I just saw this, though I haven’t had a chance to watch this all the way through. Various issues pertaining to the historical Jesus are raised and arguments given at various points, so it might be enjoyable for people here as a stimulus for discussion.
There are also some clips from an Iranian movie called “Saint Mary”, a film which tells the story of Mary, peace be upon her, based on the Quran’s narrative.
Enjoy!
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Very interesting!
The description of the Muslim view of Jesus’ crucifixion resembles nothing so much as the earlier view of Christian ** you do not have permission to see this link **. But scholars have long noted that much of the Quran consists of imported ideas and stories from the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament and subsequent Christian writings.
The honor bestowed by Muslims upon Moses and Jesus makes curious the pervasive anti-semitism and anti-Christian bigotry in countries dominated politically and culturally by Islam.
It is very disturbing to see the credulous nonsense being pumped into the minds of those precious children under the guise of education.
It is not a comfortable spot as a secularist and unbeliever to be caught in the cross-fire between rival superstitions. Isn’t it time to be done with all this?
Stephen said
Very interesting!The description of the Muslim view of Jesus’ crucifixion resembles nothing so much as the earlier view of Christian ** you do not have permission to see this link **. But scholars have long noted that much of the Quran consists of imported ideas and stories from the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament and subsequent Christian writings.
The honor bestowed by Muslims upon Moses and Jesus makes curious the pervasive anti-semitism and anti-Christian bigotry in countries dominated politically and culturally by Islam.
It is very disturbing to see the credulous nonsense being pumped into the minds of those precious children under the guise of education.
It is not a comfortable spot as a secularist and unbeliever to be caught in the cross-fire between rival superstitions. Isn’t it time to be done with all this?
Jews and Christians are considered to be disbelievers by Muslims, destined to hell unless they enter Islam and die as Muslims.
For some reason, Muslims aren’t convinced of agnosticism or atheism. So you’ll have to live with that.
As for scholars, naturally non-believing scholars will assume the Quran is plagiarized while Muslims assume it’s from God. History can be independent of belief-nonbelievers don’t think Jesus actually ascended, Christians believe he did, however both can do history and say “early Christians believed he ascended to heaven.”
MMahmud wrote:
Jews and Christians are considered to be disbelievers by Muslims, destined to hell unless they enter Islam and die as Muslims.
And of course the Jews and Christians are both happy to return the favor. Who is right? Perhaps none of them!
By far the most dangerous aspect of all the Abrahamic faiths is that they each claim to be God’s final revelation. Much better the scientific approach which admits of NO final revelation. Layer by layer we peel the onion. To mix me some metaphors, is there a floor or ceiling to ultimate reality? Who knows? No one yet! But why cripple the spirit of free inquiry merely to satisfy the desire for a “final” revelation? I can see no valid reason to do so. All the scientific “revelation” requires is that we be willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads and be willing to change our minds when confronted with new knowledge that qualifies or contradicts our current understanding. But that is too much for many apparently.
For some reason, Muslims aren’t convinced of agnosticism or atheism. So you’ll have to live with that.
But will they let me live with that?
As for scholars, naturally non-believing scholars will assume the Quran is plagiarized while Muslims assume it’s from God. History can be independent of belief-nonbelievers don’t think Jesus actually ascended, Christians believe he did, however both can do history and say “early Christians believed he ascended to heaven.”
Well “plagiarized” is YOUR word not mine. God is simply like the old classic rock band who survives by playing all the old hits. And who can blame Him? With a set list like He has why come up with new material? People only want to hear the old stuff anyway.
Indeed history IS independent of belief. Your mention of Jesus’ ascension reminded of the writings of Jalāl ad-Dīn Rūmī who wrote that the ascension of Christ was less like a man flying to the moon than like grapes turning into wine. But I’m afraid even the benevolence and toleration of the mystics would get them in hot water in many quarters these days.
Thanks so much for your comments, Stephen. I do have to disagree a little bit — please see below.
Stephen said
Very interesting!The description of the Muslim view of Jesus’ crucifixion resembles nothing so much as the earlier view of Christian ** you do not have permission to see this link **. But scholars have long noted that much of the Quran consists of imported ideas and stories from the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament and subsequent Christian writings.
I don’t think it is correct to say that scholars have “noted” that much of the Quran “consists of imported ideas”, for that would imply some kind of observation. Rather, non-Muslim scholars typically just presume, without any hint of an argument or evidence, that the Quran “consists of imported ideas and stories from the Hebrew Bible”. This assumption, which has nothing at all going for it, then informs and colors all the work done by these scholars.
And this unexamined assumption does not serve these scholars very well; faced with the fact that there is no plausible way a lone unlettered individual could have had such a detailed knowledge of, and sophisticated response to, the Hebrew Bible in an isolated and distant desert town like seventh century Mecca, these scholars are forced to speculate that Islam began somewhere else, where Christians and Jews were more abundant.This speculation itself has nothing much going for it in terms of evidence, to put it mildly, which is why debates about it are so acrimonious.
As for docetism, there is some superficial similarity between their views and those in the Quran; but the resemblance is skin deep at best.
Omar6741 wrote:
I don’t think it is correct to say that scholars have “noted” that much of the Quran “consists of imported ideas”, for that would imply some kind of observation. Rather, non-Muslim scholars typically just presume, without any hint of an argument or evidence, that the Quran “consists of imported ideas and stories from the Hebrew Bible”. This assumption, which has nothing at all going for it, then informs and colors all the work done by these scholars.
Well the “evidence” is in the Quran itself which is full of characters and stories similar if not identical to written Biblical and extra-Biblical accounts that predate it by centuries. Why would you seriously deny this? No “assumption” is necessary. Read the texts.
And this unexamined assumption does not serve these scholars very well; faced with the fact that there is no plausible way a lone unlettered individual could have had such a detailed knowledge of, and sophisticated response to, the Hebrew Bible in an isolated and distant desert town like seventh century Mecca, these scholars are forced to speculate that Islam began somewhere else, where Christians and Jews were more abundant.This speculation itself has nothing much going for it in terms of evidence, to put it mildly, which is why debates about it are so acrimonious.
Well it’s YOUR assumption that the Prophet was a “lone unlettered individual” and that the entirety of the text could have come from him (or through him). Just like the Bible, textual and critical analysis of the text shows it could not have originated as a single unaltered work. We have copies of the Quran that differ from one another like the NT and in some sections scholars note the presence of Persian loan words that are consistent with the ninth century rather than the seventh. Not to mention the contradictions and discrepancies in the teachings.
Islamic fundamentalism is just as insupportable as Christian or Jewish fundamentalism.
Sorry buddy. Really early Qurans have been found identical to modern versions. Not like Judaism and Christianity.
As for “evidence” similarity doesn’t necessitate plagiarism. The other option is that it comes from above, but since you are disbelievers you obviously will assume and insist it comes from previous writings, although it isn’t necessary logically for that to be the case.
Finally, there are no contradictions in the texts and so comparing it to inferior religions of Judaism and Christianity is laughable at best.
Stephen said
Omar6741 wrote:I don’t think it is correct to say that scholars have “noted” that much of the Quran “consists of imported ideas”, for that would imply some kind of observation. Rather, non-Muslim scholars typically just presume, without any hint of an argument or evidence, that the Quran “consists of imported ideas and stories from the Hebrew Bible”. This assumption, which has nothing at all going for it, then informs and colors all the work done by these scholars.
Well the “evidence” is in the Quran itself which is full of characters and stories similar if not identical to written Biblical and extra-Biblical accounts that predate it by centuries. Why would you seriously deny this? No “assumption” is necessary. Read the texts.
And this unexamined assumption does not serve these scholars very well; faced with the fact that there is no plausible way a lone unlettered individual could have had such a detailed knowledge of, and sophisticated response to, the Hebrew Bible in an isolated and distant desert town like seventh century Mecca, these scholars are forced to speculate that Islam began somewhere else, where Christians and Jews were more abundant.This speculation itself has nothing much going for it in terms of evidence, to put it mildly, which is why debates about it are so acrimonious.
Well it’s YOUR assumption that the Prophet was a “lone unlettered individual” and that the entirety of the text could have come from him (or through him). Just like the Bible, textual and critical analysis of the text shows it could not have originated as a single unaltered work. We have copies of the Quran that differ from one another like the NT and in some sections scholars note the presence of Persian loan words that are consistent with the ninth century rather than the seventh. Not to mention the contradictions and discrepancies in the teachings.
Islamic fundamentalism is just as insupportable as Christian or Jewish fundamentalism.
MMahmud said
Sorry buddy. Really early Qurans have been found identical to modern versions. Not like Judaism and Christianity.
As for “evidence” similarity doesn’t necessitate plagiarism. The other option is that it comes from above, but since you are disbelievers you obviously will assume and insist it comes from previous writings, although it isn’t necessary logically for that to be the case.
Finally, there are no contradictions in the texts and so comparing it to inferior religions of Judaism and Christianity is laughable at best.
Stephen said
Omar6741 wrote:I don’t think it is correct to say that scholars have “noted” that much of the Quran “consists of imported ideas”, for that would imply some kind of observation. Rather, non-Muslim scholars typically just presume, without any hint of an argument or evidence, that the Quran “consists of imported ideas and stories from the Hebrew Bible”. This assumption, which has nothing at all going for it, then informs and colors all the work done by these scholars.
Well the “evidence” is in the Quran itself which is full of characters and stories similar if not identical to written Biblical and extra-Biblical accounts that predate it by centuries. Why would you seriously deny this? No “assumption” is necessary. Read the texts.
And this unexamined assumption does not serve these scholars very well; faced with the fact that there is no plausible way a lone unlettered individual could have had such a detailed knowledge of, and sophisticated response to, the Hebrew Bible in an isolated and distant desert town like seventh century Mecca, these scholars are forced to speculate that Islam began somewhere else, where Christians and Jews were more abundant.This speculation itself has nothing much going for it in terms of evidence, to put it mildly, which is why debates about it are so acrimonious.
Well it’s YOUR assumption that the Prophet was a “lone unlettered individual” and that the entirety of the text could have come from him (or through him). Just like the Bible, textual and critical analysis of the text shows it could not have originated as a single unaltered work. We have copies of the Quran that differ from one another like the NT and in some sections scholars note the presence of Persian loan words that are consistent with the ninth century rather than the seventh. Not to mention the contradictions and discrepancies in the teachings.
Islamic fundamentalism is just as insupportable as Christian or Jewish fundamentalism.
MMahmud said
Sorry buddy. Really early Qurans have been found identical to modern versions. Not like Judaism and Christianity.
As for “evidence” similarity doesn’t necessitate plagiarism. The other option is that it comes from above, but since you are disbelievers you obviously will assume and insist it comes from previous writings, although it isn’t necessary logically for that to be the case.
Finally, there are no contradictions in the texts and so comparing it to inferior religions of Judaism and Christianity is laughable at best.
Stephen said
Omar6741 wrote:I don’t think it is correct to say that scholars have “noted” that much of the Quran “consists of imported ideas”, for that would imply some kind of observation. Rather, non-Muslim scholars typically just presume, without any hint of an argument or evidence, that the Quran “consists of imported ideas and stories from the Hebrew Bible”. This assumption, which has nothing at all going for it, then informs and colors all the work done by these scholars.
Well the “evidence” is in the Quran itself which is full of characters and stories similar if not identical to written Biblical and extra-Biblical accounts that predate it by centuries. Why would you seriously deny this? No “assumption” is necessary. Read the texts.
And this unexamined assumption does not serve these scholars very well; faced with the fact that there is no plausible way a lone unlettered individual could have had such a detailed knowledge of, and sophisticated response to, the Hebrew Bible in an isolated and distant desert town like seventh century Mecca, these scholars are forced to speculate that Islam began somewhere else, where Christians and Jews were more abundant.This speculation itself has nothing much going for it in terms of evidence, to put it mildly, which is why debates about it are so acrimonious.
Well it’s YOUR assumption that the Prophet was a “lone unlettered individual” and that the entirety of the text could have come from him (or through him). Just like the Bible, textual and critical analysis of the text shows it could not have originated as a single unaltered work. We have copies of the Quran that differ from one another like the NT and in some sections scholars note the presence of Persian loan words that are consistent with the ninth century rather than the seventh. Not to mention the contradictions and discrepancies in the teachings.
Islamic fundamentalism is just as insupportable as Christian or Jewish fundamentalism.
When the New Testament was established, the fact that those books were not gone over with a fine tooth comb to remove anything that conflicted is proof of the books’ authenticity.
“Authenticity”in that the book were inspired by God. I add this to say this is yet another way of looking at the perfection of the Quaran versus the imperfection of the Bible.
MMahmud said
Really early Qurans have been found identical to modern versions.
Yes because the modern versions are based on the early versions. What I’m talking about are textual variations between different early versions. Look at the scholarship. It’s being done. You don’t have to take my word for it.
As for “evidence” similarity doesn’t necessitate plagiarism. The other option is that it comes from above, but since you are disbelievers you obviously will assume and insist it comes from previous writings, although it isn’t necessary logically for that to be the case.
Once again “plagiarism” is YOUR word, not mine. It’s not plagiarism to pass on inherited traditions. Or to interpret those inherited traditions to make theological points.
The other option is that it comes from above, but since you are disbelievers you obviously will assume and insist it comes from previous writings, although it isn’t necessary logically for that to be the case.
Well I will certainly stipulate for the record that you’re a Muslim and I am not. But I could just as easily say you have the approach you do only because you’re a believer. And where does that get us?
Finally, there are no contradictions in the texts and so comparing it to inferior religions of Judaism and Christianity is laughable at best.
No contradictions? None? Really? Alas my Southern Baptist relatives all say the same thing about the Bible but when pressed seem mostly to have never actually read it. Do Muslims who claim perfection in the Quran actually read it or do they take the word of authorities who assure them there are no contradictions the way many Christians do?
Inferior religions?!? Well I hate to break it to you but my relatives think YOUR religion is inferior. Who is right? I’ll leave to all you believers to hash this one out. I will make one request though. Could you all not burn the building down while you’re figuring it out?
Judith wrote
When the New Testament was established, the fact that those books were not gone over with a fine tooth comb to remove anything that conflicted is proof of the books’ authenticity.
Interesting argument. The NT’s imperfections used as evidence of its perfection. Isn’t there s simpler argument though? The imperfections of the NT are signs of its imperfection.
The religions are all so obviously time bound and culture bound and equally obviously clearly the product of imperfect human beings doing their best to explain it all to themselves. Much of it is noble; much of it is base; all of it is human.
Stephen said
Once again “plagiarism” is YOUR word, not mine. It’s not plagiarism to pass on inherited traditions. Or to interpret those inherited traditions to make theological points.
Yes, and in other places he seems to think just that. X looks like Y therefore plagiarism. If you throw that sort of word around, you don’t really need evidence.
As for the variants. The existence of “prefect” texts extend from ‘Uthman. But greater textual fidelity is likely the product of stronger scribal traditions in areas where Islam succeeded rather than from some divine provenance, but like his Christian counter parts, he takes everything (probably even textual corruption) as proof of the superiority of his version. This kind of willful gullibility is simply amazing.
spiker said
Stephen said
Once again “plagiarism” is YOUR word, not mine. It’s not plagiarism to pass on inherited traditions. Or to interpret those inherited traditions to make theological points.Yes, and in other places he seems to think just that. X looks like Y therefore plagiarism. If you throw that sort of word around, you don’t really need evidence.
As for the variants. The existence of “prefect” texts extend from ‘Uthman. But greater textual fidelity is likely the product of stronger scribal traditions in areas where Islam succeeded rather than from some divine provenance, but like his Christian counter parts, he takes everything (probably even textual corruption) as proof of the superiority of his version. This kind of willful gullibility is simply amazing.
You assume a lot. Which is fine, but it makes you sound like an idiot, so I would avoid that.
1) There are plenty of reasons we believe the Quran is perfect
2) it is a common desperate claim that Uthmans burning of Qurana indicates imperfect preservation. We Muslims have known of variations before it AND after it
3) Speaking of which, and you probably aren’t even aware due to your ignorance, even Muslims today in different regions recite different “versions”. North Africans recite one verse “Maliki yawm I’d deen”(King of the Day of Recompense) and others in other parts of the Muslim world “Maaliki yawm id deen” (Owner of the day of Recompense)
So there is a lot more to be said about the perfect transmission of the QurN But we
1) Maintain it
2) Affirm that the differences are all from the Prophet himself considering the PLETHORA of narrations demonstrating he would recite the same verses with differences to the earliest Muslims who themselves were explicitly informed about the Quran being revealed in multiple ways.
So, whether you like it or not, you failed big time. I notice you are a bit rude in your speech so, don’t mind me if I do, I will respond in kind.
Does it hurt to be as wrong as you? It sure will soon enough.
Judith said
When the New Testament was established, the fact that those books were not gone over with a fine tooth comb to remove anything that conflicted is proof of the books’ authenticity.“Authenticity”in that the book were inspired by God. I add this to say this is yet another way of looking at the perfection of the Quaran versus the imperfection of the Bible.
So it passed every previous tests and will pass whatever you could possibly throw at it.
Stephen said
MMahmud saidReally early Qurans have been found identical to modern versions.
Yes because the modern versions are based on the early versions. What I’m talking about are textual variations between different early versions. Look at the scholarship. It’s being done. You don’t have to take my word for it.
As for “evidence” similarity doesn’t necessitate plagiarism. The other option is that it comes from above, but since you are disbelievers you obviously will assume and insist it comes from previous writings, although it isn’t necessary logically for that to be the case.
Once again “plagiarism” is YOUR word, not mine. It’s not plagiarism to pass on inherited traditions. Or to interpret those inherited traditions to make theological points.
The other option is that it comes from above, but since you are disbelievers you obviously will assume and insist it comes from previous writings, although it isn’t necessary logically for that to be the case.
Well I will certainly stipulate for the record that you’re a Muslim and I am not. But I could just as easily say you have the approach you do only because you’re a believer. And where does that get us?
Finally, there are no contradictions in the texts and so comparing it to inferior religions of Judaism and Christianity is laughable at best.
No contradictions? None? Really? Alas my Southern Baptist relatives all say the same thing about the Bible but when pressed seem mostly to have never actually read it. Do Muslims who claim perfection in the Quran actually read it or do they take the word of authorities who assure them there are no contradictions the way many Christians do?
Inferior religions?!? Well I hate to break it to you but my relatives think YOUR religion is inferior. Who is right? I’ll leave to all you believers to hash this one out. I will make one request though. Could you all not burn the building down while you’re figuring it out?
Judith wrote
When the New Testament was established, the fact that those books were not gone over with a fine tooth comb to remove anything that conflicted is proof of the books’ authenticity.
Interesting argument. The NT’s imperfections used as evidence of its perfection. Isn’t there s simpler argument though? The imperfections of the NT are signs of its imperfection.
The religions are all so obviously time bound and culture bound and equally obviously clearly the product of imperfect human beings doing their best to explain it all to themselves. Much of it is noble; much of it is base; all of it is human.
1) You don’t realize there are “textual variations” even today
2) Or what Muslims mean when they say perfect transmission
3) Or the fact that the early Muslims AGREED with Uthman’s burning of other manuscripts
4) Or the fact that it’s WELL KNOWN by Muslim scholars that the Prophet recited the book in different ways. In fact there are a plethora of narrations and pretty much all the scholars have known this and accepted it from the beginning
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert