relaxjack wrote:Not so fast, Apple Pie. I must apologise though, I might only be able to reply on weekend.
Liberate has given the link (I am not sure if that is the Gospel of Thomas the Israelite or the Arabic Gosepl of Infancy). But scholars, even those who are very much against Islam, said that the original Gospel of Infancy does not date from the Prophet's time:
The style of the Arabic of this apocryphal Gospel, however, is so bad that it is hardly possible to believe that it dates from Muhammad's time.(Rev. W. St. Clair Tisdall, The Original Sources of the Quran, Chpt IV)
If this is the level of lies you are going to stoop to to defend the indefensible you will be shown up for exactly what you are, if you are going to quote Tisdall be sure to quote the full context:
The style of the Arabic of this apocryphal Gospel, however, is so bad that it is hardly possible to believe that it dates from Muhammad's time. As, however, Arabic has never been supposed to be the language in which the work was composed, this is a matter of little or no consequence. From a study of the book there seems little room for doubt that it has been translated into Arabic from the Coptic, in which language it may have been composed. This explains in what way Muhammad most probably became acquainted with the legend. For it is a well-known fact that the Christian governor of Egypt sent him a present of two Coptic girls, one of whom, "Mary the Copt," became one of his favourite concubines. This girl, though not well acquainted with the Gospel, must doubtless have known so popular a legend as that contained in the "Gospel of the Infancy" at that time was. Muhammad probably learnt the tale
Tisdall is basically telling you that the arabic gospel of the infancy of Jesus was translated from the language of the coptic into arabic the arabic is so bad it could not have been composed originally in arabic but translated into arabic from something else. At no point does Tisdall suggest this is not the source for the story of Jesus in the koran, he simply confirms what is well known throughout all the fables in your koran; rehashed and retranslated material from jewish and christian apocrypha
Christopher Luxemberg's book is out I suggest you have a look at it, there is a synopsis of it online (
http://syrcom.cua.edu/Hugoye/Vol6No1/HV6N1PRPhenixHorn.html), it gives you clear examples of the linguistics and philology with the same level of scrutiny that was done with the new and old testaments, it shows you where the koran was plagiarised from, what was altered from the original apocrypha, fairy stories and poems the writers of the koran did their plagiarising from, ofcourse there is a lot of pressure being put to suppress his book coming out in english, the newsweek edition that attempted to review it has been banned in muslim countries.
Liberate said
I suspect regardless of how much proof or evidence we give you, you will give us the standard muslim rhetoric of GIVE ME MORE PROOF.
Of course! You make such a strong accustaion and you want to escape from giving a PROOF? Surely, the Bible does not teach you that.
Again, there is NO PROOF that the Prophet copied from the Gnostic source.
salam
Is there no proof? Are you sure? At this point it looks like your head is in the sand, unwilling to face the consequence of the truth.