Question about Islam

[afleitch]

jmfcst,
And I apologize for my tone.

It is admirably gracious of you, considering what you were responding to.

Huh? indeed.  Christianity only accepts the Hebrew scriptures on the precondition that they comprehensively be given a Christian interpretation.  Of what siginficance is the fact that "the New Testament was written by 1st and 2nd generation Christians" when the Qur'an was written by 1st and 2nd generation Muslims?  All religions had a history of scriptural composition such that there was a time before their scriptures were written, and that apples to all three of the traditions we are talking about.  And, you think the New Testament was "historically accounted for within recorded human history" but the Qur'an is not?  This means that the Qur'an was known to no one in recorded human history?  When you are talking about "the historical facts of the Holy Land" refuting the Qur'an. you'd best be careful, because professional historians and archeologists (as opposed to religious fundamentalists) don't see any confirmation of the New Testament or even any confirmation of the existence of Christianity outside the texts of the New Testament at all until the second century, and have even identified a number of outright historical fabrications in the New Testament.   

My facts are not wrong in the slightest.  They are only "wrong" from the point of view of a fundamentalist Christian who thinks only one interpretation of one collection of books in all of human history tells us anything about history.  And furthermore, your charge against Islam with inventing a whole new set of scriptures with a whole new set of historical claims is precisely what Jews would say about Christians regarding the New Testament. 

If your only reply to any other religious tradition is "who cares?" then it can be said to you also.  So, who cares about what Christianity accepts about Jesus Christ either?  Your belief in salvation through Christ is a matter of faith and not a matter of fact, for if it were a fact, it would not require faith at all.  But the belief of Muslims that salvation is through God is a matter of faith also.   Facts don't vindicate either believer, they don't justify either believer. 

This is the last time I'm going to waste my time responding to your posts.  I've learned at least that lesson.

This I think is very well argued and from a 'step back' viewpoint if you will. There is often an irony that manifests itself whenever a Christian attempts to refute scriptural Islam and this history of Islam without dealing with the notion that the same charges can be made against Christianity and scripture with it's relationship with Judaism.

There are indeed probable historical fabrications in the NT, but that was more human error or over eagerness as opposed to a deliberate fabrication. Contextually we can easily place the events during Jesus' lifetime to an accurate timeframe (born with the decade before 0AD, probably 4 or 6BC) After his death and resurection when his apostles are effectively scattered to the wind, dates becomes a little less certain and some 'corrections' in line with external events are a bit over eager. I had something on this. I'll need to dig it out.

[afleitch]

I wasn't addressing you jmfcst. Besides, why are you so venomous towards me?

[afleitch]

You know what I really dislike about you. You never actually read what someone says; you read what you think they are saying. And then you spoil for a fight.

I said there were probable fabrications. And this has nothing to do with what was said, but when it was dated. Look at it this way; we can't accurately date when Jesus was born, we cant accurately date when Paul spoke to x or y. We can't date some books of the NT to within a 20 year time frame. Considering some oral testaments were not written down to as late as 200AD, any man of both faith and knowledge would have ensured that if he was writing down the life of Christ or the travels of Paul he'd get his dates right. This is a problem every historian has with nearly every account of any period in history. It doesn't mean events have been fabricated or Christ has been fabricated. It means that they may have been overeager to 'set' Jesus with the context in which he was born. If we were writing about someone 200 years later who had suffered persecution from an occupying force and from elders, and trying to ensure people believe in him and his experiences halfway across the world we would be eager to mention events in his lifetime to highlight his divinity, humanity and his oppression.

[afleitch]

So, what you judge as “spoiling for a fight” is simply my reaction to your baseless innuendo leveled against the NT.

What on earth is 'baseless' about suggesting that we don't know exactly when some of the books of the NT were written down? That's what I've said. And that's what you just agreed with!

All I said is that those who wrote down each book had to ensure the context of each book was consistent with each other and with the narrative of Jesus' life and the journey's of the apostles and so on.

Edit:

Alright, if you want an example you can have one (now I have access to my own computer); It has been noted by historians that John was the only one of the four evangelists to pay attention to the 'chronology of Jesus' public career.'

I quote:

John refers to four Passovers in which Jesus is supposed to have taken part during his public ministry: (2:13; 5:1; 6:4 and 11:55) According to Jesus' activity would therefore have lasted three years, according to John. But on chronological grounds Scaliger believed that Jesus was active in public for four years and not three, for his baptism
occurred in the fifteenth year of Tiberius (Lk. 3:1). But according to John his death took place in a year in which the first füll day of Passover, that is 15 Nisan, feil on a Saturday (John 19:14). That was the case not in the eighteenth but in the nineteenth year of Tiberius.

There you go. A bit of housekeeping by John and he looses a year. Big whoop. Call it an error, call it an 'over zealous fabrication' (and note I was quoting someone esle when I used 'fabrication' - considering it was in the context of chronology I hoped you'd have understood) No need to whip out your handbag.

[afleitch]

Cute