was ordered is right there in the actual Scripture. Unlike the Quran which is so incomplete one must go to outside sources in an attempt to find context. Interesting too is the fact that the quran is not in chronological order - further muddies the teachings.

 

[smaneck]

LOL! I know. We are not even sure the Quran was composed by Mohammad..

A Muslim would say it is composed by God. Regardless, no reputable scholar would suggest that it comes from other than a single source. The style of the composition is too consistent. In any case, funny you should even mention a question of authorship given the fact that other than a few of the letters ascribed to Paul there is no consensus as to the authorship of any of the books of the Bible.

The majority of Muslims view the Quran as incomplete. Just one comment from many:

You haven't posted a single statement from a Muslim saying the Qur'an is incomplete. They are simply saying ahadith give context to the Qur'an.

I am surprised you don't understand the Old Testament commands.

I understand them quite well, probably much better than you.

The information as to why something was ordered is right there in the actual Scripture.

So? Doesn't change the fact that genocide was ordered.

Unlike the Quran which is so incomplete one must go to outside sources in an attempt to find context.

We go outside the scripture in order to understand context of a lot of things in the Bible. What do you think Biblical Archaeology is all about?

Interesting too is the fact that the quran is not in chronological order - further muddies the teachings.

Only for an outsider like yourself. Just because the suras of the Qur'an are not in chronological order doesn't mean we don't know the order of their composition.

 

[simplegifts]

A Muslim would say it is composed by God. Regardless, no reputable scholar would suggest that it comes from other than a single source. The style of the composition is too consistent. In any case, funny you should even mention a question of authorship given the fact that other than a few of the letters ascribed to Paul there is no consensus as to the authorship of any of the books of the Bible.

You haven't posted a single statement from a Muslim saying the Qur'an is incomplete. They are simply saying ahadith give context to the Qur'an.

I understand them quite well, probably much better than you.

So? Doesn't change the fact that genocide was ordered.

We go outside the scripture in order to understand context of a lot of things in the Bible. What do you think Biblical Archaeology is all about?

Only for an outsider like yourself. Just because the suras of the Qur'an are not in chronological order doesn't mean we don't know the order of their composition.

Yes Uthman, who then burned all the originals. Yes consistently ambiguous and jumbled. That is now as time has advanced, but then there was no question.

No statement is needed, they are witnesses by their actions.

If you did you would not have brought it up. Your comments don't support your argument. For a limited time, for specific reasons, for a specific people.

Biblical archaeology is more about proof of an event not the understanding of Scripture.

Not without hadith.

 

[smaneck]

Yes Uthman, who then burned all the originals. Yes consistently ambiguous and jumbled.

I'm sorry you have so much trouble understanding the Qur'an. I don't.

Biblical archaeology is more about proof of an event not the understanding of Scripture.

Not when it done by genuine academic scholars and archaeologists rather than apologists trying to find Noah's Ark.

 

[simplegifts]

I'm sorry you have so much trouble understanding the Qur'an. I don't.



Not when it done by genuine academic scholars and archaeologists rather than apologists trying to find Noah's Ark.

The issue is not so much understanding, but the ability for the Scripture to be twisted.

What? Are you saying that the bit of Scripture concerning Noah can not be understood until we find Noah's Ark?

 

[smaneck]

The issue is not so much understanding, but the ability for the Scripture to be twisted.

If the Bible was not easily twisted there would not be so many sects of Christianity.

What? Are you saying that the bit of Scripture concerning Noah can not be understood until we find Noah's Ark?

Nooo. I'm saying that people who go around looking for Noah's Ark or other things to 'prove' the Bible are not real archaeologists.

 

[simplegifts]

If the Bible was not easily twisted there would not be so many sects of Christianity.



Nooo. I'm saying that people who go around looking for Noah's Ark or other things to 'prove' the Bible are not real archaeologists.

Are you speaking of denomination? If so this is not so much about twisting Scriptures but how Christians want to celebrate our faith. If you are speaking of heresies - these are the result of following proven spurious, false gospels, or trusting Apocrypha as being GoD's inspired word.

LOL!! I agree.

 

[smaneck]

Are you speaking of denomination?

Christians seem to prefer that term.

If so this is not so much about twisting Scriptures but how Christians want to celebrate our faith.

Only in America. Elsewhere they represent true theological differences.

If you are speaking of heresies - these are the result of following proven spurious, false gospels, or trusting Apocrypha as being GoD's inspired word.

The entire church accepted the Apocrypha until some Protestants threw them out in the 17th century. By what authority, I know not.

 

[simplegifts]

Christians seem to prefer that term.



Only in America. Elsewhere they represent true theological differences.



The entire church accepted the Apocrypha until some Protestants threw them out in the 17th century. By what authority, I know not.

Goodness we have gone off topic!

Depends on how the words are defined. Some define sect as an offshoot of a denomination, others more of a geographical issue, even as heretical, some no difference between sect and denomination?

Such as, ....
Not true - The earliest Canons did not list Apocrypha. Even the later Council of Rome had just 46 Old Testament Books.
Studying the reason why is interesting. There are no direct quotes from Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical, allusions but no quotes in the New Testament. Of the early church fathers Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen and Jerome. opposed the use of Apocrypha and Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria.

Considering the spurious or false gospels - Hereseies Sabellianism, Adoptionism, Apollinarianism, etc. came from outside the true New Testament. For example Mormonism came from using a Scripture outside the New Testament.

Mohammad seems to have been greatly confused about the various Christian heresies. Explains why some of his comments about Christians and their beliefs are so far off the mark.
Interesting read: http://taylormarshall.com/2015/11/is-islam-a-heresy-or-world-religion-legos-and-muhammad.html

How can Baha'i believe Islam is a legitimate religion since Mohammad lowered the moral standards of God?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

There are no direct quotes from Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical, allusions but no quotes in the New Testament.

Jude 1:14-15 is a direct quote from Enoch 1:9.

 

[smaneck]

Depends on how the words are defined. Some define sect as an offshoot of a denomination, others more of a geographical issue, even as heretical, some no difference between sect and denomination?

Here is the definition of a sect:

"a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong."

The larger group is of course Catholicism.

Such as, ....
Not true - The earliest Canons did not list Apocrypha.

The earliest canon was Marcion's and it was heretical.

Even the later Council of Rome had just 46 Old Testament Books.

Which is seven books more than are found in Protestant Bibles.

There are no direct quotes from Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical, allusions but no quotes in the New Testament.

Actually some apocrypha books that don't even make into the Catholic canon are quoted, the Book of Enoch being foremost.

Of the early church fathers Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen and Jerome. opposed the use of Apocrypha and Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria.

Wrong. Athanasius includes Baruch as part of the canon. He mentions other books "as appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness" but doesn't include them in the canon. I know of no place where he voices opposition to their use. St. Cyril is more negative towards the Apocrypha yet he too quotes from them and includes Baruch as part of the canon, as well as Wisdom. As for Origen, he includes both Baruch and 1st and 2nd Maccabees as part of the canon. He also speaks approvingly of the Septuagint which contains the entire Apocrypha. As for St. Jerome, his criticism of the Apocrypha is the harshest yet he is the one responsible for the Vulgate Bible which contains those books, so obviously he didn't oppose their use.

Considering the spurious or false gospels - Hereseies Sabellianism, Adoptionism, Apollinarianism, etc. came from outside the true New Testament. For example Mormonism came from using a Scripture outside the New Testament.

Relevance?

Mohammad seems to have been greatly confused about the various Christian heresies.

The Qur'an talks about the forms of Christianity present in Arabia at the time, nothing else.

How can Baha'i believe Islam is a legitimate religion since Mohammad lowered the moral standards of God?

Since your premise is wrong, your question is meaningless.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

IIRC in the koran surah Kafiroon ways the unbelievers whorship not Allah.

I htink they have A the theology different, and B the expressions and forms of worship different.

The two are linked. If I say do and you not, you are not OBEYING me.

By analogy the same holds true in matters of faith.

 

[simplegifts]

Jude 1:14-15 is a direct quote from Enoch 1:9.

Quoting is just one point in meeting the criteria to get included in canon. It is a bit more involved then saying a self-proclaimed prophet said it was Scripture so it is [thinking of the fable in the Quran here] .

So your theory is that if history were quoted it would be Scripture? Paul quotes Epimenides and some other known pagan works. WHY? People would know the works, know what he was referring to, but is the book referred to as Scripture? When Paul quotes Luke and Deuteronomy he says it is Scripture.

Do the books claim inspiration? Mohammad does but for himself, but is a myth passed off as truth? Yes.
Were the authors eyewitnesses or students of the eyewitnesses? Mohammad had no eyewitnesses. When were the books written? Are there historical errors other then just the usual errors produced by Scribes?

 

[smaneck]

So your theory is that if history were quoted it would be Scripture?

His theory? You are the one who brought up the issue of whether the Apocrypha was quoted in the NT!

When Paul quotes Luke and Deuteronomy he says it is Scripture.

Huh? Where does Paul quote Luke? Luke hadn't been written in Paul's time.

Were the authors eyewitnesses or students of the eyewitnesses? Mohammad had no eyewitnesses.

Huh? The entire ahadith claims to be eyewitness accounts.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Quoting is just one point in meeting the criteria to get included in canon. It is a bit more involved then saying a self-proclaimed prophet said it was Scripture so it is [thinking of the fable in the Quran here] .

So your theory is that if history were quoted it would be Scripture? Paul quotes Epimenides and some other known pagan works. WHY? People would know the works, know what he was referring to, but is the book referred to as Scripture? When Paul quotes Luke and Deuteronomy he says it is Scripture.

Do the books claim inspiration? Mohammad does but for himself, but is a myth passed off as truth? Yes.
Were the authors eyewitnesses or students of the eyewitnesses? Mohammad had no eyewitnesses. When were the books written? Are there historical errors other then just the usual errors produced by Scribes?

Well, actually, I was just pointing out that you specifically said there were no direct quotes from Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical sources in the New Testament right here…

“Such as, ....

Not true - The earliest Canons did not list Apocrypha. Even the later Council of Rome had just 46 Old Testament Books. Studying the reason why is interesting. There are no direct quotes from Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical, allusions but no quotes in the New Testament. Of the early church fathers Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen and Jerome. opposed the use of Apocrypha and Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria.”

By showing a DIRECT QUOTE from Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical sources in the New Testament. (Book of Enoch)

 

[simplegifts]

Here is the definition of a sect:

"a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong."

The larger group is of course Catholicism.



The earliest canon was Marcion's and it was heretical.



Which is seven books more than are found in Protestant Bibles.



Actually some apocrypha books that don't even make into the Catholic canon are quoted, the Book of Enoch being foremost.



Wrong. Athanasius includes Baruch as part of the canon. He mentions other books "as appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness" but doesn't include them in the canon. I know of no place where he voices opposition to their use. St. Cyril is more negative towards the Apocrypha yet he too quotes from them and includes Baruch as part of the canon, as well as Wisdom. As for Origen, he includes both Baruch and 1st and 2nd Maccabees as part of the canon. He also speaks approvingly of the Septuagint which contains the entire Apocrypha. As for St. Jerome, his criticism of the Apocrypha is the harshest yet he is the one responsible for the Vulgate Bible which contains those books, so obviously he didn't oppose their use.



Relevance?



The Qur'an talks about the forms of Christianity present in Arabia at the time, nothing else.



Since your premise is wrong, your question is meaningless.

.

Here is the definition of a sect:

"a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong."

The larger group is of course Catholicism.



The earliest canon was Marcion's and it was heretical.



Which is seven books more than are found in Protestant Bibles.



Actually some apocrypha books that don't even make into the Catholic canon are quoted, the Book of Enoch being foremost.



Wrong. Athanasius includes Baruch as part of the canon. He mentions other books "as appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness" but doesn't include them in the canon. I know of no place where he voices opposition to their use. St. Cyril is more negative towards the Apocrypha yet he too quotes from them and includes Baruch as part of the canon, as well as Wisdom. As for Origen, he includes both Baruch and 1st and 2nd Maccabees as part of the canon. He also speaks approvingly of the Septuagint which contains the entire Apocrypha. As for St. Jerome, his criticism of the Apocrypha is the harshest yet he is the one responsible for the Vulgate Bible which contains those books, so obviously he didn't oppose their use.



Relevance?



The Qur'an talks about the forms of Christianity present in Arabia at the time, nothing else.



Since your premise is wrong, your question is meaningless.

So you use the negative connotation (typically regarded as heretical) which is what I was afraid of. Denominations basically have less doctrine then the Catholic but hold original core beliefs. Agree on the creeds.

There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second 1 being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth 2 as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second 3 are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.

That is Jeremiah with Baruch Read Jeremiah 36

But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings. But such are the invention of heretics, who indeed write them whenever they wish, bestowing upon them their approval, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as if they were ancient writings, they find a means by which to lead astray the simple-minded.

Do you/Baha'i not make a difference between inspired Scripture and books that can lead you to godliness?

Relevance? We were discussing sects vs denominations. Right on cue yu mention heresies. Heresies have come about from outside Scripture. Mohammad's heresies are from thought outside Scripture, just as Mormonism. If you do ot have a solid base you have nothing.

The premise is truth.

 

[simplegifts]

LOL! Computer shut off in the middle of replying.

 

[simplegifts]

Well, actually, I was just pointing out that you specifically said there were no direct quotes from Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical sources in the New Testament right here…

“Such as, ....

Not true - The earliest Canons did not list Apocrypha. Even the later Council of Rome had just 46 Old Testament Books. Studying the reason why is interesting. There are no direct quotes from

His theory? You are the one who brought up the issue of whether the Apocrypha was quoted in the NT!



Huh? Where does Paul quote Luke? Luke hadn't been written in Paul's time.



Huh? The entire ahadith claims to be eyewitness accounts.

allusions but no quotes in the New Testament. Of the early church fathers Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen and Jerome. opposed the use of Apocrypha and Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria.”

By showing a DIRECT QUOTE from Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical sources in the New Testament. (Book of Enoch)

Notice he says For the Scripture says
1 Timothy 5:18For the Scripture says, "Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain,"[a] and "The worker deserves his wages."(b)

Footnotes:
[a] Deut. 25:4
(b) Luke 10:7

Gotcha should say quotes that claim to be Scripture.

So now hadith is considered Scripture? Eyewitnesses to the words/revelations Mohammad received.

 

[simplegifts]

Oh my! My computer does not like the quoting feature.

Luke:A.D. 60
1 Timothy:A.D. 64