Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
MartyS

What do these words of Jesus mean?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

On 8/8/2018 at 9:51 PM, Christianity said:

Yet scholars have long recognized since C.H. Dodd that what has been dubbed the Johannine Community was centered around the beloved disciple who was an eyewitness and his testimony and teachings form the Gospel of John:

https://books.google.com/books?id=QQzjDM_L7-oC&printsec=frontcover&dq=gospel+of+john+eyewitness+testimony+scholars&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQlLj33t7cAhWoiOAKHaB_DAkQ6AEIQDAF#v=onepage&q=gospel of john eyewitness testimony scholars&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=oRCdxOJWvcQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=raymond+brown+beloved+disciple&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj_4YGy6t7cAhWPr1kKHV6JBtYQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=raymond brown beloved disciple&f=false

The amazing geographical knowledge, as well as the string of various independent traditions like Jesus having baptized alongside John the Baptist, and verses like John 19:35 and John 21:24 which explicitly claim to be based off of eyewitness testimony tell most scholars that there certainly is an eyewitness behind this and his teachings are put together in the Gospel of John. 

Also, Christians tradition regarding the beloved disciple is open. All I'm saying is that the traditional identity is John but others have been suggested such as, for example, Lazarus. But it's absolutely preposterous to say that Paul was behind the Gospel of John since, once again, Paul had been dead for a long time and the Gospel of John exhibits none of his language or writing style. Rather, the Gospel of John style exhibits that of the Johannine Epistles and most scholars believe that they were either written all by the same author or by someone in the same community as that author which. This would be the dubbed Johannine Community. The Johannine Community was a community with it's own independent traditions centered around the beloved disciple and based in Asia Minor, specifically around Ephesus, alongside other communities such as the Petrine/Antiochian Community based in Asia Minor and Syria centered around Peter where the Gospel of Matthew was most likely written from, the Roman community centered primarily around Peter but also Paul based in Italy and Northern Africa where the Gospel of Mark came from, the Pauline community obviously centered around Paul and was made up on various churches in Asia Minor and Greece, and the Jerusalem Community centered around James and based in Palestine. There were also other smaller itinerant movements in Asia Minor and Palestine that didn't belong to any one community and the author of Luke-Acts was most likely among these. 

I find that Muslims only make use of scholars when they find it expedient. No scholar denies the historical reality of the crucifixion, nor does any scholar deny that the disciples really believed they witnessed the risen Jesus, yet Islam objects to this despite the crucifixion being historical fact. You can read here more on this subject, especially regarding the resurrection: 

http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005.htm

Some quotes:

You are arguing with amateurs.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi SoP, thanks for your kind words.

But I don't understand why you have singled out that one sentence.

You see, as a former Muslim, the author is clearly an enemy of Islam.

So the statement makes perfect sense to me.

As for "writing with their hands and saying it is from Allah," he might be doing something very similar.

=====================

I not only wish to believe this whole thing is a scam, I have my reasons for doing so.

For example, at one point, he says that the WARSH version was published by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Now the K of SA came into being only in the early part of the last century.

So according to him, they have published the WARSH less than 80 years ago.

That would mean that both versions have co-existed in that country at some point in the recent past. 

A KSA publication can never remain a secret.

Now we have thousands of people visiting KSA from my native India every year and if it was the case that two contradictory versions had existed concurrently in the same place, we would have surely heard our visitors gripe and curse the KSA government.

But never has a word been heard on those lines.

=====================

Also, the author makes a lot of blanket statements.

He provides no details for the first paragraph on the second page.

What is the source of that information?

He says "when the groups or converged"

He needs to tell us what occasioned their meeting.

Who had called this meeting and why?

And when exactly?

Also, he just says that the recitals were different.

But not the text.

It fails to show how variant versions came into being.

Subsequent paragraphs do not provide any reference for the claims made.

=====================

These versions seem to have come into being pretty early in the piece and apparently right in the heart of the Islamic world.

So how come Imam Ali who was right there at the time makes no mention of it?

By the time of Imam Hasan and Imam Hussain, these versions were apparently well alive and in use.

But again, there is no mention of these anomalies by them or by the Imams after them.

It is very doubtful that these noble Imams knew about them and yet avoided to talk about them.

Sunni, Shia and most non-Muslim scholars have all accepted the extraordinary character of these Imams 


=====================

The article moves around many points and I think that we can produce reasons, such as the ones above, to show doubt, but it may be hard to refute it fully without the help of full-fledged scholars and historians.  

In any case, if people can take this seriously, it would be a good thing, I hope.

It is also possible that this scam is a left-over from something scurrilous in the past, even the distant past.

And in that case, our scholars already know about it and have written something in Arabic or Persian but it is not well-known.

Just as most Muslims are unaware of the refutation of the massacre of the Bani Qurayza Jews.   

All the best.

And a happy Easter again.

=====================

 .    

 

 

Edited by baqar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

Is Islamic-awareness a credible site?

I don't know. 

But it appears that I was wrong in assuming that multiple versions are a fairy tale.

They have indeed existed.

Sorry about that.

So the issue here is not whether multiple versions have existed but whether they are significantly different.   

The view of those who believe in them is that the meaning is not different at all.

And that is where the article you gave me takes a different turn.

It also tries to prove that Muslims have no idea of the original revelation delivered by Gabriel.

So summarizing, the Muslim position is that (a) they do have the original revelation and (b) the variants are not different in meaning.

The article, however, seriously tries to dismantle that premise.

I think that parsing the sentences in the article one by one, like I was trying to do, it is possible to disrobe it sufficiently.

But it is going to be a fairly time-consuming exercise.

And I am sorry I have a lot of other things on my plate.

Finally, I believe I have always tried to answer your questions to the best of my ability.

So I hope you will not lose that confidence because of a small unintentional departure from that rule.  

Best Wishes, my friend. And adieu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, baqar said:

I don't know. 

But it appears that I was wrong in assuming that multiple versions are a fairy tale.

They have indeed existed.

Sorry about that.

So the issue here is not whether multiple versions have existed but whether they are significantly different.   

The view of those who believe in them is that the meaning is not different at all.

And that is where the article you gave me takes a different turn.

It also tries to prove that Muslims have no idea of the original revelation delivered by Gabriel.

So summarizing, the Muslim position is that (a) they do have the original revelation and (b) the variants are not different in meaning.

The article, however, seriously tries to dismantle that premise.

I think that parsing the sentences in the article one by one, like I was trying to do, it is possible to disrobe it sufficiently.

But it is going to be a fairly time-consuming exercise.

And I am sorry I have a lot of other things on my plate.

Finally, I believe I have always tried to answer your questions to the best of my ability.

So I hope you will not lose that confidence because of a small unintentional departure from that rule.  

Best Wishes, my friend. And adieu

Lose confidence in you??? Not a chance. Not having an answer right away is not something I'd ever lose confidence over. Even if you turned out to be 100% wrong, (hypothetical) you'd admit it in a flash and no confidence lost. If I told you how highly I think of you in this post you'd be all embarrassed and tell me to stop.

I'm kind of sorry I got this started, mainly because it would seem your call for help went untouched and it looks like you're on your own. Like you said, you have much on your plate, so do I. I can honestly say I have a ton of crap to do, as in 2000 lbs of manure on my trailer for the garden.  I don't want to take you away from what you have to do.

Quote

It also tries to prove that Muslims have no idea of the original revelation delivered by Gabriel.

I noticed that too. This is whats ridiculous about every page. None can just present the facts, they always have to take something down. If there was any difference between Hafs and Imam Alis' books it was the arrangement of chapters. Between Hafs and Warsh are a few variants, one being the presence/absence of the royal "we". As far as I can see, there are only enough variants to prove the remembers were human. I don't believe anything was changed intentionally.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...