|
Post by ken on Jan 28, 2014 7:22:00 GMT -6
That's about the best possible comparison, Steve. Mohammed's existence is a given. Why does this not prove that Gabriel spoke the Qu'ran to him? We won't get an answer to that question. The funny part is that he suspects these archaeological discoveries bother us. Well, there is a knee jerk reaction to the post.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Jan 28, 2014 8:07:46 GMT -6
We won't get an answer to that question. The funny part is that he suspects these archaeological discoveries bother us. Well, there is a knee jerk reaction to the post. Did your holy spirit tell you that happened?
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 28, 2014 8:41:16 GMT -6
Ken,
Mohammed's existence is a given. Why does this not prove that Gabriel spoke the Qu'ran to him?
FB
|
|
|
Post by ken on Jan 28, 2014 10:03:00 GMT -6
Ken, Mohammed's existence is a given. Why does this not prove that Gabriel spoke the Qu'ran to him? FB Do you know that he didn't?
|
|
|
Post by ken on Jan 28, 2014 10:03:27 GMT -6
Well, there is a knee jerk reaction to the post. Did your holy spirit tell you that happened? Did you read your posts?
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 28, 2014 11:11:07 GMT -6
Ken, Mohammed's existence is a given. Why does this not prove that Gabriel spoke the Qu'ran to him? FB Do you know that he didn't? I assume that he didn't. As do you, if you're honest. Why not?
|
|
|
Post by ken on Jan 28, 2014 11:30:03 GMT -6
Do you know that he didn't? I assume that he didn't. As do you, if you're honest. Why not? "I assume that he didn't" - yes, it is an assumption. "As do you, if you're honest" -- It assumes that if I don't agree with you, I am dishonest. And therefore, your position MUST be right. (Your word games don't impress me and makes you look dishonest) Would you care to open a new thread on Islam and Mohammad?
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 28, 2014 12:14:21 GMT -6
I assume that he didn't. As do you, if you're honest. Why not? "I assume that he didn't" - yes, it is an assumption. "As do you, if you're honest" -- It assumes that if I don't agree with you, I am dishonest. And therefore, your position MUST be right. (Your word games don't impress me and makes you look dishonest) Would you care to open a new thread on Islam and Mohammad? Forgive my reckless assumption. Here, let me correct it: Ken, do you think that Gabriel revealed the Qu'ran to Mohammed in the caves near Medina? If not, why not, given that the caves are there, and the fact that Mohammed visited them is thoroughly established in the historical record?
|
|
|
Post by ken on Jan 28, 2014 14:00:46 GMT -6
Appreciate your honesty since your opening volley certainly had a lot of assumptions that were enumerated. In a Christian perspective, I believe it was a spiritual experience and it did happen in a cave and is thoroughly established by historical record. However, I believe it was a spirit of a different kind. Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't it his wife that said it was Gabriel and not Mohammad himself? And wasn't it just a few verses that he received in the cave and not the whole of the Qu'ran?
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 28, 2014 15:04:13 GMT -6
Ken,
Getting back on topic, do you think the existence of the caves and the (solid) historical record of Mohammed's existence do anything to bring us closer to the conclusion that something supernatural happened in the caves, whether angelic, or as you would have it, demonic? Or, are the historical and geographical attachments essentially neutral, not driving us to any particular conclusion? I would personally argue that the latter is the case, just as it is in the matter of finding Solomonic wine jars. If you found yourself arguing with someone who asserted categorically that no Davidic dynasty occurred in history, perhaps the finding from the OP would move the markers a bit. As it is, since you are not in such an argument, it is of little importance. "Interesting", we can all say. For you to attach more significance to it than it deserves is your right, I suppose, but it is silly.
You are correct about the revelation of the Qu'ran. It took place over decades, often in response to specific issues and crises in the Arabian peninsula (especially the area of Medina). It began in the caves but was not limited to what occurred there. If you have the gumption, I would recommend that you read Armstrongs "Muhammad: A Prophet for Our Time". As the title would suggest, she is a bit smitten by him, but I found it to be a good read (twice). It helps place the Qu'ran and it's author (in my opinion) in their historical context. Incidentally, the revelation of sacred writ over a long period of time in response to local conditions ought to at least be ringing a bell for you.
FB
|
|
|
Post by ken on Jan 28, 2014 16:35:02 GMT -6
1) Not to make this an issue but just to expose word play, whether a position is silly or not, remains a personal viewpoint in this case and not a statement of fact or truth. 2) To go back to the topic, to apply Mohammad as a standard to the Bible is, IMV, silly. What happened to Mohammad was in a cave, what happened to Jesus was done in the open. If Ai is discovered, it does give credibility to the historical account that indeed Joshua conquered it. Should we find 12 pilled up rocks in the river Jordan under a bed of sand, then it adds credibility to him having crossed it. If and should the account according to the book of Joshua be correct again and again, it does add a stamp of "this is what happened". 3) If we continue to find items verifying, not just the existence of Solomon, but a reign of Solomon with additional mentioned of such a kingdom in the land of Sheba, then your comment of "tribal chieftain" would indeed be a silly comment. So we let the science of archaeology continue its discoveries and we adjust our positions accordingly. Thanks for the suggested reading.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 28, 2014 16:58:56 GMT -6
No insult intended in the "if you have the gumption" comment. If I mean to insult you, I generally have no problem doing it openly and honestly. Life is busy, and having a better understanding of the origins of Islam may or may not be worth your time. I don't place any moral value on it. 1) Not to make this an issue but just to expose word play, whether a position is silly or not, remains a personal viewpoint in this case and not a statement of fact or truth. How about "rhetorically unsafe"? When you move from objective findings (wine jars in Palestine) to something that isn't even demonstrable in principle (God supernaturally infused Solomon with unprecedented wisdom) you are skating from solid ice toward open water. 2) To go back to the topic, to apply Mohammad as a standard to the Bible is, IMV, silly. What happened to Mohammad was in a cave, what happened to Jesus was done in the open. Oh? Those who witnessed God declaring "This is my beloved son" couldn't decide if it was thunder or not. Those who saw Jesus after his resurrection didn't seem to recognize him. It's not even clear and open if you take the texts at face value, and taking the texts at face value is, even by your own admission "a leap of faith", not dissimilar from what Muslims do when they put faith in the Qu'ran. If the Christian Bible is so much more credible, why are there more than a billion Muslims, and why is it the faster growing of the great religions? Is their demonic spirit more persuasive that your Holy Spirit? Beyond that, Mohammad's claims are a bit more credible as they don't seem to involve much supernatural interventionism. He was commanded to conquer and he did, to rule and unite, and he did, to establish a uniquely Arabic culture in islam (submission) to al-Lah ("the God")…and he did. No promises that he or his followers would raise the dead, survive poisonous snake bites, etc. Incidentally, history would suggest that the future of the planet is Islam. Generally speaking, at least in the near term, the most violent, fanatical religion tends to win. That's how Christianity did it. 3) If we continue to find items verifying, not just the existence of Solomon, but a reign of Solomon with additional mentioned of such a kingdom in the land of Sheba, then your comment of "tribal chieftain" would indeed be a silly comment. That's a dandy little pile of "ifs", and even if everything you say materializes in the record, you will still be no closer to verifying that God intervened in the historical context. You get this, right?
|
|
|
Post by ken on Jan 28, 2014 18:14:32 GMT -6
No insult intended in the "if you have the gumption" comment. If I mean to insult you, I generally have no problem doing it openly and honestly. Life is busy, and having a better understanding of the origins of Islam may or may not be worth your time. I don't place any moral value on it. I suppose that if it became imminently important because of need, it would move up the list. At this point I simply have a compendium on different religions. i know you are just laying a principle, but certainly nowhere does scripture say that God supernaturally infused Solomon with wisdom. Or am I wrong? However, as I mentioned about the stones of Joshua in the middle of the Jordan... I would still hold that it would be rhetorically safe, if you please. Sure... but one thing for sure, it could be said that EVERYONE agreed that something supernatural happened. I'm sure you would always call it "a leap of faith" since it is your position. Then again, I have never seen a glorified body so I'm not sure if one would immediately recognize a person. I saw the report of a US veteran in North Korea acknowledging his crimes. (I think you get the drift) -- "If you don't believe as I believe, you are a dead man!!" You would be surprised at how many believers that makes. Probably 70% of those "Nazi Germans" were in name only for fear of their lives. Yes, he along with Alexander the Great, Atilla the Hun, and others did great feats by the sword. Depending on what age of Christianity you are talking about. Who know, maybe the Islamic movement is the Harlot mentioned in Revelation. Some people think it is.
In your sight... yes. For me it will be confirmation. Both still will be positions of faith.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 28, 2014 19:59:29 GMT -6
I know you are just laying a principle, but certainly nowhere does scripture say that God supernaturally infused Solomon with wisdom. Or am I wrong? Yes, you are wrong: At Gibeon the Lord appeared to Solomon during the night in a dream, and God said, “Ask for whatever you want me to give you.”
Solomon answered, “You have shown great kindness to your servant, my father David, because he was faithful to you and righteous and upright in heart. You have continued this great kindness to him and have given him a son to sit on his throne this very day.
“Now, Lord my God, you have made your servant king in place of my father David. But I am only a little child and do not know how to carry out my duties. Your servant is here among the people you have chosen, a great people, too numerous to count or number. So give your servant a discerning heart to govern your people and to distinguish between right and wrong. For who is able to govern this great people of yours?”
The Lord was pleased that Solomon had asked for this. So God said to him, “Since you have asked for this and not for long life or wealth for yourself, nor have asked for the death of your enemies but for discernment in administering justice, I will do what you have asked. I will give you a wise and discerning heart, so that there will never have been anyone like you, nor will there ever be. Moreover, I will give you what you have not asked for—both wealth and honor—so that in your lifetime you will have no equal among kings. [/quote] ]If the Christian Bible is so much more credible, why are there more than a billion Muslims, and why is it the faster growing of the great religions? Is their demonic spirit more persuasive that your Holy Spirit? I saw the report of a US veteran in North Korea acknowledging his crimes. (I think you get the drift) -- "If you don't believe as I believe, you are a dead man!!" You would be surprised at how many believers that makes. Probably 70% of those "Nazi Germans" were in name only for fear of their lives. You have heard of the Middle Ages, right? Uncounted millions of people over the centuries "came to Jesus" out of fear of death or worse. Read sometime about the Christian practices of purifying by fire and pain. You owe the name Delgado to the fact that Spaniards committed rape, murder, deliberate infection and in general, genocide, upon the indigenous peoples of the Western hemisphere, all in the name of Jesus. You don't really think this half of the globe converted because they heard "good news", do you? Beyond that, Mohammad's claims are a bit more credible as they don't seem to involve much supernatural interventionism. He was commanded to conquer and he did, to rule and unite, and he did, to establish a uniquely Arabic culture in islam (submission) to al-Lah ("the God")…and he did. No promises that he or his followers would raise the dead, survive poisonous snake bites, etc. Yes, he along with Alexander the Great, Atilla the Hun, and others did great feats by the sword. As did Pizarro, Praise be to God.
|
|
|
Post by Flitzerbiest on Jan 28, 2014 20:01:08 GMT -6
Who know, maybe the Islamic movement is the Harlot mentioned in Revelation. Some people think it is. Nice. You can both call each other the Great Satan. Who knows--maybe you're both right.
|
|