‘Isa (Jesus) of the Qur’an is a product of fable, imagination and ignorance.

[smaneck]

Otherwise, even I myself can claim to be a 'muslim' - because I amsubmitted to Jesus Christ

Yes, you could were this in fact the case.

[smaneck]

From my book; Christianity and Islam, by Rudolph Freiling,

"At this point the NT seems to be quite near "submission" in the Islamic sense, going even as far as "he fell on his face" and "he fell on the ground" (Mat26:39, Mk 14:35). But it is precisely in these passages that the difference becomes even more impressively clear. Christ does not resign himself fatalistically to the will of the "master"; he yields to the will of the Father. It is a remarkable fact that nowhere else in the gospels does Christ address his prayer to "My Father" as he does in Gethsemane. It is precisely here that the relationship of the Son to the Father is uniquely shown."

It is easy to make what Jesus does in Christianity sound superior to Islam if you misrepresent how Muslims understand submission.

[He speaks at length about the differences between co-creators and 'submitted slaves' (ie muslims), and that 'submitted slaves' cannot be 'co-creators' or have an "I-thou" love[ relationship with Allah.

They can and they do, just as Jews do. As I mentioned earlier it was Martin Buber, a Jewish philosopher who wrote the book *I and Thou* not a Christian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_and_Thou

[He also speaks at length how allah cannot logically be Father

If he says so, it must be true!

[barnasha]

he yields to the will of the Father.

He submits to the will of the divine, that which is greater than he.

That is the etymological and theological meaning of Islam.

Nothing "fatalistic" about obeying God, quite to the contrary

[Dan Zebiri]

sue,

Yes, I am indeed, not your 'you could', simply because Jesus Christ IS the Lord, Who incarnated to this world as the Word / logos of God.

and i am submitted to the living god through His Word Incarnate, Christ Jesus.

Dan.

Yes, you could were this in fact the case.

[smaneck]

sue,

Yes, I am indeed, not your 'you could', simply because Jesus Christ IS the Lord, Who incarnated to this world as the Word / logos of God.

and i am submitted to the living god through His Word Incarnate, Christ Jesus.

Dan.

Anyone who was truly submited to Jesus Christ would not have twisted the truth by saying the Qur'an tells Muslims to kill infidels anywhere in the world when in fact it stated the following:

190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. (Surah 2)

Or was there some part of 'begin not hostilities' or "Allah loveth not aggressors" that you didn't understand?

[Dan Zebiri]

Sue, if you had ever read, I have already dismissed that typical 'muslim defense' a long time ago!

I also do not need you to preach to me about my relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ! I TWISTED NOTHING the quran did not say!

The quran does contradict itself about the fighting against and killing of the unbelievers. It even treats the People of the Book, as enemies - as enjoined in sura 9 / 29 :

"Fight against those who :
(1) believe not in Allah,
(2) nor in the Last Day,
(3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger
(4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (Hilali Khan)

Shakir :" Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

Christians AND Jews MUST be fought against -WHY? Simply becos they would never convert to islam and believe in the teachings of muhammad! THATS ALL!

AND NOT because they were 'fighting against the muslims' in any way or form, sue & barney!

That is islamic tyranny plain and simple!

Not my twisting any quranic scripture to the contrary...! Think first and use your Allah-given brain, before making such false accusations.

Dan.

[Dan Zebiri]

Sue, your so-called studies in Christian scholarship is appalling and abysmally shallow TO SAY THE LEAST!

i POSTED THESE SCHOLARS NAMES:

[People like Bruce Metzger, Edwin Yamauchi, Darrel Bock, Daniel B.Wallace, Ben Witherington III, Craig Evans, William Lane Craig, William Lane Craig, W.Pannenberg, F.F.Bruce, J.P.Moreland, CFD Moule, Paul Barnett, JH Greenlee, Jack Finegan, Gregory Boyd, W.Farmer, JND Anderson and many others.

You make the following claim, exposing your ignorance:

[I]"Of all the people you name above Wolfhart Pannenberg is the scholar I know the most about and I certainly respect his work He was a leading light in the Confessing Church in Nazi Germany. Bruce Metzger has solid credentials ....."/I]

TWO out of EIGHTEEN names is worse than pathetic for one (like yourself Sue) who claims to be so-called 'well-read' in Biblical studies!

Then you proceed to pretentiously make the following audaciously FALSE claim, so exposing your atrociously feeble and abysmal knowledge of real scholarship:

"The rest of them seem to be more interested in apologetics than academic scholarship."

NOTHING can be further from the truth, Sue, your unfamiliarity with real relevant schoalrship proves that it is you who just dabbles in islamist apologetics & polemical dawaganda/bahaiganda.

Your attempt to sweep away all these TOP-NOTCH SCHOLARS with one sweeping statement is really revealing and pathetic indeed, girl!

Lets tell you why:

Edwin Yamauchi's Works : The Stones & the Scriptures, Pre-Christian Gnosticsm, Persia in the Bible, Africa in the Bible and his authoritative magnum opus 'Mithraism'

are hardly what other real scholars will call 'apologetics'

Ben Witherington's 'The Paul Quest, The Jesus Quest, The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth, What Have They Done with Jesus?: Beyond Strange Theories and Bad History--Why We Can Trust the Bible, Jesus, Paul and the End of the World: A Comparative Study in New Testament Eschatology' Etc...
etc

Daniel B Wallace's 'Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics' is a standard Text for Greek students at the Post Doctoral level at Universities, Basics of New Testament Syntax, Interpreting the New Testament Text: Introduction to the Art and Science of Exegesis,ETC Daniel is also the Director for the 'Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts'

FF Bruce's 'Paul - The Apostle of the Heart Set Free', The Canon of Scripture, New Testament History, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, Paul and Jesus Etc..

Paul Barnett : Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament Times, Is The New Testament Reliable?, The Birth Of Christianity: The First Twenty Years (After Jesus: Volume 1), Is the New Testament History?, Jesus and the Logic of History, Etc.

JND Anderson : The World's Religions, Christianity and the Witness of History, Islamic Sharia and Jurisprudence Etc. Anderson was professor of islamic Jurisprudence in the University of London SOAS for decades, but was a committed Christian.

The same kind pedigree aplies to the other scholars names I mentioned, which you shamelessly try to pooh-pooh as 'apologetics' when that is the FURTHEST AWAY FROM THE TRUTH!

Had i wanted to give you apologetics, I would have quoted names like : Norman Geisler, Josh McDowell, Lee Strobel, Ravi Zacharias Etc! Who are all well-known Christian apologists and writers of such Books!

Such conceited dismissal of Christian scholarship reveals your closed and hypocritical mind, Sue.

Learn to get over it!

Dan.

[smaneck]

Hint: Mohammed never had a copy of the NT in Arabic because it didn't exist in his lifetime, even if he could read.

That doesn't answer the question.

An incidentally, Baha'u'llah read the Bible in Arabic, not Persian. As for the Bab, we are not told.

[smaneck]

Sue, if you had ever read, I have already dismissed that typical 'muslim defense' a long time ago
I also do not need you to preach to me about my relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ! I TWISTED NOTHING the quran did not say!

Then why did you leave out this passage which immediately proceeded the one you cited?

190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

(The Qur'an (Pickthall tr), Sura 2 - The Cow)

[]The quran does contradict itself about the fighting against and killing of the unbeliever

.

Gee, it never occurred to you that perhaps the verse you cited should be read in the context of the one which proceeded it?

[]It even treats the People of the Book, as enemies - as enjoined in sura 9 / 29 :

Let's try a better translation of that passage:

29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

(The Qur'an (Pickthall tr), Sura 9 - Repentance)


How many Christians or Jews do you know that don't believe in God or the Judgement Day (exclduing those idiots that think Allah and God are not the same thing)?
In any case, whatever you believe about the Qur'an contradicting itself, Muslims see no contradiction. They recognize that verses like the above only apply if there has been act of aggression committed against Muslims. Here is a typical fetwa on this issue:
Shaykh Jalal Abualrub writes:

"These Ayat (Quranic verses) stress the necessity of fighting against the People of the Scripture, but under what conditions? We previously established the fact that the Islamic State is not permitted to attack non-Muslims who are not hostile to Islam, who do not oppress Muslims, or try to convert Muslims by force from their religion, or expel them from their lands, or wage war against them, or prepare for attacks against them. If any of these offenses occurs, however, Muslims are permitted to defend themselves and protect their religion. Muslims are not permitted to attack non-Muslims who signed peace pacts with them, or non-Muslims who live under the protection of the Islamic State."

[smaneck]

TWO out of EIGHTEEN names is worse than pathetic for one (like yourself Sue) who claims to be so-called 'well-read' in Biblical studies![

I acknoweldged the two whose work is respected within academia. A third one is respected for his work on the Mandeans, but not in the area you mentioned.

I can't help but notice that nowhere in your fit of outrage have yet to cite the evidence regarding Luke from the two authors whose scholarship I admitted I respected, even though I asked you for. Do you perhaps not have it?

[smaneck]

[QUOTE=Dan Zebiri;2378724]Sue, your so-called studies in Christian scholarship is appalling

[JND Anderson : The World's Religions, Christianity and the Witness of History, Islamic Sharia and Jurisprudence Etc. Anderson was professor of islamic Jurisprudence in the University of London SOAS for decades, but was a committed Christian.

Uh, if this guy is an Islamist how would that make him an authority on the Gospel of Luke?

[Had i wanted to give you apologetics, I would have quoted names like : Norman Geisler, Josh McDowell,

At least one of the names you mentioned is closely associated with Josh McDowell and his work. That's why I dismissed him as an apologist in the first place.

But do please produce the evidence from Wolfhart Pannenberg and Bruce Metzger I asked you for instead of skirting the issue by going off on this subject of who is or who is not a real scholar in this area.

[Dan Zebiri]

Sue,

Just a couple of years ago, Bruce Metzger allowed himself to be interviewed for his life's work in Biblical scholarship and New Testament textual criticism.

Metzger was asked point-blank by Lee Strobel : "Have the critical studies on the Gospels and the New Testament you have given your life to study , impacted you in any way?

"Specifically, has your confidence and trust in the historical reliability, manuscript authenticity and textual validity of the 4 Gospels and the NT been eroded in any way?"


Metzger answered : "NOT AT ALL! My confidence in these NT documents and their historical authenticity has not been eroded, if anything it (his confidence in the NT & 4 Gospels) HAS BEEN FURTHER ENHANCED and CONFIRMED. Metzger replied Lee's direct question.

This interview took place when Lee Strobel was compiling data and information for his Book : "The Case for Christ"

So, in spite of all his critical studies on the NT and the 4 Gospels, it has served to affirm his confidence in the soundness and veracity of the NT in particular, and the Bible in general.

Rgds, Dan

[Dan Zebiri]

Just a couple of years ago, Bruce Metzger allowed himself to be interviewed for his life's work in Biblical scholarship and New Testament textual criticism.

Metzger was asked point-blank by Lee Strobel : "Have the critical studies on the Gospels and the New Testament you have given your life to study , impacted you in any way?

"Specifically, has your confidence and trust in the historical reliability, manuscript authenticity and textual validity of the 4 Gospels and the NT been eroded in any way?"


Metzger answered : "NOT AT ALL! My confidence in these NT documents and their historical authenticity has not been eroded, if anything it (his confidence in the NT & 4 Gospels) HAS BEEN FURTHER ENHANCED and CONFIRMED. Metzger replied Lee's direct question.

This interview took place when Lee Strobel was compiling data and information for his Book : "The Case for Christ"

So, in spite of all his critical studies on the NT and the 4 Gospels, it has served to affirm his confidence in the soundness and veracity of the NT in particular, and the Bible in general.

Rgds, Dan

[smaneck]

Sue,

Just a couple of years ago, Bruce Metzger allowed himself to be interviewed for his life's work in Biblical scholarship and New Testament textual criticism.

You are changing the subject. I asked specifically what evidence Bruce Metzger or Pannenberg gave for assigning an early date for the Gospel of Luke.

I'm not interested in hearsay evidence about what Metzger supposedly said about the NT as a whole.

[Dan Zebiri]

Thats not hearsay, sue, but is entirely relevant to the point of this discussion...!

If there was a late or fallacious dating for Luke, than it would be discredited by the world's most foremost NT manusript and textual critic likle Metzger.

The fact that he could endorse the Gospels and the NT in spite of you trying to discredit it, speaks volumes and restores confidence in its historicity and authenticity.

And I'd rather place my aces with manuscript and historical authorities like Bruce Metzger and Daniel B Wallace, than in yourself & your bahai polemics, as you do not even begin to have any relevant credentials in this area compared to these two scholars...!

Dan