| Reply to Thread New Thread |
10-15-2010, 12:48 PM
|
#21 |
|
|
How can the NT claiming to be the final revelation in anyway make the Quran highly questionable? The only way that could be is if the NT was proven to be God's Word. Want to give that a try? Now, you also claim that there isn't any reason for falsifying the text. Yet I had previously explained to you how the text wasn't even written by people that had met Isa I interpret it to mean that the Messenger Dear Ubaid Raza, thank you for your reply! I think I have already covered the fact why Muhammad can't be the Paraclete. Deut. 18:18 can't prophesy Muhammad, because it is talking about an Israelite prophet: 18 "I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him". If look at the context, we can see how "brethen" is defined: Deut. 17: 15 "thou shalt surely set him king over thee, whom Lord thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayest not put a foreigner over thee, who is not thy brother". |
|
is mentioned in the Torah and the Gospel. Pretty self explanatory
|
10-17-2010, 10:12 AM
|
#22 |
|
|
Because the Qu'ran came after NT, so it fills marks of false revelation according to NT. The burden of proof is on muslims: How can there be any extra revelation when NT claims to be the final revelation from God? It isn't enough to say that you think that the message of the NT is corrupt as there aren't any historical evidence for it. It is actually enough for me to say that the NT is corrupt as there is no historical evidence for it's preservation. The NT was written by people you claim knew/met/saw/conversed with Isa  . Yet, where is the proof? Not to mention scholars actually saying that the books were written by non-eyewitnesses. There are Gospels such as those found in the Nag Hammadi library that also claimed to be written by Disciples yet they differ distinctly from the NT; just because there isn't neccessarily any historical evidence to prove that they are corrupt versions of Isa message, doesn't make it reliable. Anyway, the greatest proof that the NT is corrupt is the fact that God says so. You don't believe that He  does, but that doesn't change facts. If the Quran is proven to be the Word of God, then neccessarily it must be true along with any claims it makes, one of them being that the NT is corrupt.They were still written under authority of Apostles. Some of the books of the NT are from the apostles. I see no problem here. The huge question is then: Where? Regardless, as explained above, if the Quran is proven to be the Word of God, then indeed all of its claims are true without the need for external corroborating evidence. Yet, the external evidence exists. |
|
|
|
10-17-2010, 01:56 PM
|
#23 |
|
|
Just because the Quran came after the NT, does not mean that it is false revelation. By that logic, the NT is also false revelation because it came after Zoroastrianism and so forth. The burden of proof is on the Muslims; I agree. But we are not the only ones making a claim here; the burden of proof also rests on you. The NT claims to be God's Word- prove it. The Quran claims to be Gods Word- do you want proof? It is actually enough for me to say that the NT is corrupt as there is no historical evidence for it's preservation. The NT was written by people you claim knew/met/saw/conversed with Isa There are Gospels such as those found in the Nag Hammadi library that also claimed to be written by Disciples yet they differ distinctly from the NT; just because there isn't neccessarily any historical evidence to prove that they are corrupt versions of Isa Anyway, the greatest proof that the NT is corrupt is the fact that God says so. You don't believe that He Of course they were. That's why they were explicit about their identity. Oh no, wait... There have been links provided to you already. Had we not gotten off topic, we could have perhaps spent time talking about this point instead. |
|
|
|
10-17-2010, 03:11 PM
|
#24 |
|
|
I just answered to this question on another topic so I won't do it again here. I ask you to consider your tactic once more. You must give up the whole recorded history if you won't accept texts that don't have historical evidence for preservation. We can be sure that the NT is well preserved, because manuscript from different locations show us that no one has intentionally corrupted any texts. If you want to claim that even the original writers didn't know what they were writing about then there's really not that much I can do for you. I suppose that the Qu'ran is the only reason, why you are willing to go there, because I don't think you question all the sources of Antiquity. I find first century book about first century events more credible than a seventh century book about the same events. By the way, I can find Qu'ranic scholars for you that teach that Qu'ran was written by men who never knew Muhammad. to be more credible about events from the first century than a first century book that is not the Word of God about the same events. Regarding your claim that you could find Quranic scholars who teach the Quran was written by whoever, that's incorrect. You wouldn't be able to find scholars at all, just some random biased orientalists who don't even know a word of arabic. And it doesn't matter what silly men say about the Final Revelation if it can be proved that it is indeed the Final Revelation, wouldn't you agree? They are gnostic writings. I don't think that you claim that the disciples tought doctrine of two gods and the evillness of all things material, etc. It is crystal clear that those writings are from non-apostolic era. due to this being what the Quran teaches.Where does the Qu'ran even say so?  If you read the NT, you will learn who the writers were. I already covered the "evidence" presented to me. I wish that this discussion could be fruithful to both of us. P.S. Over the course of these discussions I may have been harsh in my tone. Please don't take it personally, it's just the way I 'discuss' lol |
|
|
|
10-19-2010, 01:57 AM
|
#25 |
|
|
No, you covered some of it and didn't 'prove' anything other than that some of the prophecies could possible be open to interpretation. Nothing more. Anyways, when I have time, I'll try and go through it |
|
|
|
10-26-2010, 12:27 AM
|
#26 |
|
|
I have opened a new thread regarding the proofs of Islam. As I stated earlier, it is much easier to prove one religion to be from God
in which case all claims of that religion will be correct without needing any external evidencehttp://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...Proof-of-Islam |
|
|
|
05-03-2011, 01:56 PM
|
#27 |
|
|
Assalaam Aleikum Wa Rahmetullahi Wa Barakatuh, |
|
|
| Reply to Thread New Thread |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
Linear Mode
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests) | |
|
|
