John 1

[Steve Consilvio]

Bismillah: Assalamo Alikum.
Steve


I didn’t use logic to answer your question, you simply inquired about the last supper and communion in the Qur’an, and I provided the answer according to that source. Now I might use logic according to the Bible to prove to you that Jesus never got crucified, in which you may follow this link (Jesus & Jonah) if you wish to see my argument concerning this matter.


Don’t judge Islam by Muslims.


No they were not eyewitnesses according to Bible scholars also. Even the books that were written and bearing Jesus’ disciples names (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), were in fact written by anonymous authors who never meet Jesus. Plus, none of the writers claims to be an eyewitness, and that’s why all accounts are at odd with one another in their narrations.


Another point just to think about is that all Jesus’ disciples were lower class citizen from Galilee, illiterate, and Aramaic speaking, while the authors of the gospels were highly educated and Greek speaking who lived outside Palestine. So the answer is no, Jesus’ apostles were not eyewitnesses or ear-witnesses to the happening.


Salam


Wael.

I just said using logic, it wasn't suggesting it as your personal standard. My point being that just because something is not where you look , that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


But, your follow up post reveals the same questionable logic. The claim is that the Bible was not written testimony of the events, according to scholars, but the scholars were not present when the written testimony was created. Their testimony is hearsay, the same as the Bible, according to your own standards.


But if we are to believe scholars, there has always been an oral tradition coexisting with a written tradition. Only the elite could write, as you mentioned. So if someone from the elite wrote down the oral tradition, it does not make it any less true. In fact, the Koran would seem to corroborate the basic outline of the events, not dispute it. Afterall, the 'unbeliever' doesn't believe anything. It isn't about the smaller details at all.


If the scholars are correct that the apostles were lowerclass illiterate, then it would make sense that their testimony was cataloged by another. Rather than refuting the Bible, it would seem to affirm it, since there are multiple corroborations of certain events.


Then there is the issue of Paul, who like Muhammed was given insight by being chosen by God. Not a terribly good witness by this standard. But if we are to accept the testimony of one, then why not the other? Paul clearly says that Jesus died for our sins. Which is not so different than the Christians who died at Paul's (then Saul) hand for believing in what Christ said. This would further reinforce the commonality, which sadly still exists today, that people will kill one another because what they believe is different from themselves.


Of course, that still doesn't include the entire scriptural tradition of the Old Testament, etc. It isn't hard to find a scholar that will say what you want to believe, human nature being what it is.


Thanks for posting the other link. It appears that you and FHC have been beating this dead horse for many years. She follows the scholars of the Catholic Church uncritically, and you follow another set of scholars uncritically. Since neither of you are thinking for yourself, clearly you two can make no progress.


I am very much interested in learning what I don't understand. Could you please explain to me what you meant by "Don't judge Islam by Muslims." Where are the fault lines as you see them? It struck me very much like FHC's complaint against Protestants. In a PM to me, she lumped King Henry and Martin Luther together as 'bad' Christians, but I see them as vastly different. Martin Luther wanted people to more closely follow the commandments, whereas King Henry wanted permission to break the commandments. Protest and reform is a double-edge sword. By a selfish and self-serving interpretation of scripture, one can become less holy and more self-righteous, whereas through an honest reading one can become more holy and more righteous.


Again, it isn't so much what is written on the paper as is what is written on our hearts. The meaning of the words is more important than their literal interpretation. God only has one message, and we are all evaluating hearsay evidence. I doubt he would tell different people different things to confuse them, rather he would tell different people different things at different times to help them according to what they needed at the time. If there are inconsistencies and rejected evidence, then it is done by us, not God, for we are failing to get the 'big picture' in focus.


Just as a scholar cannot write everything he is thinking or knows about a particular subject, why should we expect to find all the answers in one book, and none in another? Both books were written with a purpose to teach.


I have been writing for the last seven years or so, after a hiatus of about 20 years. As I said to my kids not long ago. When they write papers in school, it is so they can learn. When I write, I write to teach (and vent. lol). Of course, I also learn in the act of writing and teaching. My ideas change and evolve. My language gets tighter, etc. But it all returns to a single event: knock, and the door will be opened.


People only knock if they have unanswered questions. Those who are sure of their answers don't knock.