Is Islam a myth?

[RJM]

That is not how you come across.

Not my problem

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

Thank you

You continually quote verses from the Bible.

To put you right about the scripture you keep trying to rubbish, sigh ... give me strength

 

[muhammad_isa]

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

Oh? What is that exactly? What is stopping you from showing us why the Qur'an is wrong?

 

[muhammad_isa]

To put you right about the scripture you keep trying to rubbish..

I've already said .. it's not the scripture that I'm arguing about, so much as the interpretation .. the dogma.

Need I remind you again of the Unitarian creed?

The traditional doctrines of predestination, eternal damnation, and the vicarious sacrifice and satisfaction theories of the Atonement are invalid because they malign God's character and veil the true nature and mission of Jesus Christ.

..yet you think that you OWN Christianity .. you are a true Roman

 

[RJM]

Are you seriously telling me that Jesus, peace be with him, had an intention of starting a new religion?

Sixth time:

Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Matt 16:18

Why then, were all the disciples Jews and go to the temple in Jerusalem? He is the Jewish Messiah.

They had to be something? Why don't you read the gospels?

I've already said .. it's not the scripture that I'm arguing about, so much as the interpretation .. the dogma.

No, you are using scripture out-of-context where it suits, and disregarding it where it does not.

..yet you think that you OWN Christianity .. you are a true Roman

No. I think I KNOW the scripture you research from wikipedia
What a complete waste of time this is ...

 

[juantoo3]

Oh? What is that exactly? What is stopping you from showing us why the Qur'an is wrong?

Then why issue FATWA against a scholar attempting to do precisely that?

 

[juantoo3]

Deviation I don't intend to discuss the LDS.

Nor do I, but I see HUGE similarity.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Sixth time:

Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Matt 16:18

OK .. so you interpret this verse as meaning "the trinitarian gentile church"
That was Peter's job, and not Jesus', was it?

..and don't forget Jesus spoke Aramaic, and the gospel was written in Greek.
There is a whole heap of issues when in comes to interpreting verses of scripture.

I'm glad that I don't have to rely on just the Bible

 

[muhammad_isa]

Then why issue FATWA against a scholar attempting to do precisely that?

I'm not issuing any fatwas. Don't confuse religion with politics.
This attitude of "Muslims are unreasonable and Christians aren't" is a load of nonsense.
We don't have to look far into our history to see bad behaviour from BOTH nations.

 

[RJM]

There is a whole heap of issues when in comes to interpreting verses of scripture.

But not the parts you like?

OK .. so you interpret this verse as meaning "the trinitarian gentile church"
That was Peter's job, and not Jesus', was it?

You keep forgetting what you said earlier on the same day:

Unfortunately, human beings have been brainwashed for 100's of years to believe that Jesus intended to start a new religion.
..but he did not. It evolved due to political pressure.

Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Matt 16:18

This is just silly now, imo

 

[juantoo3]

I'm not issuing any fatwas. Don't confuse religion with politics.
This attitude of "Muslims are unreasonable and Christians aren't" is a load of nonsense.
We don't have to look far into our history to see bad behaviour from BOTH nations.

I didn't accuse you personally of issuing anything. Like myself, you are not high enough in the game to be able to issue anything. I merely pointed to a known factual point of recent history.

The attitude of "Christians are unreasonable and Muslims aren't" is equally a load of nonsense - that is rather the whole point.

 

[juantoo3]

You are not a good spokesman for you faith. You are turning everybody away from it

That's not fair. I don't expect you to be a spokesman for your faith, either.

We are all on paths of learning, we are all here attempting to understand, and none of us is a perfect example of our faith. But knocking each other back down in some egoistic attempt at one-upmanship is a waste of time and effort that could be better used building each other up. That requires tolerance, tolerance isn't optional.

 

[RJM]

That's not fair. I don't expect you to be a spokesman for your faith, either.

We are all on paths of learning, we are all here attempting to understand, and none of us is a perfect example of our faith. But knocking each other back down in some egoistic attempt at one-upmanship is a waste of time and effort that could be better used building each other up. That requires tolerance, tolerance isn't optional.

Ok thanks. I've edited that out.
You are right, and I apologise

 

[juantoo3]

...and don't forget Jesus spoke Aramaic, and the gospel was written in Greek.

The Peshitta preserved the Aramaic, and an English translation is available. Greek on the other hand was the lingua franca of the entire region (in addition to Latin) at the time, and the Jewish Bible had already been translated into Greek (Septuagint) about a hundred years before Jesus and was used widely by his time, so having Greek used is no big surprise and is understood scholastically.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The Peshitta preserved the Aramaic..

I don't think so. More likely it was translated from Greek.

..so having Greek used is no big surprise and is understood scholastically.

I understand that most of the NT was written in Greek .. so words like "church" or "rock" are a translation, and we can't be sure if what Jesus actually said implied something different.

Words are tricky .. they have implied meanings, and translators can't always capture intended meanings.
Anyhow, assuming that it is "spot on", still different sects/creeds will claim that it means THEIR church

For me, this particular verse does not show that Jesus intended to start a new religion.

Since the Protestant Reformation, many non-Catholics have challenged the Catholic Church's position, questioning whether the feminine πέτρα refers to Peter, and claiming it may instead refer to either Peter's confession of faith or to Jesus himself

- wikipedia -

More controversy within the Christian camp.

 

[RabbiO]

The Peshitta preserved the Aramaic, and an English translation is available.

It should be noted that the Peshitta was written in Syriac, an Aramaic dialect, similar to but not the same as the Galilean Aramaic that Jesus would have learned while growing up.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Perhaps the cold is making us argumentative?

I agree that God listens to those who are sincere, regardless of their ethnicity & religion.
I personally find theological discussion very interesting. Sometimes I get upset, when people disrespect prophets or God.
..but overall, it's not my loss.

My loss is when satan causes me to do more bad deeds than good. I then have to endure the consequences.
It is very hard atm, with covid and winter putting extra pressure on. Patience is a virtue, but it's not easy. That's for sure.

 

[juantoo3]

I don't think so. More likely it was translated from Greek.

See RabbiO's response.

I understand that most of the NT was written in Greek .. so words like "church" or "rock" are a translation, and we can't be sure if what Jesus actually said implied something different.

The Interlinear Bible is a direct translation, although there are a few carry over grammatical errors done deliberately (I've seen them, just not committed to memory), but by and large (on the order of 99.999%) it is direct word for word translation from both Greek and Hebrew.

The KJV is what I cut my teeth on, and still my go to, and the history behind that translation brings to light some of the issues you point to. A lot of folks are not aware the Puritans, the same ones chased out of England to found Plymouth colony, are the ones that instigated the KJV. I've forgotten the names of the men involved, but the Archbishop of the COE convinced the King that if a vernacular English Bible was to be printed, then they (COE) should also be allowed to participate and have the final say. So while Puritan scholars did do a good bit of the heavy lifting from the Textus Receptus (to my understanding still the oldest complete manuscript), COE scholars also contributed and in the case of disputed translation the Archbishop had the final say...and why words such as "church" and "bishopric" made their way into the final version. Note too, the Catholic Church hurriedly created their own English language version when word got to the Pope that the English were working on a vernacular translation, and why we now have the Douay Bible.

To head off protests that there were earlier English translations, yes there were, and they were sectarian and privately translated. The KJV was sponsored by the court of King James with participation from the COE, though as I said it was instigated by the Puritans.

I also have a reprint of the 1611 KJV in my collection, and it includes intertestamental Apocrypha and a letter from the translators to the King and another letter to the people. Worthwhile if you can find a copy. (I love it for the "KJV only for me!" crowd - ask if they've read Bel and the Dragon? It's in the 1611 KJV)
APOCRYPHA KJV (kingjamesbibleonline.org)

Words are tricky .. they have implied meanings, and translators can't always capture intended meanings.

OK, so do you read the Qur'an in the proper Arabic? I have read those Muslims who claim it is only accurate in the original language.

Anyhow, assuming that it is "spot on", still different sects/creeds will claim that it means THEIR church

That's an occupational hazard everywhere you turn.

For me, this particular verse does not show that Jesus intended to start a new religion.

That is your prerogative, as long as you understand others may have a different prerogative.

More controversy within the Christian camp.

Islam has none? I already pointed to the Battle of the Camel, the first schism in Islam, for intents and purposes immediately after the death of the Prophet.

 

[juantoo3]

It should be noted that the Peshitta was written in Syriac, an Aramaic dialect, similar to but not the same as the Galilean Aramaic that Jesus would have learned while growing up.

OK, but it did preserve a lot of the idioms and figures of speech that often pass by an English reader.

 

[muhammad_isa]

OK, so do you read the Qur'an in the proper Arabic?

I can read the Qur'an in Arabic, but only understand a few words. My daughters studied in Nottingham UK and are quite proficient.
I use a translation alongside the Arabic, by Marmuduke Pickthall, an English convert around the time of the first world war.

I have read those Muslims who claim it is only accurate in the original language.

Any disputes should be taken to a professor in classical Arabic, yes.

Islam has none?

Islam has plenty of controversial opinions.
Where you find human beings, you will find argument. We are all sinners, but knowingly "lying" about God is a serious sin.
I prefer to remain neutral in sectarian disputes between Arabs and Asians etc.
Some things do not frighten me .. such as explaining tawhid [ the Oneness of God ]

..but other things such as what does "the hand of God" mean in the Qur'an? Is it meant literally?
I can give an opinion, but I have no wish to argue about the exact nature of God ..
..because I don't know, and pretending one does is a bad idea.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"Hand of Allah" and "Mohammad's hand" are not different. The Merciful was guiding the Prophet (ṣallā -llāhu ʿalayhī wa-ʾālihī wa-sallama) all the time.