"the words are eternal" but you don't ever say what you mean by eternal.
Are you serious? Or is just that you haven’t been reading my posts. They are considered eternal in their very essence, eternal in their very expression, the Quran is eternal from cover to cover, the sounds and letters are even uncreated, the Quran represents the eternal speech of God manifest in a book, the Quran is considered a created non-divine expression of the eternal and purely divine. And you keep asking me to avoid using words like “straw men” etc. What do you expect bro?
I'm very serious, notice how you STILL didn't answer the question. What about the words is eternal? The sound they make when uttered? (The Hanbalites would say that) but Ok. And their meaning? And their Truth? What else?
That is not the basis of the Quran’s eternality, and to answer this would be to repeat absolutely everything ive said (read just the above - its pretty well summarised), because you asserted this statement 50 times in different wordings and expressions in your previous post! As I said, your scholars drew an EXCLUSIVE comparison between Christ and the Quran, based on the EXISTING religious principals of orthodox Islam concerning the Quran, and orthodox Christianity concerning Christ.
But you don't ever answer the question. Yes, my scholars called the Qur'an eternal, but you stop there. You have to understand what about the Qur'an is eternal. Otherwise you're latching onto a word just so you can compare it to temporal, but we know that eternal Truths do exist in our temporal world.
Also, my scholars compare the Qur'an TO Christ in Christian belief HAD this belief been supported in a divine revelation. For example, imagine if there was a "Qur'an of the Christians" to justify your belief in the Eternalness of Christ, the analogy would be:
Qur'an:Qur'an as Christ:Qur'an of the Christians
The entire analogy grants Christians the assumption that their belief is based on a Qur'anic Scripture, but it isn't.
In fact, had the Sikh Scripture been authentic, the same analogy would be applicable for them as it would for the Christians:
Adi Granth: Adi Granth
The Sikhs believe that the Adi Granth book is a Guru, they give it it's own seat on a plane and such.
IF the Quran was eternal because it represents what you claim is the eternal TRUTH, i.e. the truth of GOD, then they could EASILY and without any hesitation or obstacles, have drawn the comparison between the Quran and the Bible. In Christianity, The Bible represents the word of God, it represents God’s eternal TRUTH that he revealed to the prophets and apostles. Amen.
No, because as you yourself admitted, the Bible is not direct revelation from God like the Qur'an, the Bible is paraphrased and "inspired by God," remember? Jesus (pbuh) on the other hand, was the "Word of God" because he spoke from the Injil, a direct revelation of God. They purposely didn't use the Bible as part of the analogy because it's not direct revelation, and while Christians believe it contains eternal Truth, these aren't phrased in God's words. Every single phrase in the Qur'an is Truth.
Let me also repeat a summary of orthodox Islamic (Ashari and Hanbali) thought:
The Attributes of God are separate identities; they are eternal and uncreated, subsisting in God's eternal essence. God's attributes "are not He, nor are they other than He. The Word of God (the Quran) is the uncreated eternal attribute of God subsisting within God's essence as a separate identity. The descent of the Quran, its piecemeal revelation, its presence in Arabic and the composition and arrangement of its words and letters are created. Created contexts only express the real thing.
Haha, you should be careful with your "paraphrasing" bro:
There are, however, differences among the Orthodox regarding the relation between God's Word and the Qur'an. To render this account more intelligible, we shall limit our discussion to two groups only, though variations within the two groups themselves were also apparent.
Compare with your:
The Word of God (the Quran) is the uncreated eternal attribute of God subsisting within God's essence as a separate identity.
Remember that God's word is His will, which Muslims believe is recorded on the "Preserved Tablet". So you can't use the Quran as God's word except if you say that it is a portion thereof.
Likewise orthodox Muslims affirmed the Word of God as an uncreated and eternal attribute of God, subsisting within God's essence as a separate identity along with the other eternal and separate attributes of God. Whenever God willed, He communicated His Word. When God spoke in the burning bush, it was He, not the bush, who spoke to Moses.
Also, you get your idea about the eternal utterance of the Qur'an from the Hanbalites, who lean towards anthropomorphism, which is NOT Orthodox.
The latter part of that statement (concerning the "portion" argument) was refuted, and its obvious you have no problem with that since you didnt even address my responses concerning it - so concerning the first half - look how you conveniantly fell in the trap your Islamic scholars are trying hard to avoid, but logically cannot:
Actually it wasn't refuted. The fact that it's a portion of God's will is very relevant, because you're still trying to understand how God's Will can be contained in a Book, but not in a man. And I'm telling you that a portion of God's will is in the book, whereas you believe that ALL of God's will was in the man. Yes, those 600 pages of God's word are eternally True in essence, but God's will is eternal and being exercise perpetually, the Qur'an only contains 600 pages of that whereas the whole Universe is being sustained by God's everlasting Will. There's a colossal difference and I don't see how you want to make it irrelevant.
The “form of creation” expressing/manifesting the eternal divine will is INSEPARABLE from this divine will itself. So here is how it goes according to your Islamic scholars: 1) Creation expressing the eternal divine will – is inseparable from the eternal divine will. Combining this premise with the premise YOU YOURSELF established, that “the will of God is not separate from God Himself” – and we draw the conclusion: “the ‘form of creation’ directly expressing the eternal divine will, is inseparable from the eternal divine will itself, and is therefore inseparable from God himself”. (And that my friend is the logic behind why we worship Christ - the Lord and Creator of heaven and earth)
Ok, but nobody says that All of God's Will is contained/recorded in the Qur'an, yet Christians say that ALL of God's will is in Christ. Take it very slowly. 600 pages of God's Absolute Truth = Quran. 65 Kilograms of God's will/2 Liters of God's will = Christ? Or ALL of God's will in Christ?
Come on man please…does this change the fact Gabriel is an angel??? The term “angel” denotes a particular “nature of being” i.e. the spirit is distinguished with the angels, it is distinguised with thse beings on the basis of their angelic nature, logically implying that the spirit is NOT an angel. Lets discuss the following verse further.
[78] The day will come when the Spirit AND THE ANGELS will stand in a row. None will speak except those permitted by the Most Gracious, and they will utter only what is right.
If the Spirit was indeed an angel, and the fact it is distinguished is on the basis of hierarchy, then the verse would logically be rendered “the Spirit and the REST of the angels”.
Haha, so you're saying that the Qur'an SHOULD have said "the Spirit and the REST of the angels?".
You do know that several angels are named and have specific duties. There's Asrapheel the angel that blows the Horn on the day of Judgement for example, and there's Angel Gabriel the angel that fortified God's Messengers on Earth. Angel Gabriel is the one who protected Jesus (pbuh) through his life, read the passages about Jesus (pbuh), they all talked about Jesus (pbuh) being supported by "the Spirit".
"Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel-for he brings down the (revelation) to thy heart by God's will, a confirmation of what went before, and guidance and glad tidings for those who believe, Whoever is an enemy to God and His angels and apostles, to Gabriel and Michael,- Lo! God is an enemy to those who reject Faith. (The Noble Quran, 2:97-98)"
And had chosen seclusion from them. Then We sent unto her Our Spirit and it assumed for her the likeness of a perfect man. (19:17)
"We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of apostles; We gave Jesus the son of Mary Clear (Signs) and strengthened him with the holy spirit. Is it that whenever there comes to you an apostle with what ye yourselves desire not, ye are puffed up with pride?- Some ye called impostors, and others ye slay! (The Noble Quran, 2:87)"
"Say, the Holy Spirit has brought the revelation from thy Lord in Truth, in order to strengthen those who believe, and as a Guide and Glad Tidings to Muslims. (The Noble Quran, 16:102)"
Here lets consider an example: the president of the USA is higher in “rank” (in terms of political authority ofcourse) than everyone else in the USA, yet he is equally a human like everyone else. How would it sound if I said (assuming I possess a different nature than that of a human) “the day will come when the president and the humans will….” It obviously implies that the president is not a human. Frankly speaking man, this verse alone logically proves that the spirit is not the angel Gabriel.
Haha bro I seriously think you should contemplate what you're saying. Who Gabriel is in the Qur'an is very clear except to the answering Islam team. Plus your analogy is weak on purpose. Here, try this.
"The Commander and the infantry marched up the Hill"
Is the Commander higher ranked than the infantry? Yes, but he still walked with them.
Check this:
Narrated Al Bara: "The Prophet said to Hassan, 'Lampoon them (i.e. the pagans) and Gabriel is with you.' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Beginning of Creation, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 435)"
Narrated Sa'id bin Al-Musaiyab: "Umar came to the Mosque while Hassan was reciting a poem. (Umar disapproved of that). On that Hassan said, 'I used to recite poetry in this very Mosque in the presence of one (i.e. the Prophet ) who was better than you.' Then he turned towards Abu Huraira and said (to him), 'I ask you by Allah, did you hear Allah's Apostle saying (to me), 'Retort on my behalf. O Allah! Support him (i.e. Hassan) with the Holy Spirit?' Abu Huraira said, 'Yes.' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Beginning of Creation, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 434)"
The words Gabriel and "Holy Spirit" are used interchangeably in these two hadiths, right after each other, with the Prophet (pbuh) talking about the same person.
In evading almost 70% of my entire post, you also missed the rest of the verses and hadith literature which emphasise my point concerning the identity of the spirit for other various different reasons. But that’s ok, selective argument has been a noticeable attribute of yours, pick out what you can manipulate and respond to that, leave out the rest and charge me with blindly accusing you of “red herrings/ straw men/ etc etc”.
So here is my challenge to you for the fourth time. PLEASE PRODUCE A SINGLE PASSAGE WHICH IDENTIFIES GABRIEL AS THE HOLY SPIRIT.
First of all, I didn't evade any of your post. I attacked it at its weak roots. They are "ETERNAL YET TEMPORAL!!! HOW COULD THIS BE!!" and "QURAN:CHRIST".
I asked you to be more specific about eternal, but you can't because the minute you answer me regarding WHAT about the recorded word of God could be eternal, the whole thread comes crashing down. As for the Quran:Christ, I showed you that the analogy holds when both beliefs are sustained by divine revelation. The Muslim belief is analogous to the Christian belief, except for the major difference that the Muslims believe because they find it in the divine revelation itself, whereas the Christians believe because they find it in the Bible.
As for the Gabriel = Holy Spirit, the Qur'an makes it very clear that the Qur'an was revealed by the Holy Spirit, and later that the Qur'an was revealed by Gabriel as reiteration. Go to your professor, and ask him to conjure up all his deductive forces to figure that mystery.
You have two clues:
A man brought this cake here.
Joe brought this cake here.
Is Joe the man who brought the cake?
"Now wait a minute, wait a minute, Joe IS NOT the man unless you produce a clue that says "Joe is the man who brought the cake here". Haha.
I should have said “I never meant to imply he was greater”, which im sure you knew is what I meant to say
Yeah I did, I'm just discouraging you from ending your posts with audacity. Haha, I mean I don't try to end my posts with Aramaic do I?
But that’s okay brother, you found something trivial in my post that you could jump on, and spent more time talking about it then you did with the 70% of my last post which you evaded, and which were actually related to the theological arguments at hand. I’ll let you have this victory if it makes you happy.
Why should I attack your argument by the leaves when it's faulty at its roots? You made a whole thread but didn't answer the two main questions of the last one!
Haha yeah man I was counting on it with my life…it was a vital point to my argument, thanks for refuting me and showing my deception and lies.
Well it's a poor reflection on a person whose willing to do that, in my humble opinion.
El-Maseeh Huwa'kabeer!
haha, cute. Yes the Messiah is Great!
My complaint concerning the use of the word “may”, was not based on the possible definitions the ENGLISH word may convey, but rather the specific definition that the arabic itself implies, the specific definition that caused the word to be translated into "may". It is the definition implying uncertainty which is obviously the implication the arabic gives, otheriwse your Islamic scholars would have no problem with the issue at all. However it is clear that they ARE having trouble trying to deal with it, and have not yet come up with a reasonable explanation for it.
I translate classical Arabic, just to let you know. In those verses, the Qur'an does NOT indicate uncertainty, it actually DOES use the phrases in Arabic that indicate surety, and that's my guarantee, you can take the Qur'an to any Arabic speaker and he will tell you that. However, when someone has to translate from Arabic to English, he has to use the phrase "so that He may" with a specific meaning of "may" in mind, and only that meaning. It's not that somebody gets to decide which meaning of "may" the translator meant, because he meant one in particular, that's why he used it, and that's the nature and difficulty of translation. The answering-islam team obviously don't have an Arabic speaker on the crew, streamed through the English translation, and picked those verses up. It's so clear bro, don't be misled.
Let us reason my brother. The English word “may” as we both acknowledge, has a few “definitions” in the ENGLISH language. Now the original Arabic version of this word, may not (and probably will not) necessarily have the same range of implications i.e. the Arabic word would have been translated to “may” for ONE of the specific implications/definitions that the English version of the word conveys.
Exactly, it was.
BUT lets change the situation around and assume for arguments sake, that Muslim scholars are perplexed over this Arabic expression, and are trying hard to find a resolution for why the Quran implies that Allah is in an advanced stage of pregnancy, I could then LOGICALLY DEDUCE that the 9th definition in my English dictionary of the English translation of kabeer - “great” is the definition and implication of the corresponding Arabic word “kabeer” because this is creating a problem for Muslim scholars, a problem that would not exist, if the Arabic word “kabeer” in its Arabic context could never imply such an absurd definition.
I don't follow your logic here. Why would you even open up an English dictionary for controversy surrounding an Arabic word?
SO, what I am asserting to you is, that the very implication of the English word “may” for which it was used, as a translation of its Arabic counterpart, was indeed for the definition that implies uncertainity. What is the basis of this assertion? The basis of my assertion is the fact it is this problem of “uncertainty” that your scholars are having trouble dealing with (and it is obvious that Muslim scholars aren’t going to be perplexed over the implication of a verse based on its ENGLISH translation), and as far as I know, they have not found a suitable resolution for this problem. Let me remind you that Osama Obdallah (whose opinions and work I assume you respect and regard, considering the fact you pasted his article) could NOT answer this question himself, let me quote:
“I HONESTLY DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER” and “I am not certain if that's what it really means”, and lets not forget, “ITS REALLY DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN”.
Actually, and here's the interesting part, Muslim scholars don't have a problem at all with God's omniscience. In fact I never even heard of this whole controversy except from non-Muslims working from English translations. Osama Abdullah is just a dude, I don't even think he has credentials to be a reliable spokesperson on Islam, but he does arrange his site to offer some useful, common-sense replies to the answering-islam team, that's when I quote him.
Plus remember that I gave you my personal explanations about those verses, I didn't just give you Osama's.
Mahmoud M. Ayoub lists Ar-Razi's response to those who used S. 3:140 as proof that Allah does not know the future:
"Razi is interested in the theological problems raised by the phrase ‘in order that God may know.’ He argues that ‘the literal sense of God's saying, "in order that God may know" would suggest that God alternated [the days] in order to acquire knowledge. Obviously, this is impossible of God.’ Razi cites verse 143, and a number of other verses where this phrase, or one like it, occurs. He alleges that Hisham b. al-Hakkam, a well-known disciple of the Sixth Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq, used such verses to argue that God does not know incidents until they occur. ‘The answer of the theologians to this argument," Razi says, "is that rational proofs have conclusively established that no change ever occurs in God's knowledge. The linguistic usage of calling something that is known with the metaphor "knowledge," or something that is subject to power with the metaphor "power" is well known. Thus any Qur'anic verse the literal sense of which indicates acquisition of knowledge [by God] actually means the occurrence of a known.
Wow bro. My first question is: who IS Razi? He's having trouble understanding how God who exists atemporally could possible know the "future". Please, and I'm being very serious, go to your local mosque, ask a scholar to pull up that verse, and ask him about it.
So now enough of your rabbit trails AND DEAL with these passages which show that Allah doesn't know everything, since you used ignorance as a basis to reject Jesus' Deity.
Let me also remind you of the fact, that I used various other examples from your Quran to portray your Allah’s ignorance, which are not even based on the word “may” and which you conveniently evaded with your selective style of argument.
Ok let me ask you something. Since nobody denies that God is omniscient, is your understanding that the Qur'an accidentally "messed up" and forgot that God is omniscient and therefore contains a verse which EXPOSES this oversight? Just for my own understanding of what you're implying. Because there are seriously 3 options here: Either you believe that the Qur'an is the word of God and therefore the phrases couldn't possible mean what you think it means OR the Qur'an was written by someone who forgot that God is omniscient even though he reminds himself of that in almost every Surah. So you subscribe to the second option?
I skipped the repititive arguments, which were simply paraphrased arguments of what I had already answered…and I answered absolutely every issue you brought up. You did not even give a valid justification as to why almost 70% of my post has been left unanswered and why you selectively pick arguments you feel you can manipulate, misrepresent and then provide an answer for.
No, bro, I got to the central issue about our whole debate. Sometimes I wonder why inter-faith dialogues last as long as they do. People sit there for hours talking about contradictions and would God REALLY say this or that, and is this moral and whatever. The only question is, how do you know what you know, and, how do you know this came from God? Now since your entire argument is based on the Christian believe that Christ is the Word of God, but you DON'T agree with the Muslim interpretation of Word as meaning imbued with the Injeel, you have to be able to substantiate how you know what you believe.
This is one argument which I would dismisss and declare: “omitting straw men”. WHY would I be justified in doing so?? Because I have already given you, a whole page summary as to why it is IRRELVANT to the Bible being the “word of GOD” whether or not we consider our scripture (THE word of GOD) to be the expression of the ETERNAL DIVINE LOGOS (represented through Christ and Him alone. Amen.) and why it is irrelevant that the speech used to convey God’s eternal truth is the created speech and expression of human authors. So since you'd obviously feel more comfortable with the presence of a response, I will continue repeating the same responses, until you deal directly with the answer:
It's very relevant bro, and here's why. Either Jesus is the Word of God from the Christian understanding or he isn't. Ok, it's either yes or no. Now for people living in Jesus' (pbuh) time, this WOULD be irrelevant. Why? Because Jesus (pbuh) was sent by God and you have to believe everything he says anyway, from Christian or Muslim understanding. They knew what he was saying because he was right in front of him.
Today however, the Bible TELLS you what Jesus is and said, and the Bible not only tells you that Jesus (pbuh) was sent by God, which I agree with, it tells you that he is the WORD of God, which we disagree on exactly. It ascribes the Christian understanding to this. Now if you can't show that Jesus (pbuh) is or said what the Bible says he is or said, how is this irrelevant? It's singularly the most relevant piece of information in the world for you.
The emphasis is that Scripture has been breathed-out by God. Though men wrote the Old and New Testaments, it is God who worked through them to write exactly what he wanted.
This fascinates me for several reasons.
First of all, there were tens if not hundreds of Gospels floating around the first and second century AD until the Church fathers chose the Four of Today (and ask the other members of this forum how exactly they were chosen = they picked the four "earliest written ones" as the test of authenticity) as the "real" ones and marked the others as "apocrypha". This happened hundreds of years after the ascension of Jesus (pbuh). If all the authors of the Gospels were considered as Moses (pbuh), then why did they even have to pick the Gospels from among the others? Why didn't they realize that the authors of these four were Prophets like Moses who were inspired by God? What signs of Prophet hood did Paul of Tarsus have?
By their own testimony the Scriptures are not merely the product of man, but are authored by God himself. This does not mean that men are not intimately involved in the process but rather that God, working through the personalities of the authors, so controlled the process and the individuals that the final product was exactly what he wanted said. The author was guided to go where God wanted him to go, not where he wanted to go. Thus the Spirit of God guaranteed the accuracy of every thing that was written. This process extended until the time the document was written. The divine author of Scripture is God the Holy Spirit. Exactly how this process worked is a mystery. Scripture asserts that this did happen without explaining exactly how it happened. And therefore, the Scriptures are infallible and inerrant because they are given by God and are an authoritative expression of his will and truth.
A glorious paragraph, and if it was describing how a Prophet wrote Scripture, I would have been more deeply immersed in its grandeur. But the question is, do you think of the authors of the Gospels like you think of Moses (pbuh)? That's all you need to say, yes or no.
In addition, the Lord divinely selected the writers of Scripture – there was no volunteering for the job.
How many "gospels" were there up to 300 AD? Just four? Really?
The writers of the Old and New Testament were not merely stenographers who mindlessly wrote what God dictated to them. Their own experiences and personalities were involved when the various books were being composed. Ultimately, however, the final result was supernaturally guided by God. Therefore, it is proper to say that the divine inspiration of the Bible has its source in God but that human instruments were used in writing and recording God’s Word. This is the biblical teaching on the subject.
Yes, this can definitely be said for God's prophets. So who wrote ALL of the OT and NT? Prophets?
Jesus clearly taught that Scripture is inspired by God. He regarded it as truth—infallible, inerrant, historically reliable, authoritative for living, and an all-sufficient rule of faith. He could say, for example, when speaking with the Pharisees or Sadducees, ‘Have you not read what God said?’ and then quote from Scripture (Matt. 22:31-32). In Matthew 4:4-10, Jesus repeatedly answers Satan by using the Old Testament as the Word of God, saying, ‘It is written.’ He maintained that not one jot or tittle would pass from the law until all was accomplished (Matt. 5:17) and that the Scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:35).
Ok bro, now you're wavering. First of all you say that Jesus quoted from Matt, which is in the NT, which was written after Jesus (pbuh) ascended. Then you tell me that in another time Jesus (pbuh) quotes from the OT, but what does he quote from the OT? Does the NT relay these instances to you and tell you what he quoted? If so, how can you rely on the NT to tell you what Jesus (pbuh) said or did?
He rebuked men with Scripture; correcting their false concepts, teaching and misinterpretations of Scripture by using scriptural proofs. Matthew 22:23-33, for example, describes how Jesus told the Sadducees that they were greatly mistaken in their denial of the resurrection because they did not know the Scriptures or the power of God. Then he quoted a passage from the book of Genesis as an authoritative declaration from God to correct them. It is highly significant that Christ never appealed to tradition as a standard of authority; instead he used Scripture to correct the errors of tradition.
Ok, Genesis. Isn't Genesis part of the Pentateuch?
In the prayer to his Father on the night before he was crucified, Jesus declared that ‘Thy word is truth’ (John 17:17).
Yes the word is truth, but is the NT the word? That's the question.
His entire life was submitted to the authority of Scripture. In quoting passages from the Old Testament during his conflict with Satan in the wilderness, Christ was applying them to his own life and thereby demonstrating that he was under the authority of Scripture. His victory was accomplished through obedience to the Scriptures, as he used them as the ultimate authority for every area of his life. At another time, speaking of his relationship with his Father, Jesus said, ‘I know him and keep his word’ (John 8:55).
And I'd like to know what parts exactly did Jesus (pbuh) quote from the OT. But you only can tell me what the NT says he said. Also, OF COURSE Jesus keeps God's word.
I HOPE WE CAN UNDERSTAND THIS.
haha, yes, what I understood is that a) Jesus (pbuh) spoke from scripture (true) b) Scripture is the word of God (true) c) Jesus kept and knew the Scripture (true). You didn't explain to me how the NT came to be regarded as Scripture and what the NT has to do with what Jesus (pbuh) said or did.
Now the arguments you make (although irrelevant to the discussion) are indeed ridiculous because you keep imposing your Islamic idea of divine revelation to invalidate the Biblical scriptures claim of divine revelation.
Oh yeah? Is having a Scripture either written by a Prophet or written in the presence of the Prophet and preserved since before his death to the present day a purely Islamic understanding of authentic Scripture?
It is only necessary for YOU as a Muslim according to YOUR Islamic theology, that Christ himself personally authenticate what was written in the scriptures, because according to your ISLAMIC theology, Christ was a mere messenger who had the injeel revealed to him, and who in effect supposedly or somehow wrote some text or authenticated some text which then became corrupt. This is the Islamic claim which you are presupposing in this argument to be valid, and thus your invalidating the Jewish/Christian Scriptures claim of divine revelation on your Islamic understanding of what the Bible is and how it was divinely revealed. This is the main error underlying your whole argument.
Not even close, bro. Even from your Christian understanding that Christ was God, you STILL have to trace the NT back to Christ with an unbroken chain of narrators/memorizers/transcribers or show that it was written by Christ himself. Whether you believe he was the Messenger or God, we know he spoke the Truth, you mission is to now find WHAT he said. Once we know that, we know it's true. The NT does NOT reliably tell us what Jesus (pbuh) said, Islamic understanding or not.
Let me ask you, can we trace Christ’s words in the Quran back to Jesus?????
No, but we can trace them back to Muhammad (pbuh). Just like (during the life of Moses)we can't trace any of the OT Prophet's words in the OT back to the OT Prophets, but we COULD trace them back to Moses. So to believe in the Qur'an means believing in the Prophecy of Muhammad (pbuh). If you believe him, you believe everything revealed to him about the previous prophets, just as when you believe Moses (pbuh) you believe everything HE said about the OT Prophets.
Well I will tell you that the apostles who claimed divine revelation, had revealed to them (more like reminded to them, since the gospel writers and many others were witnesses and disciples of the historical Christ) by the Spirit of God what Christ said.
So you consider the authors of the NT your Prophets then. They are your "Moses" (pbuh) as it were? Correct?
To go deeper into this, we would in effect then start analyzing the VALIDITY of the claims of scripture, which would then start going off topic. The issue we are concerned with is the claim of scripture itself, and both the Quran and Bible CLAIM to be the word of God, for different reasons, and via different forms of revelation, NONETHELESS, both make the claim to be authored by God and ultimately claim to reveal the truth of God.
No, it wouldn't be off topic since it's at the root of both beliefs regarding God's word.
Also, the Qur'an is traceable back with 100% authenticity to Muhammad (pbuh), to whom it was revealed. The NT is not even traceable back 100% to its authors, but even if it were, do you believe they were Prophets like Moses (pbuh)? What is the mark of a Prophet by the way?
Obviously you saw the fallacy in your statements, and decided to turn the topic of discussion to the textual integrity and authenticity of scripture.
Bro, how is the authenticity of the Scripture FROM WHICH you base your entire world view AND the argument that Jesus is the Will of God in the Flesh as irrelevant? That just boggles the mind.
Yes, and my theological belief is based on supreme evidence supporting the scriptures connection to the disciples and apostles appointed by Christ - The Lord, and inspired by the Holy Spirit - The Lord, just as your theological belief goes back to Muhammed who you believe was inspired by “the spirit” (whose identity is being questioned) acting on behalf of your Allah.
Ok, so the authors of the Gospels are your Prophets then? Just making sure.
Boy do I have the burning desire and urge to deal with those specific accusations…but i repeat that this is going off to a completely different issue now isn’t it, one that is totally unrelated to the issue at hand which has nothing to do with authenticating or validating the claim of divine revelation…and you get frustrated when I accuse you of using “red herrings”??
Remember what we talked about? This is about zooming in on an argument and replying to its very roots. You say Jesus (pbuh) is God's word made Flesh, God's will. Why do you believe what you believe? Because you find it in the NT. Why do you believe the NT is true? Not because it was written or ever authorized by Jesus (pbuh) but because it was written by the authors of the Gospels. Is the Bible of today traceable back to Jesus (pbuh), to even its own original authors? If so, do you consider its authors like Moses (pbuh) such that they would write absolute Truth about Jesus (pbuh) as Moses did about Adam for example? These are all critical questions and they are all yes or no answers.
The reason I ask is this. I do believe in the apostles of Jesus (pbuh) but you and I simply don't agree on WHO was really an apostle, and that makes all of the difference. It's like if you were talking with a Mormon, and he's quoting the Book of Mormon to you. Do you even accept Joseph Smith as a Prophet of God?
Peace bro