Apocrypha in the Quran

[dailogue is the best]

Can anyone help us here?

How much Christian/Judaic Apocryphal texts are in the Quran?

And how widely circulated and taught was the Apocrypha at the time of writing?

One of the most attacks against the Quran is that it borrowed its stories from the previous Holy Books, while the reality is different.

The source of the three holy Books are God. Hence, it was natural that we find the same stories repeated in the three Books. Jesus peace be upon him didnt copy the stories in the Bible from the Torah, and so Muhamed peace be upon him.


How much?! I think there are too much because God said in the Quran that the Jews and the Christians may find answers to a lot of things that they differ about. The Quran is a book to all humanity.

 

[nativeastral]

Hi nativeastral —
Careful reading shows that the Donatist schismatics by-passed the Church when they failed to win their way, and appealed to the Emperor directly. It is not uncommon for shismatics to appeal to politics when they can't make their point theologically.Thomas

hi thomas
my point was that the Church couldn't resolve in brotherly love, which also frustrated Constantine, who focused on the One, and probably being still part pagan saw Jesus more like a demi g-d, which essentially was what Arius wanted to emphasis [do not underestimate the platonic element in Christianity! though Arius was more Aristotelian/literal coming from the Antioch school, Athanasius and his 'divinisation' more platonic/allegorical as the Alexandrian school was].

The church in North Africa being newer was full of zeal so more uncompromising than the more settled Rome and arose due to previous problems 55 years earlier- Cyprian and Dionysius going into hiding 250AD during the Decian persecution and Stephen of Rome [254] denouncing Cyprian as anti-christ which Dionysius tried to intervene peaceably but was not settled until Stephens death 256 and Cyprians martyrdom 258.Was the Church a society of saints or a school for sinners was the question at the time.

The Donatists held to Cyprians sacramental theology [rebaptised with apostasy] rather than Roman tradition of laying of hands and was to do with the integrity of the bishop in his sacramental role and validity of ordination of traditores,those handing over sacred books [which going back to the OP a lot were probably apocryphal!] But it was more to do with ecclesiastical power politics,discipline and personal resentments. My point being important canons were introduced at Arles, as at Nicea because, even more than 250 years the 'tradition' hadn't been set in stone; one need only look at the history of the Roman church itself via the lives of the bishops and their changes made to see all religions evolve even Catholicism.

the info l got from the source l referenced [sorry l dont always trust wiki but its quick!]

 

[nativeastral]

what is over looked as regards the quran and the divinity of it is that the Arabic script was practically non existent at the time, oral transmission via the poets etc was the most important idiom; yes language must have been written down as trading was long established but Arabic itself was perfected via this holy book hence it's precedence and use in iconography, as well as eskewing all images [apart from nature]. Because of the preponderance of of a multitude of apocrypha and other religions milling about and the inconsistencies found in the OT and NT Islam emphasised the Quran only in Arabic for accuracy [though the Hadith is another story]. Hence the high demand and sacred status of the calligraphers.

 

[Thomas]

my point was that the Church couldn't resolve in brotherly love...

No it couldn't. Why? Because although Arius' congregation said he was wrong (the question started with them) and his bishop said he was wrong, and everyone else said he was wrong, he refused to accept it, and tried to invoke politics to support his claim. Not particularly Arius' fault, as man tends to do that when he's sure he's right, and lacks humility.

though Arius was more Aristotelian/literal coming from the Antioch school...

That's interesting, can you source that? As I understand it, Arius was a disciple of Origen, and took Origen's Platonism too far ...

Athanasius and his 'divinisation' more platonic/allegorical as the Alexandrian school was

But Athanasius' 'divinisation' is not Platonic — his insistence "that God became man, and did not come into a man" refutes the Platonic dualistic notion ...

Thomas

 

[Radunzel]

Well i depends.. so surely when the quran says that books of the gospels are corrupted by man and that they have long fallen out of teaching surely apocrypha is evidence wieghted FOR the quran?