By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - A Muslim writes about Jesus - Is This The Most Embarrassing Interview Fox News Has Ever Done?

IIIIITHE1IIIII on 28 July 2013
happydolphin said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/contradictions_in_nt.htm

 

Failing on so many simple details alone tells us that nothing in the New Testament can be trusted.

 

Though I guess that you would hardly need to find contradictions within the NT to reach that conclusion. The thing is biased as hell and has a very clear message that the authors wish to send. (One that I'd love for more people, including Fox News, to follow: Love your enemy as you love yourself.)

Have you read them? They are very weak. Example:

2)Who approached Jesus?  (Matthew 8:5-7)  The Centurion approached Jesus, beseeching help for a sick servant.  (Luke 7:3 & 7:6-7)  The Centurion did not approach Jesus.  He sent friends and elders of the Jews.

It should be obvious that whether the centurion or his friends approached Jesus, the oral tradition accounts for variances such as those. Ultimately what mattered is that the centurion, or people in his name, approached Jesus.


Yes, I have, and they are all actual contradictions spread across the entire NT. It makes absolutely no sense that Jesus' closest men would be mistaking so many (and often great, such as the one in the example that you brought up) details.

The conclusion one should draw is that it is, in fact, not an accurate description of what actually took place. The authors wanted to send a message using a concrete example - presented from several points of view to make it seem more likely. (More witnesses = more likely. Imagine if in a crime investigation one person would claim that he has seen someone smash his car, yet all evidences are pointing against him. Doesn't seem very likely.)

 

The messages in NT are what matters. The legitimacy of its content remain zero, however. As in: There is no reason to believe that the events presented within actually happened, and these contradictions are only a small reason why.



Around the Network
blkfish92 on 28 July 2013

Oh man stupid people...the world's bleak future holders.



           

ultima on 28 July 2013
happydolphin said:
Figgycal said:

As with many things; I think I'm gonna go ahead and agree with 99 percent of the world's scientist on this issue. And young earth creation scientists are not actual scientists : their works are not peer reviewed, they limit their thinking and conclusions to a religion - these "scientists" will never arrive to the conclusion that they might be wrong, because that's not an option for them. They start out with an answer from their religion and work their way down to find out how that answer might be possible, rather than the other way around. In many cases these scientists are also priests, or preachers, or evangelists, or plumbers, regular people, etc. Their ideas don't hold up to scrutiny from actual scientists. What they're doing isn't science; it's pseudoscience.

You wouldn't want someone who wrote an article that wasn't peer reviewed, and yet went against everything scientists know as fact, for example: "not exercising and eating excessively is good for your health" be your doctor would you? So why let a person like that be the one you trust for accurate information?

@bold. That's your choice, but if you're going to go with majority, just remember that majority was with the church in Galileo's day. Just sayin', majority was wrong.

@Peer review. That's simply untrue -> http://creation.com/creationism-science-and-peer-review

@Validation of theories. That's wrong, they posit theories to support the biblical claims, and often disagree with each other within the creationist community.

@Pseudoscience. What YOU'RE doing is pseudoscience, excuse me. You're just repeating words from the anti-creationist community and I hear the same words over and over again, they are just meaningless drivel (no joke). This is not to offend you, I just proved a few claims by you and MDMAlliance false already, there is likely much more.

So to answer your last paragraph, I trust them a lot because they actually do science rather than pretend to in order to fit with the concensus. There are good scientists on both sides, but imho the onus is on creationists to prove their worth and so I have seen what they do and trust it more as a true quest for scientific truth than the other way around (so far). It's my opinion. If I were to choose someone to tell me the truth, I'd choose the creationist.

1) You're right that generally siding with majority does not make one right. However, in this case it is completely justified. A scientist is, loosely, an expert in some area of science. Taking the word of the majority of the experts in some area is not fallacious.

2) That article is crap. You don't have to go past the abstract to realize that. It dodges the question of why creationism articles do not appear in secular peer-reviewed journals by trying to discredit the process of peer-review. It then goes on to promote its own "peer-reviewed scientific" journal.

3) Exactly. These people don't actually do any science. In your own paraphrased words, they take the scientific theories that real scientists develop, and try to use them to support biblical stories. The fact that they cannot agree among themselves is in no way demonstrative of anything.

4) No, creationists are pseudoscientists. A scientist does not put forward theories that cannot be verified; a scientist does not use unverifiability of a claim to be indicative of its truth value.

5) They do not do science. They simply try to pass on their theory of the origin of manking as a scientifically verified fact. Creation is not scientifically verified. In fact, it inherently cannot be scientifically verified.



           

DaRev on 28 July 2013
happydolphin said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/contradictions_in_nt.htm

 

Failing on so many simple details alone tells us that nothing in the New Testament can be trusted.

 

Though I guess that you would hardly need to find contradictions within the NT to reach that conclusion. The thing is biased as hell and has a very clear message that the authors wish to send. (One that I'd love for more people, including Fox News, to follow: Love your enemy as you love yourself.)

Have you read them? They are very weak. Example:

2)Who approached Jesus?  (Matthew 8:5-7)  The Centurion approached Jesus, beseeching help for a sick servant.  (Luke 7:3 & 7:6-7)  The Centurion did not approach Jesus.  He sent friends and elders of the Jews.

It should be obvious that whether the centurion or his friends approached Jesus, the oral tradition accounts for variances such as those. Ultimately what mattered is that the centurion, or people in his name, approached Jesus.

This dude obviously didn't read the sourse he quoted. Just taking the first purported contradiction i.e. "1)How many generations were there between Abraham to David?  Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations.  Matthew 1:12-16 lists thirteen generations." If he had read the Bible he would see that while Mat 1:17 does say that there were 14 generations between Abraham and David, Mat 1:12-16 lists the generation after that time, i.e. after David, and clearly states in Mat 1:12 that "And after they were brought to Babylon,...", mean those (13? I didn't count) generations were after the Abraham to David generations.

I didn't read the rest of the "contradictions" because the author clearly stumbled out of the gate with his point. Try again...please



Nintendo Network ID: DaRevren

I love My Wii U, and the potential it brings to gaming.

DaRev on 28 July 2013
ultima said:
DaRev said:
ultima said:
mrstickball said:
Adinnieken said:
Mr Khan said:
happydolphin said:

 

 

The new testament is a very small, cherry picked subset of the said manuscripts. Even still, there is a vast amount of contadiction in the new testament. The bible, new or old testament, is not an accurate account of history.

(At bold) That does not have to be true. A christian outright rejects the notion of Mohammed being a prophet, whereas muslims say that Jesus was a prophet.

@ bold: Like what? Give some examples,...please.

Like the genealogy of Joseph, early life of Jesus, end of Judas. There are more, these are all I can remember off the top of my head.

And I gotta love the story about Jesus and the fig tree. Jesus apparently destroyed a fig tree because it had no figs, despite the fact that it wasn't the season for the tree to have figs. This story is recounted in (at least) two places in the bible. And I remember there being some kind of contradiction between these two stories. This story just makes me laugh.

Dude, i'm not going to do your work for you. You need to quote specific verses from the NT that contradict each other. That's how this is suppose to work I think. So simply saying the e.g. "early life of Jesus" is not much help. Now if you can't be bothered to find contradicting passages of the bible, I understand.



Nintendo Network ID: DaRevren

I love My Wii U, and the potential it brings to gaming.

Around the Network
Fifaguy360 on 28 July 2013
MDMAlliance said:
Fifaguy360 said:
After seeing the full interview there seems to be paradox in Aslan's views.

He says he is a Muslim, but does not believe in the entirety of the Quran. Example is when he says Jesus was definitely killed/crucified, but the Quran says he wasn't.

I know this is has nothing to do with his book. Just putting it out there.


He can't be Muslim simply because there are some disagreements with him and some of the other Muslim community?  


It's not because of that. It's because what he's proposing goes against what the Quran itself defines as a Muslim. Meaning, the Quran says to believe it to be the word of God then you're a Muslim, but Aslan is saying He is a Muslim, but I don't believe in everything the Quran says.



IIIIITHE1IIIII on 28 July 2013
DaRev said:
happydolphin said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/contradictions_in_nt.htm

 

Failing on so many simple details alone tells us that nothing in the New Testament can be trusted.

 

Though I guess that you would hardly need to find contradictions within the NT to reach that conclusion. The thing is biased as hell and has a very clear message that the authors wish to send. (One that I'd love for more people, including Fox News, to follow: Love your enemy as you love yourself.)

Have you read them? They are very weak. Example:

2)Who approached Jesus?  (Matthew 8:5-7)  The Centurion approached Jesus, beseeching help for a sick servant.  (Luke 7:3 & 7:6-7)  The Centurion did not approach Jesus.  He sent friends and elders of the Jews.

It should be obvious that whether the centurion or his friends approached Jesus, the oral tradition accounts for variances such as those. Ultimately what mattered is that the centurion, or people in his name, approached Jesus.

This dude obviously didn't read the sourse he quoted. Just taking the first purported contradiction i.e. "1)How many generations were there between Abraham to David?  Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations.  Matthew 1:12-16 lists thirteen generations." If he had read the Bible he would see that while Mat 1:17 does say that there were 14 generations between Abraham and David, Mat 1:12-16 lists the generation after that time, i.e. after David, and clearly states in Mat 1:12 that "And after they were brought to Babylon,...", mean those (13? I didn't count) generations were after the Abraham to David generations.

I didn't read the rest of the "contradictions" because the author clearly stumbled out of the gate with his point. Try again...please


 

Happydolphin brought up a perfect example of a contradiction in the very post that you quoted and there are many more like it in the link that I provided. (Which I'm sure you actually read but wanted to avoid talking about by creating this minor distraction.)



Fifaguy360 on 28 July 2013
pezus said:
Fifaguy360 said:
After seeing the full interview there seems to be paradox in Aslan's views.

He says he is a Muslim, but does not believe in the entirety of the Quran. Example is when he says Jesus was definitely killed/crucified, but the Quran says he wasn't.

I know this is has nothing to do with his book. Just putting it out there.

It's not necessarily a paradox/contradiction. You can be a Christian without believing everything in the Bible, for example (and most Christians certainly do not believe everything there, or we would be in the middle ages).

It's a different ball game for Muslims. To Muslims, the Quran is regarded (and self-defined) as the unadultered verbatim word of God.



Fifaguy360 on 28 July 2013
DaRev said:
happydolphin said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/contradictions_in_nt.htm

 

Failing on so many simple details alone tells us that nothing in the New Testament can be trusted.

 

Though I guess that you would hardly need to find contradictions within the NT to reach that conclusion. The thing is biased as hell and has a very clear message that the authors wish to send. (One that I'd love for more people, including Fox News, to follow: Love your enemy as you love yourself.)

Have you read them? They are very weak. Example:

2)Who approached Jesus?  (Matthew 8:5-7)  The Centurion approached Jesus, beseeching help for a sick servant.  (Luke 7:3 & 7:6-7)  The Centurion did not approach Jesus.  He sent friends and elders of the Jews.

It should be obvious that whether the centurion or his friends approached Jesus, the oral tradition accounts for variances such as those. Ultimately what mattered is that the centurion, or people in his name, approached Jesus.

This dude obviously didn't read the sourse he quoted. Just taking the first purported contradiction i.e. "1)How many generations were there between Abraham to David?  Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations.  Matthew 1:12-16 lists thirteen generations." If he had read the Bible he would see that while Mat 1:17 does say that there were 14 generations between Abraham and David, Mat 1:12-16 lists the generation after that time, i.e. after David, and clearly states in Mat 1:12 that "And after they were brought to Babylon,...", mean those (13? I didn't count) generations were after the Abraham to David generations.

I didn't read the rest of the "contradictions" because the author clearly stumbled out of the gate with his point. Try again...please

It says from Abraham to David are fourteen generations. There are only twelve from Abraham to David listed.

Also it says from "from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generation"...but it's thirteen ....then thirteen again for the last count.

The author(of the website) made a mistake in quotation there, but you will see the discrepancy if you just read it yourself.



DaRev on 28 July 2013
Fifaguy360 said:
DaRev said:
happydolphin said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:

This dude obviously didn't read the sourse he quoted. Just taking the first purported contradiction i.e. "1)How many generations were there between Abraham to David?  Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations.  Matthew 1:12-16 lists thirteen generations." If he had read the Bible he would see that while Mat 1:17 does say that there were 14 generations between Abraham and David, Mat 1:12-16 lists the generation after that time, i.e. after David, and clearly states in Mat 1:12 that "And after they were brought to Babylon,...", mean those (13? I didn't count) generations were after the Abraham to David generations.

I didn't read the rest of the "contradictions" because the author clearly stumbled out of the gate with his point. Try again...please

It says from Abraham to David are fourteen generations. There are only twelve from Abraham to David listed.

Also it says from "from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generation"...but it's thirteen ....then thirteen again for the last count.

The author(of the website) made a mistake in quotation there, but you will see the discrepancy if you just read it yourself.

you don't know what "generation" means, but as a tip, try not to miss Abraham and Davaid thenselves. Plus the bible quotes generations FROM not generations BETWEEN. In any event here they are: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah and brothers, Perez (and Zerah), Hezron, Ram, Amminadob, Nahshon, Salmon, Boaz, Obed, Jesse, and David.



Nintendo Network ID: DaRevren

I love My Wii U, and the potential it brings to gaming.