Charles mentioned the Gospel story of Pontius Pilate being unsure and receptive to the Jewish mob who was calling for the crucifixion of Jesus and the release of the thief, Barabbas.
As he talked about, the Gospel depiction is pure ahistorical fiction, and is one of the more blatant problems with the Gospels, in my opinion, because, as Charlie mentioned, Philo and others wrote how Pilate was cruel and was almost impeached as a result, and there is no way that a Roman governor would act so weak and indecisive in the face of a rabble mob.
Then, as Charlie rightly said, the Bible is more violent than the Qur'an, and regarding some of the purported contradictions in the Qur'an he mentioned, which I have studied:
- He said that the Qur'an says in one place to kill unbelievers and in another that there is no compulsion in religion, except that all these verses have specific context to them, with the verses about killing being in response to the actions of those who waged war against the Muslims and the no compulsion in religion referring to those who haven't already accepted Islam. - He said that the Qur'an's reference to Dhul Qarnayn as being a great monotheist is Alexander the Great, a known pagan, but that association was made by Yusuf Ali, a famous English translator of the Qur'an, and there is no specific association to him in the Qur'an or other official texts. - He said that the Qur'an condemns wine in one verse and talks glowingly about it in Paradise, except that the Qur'an is clear that the wine in Paradise is not intoxicating. - He said that the Qur'an has Moses and Abraham using the words Muslim and Islam, saying they are anachronistic for that time, but since the Qur'an is in Arabic and Moses and Abraham didn't speak those languages, then it's not a literal translation of those words, but the word Muslim refers to the Qur'anic notion of being those who obey God.
3 comments:
Charles mentioned the Gospel story of Pontius Pilate being unsure and receptive to the Jewish mob who was calling for the crucifixion of Jesus and the release of the thief, Barabbas.
As he talked about, the Gospel depiction is pure ahistorical fiction, and is one of the more blatant problems with the Gospels, in my opinion, because, as Charlie mentioned, Philo and others wrote how Pilate was cruel and was almost impeached as a result, and there is no way that a Roman governor would act so weak and indecisive in the face of a rabble mob.
Then, as Charlie rightly said, the Bible is more violent than the Qur'an, and regarding some of the purported contradictions in the Qur'an he mentioned, which I have studied:
- He said that the Qur'an says in one place to kill unbelievers and in another that there is no compulsion in religion, except that all these verses have specific context to them, with the verses about killing being in response to the actions of those who waged war against the Muslims and the no compulsion in religion referring to those who haven't already accepted Islam.
- He said that the Qur'an's reference to Dhul Qarnayn as being a great monotheist is Alexander the Great, a known pagan, but that association was made by Yusuf Ali, a famous English translator of the Qur'an, and there is no specific association to him in the Qur'an or other official texts.
- He said that the Qur'an condemns wine in one verse and talks glowingly about it in Paradise, except that the Qur'an is clear that the wine in Paradise is not intoxicating.
- He said that the Qur'an has Moses and Abraham using the words Muslim and Islam, saying they are anachronistic for that time, but since the Qur'an is in Arabic and Moses and Abraham didn't speak those languages, then it's not a literal translation of those words, but the word Muslim refers to the Qur'anic notion of being those who obey God.
i love you ebolachan!(if you don't say this nice knowing you :)
Post a Comment