"Salvation" and "Enlightenment"

Discussion in 'Belief and Spirituality' started by CobblersApprentice, Jul 6, 2019.

  1. muhammad_isa

    muhammad_isa Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2019
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    42
    The Qur'an states that it only appeared that Jesus was crucified.
    That doesn't necessarily mean that he wasn't strung on the cross .. it could mean that he didn't die on it.
    The Romans weren't concerned about Jesus, but the Jews were. They plotted to kill him, just as Muhammad's tribe plotted to kill him.
     
  2. StevePame

    StevePame Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    993
    Likes Received:
    206
    Yeah, I think probably a different thread.
     
    CobblersApprentice likes this.
  3. Thomas

    Thomas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,913
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Nope. I believe the Bible is Revelation.

    Er, I rather think you are reading what one person believes and what you believe as being substantially different. It's not.

    I believe the Bible is Revelation because God says so.
    You believe the Qur'an is Revelation because God says so.
    See ... ?

    Science and scholarship has really disproved those who claim it has been. The comparison of the various texts in existence, the writings of the Church Fathers who quote extensively from Scripture, the Qmran finds ... in all this evidence, there is nothing that indicates a significant difference in the text, let alone signs of corruption ...

    Actually, the idea that the Qur'an was edited by one person and the authorised version produced is not at all accurate and discreetly overlooks a number of issues regarding the source material. There is a huge amount of scholarship that challenges the given narrative of its origin (see wiki, for example).

    In short, there is ample reason and evidence to doubt the Qur'an. I'm not saying it's fake, I'm not saying it's not Revelation, I'm simply saying in my belief, on evidence, that:
    A) The Qur'an is not free of error, nor was its formation as clean and simple as Moslem PR would have us believe. That's not to say it's corrupted, but simply that the idea that it is preserved free of error (as Inerrant Christians assert of the Bible) is somewhat a romantic and rose-tinted view.

    B) With regard to Christianity, two further points:
    B1) The narrative stories of Jesus were spurious and dismissed by early authorities. Remember that Mary, His mother, was at the heart of the church (Luke got his narrative stories directly from her). These fictional narratives did not emerge until centuries later, and had no provenance.
    B2) The Christians in the Prophet's (pbuh) world were Docetists, and the Docetists believed that it was not Christ, but another, who was crucified in His place. Again, science and scholarship has dismissed this error, but apparently the Prophet (pbuh) received this information from Docetic sources, which his followers assumed to be from the Angel.

    There is evidence of material in the Qur'an that has pre-Islamic Christian origins. The selection and upbringing of Mary parallels much of the Protovangelium of James, with the miracle of the palm tree and the stream of water being found in the Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew. In Pseudo-Matthew, the flight to Egypt is narrated similarly to how it is found in Islamic lore, and the infancy tales in the Protoevangelium of James and The Infancy Story of Thomas.

    Regarding the Qur'an:
    According to the Tradition, the Prophet recited perfectly what the archangel Gabriel revealed to him and this was memorised by his companions.

    Muslims are taught that text today corresponds exactly to that spoken by the Prophet between 610–632.

    Early Arabic script transcribed 28 consonants, of which only 6 can be readily distinguished, the remaining 22 can only be determined by context. It was only with the introduction of Arabic diacritics centuries later, that the authorised version of the text was issued.

    The precise way to read the verses of the sacred text were not fixed even in the day of the Prophet. Two men disputing a verse asked a third to mediate, and he came up with a third reading. To resolve the question, the three went to Muhammad.
    He asked first man to read out the verse, and announced it was correct.
    He made the same response when the second alternative reading was delivered.
    When he heard the third version, he pronounced it correct.
    Noting their perplexity, Muhammad then told him, "Pray to God for protection from the accursed Satan."

    So there is no 'authorised' reading of the text.

    In Muir's The Life of Mahomet the author was researching the 9th century Imam Al-Bukhari:
    "Reliance upon oral traditions, at a time when they were transmitted by memory alone, and every day produced new divisions among the professors of Islam, opened up a wide field for fabrication and distortion. There was nothing easier, when required to defend any religious or political system, than to appeal to an oral tradition of the Prophet. The nature of these so-called traditions, and the manner in which the name of Muhammad was abused to support all possible lies and absurdities, may be gathered most clearly from the fact that Al-Bukhari who travelled from land to land to gather from the learned the traditions they had received, came to conclusion, after many years sifting, that out of 600,000 traditions, ascertained by him to be then current, only 4000 were authentic!" (my emphasis)

    According to contemporary sources, there was no single compiled book by the time of Muhammad's death.

    Worse than that ... Catholic!

    So way I, and frankly am appalled by general Christian education. I embarked on years of the study of comparative religion, and later did a degree in Catholic theology.

    I have no axe to grind with Islam, and I'm not saying the Qur'an is not revealed ... just not all of it ... my primary interest is in the human struggle towards God, and I see the Bible as a story of emergence along that path.

    As a metaphysician I dispute 'successive revelation' — Truth is Eternal and One, and no amount of contemporary language will make it more accessible. It is the role of theologians to 'unpack' the message and bring it to life, as it were.
     
    CobblersApprentice likes this.
  4. Thomas

    Thomas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,913
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Er, no ... I don't know where you got that idea from ... the reasoning of the crucifixion is quite clear, it was political.
     
  5. Thomas

    Thomas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,913
    Likes Received:
    1,084
    Yes ... but not 'most Christians' ... from what I am told, most Christians in the US pay more attention to the OT than the NT!

    I'm sorry, but this is factually wrong.

    The Roman occupation of Jerusalem was a 'poisoned chalice', the Jews were the most dangerous and difficult people in the Empire, which was why they alone were allowed to perform their own religious rituals and not observe the Roman state religion. Any Jewish disturbance was a threat to Roman rule. The Sanhedrin wanted Jesus out of the way because they feared a popular uprising and a subsequent Roman response ... Pilate wanted nothing to do with it because he didn't want to create a populist martyr ... he was 'obliged' by the Sanhedrin to act because they threatened to appeal to Rome that their procurator was not being sufficiently robust in his dealings with criminals ...
     
  6. muhammad_isa

    muhammad_isa Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2019
    Messages:
    241
    Likes Received:
    42
    @Thomas
    I have started a new thread as recommended by @StevePame titled "Salvation and Belief"
    You will find my replies to you there
     
    StevePame likes this.

Share This Page