Surah 6 (Al-Anam) 95-105 - Signs in Nature - SAQ - All - The Skeptic's Annotated Bible Discussion Board - Message Board - Yuku

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Re: Surah 6 (Al-Anam) 95-105 - Signs in Nature

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
FireGarden	Re: Surah 6 (Al-Anam) 95-105 - Signs in Nature	#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 52 09/11/05 04:48:19	Hi, Waterrock Can I ask who you're using as a source of commentary/interpretation? Are you talking to Muslims while you read the Quran? *Quote:* His assumption was reinforced when Muhammad observed how the pseudo-Christians revered Mary, and he concluded that the Arabian pseudo-Christians taught that (a) the Trinity consisted of the Father, the Mother (Mary), and the Son (Jesus), and (b) the Christians believed that Jesus was produced by copulation, rather than being the eternally emanated Logos. I'm interested in why you think that the Christians in Arabia at the time of Mohammed were "pseudo-Christians". Are you aware of St Athanasius www.bartleby.com/65/at/AthanasSt.html and the debates regarding the status of Jesus in Christianity? As well as a different trinity, Islam refers to miracles of Jesus such as bringing to life clay statues of birds. *Quote:* www.debate.org.uk/topics/...hrist.html It is very well known that this idea of the wonder-working infant has been borrowed from the apocryphal pseudo-gospels of the Gospel of Thomas the Israelite (clay birds) and the cradle story is taken from the so-called Gospel of the Infancy which itself derives from the Gospel of Thomas the Israelite Weren't the Gospels you have in the Bible today were chosen by committee? It seems that other Christians chose other Gospels.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Waterrock	Re: Surah 6 (Al-Anam) 95-105 - Signs in Nature	#2	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1163 09/12/05 07:20:25	FireGarden ~ FG: "Can I ask who you're using as a source of commentary/interpretation? Are you talking to Muslims while you read the Quran?" I'm accessing various online Islamic commentaries and hadith-collections. FG: "I'm interested in why you think that the Christians in Arabia at the time of Mohammed were "pseudo-Christians"." After the Council of Ephesus (431) the Nestorians went westwards, and it seems reasonable that they would've founded some churches in Arabia. Also, deducing from the text of the Quran and some Hadith, it looks like the people whom Muhammad regarded as "Christians" taught an exalted form of Mary-exaltation, and treated an image of Jesus and Mary like an idol, and had some other unorthodox beliefs. FG: "Are you aware of St Athanasius ..." Yes. Btw, as a non-denominational Christian, while Athanasius' work was very important, I don't view the Athanasian Creed as an authoritative statement. FG: "Weren't the Gospels you have in the Bible today were chosen by committee? It seems that other Christians chose other Gospels." No. There's something of a trend (started by gullible readers of the "Da Vinci Code" book, I suspect) to re-write history to that effect, but it simply is not true. The four Gospels -- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John -- were considered a unique and complete group ~ i.e., THE Gospels ~ in the 100's. The Christian bishop Irenaeus of Lyons mentions this in his writings in about A.D. 180. About 10 years earlier, when the early church writer Papias wished to combine the "Gospels" into one continuous narrative, he used the texts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The "Muratorian Fragment" also has an early list of accepted books in it which, while not identical to the current canon, indicates which Gospels were accepted. (It's a Google-search away.) (The early rival of the four canonical Gospels -- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John -- was not other gospel-accounts; it was oral tradition about Jesus which was still circulating. This is why writers in the second century still mentioned things like the appearance of a bright light in the water when Jesus was baptized, even though such a thing is not mentioned by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.) So, no; other Christians did not choose other Gospels. What basically happened was that some people, temporarily in the church, invented their own notion of what Jesus should be like, and since they did not find support for their ideas in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, they either rejected them (or most of them, as Marcion did in the mid-second century) or replaced them with new compositions to which they attached apostolic or lofty-sounding names. Irenaeus mentions, and exposes, some such books in his book "Against Heresies." Yours in Christ, Waterrock
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
FireGarden	Re: Surah 6 (Al-Anam) 95-105 - Signs in Nature	#3	[url]	[-]
Posts: 52 09/12/05 23:16:24	Hi, Waterrock Thank you for answering my questions. I looked up bishop Irenaeus and the Gospels. *Quote:* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel An insistence upon a canonical four, and no others, was a central theme of Irenaeus of Lyons, c. 185. In his central work, Adversus Haereses Irenaeus denounced various Christian groups that used only one gospel, such as Aramaic Matthew, as well as groups that embraced the texts of new revelations, such as the Valentinians (A.H. 1.11.9). Irenaeus declared that the four he espoused were the four pillars of the Church: "it is not possible that there can be either more or fewer than four" he stated, presenting as logic the analogy of the four corners of the earth and the four winds (1.11.8 ) I hope that he had a better argument than that. I have not been able to find out why Irenaeus did not like the Gospels of Thomas. In any case, his position indicates that there were, indeed, more than four Gospels at the time he chose to support the four. In fact, Irenaeus quoted from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas -- according to this page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inf..._of_Thomas Does Irenaeus say when people decided on just four Gospels? Was he addressing a recent controversy or an old one? Summary of dates on the above pages at wiki Matthew: c. 70100 Mark: c. 6873 Luke: c. 80100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85 John: c. 90110. Infancy Gospel of Thomas: mid-2nd Century I also found an article by Glenn Miller, of the Christian think-tank, dating the sayings Gospel of Thomas. *Quote:* www.christian-thinktank.com/gthomas.html If we have Greek mss with fragments of Gth that can be dated to pre-200 AD, then clearly the GTh must be at least that old. But some highly visible minority (i.e. the Jesus Seminar) have claimed that it can be dated to 50-60ad, BEFORE the canonical gospels, so we need to see exactly what evidence exists by which to date the Gth. He's not too impressed by that evidence. And quotes that a date of about 140 CE is more commonly accepted by the scholarly community. Then he gives a range 150-180 AD The date of the Muratorian fragment is 170, quite possibly after the Gospels of Thomas. Does the list match exactly with today's accepted canon? And how many churches were known to its anonymous compiler? How far did he travel? It would have been helpful if he'd listed the churches as well as the texts. *Quote:* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mur...n_fragment The Muratorian fragment is a copy of perhaps the oldest known list of the books of the New Testament. The fragment listed all the works that were accepted as canonical by the churches known to its anonymous compiler. It was discovered in the Ambrosian Library in Milan by father Ludovico Antonio Muratori, (1672 1750), the most famous Italian historian of his generation, and published in 1740. The fragment lacks its beginning and ending, and is a 7th century Latin manuscript, which internal cues identify as a translation from a Greek original from around 170.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
raphjd	Re: Surah 6 (Al-Anam) 95-105 - Signs in Nature	#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2132 09/13/05 00:22:29	*Quote:* Weren't the Gospels you have in the Bible today were chosen by committee? YES, at the First Ecumenical {sp?} Council in 325 AD. *Quote:* It seems that other Christians chose other Gospels. The "other christians" were murdered for holding a different view than the Catholic church. "If Homosexuals went back into the closet, then there would be no more Homosexuality in this world" - Tom DeLay, US Congressman R-TX
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Waterrock	Pseudo-History and the Four Gospels	#5	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1163 09/14/05 15:06:48	Raphjd ~ (We're pretty far away from the Quran now, but...) When you were asked the question "Weren't the Gospels you have in the Bible today were chosen by committee?" you answered "YES, at the First Ecumenical {sp?} Council in 325 AD." That is not true. Someone has been lying to you. What do you propose as evidence that the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were chosen by committee in 325? Yours in Christ, Waterrock
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
raphjd	Re: Pseudo-History and the Four Gospels	#6	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2132 09/15/05 02:05:58	*Quote:* That is not true. Someone has been lying to you. What do you propose as evidence that the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were chosen by committee in 325? I think those 4 were already considered important so there wasn't much debate on them. I do believe that things were edited in those 4 at this time. Two example of texts they rejected from the bible include the Nag Hammadi collection and the Dead Sea Scrolls. You can do a google search and find countless other writings/texts/codexes that were rejected as well. Why weren't these included in the bible? They were written at the same time as the books in the bible and seem to hold just as much weight? No, the church and Constantine did want them in there because they conflicted with their ideas about christianity; ie the "Holy Trinity". Side note: There are at least 2 well known lies that come from or relate to the First Ecumenical Council aka Council of Nicaea; 1. It is claimed that there were 318 bishops there, WRONG it was only 230 to 250. The number 318 comes from Genisis when Abraham took 318 slaves to help him rescue his nephew Lot. Either the number was symbolic {see above} or they used it to pad the numbers to make it look more impressive. Both religious people and skeptics agree on this point. 2. The Donation of Constantine, supposedly give to Pope Sylvester I at the end of the Council. Yet it wasn't found until the late 8th century. So what did Pope Sylvester I do with it and why did it suddenly appear when it did? You'll find some very interesting read on this subject. It was proven to be a forgery in 1440 and again in the 1990s, with countless times in between. +++ So, if they are willing to lie about these "events" in regard to the FEC, what other lies or deceptions have they pulled then and through the centuries since in regard to the FEC? Or anything else for that matter? "If Homosexuals went back into the closet, then there would be no more Homosexuality in this world" - Tom DeLay, US Congressman R-TX
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
Waterrock	Re: Pseudo-History and the Four Gospels	#7	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1163 09/15/05 07:12:29	Raphjd ~ R: "I think those 4 were already considered important so there wasn't much debate on them. I do believe that things were edited in those 4 at this time." Why? What evidence do you have that the question of the canon even came up at Nicea? And, not only why, but /how/? I am wondering, for instance, how the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John were edited in 325, since there's a papyrus copy (Papyrus 75) of those two books in existence, produced in the late 100's or early 200's. Now, are there differences between the text of Papyrus 75 and, say, Codex Vaticanus, which was produced in about 325? Yes. Do these differences result in major differences in the overall message? No. R: "Two example of texts they rejected from the bible include the Nag Hammadi collection and the Dead Sea Scrolls." Saying that they "rejected from the Bible" the Nag Hammadi collection is like saying that they rejected from the Bible the works of Aeschylus. They were never in the Bible. The Nag Hammadi compositions were written by Gnostics. Saying that the Christian leaders rejected the Nag Hammadi collection is exactly right. Books were not assumed to be authoritative for the church simply by virtue of their existence. But to imply that Christians wrote and revered the Nag Hammadi collection is nonsense. It's like saying that the founders of the United States rejected the Communist Manifesto from the Constitution. R: "Why weren't these included in the bible?" The Nag Hammadi books? Because they were written by false teachers, of course. R: "They were written at the same time as the books in the bible" Not true. The Gospel of Thomas is probably the earliest, dating to about 140. For the others, well, you yourself mentioned that there is plenty of information on them, and if that online material is objective and well-researched, you can find out the not-in-the-apostolic-era dates yourself. R: "and seem to hold just as much weight?" Only in the minds of their authors! The apostolic church consistently rejected the Gnostics' teachings. R: "No, the church and Constantine did want them in there because they conflicted with their ideas about christianity; ie the "Holy Trinity"." I'm not sure what pseudo-history you've been reading, but in the real world, Constantine wasn't all that concerned about the Gnostics. The main concern at the Council of Nicea was Arianism, not Gnosticism. Yours in Christ, Waterrock
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
raphjd	Re: Pseudo-History and the Four Gospels	#8	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2132 09/15/05 11:25:48	*Quote:* Why? What evidence do you have that the question of the canon even came up at Nicea? And, not only why, but /how/? Countless objective books dating before and after "The Da Vinci Code" was written. You on the other hand have to believe that the bible is untouched or it would ruin your beliefs. *Quote:* I am wondering, for instance, how the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John were edited in 325, since there's a papyrus copy (Papyrus 75) of those two books in existence, produced in the late 100's or early 200's. Now, are there differences between the text of Papyrus 75 and, say, Codex Vaticanus, which was produced in about 325? Yes. Do these differences result in major differences in the overall message? No. Hello!!! You just said they are different, just not a "major" difference. Odd, you say that Codex Vaticanus was written "in about 325". Hmmmmm, that year sounds familiar. *Quote:* The Nag Hammadi books? Because they were written by false teachers, of course. *Quote:* Only in the minds of their authors! The apostolic church consistently rejected the Gnostics' teachings. So you claim, who's to say that yours aren't the false teachers? Oh wait, you have proven liars, forgers and mass murders in your church. *Quote:* I'm not sure what pseudo-history you've been reading, but in the real world, Constantine wasn't all that concerned about the Gnostics. The main concern at the Council of Nicea was Arianism, not Gnosticism. Again, we know of 2 historical lies from the FEC, how many more are there?! We already know the church isn't beyond making forgeries to get what it wants. The church has been constantly rewriting history to suit it's own needs for almost 2,000 years. *Quote:* Not true. The Gospel of Thomas is probably the earliest, dating to about 140. *Quote:* since there's a papyrus copy (Papyrus 75) of those two books in existence, produced in the late 100's or early 200's. So the Gospel of Thomas {Nag Hammadi} is older than Luke and John {bible}. Also, many scholars {religious and non} believe that GoTh came before the 4 canonical Gospels. EDIT: corrected typo "If Homosexuals went back into the closet, then there would be no more Homosexuality in this world" - Tom DeLay, US Congressman R-TX
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
raphjd	Re: Pseudo-History and the Four Gospels	#9	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2132 09/15/05 12:35:07	*Quote:* In 367 A.D., Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria issued a decree banning all scriptures not explicitly approved by the central Church authorities. I guess this was done so that the rejected books wouldn't be around to conflict with the "approved" version of the bible. "If Homosexuals went back into the closet, then there would be no more Homosexuality in this world" - Tom DeLay, US Congressman R-TX
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
raphjd	Re: Surah 6 (Al-Anam) 95-105 - Signs in Nature	#10	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2132 09/13/05 00:32:43	*Quote:* it looks like the people whom Muhammad regarded as "Christians" taught an exalted form of Mary-exaltation, and treated an image of Jesus and Mary like an idol, and had some other unorthodox beliefs. You mean Catholics, right? They are the ones that worship Mary the Mother. *Quote:* No. There's something of a trend (started by gullible readers of the "Da Vinci Code" book, I suspect) to re-write history to that effect, but it simply is not true. LOL, ok if you say so. You do realise that people have talked about this long before that book even came out?! There are at least 42 books written about it before Dan Brown wrote "The Da Vinci Code". Probably a lot more if you look to books written in other languages besides english. "If Homosexuals went back into the closet, then there would be no more Homosexuality in this world" - Tom DeLay, US Congressman R-TX
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote
raphjd	Re: Surah 6 (Al-Anam) 95-105 - Signs in Nature	#11	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2132 09/13/05 01:45:33	*Quote:* Muratorian Fragment www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/ReligionTheology/BiblicalStudies/NewTestament/?view=usa&ci=0198263414 essenes.net/new/muraton.html www.geocities.com/paulntobin/ntcanon.html lane.elcore.net/truth3.htm I could list countless sites that disagree with you. "If Homosexuals went back into the closet, then there would be no more Homosexuality in this world" - Tom DeLay, US Congressman R-TX
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Quick Reply

Replies

Surah 6 (Al-Anam) 95-105 - Signs in Nature	06/29/05 19:47:10	Waterrock
Re: Surah 6 (Al-Anam) 95-105 - Signs in Nature	09/11/05 04:48:19	FireGarden
Re: Surah 6 (Al-Anam) 95-105 - Signs in Nature	09/12/05 07:20:25	Waterrock
Re: Surah 6 (Al-Anam) 95-105 - Signs in Nature	09/12/05 23:16:24	FireGarden
Re: Surah 6 (Al-Anam) 95-105 - Signs in Nature	09/13/05 00:22:29	raphjd
Pseudo-History and the Four Gospels	09/14/05 15:06:48	Waterrock
Re: Pseudo-History and the Four Gospels	09/15/05 02:05:58	raphjd
Re: Pseudo-History and the Four Gospels	09/15/05 07:12:29	Waterrock
Re: Pseudo-History and the Four Gospels	09/15/05 11:25:48	raphjd
Re: Pseudo-History and the Four Gospels	09/15/05 12:35:07	raphjd
Re: Surah 6 (Al-Anam) 95-105 - Signs in Nature	09/13/05 00:32:43	raphjd
Re: Surah 6 (Al-Anam) 95-105 - Signs in Nature	09/13/05 01:45:33	raphjd