Judeo-Christian Context of the Quran?
-
What Jesus was on earth is the expectation of God for all people. This makes the cross not something to be accepted at a distance, but a spiritual process that must be embraced as ongoing in the disciple of Jesus.
That?s a very interesting point Joel .
It?s fascinating to see how he has been grossly misunderstood over the years hmm.
Perhaps you can write an article about that?, tiz very interesting. !peace
-
Peace "phoenix",
I also think that the bible's probably preaching sun worship.
JK- A certain part of it MAY although i havnt read tht one. The problem is tht the Bible aint the Word of GOD PER SE. GOD never spoke of having revealed something called "Bible/Biblos". This is a man made term. But the scriptures from Him includ the Torah, Psalms and Gospel. GOD Bless!
-
Peace and welcome Joel,
Personally, I've never heard of Khaleel Mohammed or "the Middle East Quarterly", but what you quoted seems to be in line with the personality of traditional islam. I've found that Yusuf Ali's translation carries with it the same dogma of traditionalists. When I first started reading the qur'an, it was Ali's tranlsation that I had and was, honestly, completely turned off by it. The translation available here is excellent. I'd also recommend Muhammad Asad's translation for a literal translation and the QXP exposition for expanded meaning. Also, a very nice cross-reference and transliteration tool is available here. But with everything, essentially, it is God who guides. So it's best not to fall in love with any one translation or scholar because they all have their flaws and biases.
Peace,
Tay -
K- A certain part of it MAY although i havnt read tht one. The problem is tht the Bible aint the Word of GOD PER SE. GOD never spoke of having revealed something called "Bible/Biblos". This is a man made term. But the scriptures from Him includ the Torah, Psalms and Gospel. GOD Bless!
peace JK,
I really don't think that the Torah and Psalms and Gospels were written by God. Seriously. I think that they are mentioned in the quran, but the words probably mean something else.There is a lot of christian influence in traditional quran translations, because of the belief that the bible is an older version of the quran. I'm obviously not sure, though. -
Peace "phoenix",
peace JK,
I really don't think that the Torah and Psalms and Gospels were written by God. Seriously. I think that they are mentioned in the quran, but the words probably mean something else.There is a lot of christian influence in traditional quran translations, because of the belief that the bible is an older version of the quran. I'm obviously not sure, though.JK- I cannot agree with you entirely since the Torah has started to emerge by the first verse Gen 11 showing amazing mathemtical interlocks based on number 7 and also if you go and check my biblemaths post in submiteers/code-19 section youll see a phenomena where when the SAME FORMULA is used on Gen 11 and John 11 we get the constants "pi" and "e" repsectively BOTH to four signficant figures and BOTH neglecting the powers of ten. This is indeed amazing and shows with high probability that these two verses are from GOD. So no its not only the Quran. GOD Bless!
-
peace
The fact that you are finding mathematical codes in the bible only proves that these codes can be found anywhere.
It's like looking finding patterns in grains of sand in a desert or stars in the sky.
Why were you looking for pi and e in the first place? I could say that if you multiply all the letters of this post you get my favorite number. Hallelujah, it's a miracle. -
Peace "phoenix",
peace
The fact that you are finding mathematical codes in the bible only proves that these codes can be found anywhere.
It's like looking finding patterns in grains of sand in a desert or stars in the sky.
Why were you looking for pi and e in the first place? I could say that if you multiply all the letters of this post you get my favorite number. Hallelujah, it's a miracle.JK- No these relations cant be found anywhere. Plz get rid of your prejudice and study the things i bring up for once. Heres the link
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13465.0
GOD Bless! -
Peace and welcome Joel,
Personally, I've never heard of Khaleel Mohammed or "the Middle East Quarterly", but what you quoted seems to be in line with the personality of traditional islam. I've found that Yusuf Ali's translation carries with it the same dogma of traditionalists. When I first started reading the qur'an, it was Ali's tranlsation that I had and was, honestly, completely turned off by it. The translation available here is excellent. I'd also recommend Muhammad Asad's translation for a literal translation and the QXP exposition for expanded meaning. Also, a very nice cross-reference and transliteration tool is available here. But with everything, essentially, it is God who guides. So it's best not to fall in love with any one translation or scholar because they all have their flaws and biases.
Peace,
TayTay,
Hmmm, interesting. I always thought that traditional Islam only did lip-service to being in the Judeo-Christian tradition, but no one actually looked at the Torah and New Testament for any other reason than to tear them apart or to try to point out inconsistencies - basically, only a surface reading.I took a peek at The Message, and I like it much better than the Ali translation I'm currently reading. There are places in Ali's text where he interjects hadiths as if they were part of the arabic. Perhaps when I can save a bit, I'll getm y hands on a copy.
peace
I think that the quran is completely independent of the bible. The quran uses some of the same stories and symbolism but I think that the messages are very different.
I also think that the bible's probably preaching sun worship.Ehhhhh, ok. So when the God of the Torah strikes Egypt with plagues, one of which is turning the land to darkness, and by implication shaming Ra the Egyptian sun god, it is really only to turn the text around and have it glorify the same god that it shamed earlier?? Please don't give me any ahistorical armchair comparative religion crap. If you definitively believe that, let's see some proof.
That?s a very interesting point Joel ).
It?s fascinating to see how he has been grossly misunderstood over the years hmm.
Perhaps you can write an article about that?, tiz very interesting. !peace
Perhaps, and I'm glad you find the topic interesting, but perhaps not yet. )
-
I recommend you these books, they also go into judeo-christian books
http//www.ourbeacon.com/7101.html
-
I recommend you these books, they also go into judeo-christian books
http//www.ourbeacon.com/7101.html
Arnold,
I took a glance at the article "Thus Speaks the Bible" and there is incorrect information in it, including but not limited to, the suggestion that the KJV was translated from the Latin Biblia Vulgata. Actually, the KJV was a translation from greek manuscripts received from the Greek Orthodox Church, hence the manuscript name Textus Receptus. It was also built upon several other translators' works, such as those who worked on the previous Bishop's Bible. But the Hebrew translation of the KJV is poor, not because of serious errors in manuscript evidence, but because the translators of the KJV did not have nearly the corpus of comparative materials at hand that modern translators have.
He also makes assumptions of exegesis without knowledge of the cultural context, such as suggesting that Genesis says that God has a body because it says man was "made in God's image." He also assumes that because it took 40 years to publish the Nag Hammadi Library and the Dead Sea Scrolls, it must have been tampered with. He assumed incorrectly. It largely had to do with snafus in international politics and funding problems.
This is what I meant in my original post about "evidence" of Biblical corruption that showed disdain for Judeo-Christian hermenuetics and people who should know better not doing their homework. It is as absurd as someone suggesting that the plural of majesty in the Quran's 1st person pronouns for God really means polytheism. brickwall
-
There are many translations available on-line
http//www.studyquran.org/
Thanks Angel! ) There's a lot of good stuff on that website!
Hmm, that is pretty interesting information Myowndesert.
I didn't post it to be contentious, but I spent two years in seminary where about the only thing of value that I learned was that there is a very high standard of proof if someone is going to assert something as being true, particularly at the expense of what someone else believes.
-
Peace Myowndesert,
I'm not totally sure if this claim is true or not, but I think they have a great argument.
http//members.cox.net/deleyd/religion/index.htm#solarmythhttp//freedomdomain.com/relig.htm
here's something posted by a member (namely, Noah)
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=10331.0
-
Peace Myowndesert,
I'm not totally sure if this claim is true or not, but I think they have a great argument.
http//members.cox.net/deleyd/religion/index.htm#solarmythhttp//freedomdomain.com/relig.htm
here's something posted by a member (namely, Noah)
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=10331.0
Ahistorical comparative religion. Most of the word comparisons are between German and English, not between Greek or Hebrew which are the languages of the Bible. Why? Because they don't work. The greek word for sun is , pronounced HAY-li-os. The greek word for son is s, pronounced WHO-i-os. Take away the masculine nominative singular endings, and you find that it was all the words have in common. Sun's root is HAYL, composed of a rough breathing mark, and eta anda lambda. Son's root is HUI, a rough breathing mark, an upsilon, and an iota. Different roots, different word derivations, they just happen to sound alike in English.
And "Amen" does not come from Egyptian religion. It is Hebrew for "So be it."
Jesus began his ministry at age 30 because it was the age that Jewish priests began service in the temple, not because of astronomical calendars.
The suggestion that the Passover derived from Egyptian sun worship is preposterous. I'll refer to my prevoius comment about the Torah making a point of shaming Egyptian deities through the plagues, including Ra. I could go on and on, but I have to get ready for work.
This is a critical point if you are going to dabble in comparative religion, you must also make a study of history and culture in order to do it objectively. Where can a historic or cultural tie between two groups or religions be shown, such as Francis of Assisi visiting Muslims and borrowing from the call to prayer in writing new liturgical tones? Responsible comparative religion must be rooted in history.
Information like what you posted links to does nothing but trample on cultures, groups, and religions that at least deserve the respect of getting more than a propaganda smearing - even if you don't agree with them. I've heard Arab Muslims complain about the assumptions and conclusions of orientalists, but what you posted in those links was as bad, if not worse.
-
This is a critical point if you are going to dabble in comparative religion, you must also make a study of history and culture in order to do it objectively. Where can a historic or cultural tie between two groups or religions be shown, such as Francis of Assisi visiting Muslims and borrowing from the call to prayer in writing new liturgical tones? Responsible comparative religion must be rooted in history.
Very true.
But then again, how much can we trust historical accounts? (Just asking, not as an argument for what the links said.) -
Very true.
But then again, how much can we trust historical accounts? (Just asking, not as an argument for what the links said.)I guess they are all somewhere between outright lies and impartial journalism. Depends on who you ask, and who was the "winner". Kinda like anyone who takes Eusebius' propagandic history of the church as completely factual, or to the other extreme taking the medeival Jewish polemic/satire "Toledot Yeshu" seriously.
-
Can we be sure that a man called Jesus ever existed? Or even Abraham and Moses? Is there any proof whatsoever of their existence?
Of course not! ) Because we are limited in what we can experience and for how long we can experience, on our best day everything is "vanity and a grasping at wind." So there is no hard-and-fast proof of anything.
The way I personally look at it is like this If I were trying to pass off myths as true in a place where they might not accept them, what would I have done? How far would I go to assert my false integrity? Now, what does the most reliable history tell us they did? I cannot speak for stories of Moses or Abraham, but since what Jesus' initial followers belong to recorded history, we can get a good idea of what it is they did, once we peel off the Roman contempt for them.
If I were a person who made Jesus up, trying to pass off myths of Mithras/Horus/Bacchus as historical in a "person" that I was a "follower" of and who had "conferred" a ministry to me, there's a few things I would do 1) I'm going to come off glowing and completely reliable and devoted in my telling of my discipleship as proof of my reliability to tell the story and to be a proper leader, 2) I'm going to expect heavy compensation for my services as a teacher and religious leader. "Give me your money and your young women" a la David Koresh. 3) I'm going to come up for some sort of a foolproof "test" or measure to show that anyone who opposes me is clearly evil and will suffer the wrath of what ever I'm going to call my deity. "Those who are corrupt will scoff at the truth I'm going to tell. Their requests for proof are proof of their own evil." or something along those lines.
But you don't really find any of these things happening with the early Christians. The gospels, which are a product of the early Christians, clearly do not put the apostles in a good light most of the time. They come off as morons and bumbling idiots who do a worse job of understanding Jesus than the demons cast out of possessed people. The emphasis of the early Christians on a family-style community and relative egalitarianism didn't leave much room for anyone to hoard the community's wealth, and they certainly did not enjoy acceptance in mainstream Roman society. They were snubbed at best and at worst subject to torture and death as atheists for failing to burn incense to Caesar and accepting the Roman pantheon.
There doesn't appear to be anything gained in trying to rewrite a myth. No one got money, sex, power, or prestige out of it (initially), and if I were going to make up a religion, those would be the things I would definitely want out of it. I'm not making an appeal for the historical truth of Jesus, but I'm saying that logically it seems from Christianity's very inception, the devotees clearly believed what they were believing and doing was the truth because they staked everything on it and weathered waves of occasional and intense persecution, all without raising the sword in return - at least, until Constantine.
All the theories about re-hashed myths simply don't make sense when you look at how seemingly normal people put their heads on the block for this story when given the choice to recant and live. Nothing in history tells us people did it for Mithras or Bacchus, common myths with mystery cult followings even at the time of Jesus. But they did do it for Jesus. Why? Something perhaps might be different.
Peace.