Christians attacking the Qur'an

[Melchior]

In my travels through the web sites of the internet looking for answers to my questions, I came across this interesting Christian site http://answering-islam.org.

One of the authors of the site put together a list of difficulties in the Qur’an that point out many of its historic errors and internal logic contradictions with the attempt to prove that it is not from the one true God.  This is very similar to what many of the atheist have done to disprove Christianity and Judism, so I thought this to be very interesting.

While some of it is good, though the author uses some very literalist readings of the Qur’an, like Solomon listening to ants, to prove a fallacy by saying that ants don’t talk.
But one of his arguments takes the cake.

As many of you know, the Qur’an has its own ideas on Christ and his followers including that Jesus was not crucified and resurrected.  The author uses this to prove that the Qur’an must be false, because the crucifixion is the best documented fact of history in the time of antiquity!  http://answering-islam.org/Why-not/10history.html

I almost fell out of my chair when I read that.

Anyone else have any experience with Muslim Apologetics or Christian attempts to disqualify the Qur'an?

 

[feral]

i am sadly lacking in much experience with islam...but i recently recieved a quran and i am reading it...and it seems quite similar to the christian bible in many ideals, style and also in reported stories, etc. i don't believe the crucifixation of christ (unproven scientifically) can disprove any other religious belief. they are all the same....you're worshipping the creator, and limiting your perception of it to one religious definition. creator is creator, defying all labels and all reductions...

 

[seebs]

I have talked to a few Muslims about their faith, and it seems to me that they have exactly the same problem we do - people keep trying to put God in some kind of box and tell Him what He should condone. People take stories out of context, and try to apply the wrong messages, or apply the right messages to the wrong things.

 

[agnostic front]

Actually, I think the crucifixion of Jesus is one of the best attested facts of history. All the gospels mention it, Paul mentions it, other writings in the NT mention it. I think Josephus and another non-Christian writer in that era mentioned it. Crucifixion was used by the Romans to execute troublemakers. Jesus was making trouble in Jerusalem and his followers were probably proclaiming him as the Messiah, King of the Jews. All this (and probably other factors lost to history) probably led to Pilate executing Jesus. I'd say his crucifixion is the one of the few things we can say about Jesus that is very likely historical. I think the Qur'an is incorrect on the claim that Jesus was not crucified.

 

[Outspoken]

"Anyone else have any experience with Muslim Apologetics or Christian attempts to disqualify the Qur'an?"

Having read the Koran (western spelling) the best evidience against it is God himself If you want to talk about the cruifixion, its pretty silly. Islam thinks somehow they had a case of mistaken idenity. If you read anything about the romans, or their 'army' you know this is pretty far fetched.

 

[Mephster]

I actually know quite a bit about Islam.... (Medieval philosophy of Alfarabi, Avicenna, Averroes).... plus am good friend of Egyptian Secretary. I have been (bit by bit) developing more knowledge of Arabic and research of Islam.

Most of the Christians that I run across, seem very afraid or angry regarding Islam. Generally, though, I would be extremely suspect of anyone "interpreting" or "explaining" Islam etc. unless they have proven, solid credentials.

Is there a specific question you were asking?

Oh, and .... (to: agnostic front).... Josephus, Tacitus, and the writers of the Didache are the ones you are thinking of.

P.S. to any Muslims: Happy Eid!

 

[crazyfingers]

Today at 08:42 PM Outspoken said this in Post #5

"Anyone else have any experience with Muslim Apologetics or Christian attempts to disqualify the Qur'an?"

Having read the Koran (western spelling) the best evidience against it is God himself If you want to talk about the cruifixion, its pretty silly. Islam thinks somehow they had a case of mistaken idenity. If you read anything about the romans, or their 'army' you know this is pretty far fetched.

And you think that rising from the dead is prefectly reasonable???

 

 



 

 

[Outspoken]

"And you think that rising from the dead is prefectly reasonable???"

You forget the accompanying eyewitness accounts. I do see your point though, but they don't say it was a miricle, just a case of mistaken idenity because no one from God dies in that way. I think thats just funny since Islamics die "like that" or did so in the past. If you want to focus on my post I would focus on God being the evidience that disproves the Koran.

 

[Havoc]

There aren't any eyewitness accounts. There are claims of eyewitness accounts. Whole different ballgame. I wonder how come we keep having to go over this?

 

[Outspoken]

"There are claims of eyewitness accounts."

okay, they have more validity then any other historical ancient work. You believe in Julius, thus you give validity to an account that actually has less of a claim then these accounts you are referenceing to. Wow..double standard..imagine that..

 

[mala]

Today at 04:55 AM Outspoken said this in Post #10

"There are claims of eyewitness accounts."

okay, they have more validity then any other historical ancient work. You believe in Julius, thus you give validity to an account that actually has less of a claim then these accounts you are referenceing to. Wow..double standard..imagine that..

 

caesar never claimed to come back from the dead

infact he didnt claim anything at all

he was quite dead

 

[crazyfingers]

Yesterday at 11:55 PM Outspoken said this in Post #10

"There are claims of eyewitness accounts."

okay, they have more validity then any other historical ancient work.

On what basis do you make this judgement?

You believe in Julius, thus you give validity to an account that actually has less of a claim then these accounts you are referenceing to.

Are you talking about Julius Ceasar? On what basis do you claim that accounts that Ceasar existed are less valid than a claim of a resurection of Christ?

Wow..double standard..imagine that..

Gratuitous jab that has not been demonstrated to be true.




 

 

[Zico]

4:157 And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger They slew him not nor crucified, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture ; they slew him not for certain.

We believe in the crucifiction, but not that of Christ, God made somebody else look like him, and that someone is probably the same person who tried to sell Christ.

 

[Online Bible Debator]

This is probably going to cause major madness in this forum but i would like to say this. If you remember Bush said that Islam is a religion of peace? No it's not! The very scriptures of the quran prove that it supports fighting not peace. To overcome anyone who attacts them.Their enemies ect. Jesus Taught us to turn the other cheek. I believe that Jesus is more peaceful than the false God of Allah which many seen to believe in. If there was such a kind og God i would hope the God would be loving. But we have found the loving God. He's the King of Jews. The Lord of Lords the Redemer, King of Kings, Prince of Peace!

 

[Outspoken]

"caesar never claimed to come back from the dead "

So? Are you telling me that its an outragious claim? Love to see some odds on it or hear you say, "I haven't seen it so therefore it doesn't happen" LOL.


"On what basis do you make this judgement?"

1. amount of copies of said document 2. the closeness to the date written to the date of event 3. distribution of copies ..these are the general things taken into account when addressing acient historical works and validity.

the bible out weighs pretty much any other work out there.

"Gratuitous jab that has not been demonstrated to be true.
"

It wasn't a jab at all...Do you believe Mr Ceaser exsisted or did the amazing things he did..like taking over an empire?

 

[crazyfingers]

Today at 08:52 PM Outspoken said this in Post #15

"On what basis do you make this judgement?"

1. amount of copies of said document 2. the closeness to the date written to the date of event 3. distribution of copies ..these are the general things taken into account when addressing acient historical works and validity.

In other words you are either unable or unwilling to specify on what basis you think that there is more evidence for a resurrection than that Caesar existed. Not a surprise. In fact, expected. 

the bible out weighs pretty much any other work out there.

That is purely a statement of faith; not of fact. And faith is an unreliable means of attaining knowledge.  It is disconnected from facts and reason.  There is no way to know whether something believed by faith is true because faith need not connect to reality in any way.

"Gratuitous jab that has not been demonstrated to be true.
"

It wasn't a jab at all...

Then what was it? 

Do you believe Mr Ceaser exsisted or did the amazing things he did..like taking over an empire? 

As with most things that I accept, given that he was just a man with no alleged superhuman qualities and there is a huge amount written on him from the times that he lived by both his friends and his enemies, I tentatively accept that he existed until such time that there is evidence that he did not.

 

[Outspoken]

"In other words you are either unable or unwilling to specify on what basis you think that there is more evidence for a resurrection than that Caesar existed."

Noo...I just gave you the basis for ruling the bible is a more reliable document then those that talk about caesar. Did you not see that?

"That is purely a statement of faith;"

Noo...its documented. Why don't you tell me how many copies exsist of an ancient work, where they are found and the closeness of the copy to the orginal date of the event then we can compare. Until then I can just assume you're not willing to engage into a meaningful dialogue.

"I tentatively accept that he existed until such time that there is evidence that he did not."

So you dont' think ruling the world by force when people don't want you to? Surviving mulitple assination attempts, building a wonder of the world? You've got to be joking about him not claiming "superhuman" qualities.....So again, what are the odds on winning over the world, or other world changing events versus rising from the dead..or are you just gonna sit behind the, "I don't see it so its not true" osterage (sp) defence?

 

[crazyfingers]

 

 

[Outspoken]

 

 

[Doctrine1st]

Today at 02:45 AM Outspoken said this in Post #17 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=649853#post649853)

Noo...I just gave you the basis for ruling the bible is a more reliable document then those that talk about caesar. Did you not see that?

Just curious, but what do people mean by "reliable document?"

Reliable as in consistant or reliable as in the truth?