ForumGarden

As one Thread begets another Thread ... so are the days of the Forum Garden :-6

Other than the major differences of Muhammed the Prophet and Jesus the Christ, can someone enumerate the differences between the holy books? I'm talking about words and passages, not conjecture and deeds done in the name of ...

Their age is one of the differences. Muhammad the prophet came on the scene about 600 years after Christ. The Koran is the recorded words of Muhammad assembled by his followers after his death in 632 CE. Many Biblical scriptures were in existence at the time of Christ’s incarnation. The Koran contains portions of both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible.

A long time ago I'd heard that Muhammed was Christian. I now understand that's not true. But it seems he was a Jew?

Accountable wrote: Other than the major differences of Muhammed the Prophet and Jesus the Christ, can someone enumerate the differences between the holy books? I'm talking about words and passages, not conjecture and deeds done in the name of ...You will wish to read a rather longer and better researched version than I'm able to convey.

Of particular note, though, is the Qur'an version of the history of Miriam, or Mary, the mother of Jesus. It has traditionally been said by Muslims that the Christian New Testament account was a garbled replication of the original tale, which the Qur'an gives perfectly. It has traditionally been said by Christians that the Qur'an account was a garbled replication of the original tale, which the Bible gives perfectly. A Christian professor at the American University in Beirut, Kamal Salibi, synthesised a third notion which truly shocked everyone. He recalls St Paul, following his conversion on the Road to Damascus, going into the desert for years before starting his ministry. Salibi claims that Paul found the Qur'an stories in Arabia, where they had been part of the worship of pre-Christian pre-Islamic tribesmen, and realized that the Disciples had conflated various Saviour stories into the life of a single man, Jesus, they had themselves known. This was the knowledge he came back and confronted Peter with, when setting up the mission to the Gentiles which in retrospect became the Christian Church.

Now, far be it from me to advocate any point of view, but I did enjoy reading Salibi's books. Internally, they are very self-consistent. He's very good at discussing Acts, in particular, and making sense of what seems otherwise pointless.

Accountable wrote: A long time ago I'd heard that Muhammed was Christian. I now understand that's not true. But it seems he was a Jew?I think it can safely be said that he was Semitic. Arabs and Jews of the time were both branches of Semite stock. You would need good evidence, I think, to go further than that. Jews and Arabs had very different religious observances, in the seventh century. I know of no evidence that your suggestion might be sustainable.

I know a couple of things they have in common.

1) they are "Interpretations" of what may or may not have happened.

2) they are both used to justify war in it's many forms

Bothwell wrote: 2) they are both used to justify war in it's many formsOh, but so many things have been used for that. It doesn't have to be ideas. Do you not recall Robert Jenkins, the captain of the good ship Rebecca, who complained bitterly that a Spanish coast guard had severed his ear? Nobody could shut him up about his wretched ear, nobody wanted to rock the boat with the Spanish, but eventually Captain Jenkins showed up at the House of Commons and handed it around. Robert Walpole had no choice, at that point, so he declared war on October 23, 1739, and the Spanish got justifiably thrashed yet again.

Spot yet again your patronising lectures increase the already hot temperature, yes I am a fully aware of the war of Jenkins ear, I thought the thread was about the similarities between the books of two religions, I repeat that they have both been used to justify war and yes I know lot's of other things have been used as well.

Why don't you start a history and literature quiz thread then you can really show off :-5

spot wrote: I think it can safely be said that he was Semitic. Arabs and Jews of the time were both branches of Semite stock. You would need good evidence, I think, to go further than that. Jews and Arabs had very different religious observances, in the seventh century. I know of no evidence that your suggestion might be sustainable.
Thanks. I'd heard there was a link. Now I understand it actually predates Judaism. It's kinda neat that Arabs are both Semite and anti-Semite, depending on the definition used.

Bothwell wrote: Spot yet again your patronising lectures increase the already hot temperature, yes I am a fully aware of the war of Jenkins ear, I thought the thread was about the similarities between the books of two religions, I repeat that they have both been used to justify war and yes I know lot's of other things have been used as well.

Why don't you start a history and literature quiz thread then you can really show off :-5


Geez, you two. Deep cleansing breath. Ooommmmmhhh :yh_pray

Hey Spot!

Thanks for the links. They give the information I'm looking for. It'll take awhile for me to read through it all (I still move my lips while reading & sometimes have to read aloud. Very irritating to the rest of the reading club ).

Interesting, isn't it, that followers of both versions feel theirs is the only right version? I was raised Southern Baptist, but I personally don't see how King James' guys could hope to avoid messing up some parts of the Bible. After all, didn't they pray & make decisions about what to include and exclude? And things always get lost in interpretation. Humans can't possibly do thing absolutely right ... right?

Assuming that the same thing ocurred on both sides, we can only take the themes and ideas at face value, rather than the exact words themselves. Following this thought, aren't they both essentially in agreement?

When Mohammed started preaching his new religion in Mecca he was conciliatory and appeasing to Christians. He told them: "We believe in What has been sent down to us and sent down to you, our God is the same as your God" Surah 29:45. Compare this with what happened later, in Medina, after Mohammed gained strength. Allah then tells him to "Fight People of the Book (Christians and Jews) who do not accept the religion of the truth (Islam) until they pay tribute by hand, being inferior " Surah 9:29

Accountable wrote: Geez, you two. Deep cleansing breath. Ooommmmmhhh :yh_prayWhat did *I* do???

Ah well. Why not. Ooommmmmhhh.

Clint wrote: When Mohammed started preaching his new religion in Mecca he was conciliatory and appeasing to Christians. He told them: "We believe in What has been sent down to us and sent down to you, our God is the same as your God" Surah 29:45. Compare this with what happened later, in Medina, after Mohammed gained strength. Allah then tells him to "Fight People of the Book (Christians and Jews) who do not accept the religion of the truth (Islam) until they pay tribute by hand, being inferior " Surah 9:29


Forgive me, but are those Surah cites chapter & verse as in our Bible? If so, the second passage came before the first.

Accountable wrote: Forgive me, but are those Surah cites chapter & verse as in our Bible? If so, the second passage came before the first.
Good point. I don't know. They are contradictory statements so I’m not sure the point is lost in reverse order. The Bible isn’t always ordered chronologically. The Koran wasn’t written over a long period of time like the Bible so that may have something to do with it also. It may have been better to leave the word “later” out.

The Surah are ordered in an arcane (though doubtless divinely inspired) longest-to-shortest order. Sort of. Not chronologically.

spot wrote: The Surah are ordered in an arcane (though doubtless divinely inspired) longest-to-shortest order. Sort of. Not chronologically.
:-2 Oh. How divine! That must play heck with story-telling :yh_wait

I think it makes a difference if the point is that Muhammed started out meed & cooperative then became beligerent as he became full of himself. If it's just pointing out contradictions out of context, one can do that all day long with all three books.

“That’s because you’ve been blind as a bat since Christmas, 1968,” I said.

The deacon saw me and mentioned that he hadn’t seen me for awhile.

I went to church last Sunday.

I looked him in the eye.



Loses some of the *umph* doesn't it?

The Bible and the Quran have many similarities and differences. According to Islam, God revealed the Torah to Moses in an account similar to that in the Bible. The Muslims, therefore, accept the Torah as a source of religion. However, according to Islam, the Jews and Christians have distorted the teachings of the Torah. God therefore sent down the Quran which coincided with certain teachings in the Bible but introduced new teachings different than those of Jews and Christians. Muslims also accept the legitimacy of the Gospels and believe that it was revealed by God to Jesus who was no more than a messenger of God similar to Moses or Muhammad. Muslims believe that these teachings were distorted by the Christians. The Quran is, therefore, a final revelation to mankind passed on by Muhammad, who was the final messenger. The Quran in Islam is the supreme guide of religion and supercedes any other revelations.

Let me try to understand, wag. You just joined this board in order to tell us that Islam is the only fully authentic religion on the planet? I've no problem with you doing that, if that's what you've done - I'd be interested to discuss why - but this thread's a very odd place for you to have decided to say so. Perhaps I'm misreading your post.