originally posted by JJWhite
I honestly wouldn't know. I have heard that some of the Christian groups in Arabia were actually Unitarian... the words I've read being used are Ebionites, Jacobites, Nestorians???
I have only read bits of material, but understand that heretics generally left the main areas to practice their heretical beliefs. The southern part of Israel is directly above Arabia; so, that logically makes sense that some of them would go south to Arabia.
Those groups that you have mentioned are considered heretical. And since you mentioned it, Unitarians are often used by Muslims as proof that early Christians were "pure monotheists". Unitarianism did not develop until the 1600s, although there may have been some around in early Christianity.
I was just saying, that as a Muslim who believes in the Qur'aan, I believe in Scripture that was revealed to Moses and Jesus specifically because they are mentioned, not because they have common points. If I don't make sense, it's probably because I'm tired.
I understand you now; but, I find it a great leap of faith to believe in messages that are supposed to be contained within a corrupt text and also believe in messages of people that are not even given to you in the Qu'ran. The Qu'ran doesn't list those messages so that you could know and believe in them. There is no message laid out like in the Bible with examples of prophets such as Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Jesus. The Qu'ran basically narrates stories and does not show the actual messages of earlier prophets.
MY thinking/understanding at the time I was typing that (which hasn't changed until now).
OK.
I agree that the earlier scholars were more knowledgeable and had better understanding. Do note that there are differences in opinion though, on many matters, EVEN AMONG Muhammad's (pbuh) immediate companions. So, you cannot judge by reading just what one had to say about something. Also, one has to be familiar with each one's methodology etc.
I don't judge by just one person, but it still stands that the collective information gives me a good idea of what is most likely to be true about Islam.
Well, the Qur'an itself speaks of 'tahreef' of previous Scriptures. What that means has been an object of dispute amongst scholars since early on.
Like I said, nowhere does the Qu'ran talk of any wide scale corruption. It was always spoke of distortion of scripture from the people around Mohammad. Ask yourself this question: How can someone change/distort something if they don't know the original text? The passages in the Qu'ran that I have studied just indicate that there was some kind of distortion in meaning or fabrication of text, but it was always predicated upon the person/group knowing what they had distorted. In other words, they had knowledge of what was distorted but chose to believe contrarily. As I also mentioned before, a hadith tells of Mohammad using the Torah to judge a Jewish couple who had committed adultery. How could he do that if the Torah was corrupted? Also take into account that the Qu'ranic revelation wasn't even complete when this occurred.
I kind of feel like that's easier said than done. I don't think we'll find absolute proof either way.
There may not be an absolute proof,
but we can establish which book is most likely to be more reliable on the facts. As an example: if a Baha'i told you that Jesus was not the final prophet, logically you would say that your scripture came over one thousand years earlier and should be trusted since it is contemporary to the time of Mohammad and his eye witnesses. The Qu'ran is considered a primary source since it is the first account of Mohammad known. Understand that that doesn't make it true, but it does offer more credibility. That is the point. Your question to the Baha'i would be this: How can a prophet over a thousand years later possibly know better than Mohammad and his contemporaries? Do you see what I mean? When evaluating ancient documents, this is part of the critique given to writings. Primary sources are considered more reliable than latter accounts, especially if there is a great gap of time between the two. As with Mohammad, what earlier source(s) can we use other than the Qu'ran, hadith, Islamic history, and some writings of non Islamic people who either lived in or visited Arabia? Are we going to trust an 18th century prophet who makes claims of a new revelation that contradicts Islam? The odds of that happening are very small since it would appear illogical and quite naive to not contest that prophet on the simple grounds that he or she was not contemporary to the facts and has no real tie to Islam. His only defense is to charge that God sent me or God told me the truth. Who would you say is most likely to have the facts, even if there may be varying opinions within Islam--the primary source?
I was just chatting with someone about this the other day. Perhaps there is a way to reconcile the two.
[3:55] Thus, God said, "O Jesus, I am mutawaffeeka, and raising you to Me, and ridding you of the disbelievers. I will exalt those who follow you above those who disbelieve, till the Day of Resurrection. Then to Me is the ultimate destiny of all of you, then I will judge among you regarding your disputes.
There has been dispute over the meaning of the word in italics amongst Muslim scholars. The first meaning that would come to an Arab speaker's mind though is 'have you die'... it is followed by that he will be raised. Some scholars said that Jesus was put into a sleep for some time and then raised. We have bits and pieces of a story, but not the whole thing?
Whatever belief Muslims may have, they can't escape the fact that any reputable historian will conclude that Jesus died and resurrected, based upon the known evidence from both Christian history, Bible, and secular writings. There are too many documents available that confirm what happened. Even the Gnostics believed that Jesus died and resurrected. There was no Christian affiliated group that denied this as being fact in the first century. Their arguments were over other things such as Jesus' divinity, sonship, and relation to the Father.
Remember that we believe that the previous 'Scriptures' are what was revealed to Moses and Jesus and other prophets.
Yet, you don't know what those scriptures were since the Qu'ran doesn't contain them. You have no evidence unless you refer to a corrupt Bible, which isn't very smart.
The NT cannot be that Scripture.
Why not? It is the most documented ancient text that I know of.
There is really no way that you can charge this with the NT since we have a lot of historical information to prove that it is very close to the original writings and does not differ in any principal teaching than what was at Jesus' time. The early Church Fathers extensively quoted many passages from the NT in debates, discussions, and in theological treatises. Keep in mind that these people were not isolated from each other; so, it would be very difficult to organize a conspiracy, especially when the Apostles and other Disciples lived during the initial transmission of the texts.
You could have a stronger case with the OT since we don't have as much textual support for it. Even so, we do know at least what it contained 200 to 300 years before Christ via the Septuagint--Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures.
I fully acknowledge that we have no tangible proof for the existence of a book revealed to Jesus akin to the Torah or Qur'an, but we do believe it was there.
Unfortunately for you, you will never find such a document because it never existed. There is no chance that all, or even a majority of Jesus' followers, could change His teachings in a single agreement and no one else not know of it. Unlike the Qur'an, the NT message was not entrusted to a single person. There was always room for people to contest the scripture(s). It is also worthy to note that even some of the heretical Christians agreed on many of the same points as the Orthodox, which makes it even more unlikely a conspiracy could have taken place. There were just too many people that witnessed these things that one could realistically charge that there was any other text than the one Christians have in the NT today.
My point was that it was confirming that they were really from God.
That is not what the Qu'ran claims. It suggests that the Qu'ran and Bible would be found to agree with each other if one reads them. That is what confirm means. You still are dodging the issue. Confirmations means complete agreement of one thing with another, unless the Qu'ran's definition means something different.
That's logical, but doesn't have to be the case every time.
There may be some exceptions, but the probability that contemporary sources based upon eye witnesses will not be more reliable in the quoting of actual events is too small to assert in ancient writings. The key here is that the contemporaries were eye witnesses of the events and not people commenting centuries later. For some reason, you are willing to divorce your logic from reality when it comes to religious writings. The account of eye witnesses are generally more reliable than those far removed from the events. If you were in an argument with Baha'is, you would quickly understand my point and argue as I am doing now.
Maybe I should have said ONLY... if I even did say only
I did provide scripture that contradicted your notion.
At least you recognize the possibility that Jesus could have gone further than just the Jews in Jerusalem.
All I am asking is that you concede that the text exists and that it was reality to those Disciples of Jesus from a biblical perspective. It is also attested by others in the early Christian churches. The prophecy of this was experienced at Pentecost where the Holy Spirit was witnesses as Jesus promised to guide all believers.
I personally would not do that without a lot of further investigation.
You should investigate, and that goes for any text. Don't just take my word for it. When I see something said about the Qu'ran, I go and try to understand it for myself rather than accepting someone else's understanding.
Did I use the word only? I thought I was clear in saying that prophets would obviously want to spread to the truth to as much of mankind as possible.
I am not going to go and look to see if you did or not, but the normative Islamic contention is that Jesus was sent only to the Jews, which fits in line with their theory that prophets were sent to all people and spoke in their language. That is where the idea that there have been more than 124,000 prophets sent over time. All of them except Mohammad were local prophets. Now, do you understand?
I don't understand, and it's time for iftar, so I have to run... my kids are hungry after fasting. Maybe my brain will work better after I eat.
OK, I will state this is very simplistic terms: Jews were specifically chosen by God to show Himself to the world and complete His prophecies so that the world could be reconciled to Him through Jesus. The Jews were His showcase...His mouthpiece. We can trace the prophecies through them. If you read the books of Genesis and Exodus, you will see that God separated Israel and made them His Oracle people. That is one of the reasons that we know that Mohammad was a false prophet.
I still have to look into this one.
Please do.
Jesus was not a local messenger as Islam teaches. That is the point. Mohammad is the only messenger in Islam that was sent beyond his people. That is why he is said to be sent to all mankind.
Always been a member.
I always say that... like a gazillion times a day. It's just a 'I'm pretty sure I'm right, but I could be wrong' disclaimer
Just be careful that you don't use it as a convenient excuse to not deal with problematic issues. It is important that we engage in difficult issues in our faith. Let me give you a very good example of what I am speaking of. As you know, Islam says that the crucifixion of Christ never took place. Muslims offer several explanations of how the clear cut biblical passage is incorrect. One theory is the swoon theory. All of the theories seem to crumble in front of Christian texts that show that practically all of Christendom believed this from the earliest sources dating within a few years of the event.
Now, when Christians ask how could God deceive every witness (even those who were not Jesus' enemies, including His mother and family and Disciples) to this presumed false crucifixion, we get an often repeated response of "Allah knows best". Such a response doesn't even answer the question. All it does is leave the Muslim with the idea that he or she is free from seriously contemplating on this question and realizing that there really is a problem with the denial of Christ's crucifixion in Islam since nearly all reputable secular scholars agree that the known evidence points to this event.
I'll try to explain why, independent of these factors, I believe that the Qur'an is the word of God at a later time.
Take care.
JJ
OK.
