Have Muslim Scholars offered more reliable accounts of the Christ?

R

Roman

Banned
Banned
I have a few questions.

Since Muslim and Arab scholars were far more advanced, scientifically, than Europe was during the middle ages, is it possible that their texts offer better historical accuracy than the Gospels?

However, I don't know much about the Middle Eastern timeline, or when the Gospels were writ, or anything like that, so I may be completely off.
 
Roman said:
I have a few questions.

Since Muslim and Arab scholars were far more advanced, scientifically, than Europe was during the middle ages, is it possible that their texts offer better historical accuracy than the Gospels?

However, I don't know much about the Middle Eastern timeline, or when the Gospels were writ, or anything like that, so I may be completely off.
Click to expand...
How in the world would anyone writing about something more then 1000 years after the fact be more reliable than something written at the actual time or 50 years after the fact. :bugeye:
 
path said:
How in the world would anyone writing about something more then 1000 years after the fact be more reliable than something written at the actual time or 50 years after the fact. :bugeye:
Click to expand...
Gee gosh o golly, Gilgamesh was written much closer to the time of the purported flood than we are today, so ... :rolleyes:
 
OK CA you are operating on the assumption that jesus is mythological. I am only saying that IF there was a Jesus then those who knew him would have likely given a truer account of him than people 1000 years later, simple no.
 
path said:
I am only saying that IF there was a Jesus then those who knew him would have likely given a truer account of him than people 1000 years later, simple no.
Click to expand...
Simply dumb.

There is no evidence that those who wrote the Gospels knew Jesus.
There is no evidence that those who wrote the Gospels were honest.
There is no evidence that those who wrote the Gospels were objective.
There is no evidence that those who wrote the Gospels had reliable information.

Simply put, there is no evidence (or reason) for your assumption.
 
Obviously you take yourself too seriously, I said IF you know what IF means don't you? Or are you so consequent that you break out in hives at the mere mention of jesus even in a hypothetical sense.
 
Last edited:
CA said:
There is no evidence that those who wrote the Gospels knew Jesus.
Click to expand...
Except they provide adequate evidence that they knew him better than anybody else. To say they knew nothing about him is tantamount to saying we know nothing about him, which is a complete lie - unless you discount what we know about him, which leads us to the next statement...
There is no evidence that those who wrote the Gospels were honest.
Click to expand...
They describe, teach and hold to the clearest and most responsible form of honesty imaginable, one in conjuction with the sincere belief that liars have no part in eternal life and are rejecting their message. And of course, the old question is: Would they die for something they knew to be false?
There is no evidence that those who wrote the Gospels were objective.
Click to expand...
They didn't pretend to be, although they obviously tried. The gospels simply present their content as an appeal. They were passionate about telling the truth of what they had seen and heard. If they were more objective, we would have had less reason to believe them. It would stand in stark contrast to the claims they make. And since the earliest "Christians" would have been partial to the Jewish context, the fact that they established the gospels specifically within a Jewish religion meant that they were well aware of the significance and consequences of what they were doing, yet they did it anyway.

Someone less familiar with the Jewish scriptures would have been better positioned to make these claims without persecution, yet instead of rejecting Judaism, the authors were adamant to prove their Jewish nationality. That means the legacy of their Jewish background was more important to them than their success as Christians. More important than their own lives.
There is no evidence that those who wrote the Gospels had reliable information.
Click to expand...
As far as we can measure reliable information, theirs was more likely to be reliable than any other ancient text in existence. Of course, nobody can force you to believe them. To some, their truths and arguments are compelling, to others they are not. I can't blame you for being the latter, but at least be honest about your reasons: doubting the intentions and integrity of the authors goes beyond and even contradicts the available evidence.

If you have reason to doubt their integrity, the onus is on you to provide reasons for doing so. Tiassa spends a lot of energy questioning the integrity of church fathers like Eusebius in order to question or discount their testimonies as the foundations of Christian doctrine. but I have yet to see a convincing argument discrediting the gospel authors.
 
Last edited:
path said:
Obviously you take yourself too seriously, I said IF you know what IF means don't you?
Click to expand...
I simply do not take you too seriously, and you seem more than willing to validate that stance.

Read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. There was nothing in my comments that presumed a mythical Jesus. But a historical Jesus is no more an assurance of an accurate account than is the historicity of David Koresh a guarantee of an accurate narrative by his followers.

To denigrate Islam's account solely on the grounds that it came later is pathetic reasoning. One might just as well condemn historical scholarship in general.
 
Jenyar said:
Except they provide adequate evidence that they knew him better than anybody else.
Click to expand...
Very well. Please supply the ample evidence showing that Luke new him better than the authors of the Gospel of Thomas and the Infancy Gospels.
 
Jenyar said:
They describe, teach and hold to the clearest and most responsible form of honesty imaginable, one in conjuction with the sincere belief that liars have no part in eternal life and are rejecting their message. And of course, the old question is: Would they die for something they knew to be false?
Click to expand...

Jenyar, the Quran have never denied the deciples, the gospels, Jesus, Moses, Torah, extra.... The only claim that the Quran makes is that people have exceeded the limits given to them and thus corrupted the message.

[4.154] And We lifted the mountain (Sainai) over them at (the li taking of the covenant) and We said to them: Enter the door making obeisance; and We said to them: Do not exceed the limits of the Sabbath, and We made with them a firm covenant.
[4.171] O followers of the Book! do not exceed the limits in your religion, and do not speak (lies) against Allah, but (speak) the truth; the Messiah, Isa son of Marium is only an apostle of Allah and His Word which He communicated to Marium and a spirit from Him; believe therefore in Allah and His apostles, and say not, Three. Desist, it is better for you; Allah is only one God; far be It from His glory that He should have a son, whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth is His, and Allah is sufficient for a Protector.
 
Very well. Please supply the ample evidence showing that Luke new him better than the authors of the Gospel of Thomas and the Infancy Gospels.
Click to expand...
Luke knew about his ministry and actions, the Gospel of Thomas doesn't - and it has no narrative. It knows who Jesus was, but it doesn't claim to know anything more about him - at any rate, not anything more than Luke.

The Infancy gospels appeared much too late to claim any new knowledge (140-170 according to Kirby):
Cameron identifies three different sources for the Infancy Gospel of James: extracanonical traditions, the Old Testament, and the Gospels of Matthew and Luke.
- The Infancy gospel of James​
And in regard to the Infancy gospel of Thomas:
There is nothing particularly Christian about the stories attributed to Jesus; rather, the stories elaborate on the missing years of Jesus with reference to Hellenistic legend and pious imagination.
- The infancy gospel of Thomas​
 
Last edited:
ConsequentAtheist said:
I simply do not take you too seriously, and you seem more than willing to validate that stance.
Click to expand...
Yeah you really made a mockery of me :rolleyes:

To denigrate Islam's account solely on the grounds that it came later is pathetic reasoning. One might just as well condemn historical scholarship in general.
Click to expand...
You'll excuse me if I laugh if you are trying to say that islam would be objective when rewriting the history of jesus' life. Where is the archeological or paleontological evidence they used? What did they build the groundwork of their research on? What was their primary source material?
 
Last edited:
ConsequentAtheist said:
To denigrate Islam's account solely on the grounds that it came later is pathetic reasoning. One might just as well condemn historical scholarship in general.
Click to expand...

But path did not say that it is his "sole reason" for denigrating islam's account. That could be just one of his reasons.

For me that is just one of the many reasons as well. My reasons for junking islam's account are the following:

* Islam came 600+ years later
* Islam's account are nothing but empty words. No evidences whatsoever
* Islam's account is senseless. Saying that the mob crucified somebody else by mistake. duh!
 
Flores said:
Jenyar, the Quran have never denied the deciples, the gospels, Jesus, Moses, Torah, extra.... The only claim that the Quran makes is that people have exceeded the limits given to them and thus corrupted the message.
Click to expand...
I know that, but the Quran does not say what was corrupted - it only warns against it. In fact, it says in 5.046 that Jesus confirmed the Law (in other words, the Hebrew Torah up until that point). It also says that God sent the gospel, which Christians should live by (5.47), and that "therein is no doubt" (10.037). Please correct me if I interpret these wrongly.

The only corruption mentioned is based on the misconception that the trinity mentions three gods ("say not: Three"), and that Jesus is a biological son of God. Both of these views are just as repulsive to Christians and are rejected as heresies. The Bible itself condemns corruption of its text, and the writings of the New Testament (not the gospels) is not itself scripture, but a testimony to Jesus and his message.
 
DoctorNO said:
* Islam's account are nothing but empty words. No evidences whatsoever
Click to expand...


And what evidance do you want for the 2000 year old story? Do you prefer if god replayed history infront of your own eyes so you may understand....Is that how you treat your history classes....The jewish holucast less than 60 years ago must be empty words then, because we can no longer count or check the validlity of the WHOLE story.


DoctorNO said:
* Islam's account is senseless. Saying that the mob crucified somebody else by mistake. duh!
Click to expand...

Islam never said that the mob crucified somebody else. Here's the exact count of Quran.

The Women
[4.157] And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.
 
Flores said:
And what evidance do you want for the 2000 year old story? Do you prefer if god replayed history infront of your own eyes so you may understand....Is that how you treat your history classes....The jewish holucast less than 60 years ago must be empty words then, because we can no longer count or check the validlity of the WHOLE story.
Click to expand...
We are talking about a part of the story (the crucifixion) not the whole story of christ’s life. The holocaust can be proven because of the INDEPENDENT testimonies of thousands of people. Likewise the quran would make better sense if there are INDEPENDENT accounts that coincides with the quranic accounts. The holocaust can also be proven because of captured video footages of actual exterminations. The quran would make better sense if it was able to predict the archeological locations of the original cross and the empty tomb. Nothing is impossible if God was indeed involved.

Flores said:
Islam never said that the mob crucified somebody else. Here's the exact count of Quran.

The Women
[4.157] And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.
Click to expand...

It appeared to them so. What does that imply to you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top