Giant Islam Discussion>.>

[Hassan]

[quote name='mortify' post='1604669' date='Jul 21 2008, 03:47 PM']Peace,

Hassan said,
It obviously disturbs me because I view faith in Christ to be absolutely necessary, if not at least implicitly necessary, to assure someone's salvation. Islam is different from other religions in that it explicitly denies the Divine Sonship of Christ and His Crucifixion.[/quote]

Judaism?

I understand your point.


[quote]No, I don't.[/quote]
just checking, I have been told that by some.


[quote]The word there is to "fight," and it's not a metaphorical fighting, how do we know? Because it does refer to a historical event where the Muslims of Muhammad's time fought Christians. Likewise, how did Islam get into Egypt and the Middle East, which was predominantly Christian? By conquer. Who lead the conquering armies? Muhammad's four "rightly guided" khalifs, and so I find it undeniable that an offensive war against non-Islamic countries for the sole reason of spreading Islamic dominion is contrary to the religion.[/quote]

I said I considered that second interpretation weak because of both the context and the Arabic, both which describe physical fighting. However it is deniable. The very book I cited does deny it. That is not necessarily Muslims "watering down" their fath, that is just how they take it.

[quote]Muhammad and his companions engaged in it, and its written in the Qur'an and hadith, dissenters can only offer weak interpretations that require looking at these ayat in a vacuum.[/quote]

With all due respect I think it is looking at the verses in a vacuum that makes them sound offensive.

9:29 is different. All others that I know of make very explicit reference to the Muslims having to defend themselves this one is not so clear. I have given you the two best interpretations I know of and one bad one. I don't think that either interpretation is better than the other, very strong cases can be made for both arguments by very competent Islamic Scholars.




[quote]Friend, Jesus often used hyperboles like this to emphasize a point. The reality is His message did violently uproot traditions and separated family members, but not in the sense of Christians slaughtering their enemies, but by the fact that many rejected Truth. Many family members were ostracized for believing in Jesus, and were in fact executed and reviled by others, this is simply the nature of the world and the one who rules over it.[/quote]

I understand that.

It has been interpreted by Christians as giving sanction to armed revolt against oppression. I am not saying that view is contextually supported.


[quote]The same can't be said for Muhammad.
First of all are you aware that book is written by the Ahmadis? Ahmadis are not considered Muslim.[/quote]


They certainly consider themselves Muslim. There are two sects of Ahmadis. This one is written by a leader of the sect that took their leader's claim to Prophethood metaphorically and shy away from his more pronounced breaks from Orthodox Islam and aren’t universally condemned as unbelievers.

More importantly the text itself has been certified by Al-Azhar University as good and beneficial for the student of Islam, and approved by quite a few Muslim scholars who's Orthodoxy is sound. I believe Al-Azhar even translated it into Arabic. Irrespective of Maulana Muhammad Ali’s personal heresy or lack there of, the text itself is good.

[quote]To me this issue is irrefutable for the simple fact that Muhammad had concubines as did his followers. Now, I looked into sunnipath.com to find an answer on this, but the closest I found was regarding how many wives a Muslim will have in paradise, the fact that they also will have concubines means it can't be wrong to have them on earth.[/quote]

I'll see what I can find

[quote]I associated with a Naksibendi dergah for about a year, so I have some insights into it. There is a real difference between genuine tasawuf and "American Sufism."[/quote]

Never heard of them sorry.

But anything you have to say about them would be welcome

Now. I did not sleep at all last night and I have a headache from that and being on the computer so long. I am going to have a nice run and talk to you all again tomorrow. Have a nice day.

[mortify]

[quote]The earliest copies of New Testament texts (not complete texts so far as I know) come from about two centuries after Jesus(again, so far as I know). I would hope that no secular scholar rests their entire research one four Gospels chosen by the Church with numerous internal contradictions for their whole research.[/quote]

There is is a papyri fragment of John's Gospel called P52 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_52) that some date around 100AD. Whether it was written earlier or later isn't as interesting as noting this fragment was found in Egypt. Getting the Gospel of John to Egypt takes time, and since these fragments are based off copies, it means the original is much older.

Now there's more than just this. The largest body of Christian writing outside of the New Testament are the early Patristics, such as the first letter of St Clement, the 7 letters of St Ignatius, the letter of Polycarp, etc. These authors paraphrase from the New Testament. Now if for example St Ignatius, who was 50 years old at the time of he wrote his letter to the Ephesians in around 110AD, quotes the New Testament books, obviously they must have been composed before his letters.

This is why even secular scholars confidently date the gospels to well within the first century AD. Even the modernist commentary in the NAB dates most of the gospels to around 70AD. This is simply what the evidence points to.

Now what about the Quran? Prior to Uthman's canonized text, Abu Bakr had a canon that compiled the Qur'an into the written form. The fascinating thing, is that after Uthman's canon Abu Bakr's grandaughter who was in possession of the first written canon, had it BURNED because she feared it would cause discord in the future. What this tells me is that there were differences between the two. Uthman had four copies of his canon made and they were sent to various provinces, Muslims believe (if I'm not mistaken) that two of these manuscripts survived, one in Tashkent, Uzbekistan and the other in Topkapi in Turkey. There are differences between these manuscripts and the contemporary Qur'an.

The point is, the Qur'an is not as well established as our Bible, there are few if any manuscripts, and when they exist, they contradict the notion of complete preservation. Personally this issue has little affect on me, because even if the Qur'an was 100% preserved it still wouldn't remove the fact that there are errors in it!

[quote]I really don't think that is true or fair. This has been corruption of the Gospels. The story of the woman caught in adultery, certain verses relating to the trinity, the question of weather Jesus felt compassion or anger for the leper in Mark's Gospels, the internal contradictions in the Gospel (was Jesus crucified before or after Passover), Mark's quoting Jesus incorrectly citing scripture, the issue of Hebrews I mentioned before, the last 12 lines of Mark, the Question of weather Paul went to Jerusalem after Damascus, how Judas died, certain references to the Trinity.[/quote]

Hassan, as you are probably aware I believe in the inspiration and protection of the Bible canon, but I'm not going to rely on this faith to answer you. Let's look at the bible simply as a book. The fact that there are apparent discrepancies doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bath water. ALL gospels agree that Jesus was before the sanhedrin, found guilty, ultimately ordered by Pontius Pilate to be executed via crucifixion, buried in Joseph of Aramathea's tomb, three days later his female followers found his tomb empty, and His apostles and disciples were convinced that they saw the resurrected Jesus. Different perpsectives give slightly different acccounts and therefore apparent discrepancies, but ultimately the essential facts are the same. There are many things in the gospels that a secular mind could find impossible, but Christ being crucified for blasphemy is not one of them. In fact, the crucifixion is at the very center of our religion, the consistency in the passion narrative points to it being very important to the early Christians. It's simply unimaginable that Christians could have forgotten EVERYTHING, especially something as important as Jesus' crucifixion. Imagine being an Apostle telling the Jews of Jerusalem of the resurrection, how easy would have been to simply say He wasn't crucified? Amazingly the Jews don't deny the crucifixion, nor do the Romans!

The first century Roman historian Tacitus records in his annals of history, that Galilean named Christus was executed under the procurator Pontius Pilate. Why would an astute Roman affirm Christian belief?

It goes against reason to believe Jesus was not crucified.

[quote]Furthermore the Muslim story claims God tricked the crowed into believing the cricified Jesus, even if there were strong historical evidence that Jesus was crucified that would not affect their beliefs to much.[/quote]

Do they believe Allah tricked his own followers as well?

[quote]Actually as you recall Ali switched places and Muhammad fled because the Quarish were going to kill him. The biographies recorded Abu Bakr being persecuted, several deat attempts on Muhammad, and numerous acts of violence against him and his followers. I have never heard the Quarish touted as great models of tolerance. Muhammad later as long as he did through tribal protections, after those were lost the Muslims had it fairly bad.[/quote]

Muhammad has his own nephew lie in his bed knowing that the Quraysh wanted to killed him in his sleep, brave man, eh? But this event was just prior to Muhammad's emigration to Yathrib. After thirteen years the Mekkan's had enough of him and agreed that one person from each tribe would spear Muhammad while he slept, so that the blame would fall on all of them. Now what happened prior to this? Honestly the only thing I'm aware of is mockery and ostracizing the him and his followers. It's better than getting executed for apostatizing from Islam, and I can assure you, you would not get thirteen years to speak against their religion.

[quote]I don't know of any direct quotes in the Bible.[/quote]

Compare Luke 1:5-38 and Surah 19:2-22. The similarities are startling.

Edited July 21, 2008 by mortify

[mortify]

Hassan said,
[quote]Judaism?[/quote]

I don't find Rabbinical Judaism as bad because for them it's a matter of interpretation, they don't reject the OT canon. The Muslim sacred text explicitly rejects the crucifixion and Divinity, and when their text disagrees with ours, they claim ours is corrupted!

[quote]I said I considered that second interpretation weak because of both the context and the Arabic, both which describe physical fighting. However it is deniable. The very book I cited does deny it. That is not necessarily Muslims "watering down" their fath, that is just how they take it.[/quote]

Hassan, it's very easy to prove these are modern attempts of watering down Islam, all you have to do is turn to early commentaries and books of fiq. The Quran says to fight Jews and Christians until they are subjugated and pay the jizya, this is exactly what happened:

From Ibn Kathir's Tafsir ([url="http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20980"][u]LINK[/u][/url])
==QUOTE==
(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture,)
[color="#0000FF"]This honorable Ayah was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination. The Messenger sent his intent to various Arab areas around Al-Madinah to gather forces, and he collected an army of thirty thousand. Some people from Al-Madinah and some hypocrites, in and around it, lagged behind, for that year was a year of drought and intense heat. The Messenger of Allah marched, heading towards Ash-Sham to fight the Romans until he reached Tabuk, where he set camp for about twenty days next to its water resources. He then prayed to Allah for a decision and went back to Al-Madinah because it was a hard year and the people were weak, as we will mention, Allah willing.[/color]
==END==
[quote]They certainly consider themselves Muslim. There are two sects of Ahmadis. This one is written by a leader of the sect that took their leader's claim to Prophethood metaphorically and shy away from his more pronounced breaks from Orthodox Islam and aren’t universally condemned as unbelievers.[/quote]

"Ahmadis are considered non-believers because they reject one of the obligatory articles of the Religion of Islam (daruriyyat), namely, the fact that the Prophet Muhammad is the last Prophet and that there is no new Prophet after him whatsoever, upon him blessings and peace, which constitutes belying the Qur'an (takdhib al-Qur'an) according to the Consensus of the Muslim Umma."
From: [url="http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=3213&CATE=203"]http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=...13&CATE=203[/url]

Even if your author isn't a fully convinced Ahmadi, why would you rely on the interpretation of a small sect which broke from another small sect? Isn't there anything from the [i]Ahl sunnah wa'al jammat[/i] that supports your views?

[quote]More importantly the text itself has been certified by Al-Azhar University as good and beneficial for the student of Islam, and approved by quite a few Muslim scholars who's Orthodoxy is sound.[/quote]

Where did you read this?
[quote]Never heard of them sorry.

But anything you have to say about them would be welcome

Now. I did not sleep at all last night and I have a headache from that and being on the computer so long. I am going to have a nice run and talk to you all again tomorrow. Have a nice day.[/quote]

If you have any questions about them you may ask, I certainly don't know everything. If you live by NYC you can visit them.

Enjoy your run and God bless.

[Kirisutodo333]

[quote name='Galloglasses' post='1604600' date='Jul 21 2008, 04:16 PM']He was referring to the old, "How-do-we-know-the-Gospels-we-have-are-the-true-Gospels-of-Christ?", Debate thingy, which alot of Catholics get involved with in debating with Gnostics. (Not to be confused with Agnosticism), When he said that he was referring that he thinks he figured out why you are so inquisitive, questioning and challenging in your relation to other members of this Forum and your somewhat loaded Forum posts.

On the topic as a whole, i'm not touching this, I don't want to end up in Madam V's position in the Islam's Global War with Christianity Thread.[/quote]

Thank you, kind sir!

Peace

Kiris

[Hassan]

[quote name='mortify' post='1604695' date='Jul 21 2008, 04:56 PM']There is is a papyri fragment of John's Gospel called P52 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_52) that some date around 100AD. Whether it was written earlier or later isn't as interesting as noting this fragment was found in Egypt. Getting the Gospel of John to Egypt takes time, and since these fragments are based off copies, it means the original is much older.[/quote]

You are correct and I was in error, I should have said second century and not two centuries after Christ.

Sure. The problem isn’t that there were no Gospel's, the question is what that text looked like. Ancient Athens at it's cultural climax had a literacy of 15%. This was also a time when literacy was used rather loosely, it could mean one can actually read a written script or it could mean they were able to write their name and a sentence of certification. We know that many of the early Christians did come from the lower and uneducated class and some discrepancies in some copies of the New Testament suggest that some early Christian scribes seem to simple copy the letters with no comprehension of what they were writing. To make matters worse our script which makes spaces between words was not present at the time

You did not have something like this

B u t s o m e t h i n g l i k e t h i s

with many textual abbreviations thrown in.

The problem is not that no Gospels existed, but their transmission and the affects willfull editing and slips of the pen had on those texts.



[quote]Now there's more than just this. The largest body of Christian writing outside of the New Testament are the early Patristics, such as the first letter of St Clement, the 7 letters of St Ignatius, the letter of Polycarp, etc. These authors paraphrase from the New Testament. Now if for example St Ignatius, who was 50 years old at the time of he wrote his letter to the Ephesians in around 110AD, quotes the New Testament books, obviously they must have been composed before his letters.[/quote]

You seem to know more about this than I. However this seems like somewhat dubious methodology. If they are quoting key passages I think that would be important, if they are simply giving general ideas that the present Christians believe in then this seems somewhat question begging. There were numerous Christian sects after Christ’s death. Quoting the group that managed to come to the head, and then using their propositions to support the textual claims of texts that their followers choose to be set in a cannon considerably after the fact seems like somewhat circular reasoning.

Are their any direct quotes from the Gospels in the earliest Christian writers? That would be very interesting.

[quote]This is why even secular scholars confidently date the gospels to well within the first century AD. Even the modernist commentary in the NAB dates most of the gospels to around 70AD. This is simply what the evidence points to.[/quote]

NAB is the New American Bible correct? That is the copy I have. I wouldn’t describe them as modernist as that are Roman Catholic.

[quote]Now what about the Quran? Prior to Uthman's canonized text, Abu Bakr had a canon that compiled the Qur'an into the written form. The fascinating thing, is that after Uthman's canon Abu Bakr's grandaughter who was in possession of the first written canon, had it BURNED because she feared it would cause discord in the future. What this tells me is that there were differences between the two. Uthman had four copies of his canon made and they were sent to various provinces, Muslims believe (if I'm not mistaken) that two of these manuscripts survived, one in Tashkent, Uzbekistan and the other in Topkapi in Turkey.[/quote]

I really don't know much about this. If you know any good books or academic articles I'd be happy to look at them.

[quote]There are differences between these manuscripts and the contemporary Qur'an.[/quote]

The ones that were burned or the one of Uthman? I know that Muslims admit he allowed differences relating to phonics/pronunciation of text. But beyond that you'd need to show me something specific. This isn’t something I have been able to study unfortunately.

[Hassan]

[quote]The point is, the Qur'an is not as well established as our Bible, there are few if any manuscripts, and when they exist, they contradict the notion of complete preservation. Personally this issue has little affect on me, because even if the Qur'an was 100% preserved it still wouldn't remove the fact that there are errors in it![/quote]

Alright.


[quote]Hassan, as you are probably aware I believe in the inspiration and protection of the Bible canon, but I'm not going to rely on this faith to answer you. Let's look at the bible simply as a book.

The fact that there are apparent discrepancies doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bath water. ALL gospels agree that Jesus was before the sanhedrin, found guilty, ultimately ordered by Pontius Pilate to be executed via crucifixion, buried in Joseph of Aramathea's tomb, three days later his female followers found his tomb empty, and His apostles and disciples were convinced that they saw the resurrected Jesus. Different perpsectives give slightly different acccounts and therefore apparent discrepancies, but ultimately the essential facts are the same. There are many things in the gospels that a secular mind could find impossible, but Christ being crucified for blasphemy is not one of them.[/quote]

I really have no problem with miracles in the Bible. I have never understood secularists acted like the idea an omnipotent God could cause a virgin birth was absurd.

However the discrepancies are not simply different perspectives. Some are I suppose. Mark portraying a somewhat angry Jesus who's last words were "My God my God why hast thou forsaken me" while Luke depicts Him as a figure of almost unwavering calm who comforts the women on the way to crucifixion and who's last words are "Into your hands I command my spirit" is a different perspective. However I don't believe Mark reports the women going to the men and them seeing Christ risen. It's a somewhat dark Gospel. His last words are either a cry of desperation at being abandoned by God or quoting a Psalm describing a righteous man crying out to God in persecution and the women seeing an empty tomb and running away. That is a somewhat different picture.

But other things are outright contradictions. I admit that the smaller things are not to important to Christian theology. However the different perspectives seem to me to be more damaging. The seem, to me, to show a Christian community that is still, decades after Jesus’ death, trying to come to terms with who or what Jesus was. I don't think that is too much of a problem for Christians, I just find it odd.

[quote]In fact, the crucifixion is at the very center of our religion, the consistency in the passion narrative points to it being very important to the early Christians. It's simply unimaginable that Christians could have forgotten EVERYTHING, especially something as important as Jesus' crucifixion. Imagine being an Apostle telling the Jews of Jerusalem of the resurrection, how easy would have been to simply say He wasn't crucified? Amazingly the Jews don't deny the crucifixion, nor do the Romans![/quote]

The only Jewish commentators I know of is Josapheus. I really don’t know any sources of Roman or Jewish authorship that really testify to the Christians claims in any major way. I would say that if you would use the standard that as we don't have any contradictory reports they must not have denied it then you must accepts the trouble with the argument. The Gospels report numerous extraordinary phenomena such as the dead rising, a man healing dozens of people, including a Roman official’s daughter, and the Resurrection of a crucified blasphemer. I do not know of any Jewish or Roman reports of these events.

[quote]The first century Roman historian Tacitus records in his annals of history, that Galilean named Christus was executed under the procurator Pontius Pilate. Why would an astute Roman affirm Christian belief?[/quote]

This is the only quote I can find on Christ:

"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired."

I think that is interesting however it was written 80 years after the fact, is rather vague, and makes a mistake regarding the Title of Pontius which I think suggests he was not well studied in the area. I don't mean to dismiss it, it is important. He also seems to confuse Jesus’ title as the Christ with his name. He doesn’t seem to put much credit in the Christians claims as he refers to them as "mischievous superstition"



[quote]It goes against reason to believe Jesus was not crucified.[/quote]

I'm sorry I just don't see that claim as being firmly supported. There is some evidence. I'd be happy to look at whatever else you know of or see your response to what I wrote on Tacitus.




[quote]Do they believe Allah tricked his own followers as well?[/quote]

That is a very interesting question. I haven't any idea.


[quote]Muhammad has his own nephew lie in his bed knowing that the Quraysh wanted to killed him in his sleep, brave man, eh?[/quote]

It seems a bit schizophrenic to claim he is both a coward and a warrior "prophet" considering the battles he fought I'd say calling him a coward is a bit much.

As I understand it Ali was never to be in any danger. He was simply to lie there so the Quarish wouldn’t know Muhammad had fled until he was out of town.

That's juts how I understand it

[quote]But this event was just prior to Muhammad's emigration to Yathrib. After thirteen years the Mekkan's had enough of him and agreed that one person from each tribe would spear Muhammad while he slept, so that the blame would fall on all of them. Now what happened prior to this? Honestly the only thing I'm aware of is mockery and ostracizing the him and his followers. It's better than getting executed for apostatizing from Islam, and I can assure you, you would not get thirteen years to speak against their religion.[/quote]

He was strangled until his eyes bulged Abu Bakr chastised the attacker and shamed him to letting Muhammad go. Also a man attempted to smash his head with a rock while Muhammad was praying when (from what I gather) a vision of a stallion camel frightened him away. I know of a few assassination attempts (assuming the reports are accurate) and his people were sometimes beaten and forced to flee.

[quote]Compare Luke 1:5-38 and Surah 19:2-22. The similarities are startling.[/quote]


I'd certainly say it is the same story. I thought you were claiming it was a quotation or near quotation.

[Hassan]

[quote name='mortify' post='1604734' date='Jul 21 2008, 05:24 PM']Hassan said,
I don't find Rabbinical Judaism as bad because for them it's a matter of interpretation, they don't reject the OT canon. The Muslim sacred text explicitly rejects the crucifixion and Divinity, and when their text disagrees with ours, they claim ours is corrupted![/quote]

Alright

[quote]Hassan, it's very easy to prove these are modern attempts of watering down Islam, all you have to do is turn to early commentaries and books of fiq. The Quran says to fight Jews and Christians until they are subjugated and pay the jizya, this is exactly what happened:

From Ibn Kathir's Tafsir ([url="http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20980"][u]LINK[/u][/url])
==QUOTE==
(Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the People of the Scripture,)
[color="#0000FF"]This honorable Ayah was revealed with the order to fight the People of the Book, after the pagans were defeated, the people entered Allah's religion in large numbers, and the Arabian Peninsula was secured under the Muslims' control. Allah commanded His Messenger to fight the People of the Scriptures, Jews and Christians, on the ninth year of Hijrah, and he prepared his army to fight the Romans and called the people to Jihad announcing his intent and destination. The Messenger sent his intent to various Arab areas around Al-Madinah to gather forces, and he collected an army of thirty thousand. Some people from Al-Madinah and some hypocrites, in and around it, lagged behind, for that year was a year of drought and intense heat. The Messenger of Allah marched, heading towards Ash-Sham to fight the Romans until he reached Tabuk, where he set camp for about twenty days next to its water resources. He then prayed to Allah for a decision and went back to Al-Madinah because it was a hard year and the people were weak, as we will mention, Allah willing.[/color]
==END==[/quote]

?

That passage makes explicit reference to fighting the Roman Empire.

[quote]"Ahmadis are considered non-believers because they reject one of the obligatory articles of the Religion of Islam (daruriyyat), namely, the fact that the Prophet Muhammad is the last Prophet and that there is no new Prophet after him whatsoever, upon him blessings and peace, which constitutes belying the Qur'an (takdhib al-Qur'an) according to the Consensus of the Muslim Umma."
From: [url="http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=3213&CATE=203"]http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=...13&CATE=203[/url][/quote]

Yes, Maulana's sect doesn’t claim any Prophet came after Muhammad.

E[quote]ven if your author isn't a fully convinced Ahmadi, why would you rely on the interpretation of a small sect which broke from another small sect? Isn't there anything from the [i]Ahl sunnah wa'al jammat[/i] that supports your views?[/quote]

Because the University which is highly Orthodox approves them.

More importantly the things that Orthodox claim they are heretical have nothing to do with concubinage.

[quote]Where did you read this?[/quote]

I'll see if I can find the certificate. That and his historical works are approved.

[mortify]

God bless you Hassan, this is becoming a long discussion, which is fine but for the night Ill have to limit myself to this post!

[quote name='Hassan' post='1604841' date='Jul 21 2008, 08:09 PM']Sure. The problem isn’t that there were no Gospel's, the question is what that text looked like. Ancient Athens at it's cultural climax had a literacy of 15%. This was also a time when literacy was used rather loosely, it could mean one can actually read a written script or it could mean they were able to write their name and a sentence of certification. We know that many of the early Christians did come from the lower and uneducated class and some discrepancies in some copies of the New Testament suggest that some early Christian scribes seem to simple copy the letters with no comprehension of what they were writing. To make matters worse our script which makes spaces between words was not present at the time[/quote]

I honestly don't know what the literacy rate was back then, it's clear however, that the early Christians weren't a bunch of mindless copying machines. They were competent enough to realize the importance of using a codex instead of a scroll, and although many probably weren't at the level of a Roman scriptorum it's not that difficult to copy text, though naturally some errors creep in. The important thing to remember is that Christianity is not a religion of the book, it's a religion of the Church, and the Bible is a tool the Church uses for various purposes.

It's important to understand this because it's important to understand the teaching has not changed. Our Faith in the Divinity, the Crucifixion, and Resurrection has not changed.

[quote]The problem is not that no Gospels existed, but their transmission and the affects willfull editing and slips of the pen had on those texts.[/quote]

There's really only so far you can go. A scribe might be able to change the wording to emphasize a certain doctrine that the Church already believes, such as transcribing, "the Mother of Jesus and Joseph" instead of the "the parents of Jesus" but there's not way a whole section about Jesus being crucified and then resurrected can be added in without objection, unless this is what the early Church believed. This is one of the reasons the belief in the Virgin Birth of Christ must have stemmed from a Apostolic origin, but it would have been very difficult to time to have elapsed and then people suddenly accepting such a difficult teaching.

[quote]You seem to know more about this than I. However this seems like somewhat dubious methodology. If they are quoting key passages I think that would be important, if they are simply giving general ideas that the present Christians believe in then this seems somewhat question begging. There were numerous Christian sects after Christ’s death. Quoting the group that managed to come to the head, and then using their propositions to support the textual claims of texts that their followers choose to be set in a cannon considerably after the fact seems like somewhat circular reasoning.[/quote]

We don't just look at quotes but their source. Even Muslims have the concept of isnad, or a chain of narration. I mentioned St Polycarp in my original post. He was martyred around mid second century at the age of 80 or so, there was a lot of supernatural events surrounding his execution that were recorded by eyewitnesses but it's not important to get into, what is important is that St Polycarp personally new St John the APOSTLE. St Ignatius of Antioch, another person I mentioned, wrote one of his letters to St Polycarp, so they new each other, and St Polycarp was also known by another great saint, St Ireneus, who defended the authority of John's Gospel. (He actually quoted Polycarp's saying that the same John that rested his head on the bosom of Christ is the same John that wrote the Gospel). The whole point of this is that it's not simply quotations, and YES St Polycarp and these other figures do quote from the NT books and they also paraphrase from them. These men were so family with them that at times they just went according to memory.


[b]Are their any direct quotes from the Gospels in the earliest Christian writers? That would be very interesting.[/b]

YES!

Click here: [b]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm[/b]
It's St Polycarp's letter to the Phillipians. You'll notice some things he quotes, and other things he paraphrases. In both cases the Catholic Encyclopedia was convenient enough to cross reference them to the biblical books. Notice how the Saint quotes from the gospels, epistles, and even the books the protestants reject (i.e. Tobit)!

You can also click here: [url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/[/url] And look up the letters of St Ignatius, St Clement, etc.

[b]NAB is the New American Bible correct? That is the copy I have. I wouldn’t describe them as modernist as that are Roman Catholic.[/b]

I don't want to comment too much about the commentary because I'm not sure what the regulators will think. Sufficient to say I'm amazed it got an imprimatur!

[quote]The ones that were burned or the one of Uthman? I know that Muslims admit he allowed differences relating to phonics/pronunciation of text. But beyond that you'd need to show me something specific. This isn’t something I have been able to study unfortunately.[/quote]

It's recorded in Islamic tradition, unfortunately I have some of the story wrong. The woman who kept Abu Bakr's compilation was Hafsa, the daughter of Umar and wife of Muhammad, and she refused to have it destroyed when Uthman made his "official" text. It wasn't destroyed until she died, and it was done so out of fear it might cause future quarrels.

Here is part of the account here: [url="http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e27.html"]http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e27.html[/url]

I didn't get a chance to spell check so pardon all errors.


Glory be to Christ,
Mort

[mortify]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1604854' date='Jul 21 2008, 08:19 PM']That passage makes explicit reference to fighting the Roman Empire.[/quote]

Yes, which means "fighting" is not metaphorical.

Furthermore, it serves as precedent to attacking Christians and Jews until they are subjugated.

[Deb]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1604359' date='Jul 21 2008, 06:36 AM']HE and the early Muslims endured quite a few years of oppression in Mecca. I really don't think that is a fair criticism. If we assume for a moment that their is some resone to believe the Exodos story has any basis in fact then I'd say Moses and the Jews high tailed it out of Egypt nice and quick.

[b]Please, the jews were in slavery for 400 years. Now, the Koran was revealed in 610 a.d. yet, the Muslim calendar does not begin until the year 622 a.d. which is when Muhammed went to Medina. So, 22 years vs 400 doesn't exactly compare. Muhammed, in Mecca was very concillatory to the jews and christians as he hoped that they would decide to turn from Christ and follow him. They didn't of course because they knew God was to send no more prophets after he sent his Son. He even had his followers bow towards Jerusalem when they prayed. Muhammed was trying to win over the people of the 'book" as well as the pagan Arabs. This is when he claimed that Satan made him avow the three pagan gods of the arabs. You will not find the text where Muhammed praises these false Gods in the Koran. It was documented however by his earliest biographer in the year 622. Not everything is in the Koran, especially anything that would not make Muhammed look like the prophet he pretended to be. The advocay of worship of any God other than the God of abraham is an unforgiveable sin in Islam, unless of course it was committed by the founder. Eh?
Muhammed, after being so concillatory to the jews and christians then turned to violence and beheading. He did not turn on the pagan Arabs like that however. He not only acknowledged their Gods, he promoted them!
It is historical fact that while in Mecca, Muhammed turned rich people's lives into misery, he offended everyone in bitter rages. (probably due to the humilation that no one believe him except a few) He underminded the sacred practices and he angererd the rich by preaching against the slave trade in which Mecca was grand central station. When his uncle and wife both died in 619 his life quickly fell apart. His uncle ( who did not follow Muhammeds prophetic direction) was his protector and he did not have the support of his own clan. Then he began taking multiple wives. He was openly mocked when he tried to win conversions from his own clan. Seeing he was not gaining any ground, he then turned and started attacking the gods of the Arabs. This is when his persecution started and he got about two years of that when he ran.
There is history and then there is the Koran. What exactly is your knowledge base for the history of Islam?

[/b]
You not giveing me any Qur'anic references.

[b]See above[/b]


Again. Unless you cite specific verses in the Qur'an and line them up Chronologically with historical events this is your conjecture. If you give me something to go on I'd be happy to try and answer your question.

[b]No, not conjecture. Just stuff you don't know. Maybe you should try another religion to defend?

[/b]
[b][b]So, explain this passage from Muhammed's apostle, Abu Darda,: Abu Darda' reported God's messenger as saying, "God created Adam when He created him and struck his right shoulder and brought forth his offspring white like small ants. And he struck his left shoulder and brought forth his offspring BLACK as though they were charcoal. Then He said to the party on his right said,'To paradise, and I do not care', and He said to the party in his left shoulder 'To hell, and I do not care'."[/quote][/b][/b]

Edited July 22, 2008 by Deb

[mortify]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1604843' date='Jul 21 2008, 08:10 PM']I really have no problem with miracles in the Bible. I have never understood secularists acted like the idea an omnipotent God could cause a virgin birth was absurd.[/quote]

If there is no God, as they believe, a virgin birth would be impossible and therefore must be invented legend.

[quote]However the discrepancies are not simply different perspectives. Some are I suppose. Mark portraying a somewhat angry Jesus who's last words were "My God my God why hast thou forsaken me" while Luke depicts Him as a figure of almost unwavering calm who comforts the women on the way to crucifixion and who's last words are "Into your hands I command my spirit" is a different perspective. However I don't believe Mark reports the women going to the men and them seeing Christ risen. It's a somewhat dark Gospel. His last words are either a cry of desperation at being abandoned by God or quoting a Psalm describing a righteous man crying out to God in persecution and the women seeing an empty tomb and running away. That is a somewhat different picture.[/quote]

All "views" are inspired. One written gospel is not sufficient to do Christ justice.

[quote]But other things are outright contradictions. I admit that the smaller things are not to important to Christian theology. However the different perspectives seem to me to be more damaging. The seem, to me, to show a Christian community that is still, decades after Jesus’ death, trying to come to terms with who or what Jesus was. I don't think that is too much of a problem for Christians, I just find it odd.[/quote]

I think your over emphasizing their differences.
[quote]The only Jewish commentators I know of is Josapheus. I really don’t know any sources of Roman or Jewish authorship that really testify to the Christians claims in any major way. I would say that if you would use the standard that as we don't have any contradictory reports they must not have denied it then you must accepts the trouble with the argument. The Gospels report numerous extraordinary phenomena such as the dead rising, a man healing dozens of people, including a Roman official’s daughter, and the Resurrection of a crucified blasphemer. I do not know of any Jewish or Roman reports of these events.
This is the only quote I can find on Christ:[/quote]

Josephus and Tacitus confirm aspects of Christianity, but there are others as well. Check out www.tektonics.org

[quote]I think that is interesting however it was written 80 years after the fact, is rather vague, and makes a mistake regarding the Title of Pontius which I think suggests he was not well studied in the area. I don't mean to dismiss it, it is important. He also seems to confuse Jesus’ title as the Christ with his name. He doesn’t seem to put much credit in the Christians claims as he refers to them as "mischievous superstition"
I'm sorry I just don't see that claim as being firmly supported. There is some evidence. I'd be happy to look at whatever else you know of or see your response to what I wrote on Tacitus.[/quote]

Geez Hassan, here we have a Roman witness confirming the essence of the Christian message and you just sweep it aside?! You have a reference to the Crucifixion and possibly the Resurrection!

Tacitus was a renowned historian of his time and he did not make a mistake concerning Pontius Pilate's position, note the article: [b]http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/tacitus.html#tacproc[/b]

[quote]That is a very interesting question. I haven't any idea.[/quote]

The gospels record Jesus' disciples were at the Crucifixion, but I imagine the Muslims will say our texts are corrupt! It's an invincible argument because evidence is disregarded!

[quote]It seems a bit schizophrenic to claim he is both a coward and a warrior "prophet" considering the battles he fought I'd say calling him a coward is a bit much.[/quote]

Ultimately his self preservation prevailed. I'm not sure but I think for the most part he had his followers fight his wars, maybe I'm wrong.

[quote]As I understand it Ali was never to be in any danger. He was simply to lie there so the Quarish wouldn’t know Muhammad had fled until he was out of town.[/quote]

Of course he was in danger, the Quraysh were planning on spearing Muhammad as he slept in bed!

[quote]He was strangled until his eyes bulged Abu Bakr chastised the attacker and shamed him to letting Muhammad go. Also a man attempted to smash his head with a rock while Muhammad was praying when (from what I gather) a vision of a stallion camel frightened him away. I know of a few assassination attempts (assuming the reports are accurate) and his people were sometimes beaten and forced to flee.[/quote]

I remember the story about the stone, I'm not sure when it occurred. As for the chocking, there are reports that Muhammad was squeezed, mocked, and ridiculed while in prayer, but I don't imagine this was anything too serious.
[quote]I'd certainly say it is the same story. I thought you were claiming it was a quotation or near quotation.[/quote]

I'm amazed Hassan, you don't think that qualifies as plagiarism? It certainly does!

[Hassan]

I'll get to the posts here soon.

sorry for the delay

[mortify]

Take your time buddy, i'm enjoying the break

[Hassan]

[quote name='mortify' post='1607464' date='Jul 24 2008, 01:08 PM']Take your time buddy, i'm enjoying the break [/quote]


I'm sorry. This is just so large that it takes me a long time to respond once I get started. I'll see what I can do.

[Hassan]

[quote name='mortify' post='1605021' date='Jul 22 2008, 12:33 AM']God bless you Hassan, this is becoming a long discussion, which is fine but for the night Ill have to limit myself to this post!
I honestly don't know what the literacy rate was back then, it's clear however, that the early Christians weren't a bunch of mindless copying machines. They were competent enough to realize the importance of using a codex instead of a scroll, and although many probably weren't at the level of a Roman scriptorum it's not that difficult to copy text, though naturally some errors creep in. The important thing to remember is that Christianity is not a religion of the book, it's a religion of the Church, and the Bible is a tool the Church uses for various purposes.[/quote]


It is not "some" errors. As I said, there are numerous errors in all the texts.

It actually it quite difficult to copy text, particularly if you are barely, if at all, literate, the writing is continuous, and small differences in letter can make a huge difference in meaning. Current Gospels of Mark say Jesus took compassion on the leper who visited him, the earlier versions say Jesus was angry with the leper. Does Hebrews claim that "God became flesh" or "Who became flesh".

And you are correct, they were not mindless. They were not impassioned copying machines. The were believers who had passionate opinions of the subject and at times tried to alter the texts due to "inspiration" or a conviction that the text they are copying was transcribed incorrectly and they are simply correcting an error. We see this in the second century when tensions were beginning to mount between Christians and Jews and some scribes started to alter texts to make it appear Jesus was handed off not to Roman Soldiers but Jews.

[quote]It's important to understand this because it's important to understand the teaching has not changed. Our Faith in the Divinity, the Crucifixion, and Resurrection has not changed.[/quote]

Yes it has. Origen was later declared a heretic, however in his day he was a strong force in "Orthodox" Christianity (look at his understanding of Jesus’s relation to the Father). The numerous Christianities had vastly different ideas, yet there was disagreement even within the "orthodox" movement. Was it Christ's death that atoned for sins? Did one need to keep the Jewish laws to be saved? Was Jesus created by the Father? Were the “Prophecy” of individual members considered authorities? Was Christ more human that divine? Was Christ equal with the father? At the time of Origen there was no fixed understanding of the "trinity". Or the exact nature of Christ.


[quote]There's really only so far you can go. A scribe might be able to change the wording to emphasize a certain doctrine that the Church already believes, such as transcribing, "the Mother of Jesus and Joseph" instead of the "the parents of Jesus" but there's not way a whole section about Jesus being crucified and then resurrected can be added in without objection, unless this is what the early Church believed.[/quote]

And I am not aware of any Christians who denied these key events. However did Jesus really suffer? Was he really crucified? Or did he simply appear to suffer to satisfy wrathful Yahweh and bring humanity to the "true" God? Small changes make a huge difference.

[quote]This is one of the reasons the belief in the Virgin Birth of Christ must have stemmed from a Apostolic origin[/quote]

Yet apostolic origin was something itself that entered into the mind of the Church later.

,[quote]but it would have been very difficult to time to have elapsed and then people suddenly accepting such a difficult teaching.[/quote]

compared with being told a Jewish Palestinian carpenter needed you to eat his flesh and drink his blood to be saved, I don’t think a virgin birth is to much to accept.

What do you mean "people"? There was huge debate on almost everything in the early Christian community.

[quote]We don't just look at quotes but their source. Even Muslims have the concept of isnad, or a chain of narration. I mentioned St Polycarp in my original post. He was martyred around mid second century at the age of 80 or so, there was a lot of supernatural events surrounding his execution that were recorded by eyewitnesses but it's not important to get into, what is important is that St Polycarp personally new St John the APOSTLE.[/quote]

I have heard this before, in a book I read for my senior project in High School I looked at the chain. I never saw any actual historical evidence for this, or the extent to which Polycarp knew John.

Moreover weren’t the Gospel's authored anonymously?

[quote]St Ignatius of Antioch, another person I mentioned, wrote one of his letters to St Polycarp, so they new each other, and St Polycarp was also known by another great saint, St Ireneus, who defended the authority of John's Gospel. (He actually quoted Polycarp's saying that the same John that rested his head on the bosom of Christ is the same John that wrote the Gospel). The whole point of this is that it's not simply quotations, and YES St Polycarp and these other figures do quote from the NT books and they also paraphrase from them. These men were so family with them that at times they just went according to memory.[/quote]

Yet some of those very men seemed to take non-canonical books as inspired as well.

[quote][b]Are their any direct quotes from the Gospels in the earliest Christian writers? That would be very interesting.[/b]

YES!

Click here: [b]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm[/b]
It's St Polycarp's letter to the Phillipians. You'll notice some things he quotes, and other things he paraphrases. In both cases the Catholic Encyclopedia was convenient enough to cross reference them to the biblical books. Notice how the Saint quotes from the gospels, epistles, and even the books the protestants reject (i.e. Tobit)![/quote]

So Polycarp didn't actually make those citations?



[quote]I don't want to comment too much about the commentary because I'm not sure what the regulators will think. Sufficient to say I'm amazed it got an imprimatur!
It's recorded in Islamic tradition, unfortunately I have some of the story wrong. The woman who kept Abu Bakr's compilation was Hafsa, the daughter of Umar and wife of Muhammad, and she refused to have it destroyed when Uthman made his "official" text. It wasn't destroyed until she died, and it was done so out of fear it might cause future quarrels.

Here is part of the account here: [url="http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e27.html"]http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/fiqha_e27.html[/url]

I didn't get a chance to spell check so pardon all errors.
Glory be to Christ,
Mort[/quote]

That's fine. I find it strange that you got this from an Islamic source yet it is supposed to undermine the authenticity of the Qur'an?

I got a book recently, "In Search of the Original Koran" I will read that however I really don't want to go into Qur'an textual authenticity as I know very little on the subject. I'll look at whatever you have to say on it though.

[Hassan]

[quote name='mortify' post='1605028' date='Jul 22 2008, 12:47 AM']Yes, which means "fighting" is not metaphorical.[/quote]


I don’t understand why you stick with this. I reported three common responses. I said I did not put stock in the metaphorical interpretation both because that is not what the Arabic suggests and because that does not fit the context of the Surah.

[quote]Furthermore, it serves as precedent to attacking Christians and Jews until they are subjugated.[/quote]

Sure. But the Gospel of Mathew helped continue the rather savage anti-semitisim that rose with the early orthodox Christian community. And has long helped set a precedent for claiming the Jews had Jesus’ blood on them or they were God killers. As I recall it wasn’t until the 1960's that the Pope finally said were are all responsible for Christ’s death.

I don't think that this unfortunate interpretation should be used to define Christianity as an entire entity. Similar I think (in fact know) Surah 9:29 can be used to justify attacking People of the book. However that is not the necessary interpretation as I have reference before.

[mortify]

Salaam Hassan,

[quote name='Hassan' post='1608548' date='Jul 25 2008, 05:18 PM']It actually it quite difficult to copy text, particularly if you are barely, if at all, literate, the writing is continuous, and small differences in letter can make a huge difference in meaning. Current Gospels of Mark say Jesus took compassion on the leper who visited him, the earlier versions say Jesus was angry with the leper. Does Hebrews claim that "God became flesh" or "Who became flesh".[/quote]

I can't really comment on the difficulty of copying if one is illiterate, I would think it's a matter of thoroughness, however you do seem to be assuming the majority (all?) of copyists were illiterate.

With regards to your examples I'd look at them if you mention their location in the bible. I will say for now that even if such "alterations" can be reasonably shown to be real, they don't alter our understanding of Jesus. It's not like the Divinity of Jesus rests on a verse in Hebrews.

[quote]And you are correct, they were not mindless. They were not impassioned copying machines. The were believers who had passionate opinions of the subject and at times tried to alter the texts due to "inspiration" or a conviction that the text they are copying was transcribed incorrectly and they are simply correcting an error. We see this in the second century when tensions were beginning to mount between Christians and Jews and some scribes started to alter texts to make it appear Jesus was handed off not to Roman Soldiers but Jews.[/quote]

Well that's interesting Hassan but apparently this "corruption" was not wide enough to affect *all* copies of Scripture, not sure it can be documented that a majority of Christians ever believed that JEWISH soldiers crucified Christ. I think it's important to understand that these errors, if indeed true, affected not the Scripture itself, but *particular* copies.

Now I'm not really sure how we know that these copysists changed things because they fealt themselves inspired or because they believed the original was incorrect, this is simply speculation.

[quote]Yes it has. Origen was later declared a heretic, however in his day he was a strong force in "Orthodox" Christianity (look at his understanding of Jesus’s relation to the Father). The numerous Christianities had vastly different ideas, yet there was disagreement even within the "orthodox" movement. Was it Christ's death that atoned for sins? Did one need to keep the Jewish laws to be saved? Was Jesus created by the Father? Were the “Prophecy” of individual members considered authorities? Was Christ more human that divine? Was Christ equal with the father? At the time of Origen there was no fixed understanding of the "trinity". Or the exact nature of Christ.[/quote]

Have you been reading Bart Ehrman? Seems like a point he would make. The existence of other opinions, even false ones, does not mean the Faith has changed, at least not in the sense you are trying to suggest, or that the answers to these questions were unknown.

Going back to St Ignatius' letters, he *explicitly* calls Jesus *GOD* and this was back in 110 AD. But how can this be, isn't God one? The answer is yes. If God is One, and the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, then the only solution is that God is One in Three Persons. This concept existed since the beginning, and even St Clement's Letter (96 AD) has some of the earliest trinitarian formulas, calling on the Three Divine Persons.

Many heresies, if not all of, at least of the early ones rejected one of two doctrines: the humanity of Christ or the Divinity of Christ. The Church's responses to these was to simply reject what was false and affirm what was always believed. Perhaps they instroduced certain terms not mentioned in the past, but substantially the faith was the same. Prior to the declarations a Church scholar might have used numerous ways of trying to prove aspects of the Christian faith, some of them may have been restricted afterwards to prevent misunderstandings.

[quote]And I am not aware of any Christians who denied these key events. However did Jesus really suffer? Was he really crucified? Or did he simply appear to suffer to satisfy wrathful Yahweh and bring humanity to the "true" God? Small changes make a huge difference.[/quote]

The first question is why would someone deny it? Isn't it reasonable and natural to accept that Jesus suffered on the Cross? What would make someone believe differently? Well, there were certain groups in the ancient world that combined their religious beliefs with certain Christian ideas, and in this particular case I'm referring to the gnostics. They believed in a dualism between body and soul, and that the body and all matter is EVIL because it entraps the soul. This obviously led them to falsely declare a substantial difference between the God of the OT and the God of the NT, the former being EVIL because He created matter! So some gnostics believed Jesus didn't have a body, he was pure spirit acting like a human. Others believed the Soul of Christ separated from His body on the Cross, so that only the material vessel was crucified. And still other gnostics believed that Simon's soul was placed into Jesus' Body!

These beliefs are clearly ridiculous and have no part in the true revelation, but how do we know this for sure? For one thing Jesus is a Jewish Messiah coming to fulfill Judaism, it's only natural for His message to be in some sense an extension of what was before. The gnostics rejected what was before and even declared it evil. Also, we have a LARGE body of writing against them by those who really did succeed the Apostles. St Ignatius in fact emphatically defends the humanity of Christ in numerous places throughout his letters. But who was St Ignatius? He was the THIRD bishop after St Peter in Antioch, in other words, he is himself a successor of an Apostle old enough to have met Apostles and learned from those conversed with other Apostles!

So I have no reason to doubt the reality of Christ's agony on the Cross.

[quote]Yet apostolic origin was something itself that entered into the mind of the Church later.[/quote]

Well this is simply not true. In Acts of the Apostles it's clearly shown that the Apostles felt an innate call to have someone replace the office of Judas. Apostolic succession as an argument was used by many early Christians as an argument against heretics who were trying to introduce foreign ideas into the deposit of faith, it's like the Islamic concept of ISNAD with the exception of dealing with live humans instead of memorized words.

[b]compared with being told a Jewish Palestinian carpenter needed you to eat his flesh and drink his blood to be saved, I don’t think a virgin birth is to much to accept.[/b]

I'm really not sure what would have been easier to accept, certainly many departed Jesus after He said they would have to consume His flesh for salvation, but consummation goes hand in hand with sacrifice. After an animal was offered in atonement the burnt offering was actually consumed. If you read back in Exodus regarding the Passover, consummation of the Lamb was REQUIRED. So if Christ is the Lamb of God, it would be natural to think we consume His Flesh as well.

Hope you didn't mind me explaining about about that, but ultimately your points seems to be, "they accepted the eating of His flesh, so why not the Virgin Birth!" to which I only say they accepted both because of their Divine origin in revelation, and not theological opinion.
[b]
What do you mean "people"? There was huge debate on almost everything in the early Christian community.
I have heard this before, in a book I read for my senior project in High School I looked at the chain. I never saw any actual historical evidence for this, or the extent to which Polycarp knew John.[/b]

Well let's start with the fact St Polycarp was Bishop in Asia Minor and was executed around 150 AD in his late 80s. That means he was born somewhere around the late 60's and raised Christian, how do we know? During his trial, which is recorded in the account of his martyrdom, he seems to imply he was either baptized as an infant or as a child because he said, "I have proclaimed Jesus Lord for 80 years, and I will not stop now," (I'm paraphrasing, I don't recall the exact age though it was in the 80s, and this account is available online.) This information is important because St John is said to have lived until 98 AD, and that he resided in Asia Minor. This makes St Polycarp's contact with St John totally possible and reasonable. The rest is the witness of Asia minor recognized St Polycarp as a witness to John, his recorded words by some who knew him, such as St Ireneus, and holy tradition. I really have no reason to doubt St Polycarp's contact with St John the Evangelist.

[b]Moreover weren’t the Gospel's authored anonymously? [/b]

If that were the case we wouldn't have names attached to them, would we?

[b]Yet some of those very men seemed to take non-canonical books as inspired as well.[/b]

Which men? What non-canonical books? Where were they quoted?
[b]
So Polycarp didn't actually make those citations?[/b]

The idea of intellectual property wasn't around in St Polycarp's time so he didn't need to reference his sources

[b]That's fine. I find it strange that you got this from an Islamic source yet it is supposed to undermine the authenticity of the Qur'an?[/b]

Yes, it's in their own records, the originals were burned most probably because they were different, including Abu Bakr's collected manuscript. Muslims will obviously spin these details.

[b]
I got a book recently, "In Search of the Original Koran" I will read that however I really don't want to go into Qur'an textual authenticity as I know very little on the subject. I'll look at whatever you have to say on it though.
[/b]

I don't have too much to say on it, it's level of preservation doesn't change my opinion on it. There are differences between manuscripts and even the various ways or reciting Qur'an affects what words are pronounced.


Pardon any spelling or grammar errors, I didn't review my post because of time!


Christ is King!
Pax et Bonum