Judeo-Christian Context of the Quran?
-
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.
-
Myowndesert, Isn't it possible that over time, what started out as truth (let's say Jesus didn't have any superpowers) turned into myth? And the idea of Jesus we have today isn't very accurate?
Can you prove Objectively that God Exists ? Or even Does Phoenix1 Exists or is it a Case of I Think , Therefore I am ?
Almarh0m, Does God exist? it depends on what you mean by God. I am currently not sure about my concept of God, so I'll try to prove it when everything's clear. And Phoenix1 does, unfortunately, exist as well. You will just have to deal with me.
-
Myowndesert, Isn't it possible that over time, what started out as truth (let's say Jesus didn't have any superpowers) turned into myth? And the idea of Jesus we have today isn't very accurate?
Anything's possible. I learned in physics that it is possible for all of the atoms in the cup of coffee sitting on my desk to simultaneously vibrate in the same direction with enough force to momentarily overcome gravity. If this were to happen, it would literally jump off my desk. While this is possible, it is not probable. Statistically, it is very improbable. In this case, it would be better to look at probability instead of possibility.
IMHO, the truth of Jesus is relatively untampered with in the gospels and epistles. However, the "lens" through which Jesus was viewed has changed over time as culture, language, history, dogma, etc has changed or added to the understanding of the story. Most people can't see the difference between the lens itself, and what it is they are looking through the lens to see.
Besides, now we are comparing apples to oranges. The links you originally posted asserted that Jesus went from myth to truth. Now you are suggesting that the truth was lost and became myth. It can't work both ways.
-
Peace all,
Phoenix1, you said
Almarh0m, Does God exist? it depends on what you mean by God. I am currently not sure about my concept of God,
May I offer you this suggestion, don't start with God. Seek thy Lord. If thy Lord is the Creator then thy Lord can be God the Creator. The movement is from the visible to the invisible. From the creation, the creator of the creation can become your God.
When one reads the quran beginning from tradition, i.e. 1-1 bismillah... God or Allah is necessarly presumed to be known to begin with. Otherwise bismillah makes no sense. If the journey of the reading begins non-traditionally in chronology at 96-1 (or #1 in chronology) then you find yourself with iqra bismi rabbikallathii khalaq. Read in the name of your Lord who has created. The bism is not with Allah to begin with but with the Lord, the rabbi. In this case the rabb is the creator. I would say that from there, the construction of ones concept of God has more freedom to evolve and reveal itself than from a starting point where revelation has occurred. How can one praise God as in 1-2 without having a concept of God to begin with? God is said to be the Lord of the worlds. Who is thy Lord?
What is to be discovered to begin with is that the Lordship belongs to no man. 'My Lord Jesus' is an impossible formula. All of England's historical Lordship doesn't make any sense. All of France's historical seignorial system likewise. Who is thy Lord?
adjwi
-
'My Lord Jesus' is an impossible formula.
Lordship does not mean divinity, but authority. Hebrew has two words for "Lord." One is Adonai, referring to the Divine Lord, who is God alone. The other is adoni, referring to a human authority. Was Adam divine? And yet God made all creation bow to him. Iblis was cast out because he failed to bow. If Jesus was created like Adam, then tell me why he should not also be reverenced and obeyed by all of creation?
-
Peace,
Lordship does not mean divinity, but authority. Hebrew has two words for "Lord." One is Adonai, referring to the Divine Lord, who is God alone. The other is adoni, referring to a human authority. Was Adam divine? And yet God made all creation bow to him. Iblis was cast out because he failed to bow. If Jesus was created like Adam, then tell me why he should not also be reverenced and obeyed by all of creation?
This is an interesting question and what you have presented with Adonai and adoni looks like a door to confusion. I am not aware that the term 'rabb' is used anywhere by God to describe a human in the quran. However this is what the Pharaoh said of himself as we find in 79-24 He said "I am your lord, the Most High." Now he is described in the quran as a transgressor. Do you think Jesus would have described himself to his people as a lord? The respect for Jesus like the respect for Adam is like the respect for what the quran comes with and that is the spirit, ruuh.
1529 "So when I perfect him, and blow of My spirit in him, you shall yield to him."
359 The example of Jesus with God is similar to that of Adam; He created him from dust, then He said to him "Be" and he was.
26192 And this is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds.
26193 It was sent down with the trusted Spirit.Historically, the quran appears after the concept of Trinity. It's purpose amongst other things, appears to me in the correction of incorrect concepts that have entered faith through time. The concept of the lord Jesus seems similar. I beleive Jesus deserves respect, but not as a lord.
adjwi
-
Peace,
This is an interesting question and what you have presented with Adonai and adoni looks like a door to confusion. I am not aware that the term 'rabb' is used anywhere by God to describe a human in the quran. However this is what the Pharaoh said of himself as we find in 79-24 He said "I am your lord, the Most High." Now he is described in the quran as a transgressor. Do you think Jesus would have described himself to his people as a lord?
It really isn't that confusing in Hebrew. Most english translations of the Jewish scriptures will distinguish between Adonai and adoni by capitalizing the one that refers to God alone. For instance, Psalm 1101 - "The Lord (Adonai) said to my lord (l'adoni), "Sit here at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool." The Lord with a capital L refers to God. The lord with a little l refers to human authority. This verse, interestingly, is the most commonly quoted Messianic reference to Jesus in the New Testament, clearly stating that the earliest Christians were perfectly comfortable calling Jesus both lord and messiah.
The respect for Jesus like the respect for Adam is like the respect for what the quran comes with and that is the spirit, ruuh.
1529 "So when I perfect him, and blow of My spirit in him, you shall yield to him."
359 The example of Jesus with God is similar to that of Adam; He created him from dust, then He said to him "Be" and he was.
26192 And this is a revelation from the Lord of the worlds.
26193 It was sent down with the trusted Spirit.Historically, the quran appears after the concept of Trinity. It's purpose amongst other things, appears to me in the correction of incorrect concepts that have entered faith through time. The concept of the lord Jesus seems similar. I beleive Jesus deserves respect, but not as a lord.
adjwi
So tell me how you respect someone as messiah-king, who will return to judge the wicked, and do not obey them. Tell me what king will allow you to disobey him and still call yourself a loyal subject. Jesus addressed the very notion of those who were willing to pay lipservice to him and yet not obey his teachings or his authority
Matthew 721-29 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only those who do the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?' Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'
"Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash."
When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law."
Jesus asserts that the way to be obedient to the teachings of the Father is to put into practice Jesus' words and teachings. It is my understanding that the Quran is supposed to build upon previous revelation, not replace it. The references to Jesus as lord in the New Testament are many and well-documented. To make the case that all of them are corrupted references requires heaps of linguistic, cultural, and manuscript evidence. It has been my experience that most Muslims don't even respect the Judeo-Christian scriptures enough to even read them, much less understand the language and culture in which they were written (though I wish to heaven someone would prove me wrong). Essentially, it is the same mistake that the Christians at Nicea made they made statements about Jesus from the gospels 300+ years after they were written, without bothering to understand them in their context, and the next thing you know the Nicene Creed becomes the final statement of Christian belief.
While the Quran rightly corrects Trinitarian errors, it is my understanding that it is silent on the subject of calling Jesus "lord" in the proper sense of messianic authority. If it is silent in this matter, then perhaps it is a matter that does not need correcting. Just a thought from your friendly neighborhood Unitarian Christian. )