What you don't know about the Quran

[ygalg]

by Sherif Gaber

[Fernando]

Thanks ygalg - well worth 47 minutes of anyone's time.
I see he has some more videos on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvqgVS8KVJA
I'll have to have a look at those too.

[ygalg]

Thanks ygalg - well worth 47 minutes of anyone's time.
I see he has some more videos on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvqgVS8KVJA
I'll have to have a look at those too.

[Garudaman]

why a river/stream is meaningless? how can a fresh-water source is meaningless?

& this is the whole :

QS. 19 :
And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm tree. She said, "Oh, I wish I had died before this and was in oblivion, forgotten." (23) But he called her from below her, "Do not grieve; your Lord has provided beneath you a stream. (24) And shake toward you the trunk of the palm tree; it will drop upon you ripe, fresh dates. (25) So eat and drink and be contented. And if you see from among humanity anyone, say, 'Indeed, I have vowed to the Most Merciful abstention, so I will not speak today to [any] man.' " (26)

now imagine, if its said legitimate son, like that guy suggest!

[manfred]

While the Qur'an differs significantly in its account of the birth of Jesus, is closely matches details found in two early medieval manuscript, one from 300 years before Mohammed, the other contemporary with him.

I mean the apocryphal gospels of Pseudo Matthew and the the so-called gospel of Thomas. Essentially they are folk tales about Jesus, and have been written many years, centuries, after Jesus, by people with vivid imaginations, but no knowledge of the actual events.

Again the question is why Allah is re-telling folk-tales?

The palm tree story is from Pseudo Matthew... the point of the palm tree story is to suggest that Jesus is the Greek god Apollo, who was born that way.

[Garudaman]

the story is different, so again, you cant contradict apple with orange : https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/21/opin ... islam.html

For centuries, Western scholars wondered where the Quranic story of Mary giving birth under a palm tree came from. Some pointed out that another apocryphal document, “The Infancy Gospel of Matthew,” also depicts Mary eating from a palm tree and drinking from a miraculous spring. There, however, the incident takes place not during the birth of Jesus but years later.

In the Protevangelium, we read that Jesus was born not in Bethlehem but somewhere in the “desert” between Bethlehem and Jerusalem. Mary, according to this story, went into labor while riding between the towns. Her husband, Joseph, found a nearby “cave” for her and went out to Bethlehem to find a “Hebrew midwife.” When Joseph returned with her, Jesus was born. “My soul has been magnified this day,” the midwife said, according to James’s account, “because my eyes have seen strange things, because salvation has been brought forth to Israel.”

An archaeological discovery shed more light on this curious matter. In 1992, while widening a road between Jerusalem and Bethlehem, the Israeli authorities uncovered the ruins of a long-forgotten Byzantine church: Kathisma of the Theotokos, or “Seat of the God-bearer.”

“God-bearer” is a title for Mary in Eastern Christianity. A common legend held that the Kathisma church was built on a rock on which Mary rested during the flight into Egypt, which, according to the Gospel of Matthew, took place after Jesus was born. But according to scholars, earlier generations believed that this was the very location where Jesus was born — in line with the Protevangelium that describes a midpoint between Jerusalem and Bethlehem — and with the “distant place” described in the Quran.

Moreover, a medieval pilgrim wrote about a sacred water “which came from a rock” at the church. Furthermore, archaeologists found mosaics, and one of them depicted — lo and behold — a palm tree laden with dates! Stephen J. Shoemaker, a professor of religious studies at the University of Oregon, believes “this is almost certainly a representation of the date palm from which the Virgin Mary was miraculously fed.”

& again, your question is wrong, as you dont have evidence that its really fairy tale, as you dont really know what happen in the past, as you didnt live since that time!

but, I dont think thats even the real question : viewtopic.php?f=22&t=16529&p=218030&hilit=herd+pig#p218030

That is an interesting one...
The first thing is to note that Mark and Luke report this story somewhat differently (e.g. one man, not two, and many other differences) compared with Matthew. This suggests it is more of an allegorical tale, a story with a teaching point, and not an accurate account of events.

The unclean spirit is attracted to the unclean beast, and when they combine, they self destruct. This is the point of allegory, I think. Evil destroys not only good, but in the end also itself.

Pigs as a matter of fact do not live in large herds, but if left to their own devices, in family groups, dominated by a "grandma pig", and keeping then like goats in a herd simply does not work. It would be totally impractical to put 2000 pigs into a bit of woodland on top of a hill. The place would be wrecked in hours and the pig would attack each other or run off in different directions.

[manfred]

& again, your question is wrong, as you dont have evidence that its really fairy tale, as you dont really know what happen in the past, as you didnt live since that time!

Well, what would you class as evidence? Please prove to me that Red Riding Hood and the big bad wolf are not historical characters. If I said Donald Duck is real, how do you prove me wrong?

The infant Jesus talking and the palm tree story are both found in apocryphal texts, written many hundreds of years after Jesus. Their account is different from the gospels in the bible. The texts in the bible have all been written by people who met and discussed what they wrote with people who lived with Jesus and followed him. In one case, by a disciple of Jesus.

So which would be a more reliable story.... one that emerged shortly after Jesus died, within a very close group of people where there were many who had known Jesus in person, or one that was written hundreds of years later.... I don;t even want to "prove" the old the text to you, it is up to you want you want to believe, but would you not say that they are better evidence.

And the orthodox church, like all churches, agree that the birth place of Jesus was Bethlehem.

And what do the pigs of the Gadarenes have to do with any of this?

[Eagle]

Isnt it strange how the Quran ommits during that nativity narrative, what now proves to be fictions, absurdities and anachronisms of the NT and apocryphal writings, as well as Christian traditions -such as Herod's mass killing episode that prompted Mary to flee to Egypt in order to give birth safely, or the census of Quirinus- from where critics claim Muhammad the illiterate supposedly deliberately cherry picked, and at other times carelessly copied widely scattered information from within his plethora of written books and traditions but yet still managed to glue everything together in the most well-knit, intricate and meaningful manner.

As she reached an advanced point of her pregnancy, the blessed Mariam withdrew to a remote place, away from the Temple in search of a private place to deliver when the moment would come. The verse 19:22, through the double use of the particle "fa" indicates an time interval between the moment she got pregnant and her decision to leave her dwelling place.

She would this way be hidden from the people's eyes and ears (her pain was intense 19:23), and would have time to compose herself mentally and physically prior to the return with her newborn. In addition, she safeguarded herself from the clamor had she been seen or heard during or right after the process of delivery, in a debasing state, providing her accusers with additional injurious words at the sight of a supposedly chaste and pious woman devoted in the sanctuary to God's service conceiving outside wedlock and in addition in the sanctuary itself and under the guardianship of Zakariya one of the most highly regarded Temple devotee and prophet 19:22.

As she set herself on her way out of her community, she did not know what to expect and how things would turn out in her favor, but being the God-conscious woman that she was, she trusted in God. During her walk, the suffering of childbirth began, prompting her to stop and sit under the shade of a palm tree. Her pain was so intense and her case so desperate, delivering in the middle of nowhere without any food and most importantly no water which is crucial not only for hydratation during and after labor when she would have lost plenty of body fluids, but also during the process of delivery itself, as well as afterwards to help her cleanse herself and the newborn. Lacking these elements, in addition to her suffering, she wished she had died. But unexpectedly, God, as He did during her seclusion in the Temple, took it on Himself to sustain and protect her. A voice called from beneath her position, indicating to her the presence of a water source directly under her and the tree, plentiful and flowing meaning it will not stagnate or spoil as she makes use of it throughout her ordeal, and comforting her with words telling her how the sustenance of food and water is abundantly put within easy reach and would re-energize and reinvigorate her entirely 19:23-6. All she had to do was shake the trunk of the tree, no matter her feebleness, the simple action of attempting to shake it, would miraculously create a motion in the tree that would force loose the ripe fruits. It is interesting to note, how the Quran in its well established pattern of employing meaningful words and placing them surgically in a sentence, relates how before anything else, the first comfort Mary was given was the abundance of water, being of primary importance, and then speaks of the availability of highly nutritious food.

[manfred]

Eagle, let me ask you the same question.... when it comes to reliability, why would you dismiss old accounts as unreliable, but accept stuff that has been written by people hundreds of years later by people who had no direct access to the events?

It is true that the biblical gospels are not identical to each other. Why would you expect them to be? Suppose 4 people saw a traffic accident. If you ask them to tell you what they saw shortly after the time, they will mostly, but not completely agree. Some will have things others do not, some will even have diverging recollections. If you do this a few years later, it most likely is worse. Now, suppose you asked someone to describe that accident 500 years after it occurred.Will the response be 100% accurate?

That is effectively what your argument is here.

Allow me to place a summary of similarities between Pseudo Matthew and the Qur'an here:
In Pseudo-Matthew

Miracle: Providing fruit and water.
Number of miracles: Two and consecutive.
Order of the miracles: First dates, then water
Perpetrator of the miracles: Infant Jesus
Aim of the miracles: Appease the hunger and slake the thirst of the people going to Egypt (Mary and Joseph)
Time of the miracles: On the third day of the journey to Egypt
Place of the miracles: Desert
Means of the miracles: A palm tree. (Jesus commands a palm tree to give fruit and water.)
Theological connection with the Old Testament: By working this wonder, Jesus imitated His Father, who had miraculously given food and water to the Israelites journeying from Egypt to the Promised Land.

In Surah 19

Miracle: Providing fruit and water or only water.
Number of miracles: Either one or two, uncertain and open to interpretation since Mary’s shaking the trunk of a palm tree to get its fresh dates is not miraculous in itself unless we think that Mary could find a palm tree full of dates right at the time of her delivery and shake its trunk despite her being in labor.
Order of the miracles: If we consider Mary’s provision with fresh dates a miracle, the first miracle turns out to be the creation of a rivulet. (First water, then fruit)
Perpetrator of the miracle/s: Allah places a rivulet beneath Mary. It is not possible to find out the perpetrator of the second miracle or consider it a miraculous incident.
Aim of the miracle/s: To comfort Mary, who is in labour and complaining about her situation.
Time of the miracle/s: Mary’s delivery, which was preceded by a long journey to a distant place.
Place of the miracle/s: Not identified.
Means of the miracle/s: Palm tree for the second supposed miracle. No means for the creation of a stream beneath Mary as the placement of the rivulet is independent of the palm tree.
Theological connection with the Old Testament: None.

Nobody is saying Mohammed copied the text word for word, but it is really quite obvious that he used Pseudo-Matthew as a source, loosely, as he did with biblical texts too. And as often, Mohammed failed to understand the original meaning of his source fully.

[Eagle]

Lets just take for a moment the "widely" accepted folk tale of a Jesus born in Bethlehem. Unfirtunately archaeological evidence suggests that Bethlehem of Judea was uninhabited for several hundred years, including the Herodian period during which time Jesus is believed to have been born, lived, and died. There existed however another Bethlehem that had a jewish population during that time, but in Galilee -not the one quoted by Matthew in Matt2.

We could go on with a never ending list of such major blunders by the supposedly followers of Jesus and/or those that supposedly knew his followers and that came up with the fairy tale figure of the Christian Jesus.

[manfred]

The New Testament says Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, but one rogue Israeli archaeologist says it is far more likely the Christian savior was born in Bethlehem of the Galilee, more than 60 miles from Jerusalem.

Aviram Oshri spent nearly eleven years excavating artifacts in Bethlehem of the Galilee — an ancient biblical village near Nazareth that was later settled by German Templers — which he believes show that the traditional account of Jesus’s birthplace may be wrong.

But when he produced his findings for his employer, the Israel Antiquities Authority, he found his proposal dismissed and called “worse than a joke."

https://www.timesofisrael.com/was-jesus ... bethlehem/

Archaeological confirmation of Bethlehem as a city in the Kingdom of Judah was uncovered in 2012 at the archaeological dig at the City of David in the form of a bulla (seal impression in dried clay) in ancient Hebrew script that reads "From the town of Bethlehem to the King," indicating that it was used to seal the string closing a shipment of grain, wine, or other goods sent as a tax payment in the 8th or 7th century BCE

After the Bar Kokhba revolt was crushed, Hadrian converted the Christian site above the Grotto into a shrine dedicated to the Greek god Adonis, to honour his favourite, the Greek youth Antinous.

This was in 132 AD ... so the town was not only settled then but also had a Christian shrine at that time...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethlehem ... ean_period

You also forget the early history of Christianity... almost all of the first Christians were originally Jews, living in Judea. If gospel texts mentioned towns like Bethlehem and Nazareth were mentioned in connection with the story of Jesus and these places did not exist, what do you think would have been the reaction at the time? Jewish people are nowhere near as gullible than Arabs. They actually check things. They would have pointed it out and concluded the account was false. Well, they didn't and that means...?

[Eagle]

Sure they were Jews, prior to the canonization of the Greek writings, and were soon marginalized to oblivion by this very text and its corrupt teachings, as well as by the later converted gullible pagan gentiles to whom the Greek Testament and its revised history and fairy tales was meant to appeal to.

Such revisionism still goes on and includes amongst many other things the hijacking of the above referred grotto which was actually originally consecrated to Adonis which was later substituted to a christian shrine.

As to the 2 links provided, the first one agrees with Oshri's findings, despite the selective quotes. Nobody denies the existence of a Bethlehem in Judea, just that it happens to have been deserted for centuries around Jesus' supposed birth there, while there exists plentiful evidence for the Bethlehem of Galilee around Jesus' days, as well as of a large Christian presence there during the Byzantine period, which continued to modern times.

But to enforce their little fairy tale, gullible Christian must synchronize what they (wrongfully) believe to be a messianic prophecy in Micah 5:2 with Jesus' nativity. For this purpose Luke creates a highly improbably story with a 90 mile journey of a woman in her last days of pregnancy, so that Joseph may register in the town where David resided, ie registration was based on the earliest place of residence of one's most distant ancestors, as if the Romans would require a mass movement of millions in the empire -yet not a single historian of the time mentions this momentous event- including the young, old, or invalid to journey 100s of miles to the villages of their ancestors for tax registration, rather than the very town they reside in.
Roman censuses were based on ownership of property, Joseph and Mary were people of Nazareth, again in Galilee and did not own any property or wealth in Judea lk2:7 so they werent even legally obliged to undergo such a trip.

There is a reason why Jesus is "of nazareth", which is again, another blunder given the total absence of archeological evidence attesting to its existence, as well as the fact that Nazareth is never mentioned in the writings of Josephus, nor is it mentioned in any other first-century writings.
It isn't mentioned in the HB either. The Book of Joshua records 12 towns and 6 villages in that area, but no mention of a "Nazareth". The Talmud lists 63 Galilean towns, but again no mention of a "Nazareth."

[Garudaman]

Well, what would you class as evidence? Please prove to me that Red Riding Hood and the big bad wolf are not historical characters. If I said Donald Duck is real, how do you prove me wrong?

evidence is the fact, hypothesis (as mostly our histories) is not the fact!

The infant Jesus talking and the palm tree story are both found in apocryphal texts, written many hundreds of years after Jesus. Their account is different from the gospels in the bible. The texts in the bible have all been written by people who met and discussed what they wrote with people who lived with Jesus and followed him. In one case, by a disciple of Jesus.

So which would be a more reliable story.... one that emerged shortly after Jesus died, within a very close group of people where there were many who had known Jesus in person, or one that was written hundreds of years later.... I don;t even want to "prove" the old the text to you, it is up to you want you want to believe, but would you not say that they are better evidence.

And the orthodox church, like all churches, agree that the birth place of Jesus was Bethlehem.

thats not true :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-cZncVmtIU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lBHmpaYUHI&t=1592s

And what do the pigs of the Gadarenes have to do with any of this?

you're a person who okay with holy scripture teach people using unreal story.

[manfred]

There is a reason why Jesus is "of nazareth", which is again, another blunder given the total absence of archeological evidence attesting to its existence, as well as the fact that Nazareth is never mentioned in the writings of Josephus, nor is it mentioned in any other first-century writings.

Josephus does not mention something there it does not exist?

It's a back water, so it is not all over all kind of sources.

The form Nazara is also found in the earliest non-scriptural reference to the town, a citation by Sextus Julius Africanus dated about 221 AD

Other sources state that during Jesus' time, Nazareth had a population of 400 and one public bath, which was important for civic and religious purposes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazareth

Why your sudden interest in things Christian eagle? It would not be because you want to distract from issues in the Qur'an?

As to the 2 links provided, the first one agrees with Oshri's findings, despite the selective quotes.

No it doesn't, it report his port of view, and it states that his colleagues think it is crackpot.

[manfred]

thats not true :

What is not true in the part I wrote you quoted?

[Garudaman]

these not true, according to those two video :

The texts in the bible have all been written by people who met and discussed what they wrote with people who lived with Jesus and followed him. In one case, by a disciple of Jesus.

within a very close group of people where there were many who had known Jesus in person, or one that was written hundreds of years later....

& this is not true, as there's still early christians who believe different :

And the orthodox church, like all churches, agree that the birth place of Jesus was Bethlehem.

[manfred]

these not true, according to those two video :

The texts in the bible have all been written by people who met and discussed what they wrote with people who lived with Jesus and followed him. In one case, by a disciple of Jesus.

within a very close group of people where there were many who had known Jesus in person, or one that was written hundreds of years later....

& this is not true, as there's still early christians who believe different :

And the orthodox church, like all churches, agree that the birth place of Jesus was Bethlehem.

Here is a brief about the authors of the four gospels

Matthew – a former tax collector who was called by Jesus to be one of the Twelve Apostles,
Mark – a follower of Peter and so an "apostolic man,"
Luke – a doctor who wrote what is now the book of Luke to Theophilus. Also known to have written the book of Acts (or Acts of the Apostles) and to have been a close friend of Paul of Tarsus,
John – a disciple of Jesus and possibly the youngest of his Twelve Apostles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Evangelists

So Matthew was a former disciple of Jesus and knew him. Mark did not, but he was a friend of Peter's who also know him. Luke was a friend of Paul's and also knew Peter. He was present at the discussions of the council of Jerusalem. John was also a disciple of Jesus.

As you Orthodox teachings on this issue:

THE BIRTH AND CHILDHOOD OF CHRIST

The Roman empire was in effective control of the Middle East after 63 B.C. By permission of the Romans, Herod the Great (a nominal Jew of Idumaean descent) reigned as "king of the Jews" in Palestine from 37 B.C. until his death in 4 B.C. Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea, "the city of David," during the latter days of Herod's kingship" (see St. Matthew 2:1, 19).

http://saintandrewgoc.org/home/2013/12/ ... hrist.html

For crying out load, there is an orthodox nativity church in Bethlehem in Judea.

And Ehrmann, the Muslims favourite Christian theologian, is refuted here:

http://www.timothypauljones.com/apologe ... gospels-2/
and here
http://ehrmanproject.com/who-wrote-the-gospels (by a friend of of mine)

I also point out something that I said to eagle: remember that these gospels were written in Judea, and read by people who lived there. If there were obvious factual errors in them about Judea, it would have immediately been pointed out.

[manfred]

the first video said that the authors of gospels actually are anonymous & didnt have any correlation with Jesus, & the second video said that whoever the authors of gospels, they're didnt free from the intention of spread their own/personal doctrine & the four canonic gospels were never intended to be historical record but instead doctrinal record.

Actually that is NOT what Ehrmann says, I think you did not understand that right....

Of course do the gospels have a "correlation" with Jesus, Jesus is the subject matter of all them. But they were not written by Jesus.

Ehrmann contends that because he does not have the original texts with their names on them, they may have been written by others and later attributed to the four authors. This is just is personal theory, and there are some problems with that, as the two articles I left for you to read point out.

For example, if the name of "Matthew" was attached later, what about the earliest manuscripts we do have? Why do they not all have different names on them?

What is true though is this: THREE of the four authors (Matthew, Mark and Luke) used an older text as a source, one that is now lost. We know that because the three texts have so many similarities that it is impossible to explain rationally without it.

Also, it is important to understand that the gospels were not written to be a 100% accurate or complete historical biography of Jesus, but they were a testimony of faith. Sure it is possible that there are some historical blunders in it, but no major ones as these would have been discovered long ago.

But why does any of this interest you Garudaman?

[Garudaman]

the second video, which show that there's evolution of Jesus, was prove that the authors of gospels are peoples who arent free from the intention of spread their own doctrine/theological view.

[manfred]

the second video, which show that there's evolution of Jesus, was prove that the authors of gospels are peoples who arent free from the intention of spread their own doctrine/theological view.

This surprises you? As I said they are are testimony of FAITH. They wrote down for other what they believe and why. It is less of an "evolution" but an interpretation. They tell us their experience and what it means to them.

You can agree with them or not, your choice.