What makes the Quran, better than Bible or Torah?

then why are you posting?

how can you contest me if you "don't like to talk about things I do not know"

then why are you on a thread, about 'what makes the quran better than bible or torah?"

how can you even post without it just being inquiries?

 

I don't think you can say that one is better than the other, Bishadi.

 

What Christians believe today was not shared by early Christians.

Clement I for example did not know about the "in the flesh" resurrection of Jesus.

Many early Christians did not believe in the trinity or virgin birth.

It was Constantine who was responsible for much of the trinity doctrine in Christianity and he was not even a Christian.

 

Got Proof?

 

I can ask you the same. You show a real lack of in depth knowledge of either Judaism or Christianity.

 

Yeah, and I am 8ft 5 with green skin.

 

easy r a really?

 

the quran is an evolution of both of the previous.

As for a religion, i think the rituals of all three are kind of rediculous.

from the clip -n- dip to the dirt kissing, the rituals share the immaturity of the ignorant.

 

for example?

 

that's a fact. Heck the inquisitions and witch burning was down right cruel for a titled belief in which ted haggart could slap an idiot in the head and the person would jiggle on the ground.

i wonder if the old school christians would burn him at the stake?

any quotes?

the only virgin births i know that can be confirmed are the kind of impregnation of a 'test tube baby'.

Any other proof from any other time?

i believe that virgin birth is from an old prophecy of 'the time'

and guess what, we in 'that time'

well the constantine gang was a big group of preaching fools from all over that came together to 'vote' in the cannon per se. (by god to the wingnuts but the rational know it was just people who did the deed)

 

BY saying the only thing Judaism is about is being the Chosen people. All Christianity is about is Forgiveness

 

There is a difference between having a belief .. and forcing that believe on others.

Believing in the teachings of the Bible is one thing. Forcing others to abide by those teachings through coersion, threat of imprisonment or violence is quite another.

Speaking to God and claiming to speak for God are two completely different concepts.

 

Here is Clement I Bishop/Pope of Rome in 98AD

Christ "will" come again .. Was the risen Christ not seen in the Flesh ?

Apparently Clement is not aware of the synoptic stories of the Risen Christ .. most likely because they had not been written yet.

He is trying to defend the concept of the resurrection (in the afterlife) and gives evidence for the concept from the OT, Nature, and the Phoenix, and scrpture "in a certain place".

Clement knows nothing of the witnesses to the resurrection.

Clement's stance is backed up by the fact that the Gnostics and others did not believe that Christ was resurrected in the flesh.

 

We went over this in another thread. And I asked how can you know for certain that he knew not about the resurrection? Not mentioning it means nothing.

You only have a suspicion, not concrete proof.

 

And this has what to do with modern times? Considering heretics run loose in the church and are not burning at the stake.

Why are you dodging?

 

That sentence is :
All religions are primitive, mythical, superstitious nonsense.

 

Clement does indeed believe in resurrection, he talks about at length and is trying to defend the concept. He is just not aware of the physical resurrection because this was not part of Christian belief at the time.

Clement does not know about the physical resurrection because it had not been written into scripture yet.

The long ending of Mark was not part of scripture. This was not added into scripture until long after Clements death. The stories in Matthew and Luke pertaining to the physical resurrection were not written yet.

It is not just Clement .. none of the 1st Century Christian fathers mention the physical resurrection and there is not a shred of 1st century evidence for it from anywhere else.

The strongest evidence for physical resurrection is having a witness to it .. Clement knows nothing of these witnesses.

 

Jesus was a real person, not some incorporeal spirit. He had a real body. When Clement speaks of the resurrection, he does not say the spirit of Christ resurrected, or the body of Christ resurrected, but rather Christ himself resurrected.

You can take Clement's Epistle to the Corinthians or Paul's which was written about 40 years prior, they both mention the resurrection but do not get in any specifics because none where needed. They where already known before Paul had even written his letters to Corinth.

Try reading 1 Corinthians 15:12-15. You have people denying the resurrection. You can't deny something that you don't know about. So what the Corinthians believed about the resurrection, the specifics had already been established long before Clement; and since such specifics had already been established, there was no need for Clement to establish specifics.

When a Christian speaks of the resurrection, why then does he not quote Matthew, Luke, or John? Does he not believe in a literal resurrection though? No, of course not. He already has prior knowledge about the Gospels.

 

It's not.

It's exactly like the Torah, which is translated to mean "the Law."

The Qur'an attempts to be a Torah for Muslims, with basically the same doctrine.

 

The word 'illeh' means god and it can be any god not a specific god. Buddha is an 'illeh', Horus is an illeh, Ganesh is an illeh.
Allah is Gods name. It's unique. No one else has that name.

 

what was the hebrew word they used to describe Jesus being lifted up to Heaven?

They didn't use resurrect obviously.

You might find that as in Arabic words in another language cannot be accurately translated so they choose a word that is similar but not often accurate.

You might find as all Muslims believe that Jesus was not resurrected from the dead. He was lifted up, raised up to heaven and was not dead but alive when that happened.

So the original language of the bible. What was the word and what did it mean in the original language?

 

I agree with you about Clements beliefs. Clement believed that God resurrected Christ.

Clement does not believe that there were witnesses to the risen Christ which is my main point.

Resurrection after death was a common religious belief for centuries before Christ.

There is nothing in the passage cited that deviates from the common resurrection belief. There is a difference between believing that Christ was raised from the Dead .. and having witnesses to the risen Christ.

Clement's beliefs of the resurrection were definately in line with common resurrection beliefs .. citing nature and the Phoenix.

This is not a valid comparison. The early christians were trying to convince folks of their resurrection .. the stories of today were not well known or even believed. Resurrection was a common belief in many religions so the Christians definately needed to clarify what they meant.

Todays Christian does not have to contend with 100 other religious having a resurrection belief. This was not the case in the 1st century.

A modern Christian takes many things as facts about Christianity that are not.

 

Actually there is no evidence that the Biblical Jesus even existed, let alone all the other nonsense claimed about him.

 

how is that?

the bible has torah in it (first five books of bible are a version of torah) and the quran has both, torah and bible.

kind of like YOU have a part of both of your parents within.

so how is quran, NOT an evolution of both judaism and christianity?

Which is kind of like, quran is representing EXACTLY the same god as judaism and christianity without the 'chosen ones' and jesus "is god" stuff

but the quran knows Mary, Moses, Jesus and many of the EXACT same stories.

i know................ quran is just an evolution of the abrahamic sects, with a difference, the religious adherants expect responsibility and are trying to live as they did in the time the doctrine was written (about 1400 yrs ago)

i mean, jews dont live like they did 2500 yrs ago, and christians dont live like they did 1700 yrs ago.

Jesus mentions (per bible) to be a believer the follower should give up all worldly possessions and preach 'the word'. How many would do that today?

Musims dont seek arms by trade (as a part of their belief system) where-as jews and christians support the nuclear arms programs.

The course now taken of muslims to fight is new and of the last hundred years simply because of what has happened in the middle east.

ie.... if iran, palestinians, iraqs, syrians, jordanians, egyptians, etc.... all had nuclear weapons within their theocracies.......... there would be no concentration camp gaza.