Quran and Gospels

[Dave2]

I found it interesting that the concept of the Israelites having "killed their prophets" is found in Matthew 3:37 and Luke 13:34, but is also found in Chapter 3 of the Quran, verses 21, 112 and 181, as well as Chapter 4: 155.

It would suggest that there was a common source or awareness of this idea by the authors of the gospels that was known about by the authors of these Quranic chapters.

On the other hand, we find that despite some similarities between the Quranic idea of the virgin birth and that of Luke and Matthew, the Quranic version eliminates mention of all the events in the birth of Jesus found in those two gospels including Joseph. That itself suggests that the Quranic source was not directly anything or anyone knowledgeable about the gospels, but an independent source.

The Quran also seems to speak more about the life of John the Baptist than about Jesus himself, and apparently knows nothing of Paul or his epistles while polemically rejecting the trinity which is not really found in the epistles anyway. Had the authors of the Quran been aquainted with any Christian source, including Nestorians, etc., they surely would have found reason to condemn Paul as the Quran condemns other areas considered idolatry. Thus it would seem to me that the authors of the Quran did not include any documents or sources that could be identified as New Testament Christianity.

[Peter]

I found it interesting that the concept of the Israelites having "killed their prophets" is found in Matthew 3:37 and Luke 13:34, but is also found in Chapter 3 of the Quran, verses 21, 112 and 181, as well as Chapter 4: 155.

It would suggest that there was a common source or awareness of this idea by the authors of the gospels that was known about by the authors of these Quranic chapters.

Any things in common (virtually none) between the Quran and the Gospel were plagiarized.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=452.0

On the other hand, we find that despite some similarities between the Quranic idea of the virgin birth and that of Luke and Matthew, the Quranic version eliminates mention of all the events in the birth of Jesus found in those two gospels including Joseph. That itself suggests that the Quranic source was not directly anything or anyone knowledgeable about the gospels, but an independent source.

As the prior link details, Muhammad was coached by many people that had marginal, and perhaps more, knowledge of the bible from a tri-lingual Jewish secretary, to his good friend and ex"Christian" Jabr as well as Jewish and formerly Christian wives and concubines.
The most important thing to keep in mind is that from a Christian perspective, a single verse from the Quran makes it obvious that it is Satan that inspired Muhammad, to proclaim the EXACT OPPOSITE of the WHOLE SUBJECT of the Gospel.
http://www.petewaldo.com/
Islam is antichrist
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/antichrist.htm
http://www.petewaldo.com/

The Quran also seems to speak more about the life of John the Baptist than about Jesus himself, ......

So do Mandaeans, http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2805.0 which would seem another group Muhammad and his fellow authors lifted from - including roots of Ramadan.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1571.0

[Peter]

........ and apparently knows nothing of Paul or his epistles while polemically rejecting the trinity which is not really found in the epistles anyway.

Which of the epistles are silent regarding the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=610.0
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=611.0
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2999.0

[Peter]

Had the authors of the Quran been aquainted with any Christian source, including Nestorians, etc., ......

Muhammad was familiar with first century Gnosticism by way of his cousin Waraqa who was an occult Ebionite priest.
http://www.petewaldo.com/simon_magnus_gnostics_ebionites_islam.htm

It was Simon Magnus, aka Simon the Magician, Simon the Sorcerer, who originally penned Muhammad's denial of Jesus' crucifixion, that he received by way of Waraqa.

...... they surely would have found reason to condemn Paul ......

No more reason to condemn Paul than they tacitly do Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Jesus. They must necessarily reject them all, to follow THE false prophet Muhammad.

...... as the Quran condemns other areas considered idolatry. Thus it would seem to me that the authors of the Quran did not include any documents or sources that could be identified as New Testament Christianity.

Only the same bits and pieces and rehashed myths and fables that he created from Judaism as well.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=893.0

[Dave2]

The problem with this way of looking at it is that there is no real evidence for the theories related to Simon Magus.
There is also reason to believe that the Mohammed of the Quran did not exist. Thus there are revisionists not only about the origins of Christianity but about the origins of Islam as well.
Revisionists have been able to suggest that a number of texts in the Quran originated in pre-Islamic times among Arab monotheists with ideas about Jesus that were not directly linked to the teachings of the texts of the New Testament.

[Peter]

The problem with this way of looking at it ......

That is to say, in view of the available evidence?

....... is that there is no real evidence for the theories related to Simon Magus.

We have the evidence from the Gospel, as well as early church fathers regarding Simon's Gnostic heresy. Indeed he was called "The Father of Heresies".
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2749.0
On what basis do you make the claim that there is "no real evidence" for what "theories" are you making reference to?

Simon's Gnostic heresy that it only appeared that Jesus was crucified was parroted by others after him.

This from Tertullian in "Against All Heresies"
"After him [Simon Magnus] Menander, his disciple (likewise a magician), saying the same as Simon. Whatever Simon had affirmed himself to be, this did Menander equally affirm himself to be, asserting that none could possibly have salvation without being baptized in his name."
"Afterwards, again, followed Saturninus: he, too, affirming ..... that Christ had not existed in a bodily substance, and had endured a quasi-passion in a phantasmal shape merely; that a resurrection of the flesh there will by no means be."
"Afterwards broke out the heretic Basilides. He affirms that there is a supreme Deity, by name Abraxas .... there ensued infinite issues and processions of angels; that by these angels 365 heavens were formed ...."

Then by way of the Ebionites who adopted this heresy propagating throughout the next centuries until Muhammad's wife Khadijah sent him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal, an ebionite occult priest.

There is also reason to believe that the Mohammed of the Quran did not exist.

God gave man free will to disbelieve anything they so choose, in spite of the available evidence, and even beyond all reason. It is from consideration of the available evidence that we can draw reasonable conclusions.

Thus there are revisionists not only about the origins of Christianity but about the origins of Islam as well.
Revisionists have been able to suggest that a number of texts in the Quran originated in pre-Islamic times among Arab monotheists with ideas about Jesus that were not directly linked to the teachings of the texts of the New Testament.

Regarding revisionism please revisit and reply to this post.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3194.msg13299#msg13299

[Dave2]

Peter, the nagging problem with all of this is significant. No one can say independently anything about Simon Magus because the only sources are from church heresiologists/apologists who are not unbiased observers but rather spokesmen for the Constantinian church regime.

As far as the trinity is concerned, the epistles don't refer to what conventional Christianity deems them to be. God is a father to all, and Christians believe the Christ (either historical or celestial) existed as someone. And the holy spirit is a spiritual idea. But that isn't the same thing as the trinity.

And even the text attributed to Tertullian cannot be taken according to the dating of the heresiologists.  Everything has to be taken with a grain of salt.

[Peter]

Peter, the nagging problem with all of this is significant. No one can say independently anything about Simon Magus because the only sources are from church heresiologists/apologists who are not unbiased observers but rather spokesmen for the Constantinian church regime.

You keep speaking authoritatively about subjects that you demonstrate abject ignorance to. Irenaeus and Tertullian predate Constantine.

As far as the trinity is concerned, the epistles don't refer to what conventional Christianity deems them to be.

See what I mean? "Conventional Christianity" recognizes the "trinity" as being the Father, His Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

God is a father to all, ......

No He isn't. God is Father to His believers.
John 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:

Distinct from God as the Father of His only begotten Son Jesus Christ.
Gal 4:6 And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=611.0

[Peter]

....... and Christians believe the Christ (either historical or celestial) existed as someone.

Christians believe that the Father and His Son Yeshua - the Messiah, the Christ - are coexistent from before the foundation of the world.

John 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

God later manifest, or revealed Himself, through the flesh of His Son. In a manner not unlike when He revealed Himself to Abraham.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2358.0

[Peter]

And the holy spirit is a spiritual idea.

Perhaps we can safely presume you aren't a Christian if you understand the Holy Spirit as an "idea".

1Corinthians 6:19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost [which is] in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?

1 Corinthians 3:16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and [that] the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? 17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye are.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/temple_of_god.htm

But that isn't the same thing as the trinity.

And even the text attributed to Tertullian cannot be taken according to the dating of the heresiologists.  Everything has to be taken with a grain of salt.

Perhaps what you really mean is you choose to put your effort into denying, rejecting, and disbelieving the evidence.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?board=68.0

[Dave2]

It's not a question of denying or the like. It's a question of examination, reflection, observation and analysis.

[Peter]

It's not a question of denying or the like. It's a question of examination, reflection, observation and analysis.

Then let us engage in some. Would you accept 537-36 BC as possible dating for the first year of Cyrus?
(as you can see from the Yahoo search if you click on the dates there is no shortage of folks that do)

[Dave2]

Judaism does not follow secular dating.  The First Temple was destroyed in 422 BCE.

[Peter]

Judaism does not follow secular dating.  The First Temple was destroyed in 422 BCE.

Then please just indulge me and click on the dates 537-36 BC to confirm, that according to the secular dating that I recognize you reject, that is very widely accepted dating for the first year of Cyrus.

[Dave2]

I clicked.  Now what?  The second Temple was mistakenly begun 50 years later and stopped until after.the defeat of Haman. Among his sons hanged were officials in Judea who were collaborating with the Samaritans against the Jews.

[Peter]

I clicked.  Now what?

Let me quote from a version of the Tanach from chabad.org:
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16495/jewish/Chapter-12.htm

Daniel 12:7 And I heard the man clad in linen, who was above the waters of the river, and he raised his right hand and his left hand to the heavens, and he swore by the Life of the world, that in the time of [two] times and a half, and when they have ended shattering the strength of the holy people, all these will end.

What is a "time"? What is meant by 2-1/2 "times"? 2-1/2 of what?

(If we could both stay on this thread for a bit, and keep hitting our refresh button, it will save us some time.)

[Dave2]

I would have to check the commentaries. It requires time [no pun intended]. But what is the point you are driving at here?

I clicked.  Now what?

Let me quote from a version of the Tanach from chabad.org:
http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16495/jewish/Chapter-12.htm

Daniel 12:7 And I heard the man clad in linen, who was above the waters of the river, and he raised his right hand and his left hand to the heavens, and he swore by the Life of the world, that in the time of [two] times and a half, and when they have ended shattering the strength of the holy people, all these will end.

What is a "time"? What is meant by 2-1/2 "times"? 2-1/2 of what?

(If we could both stay on this thread for a bit, and keep hitting our refresh button, it will save us some time.)

[Peter]

I would have to check the commentaries.

It might take some searching, since the "anti-missionary education" Jews at Chabad.org that I chatted with in their forum, told me their scriptures (what Christians call the Old Testament) are silent regarding what a "time" is.

It requires time [no pun intended].

Good one!

But what is the point you are driving at here?

What if "ended shattering the strength of the holy people" or as the KJV confirms "shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people" were a reference to the end of the scattering of Jews among the nations?
An end of their scattered power, once their power was consolidated, in Israel and Jerusalem?
Without squeezing it through the filter of your doctrine, can you see how purely on a textual basis, it could be understood as saying something like that?

[Dave2]

I will try to check it over the Shabbat. I will look at our commentaries regarding Daniel 12:7.
Aside from that, remember the reference in Song of Songs THREE times to "...until you so wish....."
See this again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Oaths

[Peter]

I will try to check it over the Shabbat. I will look at our commentaries regarding Daniel 12:7.
Aside from that, remember the reference in Song of Songs THREE times to "...until you so wish....."
See this again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Oaths

But this was just another hypothetical question, not an inquiry as to whether it's part of your doctrine or not. Again,

What if "ended shattering the strength of the holy people" or as the KJV confirms "shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people" were a reference to the end of the scattering of Jews among the nations?
An end of their "shattered strength" and "scattered power", as a result of their power being consolidated, in Israel and Jerusalem?
Isn't it hard to imagine it meaning anything else?
A simple "yes it seems like it could communicate something like that, based solely on the words, and how they are used, in the verse." would do.

[Dave2]

I checked the commentary sources on that verse in Daniel, and there is nothing specific to the reference of "time" per se. The context of the chapter has to do with the hiddenness of the ultimate Redemption and coming of the Messiah.

[Peter]

I checked the commentary sources on that verse in Daniel, and there is nothing specific to the reference of "time" per se. The context of the chapter has to do with the hiddenness of the ultimate Redemption and coming of the Messiah.

Dave, I realize you are not an adherent of the New Testament, but I hope you will indulge me once again. In the New Testament we find this verse:

2 Peter 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day [is] with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.

The Koine Greek word that is translated as "day" in the above verse is "hemera".  It is an ambiguous word whose definition is determined by it's context. 
In 3 verses in the KJV it is translated as "time" (in 12 verses in the NASB).

From Strong's:
New Testament Greek Definition:
2250 hemera {hay-mer'-ah}
from (with 5610 implied) of a derivative of hemai (to sit,
akin to the base of 1476) meaning tame, i.e. gentle;
TDNT - 2:943,309; n f
AV - day 355, daily + 2596 15, time 3, not tr 2, misc 14; 389

So if a "time" is a thousand years, and Daniel 12:7 calls for a factor of 2-1/2 times, that would indicate a total of 2500 years.

[Dave2]

Sorry, I don't know what to make of what you are discussing. All I can go on is what I see in Hebrew, Aramaic and the commentaries. Speaking of New Testament, and you may want to carry this over to a different thread, how is it  that the great John the Baptist, Mary, virgin birth, Bethlehem, Nazareth, Capernaum, Pilate, Golgotha, Sermon on the Mount and other things are never hinted at even once in the epistles attributed to Paul??

How is it that in Romans 15 Paul doesn't want to move into territory where "the gospel" was already known when in Galatians he informs his readers that it is HE who has the exclusive gospel truth?

And how is it possible when he refers to apostles who were believed to have known the man Jesus he never expresses even the slightest awe and reverence for them at all with praise for having seen and walked with the man Jesus??

[Peter]

Sorry, I don't know what to make of what you are discussing. All I can go on is what I see in Hebrew, Aramaic and the commentaries. Speaking of New Testament, ...

The prophecy begins (again quoting from the Tanach):

(Tanach) Daniel 10:1 In the third year of Cyrus, king of Persia, a word was revealed to Daniel, who was named Belteshazzar, and the word was true, and for a long time, and he understood the word and he understood it in the vision.

http://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/aid/16493

Not dissimilar to the KJV Daniel 10:1 In the third year of Cyrus king of Persia a thing was revealed unto Daniel, whose name was called Belteshazzar; and the thing [was] true, but the time appointed [was] long: and he understood the thing, and had understanding of the vision.

So if the first year of Cyrus was 537-536, that would make the third year of Cyrus 534-533 BC.

subtracting 533 from 2500 years = 1967, the year the Israelis gained control of Jerusalem along with control of Israel "when they have ended shattering the strength of the holy people".

[Peter]

I suppose we could chalk that up to just some sort of a freaky coincidence, to have hit a date spot-on over a period of 2500 years, that also seems to work textually as well.
And if you look at the dates 537-36 BC again, you will see that nobody else (that I've noticed) that is confirming those historical dates, is grinding the same axe I did - or any mathematical axe at all - because the church has been blinded to end-time passages in scripture, by unsound eschatology that came into the church in the 20th century.

So was it a one "time" wonder? (fully intending the pun that you excused yourself from! )

(Tanach) Daniel 7:1 In the first year of Belshazzar, the king of Babylon, Daniel saw a dream, and the visions of his mind [while asleep] on his bed; then he wrote the dream and said the beginnings of the matters.

(KJV) Daniel 7:1 In the first year of Belshazzar king of Babylon Daniel had a dream and visions of his head upon his bed: then he wrote the dream, [and] told the sum of the matters.
You can Yahoo confirmation for the first year of Belshazzar to be 553-552 BC

Later in this dream we read:

(Tanach) Daniel 7:25 And he will speak words against the Most High, and he will oppress the high holy ones, and he will think to change the times and the law, and they will be delivered into his hand until a time, two times, and half a time.

(KJV)  Daniel 7:25 And he shall speak [great] words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.

2500 - 552 = 1948  The restoration of the Jews to the holy land, declaring an independent Israel.  End of the Jews being given into his (their oppressors) hand and having to suffer the persecution at the hands of gentiles while being scattered among the "wilderness" of the nations.

Two separate problems that work out in perfect parallel, to pin the dates of 1948 and 1967 right to the year - over a period of 2500 years - and work textually as well. A coincidence?