Originally posted by robrecht
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
Quran might predate Muhammad?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostNot conclusive, and not based on actual dating of texts. Earlier Q text possibly existed. Topic for another threadאָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
I wanted to address the comment of "History is written by the winners." This is decidedly true of older academic historical research and writings, but contemporary history academics are definitely trying reevaluate older historical views, and consider more sources and new knowledge to write a better history.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI wanted to address the comment of "History is written by the winners." This is decidedly true of older academic historical research and writings, but contemporary history academics are definitely trying reevaluate older historical views, and consider more sources and new knowledge to write a better history.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI am perfectly aware of the consensus of critical scholars. I simply believe they are over stating the eidence.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostAnd your academic credentials to advance such a critique of the consensus of critical scholars? In other words, is there any reason someone should lend any credibility to your claim?
The bottom line is that there is a disagreement between scholars, and appealing to the authority of 'some critical scholars' does not resolve the question.Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-20-2015, 01:30 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostNo problem, most critical scholars justify the traditional view of the Trinity, and I do not buy that either. I am not alone on this.
The bottom line is that there is a disagreement between scholars, and appealing to the authority of 'some critical scholars' does not resolve the question.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostThe consensus of critical scholars is decidedly not an appeal to authority. Scholarship does not recognize any authority in these questions. Nor does the fact that most scholars do not propose a precise date reduce the strength of the scholarly consensus. Bart Ehrman has occasionally offered argumentation for a slightly pre-70 date, but is perhaps being progressively persuaded toward a post-70 date, which is the position I have always maintained. His dating of the letters of Paul also agrees with the scholarly consensus I have outlined above. It seems you have no credentials and have offered no reasons for critiquing the scholarly consensus. Your inability to correctly represent the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is unrelated to the work of historico-critical scholars but it might be related to your inability or lack of desire to credibly interact with the work of scholars.
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostThe consensus of critical scholars is decidedly not an appeal to authority. Scholarship does not recognize any authority in these questions.
Nor does the fact that most scholars do not propose a precise date reduce the strength of the scholarly consensus.
Bart Ehrman has occasionally offered argumentation for a slightly pre-70 date, but is perhaps being progressively persuaded toward a post-70 date, which is the position I have always maintained. His dating of the letters of Paul also agrees with the scholarly consensus I have outlined above. It seems you have no credentials and have offered no reasons for critiquing the scholarly consensus.
Your inability to correctly represent the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is unrelated to the work of historico-critical scholars but it might be related to your inability or lack of desire to credibly interact with the work of scholars.
You urged me to try to understand the different views of the Trinity. I do and I explained my view of the Trinity, which is compatable with the Jewish, Islamic and Baha'i view of God.Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-20-2015, 06:12 PM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostSo far all you've done is cite views that agree with my characterization of the broad scholarly consensus.
And your academic credentials to advance such a critique of the consensus of critical scholars? In other words, is there any reason someone should lend any credibility to your claim?Last edited by shunyadragon; 09-20-2015, 06:27 PM.
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment