Aidyl Nurhadi said:
There is no evidence of change? You might want to look up the eminent scholar Geza Vermes and his writings on the Old and New Testaments. I am sure you have heard of Bart D. Ehrman. Do have a look at his best selling Misquoting Jesus which is a popularised version of his more technical work, Orthodox Corruption of Scripture for clarification on the changes made in the Bible whether theologically motivated or sheer incompetence on the part of scribes.
perhaps you haven't been paying attention? i am jewish, so it is a matter of supreme indifference to me what scholars and christians disagree about as far as the provenance or alteration of the "new testament" goes, as the NT is not a jewish sacred text. similarly, the only part of the so-called "old testament" that traditional jews maintain has not changed and was direct Revelation from G!D is the Torah, by which i mean the pentateuch or five books of moses. let me be absolutely clear: when i say that there is no evidence to back up your claim that the Qur'an 'clarifies things that have been changed in the previous scriptures' i mean two things:
1. the Qur'an does not specifically identify any piece of text that has been changed. as far as i am aware it just makes generalised claims, which are then interpreted by people like you with reference to scholarly claims in which, in terms of the Torah at least, we put no credence.
2. nothing that the Qur'an mentions, to my knowledge, has not already been exhaustively discussed by jewish traditional sources in search of its compatibility with the Torah.
consequently, the Qur'an cannot possibly "clarify" any of these things, because they have not been identified by the Qur'an. the accusation is a vague one and won't cut it as a serious criticism. go on, give me *one* verse that the Qur'an specifically mentions and we'll discuss it.
Well, I have to disagree with such simplistic thinking.
it's simplistic thinking to suggest that biblical figures could be less than perfect? either they're real human beings or they're not. i like the fact that each has a human dimension.
A Mahathma Gandhi is no less historically credible than a Hitler on the basis of character disposition.
i'm not saying that extremes of character disposition aren't possible, i'm saying that the evidence of ambivalent character disposition is not evidence that a biblical character has been unrealistically depicted, but rather the opposite. what next? are we supposed to believe that moses didn't really have a stutter, or that jacob didn't intend to deceive esau? these things *make* our patriarchs and prophets human, they make them people we can relate to, not perfect, angelic individuals.
I am not sure how one can convincingly say that a Prophet is one who massacres entire nations and cities leaving no one, not even the babies or even donkeys were spared. Such atrocities inscribed on the pages on the Tanakh are not to be found in Muhammad's s.a.w. history. Before you bring up the Banu Khuraizah affair allow me to just say that grown men are not hapless babies and women.
such texts are of course extremely challenging and troubling for both yourselves and for us - i note that you pre-emptively opt to excuse muhammad's actions. i do not attempt to excuse some of the things that went on during the conquest of canaan although, if you know how to read the text properly it is arguable whether it really means what you think it means based on the fact that there are plenty of survivors to cause trouble later on, so perhaps a literal reading ought to be questioned. i could, if i wish, say that "seven nations" idolatry such as the amalekites practised is so evil that to eliminate it would be your reaction just as much as my bronze age ancestors. back then, war was an all-out, all-or-nothing commitment. but i'm not. instead of trying to play moral one-upmanship as you are trying to do, the question should really be whether such things are permitted nowadays. in that case, we can unequivocally say not - as we prohibited them explicitly 2000 years ago. can you say the same, or is it still a matter of debate in some parts of your religion whether innocents can be harmed in the name of G!D?
We reject the Baha'i cult just like we reject the Ahmadi/Qadiyani cult on the basis of Qur'anic and prophetic sayings that Islam was completed in the Prophet's time and that Muhammad is the seal of prophethood, nay revelation itself.
well, we reject christianity and islam on the basis that our canon was closed after prophecy ceased amongst the jewish people. these religions, if they are from G!D, are not intended to replace our own, as G!D clearly Stated in the Torah that "these things are to be a statute to you FOREVER", not "until i send you a new religion".
Such unequivocal statements of completion or non-continuation of scriptural revelation are not to be found on the pages of the Torah, Nevi'im or Ketuvim. The comparison offered does not stand.
why not? we didn't envisage you lot trying to use our texts to give yourselves credibility, because our texts are intended for us, not for you.
Why should Jews believe in the Qur'an? Because it is the fulfillment of God's promise as we have discussed in another thread and it corrects misinformation in your scriptures one of which is concerning Noah and his sons. We can discuss that later if you wish.
you have now crossed the line from dialogue into proselytisation. i have heard what you said, understood it and reject it unequivocally. i've heard the "call to islam" and i've told you why it makes no sense to me. am i now a "kaafir", according to you?
koranist said:
The reality is that the Old testament and the Talmud are two radically different religions that have very little to do with each other
the reality is nothing of the sort. you are obviously ignorant of the talmudic tradition if you think it has nothing to do with the "old testament" - it talks about little else. go on, karaite, what talmud have you actually studied? give me an example of this "radical difference", rather than making daft generalisations that reveal your lack of education.
b'shalom
bananabrain
