Would you delete a copy of the Koran?

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

I personally question the validity of the Qu'ran as an inerrant text. As I've already hinted at with my post about Muhammad quoting from later non-canonical and spurious sources in reference to Jesus breathing life into a bird of clay, the Qu'ran often quotes secondary sources and pseudepigraphal literature as if it were part of the received tradition. But (1) as our Muslims members have not made any claims here, I see no reason to pursue it, and (2) having not been raised in that tradition, I am woefully inadequate to properly address it.

I'm in the same boat. The only address I made was the one above, where there is a specifically contradictory claim about Muhammed carrying on Jesus work (or whatever that wording was).

Many believers have come to terms with modern scholarship and don't see it as an impediment to their faith, and I have no problem with that.

Nor is it with mine. I challenge certain specific modern scholars, bolstered by arguments from other modern scholars, which is obviated by our previous discussion along these lines.

As to fundamentalist being a derogatory term, there are any number of Christian churches where I live that quite proudly self-identify as fundamentalist. I take it you're not from the South.

Indeed not.

As with many things, terms change or lose their meanings with time. Fundamentalism and Liberalism were both movements within Christianity in the early 20th Century. They are not necessarily aligned with the terms as we use them today.

-Pie

[Logseman]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

Wikipedia is horrible for any religious based information due to the potential for griefing. However, "fundamentalism" was a specific movement in the early 20th century similar to that described. It's become a catch-all phrase that has a sort of derogatory sense to it these days. (I've never heard anyone called a "fundamentalist" and it had been a good thing in context!)


If the evidence backed this up, sure. However, I do not believe the evidence comes even close to what you are asserting: "almost certainly" that "none" of the NT writings were by those of Jesus time. They were written later but I already stated my belief that they were still by eyewitnesses in some cases, specifically citing John (adding Matthew, with Mark and Luke talking to eyewitnesses).

I find it curious that The Bible is the most discussed book in a thread about The Koran! Nobody questions the authorship of the Koran? Would that not be more on topic?

-Pie

In a forum composed chiefly by Christians, the probability of finding discussions about religious texts is probably going to be higher for the Bible, since it's the most accessible text for the majority of forum members. At any rate, I'm loving this thread because it's making me learn so much.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

Wikipedia is horrible for any religious based information due to the potential for griefing. However, "fundamentalism" was a specific movement in the early 20th century similar to that described. It's become a catch-all phrase that has a sort of derogatory sense to it these days. (I've never heard anyone called a "fundamentalist" and it had been a good thing in context!)


If the evidence backed this up, sure. However, I do not believe the evidence comes even close to what you are asserting: "almost certainly" that "none" of the NT writings were by those of Jesus time. They were written later but I already stated my belief that they were still by eyewitnesses in some cases, specifically citing John (adding Matthew, with Mark and Luke talking to eyewitnesses).

I find it curious that The Bible is the most discussed book in a thread about The Koran! Nobody questions the authorship of the Koran? Would that not be more on topic?

-Pie

it's been exhaustively proven by NUMEROUS scholars over the years that the NT was NOT written by people who knew and/or around when the historical jesus walked the earth. indeed... most of the Gnostic scriptures (those that were tossed out) have more historically correct, and actual real time accounts are more realistic and accurate than those that show up in the NT. WT has, I believe provided several non-wiki links. have you looked at them?

as far as the koran, it is a known and widely accepted fact that after the death of mohammed, there was a bit of a power struggle, all known copies of the koran were confiscated, and it was re-written in a form more acceptable to those in power.

[happy_terd]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

as far as the koran, it is a known and widely accepted fact that after the death of mohammed, there was a bit of a power struggle, all known copies of the koran were confiscated, and it was re-written in a form more acceptable to those in power.

LOL

I think stating that is even more offensive to them then the actual burning of their holy book.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by happy_terd

LOL

I think stating that is even more offensive to them then the actual burning of their holy book.

could be. and maybe it is not widely known outside of circles that study history. but for those that do, it is widely known and accepted

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

it's been exhaustively proven by NUMEROUS scholars over the years that the NT was NOT written by people who knew and/or around when the historical jesus walked the earth. indeed... most of the Gnostic scriptures (those that were tossed out) have more historically correct, and actual real time accounts are more realistic and accurate than those that show up in the NT. WT has, I believe provided several non-wiki links. have you looked at them?

You've just walked into the Fallacy of the Most (or in this case "numerous"). Who are these "numerous" scholars? And I would also admonish you to look up the difference between "evidence" and "proof." Now, which gnostic texts are you referring to specifically? What parts are "more correct" historically? (What does that even mean?) And what are "actual real time accounts," and how do we know these are more realistic and "accurate."

Your post is rife with terminology, but not a single citation to back it up.

As a counter, Matthew's gospel was cited by Ignatius, who died around 107 AD (meaning the gospel existed prior to that and could easily have been an eyewitness account). The fall of the Temple is not mentioned in any gospel, something that would have bolstered accounts of Jesus' prophesy of that very event. This suggest that the gospels pre-dated 70AD. This is evidence that these texts were written by either eye-witnesses, or people like Luke who likely documented the events from other eye-witnesses.

WT cited Ehrman, which I had read, and counter-cited Ehrman's mentor.

Crap, I said I didn't want to go down this road. My intent had been to illustrated that the Koran did not continue the tradition of Christianity. Talk about lost in the shuffle.

-Pie

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

...My intent had been to illustrated that the Koran did not continue the tradition of Christianity....

For what it's worth, we agree on that point.

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

For what it's worth, we agree on that point.

Hehehe!

We actually agree on other points, but I was trying to avoid retreading this subject.... I know what you're thinking: "How's that working out for you?"

-Pie

[Arthursbedtime]

It takes at least 10 to 20 years to learn Arabic. I tried and at my age I had to give up. The english translations are good for explaining the message. I have a friend who has recently upgraded his Arabic skills and he says that the Koranic poetry is intence.

The english translation I now read is the Asad version.

http://arthursbookshelf.com/koran/me...the_quran.epub