I'm having to ask Muslim relatives every fucking page for clarifications on this and that. Maybe I'm the rabble it describes as not being able to understand it
read the Bible (King James) then come back to it
>>23630196Why would you even read this slop lmao? It's just recited Bible stories and other fables repeated by a schizo after they went through a game of telephone. Anyone who's studied any history without bias will realize it's retarded. Read the Bible.
>>23630196No you're being filtered because it's retarded. Muslims have to play mental gymnastics to get it to make any sense.
>>23630203>>23630249>>23630251Curses upon your house unto the ages I hope you realize the truth one day I pity u>>23630196learn arabic then u understand it.
>>23630196>Reading the Holy Quran in English>Expects to understand it
>>23630256haha this my brother. next he will try to pass a camel unto the mirage
>>23630253>>23630256>>23630261IM FUCKING TRYING GUYS ITS NOT EASY ITS HARD ENOUGH TRYING TO LEARN GERMAN WHICH USES THE SAME ALPHABET BUT TRYING TO LEARN A NEW LANGUAGE + ITS THE OLD VERSION OF SAID LANGUAGE THAT PEOPLE DONT SPEAK ANYMORE + ITS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT ALPHABET IS HARD PLEASE GIVE ME THE BENIFIT OF THE DOUBT
>>23630338You may have a tougher translation for English readers. Maybe try A.J. Arberry’s Koran.
>>23630338if nothing else, you have my sympathy op
>>23630196You need to read it along with a commentary and Ibn Arabi's explanations. Reading it along with the Fusus al-Hikam can be fun if you put in the effort. Check out some occult works too. The Quran is effectively a grimoire whereas the Bible is a traditional narrative. Make some talismans with the verses. Should give you something useful to do.>>23630398This. Arberry translation is the best hands down.
>>23630616>You need to read it along with a commentary and Ibn Arabi's explanations.i was gonna call this bait but theres no way, you are just an insane masochist
>>23630256If we can't read the Quran in english and understand it can Allah at least let us into heaven after some lengthy amount of time?
>>23630700What you want is to reap the wheat without sowing it. Good only comes to those who work hard anon. But if you want an easier route, I'd recommend starting with the Light Verse and checking out the commentaries on it.
>>23630749https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verse_of_Lighttalking about this? im not saying "OOOOO IBN ARABI MORE LIKE SCHIZO ARABI HAHAHAHAH", ive watched 2 videos about him and he seems interesting (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bgWnzjONXE tryna understand his 400iq make my brain hurt), but i was thinking that his stuff was WAY too complex to read along side the quran espically if im reading a translation and not the origninal old arabic. ill get to his stuff after but thanks for the help either way
>>23630886Yes that verse. I'd recommend Avicenna, al-Ghazzali, Ibn Arabi and Mullah Sadra's commentaries. They are all easy to read and that verse packs a lot. As I said before, the Quran is basically a grimoire. So don't just read the text. If you want to understand it you have to use it.
>>23630249>It's just recited Bible stories and other fables repeated by a schizo after they went through a game of telephone.Sounds like /lit/'s dream book
>>23630196Don't listen to the other anons itt. The Qur'an is easy and straightforward if you only *listen* as if God is speaking to you directlyYou should try a youtube video recitation of a surah that has English subtitles, which mimics how the Qur'an was supposed to be enjoyed https://youtu.be/AS7GaWq6OAk?si=h6B997A5bLH7aRof
>>23630933Even Pokemon has better writing than Islamic piss trash.
>>23632094>Even Pokemon has better writing than Islamic piss trash
>>23630933Chris-Chan's room is more inspiring than the inside of a mosque.
>>236302533 Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,4 Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father:5 To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.13 For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:14 And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,16 To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:17 Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.20 Now the things which I write unto you, behold, before God, I lie not.21 Afterwards I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia;22 And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:23 But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.24 And they glorified God in me.
>>23632104The manbaby double-chinned basedboy is closer to God than a Mussulman who worships his angry, jealous god. Just saying it like it is.
>>23632107Dumb Jew On a Stick (TM) would be even tastier than a kebab.
>>23632107>GalatiansProof Christians lack critical thinking. What's that? Paul was doubted by the Galatians who received "another gospel" from possibly the disciples in Jerusalem? Who cares! I believe in YOUR Gospel, Paul! "Even if an angel from heaven preach different gospel, let him be accursed"!
>>23630196>Muslim relativesJUST
I liked this part>O believers! Do not enter the homes of the Prophet without permission and if invited for a meal, do not come too early and linger until the meal is ready. But if you are invited, then enter on time. Once you have eaten, then go on your way, and do not stay for casual talk. Such behavior is truly annoying to the Prophet, yet he is too shy to ask you to leave. But Allah is never shy of the truth. ... And it is not right for you to annoy the Messenger of Allah, nor ever marry his wives after him. This would certainly be a major offence in the sight of Allah. (Surah 33:53)
I don't think al-Quran is meant for all people, the same with other religions. It's meant for people from that general region of the world or a specific race/ethnicity.
>>23632112I find it odd you'd brag about cannibalism. >inb4 mumbling "muh eucharist is cannibalism">>23632120Other writers of the New testament corroborate the same gospel with no Pauline influence and with the exception of Luke weren't close associates. The majority of scholars accept Jesus existed, and that if there's anything we can know for certain about Jesus, it's that he died on a cross. Do your research.
>23630196Have a Quran exegesis/tafsir book along side it. When you get confused with a verse find the verse in the exegesis and it’ll explain it.Shia tafsir:https://almizan(.)org/Sunni Tafsir:https://archive(.)org/details/TafsirIbnKathirVolume0110English_201702/page/n330/mode/1up
>>23630196There's nothing to clarify, it has all the hermeneutic provenance of Joseph Smith's scrying mirror doujins.
>>23632184>Other writersAll Paulines>it's that he died on a cross"You foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you? Did I not portray Jesus Christ as crucified?". Paul also calls his opponents "enemies of the cross"Paul is the oldest extant claimant of a crucified Jesus. The Didache, which is probably older than Paul has no mention of any crucifixion. Go figure
>>23632184Also>with no Pauline influenceMark and John are obviously Pauline. And Matthew and Luke use content from Mark. The non-Marcan source that Matthew and Luke uses has no crucifixion narrative nor anything that alludes to it
>>23632265And corroboration from non-eyewitnesses are useless. Luke is at least honest that he took from, what he would consider, eyewitness sources. Yet Luke doesn't ever cite his sources. All three other gospels are anonymous. Without the titles, you would never know which gospel is which and there is no indication who the writer is.And most NT scholars opine that the Gospels were written after Paul. Remember that Paul very very rarely ever quotes Jesus
>>23632253>All PaulinesSource? Do you honestly think the apostles wouldn't have debated Paul's claims and have their responses written down? There's evidence the Gospel According to Mark directly translates some dialogue from Aramaic given its unliterary and grammatically unsophisticated Greek, which may indicate he got his source from Peter (along with other clues, such as a possible Petrine inclusio). From a superficial reading of the New Testament, you'd think Paul and Matthew couldn't be more opposed, and yet they agree on Christ crucified. >>23632253>Paul is the oldest extant claimant of a crucified Jesus. There are good arguments to support an earlier dating for the synoptics than 70 ad. Moreover, imbedded in Paul's letters and Acts are recordings of creeds and sermons scholars believe to have been early because of their mnemonic structure, semitisms, and lack of Pauline language. >The Didache, which is probably older than Paul has no mention of any crucifixion. Go figureProbably because it's primarily a work on ecclesiological direction and not catechesis or theology? The Lord's Supper is mentioned, and is never not tied to the passion narrative.
>>23632301>The Lord's Supper is mentioned, and is never not tied to the passion narrativeThe Eucharist is heavily theologically charged within Pauline theology. Are you not gonna mention how the Didache does not mention at all the theological aspects of the Eucharist and portrays it merely as thanksgiving meal?I'm skeptical of trying to deduce a text as translated from merely the text. It is, indeed, true that Mark is "cruder", at least that's what scholars of Koine Greek say.But don't you think it strange that Matthew, a disciple and eyewitness of Christ, uses Mark, who was a student of Peter, as a source, and even changes some wording to make it sound better?And even Papias, I think, said that Mark didn't actually write his Gospel in order.I understand your position might be "anonymous authors, but tied to the disciples, pre-Pauline" but why should we believe that?
>>23632355It seems to me much more likely that the synoptics were Pauline attempts of synthesizing Pauline theology with the living tradition of Christ in Jerusalem. Especially Matthew and Luke, using a common likely oral source for many of Jesus' sayingsIt is even more terrible when you realize Church Fathers in the first two centuries rarely ever mentioned or cited the Gospels
The bible is for virgin betas, the Quran is for alpha soldiers who fight and conquer land and take women as loot.
>>23632265>Mark and John are obviously Pauline.Explain how and why, in any way besides the fact they both mention a crucified Christ. What on God's green earth could make you think that an Arab born hundreds of years after Jesus had better insight into Jesus than his own contemporaries? I don't know about you, but I find a miracle as extraordinary as being raised from the dead being corroborated by multiple sources contemporary with that event to be more convincing than some book a dude from far away and from a long time after had "revealed" to him to enlighten me on the circumstances of that particular historical person. >And Matthew and Luke use content from MarkAgain, you'll have to establish that Mark is Pauline, in ANY way that isn't the mere mention of the crucifixion. Not even the Gnostics or Ebionites denied it (even if they may have differed on whether it was an atoning sacrifice and the efficacy of it or lack thereof). Even non-Christian sources such as Tacitus and Mara ben Serapion do not deny Christ died. In any case, Mark does use eye witness sources (albeit not explicitly directly). The obscure reference to Simon of Cyrene being the father of Alexander and Rufus wouldn't make sense unless the intended audience of Mark knew Alexander and Rufus. >The non-Marcan source that Matthew and Luke uses has no crucifixion narrative nor anything that alludes to itThat same source, which cannot be corroborated, is thought to be a sayings Gospel, not a narrative of the life of Christ. >>23632276The Gospels were attributed to their named authors very early on. >And most NT scholars opine that the Gospels were written after Paul. Remember that Paul very very rarely ever quotes JesusNot a smoking gun against Christianity. Again, an early dating for the gospels is perfectly reasonable, as it rests on the assumption Christ couldn't have possibly predicted the destruction of the temple despite much of the language being borrowed from the Old Testament and despite the fact Jesus says "pray that it doesn't happen in winter" when the siege took place over the summer, and despite the fact anyone with any interest in 1st century Judaean politics and religiosity could've totally seen in it coming.
>>23632301>Do you honestly think the apostles wouldn't have debated Paul's claims and have their responses written down?Paul himself mentions his unnamed opponents who turned the Galatians against him, professing "another gospel" and teaching obedience to the Law. Many scholars think they are Jerusalemites, and consider their writings or at least teachings against Paul as lost.It seems to me, unsurprisingly, early Pauline Christians preserved Pauline writings very well, and didn't preserve the writings of the disciples.I also find interesting many parallels between James and Paul, especially both using the example of Abraham to teach two conflicting doctrines on the Law. It might be that these two are connected, and James never mentions any crucifixion nor any other Pauline elements. But I'm not aware of any scholar who claims correspondence between these teo
>>2363237>Explain how and why, in any way besides the fact they both mention a crucified ChristGod-eating eucharist, abrogation of the Law after the Resurrection, the resurrection and hellenized theology. some damning ones are possibly polemical portrayals of Peter, James and others.>What on God's green earth could make you think that an Arab born hundreds of years after Jesus had better insight into Jesus than his own contemporariesHe didn't have insight, God did.>Not even the Ebionites denied itThere are no extant Ebionite writings besides the later Pseudo-Clementine Homilies which imply Paul to be a false apostle. Ignatius also mentions "some deny" the death of ChristThe Muslim position is that God made it appear to the Jews that Jesus was crucified, supernaturally or not. So it isn't surprising that many people did report that Jesus was crucified. But there is undoubtedly traces of evidence that some early Christians did indeed not believe in the crucifixion
From a secular point of view, it makes little sense that a poor man from Galilee would teach a highly hellenized theology and be educated in middle Platonic philosophy
>>23632439It also makes little sense in continuity with the Tanakh, unless you include the hellenized Apochrypha like Enoch which is cited as Scripture in the NT. But I don't think most Christians believe in fallen angels mating with humans, seems suspiciously hellenic
>>23630196It's written with the ancient Arabic, the real one, I'm Arab, and I speak Arabic fluently and I still found it hard as a kid, it's not just the language, how I can describe it.. it's like a written equation, reading it, and solving it are two different things. I suppose your reading the English version, as I explained it's like an equation, understand it is the first step. It's almost impossible to translate it to any other language, it's akin to writing that equation in English, instead of numbers and symbols. So suppose what you're reading isn't the real Quran.Understanding the Quran needs a good heart; to absorb water, and get it goods, you need a good soil. And remember, even if you understand the language, a blind can't see light, even if it's attached to their eyes. You get an interpretation, read "Tafssir Al-Tabari" (Find a translation, it should be sufficient), is what I recommend. Any modern one is a distortion of the real meaning, written by the Jews.Good for you anon, you have a good heart by giving the book of God an interest. I hope you find the right path. Remember to give attention to the details, and (I suppose that you're not a Muslim) that the Quran is a confirmation of previous books. I wish you the best :).
>>23632406>God-eating eucharistAgain, rests on an assumption that Paul was unique in believing the death and resurrection of Christ, which you've failed to prove, and considering the theological diversity of early Christianity, it's not a stretch to believe that he wasn't talking about the apostolic faith. >abrogation of the Law after the ResurrectionMatthew doesn't seem to support this view from a superficial reading>the resurrection and hellenized theologyAgain, explain why the resurrection must be a uniquely Pauline view. As for hellenized theology, that wasn't uncommon before the ministry of Jesus, given the fact 1st century Judaea was situated in an empire that favored Greek culture. The Septuagint was translated in the third century B.C. and Jews such as Philo were notable. >some damning ones are possibly polemical portrayals of Peter, James and others.Alternatively, a criterion of embarrassment was met which showed the trustworthiness of the passion and resurrection of Jesus. I find it strange that Pauline polemicists would have that much information on the behavior of the apostles. >He didn't have insight, God did.Circular logic, as you rely on the testimony of the Quran to claim that the Quran is the word of God. What is it about the Quran that convinces you it is a divine revelation? The circumstances under which it was revealed isn't much different from the Book of Mormon, which I'm sure you would claim to be a lie. >The Muslim position is that God made it appear to the Jews that Jesus was crucified, supernaturally or not. So it isn't surprising that many people did report that Jesus was crucified. But there is undoubtedly traces of evidence that some early Christians did indeed not believe in the crucifixionBut what would make an appearance of Jesus being crucified more likely than an actual crucifixion?>>23632439I think the Hellenism of the Gospels is a bit oversold. The Gospels, with the exception of John (which even I find to be dubious as to its Hellenic character besides possible influence from Philo as Logos in John isn't referring to the Stoic conception of it), don't need Platonic or Aristotelian thought to make their narratives coherent.
>>23630196I’ve read the Quran. For those of you who haven’t read it and wonder about it, this is what the Quran is:>¼ of it is this: So they’ll say “I don’t believe in Allah nor that Muhammad is his prophet”, so you’ll say “You don’t? Don’t you see the land, and the stars in the sky? Well Allah created them, so since they exists and Allah created them, that proves that Allah is real.>Another ¼ is this: So they’ll say “I don’t believe in Allah nor that Muhammad is his prophet”, so you’ll say “Oh boy are you going to be sorry when you die and you totally go to Hell because Allah is real and Muhammad is his prophet”.>Another ¼ of it is shittier versions of stories from the Bible completely deprived of theme or meaning.>And another ¼ is weird desert merchant lawyerly stuff, like: If a guy has his camels drinking in an oasis and another one comes and wants for his camels to drink, he’ll have to wait, but the guy that was first there cannot have his camels drinking for more than ten Mississippis until he has to let the other guy put his camels to drink in the oasis.
>>23632367>womenlol hammam culture is so big in islamic countries...
>>23630196Post hand
Muslims rape mulk alyameen it is halal in addition to marrying 4 wives while a priest would be tickling children. No wonder you got btfo in the battle of yarmouk
