Christian/Muslim Threadsa must read1) There is not a single piece of evidence that negates the Qur’an’s account, primarily because there can never be historical proof that would appeared to have transpired actually transpired 2) The fact that persons were crucified by Pilate, on and around that date, in no way proves that the crucified was Jesus (pbuh) 3) Never would I give any text equal weight to the Qur’an. The Qur’an is the only text that identifies itself as revelation, has only one version, maintained in its original language, and has a direct connection to the Prophet to whom it was revealed. In addition, it has internal and external miracles to vouch for its authenticity. I gave you a direct answer: In matters of religion, divine revelation trumps speculative detective work. Obviously you’re forgetting that in both of your scenarios, there is a virgin birth, a miracle. Jesus’ life is rife with miracles which a disbeliever could negate with more “logical” scenarios. A non-believer would then pose you a third, most “logical” scenario that there was no miracle birth. When God reveals truth to man, for example the virgin birth, only a disbeliever prefers a “logical” account over the divine account. I don’t doubt you agree with me here. Believer, I want you to seriously try to understand what I’ve written here, I have a feeling you’re not actually absorbing the significance: And here: Historically, an event either happened or it did not. If the account is true, then it doesn’t matter if it was recorded in mud or on the underside of a bar table by a murderer or in a text which contains a series of other unrelated untrue statements. I mean, this is precisely the argument that is used in defense of the Bible, “yes, it contains serious historical and internal contradictions, but that doesn’t mar the truth that it does contain”. You’re trying to do two illogical things at once. First you’re saying that since the Qur’an and your apocryphal texts contain a similar account, then the Qur’an is copied from the texts. The reason this is illogical is because if the account is true, it doesn’t matter in which or how many texts it is contained. It’s not surprising that the account is true because it is found in a divine book that only contains truth. It shouldn’t be surprising either that a historical text records a historical truth because witnesses are apt to do just that, record events as they happened. On the other hand, if you’re trying to show that the account in the “apocryphal” texts is false solely because their manuscript has a later date than that of the Bible (not even true since you’re talking about supposed authorship instead of manuscript evidence ~325 AD), then this isn’t proof at all unless you are able to show that the account is false (and not just that the early Church fathers decided not to accept the gospels). In addition, you’d have to show that this gospel influenced the Qur’an, which will be even more difficult than showing that the Trinity is not based on the triadic godhead of Hinduism or Platonic triplets of the soul. Otherwise, anyone can say that the mere fact that these philosophies are similar means that they were copied. Peace |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame