[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by gupguppy: *
It's for you to prove that he DID!!
[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately not.
Luke (who made a study of Jesus' life on earth by conversing with those that knew Jesus personally) wrote what Jesus said according to his sources. Luke, as Jew, well knew the passage most probably off by heart. If Luke say Jesus did not read the sentence (due to some reason), who can say otherwise?
YOU made an assumption that Jesus read the whole passage WITHOUT consulting ANY of the people Luke did. YOU prove that Luke is mistaken.
It is you versus Luke. For myself, I prefer to trust a person with basically first-hand experience rather than a nobody (no pun intended) 2000 years later. Go well.
Luke (who made a study of Jesus' life on earth by conversing with those that knew Jesus personally)...
[/quote]
Sorry? Just which individuals that "knew Jesus personally" did Luke (whoever he was) get his information from?
[quote]
Luke, as Jew, well knew the passage most probably off by heart.
[/quote]
Huh!? Luke's notice in the Catholic Encyclopedia reads: "St. Luke was not a Jew." He, and the other anonymous gospel writers, blundered in many other places when referring back to the Old Testament so it shouldn't surprise us to find another blunder here.
[quote]
YOU prove that Luke is mistaken.
[/quote]
I already have done. You believe the omission was deliberate, yet haven't shown any evidence to that effect or any reason why. Good luck.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Stu: *
So the Koran is an infallible roadmap for life M? I guess you have slaves and are married to a 9 year old?
[/QUOTE]
Your ignorance is laughable.
If something is revealed from God, the one who has created the whole of creation, verything that exists, then how can it be fallible?
You obviously have no knowledge about Islam or how legal rulings are derived.
Do you mind showing me where in the Quran it says one must have slaves or have a young wife?
I have not read your post completely or the replies but I would like to point out that the title of your post sounds against one of the beliefs a muslim is expected to have, that is; the belief that Toreh, Injeel...... are the books of God........ accurate or not accurate.... these are the books of God, period!
Not everyone is endowed with equal intelligence, reason, logic and comon sense. Some have more and some have less. In your case the latter is self evident.
Stick to analysing Mother Goose and then give us a word by word breakdown! So, please confirm in your opinion if Mother Goose is a Devine Revelation or not.
The Koran contains dogma, legends, history, fiction, religion and superstition, social and family laws, prayers, threats, liturgy, fanciful descriptions of heaven, hell, the judgment day, resurrection, etc. – a combination of fact and fancy often devoid of force and originality. The most creditable portions are those in which Jewish and Christian influences are clearly discernible. The following analysis is based on Sir William Muir’s chronological arrangement (op. cit. infra).
Sir William Muir, was nothing more than a very hostile critic employed by the British Raj whilst occupying India in the land revenue dept.
He's just another in a long list of Anti Muslims trying to prove that the Qur'aan was not the Word of God and copied from the Bible blah blah blah.
Take a wash in the Ganges, and you might be able to think more rationally after your purification.
[/QUOTE]
there are two ways to look at one emotional and another historical.
ofcourse you have say what you have to say others may not have the same emotional connection.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by sholay: *
It's historical facts that prove the Qur'aan as the only infallible Word of God on the face of the Planet. Not emotional rhetoric!
[/QUOTE]
No, it is faith that tells you that, not historical facts.
You can say what you like, when you like. It doesn't make a shred of difference to Muslims or the Qur'aan.
The fact remains that historical facts confirm the Qur'aan and not you or your level of reasoning, weak faith, extreme jealousy or emotions. If you think that this Book is not the Infallible Word of God, you are at liberty to produce a Surah like it with eloquent language consisting of at least three verses. I've told you this time and time again, but you tend to dodge the challenge!
If you think that this Book is not the Infallible Word of God, you are at liberty to produce a Surah like it with eloquent language consisting of at least three verses. I've told you this time and time again, but you tend to dodge the challenge!
[/QUOTE]
2:23 And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then PRODUCE a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true.
2:24. But if ye cannot- and of a surety ye cannot- then fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones,- which is prepared for those who reject Faith.
17:88 Say: "If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to PRODUCE the like of this Qur'an, they could not PRODUCE the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by gupguppy: *
Sorry? Just which individuals that "knew Jesus personally" did Luke (whoever he was) get his information from?
[/QUOTE]
The disciples that was taught personally by Jesus. You can read all of it in Acts.
[quote] hupguppy said:
Huh!? Luke's notice in the Catholic Encyclopedia reads: "St. Luke was not a Jew."
[/quote]
Sorry, my ambiguity. If you read further you would have seen he was according to them a proselised Jew (a Greek that went over to the Jewish faith), and that he knew the Septuagint (Torah) very well. He was constantly in the companyment of born Jews who would immediately corrected him if he was wrong.
If ever there was a man that has a better understanding of what transpired 2000 years ago, it is Luke and not "gupguppy"! If you still insist in being correct, I would like to hear your wonderful first-hand experience of what happened 2000 years ago to which you obviously was an eyewitness of.....
BTW: The Catholic Encyclopedia is not the Alpha and Omega of Christian values and knowedge. Try sometime reading wider as well. Many other authorative commentaries show that Luke most probably was Jewish born.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by sholay: *
2:23 And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then PRODUCE a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true.
2:24. But if ye cannot- and of a surety ye cannot- then fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones,- which is prepared for those who reject Faith.
17:88 Say: "If the whole of mankind and Jinns were to gather together to PRODUCE the like of this Qur'an, they could not PRODUCE the like thereof, even if they backed up each other with help and support.
The answer is already here for you!
You be the judge.
[/QUOTE]
one can live on this earth without knowing one word of quran or any
other relgious book. you make relgious book as cure for all .
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by sholay: *
You can say what you like, when you like. It doesn't make a shred of difference to Muslims or the Qur'aan.
The fact remains that historical facts confirm the Qur'aan and not you or your level of reasoning, weak faith, extreme jealousy or emotions. If you think that this Book is not the Infallible Word of God, you are at liberty to produce a Surah like it with eloquent language consisting of at least three verses. I've told you this time and time again, but you tend to dodge the challenge!
[/QUOTE]
I am not trying to demean your faith or your scripture and I am not going to try to disprove the Quran. I've made some posts regarding this before and was told not to belittle other's faith and the posts were deleted.
But I will not back down from the point that all religous beliefs are based on faith and not 'historical facts'. If they were than we would have a widely accpeted view of what is the truth and we obviously do not. And believe me when I say I am not the least bit jealous of those who follow literal interpretations of ancient scriptures.
The disciples that was taught personally by Jesus. You can read all of it in Acts.
[/quote]
Care to be more specific? A chapter and verse perhaps?
[quote]
Sorry, my ambiguity. If you read further you would have seen he was according to them a proselised Jew (a Greek that went over to the Jewish faith), and that he knew the Septuagint (Torah) very well. He was constantly in the companyment of born Jews who would immediately corrected him if he was wrong.
[/quote]
The more you pump up Luke's knowledge of the Torah, the more alarming become his aforementioned blunder. You believe the omission was deliberate, yet haven't shown any evidence to that effect or any reason why. Good luck.
[quote]
Try sometime reading wider as well. Many other authorative commentaries show that Luke most probably was Jewish born.
[/QUOTE]
Okay, so now you are back tracking. Care to quote from one such commentary?
You get into sticky water when you allege that Religions are based on Faith only and not Historical fact.
OK. Let me make it easy for you. Just one question:
Is it not a historical fact that a current Qur'aan in this day and age is exactly the same as the first Qur'aan? Not one omission or addition has been made.