Is Islam a myth?

[muhammad_isa]

..And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God..

Nothing wrong there..

..thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it..

I doubt that Jesus used the word "church" .. but OK, we get the gist. Jesus trusted him that he believed in him.

The Gospel according to Peter, is an ancient text concerning Jesus Christ, only partially known today. It is considered a non-canonical gospel and was rejected as apocryphal by the Catholic Church's synods of Carthage and Rome, which established the New Testament canon

..and naturally, we can't challenge the "Christian Bible" canon, now, can we.

The same Gospel was in use among the Ebionites, and, in fact, as almost all critics are agreed, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, under various names, such as the Gospel according to Peter, according to the Apostles, the Nazarenes, Ebionites, Egyptians, etc., with modifications certainly, but substantially the same work, was circulated very widely throughout the early Church

..so, we get the Holy Bible .. the Holy Qur'an .. the Holy Grail etc.

People are entitled to believe what they like .. such as Mary is the "mother of God" or the Bible canon was "written by God" etc.

 

[RJM]

the Bible canon was "written by God" etc.

But the Quran was written by God?

and naturally, we can't challenge the "Christian Bible" canon, now, can we.

I'm sorry @muhammad_isa but you keep doing this: you keep making a false point, and then when it is corrected by quoting the scriptural passage in context, you dispute the authenticity.

I don't mean to be rude but it's actually just starting to make you look silly: you need to push your view at any cost regardless of evidence. You don't have a good enough working knowledge of the New Testament to go in and start analysing in detail, as you keep trying to do.

It's very tiring

 

[juantoo3]

But the Quran was written by God?

Bingo.

I'm sorry ... but you keep doing this: you keep making a false point, and then when it is corrected by quoting the scriptural passage in context, you dispute the authenticity.

...and / or quote a passage you've dismissed to support your point. If the passage is dismissed, then it is not a valid source for rebuttal...that is irrational.

 

[juantoo3]

Look, I don't care what you believe. I've written a number of times now, if Islam is the path that feeds your soul, and teaches you, then it is the path for you. But to mock and otherwise deny my path for me, that it is not rational while claiming that your way is rational is less than intellectually honest. Faith *requires* setting aside "rational reasoning" for certain matters. It is inevitable. To point at irrationality in one faith to justify the irrationality in another is counter-productive and not intellectually honest.

 

[juantoo3]

I think both of you are making a very limited assumption about human nature here, namely that our rational selves are somehow our true selves, in charge of our executive functioning.

Actually, emotion trumps reason darn near every time.

Behaviorism has built an industry around evoking fear, love and rage.

 

[RJM]

@muhammad_isa posted:

"The Gospel according to Peter, is an ancient text concerning Jesus Christ, only partially known today. It is considered a non-canonical gospel and was rejected as apocryphal by the Catholic Church's synods of Carthage and Rome, which established the New Testament canon

Gospel of Peter
https://www.interfaith.org/christianity/apocrypha-gospel-of-peter/
It’s not complete. But it's not hidden away.
Anyway, it supports the crucifixion and resurrection.

See also:
http://www.interfaith.org/christianity/apocrypha-acts-of-peter/
http://www.interfaith.org/christianity/apocrypha-acts-of-peter-and-andrew/
http://www.interfaith.org/christianity/apocrypha-apocalypse-of-peter-1/
http://www.interfaith.org/christianity/apocrypha-apocalypse-of-peter-2/
https://www.interfaith.org/christianity/apocrypha-letter-of-peter-to-philip/

"... The same Gospel was in use among the Ebionites, and, in fact, as almost all critics are agreed, the Gospel according to the Hebrews, under various names, such as the Gospel according to Peter, according to the Apostles, the Nazarenes, Ebionites, Egyptians, etc., with modifications certainly, but substantially the same work, was circulated very widely throughout the early Church"

Hebrews
http://www.interfaith.org/christianity/apocrypha-gospel-of-the-hebrews/
Nazarenes
http://www.interfaith.org/christianity/apocrypha-gospel-of-the-nazaraeans/
Ebionites
http://www.interfaith.org/christianity/apocrypha-gospel-of-the-ebionites/
Egyptians
http://www.interfaith.org/christianity/apocrypha-gospel-of-the-egyptians/

Also:
http://www.interfaith.org/christianity/apocrypha-egerton-gospel/
http://www.interfaith.org/christianity/apocrypha-traditions-of-mattias/
http://www.interfaith.org/christianity/apocrypha-preaching-of-peter/

There are piles of NT apocrypha. All sorts of stuff.
Thanks to Brian what is probably the best NT apocrypha collection on the internet is right here on IO:
https://www.interfaith.org/christianity/apocrypha/

 

[juantoo3]

It is not just Muslims who conclude that. Many Biblical scholars have too.

How many of those so-called "Biblical Scholars" are atheists, or otherwise have intention to undermine Christianity specifically as their motive? I've seen a few openly admit as much. How many Qur'an Scholars are non-Muslim and have as their motive to undermine that faith? How many non-Muslim scholars even are allowed? I imagine they are out there, but I've never seen a non-Muslim Qur'an Scholar, and the only Qur'an Scholar I've seen in my lifetime that attempted a popular exposé had his life threatened and still after almost 20 years lives in hiding.

Rationally, that tells me a great deal.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Faith *requires* setting aside "rational reasoning" for certain matters. It is inevitable..

No, it isn't. That is one reason why people are atheists. They don't want to believe in dogma that makes no sense.
Miracles make sense .. because they are miracles.

Claiming that DOGMA or creed that makes no sense is a "mystery" is an entirely different issue.

 

[muhammad_isa]

How many of those so-called "Biblical Scholars" are atheists, or otherwise have intention to undermine Christianity specifically as their motive?

I can agree with you here
That does not mean that what they say should not be explored. I imagine you
consider me to have an intention to "undermine Christianity".

It would be untrue .. the "trinitarian Roman version", well yes, of course

 

[Thomas]

There are piles of NT apocrypha. All sorts of stuff.

A lot of NT apocryphal stuff found its way into the Moslem narratives.

The infancy of Jesus stories, the clay birds brought to life, for example, is derived from the apocrypha, with later story-teller elaboration.

Similarly, the crucifixion stories also derive from gnostic texts – that He appeared to suffer, but actually didn't, that He was taken down alive from the cross, that another took his place (Simon the Cyrene or Judas Iscariot).

 

[RJM]

A lot of NT apocryphal stuff found its way into the Moslem narratives.

The infancy of Jesus stories, the clay birds brought to life, for example, is derived from the apocrypha, with later story-teller elaboration.

Similarly, the crucifixion stories also derive from gnostic texts – that He appeared to suffer, but actually didn't, that He was taken down alive from the cross, that another took his place (Simon the Cyrene or Judas Iscariot).

Thank you. I didn't know that

I imagine you
consider me to have an intention to "undermine Christianity".

It would be untrue .. the "trinitarian Roman version", well yes, of course

The crucifixion and the resurrection, and the eucharist too ... small details

 

[muhammad_isa]

Anyway, it supports the crucifixion and resurrection..

That is not my point. My point is that the Bible canon was/is chosen by humans.
I'm not saying that any particular scroll [ included in the canon or otherwise ] is or isn't of "doubtful authority".

I therefore conclude, unlike you, that the Bible is not inerrant.

 

[juantoo3]

No, it isn't. That is one reason why people are atheists. They don't want to believe in dogma that makes no sense.
Miracles make sense .. because they are miracles.

Yes, within the confines of your box. Outside of your box, no.

You continue to demonstrate this repeatedly.

 

[muhammad_isa]

A lot of NT apocryphal stuff found its way into the Moslem narratives.

The infancy of Jesus stories, the clay birds brought to life, for example, is derived from the apocrypha, with later story-teller elaboration.

Here we go with your conspiracy theories..
..so did Muhammad, peace be with him, KNOW that he was "cheating"? Or was somebody drugging him?
What are you claiming exactly?

 

[RJM]

That is not my point.

But it is my point?

I therefore conclude, unlike you, that the Bible is not inerrant

I don't believe for a moment the Bible is inerrant. Or we'd still have to be stoning people and putting out eyes. That would be the Quran, I believe? I'm not a scriptural dogmatist at all.

My argument is against someone using out-of-context quotes from the NT to justify what they want to justify, while ignoring opposing passages and then when the passages are bought to their attention, disputing the authenticity. And often, as @juantoo3 observes, sometimes disputing the authenticity of a passage in one post, and then coming back in a later post and using the exact same same passage as justification.

 

[juantoo3]

"According to Latter Day Saint belief, the golden plates (also called the gold plates or in some 19th-century literature, the golden bible) are the source from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, a sacred text of the faith. Some witnesses described the plates as weighing from 30 to 60 pounds (14 to 27 kg), golden in color, and composed of thin metallic pages engraved with hieroglyphics on both sides and bound with three D-shaped rings.

Smith said that he found the plates on September 22, 1823, on a hill near his home in Manchester, New York, after the angel Moroni directed him to a buried stone box. He said that the angel prevented him from taking the plates but instructed him to return to the same location in a year. He returned to that site every year, but it was not until September 1827 that he recovered the plates on his fourth annual attempt to retrieve them. He returned home with a heavy object wrapped in a frock, which he then put in a box. He allowed others to heft the box but said that the angel had forbidden him to show the plates to anyone until they had been translated from their original "reformed Egyptian" language."
Golden plates - Wikipedia

With all due respect to adherents of the Mormon faith, tell me, is this any more or less rational than the foundation of Islam?

 

[juantoo3]

I can agree with you here
That does not mean that what they say should not be explored. I imagine you
consider me to have an intention to "undermine Christianity".

OK, but I think you miss the point. How come Scholarship of the Qur'an is deliberately limited and then only to those sympathetic to the cause? Why the hesitancy to allow an outside view? Because they are sacred texts? That doesn't seem to stop folks who reason like you from ripping into the Christian sacred texts (or any other for that matter)...

Rationally, it seems to me there is something to hide...

 

[juantoo3]

Miracles make sense .. because they are miracles.

"It is because it says it is" is circular reasoning, and circular reasoning is not rational.

Earlier you wrote to the effect that because someone says it is, doesn't make it so - to which I agreed. Then here you revert to this very argument style you earlier denied. I find little consistency, your arguments in my eyes appear to be what is convenient in a given moment, applied to others and seldom yourself, pointing fingers without considering how it applies to your position. You may call it rational if you like, but it is contradictory and doesn't make it so.

C'est la vie

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't believe for a moment the Bible is inerrant..

That is not how you come across. You continually quote verses from the Bible.

My argument is against someone using out-of-context quotes from the NT to justify what they want to justify, while ignoring opposing passages and then when the passages are bought to their attention, disputing the authenticity of those opposing ones, while allowing the others.

Pot .. kettle .. black
I was merely pointing out that the Bible is not inerrant.

Are you seriously telling me that Jesus, peace be with him, had an intention of starting a new religion?
Why then, were all the disciples Jews and go to the temple in Jerusalem?
He is the Jewish Messiah.

In Jewish eschatology, the Messiah is a future Jewish king from the Davidic line, who is expected to be anointed with holy anointing oil and rule the Jewish people during the Messianic Age and world to come.
...
Jewish messianism gave birth to Christianity, which started as a Second Temple Period messianic Jewish sect.

- wikipedia -

Yes .. "started as a messianic Jewish sect" .. but evolved into a corruption of true monotheism, due to political interference.
I know that you believe that "the church fathers" believe the same as the Pope.
Reason causes me to believe otherwise.

 

[muhammad_isa]

With all due respect to adherents of the Mormon faith, tell me, is this any more or less rational than the foundation of Islam?

Deviation
I don't intend to discuss the LDS.