Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Reported words of Moses and Jesus were the messages from Allah (Moses and Jesus were the messengers). The rest is neither from Allah nor delivered by the messengers. The rest have no authority. The rest is just words of ordinary men (the later scribes) who were not "messengers".
Previous scriptures can't contradict something that came after them. What came after them confirms what came before it.
Thinking backwards is not a bright idea.
[3.3] He has revealed to you the Book with truth, verifying that which is before it, and He revealed the Taurat and the Injeel aforetime, a guidance for the people, and He sent the Furqan (criterion to identify right and wrong).
Previous (supposed) scriptures can certainly contradict later (supposed) scriptures. So you are just wrong about that.
And indeed, looking for contradictions of doctrine is a perfectly good way to test whether a religion is true, assuming that a later (supposed) scripture claims to be in a certain tradition. It can then be *judged* against that tradition to see if it's really consistent with it.
Previous (supposed) scriptures can certainly contradict later (supposed) scriptures. So you are just wrong about that.
The previous scriptures do not even mention later scriptures; how are they going to contradict them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheProcess
And indeed, looking for contradictions of doctrine is a perfectly good way to test whether a religion is true, assuming that a later (supposed) scripture claims to be in a certain tradition. It can then be *judged* against that tradition to see if it's really consistent with it.
But what if the latter said that the former tradition wasn't observed by those who came later on?
And which "tradition" or "doctrine" are you going to take into account to "judge" the later scriptures?
A (supposed) scripture doesn't need to mention future (supposed) scriptures by name, to say something like, "if anyone comes along teaching X or denying X then they should be recognized as a false prophet".
Or indeed if you just find inconsistent teachings you can say that they contradict regardless of whether a (supposed) scripture ever mentions the possibility of future false prophets to come.
A (supposed) scripture doesn't need to mention future (supposed) scriptures by name, to say something like, "if anyone comes along teaching X or denying X then they should be recognized as a false prophet".
Or indeed if you just find inconsistent teachings you can say that they contradict regardless of whether a (supposed) scripture ever mentions the possibility of future false prophets to come.
Now that could be regarded as contradiction between the two but it cannot be regarded as the former judging the latter. It can only be the latter putting the record straight or clarifying the truth or even updating the requirement.
Sometimes there is no contradiction between the two scriptures but only a matter of people misunderstanding either one or the other scripture. For example, the holy land was given to... (you may get several different answers). There is only one correct answer by both the former and the latter scriptures.
Now that could be regarded as contradiction between the two but it cannot be regarded as the former judging the latter. It can only be the latter putting the record straight or clarifying the truth or even updating the requirement.
Really? What argument do you have for that?
So something can come along after the quran and "update the requirements" then? I'm thinking you aren't going to like that idea...
The argument is in both the Gospels and in the Qur'an. Jesus confirmed what was given before him and the Qur'an confirms what was given before the Qur'an.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheProcess
So something can come along after the quran and "update the requirements" then? I'm thinking you aren't going to like that idea...
Not if "something after the Qur'an" rejects the Qur'an. The Qur'an does not reject either the Torah nor the Injeel.
There is a theory that Bible is a several thousand years project on how to conquer the world. It outlines means for that. It outlines who will be the Master and who will be the cattle.
Basic mean of conquering is usury. Before arguing, read proper texts, where usury laws are described and set. Biblical scriptures, Talmud scriptures. Also, look outside and tell me that this is not the fact, actually.
Same theory says that, Islam is dangerous to the Biblical project, as it undermines the very essence of it. It forbids usury. Not just between Masters. For all. In this respect, Islam bears danger to the Biblical project and, as such, is enemy number one.
While I'm on it. Currently, there are only two projects of this nature. Biblical project and Chinese project. Both aim to conquer the world. Again, simply look outside and see, what is happening in the world, historically and currently, before arguing back.
There is a theory that Bible is a several thousand years project on how to conquer the world. It outlines means for that. It outlines who will be the Master and who will be the cattle.
Basic mean of conquering is usury. Before arguing, read proper texts, where usury laws are described and set. Biblical scriptures, Talmud scriptures. Also, look outside and tell me that this is not the fact, actually.
Same theory says that, Islam is dangerous to the Biblical project, as it undermines the very essence of it. It forbids usury. Not just between Masters. For all. In this respect, Islam bears danger to the Biblical project and, as such, is enemy number one.
While I'm on it. Currently, there are only two projects of this nature. Biblical project and Chinese project. Both aim to conquer the world. Again, simply look outside and see, what is happening in the world, historically and currently, before arguing back.
The argument is in both the Gospels and in the Qur'an. Jesus confirmed what was given before him and the Qur'an confirms what was given before the Qur'an.
Not if "something after the Qur'an" rejects the Qur'an. The Qur'an does not reject either the Torah nor the Injeel.
It would be quite possible to have a (supposed) scripture, that *claimed* to accept the Quran, but then taught a load of things that went against Islam's understanding of itself.
Just as the Quran may *claim* that it accepts the Torah, but would violate its teachings as far as Judaism is concerned.
It would be quite possible to have a (supposed) scripture, that *claimed* to accept the Quran, but then taught a load of things that went against Islam's understanding of itself.
There is no such thing as "Islam's understanding of itself". Islam is as commanded and guided by Allah (SWT).
It is vital to understand what is Islam.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheProcess
Just as the Quran may *claim* that it accepts the Torah, but would violate its teachings as far as Judaism is concerned.
Teachings of the Torah was only for the Bani Israel as that was the only large group of people who believed in monotheism at the time. The word "Judaism" was coined later (it isn't in the Torah). Therefore, there is no question of the Qur.an violating the teachings of the Judaism that isn't from Allah. The Qur'an confirms what was given to Moses and it was for the Bani Israel. Take, for example, Sabbath. It was not ordained for Bani Israel before exodus. It was also ordained for a specific reason (for disobeying God in the desert after the exodus). Both the Torah and the Qur'an explain this. When the latter scriptures are understood, they should be understood in that light.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
