Originally posted by rogue06
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Islam Guidelines
Theists only.
This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to Islam. This forum is generally for theists only, and is not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theist may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.
Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to Islam. This forum is generally for theists only, and is not the area for debate between atheists and theists. Non-theist may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.
Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Hmmmmmmmm ...
Collapse
X
-
- 1 like
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostEyewitness testimony from multiple sources who really had nothing to gain is a good start.
Would this be what you mean by eyewitness?....
If I understand this correctly---the gospels are written by eyewitness but were "transmitted as anonymous traditions". ....and this concept is the basis for your belief/faith?
In your opinion---should faith be tested?
Comment
-
Originally posted by siam View Post
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_...e_Eyewitnesses
Would this be what you mean by eyewitness?....
If I understand this correctly---the gospels are written by eyewitness but were "transmitted as anonymous traditions". ....and this concept is the basis for your belief/faith?
In your opinion---should faith be tested?
And yes, we should weigh the evidence before putting our faith in something.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostIt was common during that time not to put your name on to your writings so technically they're "anonymous" although the early church would have known who the authors were. The very fact that no other names were attributed to them is strong testimony in favor of the traditional attributions are indeed correct. If the authors were truly unknown there would have been a tendency to attribute them to those who were in the inner circle and not folks like Mark and Luke.
And yes, we should weigh the evidence before putting our faith in something.
So...you are saying that the early Church was "aware" who the writers/authors were but did not leave any names, genealogies or biographies of these authors/writers as evidence. The works are "attributed" to common-folk such as Mark...etc...and this fact in itself is considered strong enough "evidence" as a truth-claim for a Christian?. ...is this correct?
Weighing faith----There is the example of Galileo and of the Church rejecting "evidence"---what is your stance on such issues from a Christian ethico-moral perspective?
Comment
-
Originally posted by siam View Post
very interesting....
So...you are saying that the early Church was "aware" who the writers/authors were but did not leave any names, genealogies or biographies of these authors/writers as evidence. The works are "attributed" to common-folk such as Mark...etc...and this fact in itself is considered strong enough "evidence" as a truth-claim for a Christian?. ...is this correct?
Weighing faith----There is the example of Galileo and of the Church rejecting "evidence"---what is your stance on such issues from a Christian ethico-moral perspective?
There are some clues in the books themselves for the attributions as well. In the case of Matthew, for instance, unlike the parallel passages of Mark 2:13-17 and Luke 5:27-32, Matthew 9:9-13 contains a significance difference in that the author refers to the tax collector as "Matthew" while the other Gospels call him "Levi" -- but all three list Matthew, not Levi, as a disciple of Jesus in their lists of the 12 (Mark 3:16-18; Matthew 10:2-4; Luke 6:13-16). And yet the list in Matthew adds "the tax collector" after Matthew's name. Scholars have argued that the obvious reason for this is that Matthew is adding a self-deprecating identification after his name and substituting his new (apostolic) name in 9:9-13 in exactly the same manner that Paul (originally known as Saul) did in his Epistles.
As for Galileo, that was a complicated, convoluted mess, but much of it was due to the Church not looking kindly on a layman telling them how they must read Scripture.
1. Eusebius clearly quotes Papias as saying that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark were written by Matthew and Mark.
2. there still is some question as to which John although the self-description of "the disciple who Jesus loved" suggests it was the Apostle John who was the source
Last edited by rogue06; 11-25-2020, 07:39 AM.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostThe names attributed to them date back to antiquity with folks such as Irenaeus, who was active in the mid to late 2nd cent. and who almost certainly got his information from Papias (c. 60 -- c.130 AD)[1], providing the names of the authors in a very casual, off-handed way suggesting he is relaying common knowledge. That and the fact there is zero variety when it comes to attribution indicates a very early and vigorous tradition concerning the authorship of the Gospels. And again, given that they are attributed to what could be described as minor characters (with the exception of perhaps John[2]), rather than the big names, like the author of most of the later "gospels" did in an attempt to provide authority to their works, is even further evidence that those who the works were ascribed to were the actual authors.
There are some clues in the books themselves for the attributions as well. In the case of Matthew, for instance, unlike the parallel passages of Mark 2:13-17 and Luke 5:27-32, Matthew 9:9-13 contains a significance difference in that the author refers to the tax collector as "Matthew" while the other Gospels call him "Levi" -- but all three list Matthew, not Levi, as a disciple of Jesus in their lists of the 12 (Mark 3:16-18; Matthew 10:2-4; Luke 6:13-16). And yet the list in Matthew adds "the tax collector" after Matthew's name. Scholars have argued that the obvious reason for this is that Matthew is adding a self-deprecating identification after his name and substituting his new (apostolic) name in 9:9-13 in exactly the same manner that Paul (originally known as Saul) did in his Epistles.
As for Galileo, that was a complicated, convoluted mess, but much of it was due to the Church not looking kindly on a layman telling them how they must read Scripture.
1. Eusebius clearly quotes Papias as saying that the Gospels of Matthew and Mark were written by Matthew and Mark.
2. there still is some question as to which John although the self-description of "the disciple who Jesus loved" suggests it was the Apostle John who was the source
Both Islam and Christianity share in the concept of One God.
In the paradigm of Tawheed (Unity)---One God created ALL of humanity. As such, in the eyes of God, all humanity is of equivalent value and therefore God sent his guidance/wisdom/knowledge to all humanity. That is why the "chosen people" idea is discouraged---the notion that only a certain group of people were specially selected for guidance. Therefore, all knowledge --- Pagan Greek or Shamanistic Chinese or Zoroastrian Persian or Polytheist Hindu...(or secular Science)...etc...---all is from God. Thus Muslims were able to learn from anyone and anywhere---the only restriction being that it (knowledge) should not contradict the principle (paradigm) of Tawheed. (...because Tawheed brings benefit to humanity). This attitude towards knowledge coupled with the mass production of paper and the expansion of the "Islamicate" brought about a rapid progress in the acquisition, research, production, and distribution of knowledge.
Do you think it is possible for Christianity to embrace a more inclusive attitude towards knowledge or is the idea of the "other"/devil too strong for that?Last edited by siam; 11-28-2020, 01:50 AM.
Comment
-
[QUOTE=siam;n1209676] Both Islam and Christianity share in the concept of One God.[/QUOTE
But Muhammad's god is not THE GOD of the Bible. Otherwise Muslims would not be mandated to fight the "people of the book" Christians, now would they?????
Originally posted by siam View PostIn the paradigm of Tawheed ( ....
Comment
-
What was the point of the OP to begin with?"I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill
Comment
-
Originally posted by KingsGambit View PostWhat was the point of the OP to begin with?
There seems to be a bit of a comprehension problem on my part with Trucker's line of thoughts/perspective. I cannot grasp his logic/reasoning...for example, he is asking if Tawheed is a coined word or not---Lived languages evolve and develop, ---So I see no particular point in an etymology of a word unless it further adds to our understanding/definition/meaning-making.
I do not know how I can add further to this subject than already discussed.....
---probably in some Christian apologetics corner---this all makes sense. But since Christian apologetics is not an area of interest for me---(it concerns issues that Christians are interested in)---and therefore, is not necessarily of mutual interest such as an interfaith dialogue might be......
Questions from Atheists/Agnostics are interesting because they do the research---(at least the ones I have interacted with) and this makes for uniquely interesting questions.....
Comment
-
Originally posted by siam View PostI appreciate curiosity and questioning. All people of faith should have the curiosity to seek more knowledge.
Originally posted by siam View PostThere seems to be a bit of a comprehension problem on my part with Trucker's line of thoughts/perspective. I cannot grasp his logic/reasoning...for example, he is asking if Tawheed is a coined word or not---Lived languages evolve and develop, ---So I see no particular point in an etymology of a word unless it further adds to our understanding/definition/meaning-making.
With this all in mind I think it only fair to ask the Muslim; Just where does this word "Tawheed" come from? Where in the Qur'an is this word that is so important in Islamic Theology to be found?
[QUOTE=siam;n1211207] I do not know how I can add further to this subject than already discussed.....[/QUOTE
So simple ... you could have just answered the elementary grade question straight up instead of all the bloviations. Just as Trinity does not appear in the Scriptures the Tawheed does not appear in the Qur'an. Right?
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by Trucker View Post
Bingo! We agree.
Well allow me to help you out with your alleged comprehension problem here. One of the alleged issues the Muslims habitually try to bring to the table is the Scriptural doctrine of the Trinity. As I am sure you are aware, the Doctrine of the Trinity [or "Triunity"} is one of the Cardinal Christian Doctrines! One claim the Muslims make in opposition to the Trinity is that the word "Trinity" does not appear anywhere in the Scriptures. One of the most important teachings of Islam [as I think you have pointed out in previous posts] is this "Tawheed" thingie .... the absolute oneness of Allah. Thus Tawheed [in whatever spelling variation] is to the Muslim the absolute refutation of the Trinity.
With this all in mind I think it only fair to ask the Muslim; Just where does this word "Tawheed" come from? Where in the Qur'an is this word that is so important in Islamic Theology to be found?
As explained before---the Arabic language is NOT English and therefore does not follow the rules of English language grammar...obviously.....
Words in the Semitic languages are formed using root-words...and these then form into various grammatical terms....
The 2 Arabic words that exemplify tawheed are---ahad (unique) and wahid (one)
ahad appears 85 times in the Quran (in 2 forms)
https://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=AHd
wahid appears 68 times in the Quran (in 4 forms)
https://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=wHd
Tawheed comes from wahid/wahada.
https://portalislam.org/index.php/tawheed-of-allah
The word "Tawheed" is grammatically a gerund, a noun made from a verb, the Arabic verb it is derived from is wahada or wahidu. The verb wahada means to unify something, to make something one or to declare something to be one. Linguistically tawheed means to affirm and declare something to be one, i.e. unification into one. Islamically it is in reference to Allah (سبحانه و تعالى) being singled out alone, in all that is particular to him. This uniqueness and oneness, separating Him and distinguishing Him from His creation is the opposite of 'Shirk' which is to associate partners with Allah (سبحانه و تعالى) by giving His qualities and attributes, to other than Allah
Tawheed/Tawhid is very much grounded in the Quran
But...do keep in mind that Islam is NOT Christianity. These 2 religions have different histories, philosophies and world-views/paradigms.
The Muslim argument is that BOTH Christians and Muslims worship the SAME God---just that Christians have complicated their theology to such a degree that they can fall into Shirk. This is also a Christian concern---which is why tri-theism is considered "wrong" in Christianity and they/Christians insist they are "monotheists".
Comment
-
Originally posted by siam View PostDoes it appear in the Quran?---Yes it does......but its complicated..............
Originally posted by siam View PostAs explained before---the Arabic language is NOT English and therefore does not follow the rules of English language grammar...obviously.....
Words in the Semitic languages are formed using root-words...and these then form into various grammatical terms..
List a passage in the Qur'an where the word Tawheed appears, please. Simple questiion so why all the bloviation??
Originally posted by siam View PostThe 2 Arabic words that exemplify tawheed are---ahad (unique) and wahid (one)
ahad appears 85 times in the Quran (in 2 forms)
https://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=AHd
wahid appears 68 times in the Quran (in 4 forms)
https://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=wHd
Originally posted by siam View PostTawheed comes from wahid/wahada.
https://portalislam.org/index.php/tawheed-of-allah
The word "Tawheed" is grammatically a gerund, a noun made from a verb, the Arabic verb it is derived from is wahada or wahidu. The verb wahada means to unify something, to make something one or to declare something to be one. Linguistically tawheed means to affirm and declare something to be one, i.e. unification into one. Islamically it is in reference to Allah (سبحانه و تعالى) being singled out alone, in all that is particular to him. This uniqueness and oneness, separating Him and distinguishing Him from His creation is the opposite of 'Shirk' which is to associate partners with Allah (سبحانه و تعالى) by giving His qualities and attributes, to other than Allah
Originally posted by siam View PostTawheed/Tawhid is very much grounded in the Quran
Originally posted by siam View PostBut...do keep in mind that Islam is NOT Christianity. These 2 religions have different histories, philosophies and world-views/paradigms.
Originally posted by siam View PostThe Muslim argument is that BOTH Christians and Muslims worship the SAME God--- ....
Originally posted by siam View Post... just that Christians have complicated their theology to such a degree that they can fall into Shirk. This is also a Christian concern---which is why tri-theism is considered "wrong" in Christianity and they/Christians insist they are "monotheists".
Now ... back to the Tawheed thingie ..... Where do we find the WORD TAWHEED in the Qur'an?? QUOTE IT FOR US! Such a simple question does not require a lot of smokescreen words [blabbergab], sir. So why take up bandwidth trying to hide from the simple straight forward answer???
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by siam View Post
Does it appear in the Quran?---Yes it does......but its complicated..............
As explained before---the Arabic language is NOT English and therefore does not follow the rules of English language grammar...obviously.....
Words in the Semitic languages are formed using root-words...and these then form into various grammatical terms....
The 2 Arabic words that exemplify tawheed are---ahad (unique) and wahid (one)
ahad appears 85 times in the Quran (in 2 forms)
https://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=AHd
wahid appears 68 times in the Quran (in 4 forms)
https://corpus.quran.com/qurandictionary.jsp?q=wHd
Tawheed comes from wahid/wahada.
https://portalislam.org/index.php/tawheed-of-allah
The word "Tawheed" is grammatically a gerund, a noun made from a verb, the Arabic verb it is derived from is wahada or wahidu. The verb wahada means to unify something, to make something one or to declare something to be one. Linguistically tawheed means to affirm and declare something to be one, i.e. unification into one. Islamically it is in reference to Allah (سبحانه و تعالى) being singled out alone, in all that is particular to him. This uniqueness and oneness, separating Him and distinguishing Him from His creation is the opposite of 'Shirk' which is to associate partners with Allah (سبحانه و تعالى) by giving His qualities and attributes, to other than Allah
Tawheed/Tawhid is very much grounded in the Quran
But...do keep in mind that Islam is NOT Christianity. These 2 religions have different histories, philosophies and world-views/paradigms.
The Muslim argument is that BOTH Christians and Muslims worship the SAME God---just that Christians have complicated their theology to such a degree that they can fall into Shirk. This is also a Christian concern---which is why tri-theism is considered "wrong" in Christianity and they/Christians insist they are "monotheists".
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostAs you say, the concept is "grounded" in the qur'an, but as Trucker has pointed out the word itself is not contained in the qur'an. That isn't "complicated" at all.Last edited by Trucker; 12-06-2020, 03:41 PM.
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment