Which bible? You totally dodged the question that nobody agrees on what the bible even is.
Nobody asked that question. Plus, it’s not germane to how the average joe on the street would call the “source document”.
I find it kind of hard to believe that you keep missing the point here. There are two discussions going on simultaneously here: Yours and mine. They are only tangentially related to each other. I’ll be glad to have YOUR discussion, which I seem to have no choice but to engage in else your blood pressure will hit the roof, but the minutae of what each tradition inside of Christianity consider “source” or not has nothing to do with what the unwashed masses outside of Christianity think.
OK, so here goes. Whatever.
And to say the the bible is THE source document of Christianity is INCREDIBLY controversial a claim.
Obviously. The Bible, in the form we know it today, didn’t appear until the 4th century. Prior to that, Christianity seems to have existed primarily as an oral tradition guided to some extent by epistles of Paul and other apostles. So yes, to anyone who knows squat about biblical history, stating that it’s the source document is controversial. (But, not to the other 99% of the people running about, who don’t trouble themselves with that sort of knowledge.)
In Roman Catholicism, the text of the ecumenical councils is an authoritative source text. In Eastern Orthodoxy, they would say there is one source of revelation, the Holy Tradition, which includes the text of the Liturgy, the Church Fathers, the ecumenical councils, the Rudder, the iconography, and so forth… oh yeah the bible is just one part of that.
Yes, I know all that. Not new news.
And no, the source document of Islam is NOT MERELY THE QURAN, it includes the Hadiths too, which are considered a primary source document for Islam.. Geez, for someone so utterly ignorant, you do go on lecturing people a lot.
Well, rightbackactcha. The Hadiths are actually controversial, in that the entire collection of extant Hadith contains exaggerations and outright forgeries, as well as material contradicted by Quran. So, it would be correct to say that those Hadiths which islamic scholars have deemed trustworthy based on evidence are considered “source documents”, it would be incorrect to just outright label all Hadith that way.
But, again, and to my original point, the average guy on the street doesn’t even know there’s something called “hadith”; he’d answer “Quran” and move on.
