Have Muslim Scholars offered more reliable accounts of the Christ?

[ConsequentAtheist]

Luke new about his ministry and actions, ...

I asked for your "ample proof", not a restatement of the claim. Feel free to submit it at your liesure. In the interim, perhaps you could explain why anyone should presume that Luke 13:10-17 is anything other than rather bad storytelling?

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Yeah you really made a mockery of me

You appear to require no help in that endeavor.

You'll excuse me if I laugh if you are trying to say that islam would be objective ...

Once again, try to respond to what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. Where did I ever suggest "that islam would be objetive"? I simply noted that argumentum ad antiquitatem is fallacious. Do you continue to disagree?

 

[Jenyar]

I asked for your "ample proof", not a restatement of the claim. Feel free to submit it at your liesure. In the interim, perhaps you could explain why anyone should presume that Luke 13:10-17 is anything other than rather bad storytelling?

In the first place, you made four claims without providing "ample proof" yourself - and I challenged them. I don't mind that you turned the discussion around, but just be aware of that.

The fact that we know what it means being "Christian" (being truthful and honest as the greatest responsibility because you're ultimately accountable to the living God) and that these authors were the champions of that understanding, supports their being reputable character witnesses. In other words, the truth of their words is amply attested to, and that reflects positively on their character - not negatively. Did they hit the nail on the head by chance, as a means of being dishonest? That remains for you to prove.

Luke 13 will serve well enough to illustrate my point. That the sabbath was routinely desecrated because the Scribes considered helping someone - actually doing God's will - "work", and helping yourself "necessity", is indicative of what was wrong with the Jewish perspective on God's will. In whatever form this story could be told, this version is as trustworthy to point out this truth as any. And in that respect it's internally consistent (cf. Luke 6:7-9; Luke 14:3-6) and externally consistent with Matthew 12:10-12, Mark 3:2-5, John 5:16-18 and John 7:22-24. Unless you have a problem with this truth, and can prove it false, there is nothing to arouse suspicion about the accounts that illustrate it, or the authors who wrote them down.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

Luke 13 will serve well enough to illustrate my point. That the sabbath was routinely desecrated because the Scribes considered helping someone - actually doing God's will - "work", and helping yourself "necessity", is indicative of what was wrong with the Jewish perspective on God's will.

You pompous pea-brained pile of pathetic pedantry. Before presuming to teach us about the Halakhah surrounding Shabbat, not to mention "what was wrong with the Jewish perspective", you might at least learn the difference between "Scribes" and Pharisees.

Frankly, sometimes your ignorance borders on antisemitism, while your willingness to fabricate arguments crosses the line. So, my anti-Jewish little pedant, document this routine desecration of Shabbat and its Halakhic foundation.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

The fact that we know what it means being "Christian" (being truthful and honest as the greatest responsibility because you're ultimately accountable to the living God) and that these authors were the champions of that understanding, supports their being reputable character witnesses.

That is just silly.

 

[Tiassa]

On Sura 4.157 - For Dr. No

It appeared to them so. What does that imply to you?

Well, I don't know about you, but it's pretty clear if you read the rest of what goes there.

As a matter of fact, I'm rather curious what it implies to you.

153. The people of the Book ask thee to cause a book to descend to them from heaven: Indeed they asked Moses for an even greater (miracle), for they said: "Show us Allah in public," but they were dazed for their presumption, with thunder and lightning. Yet they worshipped the calf even after clear signs had come to them; even so we forgave them; and gave Moses manifest proofs of authority.

154. And for their covenant we raised over them (the towering height) of Mount (Sinai); and (on another occasion) we said: "Enter the gate with humility"; and (once again) we commanded them: "Transgress not in the matter of the sabbath." And we took from them a solemn covenant.

155. (They have incurred divine displeasure): In that they broke their covenant; that they rejected the signs of Allah. that they slew the Messengers in defiance of right; that they said, "Our hearts are the wrappings (which preserve Allah.s Word; We need no more)";- Nay, Allah hath set the seal on their hearts for their blasphemy, and little is it they believe;-

156. That they rejected Faith; that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge;

157. That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah.;- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

158. Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-

159. And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them;-

160. For the iniquity of the Jews We made unlawful for them certain (foods) good and wholesome which had been lawful for them;- in that they hindered many from Allah's Way;-

161. That they took usury, though they were forbidden; and that they devoured men's substance wrongfully;- we have prepared for those among them who reject faith a grievous punishment.

162. But those among them who are well-grounded in knowledge, and the believers, believe in what hath been revealed to thee and what was revealed before thee: And (especially) those who establish regular prayer and practise regular charity and believe in Allah and in the Last Day: To them shall We soon give a great reward.

163. We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: we sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms.

164. Of some apostles We have already told thee the story; of others We have not;- and to Moses Allah spoke direct;-

165. Messenger. who gave good news as well as warning, that mankind, after (the coming) of the apostles, should have no plea against Allah. For Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.

166. But Allah beareth witness that what He hath sent unto thee He hath sent from His (own) knowledge, and the angels bear witness: But enough is Allah for a witness.

167. Those who reject Faith and keep off (men) from the way of Allah, have verily strayed far, far away from the Path.

168. Those who reject Faith and do wrong,- Allah will not forgive them nor guide them to any way-

169. Except the way of Hell, to dwell therein for ever. And this to Allah is easy. (An-Nisa)

I don't know about you, but to me it reads like a reaffirmation of a certain degree of Christian myth--that Christ was raised to Heaven--within a discussion of how God relates to various people and their faiths.

The USC link for comparison; the Islamicity link above is just easier reading sequential paragraphs.

 

[Jenyar]

You pompous pea-brained pile of pathetic pedantry. Before presuming to teach us about the Halakhah surrounding Shabbat, not to mention "what was wrong with the Jewish perspective", you might at least learn the difference between "Scribes" and Pharisees.

It never ceases to amaze me how quickly you can jump on your horse over minor matters. Maybe you would care to furnish me with the destinction between a scribe and an "expert in the law" (Luk.14:3).

Such were the Scribes of the Jews, an order of learned theologians who practised applied theology, a succession of religious teachers and thinkers controlled in their speculations by their oral tradition to some extent and always by the principles of the law and the other scriptures so far as they accepted them and regarded them as consistent with the teaching of Moses. Their general aim was progress in knowledge of God's will, but apart from fundamental principles there were no tests or formularies to which their teaching must conform.
- The 1911 Encyclopedia​

Another interesting paragraph, relevant to my point:

In the time of Antiochus Epiphanes (for example) they had to face the problem, Was the law of the Sabbath to be broken, or was the whole nation to perish and leave none to keep the rest of the law and that part in happier days? A company of them decided with a unanimity rare in the history of the order that the Sabbath must be broken (i Mace. ii. 40-42).​

So they could justify breaking the sabbath rule completely in some circumstances, but evidently they didn't consider sick or disabled people worth the exception. Jesus evidently considered helping a man of equal importance than preserving a whole nation, and definitely much more important than helping a sheep.

Frankly, sometimes your ignorance borders on antisemitism, while your willingness to fabricate arguments crosses the line. So, my anti-Jewish little pedant, document this routine desecration of Shabbat and its Halakhic foundation.

Jesus was no doubt condemning their violation of the sabbath when it came to such mundane matters as helping animals, and their willingness to condemn him for healing a man (since they claimed he did it by magic (cf. Matt.12:24), which is condemned (Shabbath 67a; Sanhedrin 101a according to the Jewish Encyclopedia)). I'm not saying they ever legally violated the sabbath. Jesus might have known (as he did in other instances) what acts they did in secret, when they thought no-one would know. Either way, he convincingly exposed their hypocrisy.

As for the Jewish perspective, here it is out of the horse's mouth:

...in case there was a sick person who was not in danger of death, and in whose behalf the Jew himself dared not violate the Sabbath, the non-Jew might be instructed to do the work ("Yad," l.c. ii. 10).​

And if you consider me anti-Jewish, then I'm not the ignorant one around here... I hope you will be more hesitant to fling unfounded insults at me in the future.

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

The 1911 Encyclopedia

In Judaism

Later the scribe was a professional expert in the writing of Torah scrolls, tefillin, mezuzot, and bills of divorce. Scribes are, therefore, known as sofer setam M"Ts rpvs; setam M"Ts being composed of the Hebrew initials of Sefer Torah, tefillin, and mezuzot. These have to be written with a feather quill in indelible ink, in straight lines, and on specially prepared parchment. It is inferred from the Bible that every Jew should write for himself a Torah scroll (see Deut. 31:19; see Sanh. 21b). Expertness, however, being required in writing a Torah scroll, the commandment can only be fulfilled by ordering it from a scribe. The profession of scribe was indispensable to the Jewish community, and according to the Talmud (Sanh. 17b) a scholar should not dwell in a town where there is no scribe. In the talmudic period, scribes were poorly paid lest they become rich and desert their vocations, leaving the community without their services. The scribe writing a Torah scroll must devote utmost attention and care to the writing; he is forbidden to rely on his memory and has to write from a model copy (Meg. 18b). His guide is the professional compendium for scribes, Tikkun Soferim, which contains the traditional text of the Torah, the specific rules concerning the decorative flourishes (tagin, "crowns") on certain letters, the regulations as to the spacing of certain Torah sections ("open" or "closed" pericopes), and the rules for writing Torah scrolls in which each column begins with the Hebrew letter vav (vavei ha-ammudim). Only the Scroll of Esther may be adorned with artistic illustrations but not the Torah scroll, although Alexandrian scribes are said to have gilded the name and appellations of God (Sof. 1:9). When writing a Torah scroll a scribe must especially prepare himself so that he write the names of the Lord with proper devotion and in ritual purity. It is, therefore, customary that he immerse himself in a ritual bath (mikveh) before beginning his work. (The rules for the writing of Torah scrolls and other ritual texts are laid down in Sof. 1–10; Maim. Yad, Tefillin, Mezuzah, 1–10; Sh. Ar., YD 270ff.) Scribes also acted as recording clerks and court secretaries of the bet din and were, therefore, also called lavlar, from the Latin libellarius. They wrote legal documents such as bills of divorce (get) and contracts. In halakhah there are established rules as to who pays the scribe's fee. The general principle is that the person who receives the greater benefit from a transaction has to pay the scribe, e.g., the buyer of property and the borrower of money. In modern times printed forms are used for most legal transactions and the only document that has to be written by an expert scribe is the bill of divorce.

- see The Encyclopaedia Judaica

As for the Jewish perspective, here it is out of the horse's mouth:

...in case there was a sick person who was not in danger of death, and in whose behalf the Jew himself dared not violate the Sabbath, the non-Jew might be instructed to do the work ("Yad," l.c. ii. 10).​

You are remarkably slimy. At issue is not whether Jews took great care to do no work on Shabbat but, rather, whether

the sabbath was routinely desecrated because the Scribes considered helping someone ... "work"​

In fact, the Mishna specifies 39 categories of work (Mishna Shabbat 7.2), and "helping someone" is not one of them. The 'Orthodox' attitude towards Shabbat centered around (a) Exodus 20:10 and (b) the recognitions of exceptions. The rule of thumb was that there was to be no work performed (efort expended) unless deferring such work would be potentially life threatening. Again, I invite you to show me anything suggesting that the effortless healing as described in Luke 13 was halakhically proscribed.

By the way, even if this were the case, your hypocritical little legend fully deserved to be castigated: one can only assume that he waited till Shabbat solely for effect. Had his primary concern been for the woman and Exodus 20, he could have (and should have) helped the poor gal before or after Shabbat.

Furthermore, as if to emphasize the fictive nature of the anti-Judaic narrative. what are we told happens after this melodramatic grandstanding? Here we have an old woman with an 18 year infirmity magically healed. I don't know about you, but that sure as hell would have impressed me. Surely there should have been amazement, maybe even fear. But no, not even polite applause. Instead, we must wait until Jesus dialogues with the ruler of the synagogue (or, more correctly, Luke completes his polemic with Judaism) before the crowd reacts at all. And then, of course, the crowd cheers. The old Roy Rogers movies were more believable.

It's a joke.

 

[davewhite04]

Furthermore, as if to emphasize the fictive nature of the anti-Judaic narrative. what are we told happens after this melodramatic grandstanding? Here we have an old woman with an 18 year infirmity magically healed. I don't know about you, but that sure as hell would have impressed me. Surely there should have been amazement, maybe even fear. But no, not even polite applause. Instead, we must wait until Jesus dialogues with the ruler of the synagogue (or, more correctly, Luke completes his polemic with Judaism) before the crowd reacts at all. And then, of course, the crowd cheers. The old Roy Rogers movies were more believable.

Hiya CA,

I recently watched a snooker match between Ronnie "The Rocket" O'Sullivan and another contender in the World Championships. Ronnie is a genius as far as snooker goes and most of his shots are applauded by the crowd, however he pulled of one shot that was "unbelievable" and there was no applause, you couldn't even hear a gasp, maybe one gasp. The commentators were speechless then eventually said, that was amazing why no applause? They didn't realise that before they acknowledged it Ronnie was onto his 3rd shot after that, so even them wouldn't have had time to applaud. I think it is a very human reaction when something extraordinary happens and it's the case I think with the passage that you seem to have difficulty to take seriously.

As far as the ruler of the synagogue is concerned, well I suppose it may have been the reaction of O'Sullivons opponent in the context of my example.

Just my 2 pence.

Dave

 

[ConsequentAtheist]

I think it is a very human reaction when something extraordinary happens and it's the case I think with the passage that you seem to have difficulty to take seriously.

It's an interesting perspective. Thanks for the input.