Quran VS Bible , a thoroughly comparative study,arranged by items

[Al-manar]

Peace

The following comparative study is the harvest of my personal reflection on the two books that are believed by about half of the population of the world to be God's inspired word.....

the study is throughly ,would be by topics (items),and the focus would be mostly on the textual disagreements ...


Item :1

Adam

A- Unlike the Quran that views Adam as been taught the names of everything by God, the bible would view Adam as the one who chose the names of the creatures !

Genesis 2:19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
He taught Adam all the names of everything. ( Quran 2:31).


B- according to the bible Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame, according to the Quran when they disobeyed they became naked and felt ashamed


Genesis 2:25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Holy Quran 20:121 In the result, they both ate of the tree, and so their nakedness appeared to them: they began to sew together, for their covering, leaves from the Garden: thus did Adam disobey his Lord, and allow himself to be seduced.


c - The seductive argument of Satan in the Quranic narrative is that God prohibited the tree for not giving the chance to Adam and Eve to be in higher ranks as angels or eteranal beings ....,while the bible would view Satan as mere repeating the words of God seeing the the prohibition if they eat it their eyes will be opened, and they will be like God, knowing good and evil."

D- Man is better than the Angels?

Though the fact that Angels bowed to Adam in respect ,and God taught him the names that the Angels were ignorant of ,it seems Adam felt himself inferior to the angels ,and been seduced by Satan who would argue that the tree would make Adam and his wife Angels etc....

The bible too ... Psalm 8:4 what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? 5 You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.

TILL NEXT ITEM ..........

PEACE

[Al-manar]

Item 2 :

Eden

Bible:

the Earthly eastern garden where the first man, Adam, and his wife, Eve, lived after they were created by God, The Genesis creation narrative relates the geographical location of both Eden and the garden to four rivers (Pishon, Gihon, Tigris, Euphrates), and three regions (Havilah, Assyria, and Kush)...
according to the bible ,after they were expelled from such earthly garden God placed cherubim with an omnidirectional "flaming sword" to guard against any future entrance into the garden.

However, The Talmud associates paradise with the Garden of Eden which considered as the the eternal destination for the righteous .or a heavenly realm where souls reside after physical death until the time of bodily resurrection in the days of the Messiah.
Talmudic would view the righteous: sitting at golden banquet tables (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Taanit 25a) or at stools of gold (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Ketubot 77b), enjoying lavish banquets (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Baba Batra 75a) enjoying sexual intercourse (Babylonian Talmud, tractate Berachot 57b). no envy or hatred or rivalry; but sitting enthroned [Babylonian Talmud, tractate Berachot 17a ]
"Garden on Eden has two gates of ruby, by which stand SIXTY varieties of pure servants. The luster of the face of each of them glistens like the splendor of the firmament. When a righteous man arrives, they remove his clothes in which he had been buried.." (Yalkut Shimoni, Bere**** 20)


Quran:

1- Eden is such heavenly paradise which has gardens

Holy Quran [9:72] GOD promises the believing men and the believing women gardens with flowing streams, wherein they abide forever, and magnificent mansions in the gardens of Eden. And GOD's blessings and approval are even greater. This is the greatest triumph.

2- Was Adam expelled from heavenly paradise or Earthly garden,according to the Quran ?

though the controversy , I think the clues for the first is overwhelming...I wouldn't mention all the clues but just 2 strong ones...


1- the use of the difinitive article (the) before the word Paradise ,denotes it as the heavenly paradise.

2- The Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) said, "Allah will gather people so the believers would stand up when the Paradise will be brought nearer to them. They would come to Adam and say, "O our father! Open for us the Paradise." He would answer, "Wasn't it the sin of your father which got you out of Paradise?" (Sahih Muslim)


according to the narration,The paradise of eternity is the paradise that Adam been expelled from,isn't it?

Till next item

and any comment from muslims or non muslims is welcome
peace

[Danah]

JazakAllah khair for this effort, keep it up please.

I was wondering about this aayah though:

Holy Quran 20:121 In the result, they both ate of the tree, and so their nakedness appeared to them: they began to sew together, for their covering, leaves from the Garden: thus did Adam disobey his Lord, and allow himself to be seduced.

I thought that they were both naked but they were not realizing that till they ate from the tree. I will look more into that inshaAllah

[aadil77]

JazakAllah khair for this effort, keep it up please.

I was wondering about this aayah though:


I thought that they were both naked but they were not realizing that till they ate from the tree. I will look more into that inshaAllah

yes thats what it means

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Hugo]

Nice measured thread but may I ask what is your position on the story of Adam and Eve - do you see it as fact or just as a story? My own view is that we cannot tell and it does not matter as long as we can find out what God is saying to us, what God is teaching us there. I personally have always taken it as just a story and through the story we are to learn something, I don't think any other position is possible but interested to hear what you think or what the orthodox Islamic position is?

[aadil77]

Nice measured thread but may I ask what is your position on the story of Adam and Eve - do you see it as fact or just as a story? My own view is that we cannot tell and it does not matter as long as we can find out what God is saying to us, what God is teaching us there. I personally have always taken it as just a story and through the story we are to learn something, I don't think any other position is possible but interested to hear what you think or what the orthodox Islamic position is?

I'm sure you know that nothing in islamic belief is fiction, we don't treat any prophetic events as fictional stories from which messages are to be learnt - although they do contain a message to learn from. Why do you not believe in this event? Do you think god has taught us messages through fairytales, why can't you accept it as a true event?

[Hugo]

I'm sure you know that nothing in islamic belief is fiction, we don't treat any prophetic events as fictional stories from which messages are to be learnt - although they do contain a message to learn from. Why do you not believe in this event? Do you think god has taught us messages through fairytales, why can't you accept it as a true event?

This if I may say so does not really make sense and implies that only stories that are 'true' have any value. So for you a parable has nothing to say, no message? So in the Qu'ran we have the cave narratives are you saying they are true, or the story found elsewhere of Mohammed's heart being removed and washed with snow is an actual event?

Surely, when you read something, anything one cannot automatically take it literally? In fact one of your most famous scholars, Ibn Rushd discussed this very thing. His rule was, to put it simply, "If something when taken literally does not make sense the author must have meant something else". For instance, in the Bible we are told that if our eye causes us to sin we are to tear it out, but no one would ever take that to be a literal recommendation would they? It follows, that every verse in the Qu'ran, like any other writing has to be interpreted. Indeed I would go further and say that to go from the written word to meaning without interpretation is itself a form of heresy

It is NOT necessary that I accept Genesis Chapter 1 as a true event to find meaning in it. The Bible often uses parables for example and no one takes them as factual stories that actually happened, they are designed to teach us something and often that something is very profound. We know from science about evolution so one might rationally argue the Adam and Eve cannot be a factual account but you see the point I am making is that we ask what is God saying to us through this story, that to me is what matters. Well it is saying we have fallen short of God's standards but the story also tells us that God is determined that we shall be redeemed.

[PouringRain]

Peace

The following comparative study is the harvest of my personal reflection on the two books that are believed by about half of the population of the world to be God's inspired word.....

the study is throughly ,would be by topics (items),and the focus would be mostly on the textual disagreements ...


Item :1

Adam


B- according to the bible Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame, according to the Quran when they disobeyed they became naked and felt ashamed


Genesis 2:25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Holy Quran 20:121 In the result, they both ate of the tree, and so their nakedness appeared to them: they began to sew together, for their covering, leaves from the Garden: thus did Adam disobey his Lord, and allow himself to be seduced.

I haven't read the entire thread yet, because I became stuck here.... :)

In the Bible also Adam and Even felt shame of their nakedness and sewed leaves together after eating of the fruit. So, this is not a point of difference. Gen 3:7 "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves coverings."

You can read on the rest of Genesis 3 where Adam hid from God because of his shame. The shame is ultimately from the sin, which was displayed through a knowledge of being naked-- nakedness being the sin uncovered. It becomes both a literal uncovering of the sin and also a figurative uncovering of sin, showing how we are naked (exposed) before God.

Maybe I will have more to say after I have read more in the thread.

[جوري]

This if I may say so does not really make sense and implies that only stories that are 'true' have any value. So for you a parable has nothing to say, no message? So in the Qu'ran we have the cave narratives are you saying they are true, or the story found elsewhere of Mohammed's heart being removed and washed with snow is an actual event?

The cave narratives are true (it has been discussed at length) here with you before.. the prophet's heart being washed out and removed from sin is also true.. I wonder why those two stories don't seem true to you, but god immolating and dying is?

Surely, when you read something, anything one cannot automatically take it literally? In fact one of your most famous scholars, Ibn Rushd discussed this very thing. His rule was, to put it simply, "If something when taken literally does not make sense the author must have meant something else". For instance, in the Bible we are told that if our eye causes us to sin we are to tear it out, but no one would ever take that to be a literal recommendation would they? It follows, that every verse in the Qu'ran, like any other writing has to be interpreted. Indeed I would go further and say that to go from the written word to meaning without interpretation is itself a form of heresy

The things in the Quran that are literal are clearly delineated and those that are allegorical are also clearly delineated, there is an art to it.. Which is well preserved since its very inception by our scholars and not subject to the orientalist rendition!

It is NOT necessary that I accept Genesis Chapter 1 as a true event to find meaning in it. The Bible often uses parables for example and no one takes them as factual stories that actually happened, they are designed to teach us something and often that something is very profound. We know from science about evolution so one might rationally argue the Adam and Eve cannot be a factual account but you see the point I am making is that we ask what is God saying to us through this story, that to me is what matters. Well it is saying we have fallen short of God's standards but the story also tells us that God is determined that we shall be redeemed.

It is rather inconsequential what you accept is allegorical or literal, when you literally believe that your god is a man who self-immolated.. if you have a scientifically sound interpretation for the origins of life then pls. do share it. Keeping in mind that if you desire the atheistic view on the matter in lieu of 'Adam and Eve'- not only will you not be starting with one single celled organism but you'll need to work your way up to a complex, sentient being and make two of it for reproductive purposes (there will be millions of physiological and biochemical processes on the side that you'll need to account for along the way).. By the way, do you ever ponder what you write before you hurl it out thinking that it is credible?

[aadil77]

This if I may say so does not really make sense and implies that only stories that are 'true' have any value. So for you a parable has nothing to say, no message? So in the Qu'ran we have the cave narratives are you saying they are true, or the story found elsewhere of Mohammed's heart being removed and washed with snow is an actual event?

Like I said we don't have any fiction in islam its all true. But this is strange, in christianity who gives you the authority to go round and say what is true and what isn't? For christians the belief that god has a child on earth who somehow dies on cross and could not save himself even though he was god, this beleif does not seem hard for you to accept but the story of adam and eve is?

Surely, when you read something, anything one cannot automatically take it literally? In fact one of your most famous scholars, Ibn Rushd discussed this very thing. His rule was, to put it simply, "If something when taken literally does not make sense the author must have meant something else". For instance, in the Bible we are told that if our eye causes us to sin we are to tear it out, but no one would ever take that to be a literal recommendation would they? It follows, that every verse in the Qu'ran, like any other writing has to be interpreted. Indeed I would go further and say that to go from the written word to meaning without interpretation is itself a form of heresy

Well we don't have crazy beliefs like that in islam thats why nothing is to hard to take literally or accept, it is actually compulsary to take every word in the Quran as the literal word of Allah or else you're not muslim.

It is NOT necessary that I accept Genesis Chapter 1 as a true event to find meaning in it. The Bible often uses parables for example and no one takes them as factual stories that actually happened, they are designed to teach us something and often that something is very profound. We know from science about evolution so one might rationally argue the Adam and Eve cannot be a factual account but you see the point I am making is that we ask what is God saying to us through this story, that to me is what matters. Well it is saying we have fallen short of God's standards but the story also tells us that God is determined that we shall be redeemed.

It seems christians have this habit of picking and choosing whatever seems resonable to them, for you lot as long you accept jesus as a man-god you're christian right?

Something new I learnt about christians today - thanks

[Al-manar]

Peace
first thank you all for visiting the thread..

second: our friend PouringRain would argue

In the Bible also Adam and Even felt shame of their nakedness and sewed leaves together after eating of the fruit. So, this is not a point of difference..

brother Adil would agree too

yes thats what it means

but allow me to disagree...

unlike the bible,the quran affirms Adam and Eve been covered (at least their genitals) before their sin....

Holy Quran [007:026] O children of Adam, WE have indeed send down to you raiment to cover you nakedness and to be a means of adornment; but the raiment of righteousness - that is the best. That is of the commandments of ALLAH, that they may remember.
[007:027] O children of Adam, let not Satan seduce you, as he expelled your parents out of paradise, by stripping them of their cloathing, that he might shew them their nakedness.

third: our friend Hugo :you have addressed many interesting points,but I'm afraid having two sided conversation about them would get us much offtopic.....
but I promise you the issue of allegorical Vs literal is coming soon in next items.....
indeed it is serious,profound ..and I hope to get you read what may interest you....

fourth: plz dear brothers,sisters ..be stuck to the topics under discussion,thanx....

[aadil77]

not really^

read the pickthall translation of it:

Pickthall
O Children of Adam! Let not Satan seduce you as he caused your (first) parents to go forth from the Garden and tore off from them their robe (of innocence) that he might manifest their shame to them. Lo! he seeth you, he and his tribe, from whence ye see him not. Lo! We have made the devils protecting friends for those who believe not.

[Al-manar]

not really^

read the pickthall translation of it:

Pickthall
O Children of Adam! Let not Satan seduce you as he caused your (first) parents to go forth from the Garden and tore off from them their robe (of innocence) that he might manifest their shame to them. Lo! he seeth you, he and his tribe, from whence ye see him not. Lo! We have made the devils protecting friends for those who believe not.

well, we have two factors to avoid the allegorical translation of pickthall

1- the context which mentions clearly the literal clothing

Holy Quran [007:026] O children of Adam, WE have indeed send down to you raiment to cover you nakedness ...

Tafsir Ibn kathir

Allah reminds His servants that He has given them Libas and Rish. Libas refers to the clothes that are used to cover the private parts, while Rish refers to the outer adornments used for purposes of beautification. Therefore, the first type is essential while the second type is complimentary.
Allah warns the Children of Adam against Iblis and his followers, by explaining about his ancient enmity for the father of mankind, Adam peace be upon him. Iblis plotted to have Adam expelled from Paradise, which is the dwelling of comfort, to the dwelling of hardship and fatigue (this life) and caused him to have his private part uncovered, after it had been hidden .

2- If the clothing was metaphorical eg,( robe of innocence) ,then the leaves of Paradise they covered themselves with were metaphorical too ,and we gonna play the dangerous game of metaphor ,the tree was a metaphor,Adam and eve were a metaphor ,may be God himself was a metaphor too !!!...

Advice

"A good rule for interpretation is: 'If the literal sense makes good sense, seek no other sense lest you come up with nonsense'."

peace and bless

[Hugo]

The cave narratives are true (it has been discussed at length) here with you before.. the prophet's heart being washed out and removed from sin is also true.. I wonder why those two stories don't seem true to you, but god immolating and dying is?

How do you know they are true, what evidence do you have for either of these two cases? Just to be clear here are you saying that it is true the prophets beating heart was LITERALLY removed and washed with snow though why that would purge him of sin is a mystery to me?

The things in the Quran that are literal are clearly delineated and those that are allegorical are also clearly delineated, there is an art to it.. Which is well preserved since its very inception by our scholars and not subject to the orientalist rendition!

Can you explain how they are delineated, and its either an art or it is clear - I quoted Ibn Rushd and it seems he had difficulty, so what is the method?

It is rather inconsequential what you accept is allegorical or literal, when you literally believe that your god is a man who self-immolated.

When was 'my God' immolated? However, you are missing the point, what one might believe is one thing what is scientifically verifiable fact is quite an another.

If you have a scientifically sound interpretation for the origins of life then pls. do share it.

Its called evolution with plenty of evidence to support it. Do you have a different view?

Keeping in mind that if you desire the atheistic view on the matter in lieu of 'Adam and Eve'- not only will you not be starting with one single celled organism but you'll need to work your way up to a complex, sentient being and make two of it for reproductive purposes (there will be millions of physiological and biochemical processes on the side that you'll need to account for along the way).. By the way, do you ever ponder what you write before you hurl it out thinking that it is credible?

My view is a scientific one, what is yours?

[Hugo]

Like I said we don't have any fiction in islam its all true. But this is strange, in christianity who gives you the authority to go round and say what is true and what isn't? For christians the belief that god has a child on earth who somehow dies on cross and could not save himself even though he was god, this belief does not seem hard for you to accept but the story of adam and eve is?

This is just nonsense and you are muddling up what you might believe with what can be scientifically verified. For example, can you even prove that there is a God at all? I can accept the Biblical story of Jesus as fact because we have eye witness accounts to his death and resurrection. As to whether it all means anything that is a matter of personal faith - do you see the difference?

Well we don't have crazy beliefs like that in islam thats why nothing is to hard to take literally or accept, it is actually compulsary to take every word in the Quran as the literal word of Allah or else you're not Muslim.

The point here is that YOU think there are no crazy beliefs in Islam but to me a heart being removed and washed in snow is fairy tale. It is an absurdity to accept everything as literal and your own scholars don't do that. For example, the Qu'ran say in heaven believers will rest on sofas - do you really take that literally, that there are several billions of sofas in heaven?

It seems christians have this habit of picking and choosing whatever seems reasonable to them, for you lot as long you accept jesus as a man-god you're christian right?

This really is the pot calling the kettle black. YOU here tell me you take everything literally and then complain because I use reason? You are just conditioned to thing Islam perfect everything else bad so your rational powers are suspended when its anything to do with Islam.

[جوري]

This is just nonsense and you are muddling up what you might believe with what can be scientifically verified. For example, can you even prove that there is a God at all? I can accept the Biblical story of Jesus as fact because we have eye witness accounts to his death and resurrection. As to whether it all means anything that is a matter of personal faith - do you see the difference?

lol-- Show me a historical source outside your (bible which has absolutely no textual integrity whatsoever and we have so proven repeatedly) that attests that a man named Jesus lived at all let alone died and was god aside from Josephus' writing and I quote: The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed although most modern scholars agree that it is partially authentic!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

The point here is that YOU think there are no crazy beliefs in Islam but to me a heart being removed and washed in snow is fairy tale. It is an absurdity to accept everything as literal and your own scholars don't do that. For example, the Qu'ran say in heaven believers will rest on sofas - do you really take that literally, that there are several billions of sofas in heaven?

Islamic faith doesn't rest on whether or not the prophet's heart was cleansed from sin.. your faith on the other hands seems to rest on the moment your god of whom there is no otherwise a historical record immolated and perished from existence for an x number of days-- in fact whether the prophet's heart was cleansed or not is utterly inconsequential to the entire Islamic faith.. can you honestly say the same would be true if it were proven to you by mere logic that you can't be both god, his son and his hovering spirit, be one in the same.. and if it does then the world has no need for such a god for in his period of suckling, meekness and death the universe survived just fine!

This really is the pot calling the kettle black. YOU here tell me you take everything literally and then complain because I use reason? You are just conditioned to thing Islam perfect everything else bad so your rational powers are suspended when its anything to do with Islam.

There is no object of comparison what so ever here, are you that delusional?

[aadil77]

This is just nonsense and you are muddling up what you might believe with what can be scientifically verified. For example, can you even prove that there is a God at all? I can accept the Biblical story of Jesus as fact because we have eye witness accounts to his death and resurrection. As to whether it all means anything that is a matter of personal faith - do you see the difference?

scientifically verified? is our faith in our beliefs based on scientific verification, example: in the case of prophet moses have scientists verified that a sea can be split in to two parts?

The point here is that YOU think there are no crazy beliefs in Islam but to me a heart being removed and washed in snow is fairy tale. It is an absurdity to accept everything as literal and your own scholars don't do that. For example, the Qu'ran say in heaven believers will rest on sofas - do you really take that literally, that there are several billions of sofas in heaven?

its no where near as absurd as a god dying on a cross and being unable to save himself, is there not several billions sofas in the world right now? Do'H

This really is the pot calling the kettle black. YOU here tell me you take everything literally and then complain because I use reason? You are just conditioned to thing Islam perfect everything else bad so your rational powers are suspended when its anything to do with Islam. You use reason right? but does it make sense to you that many among your fellow christians have vastly different views? does it make sense that a faith can have such varied fundamental beliefs which are open to interpretation?

You guys have no general consensus over what fundamental beliefs are to be accepted in order to be a christian, whereas in islam its simple - you accept everything as none of it is too hard to believe

yes I do believe islam is perfect, we do not need to struggle with 'rational powers', we don't struggle to come to terms with certain beliefs, as everything is quite clear

[جوري]

How do you know they are true, what evidence do you have for either of these two cases? Just to be clear here are you saying that it is true the prophets beating heart was LITERALLY removed and washed with snow though why that would purge him of sin is a mystery to me?

There is nothing about either stories that stands out as odd and the point of either stories isn't about the number of years (although in an of itself is a few other miracles) nor whether the messengers heart was cleansed or not. That isn't the fulcrum on which Islam rests!
Have you read suret al-kahf? it is odd to me because I have written on it extensively.. Do you want to spend your time learning or spend your time throwing the same repeated tantrum on each subsequent post?

Suret Al- Kahf in a nutshell is about trials of faith, trials of wealth, trials of knowledge and trials of power and its relations to the four trials appearing at the time of the anti-christ!
and knowing how to guard oneself against these trials with six also mentioned in the surah from verses 28,45,69,110, and 27.. in fact in the sura itself you should have come across--

[Pickthal 18:22] (Some) will say: They were three, their dog the fourth, and (some) say: Five, their dog the sixth, guessing at random; and (some) say: Seven, and their dog the eighth. Say (O Muhammad): My Lord is Best Aware of their number. None knoweth them save a few. So contend not concerning them except with an outward contending, and ask not any of them to pronounce concerning them.


How does that compare to mangod beseeching himself the night before he immolated for something as anticlimactic as eating your sins so you are free to live a debauched so long as your god died for you?

Can you explain how they are delineated, and its either an art or it is clear - I quoted Ibn Rushd and it seems he had difficulty, so what is the method?

Join Al-Azhar or equally credible university and they'll let you in on deciphering the mystery.. It is really not that difficult but quality research isn't cheap anymore than acquiring any credible degree- If you'd like to study under the tutelage of a Muslim scholar then that too can be arranged!

When was 'my God' immolated? However, you are missing the point, what one might believe is one thing what is scientifically verifiable fact is quite an another.

Your god immolated before he died.. are you not familiar with the christian mythology that you adhere to as a religion? You can't verify headaches scientifically either, but 45 million Americans suffer chronic headaches annually.. I guess it depends on the criteria, data provided and credibility of parties involved!

all the best

Its called evolution with plenty of evidence to support it. Do you have a different view?

Go ahead share your understanding of evolution(speciation) using the scientifically proposed methods I'll be waiting!

My view is a scientific one, what is yours?

Your view is no more scientific on the origin of life and species than it is about the self-immolating triple headed God.. outside of the apparently undeserved bravado which is your smoke and mirror, you always come up so empty, all I have to do is a light blow to your face for you and all your silly arguments to fall apart!

[Hugo]

lol-- Show me a historical source outside your (bible which has absolutely no textual integrity whatsoever and we have so proven repeatedly) that attests that a man named Jesus lived at all let alone died and was god aside from Josephus' writing and I quote: The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed although most modern scholars agree that it is partially authentic!

What difference would it make, you are disposed to not believe and to say the Bible has not textual integrity is simply foolish and ignorant. You repeated claim the Qu'ran has textual Integrity but many many books show this to be false - why not look at say "in Search of The original Qu'ran" by Mondher Sfar and be honest about answering the questions he poses.

Islamic faith doesn't rest on whether or not the prophet's heart was cleansed from sin.. your faith on the other hands seems to rest on the moment your god of whom there is no otherwise a historical record immolated and perished from existence for an x number of days-- in fact whether the prophet's heart was cleansed or not is utterly inconsequential to the entire Islamic faith.. can you honestly say the same would be true if it were proven to you by mere logic that you can't be both god, his son and his hovering spirit, be one in the same.. and if it does then the world has no need for such a god for in his period of suckling, meekness and death the universe survived just fine!

As is normal with you post you simply cannot understand what people are saying. I mentioned the cave and the prophets heart being washed because some in this thread have claimed that there is no fiction or analogy in Islam, that it is all true and by extension everyone else is wrong you in contrast have said there is. My point was to try to establish what you regarded as factual as opposed to allegorical - but you are unable to answer, you are simply afraid to admit anything. You cannot explain how one decides what is fact and what is allegorical.

What I or you believe is largely about faith because one cannot establish as fact some of the most basic things. This is what you continually fail to understand that any logic is based on premises and premises to do with God and revelation cannot be shown to be true or false. If you know a way of proving things to do with God share it with us or are you simply deluded

[Hugo]

yes I do believe islam is perfect, we do not need to struggle with 'rational powers', we don't struggle to come to terms with certain beliefs, as everything is quite clear

Well you are entitled to think this ways as long as you don't force it on the rest of us. But may I just ask for clarification. Are you saying that everything in Islam is perfection, all its writings, all its prophets, all its teachings, all its history? Secondly, if its all so clear why is there are so many commentaries and scholars spend years and years learning - it does not add up does it?

[Hugo]

There is nothing about either stories that stands out as odd and the point of either stories isn't about the number of years (although in an of itself is a few other miracles) nor whether the messengers heart was cleansed or not. That isn't the fulcrum on which Islam rests! Have you read suret al-kahf? it is odd to me because I have written on it extensively.. Do you want to spend your time learning or spend your time throwing the same repeated tantrum on each subsequent post?

The fact that one can extract lessons and teaching from any writing is obvious, the point of these posts is about whether these events are literally true as some in this thread have claimed. It may seem a simple point but it is not because it has some bearing on interpretation and credibility.

How does that compare to mangod beseeching himself the night before he immolated for something as anticlimactic as eating your sins so you are free to live a debauched so long as your god died for you?

Can you just for once explain about 'eating sins' and 'immolating' as I have no idea what you are talking about and I guess no one else does either.

all the bestGo ahead share your understanding of evolution(speciation) using the scientifically proposed methods I'll be waiting!

Let me be clear here YOU do not accept evolution, is that what you are saying and that it is an Islamic position/doctrine and therefore Adam and Eve is literal truth?

[جوري]

What difference would it make, you are disposed to not believe and to say the Bible has not textual integrity is simply foolish and ignorant. You repeated claim the Qu'ran has textual Integrity but many many books show this to be false - why not look at say "in Search of The original Qu'ran" by Mondher Sfar and be honest about answering the questions he poses.

We have shown you and repeatedly where the bibles have no textual integrity and dubious authors. We have actually cemented our arguments with evidence, which you have simply deemed a different picture of your book from different authors. Well frankly if I am going to take a man for a god, then we need something more substantial than a democratic vote on the nature of the man you deem god..

I did notice that you abandoned your old thread where I requested you show me errors from the Quran, your two pathetic attempts did blow up badly in your face, instead of walking away with your tail between your leg you copied some stuff in Arabic and asked me to define it so you can use it against the Quran, and I asked you, since you are so confident and 'scholarly' to actually cement what you are saying from the book. Again you have failed to do so.. all you have up your sleeve unfortunately and repeatedly is too many pathetic attempts at the same query which has been answered a thousand times over in a precise historical fashion, but you are hoping for a different audience perhaps with your level of ignorance to give you answers that you can use in a negative fashion.. The same way you look for one translation out of zillions to echo your sentiments, not only forgetting that the Quran has been preserved in the original tongue memorized word by word by a large chunk of the Muslim population, but forgoing logic all together. I truly pity you, because with each subsequent post you prove to me how pathetic and desperate you are!

As is normal with you post you simply cannot understand what people are saying. I mentioned the cave and the prophets heart being washed because some in this thread have claimed that there is no fiction or analogy in Islam, that it is all true and by extension everyone else is wrong you in contrast have said there is. My point was to try to establish what you regarded as factual as opposed to allegorical - but you are unable to answer, you are simply afraid to admit anything. You cannot explain how one decides what is fact and what is allegorical.

I have already told you there is nothing fictional about either stories and I have repeatedly requested that is you want scholarship in Islam that you do it through proper means.. that is your answer. I have told you repeatedly that scholarship doesn't come from orientalist books or even religious books, you need to study in an academic fashion. I can't become a dpctor by reading a couple of books of old wives tales, and I can't become a doctor simply reading medical books on my own!
It is really not that difficult to comprehend what I am saying--I am writing in English!

What I or you believe is largely about faith because one cannot establish as fact some of the most basic things. This is what you continually fail to understand that any logic is based on premises and premises to do with God and revelation cannot be shown to be true or false. If you know a way of proving things to do with God share it with us or are you simply deluded

The matter of truth is established in the story by a few events which I have listed prior one is the mathematical aspect of their stay in the cave in a lunar calendar-- The prophet was an illiterate man he wasn't sitting there calculating what your atheist pal barney couldn't do modern day, millenniums ago, and that, the money they have used was old and as such their brand of miracle was a sign to those who dealt with them, as such the verse tells you in its closure of that story, that their number or their stay in the cave isn't what you the modern reader should have gleaned from the story, rather the four things I afore mentioned!
want to try again and have a nice comparative of common sense and logic as per your bible and per thread title?

all the best

[جوري]

The fact that one can extract lessons and teaching from any writing is obvious, the point of these posts is about whether these events are literally true as some in this thread have claimed. It may seem a simple point but it is not because it has some bearing on interpretation and credibility.

The events were never obvious to you given your query exactly a couple of times before if not more as to what the point to the story is.. if you knew the point of the story, then why do you keep asking? especially when I have quoted you from the Quran itself and repeatedly that their stay or their number isn't the point to the story?
as per the rest of your query I have already answered that in the last post!

Can you just for once explain about 'eating sins' and 'immolating' as I have no idea what you are talking about and I guess no one else does either.

immolate = sacrifice
eating sins = all your shenanigan about how god came to redeem you by self-immolating.. really make use of the dictionary!

Let me be clear here YOU do not accept evolution, is that what you are saying and that it is an Islamic position/doctrine and therefore Adam and Eve is literal truth?

I don't accept speciation, I accept evolution to denote adaptation, YES I ACCEPT THE ADAM AND EVE STORY and asking you in the process that if you don't that you construct it to me otherwise in a precise specific fashion. I want you to put all those cute little things that seem to function on their own volition and turn it into a complex being, give the being sentience and make two of it for reproductive purposes.. Yes we know Jesus didn't do it.. if Evolution did it, then go ahead and carry us through the process!

all the best

[Hugo]

We have shown you and repeatedly where the bibles have no textual integrity and dubious authors. We have actually cemented our arguments with evidence, which you have simply deemed a different picture of your book from different authors. Well frankly if I am going to take a man for a god, then we need something more substantial than a democratic vote on the nature of the man you deem god..

You are simply assuming that your arguments are always correct and irrefutable. Let me show you what I mean:

I have shown you repeatedly where the Qu'ran has no textual integrity and its author is dubious. I have actually cemented my arguments with evidence, which you have simply deemed a different picture of your book ... Well frankly if I am going to take a man in a cave getting a message supposedly from God then we need something more substantial than dogma.. I requested you show me errors from the Bible, your pathetic attempts blow up badly in your face, instead of walking away with your tail between your legs you copy from some web site ... all you have up your sleeve unfortunately and repeatedly is too many pathetic attempts at the same insulting and untrue remarks about Jesus and the Bible which has been answered a thousand times over in a precise historical fashion ..

If you wish to do this more formally, then start an thread say called "Textual Integrity the Bible V The Qu'ran" and let us examine the evidence.

I have already told you there is nothing fictional about either stories and I have repeatedly requested that is you want scholarship in Islam that you do it through proper means..

Thank for this now I know where you stand, whatever is written in the Qu'ran or other Qu'ranic literature is fact no matter how absurd it might sound. So you bring no criticality to the issue and not an iota of interpretive skill, that seems to be your position.

[Hugo]

I don't accept speciation, I accept evolution to denote adaptation, YES I ACCEPT THE ADAM AND EVE STORY and asking you in the process that if you don't that you construct it to me otherwise in a precise specific fashion. I want you to put all those cute little things that seem to function on their own volition and turn it into a complex being, give the being sentience and make two of it for reproductive purposes.. Yes we know Jesus didn't do it.. if Evolution did it, then go ahead and carry us through the process!
all the best

This is an interesting point, you accept God created Adam and Eve but there cannot possibly be a single grain of evidence for that act. If you wish to treat it as fact and deny evolutionary processes, the fossil record, DNA evidence, the age of the earth etc then that is a choice for you.

[aadil77]

This is an interesting point, you accept God created Adam and Eve but there cannot possibly be a single grain of evidence for that act. If you wish to treat it as fact and deny evolutionary processes, the fossil record, DNA evidence, the age of the earth etc then that is a choice for you.

What are you a christian or an atheist?

[جوري]

You are simply assuming that your arguments are always correct and irrefutable. Let me show you what I mean:

There is not much by way of correct and incorrect when you are looking at passages on the same characters that don't reconcile with each other!

I have shown you repeatedly where the Qu'ran has no textual integrity and its author is dubious.

You haven't.. what you have attempted was to copy hearsay which really back fired on you and as such the challenge really still stands, you don't have to make a separate thread when you can pick up exactly where you have left off with my challenge the last time. I told you that I'll be waiting for the errors and contradiction .. you ran away after two failed attempts.. Only you can be faulted for that!

I have actually cemented my arguments with evidence, which you have simply deemed a different picture of your book

I am yet to see that.. plagiarizing my writing is no substitute for doing the work regrettably-- and I find it kind of laughable that this is the best you can do!

... Well frankly if I am going to take a man in a cave getting a message supposedly from God then we need something more substantial than dogma

And something far more substantial than dogma as per the Quran itself was given-- I have written above and repeatedly that for our time our lesson is to learn wisdom from trials of faith, trials of wisdom, trials of power, and trials of wealth even an atheist would find nothing dogmatic with a little twist on the 'faith' aspect.... I so hate to repeat myself because you are so incapable of abstract thoughts.. and no one can be faulted for your failure to read plagiarize my writing as if you have something of substance to impart-- I keep asking you time and again to reconcile for me how that at all compares to your central dogma of a dying man/god.. which funny enough you are willing to accept and believe over the creation of Adam and eve.. are you for real?

.. I requested you show me errors from the Bible, your pathetic attempts blow up badly in your face, instead of walking away with your tail between your legs you copy from some web site

Here are a few more errors if you missed them the first time around:

2 Kings 8:26 says "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..." 2 Chronicles 22:2 says "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..." 2 Samuel 6:23 says "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death" 2 Samuel 21:8 says "But the king took...the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul" 2 Samuel 8:3-4 says "David smote also Hadadezer...and took from him...seven hundred horsemen..." 1 Chronicles 18:3-4 says "David smote Hadarezer...and took from him...seven thousand horsemen..." 1 Kings 4:26 says "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots..." 2 Chronicles 9:25 says "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots..." 2 Kings 25:8 says "And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month...Nebuzaradan...came...unto Jerusalem" Jeremiah 52:12 says "...in the fifth month, in the tenth day of the month...came Nebuzaradan...into Jerusalem" 1 Samuel 31:4-6 says "...Saul took a sword and fell upon it. And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead and...died with him. So Saul died..." 2 Samuel 21:12 says "...the Philistines had slain Saul in Gilboa." Gen 2:17 says "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die [note: it doesn't say 'spiritual' death] Gen 5:5 says "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died." Matt 1:16 says, "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus..." Luke 3:23 says "And Jesus...the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli" James 1:13 says "..for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." Gen 22:1 says "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..." Gen 6:20 says "Of fowls after their kind and of cattle [etc.]...two of every sort shall come unto thee..." Gen 7:2,3 says "Of every clean beast thou shall take to thee by sevens...Of fowls also of the air by sevens..." Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." John 19:30 "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost." Gen 32:30 states "...for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." John 1:18 states, "No man hath seen God at any time..."

... all you have up your sleeve unfortunately and repeatedly is too many pathetic attempts at the same insulting and untrue remarks about Jesus and the Bible which has been answered a thousand times over in a precise historical fashion ..

Jesus isn't a mangod who prayed to himself in Gethsemane the night before he forsake himself at the cross succumbing to a couple of provincial villagers? we are making that up?

If you wish to do this more formally, then start an thread say called "Textual Integrity the Bible V The Qu'ran" and let us examine the evidence.

We have had multitudes of said threads, you've walked away having learned nothing, and still unable to reconcile as per above why your bibles say so many contradictory things! start with the above given and then let us know why we should accept a man/god if we can't trust what sequence of events actually took place!

Thank for this now I know where you stand, whatever is written in the Qu'ran or other Qu'ranic literature is fact no matter how absurd it might sound. So you bring no criticality to the issue and not an iota of interpretive skill, that seems to be your position.

No interpretive skills? that is fresh coming from a guy who thinks a three-headed god = to one god, and that said god can die and suckle and da mn his earth for not bearing him fruit and choose ineffectual apostles that can't shoulder the responsibility after his death so he hovers around to whisper to his nemesis to abrogate all his previous commandments. You are as capable of scholarship as a monkey of is capable of psychoanalysis!

This is an interesting point, you accept God created Adam and Eve but there cannot possibly be a single grain of evidence for that act. If you wish to treat it as fact and deny evolutionary processes, the fossil record, DNA evidence, the age of the earth etc then that is a choice for you.

I am asking you to present your 'grains of evidence for that act. I want you to show me how the origin of life started to a complex being to a sentient being and two of said being for the purpose of procreation and then do it for every specie in existence .. Do you think you are capable of that?.. I don't know what Fossil record means, or DNA evidence .. what DNA evidence do you speak of, do you just like throwing terms you don't understand around?

DNA, tired, seizure, headache.. it is an unspecific term fellow, would you like to expand? DNA model, DNA fingerprinting, DNA structure, DNA replication, DNA polymerase, DNA ligase?
As usual I ask you if you have something of substance to impart, then do so, a single cell has organelles, nucleolus, nucleus, ribosomes, vesicles, rough endoplasmic reticulum, Golgi apparatus, Cytoskeleton, smooth endoplasmic reticulum, mitochondria, vacuole, cytoplasm, lysosome, centrioles within centrosome to name a few, each with a specific function.

I am asking you to show me how said things evolved from a single cell 'scientifically' to give us a complex sentient being of male and female and of difference species.. would you like me to repeat the question or are you going to throw out 'DNA' and think yourself oh so wise?

I'll be waiting for your thorough construct the modern theory of evolution through both statistical physics, and probabilities of assembling a primitive cell on earth.. Do you think you can carry both those functions in a scholarly scientific fashion and not give us the usual run of the mill crap you memorize but have no thought as to how it actually works or how it came together?

all the best

[جوري]

What are you a christian or an atheist?

What he is is a fickle fellow, who can't defend his own beliefs 'mangod/three headedgod'-- and can't defend those beliefs he follows as 'scientific' but likes to strut and hide behind colorful words and false bravado in hopes that folks will be duped.. it is essentially the entire christian doctrine.. if you can't dazzle them with science baffle them with B.S.
I'll be waiting for him to defend the mathematics, and the science behind what he professes.. so pull up a chair and be ready to be amused.. you know when push comes to shove they go excerpt a link from talkorigin and reference you to it, but can't defend the contents in an experimental scientific fashion to save their dear life!

He unfortunately is a dime a dozen like the rest of which we have seen and the likes of which we are to see.

The age of pioneers is over so ready yourself to have your senses dulled with the usual drivel!

:w:

[aadil77]

I don't get why he wants to bother again with a 'Bible vs Quran thread', I would have thought he'd learnt from his complete failure on his other thread

Honestly Hugo you will get hammered about the non existant 'textual integrity' in the bible, you just need to look through the 'requesting answers from christians' thread

[جوري]

I don't get why he wants to bother again with a 'Bible vs Quran thread', I would have thought he'd learnt from his complete failure on his other thread

Honestly Hugo you will get hammered about the non existant 'textual integrity' in the bible, you just need to look through the 'requesting answers from christians' thread

The things that he needs to establish to have some semblance of credibility is why he'd be willing to accept an ineffectual dying god as truth and central theme to his religion because it says so in his bible, when his bible is wrought with error and isn't from god as per their own admittance. Why he is willing to believe atheistic views on the origin of life that loans itself to belief than a factual experimental science in lieu of believing in the story of creation. How he sorts through literal and allegorical or even the historically accurate.

and since he can't and won't, then he should stay out of this thread and let the OP do his thing without butting in with his angry seething self to say things he can't back up as usual in an attempt to derail this thread from its actual purpose.. For once I'd like to follow a thread of this kind from beginning to end without his pathetic all too frequent interferences citing his objections which have been amply answered!

__________________________________________________ ____________________

I think at this point I'll ignore him and await Al-Manar to share his thorough comparative study without further interruption.. at completion of this thread all the irrelevant crap can be deleted so that it would be index style with related commentary without the usual platitudes!

:w:

[aadil77]

I think at this point I'll ignore him and await Al-Manar to share his thorough comparative study without further interruption.. at completion of this thread all the irrelevant crap can be deleted so that it would be index style with related commentary without the usual platitudes!

:w:

you won't be able to resist sis, theres no doubt he'll add in some snidy comments and suggestions into his posts, can't let em get away with that
:D

btw mashAllah your english vocab is miles ahead of mine, most of the time I read your posts I have to google up the meaning of some word or another

[Hugo]

What are you a christian or an atheist?

What an odd questions. I present evidence about evolutionary processes and that makes me an atheist? Don't you have any trust in science, you think it incompatible with religion or faith, surely if God is the creator he made the world like it is and how science finds it or do you cherry pick the bits that prop up your beliefs?

[Hugo]

What he is is a fickle fellow, who can't defend his own beliefs 'mangod/three headedgod'-- and can't defend those beliefs he follows as 'scientific' but likes to strut and hide behind colorful words and false bravado in hopes that folks will be duped.. it is essentially the entire christian doctrine.. if you can't dazzle them with science baffle them with B.S. I'll be waiting for him to defend the mathematics, and the science behind what he professes.. so pull up a chair and be ready to be amused.. you know when push comes to shove they go excerpt a link from talkorigin and reference you to it, but can't defend the contents in an experimental scientific fashion to save their dear life!
He unfortunately is a dime a dozen like the rest of which we have seen and the likes of which we are to see. The age of pioneers is over so ready yourself to have your senses dulled with the usual drivel!:w:

As usual you are unable to defend your position without the use of ad hominum arguments and now you encourage others to do the same with a kind of collective paranoia. But let us see how this comparative study works out, let us see what purpose it has for you, let us see if we can explore what the scriptures mean.

[Hugo]

I don't get why he wants to bother again with a 'Bible vs Quran thread', I would have thought he'd learnt from his complete failure on his other thread. Honestly Hugo you will get hammered about the non existant 'textual integrity' in the bible, you just need to look through the 'requesting answers from christians' thread

Well if you think that let's get started, I am happy to be hammered as I have an open mind. If I look through this board say to find information on Biblical writings there is almost zero from any authoritative source and invariably what is there is copied from other un-checkable web sites with the same same old bit of information circulating - I am not guessing here as I use software to check all postings so I know where they comes from. You will rarely if ever find me copying a web site and what I write is out of detailed research, in contrast there are others who do nothing but copy websites or repeat the same mantra about for example an immolating God or eating sins but these people can NEVER explain what they are talking about.

[Hugo]

Adam - Unlike the Quran that views Adam as been taught the names of everything by God, the bible would view Adam as the one who chose the names of the creatures!

Genesis 2:19-20 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. and Qu'ran 2.31 He taught Adam all the names of everything. (Quran 2:31).

I am not sure here why you cut short the Qu'ranic verse and it seem a very uneven passage wandering between heaven, Paradise, Angels and the abrupt entry of Adam into the text, Adam seemingly sent down after being taught the names of everything while in heaven and some how ends with the children of Israel in 40. This to me does not sound coherent where the Bible passage is totally coherent - so can you explain it? I note you have only here highlighted the difference in naming and being taught the names, do you think there is anything to learn from that as to me it sounds relatively unimportant.

According to the bible Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame, according to the Quran when they disobeyed they became naked and felt ashamed.
Genesis 2:25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame. Quran 20:121 In the result, they both ate of the tree, and so their nakedness appeared to them: they began to sew together, for their covering, leaves from the Garden: thus did Adam disobey his Lord, and allow himself to be seduced.

I cannot see any difference and you seem to have stopped reading in Gen 2 so your analysis here is misleading - both texts seem just to speak of an awareness of wrong doing. This is made clear in Gen 3:7 "Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves".

The seductive argument of Satan in the Quranic narrative is that God prohibited the tree for not giving the chance to Adam and Eve to be in higher ranks as angels or eteranal beings ....,while the bible would view Satan as mere repeating the words of God seeing the the prohibition if they eat it their eyes will be opened, and they will be like God, knowing good and evil."

You have not suggest a Qu'ranic text here, were you thinking of 20:115 onwards? I don't see in this text anything about gaining higher rank as its clear that Angels bowed to them so I am unsure what you are saying here.

Man is better than the Angels? Though the fact that Angels bowed to Adam in respect ,and God taught him the names that the Angels were ignorant of ,it seems Adam felt himself inferior to the angels ,and been seduced by Satan who would argue that the tree would make Adam and his wife Angels etc...

The bible too ... Psalm 8:4 what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? 5 You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.

I think your analysis is almost correct in that Adam was seduced into thinking he would gain something, something that God had withheld though we might disagree as to what that was. However, the verse in the Psalm is a very very well known one and is understood by every Christian to be referring prophetically to Jesus and Jews would see it as referring to the messiah. It is also possible that Adam speaks figuratively of sinful man and Jesus the one who comes to put things right - indeed there is a verses in 1 Corinthians 15:22 "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive".

[جوري]

you won't be able to resist sis, theres no doubt he'll add in some snidy comments and suggestions into his posts, can't let em get away with that
:D

btw mashAllah your english vocab is miles ahead of mine, most of the time I read your posts I have to google up the meaning of some word or another

you don't need vocabulary when arguing with a fool all you need is scholarly precision and understanding of history and then just watch it all unravel.
-- he is neither able to defend his religious or even so-called 'scientific' stand.. the best he can do is resort to his usual temper tantrum, self-collection and then watch him re-work his one trick pony.

like I said let's wait for Al-Manar to present his work and then at the end we can report the gadflies and see if mods can take out the trash!

:w:

[جوري]

As usual you are unable to defend your position without the use of ad hominum arguments and now you encourage others to do the same with a kind of collective paranoia. But let us see how this comparative study works out, let us see what purpose it has for you, let us see if we can explore what the scriptures mean.

I'll be waiting for you to address in a scholarly fashion the errors in your bible presented on the previous page and how you reconcile that with other aspects in your beliefs like the man/god triple head being a factual and not an allegorical event.. as well I'll be waiting on your paper on the probability of randomly assembling a primitive cell to a more complex sentient being!
until then I suggest you remove yourself from the dialogue here to spare your dignity!
all the best

[Al-manar]

I am not sure here why you cut short the Qu'ranic verse

Have you read the context and found out that I took it out of context?

and it seem a very uneven passage wandering between heaven, Paradise, Angels and the abrupt entry of Adam into the text, Adam seemingly sent down after being taught the names of everything while in heaven and some how ends with the children of Israel in 40.

Note: my posts specified at the textaul disagreements between Quran VS bible , the issue of lingustic structure of both the books is offtopic.... so if you have more to say regarding the literally style save it to another occasion ,cause I'm not gonna comment from now to anything related to such category....
If you wish to intiate a thread about that ,I promise you to be the first participant....

I note you have only here highlighted the difference in naming and being taught the names, do you think there is anything to learn from that as to me it sounds relatively unimportant.

My work is concerned with the textual disagreements(whether minor or major) between Quran and Bible ....

both texts seem just to speak of an awareness of wrong doing.

yes they are but disagreed on the details which I exposed..

I don't see in this text anything about gaining higher rank as its clear that Angels bowed to them so I am unsure what you are saying here.

Holy Quran [7:20]But Satan tempted them so that he might reveal to them the private parts of their bodies which they had never seen before. He told them: "Your Lord has forbidden you to approach this tree only to prevent you from becoming angels or immortals."

the verse in the Psalm is a very very well known one and is understood by every Christian to be referring prophetically to Jesus

It is understood why ALL christians believe the passage to to be referring prophetically to Jesus, they have no other choice but to follow the writer of Hebrews(which they believe to be inspired) personal speculation,
Hebrews 2:6-8
6But there is a place where someone has testified: "What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? 7You made him a little[a] lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor 8 and put everything under his feet." In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him.


Had the writer of hebrew never mentioned such (pesher type) speculation ,I doubt that any christian would ever render the meaning the faulty way the writer of hebrew got.......

In order to understand the meaning of such passage (and all other supposed reference to jesus in the Old Testament) you should read the passage for yourself ,instead of letting the gospel writers read it for you !....
what does the passage tell?

“When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained; What is man that You take thought of him, And the son of man that You care for him? Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You crown him with glory and majesty! You make him to rule over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet, All sheep and oxen, And also the beasts of the field, The birds of the heavens and the fish of the sea, Whatever passes through the paths of the seas.” Psalm 8:3-8

These passages clearly show that God has appointed mankind in general, to reign over his creation.

The Passage ,without any reasonable doubt, is recalling the Genesis account of creation where God gave male and female authority to rule the earth and over all his creatures:

“Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’ God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. God blessed them; and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.’” Genesis 1:26-28

The writer of Hebrew imposed Jesus on the passage!!
and christians are adviced strongly ,not to use such passage as an example of prophecy fulfillment...

more Exposition of the New Testament misapplication of the Old Testament will be posted in details later within the item (prophecy) inshaAllah....

[Hugo]

I just point out that most of the Al-manar quote below is copied from the answering Islam website.

It is understood why ALL christians believe the passage to to be referring prophetically to Jesus, they have no other choice but to follow the writer of Hebrews(which they believe to be inspired) personal speculation,
Hebrews 2:6-8 6 But there is a place where someone has testified: "What is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him? 7. You made him a little lower than the angels; you crowned him with glory and honor 8 and put everything under his feet." In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him.

I cannot see how it follows that "Christians have no other choice" and what is written in the Psalms and Hebrews is like any other writings a matter of interpretation. No one forces me to believe anything.

Had the writer of hebrew never mentioned such (pesher type) speculation ,I doubt that any christian would ever render the meaning the faulty way the writer of hebrew got.......

Pesher is just one set of rules for interpretation and no reason that I can see to suggest that the writer of the Hebrews was using it. However, what is said here in your quote is nothing more than opinion and a misguided one and it is a very odd idea that you suggest here that in all of history one ONE person notice this verse and drew an interpretation about it - possible but very very unlikely. One might argue that say the first 5 chapters of Romans endorse this interpretation.

In order to understand the meaning of such passage (and all other supposed reference to jesus in the Old Testament) you should read the passage for yourself ,instead of letting the gospel writers read it for you !.... what does the passage tell?

Perhaps you should take this advice yourself. Would you offer the same advice to Muslim, ignore the scholars and what they say and read the Qu'ran for themselves? The fact is that Christians read and re-read the OT and study it a great deal if for no other reason that it is impossible to read the NT with any understanding without doing that because there are so many references to it there.

“When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained; What is man that You take thought of him, And the son of man that You care for him? Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You crown him with glory and majesty! You make him to rule over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet, All sheep and oxen, And also the beasts of the field, The birds of the heavens and the fish of the sea, Whatever passes through the paths of the seas.” Psalm 8:3-8. These passages clearly show that God has appointed mankind in general, to reign over his creation. The Passage ,without any reasonable doubt, is recalling the Genesis account of creation where God gave male and female authority to rule the earth and over all his creatures. The writer of Hebrew imposed Jesus on the passage!! and christians are advised strongly ,not to use such passage as an example of prophecy fulfillment...

Just a couple of points here. Of course we are part of Gods creation and exercise some control over it but I doubt we rule over it the same sense we have here - we cannot for example, rule over birds and fish as far as I know. Of course you can interpret it that way if you wish but by the same token I can choose a different one.

Just one question here, do I take it from this that you accept the Genesis account of creation as scientifically accurate, particularly chapter 1?

[Al-manar]

I just point out that most of the Al-manar quote below is copied from website.

you mean the two lines commentary regarding Psalms 8?

you have no idea how many christians wrote the same commentary!!! any simple reader to Psalms and Genesis ,doesn't need a scientific discovery to understand that Genesis 1:26 and let them(humanity) rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.’

means what it says and says what it means !!
the commentary is not such new or creative one to be referenced to a specific writer...

I cannot see how it follows that "Christians have no other choice" and what is written in the Psalms and Hebrews is like any other writings a matter of interpretation..

What is in Hebrew is not a matter of interpretation ,it is itself interpretation of the psalm which as long as you are Christian (believing the words of Paul and others to be truly inspired) you have to accept it without any objection .

No one forces me to believe anything.

as long as you claim to be christian,you are forced to believe the words of Hebrews to be the ultimate truth...

Would you offer the same advice to Muslim, ignore the scholars and what they say and read the Qu'ran for themselves? .

Yes I would, but according to what kind of scholars ... If the scholars who interpret the Quran from the type of the writers of the New Testament eg; the radical Sufi who have gone to the extreme using the metaphorical style calling it al-baten (the hidden) ..... I would advice the Muslim not to ignore his interpreatation but to compare it with the apparent,literal meaning of the Quran....

the radical sufis and the pesher users(all new testament writers,and other jewish deviant sects eg,the Qumran community) are two sides of the same coin...

I doubt we rule over it the same sense we have here - we cannot for example, rule over birds and fish as far as I know.
.

If so then your problem is not with me, go argue with the writer of Genesis...

Of course you can interpret it that way if you wish but by the same token I can choose a different one.

Just one question here, do I take it from this that you accept the Genesis account of creation as scientifically accurate, particularly chapter 1?

It is me who should ask that question!
if your answer yes ,then you should be corrected
if your answer no, then you are highly advised to put in your profile (agnostic or atheist) as your belief instead of christian...


well, next item will be investigating to the matter of (Ismael and Isaac) InshaAllah....

[Hugo]

you mean the two lines commentary regarding Psalms 8?

Your quote was about 70% from the website answering Islam. My view would be that you should have said so and the worry, if that is the right word, was that you had actually thought about what you quoted. For example, you mentioned a mode of interpretation and I think in fairness I can ask do you really understand it?

you have no idea how many christians wrote the same commentary!!! any simple reader to Psalms and Genesis ,doesn't need a scientific discovery to understand that Genesis 1:26 and let them(humanity) rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.

This like anything else needs to be interpreted and you seem to be taking it absolutely literally - is that how you see it, that Adam and by extension you and I can control say ants since if you are right it means what is says?

What is in Hebrew is not a matter of interpretation ,it is itself interpretation of the psalm which as long as you are Christian (believing the words of Paul and others to be truly inspired) you have to accept it without any objection .

Of course it a matter of interpretation, in Christianity and Judaism we have a saying that to go from Gods word to application without interpretation is itself heresy - this must also be the Muslim position otherwise anyone can read into anything just what they want - in fact that is what you argue here when you nspeak of Sufi's

Yes I would, but according to what kind of scholars ... If the scholars who interpret the Quran from the type of the writers of the New Testament eg; the radical Sufi who have gone to the extreme using the metaphorical style calling it al-baten (the hidden) ..... I would advice the Muslim not to ignore his interpreatation but to compare it with the apparent,literal meaning of the Quran....

So you pick and choose that is what you are saying here. Sufi's are wrong and you are right, don't see much of an open mind here or one that look for truth.?Sorry you avoided the question but for what bits worth I treat Genesis chapter 1 as matching exactly modern scientific view as to how the Universe was created.

well, next item will be investigating to the matter of (Ismael and Isaac) InshaAllah....

Excellent I look forward to see what you have to say on this matter.

[Al-manar]

Hugo ,you added nothing new in ur last post....

believe it or not ,I won't reference a writer unless his material is unique and creative,written by none but him....

and believe it or not, me and many others won't accept any interpreatation away from the literal .... unless there is a strong support to do otherwise...

listen to such advice :
"It must be remembered that a deviation from the literal sense is not justified unless the Scriptures themselves prescribe such a course." Bible Difficulties, by Apologist W. Arndt, p. 133

if you gonna repeat the last two points again ,sorry to tell you , your posts would be skipped immediately.....

I have the impression that , according to your posts till now, you are establishing yourself as one debater who would instead of concentrating on the core of the arguments, would resort to other issues etc...
hope you prove me that such impression is wrong ...

Assalam aleykoum,

What I understand in the Quran, Adam and EVE where not in the paradise promise to all human.

Assalam aleykoum.

yes ,that is an understanding ,that is why I said it was a controversy......
but I mentioned some reasons to support the other understanding , including the use of the difinite article before (paradise) and the Hadith authentic, moreover

[020:118] `It is decreed for thee that thou shalt not hunger therein nor shalt thou be naked `And that thou shalt not thirst therein, nor shall thou be exposed to the sun.'

the verse strengthen more the idea that Adam wasn't naked before the sin, also he wasn't exposed to sun ever....

it is notmal for the heavenly paradise to be without sun as described in another Quranic verse to be all time shades ......

that is why I accept such understanding as stronger ,makes much sense ....

peace

[Hugo]

Believe it or not ,I won't reference a writer unless his material is unique and creative,written by none but him....

You may do as you think best but it is not in any way regarded as a good scholarship since anyone reading your post is entitled to think it is entirely your own work. The reason one references is to lend support to what you have said. It is not a modern idea and one might point out to you that Islamic scholars are meticulous in this respect - have you never heard of Isnads?

How you can know a writer's material is unique and creative I cannot tell but usually we assess a writer by the meticulousness in which they provide footnotes, reference's and pointers to other reading and in this way we can pick out what is new and interesting in what they have said.

I don't know if you are at or going to University but these days every piece of written work is checked for any kind of copying and if it is discovered to have been done without attribution the consequences may be serious. In fact the usual principle used is that if as little as 6 words are copied they must be referenced and if 10 more more words are copied without attribution then it is declared as plagiarism. If it is common knowledge or obvious then one does not need to reference but you must know the difference

[Al-manar]

offtopic, waste of space has been skipped!

Ismael And Isaac:
(part 1 of 2)

What is the hardest test would ever be?

Is it when the almighty requests from his beloved prophet all his wealth?
Or may be to give his life for the almighty and kill himself?
may be sacrifycing the second of his two children?
Is it the test that the one being tested would guess in advance its result?
Or the one which the one is being taken by surprise, not sure what will be the almighty’s reaction?

In the case of Abraham ,logic (even without the textual support) would tell that the Divine test in order to be the hardest should be

1-Choosing the most precious thing in Man’s life ,which in the case of Abraham has to be the long awaited son,which I think his birth was the happiest day in all Abraham’s life , he is Abraham’s first born ,It won't greatly aflect Abraham if he would lose Hagar,Sarah,his wealth,himself, but not such long awaited most precious gift …..

2-Abraham should have known nothing to get him guess what kind of divine reaction during the issue, neither getting any clue that the child will be saved…


The bible fells short considering such crucial points:
1-Instead of choosing the proper material(Ismael) for such divine test ,would rather put Isaac instead, while common sense would suggest that such divine test should have been made before the birth of Isaac …
What is the rationale that God would postpone such test till Abraham get another child……

Which is more proper,harder?:
God to Abraham:
1- Abraham go and sacrifice your only ,long awaited son whom you had at your old age .
2- Abraham go sacrifice one of your sons, the second not the first born.



To get the matter worse, According to the bible ,Abraham had clues that he is not gonna lose his child…
Eg; Abraham had been assured by God that “Your seed will be called through Isaac” (Gen. 21:12)
Abraham was promised before the test that Isaac will have a seed and nation…… a clue for Abraham to guess the matter,making the test less hard..
Before he went to the location of the sacrifice he said Genesis 22:5, where Abraham said to his servants, "You stay here with the ass. The boy and I will go up there; we will worship and we will return to you."
A hint that Abraham guessed Isaac won’t be sacrifieced and would trun back with him !.....
In sum the bible fails to provide a satisfactory picture of a divine test as it should have been,unlike the Quran and its picture which seems more convincing….


What is the meaning and significance to such test?

till P.2

peace

[جوري]

offtopic, waste of space has been skipped!

Ah, it doesn't take very long even for those who have been on the forum for a brief while to spot B.S I guess!

[Al-manar]

The Quran and the child of the sacrifice:

The issue shouldn't be a point of contention for muslims, as it's not the point of the story(more later in this point)...

however for curiosity let's give the irrefutable clue of the sacrifice as being Ismael:

just let's read a Quranic passage that have the answer:

Holy Quran
[37:83] Among his followers was Abraham.
[37:84] He came to his Lord wholeheartedly.
[37:85] He said to his father and his people, "What are you worshipping?
[37:86] "Is it these fabricated gods, instead of GOD, that you want?
[37:87] "What do you think of the Lord of the universe?"
[37:88] He looked carefully at the stars.
[37:89] Then he gave up and said, "I am tired of this!"
[37:90] They turned away from him.
[37:91] He then turned on their idols, saying, "Would you like to eat?
[37:92] "Why do you not speak?"
[37:93] He then destroyed them.
[37:94] They went to him in a great rage.
[37:95] He said, "How can you worship what you carve?
[37:96] "When GOD has created you, and everything you make!"
[37:97] They said, "Let us build a great fire, and throw him into it."
[37:98] They schemed against him, but we made them the losers.
[37:99] He said, "I am going to my Lord; He will guide me."
[37:100] "My Lord, grant me righteous children."
[037:101] So We gave him the good news of a boy, possessing forbearance.
[037:102] And when (his son) was old enough to walk with him, (Abraham) said: O my dear son, I have seen in a dream that I must sacrifice thee. So look, what thinkest thou ? He said: O my father! Do that which thou art commanded. Allah willing, thou shalt find me of the steadfast.
[37:103] They both submitted, and he put his forehead down (to sacrifice him).
[37:104] We called him: "O Abraham.
[37:105] "You have believed the dream." We thus reward the righteous.
[37:106] That was an exacting test indeed.
[37:107] We ransomed (Ismail) by substituting an animal sacrifice.
[37:108] And we preserved his history for subsequent generations.
[37:109] Peace be upon Abraham.
[37:110] We thus reward the righteous.
[37:111] He is one of our believing servants.
[37:112] Then we gave him the good news about the birth of Isaac, to be one of the righteous prophets.
[37:113] We blessed him and Isaac. Among their descendants, some are righteous, and some are wicked transgressors.


Not only the passage, suggests two distinct good news but makes the good news of the child mentioned in verse 101 specific for Ismael even if it doesn’t mention his name…
Read the context again :

[37:97] They said, "Let us build a great fire, and throw him into it."
[37:98] They schemed against him, but we made them the losers.
[37:99] He said, "I am going to my Lord; He will guide me."
[37:100] "My Lord, grant me righteous children."
[037:101] So We gave him the good news of a boy, possessing forbearance.

According to the context :

Abraham was saved from the pagan fire and abandoned those pagan people, he moved to begin new life,prayed for God to have righteous seed, and was given un-named son that was described as a forbearing son.
Now we should pause and think….. if this un-named child is the same child who will be mentioned in verse 112 (Isaac) then we suggest that Isaac was born before Ismael ,hence suggesting that the Quran would contradict the bible ,claiming Isaac to be older than Ismael !!
But why not?!

[014:039] "Praise be to God, Who hath granted unto me in old age Isma'il and Isaac: for truly my Lord is He, the Hearer of Prayer!
Note, (1)Ismael (2) Isaac

[002:133] Were ye witnesses when death appeared before Jacob? Behold, he said to his sons: "What will ye worship after me?" They said: "We shall worship Thy God and the God of thy fathers, of Abraham, Isma'il and Isaac,- the one (True) God: To Him we bow (in Islam)."

(1)Abraham (2)Ismael (3)Isaac

So for those who suggests the two good news as mere a repetition to the same issue then I invite them to explain how could Isaac be the first son to Abraham !!!

Till Part.3

peace

[جوري]

sob7an Allah, how many 'Muslim impersonators' do we have on board.. believe me drawing parallels between the Quran and the bible or alleging that the Jesus worshipers are monotheists will not generate the sort of awe and wonderment you perceive with hordes going back to embrace the dark ages of Christianity.. it only serves to expose you faster may I suggest you find another way about your evangelizing?

all the best

[Hugo]

The Biblical story of Abraham covers about 7 or 8 chapters of Genesis. The story is simply told and began when Abraham heard God's call when he was living in Ur (near Basra in Iraq). Ur was at the time the centre of the Chaldean civilization but Abraham left it to wander in the Land of Israel which at that time was largely populated by nomads. So it was a great act of faith to give up being part of a glittering civilization and follow God. One might add that there is almost nothing inn the Genesis account that allows us to date these events with certainty but there seems general agreement that they occurred some 4,500 years ago.

Genesis 15 (NIV) 2. But Abram said, "O Sovereign LORD, what can you give me since I remain childless and the one who will inherit my estate is Eliezer of Damascus?" 3. And Abram said, "You have given me no children; so a servant in my household will be my heir." 4. Then the word of the LORD came to him: "This man will not be your heir, but a son coming from your own body will be your heir." 5 He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars—if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be." 6. Abram believed the LORD, and he credited it to him as righteousness. 7. He also said to him, "I am the LORD, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to take possession of it."

After about 10 years with no sign of offspring Sarah Abraham wife urged him to take her slave Hagar who she later treated very badly.

15 So Hagar bore Abram a son, and Abram gave the name Ishmael to the son she had borne. 16 Abram was eighty-six years old when Hagar bore him Ishmael.

The story more or less jumps 10 years so we read

15 God also said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you are no longer to call her Sarai; her name will be Sarah. 16 I will bless her and will surely give you a son by her. I will bless her so that she will be the mother of nations; kings of peoples will come from her."

This I think makes it clear that Isaac is the son of the promise though not first born. Later we have the sad story of Sarah viciously driving out Hagar and Ishmael and although Abraham it seems would have intervened, God held him back but promised a heritage for Ishmael. Ishmael then more or less disappears from the narrative and the story continues with Isaac and then the rest of Genesis, some 25 chapters, is taken up with the story of Jacob.

One might argue that the text has been redacted but if so it would have had to happen about a 1,000 years before Islam began since we have manuscripts going back a very long way. I don't doubt that they were edited much like any book, it has to be assembled but I cannot see why anyone would alter this story to favour Isaac over Ishmael and to me it has all the hall marks or truth.

[جوري]

The story of Abraham, Ishmael and Hagar (May the mercy and blessings of Allah be on them all) is found in the Bible, much skewed and corrupted from the pure Islamic version. The reason this is so is because the book of Genesis, undoubtedly written by some Jewish Rabbi of the past would certainly be biased in his understanding of history between the two forefathers. There would be in him, whoever he was, the desire to paint his own ancestry, that is the seed of Isaac, in the brightest of colors, whereby either purposely or inadvertently condemning the rival (I.e. Ishmael) as the negative end of the spectrum. In other words, a Jew most certainly wrote Genesis, so Isaac, the father of the Jews and Abraham’s son, is presented in this blessed light, and Ishmael, the father of the Arabs is whereby presented in somewhat dark euphemisms, and foisted on him is the subtle racism and condescending attitude of the author.
This being said, it is evident that my own assumptions are true, because of the many gaps and inconsistencies which are clues left to us by the True and Almighty God in the Biblical account, which point us in the direction of the truth (I.E. of the Islamic version.)

1. Abraham (saas) was told by God that a Great Nation would come from him. (Genesis 12:2-3)

2. Sarah, Abraham’s wife doesn’t bear children at first. (Genesis 16:1)

3. Sarah whereby allowed Abraham to MARRY Hagar (Genesis 16:3) -This defeats the evangelical claim that Ishmael was illegitamite. Hagar conceives Ishmael. (genesis 16:4)

4. Later Sarah has Isaac. (Genesis 21:2)

So far so good. The story here is quite clear. A Prophecy for a great nation was said to come from Abraham. After Sarah seemingly cannot conceive, Hagar becomes Abraham’s second wife and conceives Ishmael. Later Sarah actually does conceive and has Isaac.

Biblical points which hold true to the Islamic perception of Ishmael and the pure lineage of Muhammad (saas):

1. Ishmael was Abraham’s first son. (Genesis 16:4)

2. God said that Hagar’s seed would be multiplied exceedingly. (Genesis 16:10)

3. God said Ishmael was blessed! (Genesis 17:20)

4. Ishmael is clearly called ‘Abraham’s seed’ by God. (Genesis 21:13)

4. God repeats His promise to make Ishmael a great nation FIVE TIMES! (Genesis 15:4) (Genesis 16:10) (Genesis 17:20) (Genesis 21:13) (Genesis 21:18)


From here the Islamic version and the Biblical account part ways. The Muslim holds that it was in fact Ishmael who had the covenant and not Isaac, whereas the bible states the opposite. The Muslim holds that it was Ishmael who was to be sacrificed and not Isaac, and again, the Bible states the opposite. The Muslim version states that both Isaac and Ishmael were pure blameless children of Abraham, both revered, whereas in the Biblical account, Isaac is revered and Ishmael is seen as a mean-spirited outcast. Let us review the shameful and undoubtedly corrupted view of Ishmael in the Bible:

1. Ishmael is called a ‘wild donkey of a man’: (Genesis 16:12)
2. Ishmael and his descendants are going to be known as troublemakers (Genesis 16:12)
3. Ishmael is considered illegitamite (This is a Christian claim which no Bible verse supports.)
4. Ishmael makes fun of Isaac and teases him: (Genesis 21:9)
5. Ishmael and his mother are cast out from Abrahams’ family (Genesis 21:10)

Now let us lay these preposterous and slanderous claims to rest.

Ishmael a wild donkey of a man?

This is where it becomes evident that the prejudice of the author seeps through. The Christian must remember that the Islamic view of the Bible is that it is corrupted, and history attests this, especially that of the Old Testament. God himself attests this in the Old Testament, saying, "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie.” (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8) -So it is admitted within the Bible itself, that the Old Testament is corrupted. No independent scholar accepts the preposterous view that the first 5 books of the Bible were written by Moses as evangelicals claim. This indeed would be quite impossible because otherwise Moses refers to himself in the third person and even writes about his own death and the month that follows it.
Therefore, if the Islamic view of the Bible is that it is corrupted (Not wrong, but not always right either) then it is very well possible, from this viewpoint that the entire story of Ishmael and Isaac is skewed, handled malisciously from the pen of some overzealous rabbi who could not ignore fully his own prejudice and wishes, but yet also could not ignore fully the facts of history, being that both Ishmael and Isaac were blessed, revered and of highly esteemed moral character. Starting from this point we can see through the authors slanders and see to the truth, and that is that this particular verse, that is the verse of Ishmael being a ‘wild donkey’ of a man is an overly obvious forgery, and opinion of whoever the mildly racist author of this book is. –And his intent is quite clear. He wants to prove that the lineage of the Jews is pure, and that no non-jew could ever partake in the pure lineage of Abraham. This is undoubtedly the authors intention, because he goes to great lengths to ‘prove’ it. Consider the ‘all-to-convenient’ verbiage of Sarah as interjected by the author: “Wherefore she said to Abraham, ‘Cast out this bondwoman and her son: For the son of a bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.’” (21:10).
As to the authors intention to show that the blood and lineage of the Jewish people is untainted, consider the fact that according to the Bible, Abraham and Sarah were brother and Sister! (Genesis 20:12.) This same author is the one who insulted the Prophet Lot by saying he had an incestuous drunken relationship with his two daughters, (Genesis 19:36) And Jacob was married to two sisters at the same time: (Genesis 29:28). The intention is clear, that the author of Genesis is either a pervert obsessed with incest, or he slanders honorable prophets with false stories of Incest in order to show that the blood of Isaac and his descendants (The Jews) is pure. It is for this reason the author feels the need to slander Ishmael and foist on him the false story of being ‘cast out’ of the family of Abraham. –It is also clearly, based on the evidence, a big lie. Ishmael was not a wild donkey of a man, but the author of Genesis sure was!

Ishmael and his descendants will ‘be against all men?’

The Bible says of Ishmael: “…his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.” (Genesis 16:12)

In recent times this is probably the most oft-repeated verse against Ishmael and the Muslims used by Christians to prove a plethora of points. All one needs to do is point to the news to see that seemingly Ishmael’s seed truly is ‘against all men’ and ‘all men are against him.’ It is, to them, proof positive that the Bible is the word of God.
But there is a problem with this theory, and that is quite simply that only recently could this be applied. It wasn’t until the decline of the Ottomon Empire in the 1700’s that the Islamic world experienced a regression leading to a downward spiral of corruption, hopelessness, and violence.
One need not point out the fact that the oldest and indeed one of the first colleges on earth was founded by Muslims and is still on the earth today (Al-Azhar.) It is evident that whilst Europe was sunk in the dark ages, the civilized Muslims revived the learning of Aristotle and Plato, who otherwise would have been forgotten. There was a time when Baghdad, for example, was called, ‘The greatest city on earth.’ -And this title was given it by European scholars. Was it because the Arabs of Baghdad were mindless killers against all men? Of course not! It was because they were civilized learners who enjoyed a thriving economy! In fact, it was the Muslims who saved the Christians in their lands from the conquests of invaders, and it was the Turkish Muslims who later protected the Jews who fled persecution from Spain. Was it not the Muslim Salahaddin who granted all Christians in Jerusalem amnesty despite that fact that when Muslims were run out of Jerusalem years earlier the Christians boiled Muslim children alive in pots?
So there is well over a thousand years of the Muslim empire (now known as the Golden age of Islam) in which this whimsical sentence in the Bible was utterly false, and any attempt to apply it to Muslims would be deemed laughable by even the Christians! So what is more logical? To say this verse is true, when it has only been true for the past 100 years at best, which represents not even a glimmer in the existence of Islam, or to say that this is the interjection of some ancient Jew who had, as seen above, his own wicked intentions?

Ishmael is considered illegitimite?

This one I really don’t get. The Bible clearly states that Hagar and Abraham were married. (Genesis 16:3) Abraham is also spoken of in highly respected terms in the Bible? How is it that this highly respected Prophet had a child with a woman whom he was married to, and by the logic of some evangelicals this = illigetamite?
Of course not! So how can this be deemed an instance with which to judge Ishmael and say he was therefore excluded from the covenant? Based on what we have seen so far, we need not even address the last two biblical accounts of Ishmael teasing Isaac and whereby being cast out, as this is another obvious forgery by the baised author, whoever he was.

The Bible Had Ishmael and Isaac Confused!

The most common question to be asked by the Christian then is, how can the Muslims believe that Ishmael was to be sacrificed and not Isaac, and that Ishmael got the covenant, when the Bible clearly states otherwise? Well, not to beat a dead horse, but the Muslim view of the Bible is that it is corrupted. So automatically, any story which contradicts Islamic teachings we view with skepticism. As seen already, the author of Genesis, where we find the account of Ishmael and Isaac, is also extremely baised. These facts alone are a red flag to the logical thinkers that just to accept this story as 100% authentic as it is presented in the Bible would be a great error.
With that being said, let us examine the story in the Bible again, and show that the author made some grave errors in his writing which proves that Ishmael and Isaac were confused:

The Bible states that Abraham was 99 years old when Ishmael was circumcised. Ishmael was 13 at the time. (Genesis 17:24-27)

Exactly one year later Isaac is born. (Genesis 21:4-5) So if Abraham was 99 when Ishmael was circumcised a year earlier, that would mean when Isaac is born, he is 100 years old, and Ishmael is 14.

Then comes the story of the sacrifice in the Bible: In Genesis 22, God tells Abraham to take ‘Thine ONLY son Isaac…’ -WHAT? Ishmael is 14 at the time? Why does the Bible refer to Isaac as Abrahams ONLY son? Many Christians will say that this is because God here is making it clear that Isaac is the only heir to the covenant, and that is why God refers to Isaac as ‘The ONLY son..’ but God clearly calls Ishmael the seed of Abraham according to Genesis 21:13, so such conclusions are impossible. The only conclusion is that the author of Genesis had Ishmael and Isaac confused.

Consider when Ishmael is cast out with Hagar into the desert in Genesis 21. What are the descriptions of Ishmael? Pay close attention to the following descriptions:

A. Ishmael is tucked under shrubs (Genesis 21:15)
B. He is called a ‘lad’ (Genesis 21:18, 20)
C. Hagar holds Ishmael in ONE HAND (Genesis 21:18)

Clearly the author is referring to an infant. But Ishmael is 14 at the time, how would he be tucked under shrubs and held in one hand of a weak woman who was dying of thirst? Why is he called a lad? Would this not more aptly apply to the infant Isaac who was only a year old and not to Ishmael who is a teenager?

[جوري]

Hagar was an Egyptian princess and a daughter of the pharaoh:

The Rabbis present Hagar, Sarah’s Egyptian handmaiden, as an Egyptian princess whom Pharaoh king of Egypt gave to Sarah as a gift. She grew up in the home of Abraham and Sarah, and converted. Sarah initially had to persuade Hagar to marry Abraham (to compensate for her own barrenness), but Hagar quickly became accustomed to her new status, taking advantage of it in order to vex Sarah and disparage her in the eyes of others. The midrash tells that Abraham grew close to Hagar and ceased viewing her as a handmaiden. He heeded his wife as regards Hagar, but he also took care not to harm the latter. Sarah, in contrast, treated her handmaiden harshly and abused her in various ways, causing her to flee to the wilderness


http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/...sh-and-aggadah

According to both Midrash and the Koran, Hagar had been an Egyptian princess, and
Sarai was a Babylonian princess. They were then both slaves in foreign lands, forced to
have relations with other men

http://www.shaarzahav.org/sites/defa...h5768_Dorf.pdf


Hagar, the maid, had been given to her ten years earlier while they were in Egypt (Gen. 12). While the Bible says nothing of Hagar's pedigree, the book of Jasher tells us that she was the daughter of Pharaoh himself. Pharaoh gave his daughter to Sarai as restitution for taking her into his harem.

http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.o...cfm?LogID=1941

thus one wonders once again why your bible is so inconsistent with other recorded history? And which parts of it should we deem credible and which a farce?

all the best

[Hugo]

The Quran and the child of the sacrifice: The issue shouldn't be a point of contention for muslims, as it's not the point of the story(more later in this point)...
however for curiosity let's give the irrefutable clue of the sacrifice as being Ismael: just let's read a Quranic passage that have the answer:
Holy Quran
[37:83] Among his followers was Abraham.
[37:84] He came to his Lord wholeheartedly.
[37:85] He said to his father and his people, "What are you worshipping?
[37:86] "Is it these fabricated gods, instead of GOD, that you want?
[37:87] "What do you think of the Lord of the universe?"
[37:88] He looked carefully at the stars.
[37:89] Then he gave up and said, "I am tired of this!"
[37:90] They turned away from him.
[37:91] He then turned on their idols, saying, "Would you like to eat?
[37:92] "Why do you not speak?"
[37:93] He then destroyed them.
[37:94] They went to him in a great rage.
[37:95] He said, "How can you worship what you carve?
[37:96] "When GOD has created you, and everything you make!"
[37:97] They said, "Let us build a great fire, and throw him into it."
[37:98] They schemed against him, but we made them the losers.
[37:99] He said, "I am going to my Lord; He will guide me."
[37:100] "My Lord, grant me righteous children."
[037:101] So We gave him the good news of a boy, possessing forbearance.
[037:102] And when (his son) was old enough to walk with him, (Abraham) said: O my dear son, I have seen in a dream that I must sacrifice thee. So look, what thinkest thou ? He said: O my father! Do that which thou art commanded. Allah willing, thou shalt find me of the steadfast.
[37:103] They both submitted, and he put his forehead down (to sacrifice him).
[37:104] We called him: "O Abraham.
[37:105] "You have believed the dream." We thus reward the righteous.
[37:106] That was an exacting test indeed.
[37:107] We ransomed (Ismail) by substituting an animal sacrifice.
[37:108] And we preserved his history for subsequent generations.
[37:109] Peace be upon Abraham.
[37:110] We thus reward the righteous.
[37:111] He is one of our believing servants.
[37:112] Then we gave him the good news about the birth of Isaac, to be one of the righteous prophets.
[37:113] We blessed him and Isaac. Among their descendants, some are righteous, and some are wicked transgressors.
Not only the passage, suggests two distinct good news but makes the good news of the child mentioned in verse 101 specific for Ismael even if it doesn’t mention his name…
Read the context again :

[37:97] They said, "Let us build a great fire, and throw him into it."
[37:98] They schemed against him, but we made them the losers.
[37:99] He said, "I am going to my Lord; He will guide me."
[37:100] "My Lord, grant me righteous children."
[037:101] So We gave him the good news of a boy, possessing forbearance.

According to the context : Abraham was saved from the pagan fire and abandoned those pagan people, he moved to begin new life,prayed for God to have righteous seed, and was given un-named son that was described as a forbearing son. Now we should pause and think….. if this un-named child is the same child who will be mentioned in verse 112 (Isaac) then we suggest that Isaac was born before Ismael ,hence suggesting that the Quran would contradict the bible ,claiming Isaac to be older than Ismael !!
But why not?! [014:039] "Praise be to God, Who hath granted unto me in old age Isma'il and Isaac: for truly my Lord is He, the Hearer of Prayer!
Note, (1)Ismael (2) Isaac [002:133] Were ye witnesses when death appeared before Jacob? Behold, he said to his sons: "What will ye worship after me?" They said: "We shall worship Thy God and the God of thy fathers, of Abraham, Isma'il and Isaac,- the one (True) God: To Him we bow (in Islam)."
(1)Abraham (2)Ismael (3)Isaac
So for those who suggests the two good news as mere a repetition to the same issue then I invite them to explain how could Isaac be the first son to Abraham !!!
Till Part.3
peace

Just like to point out the 67% of the post is copied from 3 websites the most prominent being multicom.ba

[جوري]

Just like to point out the 67% of the post is copied from 3 websites the most prominent being multicom.ba

actually it is 70% from the Quran.. you should work on your statistics as well!

all the best

[Hugo]

actually it is 70% from the Quran.. you should work on your statistics as well!

all the best

but not all in the same place is it, and what was copied in it entirety is from the place I stated. People may copy all thy want but in fairness they should tell us where it comes from and we can then judge as to its quality - do you see it differently, that anything goes?

[جوري]

but not all in the same place is it, and what was copied in it entirety is from the place I stated. People may copy all thy want but in fairness they should tell us where it comes from and we can then judge as to its quality - do you see it differently, that anything goes?

No, I don't think it matters any, especially with your tendencies to exaggerate as I have demonstrated above with your faulty stats and frankly that is very telling about the 'quality' that you present!

all the best

[Hugo]

]The story of Abraham, Ishmael and Hagar is found in the Bible, much skewed and corrupted from the pure Islamic version. The reason this is so is because the book of Genesis, undoubtedly written by some Jewish Rabbi of the past would certainly be biased in his understanding of history between the two forefathers.

This claim can be substantiated, you know who this rabbi is? If this is the scholarly way Islamic belief is structured with innuendo then it is of little worth.

4. God repeats His promise to make Ishmael a great nation FIVE TIMES! (Genesis 15:4) (Genesis 16:10) (Genesis 17:20) (Genesis 21:13) (Genesis 21:18)

This is not totally correct, Gen 15:4 was addressed to Abraham and may refer to both sons.

From here the Islamic version and the Biblical account part ways. The Muslim holds that it was in fact Ishmael who had the covenant and not Isaac, whereas the bible states the opposite.

What is worrying here is that in the post there is not a single reference to an Islamic source and for all we know the writer is just inventing his propositions. Clearly the Bible account is of much greater antiquity and pre-dates any Islamic account by at least a 1,000 years in terms of manuscript evidence. What is also worrying here is that we have an author who claims wholesale Biblical corruption and yet uses the same Bible to supposedly prove his points. For example he quotes Jeremiah to show that the Bible itself admits corruption but to do that we have to assume that Jeremiah itself is NOT corrupted so we have a circular and valueless argument.

No independent scholar accepts the preposterous view that the first 5 books of the Bible were written by Moses as evangelicals claim.

Not sure what point you are making as what evangelical claim is neither here nor there. Does for example, the Bible claim this? One might say here in a similar argument that the view that the Qu'ran is written by God is preposterous since no material evidence to that supposed fact is possible

It is very well possible, from this viewpoint that the entire story of Ishmael and Isaac is skewed, handled maliciously from the pen of some overzealous rabbi who could not ignore fully his own prejudice and wishes, but yet also could not ignore fully the facts of history, being that both Ishmael and Isaac were blessed, revered and of highly esteemed moral character.

Of course its is possible but is it credible and there is not a shred of evidence. One might also point out what possible motive would anyone have for corrupting the text in this way which lets face it shows Abraham as weak and vacillating and Sarah as vindictive. If it did occur why is there no sign of this corruption, surely a bit of it would have survived but there is nothing.

No non-jew could ever partake in the pure lineage of Abraham.

This is just nonsense and there are numerous cases of non-Jews in the linages - look at Rahab and Ruth for instance

As to the authors intention to show that the blood and lineage of the Jewish people is untainted, consider the fact that according to the Bible, Abraham and Sarah were brother and Sister! (Genesis 20:12.)

I cannot quite see this argument and in any case it overstates the case, it is true they were brother and sister by different parents but the Bible does not hide any of this does it

The intention is clear, that the author of Genesis is either a pervert obsessed with incest, or he slanders honorable prophets with false stories of Incest in order to show that the blood of Isaac and his descendants (The Jews) is pure.

Or of course he is simply telling the truth - I ask you again what possible motive can there be to vilify ones own prophets and ancestry if it is not the truth - it does not make sense

It is also clearly, based on the evidence, a big lie. Ishmael was not a wild donkey of a man, but the author of Genesis sure was

What EVIDENCE, so far all that has been offered is Biblical texts and opinion. Some of the argument here are crazy:

How can a verses about Ishmael be proof positive that the Bible is the Word of God. He then wanders into a rose tinted view of Muslim history again without a single clear reference to anything and how it links to the Biblical narrative I have no idea. Then we have an argument about a claim that Ishmael is illegitimate though the Bible record is plain, does the Bible say Ishmael is illegitimate - this author it seems does not know. The Bible is clear, Isaac was the son of the promise and the covenant would see its fulfilment trough his lineage and that is indeed what happened and of that there is no doubt. The idea that Ishmael and Isaac have been confused is silly since we have all of Jews History to look back on.

.. the Muslim view of the Bible is that it is corrupted. So automatically, any story which contradicts Islamic teachings we view with skepticism. As seen already, the author of Genesis, where we find the account of Ishmael and Isaac, is also extremely baised. These facts alone are a red flag to the logical thinkers that just to accept this story as 100% authentic as it is presented in the Bible would be a great error.

But what is the source of these Islamic teaching and lets face it the whole arguments is based on wholes sale corruption but without a single bit of evidence to support it.

The Bible states that Abraham was 99 years old when Ishmael was circumcised. Ishmael was 13 at the time. (Genesis 17:24-27). Exactly one year later Isaac is born. (Genesis 21:4-5) So if Abraham was 99 when Ishmael was circumcised a year earlier, that would mean when Isaac is born, he is 100 years old, and Ishmael is 14.

Not sure what this is saying unless it muddles up Abraham's age with Isaac's.

Then comes the story of the sacrifice in the Bible: In Genesis 22, God tells Abraham to take ‘Thine ONLY son Isaac…’ -WHAT? Ishmael is 14 at the time? Why does the Bible refer to Isaac as Abraham's ONLY son?

Ishmael had been banished by this time and we don't know the time line here because the Bible just say "sometime later.." so its seem correct to say 'only son'

Consider when Ishmael is cast out with Hagar into the desert in Genesis 21. What are the descriptions of Ishmael? Pay close attention to the following descriptions: A. Ishmael is tucked under shrubs (Genesis 21:15). B. He is called a ‘lad’ (Genesis 21:18, 20) and C. Hagar holds Ishmael in ONE HAND (Genesis 21:18). Clearly the author is referring to an infant. But Ishmael is 14 at the time, how would he be tucked under shrubs and held in one hand of a weak woman who was dying of thirst? Why is he called a lad? Would this not more aptly apply to the infant Isaac who was only a year old and not to Ishmael who is a teenager?

This is a weak argument, we are told the 'boy' is put under a bush, shrub (not all shrubs are tiny) so nothing startling there. Later we are told she supported him with her hand so again nothing to draw any conclusions about his age and there seem nothing even remotely strange about calling a 14 year old a 'lad'. So this posting is nothing but conjecture based on a biased view and wanting to see only what one wants to prop up an Islamic position and as I have said repeatedly, not a single Islamic source has been cited.

[Ramadhan]

Just like to point out the 67% of the post is copied from 3 websites the most prominent being multicom.ba

As this is your only response, may I safely conclude you agree with the content of the post?

[Hugo]

As this is your only response, may I safely conclude you agree with the content of the post?

I advise you to read my posts and see where I have responded in full, there you will find agreement, disagreement and comment.

[Hugo]

No, I don't think it matters any, especially with your tendencies to exaggerate as I have demonstrated above with your faulty stats and frankly that is very telling about the 'quality' that you present!

Fine, that is how you feel, research and a scholarly approach with careful referencing is of no concern to you, it does not matter. I hope others do not have that attitude and it is certainly NOT the attitude of either Western or Muslim scholars.

[Al-manar]

what was copied in it entirety is from the place I stated.

you are really,poor

that is my comment in the verses which wasn't copied from any site..

I challenge you to prove that my comments on the verses was a copy and paste quotation

According to the context :

Abraham was saved from the pagan fire and abandoned those pagan people, he moved to begin new life,prayed for God to have righteous seed, and was given un-named son that was described as a forbearing son.
Now we should pause and think….. if this un-named child is the same child who will be mentioned in verse 112 (Isaac) then we suggest that Isaac was born before Ismael ,hence suggesting that the Quran would contradict the bible ,claiming Isaac to be older than Ismael !!
But why not?!

[014:039] "Praise be to God, Who hath granted unto me in old age Isma'il and Isaac: for truly my Lord is He, the Hearer of Prayer!
Note, (1)Ismael (2) Isaac

[002:133] Were ye witnesses when death appeared before Jacob? Behold, he said to his sons: "What will ye worship after me?" They said: "We shall worship Thy God and the God of thy fathers, of Abraham, Isma'il and Isaac,- the one (True) God: To Him we bow (in Islam)."

(1)Abraham (2)Ismael (3)Isaac

So for those who suggests the two good news as mere a repetition to the same issue then I invite them to explain how could Isaac be the first son to Abraham !!!

[جوري]

This claim can be substantiated, you know who this rabbi is? If this is the scholarly way Islamic belief is structured with innuendo then it is of little worth.
This is not totally correct, Gen 15:4 was addressed to Abraham and may refer to both sons.

The claim can be substantiated and has been, we are merely working with biblical content of contradiction, we haven't gone into historical worth!

What is worrying here is that in the post there is not a single reference to an Islamic source and for all we know the writer is just inventing his propositions. Clearly the Bible account is of much greater antiquity and pre-dates any Islamic account by at least a 1,000 years in terms of manuscript evidence.

Age of manuscript doesn't denote accuracy of manuscript. It is in fact christian scholars and not Muslim ones that contend that your 'original' bible if such a thing has ever been is now lost. The content that we have to work with is filled with contradiction. Other sources whether religious or historical have more weightiness than forgeries of old!

What is also worrying here is that we have an author who claims wholesale Biblical corruption and yet uses the same Bible to supposedly prove his points. For example he quotes Jeremiah to show that the Bible itself admits corruption but to do that we have to assume that Jeremiah itself is NOT corrupted so we have a circular and valueless argument.

That is in fact the whole point, bringing an argument from Islamic text is sure to be met with your usual barrage of protest.. what better source than the bible itself, corrupt and exposes itself as erroneous at the same time!

Not sure what point you are making as what evangelical claim is neither here nor there. Does for example, the Bible claim this?

I don't understand the grammar of the above!

One might say here in a similar argument that the view that the Qu'ran is written by God is preposterous since no material evidence to that supposed fact is possible Of course its is possible but is it credible and there is not a shred of evidence.

One might say indeed, but can you prove it? the evidence for Quranic material is well established against other literature, against itself and against independent historical sources. Not the case with the bible, not in agreement with itself, not in agreement with common sense, and not in agreement with history. If you'd like to start a thread on the corruption of the bible vs. the Quran pls do so on a separate thread in keeping with the integrity of this, there is more to the term evidence than your protests and mere hearsay!

One might also point out what possible motive would anyone have for corrupting the text in this way which lets face it shows Abraham as weak and vacillating and Sarah as vindictive. If it did occur why is there no sign of this corruption, surely a bit of it would have survived but there is nothing. This is just nonsense and there are numerous cases of non-Jews in the linages - look at Rahab and Ruth for instance

Most of us remember Ishmael in Genesis by the comment, he shall be “a wild-ass of a man” and some consider him to be somehow illegitimate.

Let us clear up these misconceptions. For sources we’ll use The Stone Edition Chumash The Torah, Haftaros and Five Megillos with A Commentary Anthologized From The Rabbinic Writings by Mesorah Publishing as well as the Artscroll Tanach Series Bereishsis/ Genesis A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologized From Talmudic, Midrashic and Rabbinic Sources Translation and commentary by Rabbi Meir Zlotowitz with Overviews by Rabbi Nosson Scherman and a Foreword by HaGoan HaRav Mordechai Gifter, published by Mesorah Publication Ltd, hereafter referred to as the Chumash or Bereishsis/ Genesis respectively.

From the Chumash we read 16:3, So Sarai, Abram’s wife, took Hagar the Egyptian, her maidservant – after 10 years of Abram’s dwelling in the Land of Canaan – and gave her to Abram her husband, to him as a wife. He consorted with Hagar and she conceived; and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was lowered in her esteem.

16 The Birth of Ishmael. Despite their spiritual riches and Godly assurances, Abraham and Sarah were still heartbroken at their barrenness, for without heirs they would not be able to continue the mission of Bringing God’s teaching to mankind. Recognizing that it was she who was infertile, Sarah suggested that Abraham marry her maidservant Hagar, and, if a son were born, Sarah would raise him, so that he would be considered her adopted child.

Hagar was a daughter of Pharaoh. After seeing the miracles that were brought on Sarah’s behalf when she was abducted and taken to his palace, he gave her to Hagar, saying, “Better that she be a servant in their house, than a princess in someone else’s.” So it was that Hagar, an Egyptian princess, became Abraham’s wife and bore him Ishmael.

In the notes to verse 4 – Her mistress was lowered. Hagar brazenly boasted to the ladies, “Since so many years have passed without Sarai having children, she cannot be as righteous as she seems. But I conceived immediately!” (Rashi). Now that Hagar had assured Abraham’s posterity, she no longer felt subservient to Sarah (Radak).

A few notes about Sarah and Hagar from verses 6 – 8:
Verse 6 “your maidservant is in your hand; do to her as you see fit.” To me she is a wife; and I have no right to treat her unkindly. But to you she is a servant; if she mistreats you, do what you feel is right. (Radak; Haamek Davar). Sarah’s intent was not malicious, but to force Hagar to cease from her insulting demeanor. But instead of acknowledging Sarah’s superior position, Hagar fled (Arbarbanel; Sforno).

Rabbi Aryeh Levin noted that it is congruous to believe that a woman as righteous as Sarah would persecute another human being out of personal pique. Rather, Sarah treated Hagar as she always had, but in the light of Hagar’s newly inflated self-image, she took it as persecution.

We’ll leave the issue of Hagar for the moment except to pause to list the prophecies about Ishmael AT THIS TIME:

V10 And an Angel of Hashem said to her, “I will greatly increase your offspring, and they will not be counted for abundance.”
V 11 And an Angel of Hashem said to her, “Behold, you will conceive, and give birth to a son; his name shall be Ishmael, for Hashem has heard your prayer. And he shall be a wild-ass of a man; his hand against everyone, and everyone’s hand against him; and over all his brothers shall he dwell.”
The prophecy in verse 10 sounds VERY familiar to ones about Abraham’s’ descendants, while verse 11 gives us our other prophecy. We will return to Hagar later, Insha’ Allah.


Let us return to matter relating to Israel’s uncle Ishmael. In chapter 17, Chumash, God is speaking to Abraham about their covenant and promising a son through Sarah, Abraham interrupts God:
v18 And Abraham said to God, “Oh that Ishmael might live before You!” God said, “Nonetheless, your wife Sarah will bear you a son and you shall call his name Isaac…v 20 But regarding Ishmael I have heard you; I have blessed him, will make him fruitful, and will increase him most exceedingly; he will beget twelve princes and I will make him into a great nation…”

Part of the notes for this verse read: “We see from the prophecy in this verse, that 2337 years elapsed before the Arabs, Ishmael’s descendants, became a great nation [with the rise of Islam in the 7th Century C.E.]…Throughout this period, Ishmael hoped anxiously, until the promise was fulfilled and they dominated the world. We the descendants of Isaac, for whom the fulfillment of the promises made to us is delayed due to our sins…should surely anticipate the fulfillment of God’s promises and not despair” (R’ Bachya citing R’ Chananel).

Bereishsis/ Genesis adds: R’ Bachya cites R’ Chananel’s comment on this verse: We see from this prophecy [in the year 2047 from Creation, when Abraham was ninety-nine], 2337 years elapsed before the Arabs, Ishmael’s descendants, became a great nation. [This would correspond to 624 C.E, two years after the H(ijra)!…] to be honest, I totally missed the hijra comment the first time I read this because I wasn’t a Muslim and I didn’t know what they meant by hegira! But we do have one prophecy that at least according to the Jews, puts Islam as an Old Testament prophecy!


I got lazy and copied this from the Jewish Publication Society, the first half of Genesis chapter 25:

1 And Abraham took another wife, and her name was Keturah.

2 And she bore him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah

3 And Jokshan begot Sheba, and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were Asshurim, and Letushim, and Leummim.

4 And the sons of Midian: Ephah, and Epher, and Hanoch, and Abida, and Eldaah. All these were the children of Keturah.

5 And Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac.

6 But unto the sons of the concubines, that Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts; and he sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country.

7 And these are the days of the years of Abraham's life which he lived, a hundred threescore and fifteen years

8 And Abraham expired, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people.

9 And Isaac and Ishmael his sons buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite, which is before Mamre;

10 the field which Abraham purchased of the children of Heth; there was Abraham buried, and Sarah his wife.

11 And it came to pass after the death of Abraham, that God blessed Isaac his son; and Isaac dwelt by Beer-lahai-roi.

12 Now these are the generations of Ishmael, Abraham's son, whom Hagar the Egyptian, Sarah's handmaid, bore unto Abraham.

13 And these are the names of the sons of Ishmael, by their names, according to their generations: the first-born of Ishmael, Nebaioth; and Kedar, and Adbeel, and Mibsam,

14 and Mishma, and Dumah, and Massa;

15 Hadad, and Tema, Jetur, Naphish, and Kedem;

16 these are the sons of Ishmael, and these are their names, by their villages, and by their encampments; twelve princes according to their nations

17 And these are the years of the life of Ishmael, a hundred and thirty and seven years; and he expired and died; and was gathered unto his people.

18 And they dwelt from Havilah unto Shur that is before Egypt, as thou goest toward Asshur: over against all his brethren he did settle.

Let’s begin with the part dealing with Ishmael first. We see in verse 9 that both Isaac and Ishmael buried their Abraham, what does this tell us? Well, for one, we can confirm that there was NEVER a time during Abraham’s life when Isaac was Abraham’s firstborn, NOR was there EVER a time during Abraham’s life when Isaac was to Abraham “your son, your only son”. Those terms could ONLY be used to describe Ishmael, Abraham’s firstborn son. But we are not here to speculate who changed THAT story!

In Bereishsis/ Genesis, the notes for verse 17. Ishmael’s age is given because it assists in calculations with respect to [dating the various events which occurred during the life of] Jacob (Rashi [Yevamos 64a]) [and this is footnoted, which reads in part: 1 Rashi goes on to explain that we calculate from Ishmael’s age at his death that Jacob attended the Academy of Eber for fourteen years from the time he left his fathers’ house to the time he arrived at Laban’s house (as explained in Megillah 17a); to which we have the sub footnote: [Briefly, according to the data cited in Megillah 17a, when Jacob stood before Pharaoh he should have been 116 years old, yet Jacob himself gave his age as 130(Gen. 47:9). The discrepancy is explained by the fact that he spent fourteen years in the Academy of Eber after leaving his fathers’ house.]
According to Ramban [to this verse but cited in v12] Ishmael’s age is noted here because he repented and the age of the righteous is generally stated. Rashbam holds that it is recorded as a mark of honor for Abraham. Since the torah had mentioned Abraham’s age at Ishmael’s birth, and Ishmael’s age when he underwent circumcision. It now concludes by mentioning his lifespan. Further on we read Rashi comments that…is only mentioned in the case of righteous people [such as Ishmael, since he repented…]…
According to R’ Bachya it [the phrase “and was gathered unto his people”] is based the use in our verse of both expired and died – which refer to the death only of the righteous – and the Sages said that Ishmael repented of his evil ways.

So whatever ill will the Jews may harbor against Ishmael [that they say he had “evil” ways], he is cleared of any error and claimed by JEWISH Sages to be “of the righteous!” note the similarity in regards to Abraham in verse 8 And Abraham expired, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people. Compared to of Ishmael in verse 17 And these are the years of the life of Ishmael, a hundred and thirty and seven years; and he expired and died; and was gathered unto his people.

Also, consider that we saw in the notes to Genesis 16 “that Abraham and Sarah were still heartbroken at their barrenness, for without heirs they would not be able to continue the mission of Bringing God’s teaching to mankind. Recognizing that it was she who was infertile, Sarah suggested that Abraham marry her maidservant Hagar, and, if a son were born, Sarah would raise him, so that he would be considered her adopted child.” This tells us that it was the intent of Abraham and Sarah to raise Ishmael “so that he would be considered her adopted child!” it stands within reason but our case doesn’t rely solely on it, that in their job of “parenting” Ishmael [up until the birth of Isaac] that they would have sent him to the “Academy of Eber in Jerusalem” for proper training in the “mission of Bringing God’s teaching to mankind.” So from Ishmael's beginning and again at the end of his life we can put him in the category of the “sons” of Eber, and thus an Hebrew.


We will take another look at Hagar, just in case any see her as a reason to disqualify Ishmael as one of the “righteous.” Let’s look again at 25:1, And Abraham took another wife, and her name was Keturah.
The notes say that there is a Hebrew word in the phrase which means “again” which would literally mean: And Abraham again took a wife, which is interpreted by the Sages to intimate the Abraham remarried to before: Hagar.

Keturah is Hagar, who received this name because her deeds were as beautiful as incense [ketores]; also because she remained chaste…from the time she had separated from Abraham (Midrash; Rashi).
In 21:14 Rashi comments that Hagar reverted to the idolatry of her father’s house. How then does he now call her action “beautiful as incense?” – Rather, when she was expelled from Abraham’s household she felt forsaken even by his God and she intended to revert to her idolatrous ways. But when the miracle occurred at the well, she repented (Gur Aryeh).

The Zohar similarly comments that although she had relapsed into her ancestral idolatry, she later repented and changed her name, after which Abraham sent for and married her. From this we see that a change of name males atonement for guilt, for she made this change of name symbolic of her change of behavior.
[Immediately following this there is a note discussing some Hebrew phraseology which…denotes that Keturah was righteous and fit for Abraham.]

Although Hagar/Keturah was a first generation Egyptian and hence forbidden in marriage [see Deut.32: 9], nevertheless, since his first marriage to her was with God’s sanction, she remained permissible to him for remarriage as well. Furthermore, the Midrash [Bereishis Rabbah 60:4] specifically states that Abraham married Keturah/Hagar by Divine Command (Tur).
Targum Yonasan renders the verse: and Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah; she is Hagar who had been bound to him…from the beginning.

So we here additionally that if there were any ill feelings on the part of the Jews for Hagar, regardless of whether or not she is Keturah, the Jewish sources claim that not only was Hagar “permissible” for Abraham, but they actually speak quite highly of her considering the circumstances. Based on that I would reject any effort to disqualify Ishmael as a “son of Eber” based upon anything said about him or his mother, Hagar.

The actual words of Dueteronomy require some "discussion" in order to explain some of the phrases which seem out of place, but that might actually help us with identifying that "prophet." THAT is the next step, Insha' Allah.

I cannot quite see this argument and in any case it overstates the case, it is true they were brother and sister by different parents but the Bible does not hide any of this does it Or of course he is simply telling the truth - I ask you again what possible motive can there be to vilify ones own prophets and ancestry if it is not the truth - it does not make senseWhat EVIDENCE, so far all that has been offered is Biblical texts and opinion. Some of the argument here are crazy:

Is a brother and sister by one different parent in your mind in concert with God's law, or a father sleeping with his daughters after being sent to warn an entire tribe of impending doom for exact similar crimes? as to what motive there is, well that is something you should direct at your elders. It is very simple in my book. Your scribes or forefathers see a perceived fault, for instant an entire population annihilated for homosexuality and then there is no one left for surely if the father didn't father his own grandchildren who would be left to tell the stories of sin?.. of course concocting and equally absurd story as to what happened is the only logical conclusion. Your bible is in fact replete with errors that I have no reservation whatsoever in posting one wonders how you perceive truth from two contradicting stories? Do you yield to whims or simply call the questioner crazy?

,

not a single Islamic source has been cited.

And if a 'single Islamic source is cited' would you then not find it biased? I think using your bible is the best proof at its own corruption and tampering!

all the best

[Al-manar]

, may I safely conclude you agree with the content of the post?

No he doesn't agree, but found no material to make counter argument ,that is why he resorted to the bible instead of the Quran....

peace

[جوري]

Fine, that is how you feel, research and a scholarly approach with careful referencing is of no concern to you, it does not matter. I hope others do not have that attitude and it is certainly NOT the attitude of either Western or Muslim scholars.

Hugo, we have already established that scholarly approach are mere words you throw around when lost at best for a logical explanation for your own contradictory biblical contents against itself let alone other pieces of literature.. the best you've been able to come up with is 'what other reason could there be for including it if it isn't the truth' so Please cease and desist with your repeated one liner that you can't seem to make applicable to anything you write. It doesn't matter what the attitude is, nor does it matter the person who wrote them, what matters is can you substantiate your own claims from your own bible so that it makes cohesive logical sense. So far we have seen no consistency at all from you. Age of the material doesn't equal 'validity' nor does it counteract the laundry list of internal contradictions.

all the best

[جوري]

In keeping with the original Thread before the detours:

Comparison Between the Bible and the Quran

Comparison Between the Bible and the Quran

By Bassam Zawadi

(Note: Most of the material in this article has been taken from Naser Al Moghamis's Book "Christianity and Islam According to the Bible and Quran")

This article will be divided into sections...

• What the Bible and Quran say about God

-God's Power

-Can God be seen?

-God's Description

-Is God Just?

-Does God sleep?

-Is God Unhelpful?

• What the Bible and Quran say about the Prophets

-Prophet Moses and Prophet Aaron
-Prophet Lot
-Prophet Solomon
-Prophet Jacob
-Prophet David
-Prophet Noah
-Prophet Job

• What the Bible and Quran say about Prophet Jesus

-Was Jesus Crucified and Cursed
-Prophet Jesus' Behavior Towards His Mother
-Prophet Jesus' Behavior Towards People

• What the Bible and Quran say about Women

-Women's Original Sin
-Women's Veil
-Women's Role
-Women's Testimony
-Women's Inheritance
-Women's Cleanness
-Women's Right to Worship
-Women's Right to Divorce

• Other Teachings and Beliefs

-Faith and Deeds
-The original sin
-Polygamy
-The Biblical and Quranic Styles
-Wisdom and Knowledge
-Racism
-Killing the Enemy's Women and Children
-Languages
-Worship
-Forbidding Evil
-Hypocrisy
-Wine
-Blood Sacrifice

What The Bible and Quran Say About God

God's Power

Bible says:

Genesis 32:28

Then the man said, "Your name will no longer be Jacob, but Israel, [a] because you have struggled with God and with men and have overcome."

Quran says:

Surah 22:74

They measure not God with His true measure; surely God is All-strong, All-mighty.

Would you rather worship the God of the Bible whom a man is able to overcome or worship a God who cannot be overcome by anyone or anything? The God that cannot be overcome can only be the one true God; the God that revealed the Glorious Quran.

Can God be Seen?

Bible says:

Genesis 32:30

30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared."

Exodus 24:9,10

9 Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up 10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of sapphire, clear as the sky itself.

These verses contradict with...

Exodus 33:20
But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live."
1 John 4:12

No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

Quran says:

Surah 6:103

No vision can grasp Him, but His grasp is over all vision: He is above all comprehension, yet is acquainted with all things.

Would you rather worship the God of the Bible who is finite enough to be seen by a man or would you worship a God that is so infinite that that He cannot be perceived by any human being due to our limited senses? This is the Only True God; the God who revealed the Glorious Quran.

God's Description

Bible says:

2 Samuel 22:9,11

9 Smoke rose from his nostrils;
consuming fire came from his mouth,
burning coals blazed out of it.

11 He mounted the cherubim and flew;
he soared [a] on the wings of the wind.

Quran says:

Surah 6:93

And who is more unjust than he who forges a lie against Allah,

Surah 42:11

There is nothing whatever like unto HIM, and HE is the All-Hearing, the All-Seeing.

Surah 16:74

Therefore do not give likenesses to Allah; surely Allah knows and you do not know.

I have no comments; anyone with common sense can easily identify which is the true portrayal of God.

Is God Just?

Bible says:

Psalm 7:6

Arise, O LORD, in your anger;
rise up against the rage of my enemies.
Awake, my God; decree justice.

Job 19:6-7

6 then know that God has wronged me
and drawn his net around me.
7 "Though I cry, 'I've been wronged!' I get no response;
though I call for help, there is no justice.

Quran says:

Surah 10:44

Verily, God wrongs not man at all, but men do wrong themselves.

Surah 4:40

Surely Allah does not do injustice to the weight of an atom, and if it is a good deed He multiplies it and gives from Himself a great reward.

Surah 14:42

Think not that God doth not heed the deeds of those who do wrong. He but giveth them respite against a Day when the eyes will fixedly stare in horror

Would you rather worship the God of the Bible who does not decree justice to all people or would you worship a God who is All-Just? The All-Just God can only be the one true God, the God who revealed the Glorious Quran.

Does God Sleep?

Bible says:

Psalm 78:65

Then the Lord awoke as from sleep,
as a man wakes from the stupor of wine.

Psalm 44:23

Awake, O Lord! Why do you sleep?
Rouse yourself! Do not reject us forever.

Quran says:

Surah 2:255

Allah! There is no Allah save Him, the Alive, the Eternal. Neither slumber nor sleep overtaketh Him. Unto Him belongeth whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the earth. Who is he that intercedeth with Him save by His leave? He knoweth that which is in front of them and that which is behind them, while they encompass nothing of His knowledge save what He will. His throne includeth the heavens and the earth, and He is never weary of preserving them. He is the Sublime, the Tremendous.

Would you rather worship the God of the Bible who sleeps just like us human beings or would you worship a God who does not sleep because He is never tired? The latter account of God can only be the authentic one, and the only true God; the God who revealed the Glorious Quran.

Is God Unhelpful?

Bible says:

Psalm 44:24

Why do you hide your face
and forget our misery and oppression?

Mark 15:34

33At the sixth hour darkness came over the whole land until the ninth hour. 34And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"?which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Quran says:

Surah 2:186

And when My servants question thee concerning Me, then surely I am nigh. I answer the prayer of the suppliant when he crieth unto Me. So let them hear My call and let them trust in Me, in order that they may be led aright.

Surah 27:62

Or, Who listens to the (soul) distressed when it calls on Him, and Who relieves its suffering, and makes you (mankind) inheritors of the earth? (Can there be another) god besides God? Little it is that ye heed!

Would you rather worship the God of the Bible who doesn't answer the call of His servants or would you worship a God who does? The All-Hearing God can only be the One True God; the God who revealed the Glorious Quran.

What The Bible and Quran Say About The Prophets

Prophet Moses and Aaron

Bible says:

Deuteronomy 32:48-51

48 On that same day the LORD told Moses, 49 "Go up into the Abarim Range to Mount Nebo in Moab, across from Jericho, and view Canaan, the land I am giving the Israelites as their own possession. 50 There on the mountain that you have climbed you will die and be gathered to your people, just as your brother Aaron died on Mount Hor and was gathered to his people. 51 This is because both of you broke faith with me in the presence of the Israelites at the waters of Meribah Kadesh in the Desert of Zin and because you did not uphold my holiness among the Israelites.

Exodus 32:3-4

3 So all the people took off their earrings and brought them to Aaron. 4 He took what they handed him and made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool. Then they said, "These are your gods, [a] O Israel, who brought you up out of Egypt."

Quran says:

Surah 19:51-53

And mention in the Book Moses; he was devoted, and he was a Messenger, a Prophet. We called to him from the right side Of the Mount, and We brought him near in communion. And We gave him his brother Aaron, of Our mercy, a Prophet.

Surah 33:69

O ye who believe! Be not as those who slandered Moses, but Allah proved his innocence of that which they alleged, and he was well esteemed in Allah's sight.

Surah 20:90,91

And certainly Haroun had said to them before: O my people! you are only tried by it, and surely your Lord is the Beneficent God, therefore follow me and obey my order.

They said: We will by no means cease to keep to its worship until Musa returns to us.

Prophet Lot

Bible says:

Genesis 19:33-36

33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the older daughter went in and lay with him. He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, "Last night I lay with my father. Let's get him to drink wine again tonight, and you go in and lie with him so we can preserve our family line through our father." 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the younger daughter went and lay with him. Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
36 So both of Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father.

Quran says:

Surah 6:86

And Isma'il and Elisha, and Jonas, and Lot: and to all We gave favour above the nations:

Surah 21:74,75

And (as for) Lut, We gave him wisdom and knowledge, and We delivered him from the town which wrought abominations; surely they were an evil people, transgressors;

And We took him into Our mercy; surely he was of the good.

Prophet Solomon

Bible says:

1 Kings 11:4-7

4 As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father had been. 5 He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech [a] the detestable god of the Ammonites. 6 So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the LORD; he did not follow the LORD completely, as David his father had done.
7 On a hill east of Jerusalem, Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable god of Moab, and for Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites.

Quran says:

Surah 2:102
And follow that which the devils falsely related against the kingdom of Solomon. Solomon disbelieved not; but the devils disbelieved, teaching mankind magic and that which was revealed to the two angels in Babel, Harut and Marut. Nor did they (the two angels) teach it to anyone till they had said: We are only a temptation, therefore disbelieve not (in the guidance of Allah). And from these two (angles) people learn that by which they cause division between man and wife; but they injure thereby no-one save by Allah's leave. And they learn that which harmeth them and profiteth them not. And surely they do know that he who trafficketh therein will have no (happy) portion in the Hereafter; and surely evil is the price for which they sell their souls, if they but knew.

Surah 38:30

And We bestowed on David, Solomon. How excellent a slave! Lo! he was ever turning in repentance (toward Allah).

Surah 27:15

And We verily gave knowledge unto David and Solomon, and they said: Praise be to Allah, Who hath preferred us above many of His believing slaves!

Prophet Jacob

Bible says:

Genesis 27:36

36 Esau said, "Isn't he rightly named Jacob [a] - He has deceived me these two times: He took my birthright, and now he's taken my blessing!" Then he asked, "Haven't you reserved any blessing for me?"

Hosea 12:2-4

The LORD has a charge to bring against Judah;
he will punish Jacob [a] according to his ways
and repay him according to his deeds.
3 In the womb he grasped his brother's heel;
as a man he struggled with God.
4 He struggled with the angel and overcame him;
he wept and begged for his favor.
He found him at Bethel
and talked with him there-

Quran says:

Surah 21:72,73

And We bestowed upon him Isaac, and Jacob as a grandson. Each of them We made righteous.

Surah 38:45-47

And make mention of Our bondmen, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, men of parts and vision. Lo! We purified them with a pure thought, remembrance of the Home (of the Hereafter).Lo! in Our sight they are verily of the elect, the excellent.

Prophet David

Bible says:

2 Samuel 11:2-26

2 One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, 3 and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, "Isn't this Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite?" 4 Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her. (She had purified herself from her uncleanness.) Then she went back home. 5 The woman conceived and sent word to David, saying, "I am pregnant.".....

14 In the morning David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it with Uriah. 15 In it he wrote, "Put Uriah in the front line where the fighting is fiercest. Then withdraw from him so he will be struck down and die."...

26 When Uriah's wife heard that her husband was dead, she mourned for him.

Quran says:

Surah 27:15

And We verily gave knowledge unto David and Solomon, and they said: Praise be to Allah, Who hath preferred us above many of His believing slaves!

Surah 38:17

Bear with what they say, and remember Our bondman David, lord of might, Lo! he was ever turning in repentance (toward Allah).

Surah 38:20

We made his kingdom strong and gave him wisdom and decisive speech.

Surah 38:25

So We forgave him that; and lo! he had access to Our presence and a happy journey's end.

Prophet Noah

Bible says:

Genesis 9:20-25

20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded [a] to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness.
24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,
"Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers."

Quran says:

Surah 3:33

Lo! Allah preferred Adam and Noah and the Family of Abraham and the Family of 'Imran above (all His) creatures.

Surah 17:3

They were) the seed of those whom We carried (in the ship) along with Noah. Lo! he was a grateful slave.

Prophet Job

Bible says:

Job 3:1

1 After this, Job opened his mouth and cursed the day of his birth.

Job 10:2-3

2 I will say to God: Do not condemn me,
but tell me what charges you have against me. 3 Does it please you to oppress me,
to spurn the work of your hands,
while you smile on the schemes of the wicked?

Job 19:6-7

6 then know that God has wronged me
and drawn his net around me.
7 "Though I cry, 'I've been wronged!' I get no response;
though I call for help, there is no justice.
Job 24:1

1 "Why does the Almighty not set times for judgment?
Why must those who know him look in vain for such days?

Job 31:6

6 let God weigh me in honest scales
and he will know that I am blameless-

Job 34:9

9 For he says, 'It profits a man nothing
when he tries to please God.'

Quran says:

Surah 38:41

And make mention (O Muhammad) of Our bondman Job, when he cried unto his Lord (saying): Lo! the devil doth afflict me with distress and torment. (And it was said unto him): Strike the ground with thy foot. This (spring) is a cool bath and a refreshing drink.And We bestowed on him (again) his household and therewith the like thereof, a mercy from Us, and a memorial for men of understanding.And (it was said unto him): Take in thine hand a branch and smite therewith, and break not thine oath. Lo! We found him steadfast, how excellent a slave! Lo! he was ever turning in repentance (to his Lord).

Christians believe that their Prophets committed all of these disgusting acts, yet they attack the moral character of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Ironic isn't it?

What the Bible and Quran say about Prophet Jesus

Was Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) Crucified and Cursed?

Bible says:

Galatians 3:13

13Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree."[a]

Footnotes:

1. Galatians 3:13 Deut. 21:23

Quran says:

Surah 3:45

(And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah).

Surah 4:157-158

And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, Wise.

The bible says that Prophet Jesus was crucified to bear God's wrath for the sins of the believers and accordingly he was cursed. On the contrary, Muslims believe, according to the Quran, that he was neither crucified nor cursed but was held and will be held in honor in this life and in the Hereafter.

Prophet Jesus' Behavior Towards His Mother

Bible says:

John 2:3-4

3When the wine was gone, Jesus' mother said to him, "They have no more wine."
4"Dear woman, why do you involve me?" Jesus replied, "My time has not yet come."
Matthew 12:47-49
47Someone told him, "Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you."[a]
48He replied to him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?" 49Pointing to his disciples, he said, "Here are my mother and my brothers.

Quran says:

Surah 19:30-32

He said: "I am indeed a servant of God: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet; "And He hath made me blessed wheresoever I be, and hath enjoined on me Prayer and Charity as long as I live; "(He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable;

The Quran affirms that Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) was kind in his treatment of his mother. For the Muslim, it is totally unbelievable that Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) called his mother 'Woman' and that he ignored her when she wanted to speak to him. Allah has commanded us in the Quran to treat our mothers kindly even if they are unbelievers.

Surah 31:14

And We have enjoined on man (to be good) to his parents: in travail upon travail did his mother bear him, and in years twain was his weaning: (hear the command), "Show gratitude to Me and to thy parents: to Me is (thy final) Goal. "But if they strive to make thee join in worship with Me things of which thou hast no knowledge, obey them not; yet bear them company in this life with justice (and consideration), and follow the way of those who turn to me (in love): in the end the return of you all is to Me, and I will tell you the truth (and meaning) of all that ye did."

How could we then believe that Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) behaved in this way towards his mother Mary who was the best and of the most righteous women on earth?:

Surah 3:42

And when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah hath chosen thee and made thee pure, and hath preferred thee above (all) the women of creation.

Prophet Jesus' Behavior Towards People

Bible says:

Matthew 12:39

39He answered, "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a miraculous sign! But none will be given it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.

Matthew 23:33

33"You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

Luke 11:40

40You foolish people! Did not the one who made the outside make the inside also?

Matthew 16:23

23Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men."

Luke 19:27

27But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them-bring them here and kill them in front of me."

Quran says:

Surah 43:63

When Jesus came with Clear Signs, he said: "Now have I come to you with Wisdom, and in order to make clear to you some of the (points) on which ye dispute: therefore fear God and obey me.

Surah 19:32

"(He) hath made me kind to my mother, and not overbearing or miserable;

According to the Bible, Prophet Jesus used to insult his people and even his disciples.

In contrast, the Quran indicates that Prophet Jesus was kind and wise in his behavior towards his people.

Homepage

What the Bible and Quran Say About Women

Women's Original Sin

Bible says:

Genesis 3: 16
16 To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

When anesthetics came out the Christian church said that it is not okay for women to use it during child birth because that would go against god's plan that women must feel pain while she gives birth.

1 Timothy 2:11-14
11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.

Quran says:

Surah 7:21-22

And he (Satan) swore to them both, that he was their sincere adviser. So by deceit he brought about their fall: when they tasted of the tree, their shame became manifest to them, and they began to sew together the leaves of the garden over their bodies. And their Lord called unto them: "Did I not forbid you that tree, and tell you that Satan was an avowed enemy unto you?"

Surah 20:121,122

In the result, they both ate of the tree, and so their nakedness appeared to them: they began to sew together, for their covering, leaves from the Garden: thus did Adam disobey his Lord, and allow himself to be seduced. But his Lord chose him (for His Grace): He turned to him, and gave him Guidance.

According to the Quran both Adam and Eve were tempted by Satan. The Quran points out that both of them were responsible for their sin. However, Adam and Eve prayed earnestly to Allah for forgiveness and He forgave them of their sins. So in the Quran we have a story about "original forgiveness" not "original sin".

According to the Bible, Eve was the sinner and because of her sin all humans are born in sin.

Women's Veil

My comments are in red font.

Bible says:

1 Corinthians 11:3-12
3Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. (This shows a hierarchy of authority, funny notice how Christ is under god. But more importantly notice how the woman is under the man) 4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head-it is just as though her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. 7A man ought not to cover his head,[a] since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; (this shows that man is glory of God so they don't have to cover their heads, but not women. They are the glory of men, therefore they have to cover their heads) 9neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason, and because of the angels (some bible commentaries talk but about an incident in which the angels fell in love with the women and came down to earth and took them as wives. Therefore women should cover their heads in order not to tempt the angels to come down and take them as wives this is supported by
Genesis 6: 1-4
When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. 3 Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with [a] man forever, for he is mortal [b] ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years." 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days-and also afterward?when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
2 Peter 2:4
4For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell,[a] putting them into gloomy dungeons[b] to be held for judgment;

This article proves it was angels http://www.gotquestions.org/sons-of-God.html, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head.
Read more about this topic here http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/th...uran_and_bible

Quran says:

Surah 33:59

O Ye who believe! Enter not the dwellings of the Prophet for a meal without waiting for the proper time, unless permission be granted you. But if ye are invited, enter, and, when your meal is ended, then disperse. Linger not for conversation. Lo! that would cause annoyance to the Prophet, and he would be shy of (asking) you (to go); but Allah is not shy of the truth. And when ye ask of them (the wives of the Prophet) anything, ask it of them from behind a curtain. That is purer for your hearts and for their hearts. And it is not for you to cause annoyance to the messenger of Allah, nor that ye should ever marry his wives after him. Lo! that in Allah's sight would be an enormity.

Surah 33:53

Prophet! Tell thy wives and thy daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks close round them (when they go abroad). That will be better, so that they may be recognised and not annoyed. Allah is ever Forgiving, Merciful.

Just compare the reasons for the veil in each scripture and then tell me which women have honor.

Women's Role

Bible says:

Colossians 3:18

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

Exodus 21:7

"If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do.

1 Timothy 5:9,10

9No widow may be put on the list of widows unless she is over sixty, has been faithful to her husband,[a] 10and is well known for her good deeds, such as bringing up children, showing hospitality, washing the feet of the saints, helping those in trouble and devoting herself to all kinds of good deeds.

Quran says:

Surah 2:228

And women shall have rights similar to the rights against them, according to what is equitable; but men have a degree (of advantage) over them. And God is Exalted in Power, Wise.

The Bible and Quran are in agreement on the headship of the man over the family. Yet Christians criticize Islam for this. They are basically shooting themselves in the foot because their own scripture teaches the same thing.

Islam treats the man and woman fairly. The woman has rights similar to those of the man. However, Islam assigns to the man and the woman responsibilities which suit their physiological and psychological qualities. The man as a head of the family has a duty to earn money to provide his wife and children with all the requirements of life such as accommodation, food and clothes. The woman is assigned the task of keeping house and bringing up future generations. The woman in Islam is not responsible for any financial obligations. She is not burdened with any duties other than her house and children.

Since no organization can work successfully without a leader, the husband is appointed as leader of the family which is like a small organization. Without a leader, the family will be in complete disorder and the marriage may end in a divorce.

Women's Testimony

Bible says:

Numbers 5:11-31
The Test for an Unfaithful Wife

11 Then the LORD said to Moses, 12 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If a man's wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 by sleeping with another man, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure?or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure- 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah [a] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder offering to draw attention to guilt. 16 " 'The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the LORD. 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the LORD, he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, "If no other man has slept with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have defiled yourself by sleeping with a man other than your husband"- 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse of the oath-"may the LORD cause your people to curse and denounce you when he causes your thigh to waste away and your abdomen to swell. [b] 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells and your thigh wastes away. [c] "
" 'Then the woman is to say, "Amen. So be it." 23 " 'The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall have the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water will enter her and cause bitter suffering. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the LORD and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, then when she is made to drink the water that brings a curse, it will go into her and cause bitter suffering; her abdomen will swell and her thigh waste away, [d] and she will become accursed among her people. 28 If, however, the woman has not defiled herself and is free from impurity, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children. 29 " 'This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and defiles herself while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the LORD and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.'

This just shows that the woman is guilty unless proven innocent.

Deuteronomy 22:11-21
Marriage Violations

13 If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her 14 and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," 15 then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. 16 The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. 17 Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, 18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him. 19 They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver [a] and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. You must purge the evil from among you.

This just shows that the woman is guilty unless proven innocent.

Numbers 30: 4-8,16

4 and her father hears about her vow or pledge but says nothing to her, then all her vows and every pledge by which she obligated herself will stand. 5 But if her father forbids her when he hears about it, none of her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand; the LORD will release her because her father has forbidden her.

This shows that the father can cancel his daughter's oath.
6 "If she marries after she makes a vow or after her lips utter a rash promise by which she obligates herself 7 and her husband hears about it but says nothing to her, then her vows or the pledges by which she obligated herself will stand. 8 But if her husband forbids her when he hears about it, he nullifies the vow that obligates her or the rash promise by which she obligates herself, and the LORD will release her.
This shows the husband can cancel his wife's oath.
This also means that it is difficult for a woman to conduct business because no one would trust her. If she made an agreement, then her father or husband can just as easily come and annul that agreement.
In Surah 24, we read that if a man wants to accuse his wife of adultery then he has to bring 4 witnesses forward and if he cannot provide those 4 witnesses than he has to take 5 oaths. Then if the wife wants to negate that evidence of his then she does the same. That shows that the woman's testimony is equal to that of a man. If a man also wants to accuse a chaste woman of being adulterous then he must provide witnesses, they wont just take his testimony because he is a man. If he doesn't provide that testimony then he is to be lashed 80 times. Look how Islam protects the women from being falsely accused. If both of them testify then the judge will declare that they should separate and not be married together anymore because of the tension between them.
Read more here http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/th..._in_the_bible_

Quran says:

Surah 24:6-9

As for those who accuse their wives but have no witnesses except themselves; let the testimony of one of them be four testimonies, (swearing) by Allah that he is of those who speak the truth; And yet a fifth, invoking the curse of Allah on him if he is of those who lie. And it shall avert the punishment from her if she bear witness before Allah four times that the thing he saith is indeed false, And a fifth (time) that the wrath of Allah be upon her if he speaketh truth.

Surah 24:4

And those who accuse honourable women but bring not four witnesses, scourge them (with) eighty stripes and never (afterward) accept their testimony - They indeed are evil-doers -

Surah 24:23

Lo! as for those who traduce virtuous, believing women (who are) careless, cursed are they in the world and the Hereafter. Theirs will be an awful doom.

According to the judgment of the Bible, if a man accuses his wife of not being a virgin, the wife's father and mother have to bring proof that she was a virgin; otherwise the wife will be stoned to death! The wife's testimony carries no weight!
According to the judgment of the Glorious Quran, if a man accuses his wife of committing adultery, the wife can nullify the accusation as her testimony is accepted, and consequently, the wife will not be punished. However, if the accuser is not her husband, then he has to bring four witnesses. If not, he will receive eighty lashes and his testimony will be rejected forever.

Look at how the Quran uplifts the woman!

Women's Inheritance

Bible says:

Numbers 27:8-11

8 "Say to the Israelites, 'If a man dies and leaves no son, turn his inheritance over to his daughter. 9 If he has no daughter, give his inheritance to his brothers. 10 If he has no brothers, give his inheritance to his father's brothers. 11 If his father had no brothers, give his inheritance to the nearest relative in his clan, that he may possess it. This is to be a legal requirement for the Israelites, as the LORD commanded Moses.' "

This shows that the daughters would not get anything if the sons were alive unlike Islam, which would give her half of the son's.

Numbers 36:6-9

6 This is what the LORD commands for Zelophehad's daughters: They may marry anyone they please as long as they marry within the tribal clan of their father. 7 No inheritance in Israel is to pass from tribe to tribe, for every Israelite shall keep the tribal land inherited from his forefathers. 8 Every daughter who inherits land in any Israelite tribe must marry someone in her father's tribal clan, so that every Israelite will possess the inheritance of his fathers. 9 No inheritance may pass from tribe to tribe, for each Israelite tribe is to keep the land it inherits."

This shows that if a woman did inherit and wanted to get married she had to marry someone from with in the tribe in order not to transfer that inherited money to another tribe. The money must stay in the tribe, unlike Muslim women who can marry whom ever they please.

Quran says:

Surah 4:7

Unto the men (of a family) belongeth a share of that which parents and near kindred leave, and unto the women a share of that which parents and near kindred leave, whether it be little or much - a legal share.

Surah 4:11

Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females, and if there be women more than two, then theirs is two-thirds of the inheritance, and if there be one (only) then the half. And to each of his parents a sixth of the inheritance, if he have a son; and if he have no son and his parents are his heirs, then to his mother appertaineth the third; and if he have brethren, then to his mother appertaineth the sixth, after any legacy he may have bequeathed, or debt (hath been paid). Your parents and your children: Ye know not which of them is nearer unto you in usefulness. It is an injunction from Allah. Lo! Allah is Knower, Wise.

The woman in Islam has a share of inheritance. The daughter's portion is half that of the son. This share is very generous given that, in Islam, the man's financial obligations are by far more than those of the woman. The man gives the dowry to his wife. He pays for all the necessities of life such as accommodation, food and clothes. He supports his parents in addition to his wife and children. On the other hand, the wife does not have to support anyone even herself because her husband is responsible for maintaining her, no matter how rich she is. It is worth noting that in some cases the woman's share of inheritance is equal to that of the man.

Recommended reading

http://www.islam101.com/sociology/inheritance.htm

Women's Cleanness

Bible says:

Leviticus 15:19-22, 25-30

19 " 'When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening.
20 " 'Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. 21 Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. 22 Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.
25 " 'When a woman has a discharge of blood for many days at a time other than her monthly period or has a discharge that continues beyond her period, she will be unclean as long as she has the discharge, just as in the days of her period. 26 Any bed she lies on while her discharge continues will be unclean, as is her bed during her monthly period, and anything she sits on will be unclean, as during her period. 27 Whoever touches them will be unclean; he must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening.
28 " 'When she is cleansed from her discharge, she must count off seven days, and after that she will be ceremonially clean. 29 On the eighth day she must take two doves or two young pigeons and bring them to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting. 30 The priest is to sacrifice one for a sin offering and the other for a burnt offering. In this way he will make atonement for her before the LORD for the uncleanness of her discharge.

Quran says:

Surah 2:222

They ask you about menstruation: say, "It is harmful; you shall avoid sexual intercourse with the women during menstruation; do not approach them until they are rid of it. Once they are rid of it, you may have intercourse with them in the manner designed by GOD. GOD loves the repenters, and He loves those who are clean."

The Bible describes a woman's period as if it is a highly contagious disease which can be passed to other people through physical contact. In addition, a woman's discharge of blood is considered a sin of which she has to repent!
In Islam, a woman's period or discharge of blood is neither considered a sin or a transmittable disease. During a woman's period, the husband and the wife can do everything except sexual intercourse, because it is harmful according to the Quran.

Read the following articles for a deeper insight...

http://islamic-answers.com/women_are...unclean_state_

http://islamic-answers.com/how_does_...their_menses__

Women's Right To Worship

Bible says:

1 Corinthians 14:34-35
34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Quran says:

Surah 33:35
For Muslim men and women, - for believing men and women, for devout men and women, for true men and women, for men and women who are patient and constant, for men and women who humble themselves, for men and women who give in Charity, for men and women who fast (and deny themselves), for men and women who guard their chastity, and for men and women who engage much in God's praise, - for them has God prepared forgiveness and great reward.

This verse indicates that the spiritual and moral duties for men and women in Islam are the same - Both have to believe, both have to pray, both have to fast, both have to give Zakat, etc, etc.

Women's Right For Divorce

Bible says:

1 Corinthians 7:13

"And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him."

So a believing woman is forced to stay with her unbelieving husband. She has to risk having her spiritual beliefs affected by her unbelieving husband.
So it is the unbelieving man's choice to divorce the believing woman if he wills. She cannot leave him, even if she fears that their children would be negatively influenced by the father's "Non-Christian" spiritual beliefs.

So according to Christianity, women are not even allowed to protect their little kids' spiritual beliefs from their unbelieving husbands!

In Islam a Muslim woman is only allowed to marry a Muslim man in order to protect her spiritual beliefs.

Other Teachings and Beliefs

Faith and Deeds
Bible says:

Romans 10:9
9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Galatians 2:16,21
16know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified....21I do not set aside the grace of God, for if righteousness could be gained through the law, Christ died for nothing!"

These verses contradict with these verses from the bible...

James 2:14
14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him?
James 2:17
17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
James 2:24
24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

Quran says:

Surah 4:123-124
It will not be in accordance with your desires, nor the desires of the People of the Scripture. He who doeth wrong will have the recompense thereof, and will not find against Allah any protecting friend or helper.And whoso doeth good works, whether of male or female, and he (or she) is a believer, such will enter paradise and they will not be wronged the dint in a date-stone.
Surah 24:39
As for those who disbelieve, their deeds are as a mirage in a desert. The thirsty one supposeth it to be water till he cometh unto it and findeth it naught, and findeth, in the place thereof, Allah Who payeth him his due; and Allah is swift at reckoning.

The Original Sin
Bible says:

Romans 5:19
19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
1 Corinthians 1:21-25
21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
1 Corinthians 3:18
18Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise.
1 Corinthians 15:3
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,

This contradicts with...

Deuteronomy 24:16
16 Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.
Ezekiel 18:20-23

20 The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
21 "But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die. 22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live. 23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?

Quran says:

Surah 20:121-122
Then they twain ate thereof, so that their shame became apparent unto them, and they began to hide by heaping on themselves some of the leaves of the Garden. And Adam disobeyed his Lord, so went astray. Then his Lord chose him, and relented toward him, and guided him.
Surah 53:36-39
Or hath he not had news of what is in the books of Moses. And Abraham who paid his debt: That no laden one shall bear another's load, And that man hath only that for which he maketh effort,

Polygamy
There is not a single clear cut verse in the bible that prohibits polygamy. http://www.answering-christianity.com/ntpoly.htm
I recommend reading the following article
http://www.islamawareness.net/Polygamy/why.html

The Biblical and Quranic Styles
Bible says:

Ezekiel 23:20
20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. 21 So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled.

Quran says:

Surah 16:112
And Allah sets forth a parable: (Consider) a town safe and secure to which its means of subsistence come in abundance from every quarter; but it became ungrateful to Allah's favors, therefore Allah made it to taste the utmost degree of hunger and fear because of what they wrought.
Surah 41:15-18
Then as to Ad, they were unjustly proud in the land, and they said: Who is mightier in strength than we? Did they not see that Allah Who created them was mightier than they in strength, and they denied Our communications? So We sent on them a furious wind in unlucky days, that We may make them taste the chastisement of abasement in this world's life; and certainly the chastisement of the hereafter is much more abasing, and they shall not be helped. And as to Samood, We showed them the right way, but they chose error above guidance, so there overtook them the scourge of an abasing chastisement for what they earned. And We delivered those who believed and guarded (against evil).

In order to show the seriousness of idolatry and sins committed by Israel and Judah, the Bible pictured Samaria and Jerusalem as two sisters engaged in prostitution. This prostitution metaphor is often used in the Bible, (Ezekiel 16:2-32, Jeremiah 3:1)

The author of these verses used very lewd sexual expressions and words which obviously cannot be attributed to Allah. If any moral person cannot utter these words, then how could we believe that Allah spoke them?

In contrast, when the Quran talks about the sins committed by some people and their punishment, it uses very noble and impressive language which moves the reader to tears and fills the heart with awe. It does not take long for the reader to recognize the beauty and majesty of the Word of Allah.

Wisdom and Knowledge
Bible says:

Ecclesiastes 1:18
For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;
the more knowledge, the more grief.
Ecclesiastes 2:15
Then I thought in my heart,
"The fate of the fool will overtake me also.
What then do I gain by being wise?"
I said in my heart,
"This too is meaningless."

Quran says:

Surah 2:269
He grants wisdom to whom He pleases, and whoever is granted wisdom, he indeed is given a great good and none but men of understanding mind.
Surah 58:11
O you who believe! when it is said to you, Make room in (your) assemblies, then make ample room, Allah will give you ample, and when it is said: Rise up, then rise up. Allah will exalt those of you who believe, and those who are given knowledge, in high degrees; and Allah is Aware of what you do.

Racism
Bible says:

Genesis 9:20-25

20 Noah, a man of the soil, proceeded [a] to plant a vineyard. 21 When he drank some of its wine, he became drunk and lay uncovered inside his tent. 22 Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside. 23 But Shem and Japheth took a garment and laid it across their shoulders; then they walked in backward and covered their father's nakedness. Their faces were turned the other way so that they would not see their father's nakedness.
24 When Noah awoke from his wine and found out what his youngest son had done to him, 25 he said,
"Cursed be Canaan!
The lowest of slaves
will he be to his brothers."

Deuteronomy 23:20
20 You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite, so that the LORD your God may bless you in everything you put your hand to in the land you are entering to possess.

Quran says:

Surah 49:13
O mankind! Lo! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that ye may know one another. Lo! the noblest of you, in the sight of Allah, is the best in conduct. Lo! Allah is Knower, Aware.
Surah 8:63
And (as for the believers) hath attuned their hearts. If thou hadst spent all that is in the earth thou couldst not have attuned their hearts, but Allah hath attuned them. Lo! He is Mighty, Wise.

Killing the Enemy's Women and Children
Bible says:

1 Samuel 15:2,3
2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [a] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' "
Numbers 31:17,18
17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Deuteronomy 20:16
16 However, in the cities of the nations the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes.

Quran says:

Surah 2:190
"Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors.
Surah 8:61
"But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things)
Surah 5:28
"If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee: for I do fear God, the cherisher of the worlds.
Surah 2:193
"And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for God. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrongdoers.
Surah 60:8-9
God forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for God loveth those who are just.God only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances), that do wrong.

Languages
Bible says:

Genesis 11:1-7

1 Now the whole world had one language and a common speech. 2 As men moved eastward, [a] they found a plain in Shinar [b] and settled there.
3 They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them thoroughly." They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar. 4 Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."
5 But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were building. 6 The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. 7 Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other."

Quran says:

Surah 30:22
And of His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and colours. Lo! herein indeed are portents for men of knowledge.

According to the Bible, the difference in languages was a plot from God who felt jealous and afraid when He saw men speaking the same language.
Allah says in the Quran that the difference in languages is a miracle, and not a curse. Allah does not plot jealously against humans. All humans cannot do anything against the will of Allah and can neither harm nor benefit the Almighty Allah whether they speak one language or not.

Worship
Bible says:

Psalm 33:2,3
2 Praise the LORD with the harp;
make music to him on the ten-stringed lyre.
3 Sing to him a new song;
play skillfully, and shout for joy.
Psalm 150:1-5

1 Praise the LORD. [a]
Praise God in his sanctuary;
praise him in his mighty heavens.
2 Praise him for his acts of power;
praise him for his surpassing greatness.
3 Praise him with the sounding of the trumpet,
praise him with the harp and lyre,
4 praise him with tambourine and dancing,
praise him with the strings and flute,
5 praise him with the clash of cymbals,
praise him with resounding cymbals.
Footnotes:

1. Psalm 150:1 Hebrew Hallelu Yah ; also in verse 6

Quran says:

Surah 3:113
They are not all alike. Of the People of the Scripture there is a staunch community who recite the revelations of Allah in the night season, falling prostrate (before Him).
Surah 19:58-61
These are they unto whom Allah showed favour from among the prophets, of the seed of Adam and of those whom We carried (in the ship) with Noah, and of the seed of Abraham and Israel, and from among those whom We guided and chose. When the revelations of the Beneficent were recited unto them, they fell down, adoring and weeping. Now there hath succeeded them a later generation whom have ruined worship and have followed lusts. But they will meet deception. Save him who shall repent and believe and do right. Such will enter the Garden, and they will not be wronged in aught -Gardens of Eden, which the Beneficent hath promised to His slaves in the unseen. Lo! His promise is ever sure of fulfilment -
Surah 22:77
O ye who believe! Bow down and prostrate yourselves, and worship your Lord, and do good, that haply ye may prosper.
Surah 31:6
And of mankind is he who payeth for mere pastime of discourse, that he may mislead from Allah's way without knowledge, and maketh it the butt of mockery. For such there is a shameful doom.
Surah 32:15-18
Only those believe in Our revelations who, when they are reminded of them, fall down prostrate and hymn the praise of their Lord, and they are not scornful, Who forsake their beds to cry unto their Lord in fear and hope, and spend of that We have bestowed on them. No soul knoweth what is kept hid for them of joy, as a reward for what they used to do. Is he who is a believer like unto him who is an evil-liver? They are not alike.

The purpose of worship in Islam is to purify and cleanse the soul and daily life of sin and evil. The most fundamental and the most important act of worship is 'Salah', which is the five daily prayers. These daily prayers strengthen attachment to Allah and remind of commitments to Him. They help to prevent the Muslim from being dragged into unlawful worldly activities. The prayers are performed five times a day to ensure this purification.

Surah 29:45
Recite what is sent of the Book by inspiration to thee, and establish regular Prayer: for Prayer restrains from shameful and unjust deeds; and remembrance of God is the greatest (thing in life) without doubt. And God knows the (deeds) that ye do.

Performing prayer in congregation in mosques creates among the Muslims bonds of love and equality. The poor and the rich, the low and the high the black and the white, all stand shoulder to shoulder and prostrate themselves before the Lord; racial pride and arrogance die out. They stand in full devotion and humility reciting the Verses of the Quran, giving thanks to Allah and asking Him for forgiveness and help without intermediaries and without priests. No other faith can be like Islam in this close, direct and noble relationship with Allah. In the mosque there is no priests claiming the authority to forgive sins on behalf of Allah and turning the hearts of people from pure worship to one God. In the mosque there is no music to occupy the mind and divert it away from clear thinking and understanding.

Furthermore, worship in Islam is not limited to the mosque only. Every good action is considered an act of worship if it is performed sincerely for the sake of Allah and according to His Law. Even dealings with parents, relatives and people can be acts of worship if they are done according to the instructions of Allah for His pleasure. Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) said:

"Removing obstructions and dirt from the way is charity,"
and he also said:
"Giving your brother a smile is charity, and helping a person load his animal is charity."

Hypocrisy
Bible says:

1 Corinthians 9:19-20
19Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law.

Quran says:

Surah 4:138
To the Hypocrites give the glad tidings that there is for them (but) a grievous penalty; -
Surah 4:145
The Hypocrites will be in the lowest depths of the Fire: no helper wilt thou find for them; -

Wine
Bible says:

Ecclesiastes 10:19
19 A feast is made for laughter,
and wine makes life merry,
but money is the answer for everything.

Ecclesiastes 9:5-10
5 For the living know that they will die,
but the dead know nothing;
they have no further reward,
and even the memory of them is forgotten.
6 Their love, their hate
and their jealousy have long since vanished;
never again will they have a part
in anything that happens under the sun.
7 Go, eat your food with gladness, and drink your wine with a joyful heart, for it is now that God favors what you do. 8 Always be clothed in white, and always anoint your head with oil. 9 Enjoy life with your wife, whom you love, all the days of this meaningless life that God has given you under the sun? all your meaningless days. For this is your lot in life and in your toilsome labor under the sun. 10 Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, [a] where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.
John 4:46

46Once more he visited Cana in Galilee, where he had turned the water into wine. And there was a certain royal official whose son lay sick at Capernaum.

Quran says:

Surah 5:90-91
O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination, - of Satan's handwork: eschew such (abomination), that ye may prosper. Satan's plan is (but) to excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants and gambling, and hinder you from the remembrance of God, and from prayer: will ye not then abstain?

Blood Sacrifice
Bible says:

Most Christians erroneously assume that God always needed a sacrifice in order to please Him. However, they are mistaken. These verses from the Bible clearly show it.

Hosea 6:6

6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,
and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings. Jeremiah 7:31

31 They have built the high places of Topheth in the Valley of Ben Hinnom to burn their sons and daughters in the fire-something I did not command, nor did it enter my mind.

But how can it enter God's (Father) mind to have his own son (Jesus) crucified?

Ezekiel 18:21,22,24

21 "But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die.
22 None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live.
23 Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
24 "But if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness he is guilty of and because of the sins he has committed, he will die.

This verse is simply stating that if someone turns away from the evil he has done, then God will forgive him. There does not need to be any bloodshed. This is what we believe in Islam as well.

Isaiah 66:3
3 But whoever sacrifices a bull is like one who kills a man, and whoever offers a lamb,
like one who breaks a dog's neck; whoever makes a grain offering is like one who presents pig's blood, and whoever burns memorial incense,
like one who worships an idol. They have chosen their own ways,
and their souls delight in their abominations;

This verse shows that blood sacrifices are useless in the eyes of God.

Psalm 51:16-19
16 You do not delight in sacrifice, or I would bring it;
you do not take pleasure in burnt offerings.
17 The sacrifices of God are [a] a broken spirit;
a broken and contrite heart,
O God, you will not despise.
18 In your good pleasure make Zion prosper;
build up the walls of Jerusalem.
19 Then there will be righteous sacrifices,
whole burnt offerings to delight you;
then bulls will be offered on your altar.

What God truly wants is for us to be sincerely regretful when we commit sins and to turn to him.

Matthew 6:9-15
"This, then, is how you should pray:
" 'Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
10your kingdom come,
your will be done
on earth as it is in heaven.
11Give us today our daily bread.
12Forgive us our debts,
as we also have forgiven our debtors.
13And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.[a]' 14For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. 15But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

We are asking God to forgive us of our sins the same way we forgive people also. If Jesus was crucified for our sins then why should we ask God for forgiveness of our sins if the debt has already been paid for on the cross?

Feel free to contact me at b_zawadi@hotmail.com

[Hugo]

you are really,poor. that is my comment in the verses which wasn't copied from any site..I challenge you to prove that my comments on the verses was a copy and paste quotation

In the case posted your comments as far as I can tell is your own and the only copied parts are the verses from the Qu'ran that are copied from Islamcall.com. I have no issue with that other than it would always be helpful to say which English version you are using. Islamcall.com seems to have a server issue tonight so I cannot verify if they stated the version. The reason this is all helpful is that your readers may like to look through the context - do you agree? Interestingly, in one of your earlier posts there were more extensive quotation from the Qu'ran but you appear to have inserted additional words in the quotation in the case from multicom.ba, also in some of the quotations it looks as if verses have been truncated before publication (not by you). I was also unsure why you used three different sources: multicom, islamcall and trasliteration.org, perhaps you would explain?

[Hugo]

Hugo, we have already established that scholarly approach are mere words you throw around when lost at best for a logical explanation for your own contradictory biblical contents against itself let alone other pieces of literature.. the best you've been able to come up with is 'what other reason could there be for including it if it isn't the truth' r own claims from your own bible so that it makes cohesive logical sense. So far we have seen no consistency at all from you. Age of the material doesn't equal 'validity' nor does it counteract the laundry list of internal contradictions.

In your post 49 not a single Islamic source is quoted, not one. All I am asking is that you tell us the source and explained it or is it you practice to trust unreferenced sources. So far on this issue you have posted about 25,000 words, which you must know no one will read, just today without any answer that I can find, one supposes because you don't have any.

[Hugo]

The claim can be substantiated and has been, we are merely working with biblical content of contradiction, we haven't gone into historical worth!

PLEASE bring the proof that you know WHO the rabbi was who allegedly corrupted the Abraham story?

Age of manuscript doesn't denote accuracy of manuscript. It is in fact Christian scholars and not Muslim ones that contend that your 'original' bible if such a thing has ever been is now lost. The content that we have to work with is filled with contradiction. Other sources whether religious or historical have more weightiness than forgeries of old!

This is plainly nonsense. If what you say is true then the ancient Qu'ranic manuscripts are also unreliable. But it is obvious that all other things being equal the oldest copy is assumed to be the more accurate. You speak of forgeries but have not produced a single bit of evidence to back up your claim.

That is in fact the whole point, bringing an argument from Islamic text is sure to be met with your usual barrage of protest.. what better source than the bible itself, corrupt and exposes itself as erroneous at the same time!

Well bring the text and let us see. But here we have the usual circular argument about corruption, one cannot use such an argument because to do so would mean you are in possession of the original else one cannot know what is or is not corrupted. What we have here is that the Qu'ran and the Bible differ, those differences are irreconcilable, and rather that simply accept that it is necessary it seems for Muslims to construct an impossible and irrational argument about corruption. One might say indeed, but can you prove it? the evidence for Bible material is well established against other literature, against itself and against independent historical sources. Not the case with the Qu'ran, not in agreement with itself, not in agreement with common sense, and not in agreement with history and every account in it is mirrored in much earlier sources. If you'd like to start a thread on the corruption of the bible vs. the Quran pls do so on a separate thread in keeping with the integrity of this, there is more to the term evidence than your protests and mere hearsay!

The sources you quoted are extensive but you are treating everything as if it is fact and these sources mix up fact, legend and apologetics all the time so they cannot be simply read. For example, Hagar was a daughter of Pharaoh is obviously legend. Chumash is the Hebrew word for the first 5 book of Moses and many of your quotations simply repeat the Biblical account with a bit of embroidery. You can see what I mean from the following which appears to say Ishmael lived a very very long time but it just your cutting and pasting is muddled.

“We see from the prophecy in this verse, that 2337 years elapsed before the Arabs, Ishmael’s descendants, became a great nation …Throughout this period, Ishmael hoped anxiously, until the promise was fulfilled and they dominated the world."

Similarly, we have nonsense such as "in the year 2047 from Creation" again showing it is legend not fact but interspersed with Biblical events such as Isaac and Ishmael his sons buried Abraham but how we end up from the story as proof that Isaac was not the first born I cannot say since the Biblical record is plain and the writer is muddled over the son of the flesh and what the Bible calls the son of the promise. Similarly, the Academy of Eber is just part of Jewish mythology and this is obvious when we read about sending Ishmael to the Academy of Eber in Jerusalem which it is doubtful even existed at that time.

[جوري]

In your post 49 not a single Islamic source is quoted, not one. All I am asking is that you tell us the source and explained it or is it you practice to trust unreferenced sources. So far on this issue you have posted about 25,000 words, which you must know no one will read, just today without any answer that I can find, one supposes because you don't have any.

? if you can stick something into google as you have done with Al-Manar and come up with the conclusion that 60%+ of his post is from such and such site, then you can do that for what I have posted to no? I keep asking you to level your allegations against the biblical content not the writer since it is directly quoted from your bible or Jewish text which you can back reference, do you think you can do that or are you at a loss as usual for anything useful to say? Forget about the obvious conclusion drawn by the writer, you reconcile for us the passages 'of antiquity' what say you?

PLEASE bring the proof that you know WHO the rabbi was who allegedly corrupted the Abraham story? This is plainly nonsense. If what you say is true then the ancient Qu'ranic manuscripts are also unreliable. But it is obvious that all other things being equal the oldest copy is assumed to be the more accurate. You speak of forgeries but have not produced a single bit of evidence to back up your claim.

You don't need names for corruptions to be manifest, all you have to do is super-impose the written content against itself-- naming names won't solve the issues that your biblical passages clearly don't agree.. pls. tell me you have something else up your sleeve, than angry defensive comments. Do you have comments with which to explain why your biblical passages are at odds. again 'age' doesn't constitute truth, apparently it is only 'obvious' to you as you actually have no clue to what constitutes scholarship!

Let's have a closer look at the authorship of your 'older testament' to see if it can be considered of weightiness, authenticity or should be binned all together for dubious content, and authorship!

The late Bruce Metzger made it clear in his apologetic introduction, The New Testament, it's background, growth, and content, 1985, 2nd edition, enlarged, Abingdon Press Nashville, p. 97 that the apostle Matthew can "scarcely be the final author" of the gospel attributed to him. Regarding the fourth gospel, even though the conclusion that the author was John the son of Zebedee was "early and widespread", Metzger stated that "it is clear that others were also involved in its composition and authentication." Metzger concluded: "No simple solution to the problem of authorship is possible, but it is probable that the fourth Gospel preserves Palestinian reminiscences of Jesus' ministry." (p. 98). Metzger wrote (pp. 96-97):
Actually not much is known about these matters[the identity of the evangelists and the date of composition of each Gospel]. The text itself of each Gospel is anonymous and its title represents what later tradition had to say about the identity of the author. Of course the probabilities are that such traditions contain at least a substantial hint as to the identity of the evangelist. Sometimes, however, internal considerations are such as to cast doubt upon the full accuracy of the later tradition.

Metzger had this to say about the authorship of the Pastoral Epistles (pp. 238-239):

.there are features about these letters which make it difficult to attribute them to the apostle Paul, and most scholars believe that they either were written by an amanuensis to whom Paul gave great freedom in their composition, or, more probably, where drawn up near the end of the first century by a devoted follower of Paul, who utilized several shorter letters of the apostle which otherwise would have been lost.

Metzger was quicker to dismiss the Petrine authorship of II Peter (pp. 258-259):

Although the author of this letter calls himself "Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ" (1:1), and makes reference to his being present at the transfiguration of Jesus Christ (1:18), several features of its style and contents have led nearly all modern scholars to regard it as the work of an unknown author of the early second century who wrote in Peter's name.

Unlike the style of I Peter, which is written in fluent koine Greek, the style of II Peter is almost pseudo-literary. The wording is unusual, artificial, and often obscure; it is the one book in the New Testament which gains by translation. Though some have suggested that the marked difference in style between the two letters might be accounted for by supposing them to be the work of different amanuenses, several passages of II Peter point to a date long after Peter's lifetime. Thus, the section dealing with the delay of the second coming of Christ (3:3-4) presupposes that the first generation of Christians-to which Peter belonged-had passed away. Furthermore, the letters of Paul, it appears, have not only been collected but are referred to as "scripture" (3:16), a term that was not applied to them until some considerable time after the apostle's death. The second chapter of II Peter embodies most of the little letter of Jude, which probably dates from the latter part of the first century. Moreover, II Peter is not definitely referred to by early church writers until the third century, when Origen speaks of its disputed authenticity. In the light of such internal and external evidence one must conclude that II Peter was drawn up sometime after A.D. 100 by an admirer of Peter who wrote under the name of the great apostle in order to give his letter greater authority.

The letter is a general one addressed to all Christians in all places (1:1). An analysis of the contents shows that the author had two main purposes in writing: (a) to counteract the teaching of false prophets and heretics, and (b) to strengthen the faith of Christians in the second coming of Christ and make them living accordingly.

Regarding the authorship of Hebrews Metzger wrote (p. 248):

In addition to Paul many other guesses have been made about the author of the letter . [Barnabas, Apollos, Luke, Aquila, Priscilla] . There is no compelling proof for any of these, and the only sure conclusion about the authorship of the letter is that it was not written by Paul.

In the generally conservative introduction to the early Christian writings, approved by the conservative evangelical scholar (and dedicated to the conservative scholar Craig A. Evans), Lee Martin McDonald and Stanley E. Porter (Early Christianity And Its Sacred Literature, 2000, Hendrickson Publishers) defend the traditional authorship of Mark's gospel, concluding that Mark is based on oral traditions as well as reminiscences coming from Peter. They write (p. 287):

"...we are then confronted with the difficult problem of trying to decipher which is the testimony of Peter and which are layers of tradition on top of it ..."

Lucan authorship of the third gospel and Acts is accepted with some reservations (p. 295):

"We are inclined to accept Lucan authorship, but not without some reservation ..."

Traditional authorship of Matthew, on the other hand, is dismissed. They conclude as follows on the authorship of Matthew (p. 299):

Perhaps all that can be said about the author of this Gospel is that he was a Jewish Christian, seemingly more familiar than the other evangelists with the geography of Palestine, and possibly, on this basis, a teacher in the church.

As for the fourth gospel, we are told (p. 306):

Solving the problem of authorship does not appear to be a possibility for biblical scholars today.

McDonald and Porter reach the following conclusion after discussing the authorship of the Johannine epistles (p. 550):

These may be tempting propositions, but none of them can be definitely proved, since the ascription in the Johannine Letters is only to the "elder," leaving the identification uncertain and the work formally anonymous. As noted above, the traditional view that the author of 2 and 3 John is John the disciple or apostle, the author of 1 John and the Gospel, is not directly supported by the text. There is certainly some linkage of 2 and 3 John to 1 John in vocabulary and themes . These parallels may well show that the books issued from a similar context, but they cannot establish authorship.

After a detailed discussion on the authorship of Hebrews, they conclude (p. 521):

As stated above, none of these proposals or any others have proved conclusive regarding the authorship of Hebrews. The book is anonymous, and authorship will probably stay unknown barring further discoveries. As Origen finally concludes about the authorship of Hebrews, "God only knows the truth".

For Martin Hengel it is 'probable' that the author of the gospel of Mark 'really was a companion and interpreter of Peter.' (The Four Gospels And The One Gospel Of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels, 2000, SCM Press, p. 79, also p. 80), but as for the origin of the gospel of Matthew, he writes (p. 77):

A further reason why the First Gospel established itself so quickly was its allegedly direct apostolic origin. It was the first to make this claim. The unknown Jewish-Christian author, who at the same time was a member of the mainstream church, was presumably prompted to this by his by his knowledge of an old Aramaic collection of sayings of Jesus which was known under the name of Matthew. This put him at the head of all four evangelists and, as was later the case with John, gave him a greater authority than his forerunners Mark and Luke, who were regarded only as disciples of the apostles.

Hengel believes that 'in all probability' the unknown Jewish-Christian teacher circulated his work as the 'Gospel of Matthew' from the borders of Syria/Palestine (Ibid).

According to the conservative scholar Michael Green:

We do not know who wrote the Gospel [of Matthew]. Like all the others, it is anonymous...

... [Second-century writers] do tell us who wrote them, and they may or may not have been right. In the case of Matthew, it is not at all easy to know whether they were right, because there is a major contradiction in the evidence. The external evidence points uniformly in one direction, the internal in another. (The Message of Matthew: The Kingdom of Heaven, 2001, Inter-Varsity Press, p. 19)

Green is inclined (p. 24) towards the following hypothesis (pp. 22-23):

... the apostle Matthew may have written the sayings collection often called Q ... Matthew, the tax collector, had the skills and the proximity to Jesus. Maybe he did the Christian church the marvellous service of collecting and writing down the sayings of his Master that are now brought to us in the teaching parts of Matthew and Luke. It would make good sense of Papias' cryptic claim that 'Matthew compiled the logia in the Hebrew tongue, and each one translated them as he was able.' On this interpretation, the logia would be not the Gospel as we have it, but the sayings of Jesus, taken down in Aramaic. People make their own translations of them until they got incorporated in one of the Greek Gospels later on. But, on this view, Matthew would not have written a Gospel himself.

Writing in another book, one geared heavily towards apologetics, Green writes:

We do not know exactly who this Matthew was who wrote the gospel. The early Christians thought that he was Matthew the tax gatherer who became one of Jesus' disciples, but this is unlikely, if only because he uses Mark's gospel as his basic source. And it would be very odd for an eyewitness to draw from the record of someone who was not himself present! Probably the name of Matthew became associated with this gospel because it embodies a lot of special material he gathered. This was, most likely, the account of the many sayings of Jesus, absent from Mark, which also appear in Luke. Matthew, the tax gatherer, had ample opportunity to make a record of the sayings of Jesus. (Who was Jesus?, 1992, Thomas Nelson, p. 125)

As for the gospel of John, Green states that it was either penned by the apostle John 'or written by a close disciple of his at John's direction'. (p. 126).

Conservative scholar Leon Morris, in his commentary on Matthew, despite his inclination towards Matthean authorship, leaves the authorship question open and concludes:

In the last resort it appears that the authorship of this Gospel will remain in dispute. In my opinion there is more to be said for the apostle Matthew than recent scholarship commonly allows and more for Matthew than for any other candidate. But the evidence certainly falls short of complete proof, and in the end divergent views will continue to be held.50 (Leon Morris, The Gospel According to Matthew, 1992, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, p. 15)

In his commentary on the gospel of John, conservative scholar Colin G. Kruse argues for the apostle John being the author of the 'original form of the Fourth Gospel' (p. 30). He writes:

To recognize the apostle John as the author of the Fourth Gospel does not mean that the Gospel in the form we have it today came entirely from his hand. The epilogue contains the testimony of others to the truthfulness of what the beloved disciple wrote (21:24), a testimony that appears to have been added by others after the apostle John died. (The Gospel According to John: An Introduction and Commentary, 2003, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, p. 28)

After citing John 21:20-23, Kruse proceeds (Ibid):

Jesus' words to Peter concerning the beloved disciple gave rise to a rumour in the early church that this disciple would not die before the Lord came again. The need to scotch such a rumour would have become pressing if the beloved disciple had died, and people's faith was being unsettled by the apparent failure of Jesus' word to be fulfilled. Hence the epilogue insists, 'Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, "If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?"' This suggests that the epilogue was written by others after the death of the beloved disciple.

Furthermore (pp. 28-29):

It is also possible that they made other editorial additions to the Gospel, including the testimony to the truthfulness of the beloved disciple found in 19:35. Perhaps the anonymous self-references made by the author found in the original form of the Gospel, expressions such as 'the other disciple' or 'another disciple' ... were explained as, or supplemented by, references to the beloved disciple by later editors of the Gospel. If this were the case, references to the beloved disciple need not reflect egocentrism on the part of the original author, but rather the attitude of a later generation of Christians to him and his special relationship to Jesus.

Therefore, the one(s) responsible for the final form of the fourth gospel is/are unknown.

In his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, conservative evangelical scholar Craig L. Blomberg, while sympathetic towards the traditional authorship, is able to reach only a 'tentative' conclusion on the question of Matthean authorship. He writes:

All of the evidence surveyed so far ("Structure," "Theology," etc.) allows for authorship by the apostle Matthew, but none of that evidence demands it. (Craig L. Blomberg, Matthew (New American Commentary), 1992, Broadman Press, p. 43)

After a brief discussion on the authorship of Matthew's gospel, Blomberg writes (p. 44):
When all the evidence is amassed, there appears no conclusive proof for the apostle Matthew as author but no particularly cogent reason to deny this uniform early church tradition.

In light of the absence of any contrary/rival ancient authorship tradition, Matthew is reasoned by Blomberg to be the 'most plausible' (Ibid) choice for author, either of an 'original draft' (Ibid) or of 'one of its major sources' (Ibid).

Blomberg concludes (Ibid):
But again we present these conclusions tentatively. Little depends on them. Neither inspiration nor apostolic authority depends on apostolic authorship ... and the church was capable of preserving accurate information outside of apostolic circles ...


According to the prominent conservative scholar Tom Wright, a favorite of many Christian apologists:
What do we know about how the Gospels got written? Frustratingly little. We don't have Matthew's diaries of how he went about collecting and arranging his material. We don't know where Mark was written. We don't know whether Luke really was, as is often thought, the companion of Paul. We don't know whether the 'Beloved Disciple', to whom the Fourth Gospel is ascribed (John 21:24), was really 'John' (in which case, which 'John'?) or someone else. None of the books name their authors; all the traditions about who wrote which ones are just that, traditions, from later on in the life of the church (beginning in the first half of the second century, about fifty years after the Gospels were written). (Tom Wright, The Original Jesus: The Life and Vision of a Revolutionary, 1997,
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, pp. 126-127)


John Drane, a prominent evangelical conservative scholar and former student of F. F. Bruce (and I. H. Marshall), had this to say about the authorship of the gospel of Matthew:

Though some leading scholars continue to believe that the apostle Matthew was the author, it is worth pointing out that, as with all the other gospels, knowing the exact identity of the author is not going to be crucial for understanding it. The book itself is anonymous, and makes no claim at all about its author. We can be fairly certain that it would be a man, but whether he was associated with the apostle Matthew, and at what stage or in what way is impossible to say with certainty.(John Drane, Introducing the New Testament, 2001, First Fortress Press Edition, p. 207)

Regarding the gospel of John, Drane writes (p. 217):

It seems at least possible that the gospel was first written in Palestine, to demonstrate that 'Jesus is the Christ' (20:31), perhaps over against the views of sectarian Jews influenced by ideas like those of the Qumran community, and then when the same teaching was seen to be relevant to people elsewhere in the Roman empire, it was revised, with Jewish customs and expressions being explained, and the prologue and epilogue added. The advice to church leaders in chapter 21 suggests that the final form of the gospel might have been directed to a Christian congregation comprised of both Jews and Gentiles somewhere in the Hellenistic world, perhaps at Ephesus.

Drane concluded (Ibid):

...there is no widely accepted opinion on the author's identity, and the consensus at this point in time can best be described as an open minded agnosticism, with many scholars willing to allow some direct connection between John the apostle and the fourth gospel, though few wish to be more precise than that.

Drane has this to say about the origins of Jude, II Peter and the Johannine epistles (p. 457):

...it might be possible to imagine that Jude and 2 Peter both originate from a group of Peter's disciples, in much the same way as the Johannine letters appear to have originated from a 'school' of John's disciples.

Of course we do not know anything about these 'disciples' of Peter and John.

Drane concludes as follows regarding the authorship of Jude and II Peter (Ibid):

Perhaps what we have in both these short letters [Jude and II Peter] is a fresh application of the teaching of Peter to the concerns and interests of a Hellenistic Jewish Christian congregation somewhere in Asia Minor towards the end of the first century.

As for the authorship of the epistle of James, Drane considers (p. 415) the evidence for associating it with James the brother of Jesus as being 'not especially convincing...' However, he argues that there are 'strong reasons' for placing it in a 'very early period of the church's life'.

Leading conservative evangelical scholar, Ben Witherington III, grants the apostle Matthew limited contribution in the gospel named after him. He says (p. 78):

It is, however, quite possible that Matthew did contribute the unique material found in this Gospel and no other, and the book came to be named after its most famous contributor, which was not uncommon in antiquity.(Ben Witherington III, The New Testament Story, 2004, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Michigan)

In Witherington's view, there are 'clues' in John 19 and 21 that the 'source of this Gospel material is the Beloved Disciple, an eyewitness of at least some of the conclusion of Jesus' ministry, and perhaps more broadly of his Judean ministry.' (p. 82). Witherington writes (Ibid):

John 21:24 says that the Beloved Disciple is the one who testifies to at least some of the Gospel happenings and indeed wrote them down in some form. His community vouches for his testimony ("we know his testimony is true"). John 19:35 indicates that he was present at the death of Jesus, and his selfsame chapter claims only one such man was present - the Beloved Disciple to whom Jesus bequeathed his mother as he died.

Immediately thereafter Witherington states that it is 'highly unlikely' that John the son of Zebedee was the author of the fourth gospel. Witherington concludes (p. 83):

All in all it appears that we should think of the Beloved Disciple as the source of much of this material[raising of Lazarus, healing of the man born blind, episode of the lame man by the pool, Beloved Disciple reclining with and beside Jesus, Peter having his feet washed], and that he was a Judean follower of Jesus, not one of the sons of Zebedee, even though his name may have been John.

This means that we do not know who (or how many) was (were) responsible for the final form of the fourth gospel and separating the material from the Beloved Disciple and the later unknown redactor(s) would be difficult, if not impossible.

Even though Witherington believes (p. 68) that a 'reasonable case' can be made for Apollos being the author of Hebrews, he says 'we cannot be certain, and in any case the author wished to remain anonymous'.

As for the Pastoral Epistles (I Timothy, II Timothy, Titus), Witherington believes that they were composed 'at or just after the death of Paul' perhaps by Luke or another companion of Paul, who used as a basis 'authentic notes and/or oral comments from Paul while he was in Mamertine prison in Rome in the mid-60s'. (pp. 69-70). Witherington continues:

The person who penned these letters did so in his own hand and style ... not attempting to really imitate the Pauline style, though at times (e.g., in 2 Timothy) we seem to hear the voice of Paul directly.18'(Witherington comments in a footnote that L. T. Johnson has made a 'reasonable' case for the dictation of II Timothy by Paul).

Witherington concludes (Ibid):

Furthermore, the more conservative character of some of the ethical advice in these letters may reflect the fact that the author knows that the apostolic era is about over, and the Church leaders that were to follow apostles like Paul would not have the same authority as those who had either known Jesus during his earthly life or had seen the risen Lord. The letters could be said to help Pauline coworkers [sic] make the transition to a situation beyond the time of Paul. They are certainly closer in length and in character to other ancient personal letters than the rest of the Pauline corpus. It appears that they were written from Rome in the mid to late 60s.

In other words, we do not know who composed the Pastoral Epistles.

Witherington also denies the Petrine authorship of II Peter (p. 67):

It is highly probable that 2 Peter is one of the latest if not the latest New Testament document, written at a time when there had already been for some time a collection of Paul's letters being used by various churches. I would judge it comes from near the end of the first century A.D.

[Note: Plenty of conservative scholars have argued that II Peter is a pseudonymous document. Two further examples: J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on The Epistles of Peter and of Jude (Black's New Testament Commentaries), 1977, Adam and Charles Black London; Evangelical scholar Richard Bauckham places II Peter in the late first century: Richard J. Bauckham, 2 Peter and Jude, (Word Biblical Commentary Vol. 50), 1983, Nelson Reference.]

Conservative scholar, Richard Bauckham, believes it is unlikely that the apostle Matthew was responsible for the finished form of the gospel attributed to him:

Since it is not likely that the apostle Matthew wrote the Gospel as we have it ... the attribution could either be a pseudepigraphical claim to Matthean authorship or could reflect a role that the apostle Matthew actually played in the genesis of the Gospel, while not being its final author. (Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, 2006, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., p. 302)

Elsewhere he writes (p. 112):

...the author of Matthew's Gospel intended to associate the Gospel with the apostle Matthew but was not himself the apostle Matthew. Matthew himself could have described his own call without having to take over the way Mark described Levi's call.

[Bauckham also denies the Petrine authorship of II Peter. See commentary above]

Like Ben Witherington above, conservative Evangelical scholar, David A. Desilva, also proposes limited contribution of the apostle Matthew in the gospel attributed to him. He posits that Matthew did compile an Aramaic sayings source 'recording what Jesus taught in the course of his own apostolic ministry'. This compilation then became the possession of the communities founded by Matthew. One of Matthew's disciples then took his material and 'other Jesus sayings familiar to the community and the Mark's Gospel, and fashioned a presentation of Jesus' life and instruction more complete than any of the sources on their own.' (p. 235). Desilva proceeds:

Because Matthew stood behind one of these sources, indeed the source that made this Gospel distinctive, it would be quite natural for his name to continue to stand behind the finished product as author and, more importantly for the early church, authenticator of that tradition.4 (David A. Desilva, An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods and Ministry Formation, 2004, InterVarsity Press, pp. 235-236)

Hence the final product is the work of an unknown supposed disciple of Matthew.

Desilva denies the identification of the 'Beloved Disciple' with John the son of Zebedee. He argues that rather than being the author of the Gospel of John as we have it now,

The Beloved Disciple emerges, then, as the source of the tradition and probably its chief interpreter, and in that sense deserves the title "Evangelist", but he is not the final author. (p. 392).

In Desilva's view:

Lazarus may or may not have been the Beloved Disciple, but internal evidence points to him more plausibly than to the son of Zebedee, who may indeed play a very minor role in this Gospel. (p. 393)

On the authorship of the Johannine epistles, Desilva says that (p. 453) 'it seems much more probable that the author of the epistles did not also write the Fourth Gospel, although he may well have had a hand in editing it ...' Desilva goes on to say (p. 454):

Ultimately, then, all we can say is that the author was a respected teacher and leader within the circle of communities that ultimately drew their inspiration from the Beloved Disciple.19

Regarding the authorship of the gospel of Mark, Desilva says (p. 195) that many scholars are 'justifiably reluctant' in accepting Papias' testimony given the inaccuracies in his testimony regarding Matthew's gospel, even though 'it is also impossible to say definitely that the attribution is wrong...' He then avoids a detailed discussion by saying (p. 196):

What is certain is that resolving the matter of authorship does not enhance our reading of the Gospel, and leaving the matter open does not detract from it. These four Gospels remain the Word of God and the churches' witness to the person of Christ and pattern of discipleship irrespective of claims about authorship. The texts, not the titles, are "word of God" to the churches.

Desilva also denies the Petrine authorship of II Peter (p. 878):
In 2 Peter an anonymous Christian leader has sought to preserve and defend the apostolic message for a new generation.13 In the voice of Peter, this author defends the apostolic teaching he has received against rival teachers who promote their own innovations and threaten the churches' hold on the heritage that Peter and his peers bequeathed to them.

The authorship of Hebrews is described by Desilva as follows (p. 776):

The anonymous letter to the "Hebrews" provides the interpreter with neither the identity of the author nor that of the recipients. We do not know when it was written, and the location of both author and recipients remains unclear.

L. Morris and Donald W. Burdick, in their commentary on Hebrews and James, conclude that the author of Hebrews cannot be identified:

In the end we must agree that we have no certain evidence about the authorship of Hebrews. Who wrote it remains unknown to us. We can scarcely improve on the words of Origen's conclusion, that "who wrote the Epistle, God only knows the truth"... (Leon Morris, Donald W. Burdick, Hebrew/James (The Expositor's Bible Commentary with the New International Version), 1996, Zondervan Publishing House, p. 7)

Regarding Hebrews, Wood boasted, 'I have a good idea who wrote that'. Compare this with the above conservative verdicts, but also with the conclusion reached by the conservative scholar, Donald Guthrie, the author of perhaps the most distinguished conservative introduction to the New Testament, who had this to say after examining in detail the various authorship hypotheses pertaining to Hebrews:

In the light of the preceding discussion, 1 an open verdict is clearly the safest course and in this the opinion of Origen can hardly be improved upon. It may not appeal to the mind to admit that a thinker of so profound a type should remain anonymous and yet, as A Nairne pointed out, the precision of a name would not much illuminate the background.2 Of greater importance is the situation which the epistle was intended to answer. (Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, Fourth Edition (revised), 1990, InterVarsity Press, p. 682)

On the epistle of James, conservative evangelical scholar, Arthur G. Patzia, finds 'attractive' the reconstruction according to which while 'much' of the material within James comes from the 'mid-forties', it circulated for 'a number of years before being put into its current form'. Patzia proceeds:

At some point an editor collected the sayings and discourses of James and circulated them as a general letter. The literary style, according to one commentator, is clearly "oral discourse, like the Greek diatribe, the synagogue homily, or a sermon."20 (Arthur G. Patzia, The Making of the New Testament: Origin, Collection, Text & Canon, 1995, InterVarsity Press, p. 96)

Therefore, James is not responsible for the finished form of the epistle and the identity of the proposed 'editor' is obviously unknown.

Patzia also denies the Petrine authorship of II Peter and concludes (pp. 94-95):

Ralph Martin's suggestion that a disciple from the Petrine circle "has been at work in assembling and publishing, in his master's name, a testament of that teaching in response to the pressing needs in the church" seems a reasonable solution to the questions of composition.


The complex nature of the authorship of the Johannine literature is explained by Patzia as follows (p. 98):
Some scholars confidently affirm that the apostle John is the author of all the literature attributed to him and that it follows chronologically the sequence found in the New Testament. Others believe that an editor(s) from within the Johannine community utilized and reinterpreted traditions that originally came from the beloved disciple. In this case, the literature probably attained its final form in Ephesus some time after John's death near the end of the first century.29

Writing in another book, Patzia has this to say about the authorship of Hebrews:
Even though scholars continue to debate the authorship, date and destination of Hebrews, virtually everyone admits that it is an anonymous letter written either from Alexandria, Jerusalem or Rome. (The Emergence of the Church: Context, Growth, Leadership & Worship, 2001, InterVarsity Press, p. 137)

Leading conservative scholar I. H. Marshall denies the Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles and concludes:

. the PE belong to the period shortly after the death of Paul. They, especially 2 Tim, are based on authentic Pauline materials whose extent cannot now be traced precisely, and they may well have been produced in a group which included Timothy and Titus themselves. The stimulus came from the existence of the authentic letter behind 2 Tim, which was already beginning to face up to the problems of the opposition, and led to the composition of 1 Tim and Tit to deal more explicitly and fully with the problems caused by opposition and heresy in Ephesus and Crete. The letters were intended to give Pauline backing to Timothy and Titus . They are examples not of pseudonymity but of allonymity. Their composition was accordingly in no sense deceptive, in that it was known that these were fresh formulations of Pauline teaching to take account of the changing situation. Nevertheless, with the passage of time the origins of the letters were forgotten and they were assumed to be from Paul himself. (I. H. Marshall, A Critical And Exegetical Commentary On The Pastoral Epistles, 2004, T & T Clarke, p. 92)

Regarding II Peter, Marshall writes in another book:

Until fresh arguments are brought forward, it therefore seems wisest to admit that we do not know who wrote this letter but to recognize that it claims to stand in the tradition associated with Peter.1 This means that for practical purposes we have yet another, semi-independent voice in the chorus of New Testament theology. (I. H. Marshall, New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel, 2004, InterVarsity Press, p. 670)

Conservative Christian scholar Mark D. Roberts, writing in his apologetic tract states:

So did the Gospel writers know Jesus personally? Mark and Luke did not. Matthew and John might have, but we can't be positive. Yet the reliability of the New Testament Gospels does not depend on who wrote them so much as on the nature and purpose of the writings themselves. (Can We Trust the Gospels?: Investigating the Reliability of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, 2007, Crossway Books, p. 49)

According to Roberts (Ibid), 'it is possible' that the writers of Matthew and John 'were eyewitnesses of Jesus himself'. He concludes (Ibid):

There was a time when critical scholars seemed to discard this possibility energetically, almost glibly. But in recent years many have come to believe that the first and fourth Gospels reflect the memory and the perspective of Jesus' own disciples, both Matthew and John (or another Beloved Disciple, at any rate). Matthew and John may not have been the ones who finally put pen to papyrus, but they, their memory, and their authority stand behind the Gospels that bear their names.

This means that the ones responsible for the final form of Matthew and John, as we know them now, remain unknown.

Conclusion

Above we have cited and referred to a number of conservative evangelical scholars who regard various New Testament documents to be either anonymous or pseudonymous or partially accept certain authorship claims/traditions. Let it be made clear that our argument is not that the above scholars are right (or wrong) in their conclusions. Our aim was only to demonstrate that a variety of conservative scholars, all of whom are committed Christians with no axe to grind and who have no reason for being 'sceptical for the sake of being sceptical', have concluded - irrespective of the merits of their arguments - that there are anonymous and pseudonymous writings within the New Testament. They do not share Wood's startling view that with the exception of Hebrews - regarding the authorship of which Wood has a 'good idea'- 'we know who wrote every book of the New Testament.' On the contrary, there continues to be widespread disagreement and dispute among scholars on the authorship of a number of New Testament documents and widespread agreement and also consensus on the rejection of some traditional authorship claims for a number of New Testament writings.

Nor is it our argument that all conservative scholars share the above conclusions in totality. There are many conservative scholars who regard II Peter to be pseudonymous and some conservative scholars who endorse Petrine authorship, conservatives who deny Pauline authorship of the Pastoral Epistles and conservatives who endorse Pauline authorship, conservatives who regard the apostle Matthew to have authored the gospel under his name in its finished form and conservatives who completely deny this or accept Matthean authorship only partially etc. Conservative scholarship comes in various shades and with disagreements.

The interested reader is advised to visit a local library and spend some time going through New Testament introductions and commentaries authored specifically by conservative scholars, noting down all instances of their denials of traditional authorship claims. Such an exercise would undoubtedly substantially increase the length of the preceding section. What we have cited above is a minor sample of conservative scholarship.

Once we move outside the restricted realm of evangelical conservatism and consider mainstream and moderate New Testament scholarly views on the authorship question, we note much more uncertainty pertaining to the authorship of a number of writings (gospels, Pastoral Epistles, II Thessalonians, Colossians, Ephesians, Petrine Epistles, Johannine Epistles, Jude, James). The situation becomes overwhelming once we add to this the many writings in the Jewish Bible where our knowledge about the authors is either completely missing or very limited (and here too plenty of conservative scholars can be cited!).

In light of the above reality, it was absurd for Wood to proclaim 'we know who wrote every book of the New Testament.' 'We' most certainly do not know who wrote 'every' book of the New Testament even if Wood sincerely believes that he personally knows who wrote 'every' book of the New Testament. There would have been nothing wrong had Wood stated that he had personally come to conclude that he knew who wrote every book of the New Testament. His statement, however, conveys the utterly misleading impression as if there are no genuine scholarly doubts on the authorship of the various New Testament writings. The suggestion, as if the authorship issue has been long 'settled' among scholars, except for the rabid 'sceptical ones', is pure falsehood.

A problem equally, if not more, serious besides the authorship question is that of the historical reliability of the New Testament writings. Here virtually all scholars, whether liberal, moderate, and conservative, agree that there are errors, mistakes and historically unreliable details within the New Testament, albeit with continuing disagreements over their range and extent. The view that the Bible is 'inerrant' in such a way that it contains no conceivable error and mistake is rejected by all Christians, including conservatives, with the exception of a very few. To present an example, even though many conservative scholars happen to be more willing to attribute the fourth gospel, either fully or partially, to a disciple of Jesus (peace be upon him), it is generally acknowledged that the material therein is the result of later theological reflections, and interpretations and, therefore, should not be treated as a purely historical document giving us brute historical details about Jesus. For example, although I. H. Marshall writes,

I see no reason to deny the well-founded belief that this John, the son of Zebedee, had something to do with the origins of this Gospel. (I. H. Marshall, New Testament Theology: Many Witnesses, One Gospel, 2004, InterVarsity Press, p. 579)

Notice the conclusion he reaches after making a detailed comparison of John with the synoptic gospels (p. 593):

The Synoptic Gospels are probably much close to the ipissima verba of Jesus and to his teaching about the future, whereas the Johannine literature evidences a much more developed theology that reflects more fully the insights of early Christians in the period after the resurrection.

A number of conservative evangelical scholars have reached similar types of conclusions (sample of such views can be seen here. Or consider Richard Bauckham, who is often touted by a number of Christian apologists these days on account of one of his book (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses) even though he does not regard the New Testament as an inerrant source).

It should be clear by now that the legitimate concerns Christians scholars commonly have pertaining to the authorship of a number of New Testament writings is very different from the type of massively inflated hyper-scepticism displayed by a few, who offer a blanket dismissal of all of the historical data in order to deny the historical existence of Muhammad (peace be upon him). The two are in no way 'alike' or 'of the same level' and anyone who passes them off as being 'the same' is not only displaying remarkable ignorance but is also guilty of committing high deception.

If any Christian desires to deny the historical existence of Muhammed (peace be upon him), then he/she must be 'consistent' in their level of scepticism when it comes to the historical existence of Jesus (peace be upon him). If consistency is to be maintained, then such a Christian would first have to say 'goodbye' to the historical existence of Jesus (peace be upon him) and only then worry about the historical existence of Muhammad (peace be upon him).
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/wh...new_testament_

Well bring the text and let us see. But here we have the usual circular argument about corruption, one cannot use such an argument because to do so would mean you are in possession of the original else one cannot know what is or is not corrupted. What we have here is that the Qu'ran and the Bible differ, those differences are irreconcilable, and rather that simply accept that it is necessary it seems for Muslims to construct an impossible and irrational argument about corruption. One might say indeed, but can you prove it?

I believe that is what we have been doing all throughout and it is strange to me that when the Quran is offered you are angry about it, and if your bible is offered then you want to know the name of the corrupter.. I am asking you one last time do you have something to level against the allegations quoted directly from your bible that are at odds with each other?
Do you plan to offer some evidence of authenticity per your biblical content or are you going to keep asking for more only to ignore it because the evidence against what you allege authentic is so overwhelming that the most you can come up with are along the lines of 'cut and pastes' 'muddled' 'voluminous' or whatever other excuse to extricate yourself from rolling up your sleeves and coming up with a logical conclusion?

The sources you quoted are extensive but you are treating everything as if it is fact and these sources mix up fact, legend and apologetics all the time so they cannot be simply read. For example, Hagar was a daughter of Pharaoh is obviously legend. Chumash is the Hebrew word for the first 5 book of Moses and many of your quotations simply repeat the Biblical account with a bit of embroidery. You can see what I mean from the following which appears to say Ishmael lived a very very long time but it just your cutting and pasting is muddled.

I don't treat anything from your bible as if a fact. I am asking you clearly to establish for us in a scholarly fashion (as per above) which parts you think we ought to deem 'fiction' and which are 'fact' it is Jewish literature from more than one source that state that Hagar is the daughter of the pharaoh only your bible alleges otherwise, but then again your bible is filled with funny other passages like 'only son' when he clearly didn't have an only son if it were Isaac that is being sacrificed and if 'only' then Ishmael was his only at the time of said sacrifice, we are keeping in mind that we have followed these events directly from the bible and Jewish literature, nothing Islamic has been used so far to establish the lack of textual integrity of the bible. I need to see you defend these direct passages from the bible one by one with something other than it is a cut and paste and it is muddled and it is clearly a legend.. what say you? you know you like to parade around your scholarship, it would sure be nice if you can put your money where your mouth is!

“We see from the prophecy in this verse, that 2337 years elapsed before the Arabs, Ishmael’s descendants, became a great nation …Throughout this period, Ishmael hoped anxiously, until the promise was fulfilled and they dominated the world."

Similarly, we have nonsense such as "in the year 2047 from Creation" again showing it is legend not fact but interspersed with Biblical events such as Isaac and Ishmael his sons buried Abraham but how we end up from the story as proof that Isaac was not the first born I cannot say since the Biblical record is plain and the writer is muddled over the son of the flesh and what the Bible calls the son of the promise. Similarly, the Academy of Eber is just part of Jewish mythology and this is obvious when we read about sending Ishmael to the Academy of Eber in Jerusalem which it is doubtful even existed at that time.

How is this nonsense exactly aside from your assertion that it is.. It is stranger still because of greater antiquity if we go by the one trick you have up your sleeve to counter-act the facts of the matter!

all the best

[Al-manar]

Ismael and Isaac,Part 4

A- The significance of the story,and how it was misused and exaggerated:

To understand the matter ,let's visit the story of Abel and Cain


Quran

[5:27] Recite for them the true history of Adam's two sons. They made an offering, and it was accepted from one of them, but not from the other. He said, "I will surely kill you." He said, "GOD accepts only from the righteous.


Bible

Genesis 4:1-8 Now Abel became a shepherd of a flock, but Cain cultivated the land. 3In the course of time Cain presented some of the land's produce as an offering to the LORD. 4And Abel also presented [an offering] — some of the firstborn of his flock and their fat portions. The Lord had regard for Abel and his offering, 5but He did not have regard for Cain and his offering. Cain was furious, and he was downcast. 6Then the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you furious? And why are you downcast? 7If you do right, won't you be accepted?


How such offering,was presented to the Lord? in the form of charity for the poor?
no it wasn't ..as there were none but the Adam family to need charity, neither if they offered it this way ,would get a clue of its acceptance...

so how it was accepted? It seems according to another verse in the Quran that it was accepted this way:

They (The Jews) said: "Allah took our promise not to believe in an messenger unless He showed us a sacrifice consumed by Fire (From heaven)." Say: "There came to you messengers before me, with clear Signs and even with what ye ask for: why then did ye slay them, if ye speak the truth?"

in other words ,according to the verse we have a clue that at least the sons of Adam practiced such kind of offering..

it was : X would offer something precious ,if it to be consumated with fire from heaven,means it was accepted by God then the offerer be assured from God that he is righteous ...
the concept was corrupted later and reversed , as Jews borrowed tha pagan concept of :
x would offer blood sacrifice to be washed from his sins !


Now let's visit the issue of Abraham and Ismael:
it is different from the offering mentioned in the story of Abel and Cain......
..
The sacrifice was not a work of charity ,neither seeking a clue whether God accepts the offerer as righteous or not but just simply a test of obedience…….
Christians ,in their never-ending quest for Old Testament future hints ,that may give them some Religious Legitimacy, would later stretch the meaning of the story beyond its limit, Imagining a father sacrificing his son as a like God the Father offering his Son on the cross.
That is a pathetic way of finding a future reference, the analogy is poor one
1-Isaac(if he really was the right person) was Abraham’s son ,Jesus is said by Christians to be God’s son but just saying it, doesn’t mean it so.
2- The idea of the sacrificing the son of Abraham was to test Abraham and his son’s obedience, if so who would test God and his son’s obedience?.
3- In the case of Jesus (according to christians)the sacrifice was performed and the sinners were saved, while the case of Abraham’s son ,he saved none ,the fact that he himself was saved by a sheep in his place….

That is not the first case christians ,in their search for the non existent,would twist the text of the Old Testament ,trying hopelessly finding a clues eg,prophecies to give them some Religious Legitimacy………….
But no wonder as the Pesher technique was common these days (and till our days)….. ,it is to get a meaning non intended by the text applying it to future issues not related…

the misue of the story mentioned, is the first key in our study, to know where christianity came from............

during the beginning of my initial study to the matter of christianity, I often wondered ,why the writers of the New testament believed in the concept of blood atonement?
at first I erred thinking they got it from paganism away from the old testament...

but soon I found out that they got it basically from the old testament....... beginning by the story of the test of obedience of Abraham passing by the animal sacrifice practiced by the jews ,then Isaiah 53 etc.....

The new testament should't be studied in isolation from the old testament.....

the old testament has most of the keys, showing why the new testament came such corrupted way..(details later)....


The story and its significance to muslims:

some muslims in modern times would suggest that the story have some future significance ..eg; claiming that the choice of Ismael to the test is a honor for him and his seed..... while the fact the choice of him simply because he was the only son available that time..... so don't go far beyond the meaning imitiating the zealous christians whose hearts precedes their heads..


peace

[Predator]

Prophet Jesus' First Miracle
Bible says:



To turn water into wine at the marraige feast at Cana JOHN 2:9
　
Quran says:

In the Holy Qur'an his first Miracle was to defend his mother, as an
infant, against the false accusations of his enemies.
　

"O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!" But she pointed to the baby. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?" He said: "I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet; (19: 28-30)
　
Here we see an incident where Mary brings the baby Jesus to her people, and they suspect her to have committed fornication for how else did she conceive a child when she is not married? To clear herself from this falsehood and to show that she has done nothing wrong she points to the baby Jesus, and miraculously he speaks, telling them that he is a servant of Allah and that he is a prophet. This is the first miracle of Jesus to us Muslims, unlike the Christian view which is that the first miracle that was recorded was him turning water into wine which itself is absurd and self contradictory as his own law prohibits wine
　
Do not drink wine nor strong drink (Leviticus 10:9)

Wine [is] a mocker, strong drink [is] raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise. (Proverbs 20:1)

But they also have erred through wine, and through strong drink are out of the way; the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink, they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble [in] judgment. (Isaiah 28:7)
wh0redom and wine and new wine take away the heart. (Hosea 4:11)
　
Can u imagine how Jesus of the Bible can turns water into this poison of madness implying that he legalised wine thereby paving the way to create more havoc . It makes no sense at all ,the Bible is self condtradicting book, its plain and simple
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　

[Hugo]

?I keep asking you to level your allegations against the biblical content not the writer since it is directly quoted from your bible or Jewish text which you can back reference, do you think you can do that or are you at a loss as usual for anything useful to say? Forget about the obvious conclusion drawn by the writer, you reconcile for us the passages 'of antiquity' what say you?

You seem to have had a change of heart and writers are now not important to you. In your post 49 regarding Ishmael I answered fully. To summarise.
1. The claims that a rabbi altered the Bible story, that the Bible story is a fabrication, that it is a fraud and so on. NONE of these claims is supported with ANY evidence whatsoever so why did you post such an obviously poor document that in any scholarly setting would be treated as worthless?
2. The writer ONLY quotes from the Bible though he never makes clear which translation and never quotes or explained any context.
3. He claims wholesale Biblical corruption and at the same time uses exclusively Biblical quotations to make his point - no one with any integrity would do that and it is usually labelled tendentious

I have also written a reply to post 60 where Jewish writings are used and one therefore supposes that YOU regard all Jewish writings as fact and beyond question - is this the case or do you have some kind of method of establishing what is and is not true? One only has to look at say Talmudic writing to see that for example a Biblical verses or verses would be quoted and then surrounded with many many interpretations from the fanciful to the convincing so one cannot simply pick and choose as the whole idea is that one ends up with a wide ranging view of that scripture and how various scholars saw its meaning over time.

You wished for some scholarly discussion on Biblical authority. Shall we start with the creation story in Genesis, I selected this because of a recent book by Professor Andrew Parker, a respected scientist, called "The Genesis Enigma" ISBN 9780552 77528. The book shows clearly that the Genesis account is scientifically accurate right from the very start of the Universes. Clearly the writers of Genesis could not have known about biology or Physics so this is an astounding fact and it can be regarded as saying something very very powerful about the Biblical narrative as it simply could not have occurred by chance. The facts as presented by Professor Parker are undeniable so how do you respond to them?

Secondly, the book is interesting because at its beginning he speaks of his search for historical veracity and cited many examples. many place in Biblical narrative simply did not seem to existed but archaeology has gradually unearthed them. For example Lawrence and Woolly in 1914 discovered the Biblical Kadesh-Barnbea and Carchemish or in more recent times the Syro-Palestinian scholar Dr Michael Jursa discovered Babylonian tablets confirming the names of a Biblical character Nebo-Sarsechem and there are many other examples, indeed it is reported that there are as many as 10,000 sites in Iraq that are from Biblical times and these sites invariably support the Biblical narratives. In short there seem no scholarly reason to doubt Biblical accuracy. One final point is that in the Dead Sea Scrolls a copper manuscript of Isaiah was found which was dated as many hundreds of years older than at that time any known copy and although there were differences they were totally insignificant and that is a testimony to the integrity of the text.

When you speak of corruption I don't think I have ever seen in this board or anywhere else a Muslim say what they mean by it but Biblical scholars when they uses this terms are not talking about wholesale changes but scribal errors, transpositions, spelling errors, minor insertion or omissions and so on. No one thinks that redactions were never made and for example the book of Isaiah is though by some scholars to have two different authors, one for the first part and one for the second but by the same token no one seriously argues that these books have been deliberately altered on an industrial. Let us look at one your entries: I should add that you copied (or perhaps you wrote it?) the whole entry in your post that starts with some Metzger quotes is 100% copied from www.call-to-monotheism.com so I guess you don't actually have and never read any of the books mentioned? (just for you information I don't use Google to track down copies but instead use software specially designed for the purpose)

The late Bruce Metzger made it clear in his apologetic introduction, The New Testament, it's background, growth, and content, 1985, 2nd edition, enlarged, Abingdon Press Nashville, p. 97 that the apostle Matthew can scarcely be the final author of the gospel attributed to him. Regarding the fourth gospel, even though the conclusion that the author was John the son of Zebedee was "early and widespread", Metzger stated that it is clear that others were also involved in its composition and authentication. Metzger concluded: No simple solution to the problem of authorship is possible, but it is probable that the fourth Gospel preserves Palestinian reminiscences of Jesus' ministry.

This quote is about authorship not whether it is God's word or not. Earlier you said authors don't matter and its content we should be concerned about so what point are you making? One might also note that there is a 2003 edition of this book and Metzger also wrote "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, And Restoration" and if you take the trouble to read it as I have done you will see what is meant by corruption, how it is detected and how corrected. If this idea of authorship is so troublesome to you then ask yourself who wrote the Qu'ran and then seek material evidence for that author and see where that take you.

I don't treat anything from your bible as if a fact.

This is an odd position as one supposes that even when it agrees with the Qu'ran you still treat it as suspect but then again you logic is invariably flawed?

[جوري]

You seem to have had a change of heart and writers are now not important to you. In your post 49 regarding Ishmael I answered fully. To summarise.
1. The claims that a rabbi altered the Bible story, that the Bible story is a fabrication, that it is a fraud and so on. NONE of these claims is supported with ANY evidence whatsoever so why did you post such an obviously poor document that in any scholarly setting would be treated as worthless?

I have had no change of heart, and I am still waiting for you to counteract comments made by staunch christian conservatives as per my last post regarding the validity, authorship and integrity of your bible. As for post number 49 whatever conclusion the 'writer' has made were a direct result of biblical quotes which again you can refer back to (as to which bible) well how sad that you suggest this book comes from 'god' and yet there seems to be no consensus as to which one your god would want you to focus on.. I suggest you explain to us why they are so at odds and why the age Abraham, Ishmael or even Issac is so discrepant as to make the story no more in totality but fable at best by an unskilled scribe?!

2. The writer ONLY quotes from the Bible though he never makes clear which translation and never quotes or explained any context.
3. He claims wholesale Biblical corruption and at the same time uses exclusively Biblical quotations to make his point - no one with any integrity would do that and it is usually labelled tendentious

Isn't the whole point of pointing out a corruption is to use the text from whence it came? you constantly contradict yourself-- what difference does it make which 'translation' when you don't even know which language your god spoke? what are we translating from? was your god Grecian or west asian?

I have also written a reply to post 60 where Jewish writings are used and one therefore supposes that YOU regard all Jewish writings as fact and beyond question - is this the case or do you have some kind of method of establishing what is and is not true? One only has to look at say Talmudic writing to see that for example a Biblical verses or verses would be quoted and then surrounded with many many interpretations from the fanciful to the convincing so one cannot simply pick and choose as the whole idea is that one ends up with a wide ranging view of that scripture and how various scholars saw its meaning over time.

Your writing to post 60 is that it doesn't agree with your bible no more no less. I have given three separate sources that attest to the same lineage (which by the way isn't an issue since a child with a 'maid' or a 'princess' doesn't change the laws of inheritance of the first born male according to the Torah, so either way your protests again come back and bite you!

You wished for some scholarly discussion on Biblical authority. Shall we start with the creation story in Genesis, I selected this because of a recent book by Professor Andrew Parker, a respected scientist, called "The Genesis Enigma" ISBN 9780552 77528. The book shows clearly that the Genesis account is scientifically accurate right from the very start of the Universes. Clearly the writers of Genesis could not have known about biology or Physics so this is an astounding fact and it can be regarded as saying something very very powerful about the Biblical narrative as it simply could not have occurred by chance. The facts as presented by Professor Parker are undeniable so how do you respond to them?

This is funny, were you not you not the guy who recently commented that Adam and Eve and the story of creation isn't scientifically sound?

Secondly, the book is interesting because at its beginning he speaks of his search for historical veracity and cited many examples. many place in Biblical narrative simply did not seem to existed but archaeology has gradually unearthed them. For example Lawrence and Woolly in 1914 discovered the Biblical Kadesh-Barnbea and Carchemish or in more recent times the Syro-Palestinian scholar Dr Michael Jursa discovered Babylonian tablets confirming the names of a Biblical character Nebo-Sarsechem and there are many other examples, indeed it is reported that there are as many as 10,000 sites in Iraq that are from Biblical times and these sites invariably support the Biblical narratives. In short there seem no scholarly reason to doubt Biblical accuracy. One final point is that in the Dead Sea Scrolls a copper manuscript of Isaiah was found which was dated as many hundreds of years older than at that time any known copy and although there were differences they were totally insignificant and that is a testimony to the integrity of the text.

This is completely irrelevant to the topic, to your own previous comments on the validity of the story of creation, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the staunch conservative biblical scholars I have introduced in my last post which discuss at length the lack of proper authorship and errors in your bible.. you can't really say they are biased Muslims scholars, so why do you deflect away from what I have written by introducing another book that has no connection to the subject matter at hand!

When you speak of corruption I don't think I have ever seen in this board or anywhere else a Muslim say what they mean by it but Biblical scholars when they uses this terms are not talking about wholesale changes but scribal errors, transpositions, spelling errors, minor insertion or omissions and so on. No one thinks that redactions were never made and for example the book of Isaiah is though by some scholars to have two different authors, one for the first part and one for the second but by the same token no one seriously argues that these books have been deliberately altered on an industrial. Let us look at one your entries:

This quote is about authorship not whether it is God's word or not. Earlier you said authors don't matter and its content we should be concerned about so what point are you making? One might also note that there is a 2003 edition of this book and Metzger also wrote "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, And Restoration" and if you take the trouble to read it as I have done you will see what is meant by corruption, how it is detected and how corrected. If this idea of authorship is so troublesome to you then ask yourself who wrote the Qu'ran and then seek material evidence for that author and see where that take you.

commentary based on direct quotes from a book that is supposed to be the 'unerring word of god' differs greatly from errors from THE alleged book of god. One can dismiss the first as point of view based though it is based what is plainly written (and you are yet in a logical concise matter show us why one shouldn't draw said conclusions based on what is written) the other leaves a huge gap for doubt as to what to take and what to bin from this book where your eternal soul hinges on its veracity. I have read enough about and by Metzger.. question remains though beyond all the smoke and mirror, words of protest, ISBN of books of no relevance, when exactly will you start addressing the actual subject at hand so that what you write has some semblance of credibility and not the mere emotive outburst of a man whose alleged scholarship is but self-professed!

before you protest too much that the Quran differs from your bible, after your repeated and yet to be proven surmises that the Quran copies from the bible in contradiction, try to establish proper scholarship, authorship cogency and validity of your bible, beyond terms like 'it is older'

This is an odd position as one supposes that even when it agrees with the Qu'ran you still treat it as suspect but then again you logic is invariably flawed?

Why is that? The only way we can validate if any stories in your bible have any credence is whether or not they agree with other independent sources. On its own it can't stand obviously!

all the best

[Hugo]

I have had no change of heart, and I am still waiting for you to counteract comments made by staunch christian conservatives as per my last post regarding the validity, authorship and integrity of your bible. As for post number 49 whatever conclusion the 'writer' has made were a direct result of biblical quotes which again you can refer back to (as to which bible) well how sad that you suggest this book comes from 'god' and yet there seems to be no consensus as to which one your god would want you to focus on.. I suggest you explain to us why they are so at odds and why the age Abraham, Ishmael or even Issac is so discrepant as to make the story no more in totality but fable at best by an unskilled scribe?!

I will reply to this post in several sections as so far there is no common ground and you seem unable to even agree on normal scholarly/academic conventions. With regard to you post 49 which is about Isaac and Ishmael.

1. Firstly, the writer never makes plain what he is trying to show but it seems to be that Abraham lineage should be traced through Ishmael, hence Islam is the recipient of the promise but he offers no proof whatsoever other than his own clearly tendentious view and opinion of the Bible. His arguments if you can call them that rest on what he calls corrupted material it follows the only people who would take his writing seriously are denialists, those who want history to be as they would like it.

2. There is no issues at all in saying Ishmael was the first born son. However, God's promise to Abraham was to be fulfilled through Isaac. Indeed in the Biblical record it is not at all unusual to find the first born bypassed in favour of someone else - notable examples are Jacob, Joseph and Solomon.

3. There is no doubt at all that Jewish history runs through Abraham and Isaac to their children. One might say here the silly idea suggesting the Bible got the names mixed up hardly implies that all of Jewish history is a fabrication.

[Hugo]

Isn't the whole point of pointing out a corruption is to use the text from whence it came? you constantly contradict yourself-- what difference does it make which 'translation' when you don't even know which language your god spoke? what are we translating from? was your god Grecian or west asian?

Your thinking has no logic in it. If one is only in possession of a supposedly corrupted text then there is no way to prove anything since there is nothing with which to compare it. It does not matter if say historical details are in error or there is internal contradiction because these may well have been in the so called original. The only way to show corruption is to see an earlier, or original or find a secondary source or you can regard it as a fraud by finding the author and exposing his motives. The writer in post 49 did none of this and neither have you. The point about knowing the source of his Biblical quotations is obvious but as you seem unaware of them I will explain that a reader may wish to check for accuracy and or read the context. .

[Hugo]

Your writing to post 60 is that it doesn't agree with your bible no more no less. I have given three separate sources that attest to the same lineage (which by the way isn't an issue since a child with a 'maid' or a 'princess' doesn't change the laws of inheritance of the first born male according to the Torah, so either way your protests again come back and bite you!

Your are just missing the point. Of course there will be additional materials in secondary sources but what YOU are doing is cherry picking the one that suits your purpose and foolishly assuming YOU must be right. In Abraham's time the Torah did not exists, there were no written laws so this is facile argument. Also as I have said elsewhere with regard to this point to consider case such as Jacob, Joseph and Salomon where the first born was set aside.

[Hugo]

This is funny, were you not you not the guy who recently commented that Adam and Eve and the story of creation isn't scientifically sound?

You would do well to take the trouble to read what people write. My views were that Adam and Eve is just a story, an analogy, it is not a literal account of creation but that does NOT mean I think Genesis is unscientific. Surely even to YOU it is obvious that the writer of Genesis did not have words to describe gravity, tectonic plates, enzymes, molecules, DNA, photosynthesis, amino acids, genes, pre-biotic soups, mitocondria, geological time and so on. What Professor Parker in the book I quoted has show however is that the steps mentioned in the Biblical story exactly match science. Professor Parker has no axe to grind and as far as I can see he is an independent and respected scientist. It's now up to you or indeed any one to examine Professor Parker's analysis and come to their own conclusion.

I would add here that you asked for evidence and I offered three independent items, one scientific, one historical and one textual. If you wish to dismiss them without a thought that is a matter for you, but such dismissal speaks volumes regarding your interest in truth

[جوري]

I will reply to this post in several sections as so far there is no common ground and you seem unable to even agree on normal scholarly/academic conventions. With regard to you post 49 which is about Isaac and Ishmael.

What difference does it make if I or any normal, logical human being wrote post number 49.. you repeatedly deflect away from the actual biblical content by concentrating on the conclusion of the writer. It doesn't matter if I, or sadam hussein wrote it. What matters is that it is easy for anyone sitting down with your bible to look at these verses in order and come up with the same conclusion .. in fact it is the conclusion anyone without their head in the sand will come up with.
Again, because this is tedious at this stage, you either exonerate your biblical content or you cease writing here all together, I have better things to do with my life than to repeat my reply with each subsequent post!

1. Firstly, the writer never makes plain what he is trying to show but it seems to be that Abraham lineage should be traced through Ishmael, hence Islam is the recipient of the promise but he offers no proof whatsoever other than his own clearly tendentious view and opinion of the Bible. His arguments if you can call them that rest on what he calls corrupted material it follows the only people who would take his writing seriously are denialists, those who want history to be as they would like it.

I am not sure what other evidence you want? his comments are excerpted 'biblically', historically, If one researches the Ancient Hebrew laws, the right of decent or
inheritance is based on the eldest son, no matter whom the mother is, and the eldest in fact gets the double portion. You really should familiarize yourself with the religion you pad the other half of your 'NT' with!

2. There is no issues at all in saying Ishmael was the first born son. However, God's promise to Abraham was to be fulfilled through Isaac. Indeed in the Biblical record it is not at all unusual to find the first born bypassed in favour of someone else - notable examples are Jacob, Joseph and Solomon.

See previous reply. Not only is the first born favored but gets double the portions:
http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/2...ewish-law.html

3. There is no doubt at all that Jewish history runs through Abraham and Isaac to their children. One might say here the silly idea suggesting the Bible got the names mixed up hardly implies that all of Jewish history is a fabrication.

And for your sake and for the sake of both intellectual honesty and so-called scholarship that you can do better than dismissing with a word like 'silly'

Your thinking has no logic in it. If one is only in possession of a supposedly corrupted text then there is no way to prove anything since there is nothing with which to compare it. It does not matter if say historical details are in error or there is internal contradiction because these may well have been in the so called original. The only way to show corruption is to see an earlier, or original or find a secondary source or you can regard it as a fraud by finding the author and exposing his motives. The writer in post 49 did none of this and neither have you. The point about knowing the source of his Biblical quotations is obvious but as you seem unaware of them I will explain that a reader may wish to check for accuracy and or read the context. .

That is an amusing statement, considering all the crap you peddled about the integrity of the Quran never producing another copy of where one can compare the so-called errors. Not at all the case for christianity for not only have I shown internal errors from your bibles themselves, you have chosen to ignore them time and again, so perhaps we should share another sample let's deal with chronological errors first!

15 Clear Chronological Contradictions In The Bible!

By
Karim
(He is a new convert to Islam, from the Netherlands)

Since the bible is written by different mystery persons, it is of course no surprise to see clear contradictions in the scripture. One of these clear contradictions are the ‘chronological contradictions in the bible stories’ . The biblical scholar, Marcello Craveri, provided a thoroughly researched exposition of these inconsistencies by using a chart entitled Correlation of the Gospels. Although the number available are considerably in excess of what can be published in BE, the following examples are particularly flagrant and easily verified.

1: In Matthew 4:5-8 the Devil took Jesus to the pinnacle and then to the mountain, while in Luke 4:5-9 he took him to the mountain and then the pinnacle.

2: In Matt. 21:12-19 Jesus cleansed the temple and later cursed the fig tree, while in Mark 11:13-15 he cursed the fig tree and later cleansed the temple.

3: In Matt. 8:28-32 Jesus caused devils to enter swine and later called Levi (Matt. 9:9), while in Luke 5:27-28 Jesus called Levi and later caused devils to enter swine (Luke 8:26-33).

4: In Mark 1:12-13 Jesus was tempted in the wilderness and later John was arrested (Mark 6:17-18), while in Luke 3:19-20 John was arrested and later Jesus was tempted in the wilderness (Luke 4:1-13).

5: In Mark 2:13-17 Matthew was called by Jesus and later the tempest was calmed (Mark 4:35-40), while in Matt. 8:18, 23-27 the tempest was calmed and later Matthew was called (Matt. 9:9-17).

6: In Matt. 8:1-4 Jesus cleansed the leper and later healed Peter's mother-in-law (Matt. 8:14-15), while in Mark 1:29-31 Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law and later cleansed the leper (Mark 1:40-44).

7: In Matt. 8:28-32 Jesus caused devils to enter swine and later appointed the 12 apostles (Matt. 10:1-4), while in Mark 3:13-19 Jesus appointed the 12 apostles and later caused the devils to enter the swine (Mark 5:1-13).

8: In Luke 3:19-20 John the Baptist was arrested and later Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law (Luke 4:38-39), while in Mark 1:29-31 Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law and later John was arrested (Mark 6:17-18).

9: In Luke 3:19-20 John was arrested and later the storm was calmed (Luke 8:22-25), while in Mark 4:35-40 the storm was calmed and later John the Baptist was arrested (Mark 6:17-18).

10: In Luke 5:27-32 Levi (Matthew) was called and later the storm was calmed (Luke 8:22-25), while in Matt. 8:18-27 the storm was calmed and later Levi was called (Matt. 9:9-17).

11: In Matt. 8:14-15 Jesus cured Simon's mother-in-law and later John the Baptist was arrested (Matt. 14:3-5), while in Luke 3:19-20 John was arrested and later Jesus cured Simon's mother-in-law (Luke 4:38-39).
12: In Matthew 21:1-11 Jesus entered Jerusalem and later purified the Temple (Matthew 21:12-16), while in John 2:13-25 and 3:1-12 he purified the Temple and later entered Jerusalem (John 12:12-16).

13: In Matt. 8:28-32 Jesus caused devils to enter swine and later paid tribute to John the Baptist (Matt. 11:11-14), while in Luke 7:24-28 Jesus paid tribute to John the Baptist and later caused devils to enter swine (Luke 8:26-33).

14: In Luke 22:14-21 Jesus said after supper that the hand of his betrayer was with him on the table, while in Matt. 26:21 and Mark l4:18 Jesus made this statement during supper.

15: And lastly, in Matt. 8:23-27 Jesus calmed the storm and later appointed the 12 apostles (Matt. 10:1-4), while in Mark 3:13-19 Jesus appointed the 12 apostles and later calmed the storm (Mark 4:35-41).

Although only 15 examples of chronological contradictions were given, literally scores are available. Their very existence accounts for the fact that no one has ever been able to write one long continuous narrative encompassing all four gospels. It can't be done without taking liberties with the text by adding and subtracting as expediency dictates in direct defiance of Rev. 22. The common defense that these events occurred more than once is without merit since many of them are unique. Therefor the bible is not gods word, since gods word has to be perfect and cannot contain many chronological contradictions, since only one chronological order can be right, the other has to be wrong.


other contradictions:
1. Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?

• God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)
• Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)

2. In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?

• Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
• One million, one hundred thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)

3. How many fighting men were found in Judah?

• Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
• Four hundred and seventy thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)

4. God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?

• Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)
• Three (I Chronicles 21:12)

5. How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?

• Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26)
• Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2)

6. How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?

• Eighteen (2 Kings 24:8)
• Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9)

7. How long did he rule over Jerusalem?

• Three months (2 Kings 24:8)
• Three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9)

8. The chief of the mighty men of David lifted up his spear and killed how many men at one time?

• Eight hundred (2 Samuel 23:8)
• Three hundred (I Chronicles 11: 11)

9. When did David bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem? Before defeating the Philistines or after?

• After (2 Samuel 5 and 6)
• Before (I Chronicles 13 and 14)

10. How many pairs of clean animals did God tell Noah to take into the Ark?

• Two (Genesis 6:19, 20)
• Seven (Genesis 7:2). But despite this last instruction only two pairs went into the ark (Genesis 7:8-9)

11. When David defeated the King of Zobah, how many horsemen did he capture?

• One thousand and seven hundred (2 Samuel 8:4)
• Seven thousand (I Chronicles 18:4)

12. How many stalls for horses did Solomon have?

• Forty thousand (I Kings 4:26)
• Four thousand (2 chronicles 9:25)

13. In what year of King Asa's reign did Baasha, King of Israel die?

• Twenty-sixth year (I Kings 15:33 - 16:8)
• Still alive in the thirty-sixth year (2 Chronicles 16:1)

14. How many overseers did Solomon appoint for the work of building the temple?

• Three thousand six hundred (2 Chronicles 2:2)
• Three thousand three hundred (I Kings 5:16)

15. Solomon built a facility containing how many baths?

• Two thousand (1 Kings 7:26)
• Over three thousand (2 Chronicles 4:5)

16. Of the Israelites who were freed from the Babylonian captivity, how many were the children of Pahrath-Moab?

• Two thousand eight hundred and twelve (Ezra 2:6)
• Two thousand eight hundred and eighteen (Nehemiah 7:11)

17. How many were the children of Zattu?

• Nine hundred and forty-five (Ezra 2:8)
• Eight hundred and forty-five (Nehemiah 7:13)

18. How many were the children of Azgad?

• One thousand two hundred and twenty-two (Ezra 2:12)
• Two thousand three hundred and twenty-two (Nehemiah 7:17)

19. How many were the children of Adin?

• Four hundred and fifty-four (Ezra 2:15)
• Six hundred and fifty-five (Nehemiah 7:20)

20. How many were the children of Hashum?

• Two hundred and twenty-three (Ezra 2:19)
• Three hundred and twenty-eight (Nehemiah 7:22)

21. How many were the children of Bethel and Ai?

• Two hundred and twenty-three (Ezra 2:28)
• One hundred and twenty-three (Nehemiah 7:32)

22. Ezra 2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66 agree that the total number of the whole assembly was 42,360. Yet the numbers do not add up to anything close. The totals obtained from each book is as follows:

• 29,818 (Ezra)
• 31,089 (Nehemiah)

23. How many singers accompanied the assembly?

• Two hundred (Ezra 2:65)
• Two hundred and forty-five (Nehemiah 7:67)

24. What was the name of King Abijahs mother?

• Michaiah, daughter of Uriel of Gibeah (2 Chronicles 13:2)
• Maachah, daughter of Absalom (2 Chronicles 11:20) But Absalom had only one daughter whose name was Tamar (2 Samuel 14:27)

25. Did Joshua and the Israelites capture Jerusalem?

• Yes (Joshua 10:23, 40)
• No (Joshua 15:63)

26. Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?

• Jacob (Matthew 1:16)
• Hell (Luke 3:23)

27. Jesus descended from which son of David?

• Solomon (Matthew 1:6)
• Nathan(Luke3:31)

28. Who was the father of Shealtiel?

• Jechoniah (Matthew 1:12)
• Neri (Luke 3:27)

29. Which son of Zerubbabel was an ancestor of Jesus Christ?

• Abiud (Matthew 1: 13)
• Rhesa (Luke 3:27) But the seven sons of Zerubbabel are as follows: i.Meshullam, ii. Hananiah, iii. Hashubah, iv. Ohel, v.Berechiah, vi. Hasadiah, viii. Jushabhesed (I Chronicles 3:19, 20). The names Abiud and Rhesa do not fit in anyway.

30. Who was the father of Uzziah?

• Joram (Matthew 1:8)
• Amaziah (2 Chronicles 26:1)

31. Who was the father of Jechoniah?

• Josiah (Matthew 1:11)
• Jeholakim (I Chronicles 3:16)

32. How many generations were there from the Babylonian exile until Christ?

• Matthew says fourteen (Matthew 1:17)
• But a careful count of the generations reveals only thirteen (see Matthew 1: 12-16)

33. Who was the father of Shelah?

• Cainan (Luke 3:35-36)
• Arphaxad (Genesis II: 12)

34. Was John the Baptist Elijah who was to come?

• Yes (Matthew II: 14, 17:10-13)
• No (John 1:19-21)

35. Would Jesus inherit Davids throne?

• Yes. So said the angel (Luke 1:32)
• No, since he is a descendant of Jehoiakim (see Matthew 1: I 1, I Chronicles 3:16). And Jehoiakim was cursed by God so that none of his descendants can sit upon Davids throne (Jeremiah 36:30)

36. Jesus rode into Jerusalem on how many animals?

• One - a colt (Mark 11:7; cf Luke 19:3 5). And they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their garments on it; and he sat upon it.
• Two - a colt and an ass (Matthew 21:7). They brought the ass and the colt and put their garments on them and he sat thereon.

37. How did Simon Peter find out that Jesus was the Christ?

• By a revelation from heaven (Matthew 16:17)
• His brother Andrew told him (John 1:41)

38. Where did Jesus first meet Simon Peter and Andrew?

• By the sea of Galilee (Matthew 4:18-22)
• On the banks of river Jordan (John 1:42). After that, Jesus decided to go to Galilee (John 1:43)

39. When Jesus met Jairus was Jairus daughter already dead?

• Yes. Matthew 9:18 quotes him as saying, My daughter has just died.
• No. Mark 5:23 quotes him as saying, My little daughter is at the point of death.

40. Did Jesus allow his disciples to keep a staff on their journey?

• Yes (Mark 6:8)
• No (Matthew 10:9; Luke 9:3)

41. Did Herod think that Jesus was John the Baptist?

• Yes (Matthew 14:2; Mark 6:16)
• No (Luke 9:9)

42. Did John the Baptist recognize Jesus before his baptism?

• Yes (Matthew 3:13-14)
• No (John 1:32,33)

43. Did John the Baptist recognize Jesus after his baptism?

• Yes (John 1:32, 33)
• No (Matthew 11:2)

44. According to the Gospel of John, what did Jesus say about bearing his own witness?

• If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true (John 5:3 1)
• Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true (John 8:14)

45. When Jesus entered Jerusalem did he cleanse the temple that same day?

• Yes (Matthew 21:12)
• No. He went into the temple and looked around, but since it was very late he did nothing. Instead, he went to Bethany to spend the night and returned the next morning to cleanse the temple (Mark I 1:1- 17)

46. The Gospels say that Jesus cursed a fig tree. Did the tree wither at once?

• Yes. (Matthew 21:19)
• No. It withered overnight (Mark II: 20)

47. Did Judas kiss Jesus?

• Yes (Matthew 26:48-50)
• No. Judas could not get close enough to Jesus to kiss him (John 18:3-12)

48. What did Jesus say about Peters denial?

• The cock will not crow till you have denied me three times (John 13:38)
• Before the cock crows twice you will deny me three times (Mark 14:30) . When the cock crowed once, the three denials were not yet complete (see Mark 14:72). Therefore prediction (a) failed.

49. Did Jesus bear his own cross?

• Yes (John 19:17)
• No (Matthew 27:31-32)

50. Did Jesus die before the curtain of the temple was torn?

• Yes (Matthew 27:50-51; Mark lS:37-38)
• No. After the curtain was torn, then Jesus crying with a loud voice, said, Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit! And having said this he breathed his last (Luke 23:45-46)

51. Did Jesus say anything secretly?

• No. I have said nothing secretly (John 18:20)
• Yes. He did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything (Mark 4:34). The disciples asked him Why do you speak to them in parables? He said, To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given (Matthew 13: 1 0-11)

52. Where was Jesus at the sixth hour on the day of the crucifixion?

• On the cross (Mark 15:23)
• In Pilates court (John 19:14)

53. The gospels say that two thieves were crucified along with Jesus. Did both thieves mock Jesus?

• Yes (Mark 15:32)
• No. One of them mocked Jesus, the other defended Jesus (Luke 23:43)

54. Did Jesus ascend to Paradise the same day of the crucifixion?

• Yes. He said to the thief who defended him, Today you will be with me in Paradise (Luke 23:43)
• No. He said to Mary Magdelene two days later, I have not yet ascended to the Father (John 20:17)

55. When Paul was on the road to Damascus he saw a light and heard a voice. Did those who were with him hear the voice?

• Yes (Acts9:7)
• No (Acts22:9)

56. When Paul saw the light he fell to the ground. Did his traveling companions also fall to the ground?

• Yes (Acts 26:14)
• No (Acts 9:7)

57. Did the voice spell out on the spot what Pauls duties were to be?

• Yes (Acts 26:16-18)
• No. The voice commanded Paul to go into the city of Damascus and there he will be told what he must do. (Acts9:7;22: 10)

58. When the Israelites dwelt in ****tin they committed adultery with the daughters of Moab. God struck them with a plague. How many people died in that plague?

• Twenty-four thousand (Numbers 25:1 and 9)
• Twenty-three thousand (I Corinthians 10:8)

59. How many members of the house of Jacob came to Egypt?

• Seventy souls (Genesis 4 & 27)
• Seventy-five souls (Acts 7:14)

60. What did Judas do with the blood money he received for betraying Jesus?

• He bought a field (Acts 1: 18)
• He threw all of it into the temple and went away. The priests could not put the blood money into the temple treasury, so they used it to buy a field to bury strangers (Matthew 27:5)

61. How did Judas die?

• After he threw the money into the temple he went away and hanged himself (Matthew 27:5)
• After he bought the field with the price of his evil deed he fell headlong and burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out (Acts 1:18)

62. Why is the field called Field of Blood?

• Because the priests bought it with the blood money (Matthew 27:8)
• Because of the bloody death of Judas therein (Acts 1:19)

63. Who is a ransom for whom?

• The Son of Man came...to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:45). Christ Jesus who gave himself as a ransom for all... (I Timothy 2:5-6)
• The wicked is a ransom for the righteous, and the faithless for the upright (Proverbs 21:18)

64. Is the law of Moses useful?

• Yes. All scripture is... profitable... (2 Timothy 3:16)
• No. . . . A former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness... (Hebrews 7:18)

65. What was the exact wording on the cross?

• This is Jesus the King of the Jews (Matthew 27:37)
• The King of the Jews (Mark 15:26)
• This is the King of the Jews (Luke 23:38)
• Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews (John 19:19)

66. Did Herod want to kill John the Baptist?

• Yes (Matthew 14:5)
• No. It was Herodias, the wife of Herod who wanted to kill him. But Herod knew that he was a righteous man and kept him safe (Mark 6:20)

67. Who was the tenth disciple of Jesus in the list of twelve?

• Thaddaeus (Matthew 10: 1-4; Mark 3:13 -19)
• Judas son of James is the corresponding name in Lukes gospel (Luke 6:12-16)

68. Jesus saw a man sitat the tax collectors office and called him to be his disciple. What was his name?

• Matthew (Matthew 9:9)
• Levi (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27)

69. Was Jesus crucified on the daytime before the Passover meal or the daytime after?

• After (Mark 14:12-17)
• Before. Before the feast of the Passover (John 1) Judas went out at night (John 13:30). The other disciples thought he was going out to buy supplies to prepare for the Passover meal (John 13:29). When Jesus was arrested, the Jews did not enter Pilates judgment hail because they wanted to stay clean to eat the Passover (John 18:28). When the judgment was pronounced against Jesus, it was about the sixth hour on the day of Preparation for the Passover (John 19:14)

70. Did Jesus pray to The Father to prevent the crucifixion?

• Yes. (Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42)
• No. (John 12:27)

71. In the gospels which say that Jesus prayed to avoid the cross, how many times did he move away from his disciples to pray?

• Three (Matthew 26:36-46 and Mark 14:32-42)
• One. No opening is left for another two times. (Luke 22:39-46)

72. Matthew and Mark agree that Jesus went away and prayed three times. What were the words of the second prayer?

• Mark does not give the words but he says that the words were the same as the first prayer (Mark 14:3 9)
• Matthew gives us the words, and we can see that they are not the same as in the first (Matthew 26:42)

73. What did the centurion say when Jesus dies?

• Certainly this man was innocent (Luke 23:47)
• Truly this man was the Son of God (Mark 15:39)

74. When Jesus said My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken Me ? in what language did he speak?

• Hebrew: the words are Eloi, Eloi ..(Matthew 27:46)
• Aramaic: the words are Eloi, Eloi .. (Mark 15:34)

75. According to the gospels, what were the last words of Jesus before he died?

• Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit! (Luke 23:46)
• "It is finished" (John 19:30)

76. When Jesus entered Capernaum he healed the slave of a centurion. Did the centurion come personally to request Jesus for this?

• Yes (Matthew 8:5)
• No. He sent some elders of the Jews and his friends (Luke 7:3,6)

77.

• Adam was told that if and when he eats the forbidden fruit he would die the same day (Genesis 2:17)
• Adam ate the fruit and went on to live to a ripe old age of 930 years (Genesis 5:5)

78.

• God decided that the life-span of humans will be limited to 120 years (Genesis 6:3)
• Many people born after that lived longer than 120. Arpachshad lived 438 years. His son Shelah lived 433 years. His son Eber lived 464 years, etc. (Genesis 11:12-16)

79. Apart from Jesus did anyone else ascend to heaven?

• No (John 3:13)
• Yes. And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven (2 Kings 2:11)

80. Who was high priest when David went into the house of God and ate the consecrated bread?

• Abiathar (Mark 2:26)
• Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar (I Samuel 1:1; 22:20)

81. Was Jesus body wrapped in spices before burial in accordance with Jewish burial customs?

• Yes and his female disciples witnessed his burial (John 19:39-40)
• No. Jesus was simply wrapped in a linen shroud. Then the women bought and prepared spices so that they may go and anoint him [Jesus) (Mark 16: 1)

82. When did the women buy the spices?

• After the Sabbath was past (Mark 16:1)
• Before the Sabbath. The women prepared spices and ointments. Then, on the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment (Luke 23:55 to 24:1)

83. At what time of day did the women visit the tomb?

• Toward the dawn (Matthew 28: 1)
• When the sun had risen (Mark 16:2)

84. What was the purpose for which the women went to the tomb?

• To anoint Jesus body with spices (Mark 16: 1; Luke 23:55 to 24: 1)
• To see the tomb. Nothing about spices here (Matthew 28: 1)
• For no specified reason. In this gospel the wrapping with spices had been done before the Sabbath (John 20: 1)

85. A large stone was placed at the entrance of the tomb. Where was the stone when the women arrived?

• They saw that the stone was Rolled back (Mark 16:4) They found the stone rolled away from the tomb (Luke 24:2) They saw that the stone had been taken away from the tomb (John 20:1)
• As the women approached, an angel descended from heaven, rolled away the stone, and conversed with the women. Matthew made the women witness the spectacular rolling away of the stone (Matthew 28:1-6)

86. Did anyone tell the women what happened to Jesus body?

• Yes. A young man in a white robe (Mark 16:5). Two men ... in dazzling apparel later described as angels (Luke 24:4 and 24:23). An angel - the one who rolled back the stone (Matthew 16:2). In each case the women were told that Jesus had risen from the dead (Matthew 28:7; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:5 footnote)
• No. Mary met no one and returned saying, They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him (John 20:2)

87. When did Mary Magdelene first meet the resurrected Jesus? And how did she react?

• Mary and the other women met Jesus on their way back from their first and only visit to the tomb. They took hold of his feet and worshipped him (Matthew 28:9)
• On her second visit to the tomb Mary met Jesus just outside the tomb. When she saw Jesus she did not recognize him. She mistook him for the gardener. She still thinks that Jesus body is laid to rest somewhere and she demands to know where. But when Jesus said her name she at once recognized him and called him Teacher. Jesus said to her, Do not hold me... (John 20:11 to 17)

88. What was Jesus instruction for his disciples?

• Tell my brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see me (Matthew 2 8: 10)
• Go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God (John 20:17)

89. When did the disciples return to Galilee?

• Immediately, because when they saw Jesus in Galilee some doubted (Matthew 28:17). This period of uncertainty should not persist
• After at least 40 days. That evening the disciples were still in Jerusalem (Luke 24:3 3). Jesus appeared to them there and told them, stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high (Luke 24:49). He was appearing to them during forty days (Acts 1:3), and charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise ... (Acts 1:4)

90. To whom did the Midianites sell Joseph?

• To the Ishmaelites (Genesis 37:28)
• To Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh (Genesis 37:36)

91. Who brought Joseph to Egypt?

• The Ishmaelites bought Joseph and then took Joseph to Egypt (Genesis 37:28)
• The Midianites had sold him in Egypt (Genesis 37:36)
• Joseph said to his brothers I am your brother, Joseph, whom you sold into Egypt (Genesis 45:4)

92. Does God change his mind?

• Yes. The word of the Lord came to Samuel: I repent that I have made Saul King... (I Samuel 15:10 to 11)
• No. God will not lie or repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent (I Samuel 15:29)

Yes. And the Lord repented that he had made Saul King over Israel (I Samuel 15:35). Notice that the above three quotes are all from the same chapter of the same book! In addition, the Bible shows that God repented on several other occasions:
i. The Lord was sorry that he made man (Genesis 6:6)
I am sorry that I have made them (Genesis 6:7)
ii. And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do to his people (Exodus 32:14).
iii. (Lots of other such references).
93. The Bible says that for each miracle Moses and Aaron demonstrated the magicians did the same by their secret arts. Then comes the following feat:

• Moses and Aaron converted all the available water into blood (Exodus 7:20-21)
• The magicians did the same (Exodus 7:22). This is impossible, since there would have been no water left to convert into blood.

94. Who killed Goliath?

• David (I Samuel 17:23, 50)
• Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19)

95. Who killed Saul?

• Saul took his own sword and fell upon it.... Thus Saul died... (I Samuel 31:4-6)
• An Amalekite slew him (2 Samuel 1:1- 16)

96. Does every man sin?

• Yes. There is no man who does not sin (I Kings 8:46; see also 2 Chronicles 6:36; Proverbs 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20; and I John 1:810)
• No. True Christians cannot possibly sin, because they are the children of God. Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God.. (I John 5:1). We should be called children of God; and so we are (I John 3: 1). He who loves is born of God (I John 4:7). No one born of God commits sin; for Gods nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God (I John 3:9). But, then again, Yes! If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (I John 1:8)

97. Who will bear whose burden?

• Bear one anothers burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2)
• Each man will have to bear his own load (Galatians 6:5)

98. How many disciples did Jesus appear to after his resurrection?

• Twelve (I Corinthians 15:5)
• Eleven (Matthew 27:3-5 and Acts 1:9-26, see also Matthew 28:16; Mark 16:14 footnote; Luke 24:9; Luke 24:3 3)

99. Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?

• After his baptism, the spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. And he was in the wilderness forty days ... (Mark 1:12-13)
• Next day after the baptism, Jesus selected two disciples. Second day: Jesus went to Galilee - two more disciples. Third day: Jesus was at a wedding feast in Cana in Galilee (see John 1:35; 1:43; 2:1-11)

100. Was baby Jesus life threatened in Jerusalem?

• Yes, so Joseph fled with him to Egypt and stayed there until Herod died (Matthew 2:13 23)
• No. The family fled nowhere. They calmly presented the child at the Jerusalem temple according to the Jewish customs and returned to Galilee (Luke 2:21-40)

101. When Jesus walked on water how did the disciples respond?

• They worshipped him, saying, Truly you are the Son of God (Matthew 14:33)
• They were utterly astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened (Mark 6:51-52)
• 
  

No textual integrity according to staunch conservative christian scholars as I have demonstrated in the previous page, no chronological integrity to the events. anonymous mysterious authors, absurd contents of scatology and inappropriate sexuality, and you expect me to subscribe to your brand of 'logic' because you used the word 'silly' or through repeated badgering? I have to tell you thread after thread your credibility dwindles yet you persist to hammer in 'scholarship' and 'research' --pls. give yourself and all of us a break.. if you want to subscribe to the mangod, self-immolating, ineffectual apostles, dubious scribes, self-proclaimed apostles type religion where god wrestles and loses and god dies be my guest. But don't impose on us that the text is valid or has anything to do with God the originator. BTW I have also noticed how after you've given me an ISBN for a book about the historical accuracy of the story of Genesis long after you've and with utter vehemence proclaimed that the story is not scientifically accurate and that Adam and Eve are a Euphemism of some cesspool from whence life began that you have since abandoned that portion of your testimony, well along with many others along the way.. Just letting you know, that ignoring things doesn't make them go away.. it merely goes in the archives of things counted against any credibility you may have wanted to establish for your person!


all the best

[Hugo]

completely irrelevant to the topic, to your own previous comments on the validity of the story of creation, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the staunch conservative biblical scholars I have introduced in my last post which discuss at length the lack of proper authorship and errors in your bible.. you can't really say they are biased Muslims scholars, so why do you deflect away from what I have written by introducing another book that has no connection to the subject matter at hand!

As I said earlier you asked for independent evidence: scientific, historical and textual. Your copied posts from books you have never read are largely about authorship not content. Authorship of Biblical books has been discussed for centuries so there is nothing new here. Presumably, you point is that since an author is unknown or may be in doubt everything else is but few if any Biblical scholar would take that view preferring to trust the content instead - which only a few posts ago you were claiming was the correct thing to do. I don't need to say to say they are biased Muslim scholars as every time I pick up a commentary I can read about who was or was not the author. What is your point and presumably if the author is know you by implication will accept the content as authoritative - no I doubt it as usual you position is one of a cherry picker.

[جوري]

As I said earlier you asked for independent evidence: scientific, historical and textual. Your copied posts from books you have never read are largely about authorship not content. Authorship of Biblical books has been discussed for centuries so there is nothing new here. Presumably, you point is that since an author is unknown or may be in doubt everything else is but few if any Biblical scholar would take that view preferring to trust the content instead - which only a few posts ago you were claiming was the correct thing to do. I don't need to say to say they are biased Muslim scholars as every time I pick up a commentary I can read about who was or was not the author. What is your point and presumably if the author is know you by implication will accept the content as authoritative - no I doubt it as usual you position is one of a cherry picker.

I guess I'll leave it to more discerning reader to go over the entire contents I have presented to see if they echo your needs to complete satisfaction before they conclude what it is that 'I presume' because you are at this stage extremely hopeless and nothing will be deemed to your satisfaction especially when everything you believe in has been reduced to contradictory fables.. rather than this tit for tat let the OP finish his thread in the manner he introduced without your incessant attempts to be a gadfly because you dislike the contents presented and would like to throw your usual tantrums while exempting yourself from substance!

all the best

[Hugo]

commentary based on direct quotes from a book that is supposed to be the 'unerring word of god' differs greatly from errors from THE alleged book of god. One can dismiss the first as point of view based though it is based what is plainly written (and you are yet in a logical concise matter show us why one shouldn't draw said conclusions based on what is written) the other leaves a huge gap for doubt as to what to take and what to bin from this book where your eternal soul hinges on its veracity. I have read enough about and by Metzger.. question remains though beyond all the smoke and mirror, words of protest, ISBN of books of no relevance, when exactly will you start addressing the actual subject at hand so that what you write has some semblance of credibility and not the mere emotive outburst of a man whose alleged scholarship is but self-professed!

Well this is mostly incoherent but if we go back to the post on Isaac and Ishmael all that seems to be proved is that Ishmael is older and since we already knew that from the Biblical account we gained nothing. After that is is just opinion nothing more and must be seen in that light. I am happy to address the subject at had based on your posts, all 25,000 words of them.

before you protest too much that the Quran differs from your bible, after your repeated and yet to be proven surmises that the Quran copies from the bible in contradiction, try to establish proper scholarship, authorship cogency and validity of your bible, beyond terms like 'it is older'

The Qu'ran does differ from the Bible and on occasion it agrees with the Bible and that is how it is. I have offered three bits of independent evidence for Bible integrity that are I think unquestionable. Now we wander into authorship and as I said before at least for the Bible there is material evidence for authorship but what about authorship for the Qu'ran of course you can say it was God but there cannot be any material evidence to that. For me I am just happy to accept there are two books and in my view the evidence and content make me heavily in favour of the Bible. You must reach your own conclusion but at least do it out of honest conviction.

[جوري]

Well this is mostly incoherent but if we go back to the post on Isaac and Ishmael all that seems to be proved is that Ishmael is older and since we already knew that from the Biblical account we gained nothing. After that is is just opinion nothing more and must be seen in that light. I am happy to address the subject at had based on your posts, all 25,000 words of them.

Perhaps if you read all '25000' words you'd learn something and in general try that before complaining, because a complaint is no substitute for a proper refutation!

The Qu'ran does differ from the Bible and on occasion it agrees with the Bible and that is how it is. I have offered three bits of independent evidence for Bible integrity that are I think unquestionable. Now we wander into authorship and as I said before at least for the Bible there is material evidence for authorship but what about authorship for the Qu'ran of course you can say it was God but there cannot be any material evidence to that. For me I am just happy to accept there are two books and in my view the evidence and content make me heavily in favour of the Bible. You must reach your own conclusion but at least do it out of honest conviction.

What bits have you offered to the integrity of the bible, if your own conservative biblical scholars have no clue who authored it? further did the hundreds upon hundreds of internal contradictions and chronological blebs presented above not enough to establish that it is a piece of man/made fable? that is if I am to forgo the tizzy of a basic tenet which is a dying mangod sent to eat sins.. 'Love that evidence for the bible' you must truly be in denial or simply unable to read!

good luck with all that!

[Al-manar]

Item :4

The Trinity

The common approach to Muslims while dealing with the matter of the trinity ,is to assume that there is for sure, no biblical proof text for the trinity ,and the text that is used by christians to support the creed is nothing but textual misunderstanding ……

the Muslim-Christian trinity debates usually as follows: the Christian debater quotes the biblical hints supporting that Jesus is God ,ending with a Christian Applause from the audience….

On the other hand, the Muslim debater would quote the biblical hints supporting that Jesus is not God, ,ending with a Muslim Applause from the audience….

So what?! Jesus according to the debate, can be proven as God, and can be proven as not God !

Muslims are not alone in such approach but non-Trinitarians who believe in the concept of the full inspiration of the bible ,would approach the topic the same way !!.....

I would try to revise ,criticize such approach to reach to more convincing one, that is more suitable for Muslims (who believe in the partial inspiration of the bible)

How would you (as a Muslim) approach the trinity?

what is your problem with the trinity? Is it because God CAN’T appear in three aspects, persons?

Is it because Jesus nowhere said I’m God ,worship me?

If you think this way I advise you to pause and think….


First: one thing we should all agree on, It is ,the fact that it is God who define himself, not humans

If God says ; I’m X ,don’t say he can’t be X…..

God can be whatever he would define himself with, If he define himself as a appearing in 3 or even hundred aspects to human beings ,don’t say ; no that is not possible …… if you say that ,you would prove yourself as using double standard
In one way you would accept God as without beginning (which seems difficult to the human mind),on another you wouldn’t accept him as appearing in 3 aspects…

We don’t accept God as appearing in Jesus not cause he can’t but because he wasn’t….

If God defined himself as Omniscient ,eg; Psalm 147:4,5
He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names. Great is our Lord, and of great power: his understanding is infinite. ,yet depicts himself as ignorant of some facts ,eg; Matthew 24:36 "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
According to that we wouldn’t say jesus can’t be God, but Jesus ISN’T God……

Let’s now, focus on the other crucial points of criticism…



Second: Where Jesus ever said I’m God or worship me ? is one common question used by Muslims during the trinity debates with Christians ,which I think again to be a wrong approach…

What if Jesus said I’m God or worship me in the gospels? Would a Muslim then believe in the trinity?!
What if the(inspired) writers of the new testament thought that Jesus is God ? isn’t that enough to safely say that the bible supports the concept of the trinity?

No, that won’t convince the muslim ,cause unlike those non-trinitarians who would believe in the full inspiration of the bible,a Muslim would believe in the partial inspiration of the bible, hence denying any parts that contradicts the Quran ….

So, If you are a muslim why would you use (Where Jesus ever said I’m God or worship me ?) is it mere to debate a Christian or to convince yourself? Are you really serious that your problem of rejecting the idea of the trinity is the absence of words of Jesus ,saying he is God? If so ,you surely erred, as even if such passage is there, it means nothing for you, as a believer in the partial inspiration of the bible…



Third: Just as the non-trinitarians eg; Testimoni di Geova ,muslim’s reaction to the trinity biblical proof text, is that no problem with the text..it is just the christians misunderstood it !!
The fact that neither christians misunderstood it nor the non-trinitarians understood it ……. It is the fact that the text itself is not direct ,its meaning could be easily understood differently ,no understanding is better than another
And that is where the nontrinitarian understanding came from ,besides the possibility of understanding the so called trinity text in another way won’t support the concept, there are a good deal of anti-trinity proof text as well !
Arianism and other nontrinitarians didn’t came from void ,but their beliefs has a biblical basis as valid as the Trinitarian one …. As both understood the (easy to be shaped in different meanings)text differently.

What is our attitude in Islam regarding the text which could be understood in different ways ,and all are possible?
The following famous rule should be applied:
النص اذا تطرق اليه الاحتمال بطل به الاستدلال
If the text could be understood in different ways all equal in strength ,it can’t establish any concept or rule.


To make the matter worse ,besides the possibility of understanding the so called trinity proof text in different ways ,the anti-trinity proof text ,would add more to the problem … as even if the trinity proof text are straight and could be taken with absolute certainty, the anti-trinity text ,eg;Matthew 24:36, Mark 10:18 would get us to another problem, it is the problem of contradiction !, in other words if you consult the text for Jesus statue ,it would answer you Jesus is God, and Jesus isn’t God as well !!!

If a source gives you 2 contradictory answers to one question, I think it is fair not to accept any, till you find a strong clue from another source that may support one of the answers…

We as Muslims believe that the Quran is the word of God ,so we have the Quran as the source that decides the matter and gives the clear direct answer regarding the statue of Jesus…


Till part 2

Peace

[جوري]

we should approach the subject of trinity from the christian text:
part I

Matthew 4:10

Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.'" (NIV)

By

Biblical Unitarian

1. It is sometimes stated that since we are to worship only God, and, because we are also supposed to worship Jesus, therefore he must be God. That argument is not valid because, although there is a special worship that is reserved just for God, we can "worship" certain people as well. This is an issue of the heart. There is no special word for "worship" reserved only for God. The special worship due Him comes from the heart. In fact the entire temptation of Christ by the Devil proves that Jesus was not God. God cannot be tempted (James 1:13). Also, if Jesus were God, the Devil would never have asked Jesus to worship him. It was for desiring to be like God (and thus be worshiped like God) that the Devil was thrown out of heaven in the first place (Isa. 14:12-15), and it is unreasonable to think that the Devil would have believed that God could now be persuaded to worship him.
2. In the biblical culture, the act of worship was not directed only to God. It was very common to worship (i.e., pay homage to) men of a higher status. This is hard to see in the English translations of the Bible. The translators usually translate the same Hebrew or Greek word as "worship" when it involves God, but as some other word, such as "bow before," or "pay homage to," when it involves men. Nevertheless, worship is clearly there in the Hebrew and Greek texts. For example:

• Lot "worshipped" the two strangers that came to Sodom (Gen. 19:1).
• Abraham "worshipped" the pagan leaders of the land in which he lived (Gen. 23:7).
• Jacob "worshipped" his older brother when they met after being apart for years (Gen. 33:3).
• Joseph had a dream that his parents and brothers "worshipped" him (Gen. 37:10).
• Joseph's brothers "worshipped" him (Gen. 43:26).
• Joshua fell down and "worshipped" an angel (Joshua 5:14).
• Ruth "worshipped" Boaz (Ruth 2:10).
• David "worshipped" Jonathan (1 Sam. 20:41).
• Abigail "worshipped" David (1 Sam. 25:41).

The above list is just a small sampling of all the examples that could be drawn from Scripture. Checking the references in most Bibles will confirm what has already been pointed out - that the translators avoided the word "worship" when men are worshipping men, but used it in reference to worshipping God. These scriptures are more than enough proof that "worship" was a part of the culture, and a way of showing respect or reverence. Because of the theological stance that only God should be worshipped, translators have avoided the English word "worship," in spite of the fact that it is clearly in the original text. We assert that not translating what is clearly in the text has created a false impression in the Christian community. It is very clear in the biblical text that men "worshipped" men.
There is a sense, of course, in which there is a very special worship (homage, allegiance, reverent love and devotion) to be given only to God, but there is no unique word that represents that special worship. Rather, it is a posture of the heart. Scripturally, this must be determined from context. Even words like proskuneo, which are almost always used of God, are occasionally used for showing respect to other men (Acts 10:25). And the word "serve" in Matthew 4:10 is latreuo, which is sometimes translated worship, but used of the worship of other things as well as of the true God (Acts 7:42 - KJV), "worship the host of heaven" and Romans 1:25, "served created things"). Thus, when Christ said, "You shall worship the Lord thy God and Him only shall you worship," he was speaking of a special worship of God that comes from the heart, not using a special vocabulary word that is reserved for the worship of God only.
Understanding that in the Bible both God and men are worshipped forces us as readers to look, not at the specific word for "worship," but rather at the heart of the one doing the worship. It explains why God rejects the worship of those whose hearts are really not with Him. It also explains why there are occasions in the Bible when men reject the worship of other men. In Acts 10:26, Peter asks Cornelius to stand up. In Revelation 19:10, an angel stops John from worshipping him. In these cases it is not the worship, per se, that was wrong, or it would have been wrong in all the other places throughout the Bible. In the aforementioned accounts, the one about to be worshipped saw that it was inappropriate or felt uncomfortable in the situation. Actually, the example of John in Revelation is another strong proof that men did worship others beside God. If it were forbidden to worship anyone beside God, the great apostle John would never have even started to worship the angel. The fact that he did so actually proves the point that others beside God were worshipped in the biblical culture.
It is clear why people fell down and worshipped Jesus while he walked the earth and performed great miracles: people loved him and respected him greatly. It is also clear why we are to worship him now - he has earned our love and our highest reverence. He died to set us free, and God has honored him by seating him at His own right hand above all other powers and authorities.
Broughton and Southgate, pp. 194 and 195
Dana, p. 21
Morgridge, pp. 46-52
Norton, pp. 447 and 448
Snedeker, pp. 389 and 390


Source: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/mod...howpage&pid=73

[جوري]

part II

Matthew 28:19

Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. (NIV)

By

Biblical Unitarian

1. Eusebius (c. 260'c. 340) was the Bishop of Caesarea and is known as "the Father of Church History." Although he wrote prolifically, his most celebrated work is his Ecclesiastical History, a history of the Church from the Apostolic period until his own time. Today it is still the principal work on the history of the Church at that time. Eusebius quotes many verses in his writings, and Matthew 28:19 is one of them. He never quotes it as it appears today in modern Bibles, but always finishes the verse with the words "in my name." For example, in Book III of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2, which is about the Jewish persecution of early Christians, we read:
But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name."
Again, in his Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Chapter 16, Section 8, we read:
What king or prince in any age of the world, what philosopher, legislator or prophet, in civilized or barbarous lands, has attained so great a height of excellence, I say not after death, but while living still, and full of mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name? Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke the word to his followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, "Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name."
Eusebius was present at the council of Nicaea and was involved in the debates about Arian teaching and whether Christ was God or a creation of God. We feel confident that if the manuscripts he had in front of him read "in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," he would never have quoted it as "in my name." Thus, we believe that the earliest manuscripts read "in my name," and that the phrase was enlarged to reflect the orthodox position as Trinitarian influence spread.
2. If Matthew 28:19 is accurate as it stands in modern versions, then there is no explanation for the apparent disobedience of the apostles, since there is not a single occurrence of them baptizing anyone according to that formula. All the records in the New Testament show that people were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus, just as the text Eusebius was quoting said to do. In other words, the "name of Jesus Christ," i.e., all that he represents, is the element, or substance, into which people were figuratively "baptized." "Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins'" (Acts 2:38). "They had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 8:16). "So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 10:48). "On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 19:5). We cannot imagine any reason for the Apostles and others in Acts to disobey a command of the risen Christ. To us, it seems clear that Christ said to baptize in his name, and that was what the early Church did.
3. Even if the Father, Son and holy spirit are mentioned in the original text of this verse, that does not prove the Trinity. The doctrine of the Trinity states that the Father, Son and "Holy Spirit" together make "one God." This verse refers to three, but never says they are "one." The three things this verse refers to are: God the Father, the Lord Jesus and the power of holy spirit (We say "holy spirit" instead of "Holy Spirit" because we believe that this verse is referring to God's gift of holy spirit that is born inside each believer. It is lower case because it refers to the gift of God and not God. The original Greek texts were all written in what scholars call "uncial script," which uses all capital letters. Thus, although we today make a distinction between "Spirit" and "spirit," in the originals every use was just "SPIRIT." Whether or not it should be capitalized is a translator's decision, based on the context of the verse. For more on the form of the early texts, see the note on Heb. 1:8).
It should be clear that three separate things do not make "one God." Morgridge writes:
No passage of Scripture asserts that God is three. If it be asked what I intend to qualify by the numeral three, I answer, anything which the reader pleases. There is no Scripture which asserts that God is three persons, three agents, three beings, three Gods, three spirits, three substances, three modes, three offices, three attributes, three divinities, three infinite minds, three somewhats, three opposites, or three in any sense whatever. The truth of this has been admitted by every Trinitarian who ever wrote or preached on the subject."
4. It is sometimes stated that in order to be baptized into something, that something has to be God, but that reasoning is false, because Scripture states that the Israelites were "baptized into Moses" (1 Cor. 10:2).
5. It is sometimes stated that the Father, Son and spirit have one "name," so they must be one. It is a basic tenet of Trinitarian doctrine not to "confound the persons" (Athanasian Creed), and it does indeed confound the persons to call all three of them by one "name," especially since no such "name" is ever given in Scripture ("God" is not a name). If the verse were teaching Trinitarian doctrine and mentioned the three "persons," then it should use the word "names." There is a much better explanation for why "name" is used in the singular.
A study of the culture and language shows that the word "name" stood for "authority." Examples are very numerous, but space allows only a small selection. Deuteronomy 18:5 and 7 speak of serving in the "name" (authority) of the Lord. Deuteronomy 18:22 speaks of prophesying in the "name" (authority) of the Lord. In 1 Samuel 17:45, David attacked Goliath in the "name" (authority) of the Lord, and he blessed the people in the "name" (authority) of the Lord. In 2 Kings 2:24, Elisha cursed troublemakers in the "name" (authority) of the Lord. These scriptures are only a small sample, but they are very clear. If the modern versions of Matthew 28:19 are correct (which we doubt, see above), then we would still not see this verse as proving the Trinity. Rather, they would be showing the importance of the three: the Father who is God, the Son (who was given authority by God [Matt. 28:18]) and the holy spirit, which is the gift of God.
6. In reading the book of Matthew, we note that there is no presentation of the doctrine of the Trinity. Some prominent Trinitarians doubt that the apostles were even introduced to the doctrine until after they received holy spirit. It would be strange indeed for Christ to introduce the doctrine of the Trinity here in the next-to-last verse in the book without it being mentioned earlier. [For further study on the subject of baptism, read "Two Baptisms: Which Is Which?"]
Morgridge, pp. 13-15, 28, 98-101
Norton, pp. 215-218
Racovian Catechism, pp. 36-39
Snedeker, pp. 109-115

Source: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/mod...howpage&pid=77


Matthew 28:19

by

Misha'al Ibn Abdullah Al-Kadhi

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:"
If ex-President George Bush told General Norman Schwartzkopf to "Go ye therefore, and speak to the Iraqis, chastising them in the name of the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union," does this require that these three countries are one physical country? They may be one in purpose and in their goals but this does in no way require that they are the same physical entity.
Further, the "Great Commission" as narrated in the Gospel of Mark, bears no mention of the Father, Son and/or Holy Ghost (see Mark 16:15). As we shall see in chapter two, Christian historians readily admit that the Bible was the object of continuous "correction" and "addition" to bring it in line with established beliefs. They present many documented cases where words were "inserted" into a given verse to validate a given doctrine. Tom Harpur, former religion editor of the Toronto Star says:
"All but the most conservative of scholars agree that at least the latter part of this command was inserted later. The formula occurs nowhere else in the New Testament, and we know from the only evidence available (the rest of the New Testament) that the earliest Church did not baptize people using these words - baptism was 'into' or 'in' the name of Jesus alone. Thus it is argued that the verse originally read 'baptizing them in my name' and then was expanded to work in the dogma. In fact, the first view put forward by German critical scholars as well as the Unitarians in the nineteenth century, was stated as the accepted position of mainline scholarship as long ago as 1919, when Peake's commentary was first published: 'The church of the first days did not observe this world-wide commandment, even if they new it. The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion.'"
"For Christ's sake," Tom Harpur, p. 103
This is confirmed in 'Peake's Commentary on the Bible' published since 1919, which is universally acclaimed and considered to be the standard reference for students of the Bible. It says:
"This mission is described in the language of the church and most commentators doubt that the Trinitarian formula was original at this point in Mt.'s Gospel, since the NT elsewhere does not know of such a formula and describes baptism as being performed in the name of the Lord Jesus (e.g. Ac. 2:38, 8:16, etc.)."
For example, these Christian scholars observed that after Jesus allegedly issued this command and then was taken up into heaven, the apostles displayed a complete lack of knowledge of this command.
"And Peter said to them, 'Repent, and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;...'"
Acts 2:38.
These Christian scholars observed that it is extremely unlikely that if Jesus had indeed specifically commanded his apostles to "baptize in the name of the father and the son and the holy Ghost" that the apostles would later disobey his direct command and baptize only in the name of Jesus Christ, alone.
As a final piece of evidence, it is noted that after the departure of Jesus, when Paul decided to preach to the Gentiles, this resulted in a heated debate and a great difference of opinion between him and at least three of the apostles. This would not be the case if Jesus had, as claimed, openly commanded them to preach to the Gentiles (see section 6.13 for more). So we notice that not only does this verse never claim that the three are one, or even that the three are equal, but most scholars of Christianity today recognize that at the very least the last part of this verse ("the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost") was not originally part of the command of Jesus but was inserted by the church long after Jesus' departure.
Source: http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/l...ch1.2.2.1.html



Feel free to contact me at b_zawadi@hotmail.com


Return to Refuting Trinity in the New Testament

Return to Homepage

[جوري]

part III

Luke 1:35

The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God." (NIV)

By

Biblical Unitarian

1. There are some Trinitarians who insist that the term "Son of God" implies a pre-existence and that Jesus is God. Once the doctrine of pre-existence was propounded, a vocabulary had to be developed to support it, and thus non-biblical phrases such as "eternally begotten" and "eternal Son" were invented. Not only are these phrases not in the Bible or secular literature, they do not make sense. By definition, a "Son" has a beginning, and by definition, "eternal" means "without beginning." To put the two words together when they never appear together in the Bible or in common usage is doing nothing more than creating a nonsensical term. The meaning of "Son of God" is literal: God the Father impregnated Mary, and nine months later Mary had a son, Jesus. Thus, Jesus is "the Son of God." "This is how the birth [Greek = "beginning"] of Jesus Christ came about," says Matthew 1:18, and that occurred about 2000 years ago, not in "eternity past."
2. When the phrase "Son of God" is studied and compared with phrases about the Father, a powerful truth is revealed. The phrase "Son of God" is common in the New Testament, but the phrase "God the Son" never appears. In contrast, phrases like "God the Father," "God our Father," "the God and Father" and "God, even the Father" occur many times. Are we to believe that the Son is actually God just as the Father is, but the Father is plainly called "God, the Father" over and over and yet the Son is not even once called "God the Son"? This is surely strong evidence that Jesus is not actually "God the Son" at all.
3. Anyone insisting that someone is somehow God simply because he is called "Son of God" is going to run into trouble explaining all the verses in the Bible that call other beings "sons of God." The phrase, "son of God" was commonly used of angels in the Old Testament (see Gen. 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1 (the phrase in these verses is often translated as "angels"), and used of Israel (Ex. 4:22; etc.). In the New Testament, it is used of Christians, those who are born of God (see 1 John 3:1 and 2 -occasionally, "sons" gets translated into "children" to be more inclusive, but the original language is clear). A study of Scripture reveals quite clearly that "son of God" does not in any way mean "God."
4. Trying to prove the Trinity from the phrase "Son of God" brings up a point that often gets missed in debates about whether or not the Trinity exists, and that point has to do with words and the way they are defined. The Bible was not written in a vacuum, and its vocabulary was in common use in the culture of the times. Words that are spoken "on the street" every day have a meaning. If someone writes a letter, it is natural for the reader to assume that the definitions of the words in the letter are the definitions common to the contemporary culture. If the person writing uses the words in a new or unusual way, he would need to say that in the letter, or the reader might misunderstand what he was saying.
The word "son" is a good example. We know what the word means, and we know that if there is a father and a son, the son came after the father. God is clearly called the Father and Christ is clearly called the Son. Thus, the meaning should be simple and clear. But according to Trinitarian doctrine, the Father and Son are both "eternal." This teaching nullifies the clear definitions of the words and makes the vocabulary "mysterious." There is no place in Scripture where the meanings of the words describing the Son are said to be changed from their ordinary meaning to some "new and special" meaning.
To explain the problem their doctrine has created, Trinitarians say that the Son was "eternally begotten," but that phrase itself creates two problems. First, it is not in Scripture, and leads to the erroneous teaching that the Bible does not contain a vocabulary sufficient to explain its own doctrines. Second, the phrase itself is nonsense, and just lends to the belief that the Bible is basically "mysterious" and cannot be fathomed by the average Christian. After all, "eternal" means "without beginning," and "begotten" means "born," which clearly indicates a beginning. The fact that the two words are inherently contradictory is why we say that combining them makes a nonsense word.
The doctrine of the Trinity has caused a number of problems with the vocabulary of the New Testament. For example, Hebrews 1:2 mentions that Jesus Christ was made "heir" by God. By definition, no one is his own heir. To say that Christ is God and then say that Christ is the heir of God is nonsense, and abuses the vocabulary that God used to make His Word accessible to the common Christian and believable to those not yet saved. It changes the simple truth of the Bible into a "mystery" no one can understand.
There are many words that indicate that Jesus was not equal to the Father. Christ was "made Lord"; he was "appointed" by God; he "obeyed" God; he did God's will and not his own; he prayed to God; he called God "my God," etc., etc. Trinitarian teaching contradicts the conclusion that any unindoctrinated reader would arrive at when reading these scriptures, and insists that the Father and the Son are co-equal. Trinitarians teach that the human nature (but not the God nature) of Christ was subservient to the Father and that is why the Bible is worded the way it is. We believe that teaching twists the clear and simple words of Scripture, and we point out that there is not one verse that says that Christ had two natures. Historians admit that the doctrine of the two natures was "clarified" late in the debates about the nature of Christ (actually six out of the seven Ecumenical Councils dealt in some way with the nature of Christ), and we believe that the only reason the doctrine of the two natures was invented was to support the Trinity.
The Trinitarian concept of the two natures also forces a "mysterious" interpretation of the otherwise clear verses about Jesus' humanity. Interpreting the verses about Jesus is quite simple. He was from the line of David and "made like his brothers in every way" (Heb. 2:17). He was "the Last Adam" (1 Cor. 15:45) because, like Adam, he was a direct creation of God. Over and over, the Bible calls him a "man." However, these words are less than genuine if Christ were both 100 percent God and 100 percent man. How can anyone honestly say that Jesus is both fully God and fully man, and then say that he is like his brothers in every way? The standard "explanation" given is that, "It is a mystery and no one can understand it." We ask the reader to consider carefully the choice before you. We are arguing for reading the words in the Bible and then just believing what they say. We assert that one cannot do that if he believes in the Trinity. Trinitarian doctrine forces the meanings of clear and simple words like "Father," "Son," "heir" and "man" to take on new and "mysterious" meanings.
Buzzard, pp. 155-157
Morgridge, pp. 139-142

Source: http://www.biblicalunitarian.com/mod...howpage&pid=80




Feel free to contact me at b_zawadi@hotmail.com


Return to Refuting Trinity in the New Testament

Return to Homepage

___________________

more to come later..
:w:

[Al-manar]

Trinity Part:2

Having noted the trouble with the approach (let's show chrsitians how they misunderstood the trinity proof text),as we have shown that not only the approach deals with the problem from only one aspect,but also It is more proper with those unitirians whom their faith stands or fall on the validity of the way they interpret the trinity so called proof texts..........


I repeat that point again and again,as I met,spoke to many muslims who would fear the idea that the writers of the new testament could have believed that Jesus is God !!!!
in other words, they would accept the idea that Paul and the other writers believed not in Jesus as God ,just their writings were misunderstood by christians !!!!
the writers of the New Tetament were innocents, and the New Testament itslef is fully innocent ...it is just those ignorant chrsitians who misunderstood it !!!!

Again that is exaggeration and more important (NON-ISLAMIC VIEW)

when the Quran says
005.017 In blasphemy are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary.
does it exclude the writers of the New Testament ? no ,it doesn't

but due to just imitiating the uniterians in their style of criticising the trinity,muslims won't put in their consideration ever the possibility that indeed the writers of the new testament put phrases on jesus' mouth claiming divinity,or even putting their own beliefs that Jesus is God !

I think it is time for muslims to understand their own position which has to be Quranic ... putting into consideration that we are not a unitarian sect whose problem with the trinity is much more simpler than ours.....our problem is more profound ......

I would elaborate a point mentioned in the previous post
I said that the trouble with trinity so called proof text ,is that none of them is crucial and could be esily interpret in two meanings(or more),which weaken the case,and establishes no concept firmly...

I would give some examples:

1-Jesus claimed,according to the New Testament, to be Lord of the Sabbath,Is that to be accepted with certainity?

Mark 2:27-28 And he [Jesus] said unto them [the Pharisees], "The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: so that the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath."



Christians commonly take the phrase "son of man" in this passage to refer to Jesus himself. Alternatively, many scholars believe the passage may be more accurately rendered as "a man" or "humanity" in this pericope. This is due to the sequence of "man" "son of man" as a common literary device in semitic writing as demonstrated earlier. wikipedia



There remains in this passage a difficulty which is not possible to solve with absolute certainty. The difficulty lies in the last phrase "So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." This phrase can have two meanings it may mean that Jesus is claiming to be the lord of the Sabbath ,in the sense that he is entitled to use the Sabbath as he thinks fit. that may be said to be the traditional interpretation of that sentence but there are real difficulties in it. On this occasion jesus is defending himself for anything that he did on the Sabbath, he is defending his disciples ,and the authority which he is stressing here is not so much his own authority as the authority of human need.
And it is to be noted that when Mark tells of his incident he introduces another saying of jesus as a part of the climax of it: he says that The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (Mark 2:27)
To this we must add the fact that in hebrew and Aramic the phrase (son of man) can have several meanings and is not necessarily a title at all ,it can simply be a way of saying a man .
When the rabbies began a parable ,they often began it (there was a man who……..
What is man that You take thought of him, And the son of man that You care for him?
We may well conclude that what jesus said here is (Human beings are not slaves of the Sabbath ,rather they have control of it ,to use it for their own good .

The Gospel of Matthew
By William Barclay

.......................

A number of scholars Jewish, and Christians ,have proposed that in jesus Aramaic saying the meaning was (Man is the lord of the Sabbath),that is human need must take precedence over the abstentions required by the Sabbath commandment.
Matthew
By Douglas R. A. Hare
...............................


There are several possibilities for interpreting the meaning as it stands ,In the context of the story ,the basic point seems to be that human need takes precedent over the pedantic rules of religious authorities .citing an example from the scriptures about no less a person than king David, Jesus made the point that «The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath) the subsequent saying is the crucial one. "So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." It is just possible that originally the saying may have meant "So Man is Lord even of the Sabbath. “this would make the saying then consistent and can easily be explained as a misunderstanding of the common Semitic term (son of man) ,Since however ,the term was usually used by jesus as a title ,It was so understood here as well.
The New Testament writings: history, literature, and interpretation
By James M. Efird
...........................



to sum up the first proof text ,the passage has two possible meanings and nothing to be taken with certainity,hence no way to establish a belief upon it...


Till Part 3


peace for all

[Al-manar]

Trinity P.3

2-The biblical claim of a pre-human existence of Jesus,proves him as God?


for example:

John 8:58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

and
John 17:24 "Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.

and
John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.


the previous verses are one of the commonly used by trinitarians to argue for Jesus being God !.... however, just as the other texts won't establish the belief as they are so controversal .....

eg; John 8:58 "I tell you the truth," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!"

It has been understood in 3 different ways:

1- The Trinitarian view,pre-existence to Abraham means he is God

2- but hold on, the fact of the matter is that the text does not at all indicate how long Jesus supposedly lived before Abraham, just a pre-existence to Abraham or the whole world doesn't necessarily means he is God.... the prehuman Jesus could have been a created angel who is "other than the God who made all things,or that he was God's first and only direct creation, that God then created everything else by means of him....Such understanding is one common among unitarians before and after Arius,Jehovah's Witnesses etc....

3- Away from the two previous literal understandings,is there a place here for the metaphorical understanding?


Before Abraham was born,I was marked out in the divine counsels as the messiah ...In the patriarch’s age ,some prophetic intimations must have been given of the future designs of divine providence ,and by these intimations the day of Christ was so far anticipated ,that ,in this view of the subject
And taken in connection with what precedes it, the text under consideration may be interpreted without including the idea of actual pre-existence and may be supposed merely to signify ,that previously to the birth of Abraham ,the coming of Christ was foretold .(Belsham on the person of Christ,the monthly review of literally journal, , Volume 68)
By Ralph Griffiths)

...........................

I am before Abraham ; that is, before Abraham was born, it was decreed that christ should come… why should the Jews go to stone him for this answer? because they misunderstood it.
The theological works of the Rev. Charles Leslie, Volume 2
By Charles Leslie

...............


Before Abraham was born, I have been appointed to the office I am now filling,' the world to be supplied is Messiah ,anointed, which necessarily refers, not to existence ,but to designation to office, and this alone was necessary ,that Abraham might foresee his day . If anyone ,accustomed only to our modes of speech ,should think it is strange that our lord should thus assert his appointment before the time of Abraham, let him consider the following and similar expressions. Revelation 13:8The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world
That is appointed to be slain in the Divine counsels …
whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world. (Revelation 17:8)
Ephesians 1:4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world
Letters on the Logos, By Charles Wentworth Upham
..............

John 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.
Allow me to participate .in that which your own greatest glory, the glory of recovering lost mankind to virtue and happiness ,a glory which was intended and reserved for me in the eternal immutable counsel of infinite wisdom and benevolence .
Unitarians interpret it as affirming as jesus might have said to have existed, as the messiah,in the purpose and decree of God;that is, he was designated to his office,before Abraham was born.( The Scripture testimony to the Messiah)
By John Pye Smi

etc....etc....etc....

in sum, we have found out how such texts open to speculations from every kind... and hardly establishes any belief with absolute certainity.....

I won't discuss the other so called trinity proof text ,and would suspend this point,till may be one christian member would like to resume it again ,in the condition that he provides a trinity proof text that is straight,clear enough to be taken with certainity,and leave no chance for speculation.....
but note,that doesn't mean ,as I said before , that muslims should believe in the dogma if it is to be there clearly in the bible,as I said before the muslim problem with the trinity is bigger than that.....
I would also resume it in case if a muslim bro or sis ,who has any comment or objection against my approach..........

next part,will be dealing with a supposed origin(not neccesarily pagan!!!) of the belief of Jesus as divine

peace for all

[Al-manar]

Trinity P.4

Trinity origin,a pagan concept that has crept into Christianity, or the bad Jewish seed that grew the trinity fruit?

I have always been puzzled ,wondering what prompted those who regarded Jesus as divine and pre-existed alongside one God, how is it possible for the pious jews of the first century ,who had been brought up with strong monotheistic belief in one God ,to be able to accept that?

I used to be convinced to the answer that the belief of Jesus as God ,trinity etc….. is nothing but a pagan concept that has crept into Christianity by the pagans who formed Christianity ,departing it from the Judaism …..
As a matter of fact that is the common way Jews, Muslims ,some secular writers would view the matter…..
But I no longer in favor of such argument…. I found out that the problem is more profound, and the Jewish contribution to the problem is a huge one…..

The claim that the early Christians (those who believed of Jesus as God) divorced the Old testament and the Jewish traditions, speculations is a false one… as the fact is that they often used quotations from the OT to demonstrate their belief of a strong link between the old testament and the new testament, but the fact is in their attempt to do so, they have gone to the extreme , misapplied the text ,corrupting concepts eg, the messiah(his nature&role),the holy spirit etc….

I’m going to give clues that the trinity is nothing but an illegal child that came from the womb of Judaism, who been brought up later by some deviant Hellenistic Jews and pagan converts……….
Trinity is a Jewish speculation based on the language of personified divine attributes, and the nature and function of intermediary figures ….
It was an interpretation to some old testament text ,liked by few Jews ,that would later develop , may be turns into scripture itself……

Details:

The Idea of physical manifestation , personification to the divine ,is one that exists in both the old testament and the Jewish traditions….
Eg;
Exodus 33:11
And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend.
1 Kings 22:19
I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.
Genesis 32:30
And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

Jewish Personifying of abstract powers:

We already knew John's prologue, The word was with God and the word was God
If we accept with certainty that the text denotes the writer’s belief in a divinity of Jesus,or in other words personifying the abstract (the word of God) ,we shouldn’t wonder neither supposing him as pagan writer …. Pagan concepts has already crept into some Jews’ mentalities :

Quotes:


The opening five verses of the prologue(of the gospel of John), offer an interpretation of jesus against the backdrop of creation .He is God’s logos ,existing from eternity, through whom the cosmos came into existence. The Johannine logos appears to be informed principally from the function of (the word) in the old testament, as especially seen in the wisdom writings such as proverbs, sirach and the wisdom of Solomon,and in speculative tradition, such as what we have in philo.rabbinic midrash and interpretive traditions in the targums also cohere with certain interpretive features presupposed by the prologue . It is possible that the johannine logos may also represent a late first -century analogue of the targumic memra .This is not to say that the johannine logos is identical to the targumic memra,or that the memra must be understood as hypostasis. Rather, the coherence between the prologue’s logos and some of the functions of the memra(as presented in the targums),suggests that the former may reflect the latter ,as it was coming to expression in the synagogue of the late first century .
Word and glory: on the exegetical and theological background of John's prologue
By Craig A.Evans


.......................................

The same appears true for some elements of the false doctrines which led to the development of the Trinity. The apocryphal Jewish Book of Enoch held that the "Son of man" figure personally pre-existed (1 Enoch 48:2-6; 62:6,7). The idea of personal pre-existence was held by the Samaritans, who believed that Moses personally pre-existed (8). Indeed the idea of a pre-existent man, called by German theologians the urmensch , was likely picked up by the Jews from the Persians during the captivity. Christians who believed that Jesus was the prophet greater than Moses, that He was the "Son of man", yet who were influenced by Jewish thinking, would therefore come to assume that Jesus also personally pre-existed. And yet they drew that conclusion in defiance of basic Biblical teaching to the opposite.
Jewish Influence On The TrinityJewish Myths Deconstructed.by Duncan heaster
..................................................


Martin Hengel suggests that Christians attempted to answer the Jewish ideas of pre-existent Torah, Wisdom and Logos by developing the idea that Jesus pre-existed, as a kind of answer to their claims (10). This would indicate that the Christians simply sought to make their Jesus attractive to the surrounding world, paying more attention to justifying their beliefs and silencing other alternatives than to simply proclaiming the Biblical Christ.

...............................

The worship of jesus by early Christians was not a product of syncretistic tendencies from Hellenism but a significant mutation or innovation in jewish monotheistic tradition as a result of drawing upon important resources in ancient Judaism by the earliest Christians.
From Messiah to preexistent son: Jesus' self-consciousness and early .By Aquila H. I. Lee
....................................

In his examination of rabbinic literature of the second century AD and later Alan segal has shown that some Jewish (heretics) were accused of giving so much reverence to principal angels and hypostatic manifestations in heaven from his argument that elements within NT Christianity represent one of the earliest examples of the (two powers heresy).which was developed from jewish interests in figures other than God on the throne in Jewish apocalyptic literature. ed

................................
The tendency of Hebrew imagery to personify abstract powers,such as sheol,wisdom is evident also in the manner in which the divine word or speech is represented in poetry and elevated language. Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Part 16
By James Hastings
......................................

What have become clear to me time and time again is that even over so wide an arena,the evidence points consistently in one direction and indicates that pre-christian Judaism was not monotheistic in the sense that we use that word.the roots of Christian Trinitarian theology lie in pre-christian Palestinian beliefs about the angels…
The great angel: a study of Israel's second god By Margaret Barker
...................................

This leads me to infer that Christianity and Judaism distinguished themselves in antiquity not via the doctrine of God ,and not even via the question of worshiping a second (although the jewish heresiologists would make it so)but only in the specifics of such doctrine of this incarnation.not even the appearance of the logos as human,I would suggest but rather the ascription of actual physical death and resurrection to the logos was the point at which non-christian jews would have to part company theologically with those Christians –not all of course who held such doctrines.
Border Lines: The Partition of Judaeo-Christianity By Daniel Boyarin

see more
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/vi...M&search=logos


I have lots of other Quotes(saved for other occasions) supporting the same idea, the bad seed in the Old testament and Jewish speculations been grown as the rotten fruit of taken a man as God.....


more related issues in future posts (inshaAllah).....

peace

[Grace Seeker]

lol-- Show me a historical source outside your (bible which has absolutely no textual integrity whatsoever and we have so proven repeatedly) that attests that a man named Jesus lived at all

How about this source:

Sura #3 -- Aal-e-Imran
50 Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee superior to those who reject faith, to the Day of Resurrection: Then shall ye all return unto me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute.
59 The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was.

Of course, you did ask for an "historical source", and that was written long after the fact. Not exactly the sort of contemporaneous record that would used to verify anything from the first century.

[Grace Seeker]

Trinity Part:2

Christians commonly take the phrase "son of man" in this passage to refer to Jesus himself. Alternatively, many scholars believe the passage may be more accurately rendered as "a man" or "humanity" in this pericope. This is due to the sequence of "man" "son of man" as a common literary device in semitic writing as demonstrated earlier. wikipedia



There remains in this passage a difficulty which is not possible to solve with absolute certainty. The difficulty lies in the last phrase "So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath." This phrase can have two meanings...
...to sum up the first proof text ,the passage has two possible meanings and nothing to be taken with certainity,hence no way to establish a belief upon it...

So, which do you hold? Do you hold that Jesus decided that despite the divine commandment found in Exodus to "Remember the Sabbath nd keep it holy" that he set himself up as "Lord of the Sabbath". Or do you believe that despite this divine command, Jesus taught that a man could do with and on the Sabbath whatever he personally desired? Personally, I find the first more consistent with the rest of what Jesus taught and did.

[Grace Seeker]

Trinity P.4

I have always been puzzled ,wondering what prompted those who regarded Jesus as divine and pre-existed alongside one God, how is it possible for the pious jews of the first century ,who had been brought up with strong monotheistic belief in one God ,to be able to accept that?

I used to be convinced to the answer that the belief of Jesus as God ,trinity etc….. is nothing but a pagan concept that has crept into Christianity by the pagans who formed Christianity ,departing it from the Judaism …..
As a matter of fact that is the common way Jews, Muslims ,some secular writers would view the matter…..
But I no longer in favor of such argument…. I found out that the problem is more profound, and the Jewish contribution to the problem is a huge one…..

The claim that the early Christians (those who believed of Jesus as God) divorced the Old testament and the Jewish traditions, speculations is a false one…
Trinity is a Jewish speculation based on the language of personified divine attributes, and the nature and function of intermediary figures ….
It was an interpretation to some old testament text ……

Thank-you for this. I understand why Jews and Muslims would object to the concept of the Trinity, I'm just hopeful that others will come to see as you have that the characterization of it as being of pagan origin is entirely misplaced and can only be arrived at by those who think that bats, birds, and bees must be related species because they all have wings. The objection that Christians mis-applied and mis-used the texts we suggest substantiate our beliefs at least recognizes the correct origins of those beliefs. Such a critique is a breath of fresh air around here.

[جوري]

How about this source:



Of course, you did ask for an "historical source", and that was written long after the fact. Not exactly the sort of contemporaneous record that would used to verify anything from the first century.

Not sure how this is exactly a case for the trinity? if we are using the Quran for a historical record then the Jesus of the Quranic message is completely at odds with the jesus mangod you worship!

all the best

[Grace Seeker]

Not sure how this is exactly a case for the trinity? if we are using the Quran for a historical record then the Jesus of the Quranic message is completely at odds with the jesus mangod you worship!

all the best

I didn't read your post as part of a conversation about the Trinity, just the usual questioning of all things Christian, so much so that you even insinuated that one cannot prove the historical authenticity of the person of Jesus:

lol-- Show me a historical source outside your (bible which has absolutely no textual integrity whatsoever and we have so proven repeatedly) that attests that a man named Jesus lived at all

Just found that an incredible statement coming from one who accepts the Qur'an as able to tell us historical details about the person Jesus.

[Predator]

Regarding the trinity The verse below says

2 Samuel 22:11

"And He ( God ) rode on a cherub and flew "

A Cherub as we know is a small child like girl angel with wings like the one below

By "he" does it mean " 3 person Father ,son and Holy Ghost" or only one God

Does it mean 3 person actually rode on one Cherub ,

The Holy spirit is a dove and can fly on its own , Why does it need to ride a Cherub ?


And these Gods ( Father and Son) of ours, they didnt know about a flying saucer or a helicopter or they couldnt fly on their own and they ride little girls .

[جوري]

I didn't read your post as part of a conversation about the Trinity, just the usual questioning of all things Christian, so much so that you even insinuated that one cannot prove the historical authenticity of the person of Jesus:

Indeed

Just found that an incredible statement coming from one who accepts the Qur'an as able to tell us historical details about the person Jesus.

and as I stated the Jesus of the Quran isn't the mangod you speak of!

all the best

[Grace Seeker]

Regarding the trinity The verse below says

2 Samuel 22:11

"And He ( God ) rode on a cherub and flew "

A Cherub as we know is a small child like girl angel with wings like the one below

By "he" does it mean " 3 person Father ,son and Holy Ghost" or only one God

Does it mean 3 person actually rode on one Cherub ,

The Holy spirit is a dove and can fly on its own , Why does it need to ride a Cherub ?


And these Gods ( Father and Son) of ours, they didnt know about a flying saucer or a helicopter or they couldnt fly on their own and they ride little girls .

Actually, none of the above. The phrase you quoted is but one a many in a song sung by David. Whether he wrote it or another the text doesn't say, but in reading the whole we find several other statements about God that I believe reveal that one is not meant to take any of this as literally you have inferred.

For instance David's song begins with the lines:

The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer;
my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge,
my shield and the horn of my salvation.
He is my stronghold, my refuge and my savior—
from violent men you save me.
(2 Samuel 22:2b-3)

Now, God is not literally a rock, nor is he a fortress, a shield, or a horn. These are all metaphors which speak of the different ways in which David related to God. He is like these things to David in that David finds in God a source of strength and protection. The song continues with other metaphors and analogies, including the metaphor you referenced, which I understand to be speaking of a God who cannot be constrained, but is free to do as he wills. As for God needing to fly, that is part of the metaphor, for God being omnipresent, has no need to fly anywhere. So, to ask about how many persons rode on the cherub is a little bit like asking about the amount of calores Allah expended grasping the heavens and the earth lest they be moved from their places (see Surah 35:41). The question unwarrantedly presupposes human conditions onto God.

By the way, I doubt if David thought of cherubim in the way you have described and pictured them. Here are some other images you might want to consider: http://www.google.com/images?q=cheru...ed=0CCoQsAQwAA. The cherubim were given the role of being protectors of the garden of Eden. And the ones that David was most acquainted with were those the images of the cherubim that God had told Moses to make in position to guard the ark of the covenant. They were huge figures with outstretched wings each measuring 5 cubits in length (a cubit being the length of a man's arm from elbow to fingertip). Based on Ezekiel 28, some would go so far as to suggest that Lucifer (Iblis to you) was a guardian cherub angel before he was thrown out of heaven.

[جوري]

stuff.

How is God having complete dominion of the heaven comparable to god riding on a cherub? are you that desperate for a simile? :D

[Grace Seeker]

How is God having complete dominion of the heaven comparable to god riding on a cherub? are you that desperate for a simile? :D

It isn't, nor did I compare them. What I did compare and what I do believe is comparable is the idea that God rides anything with the idea the Allah grasps anything. Both reuqire the taking of sayings as being literal descriptions of events that are presumably observable. I contest the idea that in eiher case there was something to be observed, for that would imply things about God and Allah to be true that are elsewhere revealed differently -- namely the concept that either God or Allah is exists in some sort of observable physical body. You may not be in agreement with my particular understanding of the meaning behind the metaphor (and it is a metaphor, not a simile), but a metaphor it remains nevertheless. That's the important point as far as Airforce's question is concerned.

[جوري]

It isn't, nor did I compare them. What I did compare and what I do believe is comparable is the idea that God rides anything with the idea the Allah grasps anything. Both reuqire the taking of sayings as being literal descriptions of events that are presumably observable. I contest the idea that in eiher case there was something to be observed, for that would imply things about God and Allah to be true that are elsewhere revealed differently -- namely the concept that either God or Allah is exists in some sort of observable physical body. You may not be in agreement with my particular understanding of the meaning behind the metaphor (and it is a metaphor, not a simile), but a metaphor it remains nevertheless. That's the important point as far as Airforce's question is concerned.

they are not comparable, further you are basing your judgment if I can call it that on a translation, the verse denotes that it is Allah swt that holds the dominion of the heavens, hardly comparable to going riding on a cherub!

all the best

[Al-manar]

So, which do you hold? Do you hold that Jesus decided that despite the divine commandment found in Exodus to "Remember the Sabbath nd keep it holy" that he set himself up as "Lord of the Sabbath". Or do you believe that despite this divine command, Jesus taught that a man could do with and on the Sabbath whatever he personally desired?

my opinion is, IF Jesus really said that ,and our belief that the basic goals of his mission was,besides affirming true monotheism eg,5:17,to allow part of that which had been forbidden to the Jews,as in verse (Quran, 3:5O),then I find the unitarian understanding making much sense ,He he may have wanted to say ,though the Sabbath should be kept holy,but not everything has to be unlawful such day......

anyway whether is that what he meant or any other sense,you seem to agree that the passage and alone wouldn't give a direct message that Jesus is God.... and instead you find it consistent with the rest of what Jesus taught and did.
though the fact that the rest of what Jesus taught and did is as equal (if not weaker) as the passage ,won't give a straight proof text that Jesus claimed deity..
the proof text makes every understanding possible,but nothing certain....
and that is one of the problems with the concept (the bible says that Jesus is God)
not (was Jesus really God) which is another issue,the first is of much concern to the non-muslim unitarians,the second is of concern to the Muslims .

I understand why Jews and Muslims would object to the concept of the Trinity

I would suggest why the Jews object to the concept of the Trinity?

I think if Jesus fulfilled their wishful thinking (which been interpreted on a text of messianic prophecies ) of such guy who will be descended from King David via Solomon ,who will bring the Israeli to their homeland,and in his reign
Death will be swallowed up forever,There will be no more hunger or illness, and death will cease , All of the dead will rise again , The Jewish people will experience eternal joy and gladness and the Nations will recognize the wrongs they did to Israel etc,etc,etc ..........!!!!!

I think had he fulfilled that ,they had never had a problem of accepting the trinity or any other things , would have suggested such guy about himself.......

but instead of that...they found him bringing nothing new on the scene, they got bored of the prophets and their miracles.... bored of being asked to follow the laws and be responsible for conveying God's message ..and forming such community of goodness.... they wanted heaven on Earth and glory , not through making the efforts to be so,but instead such man arrives and glory comes automatically without seeking that through piousness and good work....

Jews were bored of being criticised by the prophets ,bored of being remided again and again that they are responsible to praech God's message through the nations and should be a living example of piousness among the other nations........
that is why they tried to kill Jesus ,as they tried to kill other prophets before ....

[Grace Seeker]

they found him bringing nothing new on the scene

I disagree that Jesus brought nothing new on the scene. Key to understanding Jesus is that he initiates a new covenant. Everything from his kingdom of God preaching in which he refers back to the Torah and then adds, "but I say unto you..." to his final passover celebration with the giving of a new commandment clarify that Jesus sees himself as doing a new thing.

they got bored of the prophets and their miracles.... bored of being asked to follow the laws and be responsible for conveying God's message ..and forming such community of goodness.... they wanted heaven on Earth and glory , not through making the efforts to be so,but instead such man arrives and glory comes automatically without seeking that through piousness and good work....

nor do I think that this properly describes Jesus' individual disciples, Paul, Barnabas, or any of the early church corporately.


But those disagreements aside, I continue to appreciate that you wrestle with the Biblical material itself and not some caricature of it.

[Predator]

God almighty's shaving of people in Islam and Bible


Hadith - Mishkat, Narrator AbuHurayrah , transmitted by Tirmidhi and Darimi

Allah's Messenger said, "The inhabitants of Paradise are hairless, beardless and have black eyes,
their youth does not pass away and their garments do not wear out."

Thus The inhabitants are automatically hairless and beardless upon entering Jannah without God having to Physically shave them.
Kun fayakoon - Be and it is. God Almighy will it and the thing comes into being



Whereas in the Bible ,it Portrays God Almighty as a Barber like people cutting hairs
It says in

Isaiah 7:20

In that day the Lord will use a razor

They used those cut-throats then as They didnt have safety razors back in those time


hired from beyond the River--the king of Assyria--to shave your head and the hair
of your legs, and to take off your beards also.

So he is going to shave the head & beard and also hair of the legs(lol , doesnt say how high ) with a razor . You tell that to a barber today and he would ask you
" Dont you know about Immac or Veet ,you know those ads you see on TV everyday . So hence Can you imagine God Almighty taking a razor trying to shave the legs ?

[جوري]

God almighty's shaving of people in Islam and Bible


Hadith - Mishkat, Narrator AbuHurayrah , transmitted by Tirmidhi and Darimi

Allah's Messenger said, "The inhabitants of Paradise are hairless, beardless and have black eyes,
their youth does not pass away and their garments do not wear out."

Thus The inhabitants are automatically hairless and beardless upon entering Jannah without God having to Physically shave them.
Kun fayakoon - Be and it is. God Almighy will it and the thing comes into being



Whereas in the Bible ,it Portrays God Almighty as a Barber like people cutting hairs
It says in

Isaiah 7:20

In that day the Lord will use a razor

They used those cut-throats then as They didnt have safety razors back in those time


hired from beyond the River--the king of Assyria--to shave your head and the hair
of your legs, and to take off your beards also.

So he is going to shave the head & beard and also hair of the legs(lol , doesnt say how high ) with a razor . You tell that to a barber today and he would ask you
" Dont you know about Immac or Veet ,you know those ads you see on TV everyday . So hence Can you imagine God Almighty taking a razor trying to shave the legs ?

It amuses me how many of these turds write abominable crap about Muslims on youtube and false uninformed videos about stuff they have no idea about, forgetting in the process to browse the pages of their books, which are filled with absurd fantasy, comic relief, not to mention filled to the brim with scatology!

[Predator]

Do Angels eat ?

Bible says

The angels who visited Abraham ate food!

And the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth and said, "O Lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant. Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree, while I bring a morsel of bread, that you may refresh yourselves, and after that you may pass on--since you have come to your servant." So they said, "Do as you have said." 6And Abraham went quickly into the tent to Sarah and said, "Quick! Three seahs of fine flour! Knead it, and make cakes." And Abraham ran to the herd and took a calf, tender and good, and gave it to a young man, who prepared it quickly. Then he took curds and milk and the calf that he had prepared, and set it before them. And he stood by them under the tree while they ate. (Genesis 18:1-8)


"They" means even God ate food .



Quran says :

The story of Prophet Abraham in Quran also indicates that the angels have no need of food. When angels, in the form of men, visited Prophet Abraham to give him the good tidings of the birth of a son, he killed a fatted calf in their honour. They refused to eat and he became fearful, it was then that they revealed themselves as angels. (Quran 51:26-28)

[Al-manar]

Trinity P.5

Why 3 ?

One of the issue comes to the mind regarding the trinity besides the issues been mentioned, is the question, why it is suggested to be trinity?why not duality in the Godhead why not even more than three?

That is not a puzzle….. the reason behind such choice of trinity,lies behind the obsession with the number 3 in ancient times…… from the very ancient times the number 3 is suggested to be essential, perfect, substantial, solid, complete and even divine !

The number 3 is a very mystical and spiritual number featured in many folktales (three wishes, three guesses, three little pigs, three bears, three billy goats gruff). In ancient Babylon the three primary gods were Anu, Bel (Baal), and Ea, representing Heaven, Earth, and the Abyss. Similarly, there were three aspects to the Egyptian sun god: Khepri (rising), Re (midday), and Atum (setting)
• 3-faced goddess in Greek Mythology: Hecate
• 3 Gorgons-(snake-haired sisters in Greek mythology): Stheno, Euryale, Medusa are sometimes depicted as having wings of gold, brazen claws, and the tusks of boars. Medusa is the only one of the gorgons that is mortal.
• 3 Roman Furies (female personifications of vengeance) that were called the Erinyes (the Angry Ones) or Eumenides by the Ancient Greeks (Orestes called them the Solemn Ones, or the Kindly Ones): Alecto ("unceasing")~ Megaera ("grudging")~ Tisiphone ("avenging murder").
• 3-headed dog that guarded the gate to Hades in Greek Mythology: Cerberus
• 3 ancient Greek Harpies: Aello, Ocypete, and Celaeno.
• 3 Greek Fates (Moirai, Moirés): Clotho~ Lachesis~ Atropos (sometimes referred to as the 3 spinners).
• 3 Roman Fates: Decima~ Nona (goddesses of birth)~ Morta (goddess of death)
• 3 Roman Graces- (in Greek mythology called the Charities and according to the Spartans, Cleta was the third): Aglaia~ Euphrosyne~ Thalia.
• 3 parts to a Chimera: Head of a lion~ Body of a goat~ Tail of a snake
• 3 forms of Odin in Eddic Mythology: Har~ Jafnhar~ Thridi
• 3 mysterious figures amongst Norse gods: Hoenir~ Lodurr~ Mimir
• 3 monstrous offspring by Loki and Angroboda: Fenrir~ Hel~ Jormungund
• 3 hags possessing immense power in Norse Myth: Urdr~ Verdandi~ Skuld
• 3 Norns of Norse Mythology who sat beneath the World Tree Yggdrasil
• The Maya believed 3 stars in the Orion Constellation (Alnitak~ Saiph~ Rigel) were arranged by the gods as a triangular hearth, enclosing the smoke of the fire creation - the nebula.
(wikipedia)

If we visit the number 3 inthe bible :

It is obvious that the writers of the bible were obsessed as the ancient world by the number three ,as The number 3 is mentioned 523 times in the bible !!!
Just a sample of such obsession which cast a doubt on the origin of the bible

All the following phrases are mentioned in the old testament:

-a three-day journey
-Three days later
-three months later
-Within three days Pharaoh will lift up your head and restore you to your position
-On my head were three baskets of bread.
-And he put them all in custody for three days.
-Three men going up to God at Bethel will meet you there. One will be carrying three young goats, -another three loaves of bread
-Let us take a three-day journey into the desert to offer sacrifices to the LORD our God
-No one could see anyone else or leave his place for three days
-Three times a year all the men are to appear before the Sovereign LORD.
-For three years you are to consider it forbidden ; it must not be eaten.
-So they set out from the mountain of the LORD and traveled for three days. The ark of the -covenant of the LORD went before them during those three days to find them a place to rest.
-Then the LORD opened the donkey's mouth, and she said to Balaam, "What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?"
-I summoned you to curse my enemies, but you have blessed them these three times.
-and when they had traveled for three days in the Desert of Etham, they camped at Marah.
-At the end of every three years, bring all the tithes of that year's produce and store it in your towns,
-Give three on this side of the Jordan and three in Canaan as cities of refuge.
-Build roads to them and divide into three parts the land the LORD your God is giving you
-Hide yourselves there three days until they return, and then go on your way."
-When they left, they went into the hills and stayed there three days
-From Hebron Caleb drove out the three Anakites—Sheshai, Ahiman and Talmai
-Appoint three men from each tribe. I will send them out to make a survey of the land
-He replied, "Out of the eater, something to eat; out of the strong, something sweet." For three days they could not give the answer.
-Joseph said to him. "The three branches are three days.
-As for the donkeys you lost three days ago, do not worry about them; they have been found.
-He ate and was revived, for he had not eaten any food or drunk any water for three days and three nights.

Etc etc etc…………………………….

Being Jews and again obsessed by the number 3 ,the writers of the new testament ….made Jesus as lived 3 decades, and his ministry 3 years ,he was one in the middle of the 3 been crucified ,and he stayed 3 days and 3 nights in his grave….

What a coincide !!

No ,no, it is not a coincide,they are just been influenced by the literally style that was common in such ancient times…and even today…the number 3 has significance to lots of people in our world…..

Another question..

Why those three (father,son,holy spirit)?why not others?

well,The father has to be included in any Godhead system ,isn’t it?
The king messiah (as depicted in the old testament) is the most significant character after God,the new testament writers developed the character ,ignored his supposed Earthly role,and instead inventing a heavenly role for him,to escape the accuse of the messianic failure to fulfill the concrete promises he had to fulfill….

But a Godhead with 2 members is incomplete,so they have to add another member to reach the perfect number(3)……..and the member (holy spirit) was the best candidate …he is powerful even more powerful than the Shekhinah… more important the concept that after the coming of the Messiah the Holy Spirit will be poured out upon all humanity gives clues why in the New Testament such great importance is given to the Holy Spirit and why it was the successful candidate after the messiah to join the godhead !!!.

..........................................

well that was the last part regarding the trinity right now..more related comes later in the right time and place..

......peace

[Al-manar]

Item.6

God’s agents:

1-Agent’s of communication:

Communication takes two forms,either sending or receiving …..

Man to God communication is simple and direct:

[2:186] When My servants ask you about Me, I am always near. I answer their prayers when they pray to Me.

God to man communication :

[042:051] It is not fitting for a man that God should speak to him except by inspiration, or from behind a veil, or by the sending of a messenger to reveal, with God's permission, what God wills: for He is Most High, Most Wise.

1-A human receives directly divine inspiration which neither confined to receiving a message or laws nor mere prophets as the receivers ….. eg; [020:038] "When We inspired your mother with that which We inspired. `Put him in the ark, and place in into the river, then the river will cast it on to the shore, and there one who is an enemy to ME and also an enemy to him will take him up.' And I wrapped thee with love from ME; and this I did that thou mightest be reared before MY eye;
the mother of Moses(peace be upon him) was a normal person but received inspiration (divine ideas )

non-humans recieves revelation?

[016:068] And thy Lord inspired the bee(seems to denote plural), saying: Choose thou habitations in the hills and in the trees and in that which they thatch;

[005:031] Then God sent a raven, who scratched the ground, to show him how to hide the shame of his brother. "Woe is me!" said he; "Was I not even able to be as this raven, and to hide the shame of my brother?" then he became full of regrets-
[006:130] 'O company of jinn and men ! Did not Messengers come to you from among yourselves who related to you MY Signs and who warned you of the meeting of this your day ?' They will say, `We bear witness against ourselves.' And the worldly life deceived them. And they will bear witness against themselves that they were disbelievers.

2-Behind a veil:
[007:143] When Moses came to the place appointed by Us, and his Lord addressed him, He said: "O my Lord! show (Thyself) to me, that I may look upon thee." God said: "By no means canst thou see Me (direct); But look upon the mount; if it abide in its place, then shalt thou see Me." When his Lord manifested His glory on the Mount, He made it as dust. And Moses fell down in a swoon. When he recovered his senses he said: "Glory be to Thee! to Thee I turn in repentance, and I am the first to believe."

3-Sending messeneger:
when a messeneger talks to you with what God has revealed to him, it is God talks to you but indirectly…..

2- Agents as bearer of glad tidings and warnings:

they could be prophets:
[002:213] Mankind were one community, and Allah sent (unto them) prophets as bearers of good tidings and as warners, and revealed therewith the Scripture with the truth that it might judge between mankind concerning that wherein they differed.
[007:188] Say: "I have no power over any good or harm to myself except as God willeth. If I had knowledge of the unseen, I should have multiplied all good, and no evil should have touched me: I am but a warner, and a bringer of glad tidings to those who have faith."

Or Angels

[003:039] And the angels called to him as he stood praying in the chamber, `ALLAH gives thee glad tidings of Yahya, who shall testify to the truth of a word from ALLAH - noble and chaste and a Prophet, from among the righteous.
[003:045] (And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah)
[011:069] There came Our messengers to Abraham with glad tidings. They said, "Peace!" He answered, "Peace!" and hastened to enter[011:070] But when he saw their hands went not towards the (meal), he felt some mistrust of them, and conceived a fear of them. They said: "Fear not: We have been sent against the people of Lut."tain them with a roasted calf.[011:071] His wife, standing there, let out a laughter. We gave her the good news of (a son) Ishaq and after Ishaq, Yaqub.

One thing to note, Angels would appear in human form :

[006:009] If We had sent down an angel, We would have sent him as a human.
[019:017] She drew the curtain behind her and there, We sent Our spirit (angel) to her! It appeared before her in the figure of a full grown man.

‘Umar ibn al-Khattab said:
As we sat one day with the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace), a man in pure white clothing and jet black hair came to us, without a trace of travelling upon him, though none of us knew him. He sat down before the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) bracing his knees against his, resting his hands on his legs, and said: "Muhammad, tell me about Islam." The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) said: "Islam is to testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and to perform the prayer, give zakat, fast in Ramadan, and perform the pilgrimage to the House if you can find a way."
He said: "You have spoken the truth," and we were surprised that he should ask and then confirm the answer. Then he said: "Tell me about true faith (iman)," and the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) answered: "It is to believe in Allah, His angels, His inspired Books, His messengers, the Last Day, and in destiny, its good and evil." "You have spoken the truth," he said, "Now tell me about the perfection of faith (ihsan)," and the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) answered: "It is to worship Allah as if you see Him, and if you see Him not, He nevertheless sees you." The hadith continues to where ‘Umar said: Then the visitor left. I waited a long while, and the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said to me, "Do you know, ‘Umar, who was the questioner?" and I replied, "Allah and His messenger know best." He said,
"It was Gabriel, who came to you to teach you your religion" (Sahih Muslim, 1.37: hadith 8).

Wind:
[025:048] And He it is Who sends the winds as heralds of glad tidings, going before His mercy, and We send down pure water from the sky,-


3:Agents of punishment:

as people didn’t listen to warning,the following procedure would be varied agents of punishment:
natural disasters:

water

[010:073] They rejected Him, but We delivered him, and those with him, in the Ark, and We made them inherit (the earth), while We overwhelmed in the flood those who rejected Our Signs. Then see what was the end of those who were warned (but heeded not)!
[008:054] (Deeds) after the manner of the people of Pharaoh and those before them": They treated as false the Signs of their Lord: so We destroyed them for their crimes, and We drowned the people of Pharaoh: for they were all oppressors and wrong- doers.
[34:15] Sheba's homeland used to be a marvel, with two gardens on the right and the left. Eat from your Lord's provisions, and be appreciative of Him - good land, and a forgiving Lord. [34:16] They turned away and, consequently, we poured upon them a disastrous flood

Wind:
plays a double role, the role of glad tiding mentioned before, now the role of punishment

[041:016] So We sent against them a furious Wind through days of disaster, that We might give them a taste of a Penalty of humiliation in this life; but the Penalty of a Hereafter will be more humiliating still: and they will find no help.

[010:022] He it is Who enableth you to traverse through land and sea; so that ye even board ships;- they sail with them with a favourable wind, and they rejoice thereat; then comes a stormy wind and the waves come to them from all sides, and they think they are being overwhelmed: they cry unto God, sincerely offering (their) duty unto Him saying, "If thou dost deliver us from this, we shall truly show our gratitude!"

[046:021] Mention (Hud) one of 'Ad's (own) brethren: Behold, he warned his people about the winding Sand-tracts: but there have been warners before him and after him: "Worship ye none other than God: Truly I fear for you the Penalty of a Mighty Day."
[046:024] Then, when they saw the (Penalty in the shape of) a cloud traversing the sky, coming to meet their valleys, they said, "This cloud will give us rain!" "Nay, it is the (Calamity) ye were asking to be hastened!- A wind wherein is a Grievous Penalty!
[051:041] And in the 'Ad (people) (was another Sign): Behold, We sent against them the devastating Wind:
[052:027] "But God has been good to us, and has delivered us from the Penalty of the Scorching Wind.
[033:009] O ye who believe! Remember the Grace of God, (bestowed) on you, when there came down on you hosts (to overwhelm you): But We sent against them a hurricane and forces that ye saw not: but God sees (clearly) all that ye do.

the flood, the locusts, the lice, the frogs and the blood:

[007:133] Thereupon We let loose upon them the punishment of the flood, the locusts, the lice, the frogs and the blood _ (a succession of) elaborately manifest proofs. But they continued to display arrogance. They were a criminal nation!

stoning

[029:040] Each one of them We seized for his crime: of them, against some We sent a violent tornado (with showers of stones); some were caught by a (mighty) Blast; some We caused the earth to swallow up.
[105:003] And He sent against them Flights of Birds, [105:004] Striking them with stones of Sijjeel.
[054:031] For We sent against them (Thamud )a single Mighty Blast, and they became like the dry stubble used by one who pens cattle
[055:035] There shall be sent against you a flame of fire, and molten copper; and you shall not be able to help yourselves.

Are there any other unknown agents of punishment? Yes
[033:009] O ye who believe! Remember the Grace of God, (bestowed) on you, when there came down on you hosts (to overwhelm you): But We sent against them a hurricane and forces that ye saw not: but God sees (clearly) all that ye do.
[074:031] and none can know the forces of thy Lord, except He and this is no other than awarning to mankind.

4- Agent’s of support:

Sakinah :

Which denotes peace, reassurance, calmness, and tranquility ,increase of faith
One of the most important agents that God sends on the believers to reassure the feeling of being in the presence of God and under his protection ,which increases the faith


[009:026] Then ALLAH sent down HIS peace(sakinah) upon HIS Messenger and upon the believers, and HE sent down host which you did not see, and HE punished those who disbelieved. And this is the reward of the disbelievers.
[009:040] If you help him not, then know that ALLAH helped him even when the disbelievers drove him forth while he was one of the two, when they were both in the Cave, when he said to his Companion, `Grieve not for ALLAH is with us.' Then ALLAH sent down HIS peace (sakinah)on him, and succoured him with hosts which you did not see, and humbled the word of those who disbelieved, and it is the word of ALLAH alone which is supreme. And ALLAH is Mighty, Wise.

[048:004] He it is Who sent down tranquility(sakinah) into the hearts of the believers that they might have more of faith added to their faith -- and Allah's are the hosts of the heavens and the earth, and Allah is Knowing, Wise –
[048:018] Certainly Allah was well pleased with the believers when they swore allegiance to you under the tree, and He knew what was in their hearts, so He sent down tranquility(sakinah) on them and rewarded them with a near victory...


till part.2

peace and bless

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

Do Angels eat ?

Bible says

The angels who visited Abraham ate food!

And the LORD appeared to him by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth and said, "O Lord, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant. Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree, while I bring a morsel of bread, that you may refresh yourselves, and after that you may pass on--since you have come to your servant." So they said, "Do as you have said." 6And Abraham went quickly into the tent to Sarah and said, "Quick! Three seahs of fine flour! Knead it, and make cakes." And Abraham ran to the herd and took a calf, tender and good, and gave it to a young man, who prepared it quickly. Then he took curds and milk and the calf that he had prepared, and set it before them. And he stood by them under the tree while they ate. (Genesis 18:1-8)


"They" means even God ate food .



Quran says :

The story of Prophet Abraham in Quran also indicates that the angels have no need of food. When angels, in the form of men, visited Prophet Abraham to give him the good tidings of the birth of a son, he killed a fatted calf in their honour. They refused to eat and he became fearful, it was then that they revealed themselves as angels. (Quran 51:26-28)

Well - there is a delicate issue here that follows from the English translation.

The original phrase would be that the angels consumed the food. Then one could explain that this was done
through consumption by fire which angels are capable of. Drinking in the origin can also mean appreciation and not actual drinking. Finally, it is said that this consumption and appreciation occurred there did in a sense nourish them due to the high spiritual level of Prophet Abrham. Also it is important to note that although angels do not eat they still need nourishment in a more spiritual sense of the word because nothing in Allah's world can exist without being sustained by him. This is actually a subject discussed in texts related to the Bible and same question is raised also there with this answer given. The point itself is interesting though.

[Hugo]

One of the issue comes to the mind regarding the trinity besides the issues been mentioned, is the question, why it is suggested to be trinity?why not duality in the Godhead why not even more than three?

I am having trouble with these post as I cannot quite see what it is you are trying to say or prove. Here you quote from several internet sources: 33% match http://ftp.cs.brown.edu, 20% match http://en.wikipedia.org, 6% match http://www.britannica.com, 2% match http://www.gamesover.com, 2% match http://en.wikipedia.org the rest one supposes is you own work.

Anyone can invent a theory round any number - for example, in Muslim circles the number 19 and I guess you go along with that do you? So is there any value in all this. If you don't like the idea of the trinity then that is fine but does not make you right does it. Most things about God we simply do not know 'how' or 'why' and it is not possible to obtain any material, evidence - for example, where is He, is He everywhere but how can he be everywhere at once. How can he listen to a billion prayers or in Islam's case a billion prayers all the same? So let's move on please.

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

I am having trouble with these post as I cannot quite see what it is you are trying to say or prove. Here you quote from several internet sources: 33% match http://ftp.cs.brown.edu, 20% match http://en.wikipedia.org, 6% match http://www.britannica.com, 2% match http://www.gamesover.com, 2% match http://en.wikipedia.org the rest one supposes is you own work.

Anyone can invent a theory round any number - for example, in Muslim circles the number 19 and I guess you go along with that do you? So is there any value in all this. If you don't like the idea of the trinity then that is fine but does not make you right does it. Most things about God we simply do not know 'how' or 'why' and it is not possible to obtain any material, evidence - for example, where is He, is He everywhere but how can he be everywhere at once. How can he listen to a billion prayers or in Islam's case a billion prayers all the same? So let's move on please.

This is a very foolish argument. Much more foolish than the one you seem to dispute I must say. You see, the people here are aware of the importance of these questions and try to get and strive to the best way to deal with them for the benefit of all of us while you are still at the level where you are not aware.

Before you want to know the big things ask yourself what do you know about yourself. Do you know you exist? You are made according to what you think of billion of cells - yet you do not disintegrate by touch - do you? What glues all these cells. Also, have you ever seen your heart, so how do you know that you have one. You see - you do not know so much about yourself either...

[Grace Seeker]

Trinity P.5

Why 3 ?

One of the issue comes to the mind regarding the trinity besides the issues been mentioned, is the question, why it is suggested to be trinity?why not duality in the Godhead why not even more than three?

A good question, and you provide one possible response:

That is not a puzzle….. the reason behind such choice of trinity,lies behind the obsession with the number 3 in ancient times…… from the very ancient times the number 3 is suggested to be essential, perfect, substantial, solid, complete and even divine !

I would suggest an alternate. If one accepts that God determines what is and isn't, and then reveals to us what is and then we humans report what has been revealed. The reason that it is three and not something else is as simple as that 3 is what in fact, what has been revealed, and thus what we report. If it were something else, we would have affirmed that number, not three. I suggest it is Trinity, not because three fits something other model, but those models were forumlated based on what in fact is. Should God exist in 2 or 4 or 14, then I suggest that number would have been the number over which there would have been an obession, that in ancient times would have been suggested as being essential, perfect, substantial, solid, complete, and even divine.

[Hugo]

This is a very foolish argument. Much more foolish than the one you seem to dispute I must say. You see, the people here are aware of the importance of these questions and try to get and strive to the best way to deal with them for the benefit of all of us while you are still at the level where you are not aware. Before you want to know the big things ask yourself what do you know about yourself. Do you know you exist? You are made according to what you think of billion of cells - yet you do not disintegrate by touch - do you? What glues all these cells. Also, have you ever seen your heart, so how do you know that you have one. You see - you do not know so much about yourself either...

I am not sure I was arguing about anything as such just asking a question. But thank you for confirming what I said, if indeed as you say it very very hard even to know about our own physical bodies which at least we can study and has been studies for centuries then how much harder it is to know what God is like since we have no physical evidence at all.

[جوري]

I am having trouble with these post as I cannot quite see what it is you are trying to say or prove. Here you quote from several internet sources: 33% match http://ftp.cs.brown.edu, 20% match http://en.wikipedia.org, 6% match http://www.britannica.com, 2% match http://www.gamesover.com, 2% match http://en.wikipedia.org the rest one supposes is you own work.

Anyone can invent a theory round any number - for example, in Muslim circles the number 19 and I guess you go along with that do you? So is there any value in all this. If you don't like the idea of the trinity then that is fine but does not make you right does it. Most things about God we simply do not know 'how' or 'why' and it is not possible to obtain any material, evidence - for example, where is He, is He everywhere but how can he be everywhere at once. How can he listen to a billion prayers or in Islam's case a billion prayers all the same? So let's move on please.

You haven't actually answered his questions.. No one in Islam subscribes to 'numerical miracles/theories' perhaps they are marvelous as much as learning mathematics is marvelous, but they have their own place, the Islamic tenets aren't built around those specific numbers.. It seems yet again that you are in a bind trying to explain why your god needs to be three headed, with two heads ineffectual, and the last head forsaking its other parts.. The nature of your god once taken down to its basic components make for a god that is inept at answering a 'billion prayers' for he couldn't even answer one, the one that I think should be the most important..

I have no problems moving on and neither does the OP.. question is can you without hiding factors that seem to be of paramount importance for without them your entire faith falls apart!

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

I am not sure I was arguing about anything as such just asking a question. But thank you for confirming what I said, if indeed as you say it very very hard even to know about our own physical bodies which at least we can study and has been studies for centuries then how much harder it is to know what God is like since we have no physical evidence at all.

I did not say that you can study your own phyical body - If anything you can study somebodies else physical body. These two things are not the same.

[Al-manar]

I am having trouble with these post

Indeed you have trouble not only with my posts,but also with the board as a whole..
the more you post the more you lose prestige...
you have a trouble seeing the word (Wikipedia) in bold in my post...

you have trouble getting my criticism on the trinity,and the fact it is not because I don't like it... any trinity,duality is welcome,but is there a trinity really?....
that is the point...

in Muslim circles the number 19 and I guess you go along with that do you?

No,I don't .....

not only that ,but later you will find out while discussing the term (prophecy),how many theories suggested by Muslims(who tries hard to find as much prophecies fulfillment as possible) who are obsessed with the quantity not the quality,their theories will be put under fire.....

I'm not a simple minded person who would swallow every speculation....

[Grace Seeker]

It seems yet again that you are in a bind trying to explain why your god needs to be three headed, with two heads ineffectual, and the last head forsaking its other parts.

I don't see how any Christian could be in the bind you claim that Hugo is in, for the god you describe is not in fact the God we worship. If you think it is, then your understanding of Christian beliefs remainis substantially askew from reality. The following is a prime example:

The nature of your god once taken down to its basic components make for a god that is inept at answering a 'billion prayers' for he couldn't even answer one, the one that I think should be the most important..

[جوري]

I don't see how any Christian could be in the bind you claim that Hugo is in, for the god you describe is not in fact the God we worship. If you think it is, then your understanding of Christian beliefs remainis substantially askew from reality. The following is a prime example:

I don't think so.. God's name isn't Jesus the son of Mary!
and the God you worship seems to have forsaken Jesus the son of Mary.

all the best

[Grace Seeker]

the God you worship seems to have forsaken Jesus the son of Mary.

I disagree. I don't think that Jesus was ever forsaken: not in the garden when asking for "this cup to be taken" from him, and not even on the cross when crying out "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me". I've spelled out why more than once on several other threads, so I won't take up space doing that again. But your continued insistence that Jesus was forsaken is precisely why I say your understanding of Christian beliefs remainis substantially askew from reality. What you say Christians believe and what we really believe remain to essentially different things.

[جوري]

I disagree. I don't think that Jesus was ever forsaken: not in the garden when asking for "this cup to be taken" from him, and not even on the cross when crying out "my God, my God, why have you forsaken me". I've spelled out why more than once on several other threads, so I won't take up space doing that again. But your continued insistence that Jesus was forsaken is precisely why I say your understanding of Christian beliefs remainis substantially askew from reality. What you say Christians believe and what we really believe remain to essentially different things.

My understanding is askew or your beliefs simply make no logical sense? I think the choice here is obvious!

all the best

[Al-manar]

The reason that it is three and not something else is as simple as that 3 is what in fact, what has been revealed, and thus what we report. .

would you accept that the obsession with the number three by the pagans before Judaism and Christianity to be revealed by God too?

apart from that ,What if I provide enough proofs that it wasn't revealed? would you accept then that the formula is nothing but human obsession not God's revelation?

more to say to conclude the trinity item in the right time later..(inshaAllah)

I don't think that Jesus was ever forsaken .

Jesus cries as been forsaken... and you say no,he wasn't forsaken !! just why don't you believe him!?

but that can be understood ,I know why you don't believe what he said, it is really unbelievable!! ...

what kind of people that God would forsake?

Deuteronomy 31:17
On that day I will become angry with them and forsake them; I will hide my face from them, and they will be destroyed.

he won't forsake ?

Psalm 37:28
For the LORD loves the just and will not forsake his faithful ones. They will be protected forever, but the offspring of the wicked will be cut off;

don't you think jesus knew that?!!

to make matter worse ,anyone who would read the context of the writings of Matthew and such zealous savior who was more than eager to be executed and reminded his listeners time after time that it is a must for him to be killed eg;Luke 24:46 ,he even get angry with peter ,calling him satan when he asked for the safety of jesus, the over zealous savior would even ask his betrayer at the last supper to deport him faster to the Jews....

all of that inconsistent with his desperate cry (my God ,My God why have you forsaken me)
such textual problem... forced some biblical scholars to argue that Jesus was quoting the psalms !!

That indeed was a quotation from psalms ,but not by jesus ... it was by either the writer of Mark or Matthew (depending on who copied the other material ,which is still a controversial matter).....

Matthew (or Mark) being influenced by the old testament literally style... he wanted to add as much quotation as possible to compose the final scene of such sad monopoly ..he continued his talent of misapplying some old testament phrases on his story lines ..and the odd phrase to the context (my God ,My God why have you forsaken me) is just one of the many textual defects in his narratives......

more on such serious matter,will be exposed in details later ..inshaAllah...

[Hugo]

would you accept that the obsession with the number three by the pagans before Judaism and Christianity to be revealed by God too? apart from that ,What if I provide enough proofs that it wasn't revealed? would you accept then that the formula is nothing but human obsession not God's revelation?

Be interested to see you proof and why it is a proof and down through history a lot of numbers have become obsessions for all sorts of people - in Islam, why 5 prayers a day, why walk around 7 times etc so would you accept that these formula are nothing but human obsession not God's creation?

[Hugo]

Jesus cries as been forsaken... and you say no,he wasn't forsaken !! just why don't you believe him!? but that can be understood ,I know why you don't believe what he said, it is really unbelievable!! ...what kind of people that God would forsake?

For this to be understood you need to tell us what you think it means and why it was necessary for Jesus to suffer and to die. That way you will perhaps begin to understand what these passages mean. I also note that in these Biblical quotation you used three different web sites - why was that necessary?

One also notices that you have no concern whatever for context. Let us take Deuteronomy 31:17 - "On that day I will become angry with them and forsake them; I will hide my face from them, and they will be destroyed." where half the verse is missing. The whole verses says (NIV) "On that day I will become angry with them and forsake them; I will hide my face from them, and they will be destroyed. Many disasters and difficulties will come upon them, and on that day they will ask, 'Have not these disasters come upon us because our God is not with us?' The context that Moses is dying and commissioning Joshua and others to carry on the work so God is predicting that many will turn away - which of course we know to be true and would you expect God to bless those who wilfully turn away from him?

It is true as the Psalm says that For the LORD loves the just and will not forsake his faithful ones.... But such a verses cannot mean that the faithful never suffer trouble and trials for what it is saying is that God is always sufficient, will always in some way meet our need. Surely, such a thought must be true of Islam also? The fact that Jesus knew what he had to do is a long long way from the eager expectation you speak of and indeed all the Gospels make it clear that he was in great anguish about it and we see this the night before the cross and the words he spoke from it.

The NT is full of OT quotations so it has everything to do with showing a fulfilment of the prophesies and nothing whatever to do with your scurrilous allegation that the Gospel writers were fabricating the story - why would they do that, why would they lie? If there is a defect here it is in you obvious bias.

[Al-manar]

down through history a lot of numbers have become obsessions for all sorts of people

but not as the beloved ,perfect number 3 .....

actually number three has most of the cake ...

anyway if you understood my post that I don't believe in the trinity cause it is of three elements not four or two etc...
then I suggest you misunderstood it...
why I don't believe in the trinity (giving direct reasons) is coming soon ....

For this to be understood you need to tell us what you think it means
for Jesus to suffer and to die.

It means for me nothing,if it really happened ..

and why it was necessary for Jesus to suffer and to die

I don't think it was necessary for him to suffer ..............and even if he suffered ,he wasn't the first nor the last to suffer in such world of suffering...

One also notices that you have no concern whatever for context. God is predicting that many will turn away - which of course we know to be true and would you expect God to bless those who wilfully turn away from him?

so what is your counter point here !?

The NT is full of OT quotations so it has everything to do with showing a fulfilment of the prophesies and nothing whatever to do with your scurrilous allegation that the Gospel writers were fabricating the story - .

so you suggest the words of Matthew put on the mouth of Jesus,have nothing to do with the words of psalms? if so then do you believe that jesus said what he meant and meant what he say? if not, why not?

why would they do that, why would they lie? .

Did they lie? and what motivated them to lie?

both questions ,will be dealt with through the terms (prophecy) and (errancy)

It is true as the Psalm says that For the LORD loves the just and will not forsake his faithful ones....

but Jesus on the cross ,seems to think otherwise !... though being faithful ,yet cried as being forsaken .....
would you believe him !?

The fact that Jesus knew what he had to do is a long long way from the eager expectation you speak of and indeed all the Gospels make it clear that he was in great anguish about it .

yet his cry as one been taken by surprise ....

But such a verses cannot mean that the faithful never suffer trouble and trials

If only one convey your message to Jesus(as depicted on the cross),telling him that even if the faithfuls suffer trouble, trials,executions ,doesn't mean they should cry as being forsaken by God.........
you got it ?

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

but not as the beloved ,perfect number 3 .....

actually number three has most of the cake ...

anyway if you understood my post that I don't believe in the trinity cause it is of three elements not four or two etc...
then I suggest you misunderstood it...
why I don't believe in the trinity (giving direct reasons) is coming soon ....




It means for me nothing,if it really happened ..



I don't think it was necessary for him to suffer ..............and even if he suffered ,he wasn't the first nor the last to suffer in such world of suffering...




so what is your counter point here !?




so you suggest the words of Matthew put on the mouth of Jesus,have nothing to do with the words of psalms? if so then do you believe that jesus said what he meant and meant what he say? if not, why not?



Did they lie? and what motivated them to lie?

both questions ,will be dealt with through the terms (prophecy) and (errancy)



but Jesus on the cross ,seems to think otherwise !... though being faithful ,yet cried as being forsaken .....
would you believe him !?




yet his cry as one been taken by surprise ....



If only one convey your message to Jesus(as depicted on the cross),telling him that even if the faithfuls suffer trouble, trials,executions ,doesn't mean they should cry as being forsaken by God.........
you got it ?

I do not understand what is the problem with the number three...

[Hugo]

but not as the beloved ,perfect number 3 ..... actually number three has most of the cake ... anyway if you understood my post that I don't believe in the trinity cause it is of three elements not four or two etc... then I suggest you misunderstood it...why I don't believe in the trinity (giving direct reasons) is coming soon ....

We wait and see as the proof you promised last post has not shown yet.

With regard to suffering I cannot make out what you think 'should' have been? Do you think prophets never suffered? Do you think it is wrong to complain and ask God why? If one looks for example at the Psalms they are full of anguished cries to God about why he did or did not do something, why the wicked prospered. We I think do the same, we wonder why God allows pilgrims to be blown up on the way to the Mosque, why dictators seem to prosper, why an earthquake occurs, why someone close to us suffers, this list is endless - do you think God does not want us to say what we think, to lay our cares and worried before him, to say how we feel?

[Al-manar]

I do not understand what is the problem with the number three...

we don't have a problem with it,it is just great deal of people in past and present were obsessed with it,(I have just mentioned few examples) in their semi-fictional literature....

Do you think prophets never suffered?

first: depends on what you mean by suffering...
It is ok, if it is the suffering in preaching the message or suffering physical harm from every kind even murdering.....but when it comes to being executed for washing someone else sins,there we disagree ....

second: prophets would suffer and die ,God would never....

clear?

Do you think it is wrong to complain and ask God why?

yes ,I think so

Holy Quran [12:80] and never give up hope of God's Soothing Mercy: truly no one despairs of God's Soothing Mercy, except those who have no faith."

Holy Quran 21:23 He cannot be questioned for His acts, but they will be questioned (for theirs).

If one looks for example at the Psalms they are full of anguished cries to God about why he did or did not do something,do you think God does not want us to say what we think, to lay our cares and worried before him, to say how we feel?

If so what was Jesus worried about? why he felt forsaken by God ,and interpreted his feelings in words?
Did he get a divine promise in advance to be saved ,but finally was deceived ,abandoned? the opposite,according to the text is true ! ..he was promised,and he himself promised the listeners that he will be executed!...

Hugo, you just keep on dancing around the problem......

[Hugo]

depends on what you mean by suffering... It is ok, if it is the suffering in preaching the message or suffering physical harm from every kind even murdering.....but when it comes to being executed for washing someone else sins,there we disagree ....

It is a non-argument to start by saying you don't understand the word 'suffering' and if one has to explain every word we will get nowhere fast. We might suffer for our faith, we might suffer sickness and we might suffer if you like because we deserve it - I take it that is what you mean by 'even murder' I cannot say that all these things are 'ok' though I am not entirely sure what you mean by saying that - can you explain? No matter what your view of Jesus what you are saying here is very odd - someone might in many kinds of circumstances give up their life for another but you argue that such a self-sacrifice is not 'ok' and indeed 'murder' is ok but not this?

Holy Quran [12:80] and never give up hope of God's Soothing Mercy: truly no one despairs of God's Soothing Mercy, except those who have no faith." Holy Quran 21:23 He cannot be questioned for His acts, but they will be questioned (for theirs).

I am not sure what translation you used here but it looks like your are quoting Q12:87 from Yosuf Ali and I cannot see how it can be any kind of proof text that we should not bring our deepest feelings to God. Your second quote contextually is about those who choose other gods so again it does not seem to me to be forbidding an anguished cry to God.

If so what was Jesus worried about? why he felt forsaken by God ,and interpreted his feelings in words? Did he get a divine promise in advance to be saved ,but finally was deceived ,abandoned? the opposite,according to the text is true ! ..he was promised,and he himself promised the listeners that he will be executed!...Hugo, you just keep on dancing around the problem......

I think you are mistaken, I don't see any problem here. The Gospels tell of God being with us in the person of Jesus and therefore has limitations and so it is not unreasonable that he cried out in anguish before and on the cross. But as I have said before, you are not contextualising anything you say but just it seems bringing your own views - you are coming with a pre-conceived notion. Clear now? You don't have to believe any of the Gospels just as I don't have to trust any of the Qu'ran but in both cases we have to know what the orthodox teaching is.

On the question of suffering and anguished calls to God, blaming God, asking why he allows things that seem bad are found everywhere in the Bible and to me seem entirely consistent with humanity, the way God has made the world and us. Why do you think the Bible reports this kind of thing and as I said does it almost everywhere. You might care to look at the Psalms of David and see just how often this happens.

[Grace Seeker]

My understanding is askew or your beliefs simply make no logical sense? I think the choice here is obvious!

all the best

Your understanding of Christian beliefs are askew from our actual beliefs. We will always disagree as to whether Islam or Christianity is the truth, but that is not my point of contention with you. My concern is your misunderstanding and resultant misrepresentation of what our beliefs actually are. You create something that is indeed illogical and not the truth, label it Christianity, and then reject it. But what you reject isn't actually Christian teaching, but rather your distorted version of them. You may assert that Christianity is itself distorted, and you might even be right. But saying that Christianity is in error because it present Jesus as forsaken by God doesn't make Christianity in error when in fact Christianity doesn't actually teach that point of view. Al-manar's discussion of the same question does a much better job of dealing honestly with the relevant data.

Jesus cries as been forsaken... and you say no,he wasn't forsaken !! just why don't you believe him!?

but that can be understood ,I know why you don't believe what he said, it is really unbelievable!! ...

what kind of people that God would forsake?

Deuteronomy 31:17
On that day I will become angry with them and forsake them; I will hide my face from them, and they will be destroyed.

he won't forsake ?

Psalm 37:28
For the LORD loves the just and will not forsake his faithful ones. They will be protected forever, but the offspring of the wicked will be cut off;

don't you think jesus knew that?!!

to make matter worse ,anyone who would read the context of the writings of Matthew and such zealous savior who was more than eager to be executed and reminded his listeners time after time that it is a must for him to be killed eg;Luke 24:46 ,he even get angry with peter ,calling him satan when he asked for the safety of jesus, the over zealous savior would even ask his betrayer at the last supper to deport him faster to the Jews....

all of that inconsistent with his desperate cry (my God ,My God why have you forsaken me)
such textual problem... forced some biblical scholars to argue that Jesus was quoting the psalms !!

That indeed was a quotation from psalms ,but not by jesus ... it was by either the writer of Mark or Matthew (depending on who copied the other material ,which is still a controversial matter).....

Matthew (or Mark) being influenced by the old testament literally style... he wanted to add as much quotation as possible to compose the final scene of such sad monopoly ..he continued his talent of misapplying some old testament phrases on his story lines ..and the odd phrase to the context (my God ,My God why have you forsaken me) is just one of the many textual defects in his narratives......

more on such serious matter,will be exposed in details later ..inshaAllah...

So, now one must ask whether or not the quotation by Matthew is in fact something Jesus uttered from the cross? I would think that the Islamic answer would be "No" based simply on the assertion by the Qur'an that Jesus was never on a cross to have uttered such a thing. So, then one must ask why does Matthew (or Mark or any other originator of this story line) include them? That they are part of the original telling of this story is indisputable given that when looking at any variant reading of the passage the statement is still made. By your theory, then, a later writer is putting this words in Jesus' mouth. What for?

Is it your assertion that the redactor is trying to make a case for Jesus as one who was forsaken by God? If the redactor was just quoting scripture "to add as much quotation as possible to compose the final scene of such sad monopoly" then why this text? Why not another?

I suggest he quotes this text because Jesus really does reference it himself. But he also is experiencing crucifixion and he doesn't quote the whole of it. Rather, in the same way that people quote the opening lines of a song or a poem, or even just the verse reference numbers of a passage, so Jesus recalls this Psalm that focus on the assurance of a God who does not abandoned the oppressed and suffering to his mind by reciting it's opening line. In the context of Jesus' own suffering on the cross it fits perfectly and (IMHO) would provide both consolation and hope in the knowledge that despite the very real physical pain of the moment (and I suspect spiritual pain as well, at least from my theological viewpoint) that this was NOT the end of the story. And that God would in fact be faithful to NOT abandon him. So it is that the NT Church writes of Christ's time on the cross as one involving suffering, but it never uses the word forsaken to describe it. Indeed, it claims the exact opposite:

Acts 2
24God raised him [Jesus of Nazareth] from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. 25David said about him:
" 'I saw the Lord always before me.
Because he is at my right hand,
I will not be shaken.
26Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices;
my body also will live in hope,
27because you will not abandon me to the grave,
nor will you let your Holy One see decay.
28You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will fill me with joy in your presence.'
29"Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. 30But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. 31Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. 32God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.

[جوري]

Your understanding of Christian beliefs are askew from our actual beliefs. We will always disagree as to whether Islam or Christianity is the truth, but that is not my point of contention with you. My concern is your misunderstanding and resultant misrepresentation of what our beliefs actually are. You create something that is indeed illogical and not the truth, label it Christianity, and then reject it. But what you reject isn't actually Christian teaching, but rather your distorted version of them. You may assert that Christianity is itself distorted, and you might even be right. But saying that Christianity is in error because it present Jesus as forsaken by God doesn't make Christianity in error when in fact Christianity doesn't actually teach that point of view. :

It isn't the only reason I think christianity is in error, although it is indeed obvious to the naked eye that a god has forsaken himself, but continues to do it millenniums later of his effigies ...

Enlarge By Tiffani West-May, AP

Flames shot up from the "King of King's" statue of Jesus Christ early Tuesday morning after it was struck by lightning.

your insistence that I don't understand 'the real Christianity' is mind boggling to me.. it isn't as difficult as all that.. we are not talking of some equation that requires some conceptualization and advanced mathematics and what a shameful thing that would be then for a god to complicate matters so much so that he is accessible to only a select few Illuminati...and even if you were to elucidate your points which I doubt you'll be able to with some dexterity without creating a new creed all together, I don't know why anyone should subscribe to it as truth and forgo all the other sects, when you have admittedly as well as your other biblical scholars Concorde that the 'good book' you hold in your hands isn't the unadulterated word of God!

all the best

[Al-manar]

We might suffer for our faith, we might suffer sickness and we might suffer if you like because we deserve it - I take it that is what you mean by 'even murder' I cannot say that all these things are 'ok' though I am not entirely sure what you mean by saying that - can you explain? .

some prophets were killed that is what I meant ... and I have no objection neither wonder about that, but when the matter comes to falsely making significance to their death in the form of a pagan ,immoral,savage creed of blood atonement ..there we disagree...

No matter what your view of Jesus what you are saying here is very odd

the real odd is what Jesus said on the cross....

I am not sure what translation you used here but it looks like your are quoting Q12:87 from Yosuf Ali and I cannot see how it can be any kind of proof text that we should not bring our deepest feelings to God.

If such deepest feelings a despair of God then the verse named who are those with such feelings..
and again, what made Jesus complain?

Your second quote contextually is about those who choose other gods so again it does not seem to me to be forbidding an anguished cry to God

any cry of despair or asking God why, is condemned....

Tafsir Ibn Kathir
(He cannot be questioned about what He does, while they will be questioned.) He is the Ruler Whose rule cannot be overturned and none can object to it, because of His might, majesty, pride, knowledge, wisdom, justice and subtlety.
(while they will be questioned.) means, He is the One Who will ask His creation about what they did. This is like the verse (So, by your Lord, We shall certainly call all of them to account. For all that they used to do.) [15:92-93] also (And He protects (all), while against Whom there is no protector) [23:88]

The Gospels tell of God being with us in the person of Jesus and therefore has limitations

If God had limitations what was the distinction between him and man?

and so it is not unreasonable that he cried out in anguish before and on the cross.

what is unreasonable, It is when Christians degrade their supreme being claiming that he was inferior in faith to hundreds of thousands of persons who suffered oppressions with faith, silence, patience, and perfect resignation !.

On the question of suffering and anguished calls to God, blaming God, asking why he allows things that seem bad are found everywhere in the Bible and to me seem entirely consistent with humanity

but seems entirely inconsistent with Jesus( aka God) on the cross ...

[Al-manar]

Now let's visit the second theory suggested regarding the cry of despair..

So, now one must ask whether or not the quotation by Matthew is in fact something Jesus uttered from the cross? I would think that the Islamic answer would be "No" based simply on the assertion by the Qur'an that Jesus was never on a cross to have uttered such a thing.:

the answer based not only on on the assertion by the Qur'an but also by objective analysis isolated from the Quran...

the same problem(s) the Quran criticizes the bible for,been used by other non-Muslims in past and present.....

So, then one must ask why does Matthew (or Mark or any other originator of this story line) include them? That they are part of the original telling of this story is indisputable given that when looking at any variant reading of the passage the statement is still made. By your theory, then, a later writer is putting this words in Jesus' mouth. What for?:

that is not my theory..... my theory is clear the writers used Pesher like technique to excess, and such passage is used by one of them ,been repeated by another as well....
just compare Mark and Mathew to see the stunning copy and paste ,one get from another...

If the redactor was just quoting scripture "to add as much quotation as possible to compose the final scene of such sad monopoly" then why this text? Why not another?

that question was answered by Luke who was a better composer ,and ignored such cry of despair ,putting another one of hope...
Father, into your hands I commit my spirit (Luke 23:46)

so Jesus recalls this Psalm that focus on the assurance of a God who does not abandoned the oppressed and suffering to his mind by reciting it's opening line.
In the context of Jesus' own suffering on the cross it fits perfectly

Psalm's David and jesus at the cross won't fit :

1- David the sinful ,adulterer(according to the bible) etc... , should have been forsaken by God... That’s what sinners deserve!
that is why he complained , questioning God
yet Jesus (according to your understanding) wasn't complaining, wasn't questioning God because he was God in the flesh...

2- David felt forsaken,and was really forsaken (at least before uttering the words)... on the other hand Jesus never felt forsaken,neither been forsaken

3- according to psalm ,David’s enemies threatened to kill him, and so David had to flee for his life, he believed God would save him ,after all his prayers , God did eventually save David from his earthly enemies.
David seek not a the victory over death , he was just scared to die a shameful one, executed by his enemies... unlike Jesus who is said to been eager to be killed by his enemies…

4- If the victory of Jesus been resurrection,just where in the chapter whom you claim he quoted ,any mention of victory by resurrection?

Is that what you call ,perfectly fits !?

Acts 2 24God raised him [Jesus of Nazareth] from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him. 25David said about him:
" 'I saw the Lord always before me.
Because he is at my right hand,
I will not be shaken.
26Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices;
my body also will live in hope,
27because you will not abandon me to the grave,
nor will you let your Holy One see decay.
28You have made known to me the paths of life;
you will fill me with joy in your presence.'
29"Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. 30But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. 31Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. 32God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.

After checking that passage and the other Psalms(and the rest of the old testament) passages used by the writers ,I would say, that The psalm has been accommodated to contemporary fancies

what does the writer of Psalms says?

Psalms 16 :27 because you will not abandon me to the grave(sheh-ole'),
nor will you let your Holy One see decay (shakh'-ath).

sh'owl (sheh-ole')
Hades or the world of the dead
shachath (shakh'-ath)
a pit (especially as a trap); figuratively, destruction -- corruption, destruction, ditch, grave, pit.

the text opens the door for speculations

The text could be understood as:

first
"David was assured that the Lord would preserve his life in the face of death. He rejoiced because God enabled his body to rest securely even when confronted with death. The reason he could rest is that God would not abandon him to the grave, nor let His holy one see decay. This verse refers to David, who describes himself as God's "holy one," that is, one of God's saints (cf. v. 3). He took comfort in the fact that God would not, at that time, allow his body to die and decay in the grave. In fact, God had caused him to know the path of life so he anticipated experiencing further joy in God's presence (vs. 11)."
The Bible Knowledge Commentary

.........

the psalm in its original context “does not deal with resurrection, or even
immortality, but with the rescue from an acute mortal danger
the original meaning because the language of this psalm is no different from other psalms
where the psalmist asks for “protection and sheltering against the danger of death.”
Most scholars,understanding the reference being to not dying, assume that the psalmist is merely
referring to an immediate threat to his life and is not expecting to live forever
the psalm reflects the style and language of other deliverance psalms where the psalmist
is merely praying to be delivered from “an acute mortal danger” and that there is no
warrant for seeing anything more than that in the psalm....
Kraus, Hans-Joachim. Psalms 1-59: A Commentary.


Another understanding:

David’s body did not decay in the grave (read,Midr. Ps. 16:10)

Though the word( Pit) in verse 10 is a synonym of sheol (as the parallelism clearly demonstrates) ,the Septuagint and other translations render it (corruption) In psalm 16,this interpretation might be supported by the broader context, i.e., the statement (my body also rests secure)__this teaches that decomposition and larvae have no dominion over his (David) body ; “you don’t give me up to sheol”-__ his flesh will not decompose into dust in the grave “or let your faithful one see the pit”__he doesn’t even smell the scent of hell. The interpretation offered by Rabbi yetzhak suggests that David’s flesh didn’t decompose, as his flesh doesn’t turn to dust in the grave nor indeed does he smell the scent of hell…
Judaism of the Second Temple period, Volume 2
By David Flusser

that similar to:

the prophet peace be upon him said:
“Verily Allah has made forbidden for the earth the consumption of the bodies of the Prophets - may Allah’s prayer be upon them.” [ narrated Abi Dawood]


well, we are asked to leave such two possible,solid understandings and resort to a vague ,desperate understanding by the writer of Acts......

now let's add more to the problem,exposing another problem of the same passage in acts:

I don't think that inerrantists can give any compelling reasons in support of Peter's view, but I can definitely give some compelling reasons to reject his view. First, there are the facts already noted: (1) the psalm was written in the first person and so the situations spoken about can best be understood as personal references to the writer's own condition, and (2) there is simply no language in the psalm that can be interpreted only as references to a resurrection from the dead. In addition to all this, there was a strategic error that Peter made in his zeal to prove that the 16th Psalm was speaking of the resurrection of Jesus. After saying that David was "both dead and buried" and that "his tomb is with us to this day," Peter went on to say, "Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, *He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne,* he foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ..." (vs:30-31).

To prove Peter's argument, inerrantists must show us where the Old Testament says that God swore with an oath to David that he would "raise up the Christ to sit on his throne." The clear implication of Peter's statement is that God had sworn with an oath to David that he would resurrect the Christ to sit on David's throne; otherwise, Peter made no sense when he said, "He [David] foreseeing this [that the Christ would be resurrected to sit on his throne], spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ." So just where in the Old Testament did Yahweh ever speak with an oath to David that a Messiah from "the fruit of his body" would be resurrected to sit on his throne"?

The best that reference Bibles can do in support of Peter's claim is list Psalm 89:3; 132:11; and 2 Samuel 7:12. If we examine them individually, however, we will see that they do not refer to the resurrection of any of David's descendants for the purpose of having them sit on David's throne. Psalm 89:3 says, "I have made a covenant with My chosen, I have sworn to My servant David: your seed I will establish forever; your faithfulness you shall establish in the very heavens." Establishing David's seed forever is at best a promise to establish his throne through a process of having a natural descendant of David occupy it in each succeeding generation, so where is the oath in this statement that God would resurrect a descendant of David to sit on his throne? It isn't there, except in the minds of those who are desperate to prove an untenable position.

Admittedly, the prophets promised that David's throne would be established forever, but they clearly meant the literal throne of David that would be maintained by an endless line of David's descendants. In their fanatical ethnocentrism, the Hebrew prophets thought that their little nation was favored of Yahweh, who would always protect them and see that their kingdom lasted forever, but in no sense were the Jews looking for the establishment of some "spiritual kingdom." This was an idea that was hatched up by the New Testament writers as a way of presenting an allegedly resurrected Jesus as the long-awaited Messiah. This can clearly be seen by analyzing Psalm 132:11, the second reference-Bible proof text for Peter's claim. "Yahweh has sworn in truth to David; He will not run from it: `I will set upon your throne the fruit of your body.'" Again, there is nothing in this statement that even implies that the psalmist meant that a descendant of David would be resurrected from the dead to sit on David's throne. It was simply a promise that the throne of David would be established through his descendants. That this was the clear intention of the statement is shown by the very next verse: "If your sons will keep my covenant and my testimony which I shall teach them, their sons also shall sit upon your throne forever."

What could be clearer than this? Yahweh promised to establish the throne of David "from the fruit of [David's] body" and if these sons [plural] of David kept Yahweh's covenant and his testimony, their sons also would sit upon David's throne forever. Obviously, this was not a promise that just one person (Jesus) would be resurrected from the dead to sit on David's throne. It wasn't a promise of a resurrection (period); it was simply a promise that Yahweh would establish David's throne forever through his sons and then their sons if they kept Yahweh's covenant. So what is the compelling reason for us to believe that Peter was right when he said that God had sworn with an oath to David that he would resurrect one of David's descendants to sit on his throne?

Both of the quotations from the Psalms appear to refer to 2 Samuel 7:12- 14. Yahweh, speaking to David through the prophet Nathan, said, "When your days are fulfilled and you rest with your fathers, I will set up your seed after you, who will come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build a house for My name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his Father, and he shall be My son. If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men and with the blows of the sons of men." It cannot be claimed that this "son" who would come from the seed of David was Jesus, because Yahweh said, "If he commits iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men," but Jesus was allegedly without iniquity. Whoever this "son" was, he was going to "build a house for My Name," and this sounds very suspiciously like a reference to Solomon. The first part of this chapter (as well as the part after the above quotation) discussed the building of a house for Yahweh so that he would not have to dwell in a tent (the tabernacle). It is simply a matter of Old Testament record that Solomon was the one who built this house or temple (1 Kings 6-8), so clearly this promise of a son who would sit on David's throne was a reference to Solomon and not some descendant who would be born a thousand years later.

There is simply no Old Testament support for Peter's claim that Yahweh had sworn with an oath to resurrect one of David's descendants to sit on his throne, but there is a New Testament statement attributed to the apostle Paul that makes it logically impossible for the Old Testament to contain any prophecy of the resurrection of Jesus. In a speech allegedly made in the synagogue at Antioch of Pisidia, Paul said of the crucifixion of Jesus, "Now when they had fulfilled all that was written concerning Him, they took Him down from the tree and laid Him in a tomb" (Acts 13:29). Please notice what Luke attributed to Paul in this sermon. He said that all that had been written concerning Jesus had been fulfilled when they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb. Now if all that had been written of Jesus was fulfilled when they took him down from the cross (tree), then the resurrection could not have been written about in the Old Testament, because the resurrection allegedly happened after Jesus was taken down and laid in a tomb.

Some may point to verses 33-37 and say, "That can't be right, because Paul went on to quote the same passage that Peter did from Psalm 16 as a prophecy of the resurrection." That's true, but Paul can't have it both ways. If everything that had been written of Jesus when they took him down from the cross had been fulfilled, then there could have been no prophecies of Jesus's resurrection, but if there were prophecies of Jesus's resurrection, then everything that had been written about him could not have been fulfilled when he was taken down from the cross. Either way, inerrantists have a problem, and I would be happy to see them satisfactorily explain away either one.

So all of the evidence points to misrepresentation or distortion of Old Testament scriptures by the New Testament writers who claimed that the prophets had foretold the resurrection of Jesus. There are simply no reasonable grounds for claiming that there had been prophecies in the Old Testament of the Messiah's resurrection...

Now back to the item (God's agent) before we go to other arenas non intended to be discussed right now.....

peace

[Hugo]

the answer based not only on on the assertion by the Qur'an but also by objective analysis isolated from the Quran... the same problem(s) the Quran criticizes the bible for,been used by other non-Muslims in past and present.....that is not my theory..... my theory is clear the writers used the Pesher technique to excess, and such passage is used by one of them ,been repeated by another as well....[

Firstly, what makes you think the Qu'ran can be trusted here since clearly it only has a single witness and a private revelation of the kind involved can only be considered hearsay?

Secondly, you have mentioned Pesher before but I am unsure from what you say that you have any grasp of what it means and perhaps we would classify it today as a form of hermeneutics. Pesher is a Hebrew word meaning "interpretation" and it became known from one group of texts among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Wikepedia has a good entry on this and in summary the pesharim gave a theory of scriptural interpretation, essentially the writers of pesharim believe that scripture is written in two levels, the surface for ordinary readers with limited knowledge, the concealed one for specialists with higher knowledge.

Put more simply pesher is a way of writing a commentary so you assertion that the Gospel writers used it makes no sense as they were not writing a commentary on an existing scripture but offering eye witness reports. As far as I know in books and scholarly articles, only DR Barbara Thiering peculiarly applies the term pesher to her elaborate, newly "rediscovered" interpretive technique. According to her, in the four Gospels, Acts and Revelation, historical facts have been encoded into the text; they were written and may be revealed by applying the method, forgotten for twenty centuries. Her theory has been widely disparaged and dismissed by scholars, and Thiering's thesis has received little support.

I can see why it is attractive to you because you come with your own agenda. Two short reviews will suffice here.

Geza Vermes - Vermes outlined the academic reception of her work stating: "Professor Barbara Thiering's reinterpretation of the New Testament, in which the married, divorced, and remarried Jesus, father of four, becomes the "Wicked Priest" of the Dead Sea Scrolls, has made no impact on learned opinion. Scroll scholars and New Testament experts alike have found the basis of the new theory, Thiering's use of the so-called "pesher technique", without substance."

Thomas Wright - wrote it is safe to say that no serious scholar has given this elaborate and fantastic theory any credence whatsoever. It is nearly ten years since it was published; the scholarly world has been able to take a good look at it: and the results are totally negative.

[جوري]

Firstly, what makes you think the Qu'ran can be trusted here since clearly it only has a single witness and a private revelation of the kind involved can only be considered hearsay?

don't you get tired of this? Go ahead and prove that the Quran isn't a source to be trusted.. you know the same way your own biblical scholars (like Metzger) have proven in regard to your bible's textual or historical accuracy and then come run this line by us again..
If you couldn't finish the previous topics on the integrity of the Quran for obvious reasons, then don't sneakily raise the same points that have been annihilated just to make another nonpoint. .. It is a losing battle when your book isn't even a contender to stand trial and monolithic in its beliefs!

all the best

[Hugo]

don't you get tired of this? Go ahead and prove that the Quran isn't a source to be trusted.. you know the same way your own biblical scholars (like Metzger) have proven in regard to your bible's textual or historical accuracy and then come run this line by us again..If you couldn't finish the previous topics on the integrity of the Quran for obvious reasons, then don't sneakily raise the same points that have been annihilated just to make another nonpoint. .. It is a losing battle when your book isn't even a contender to stand trial and monolithic in its beliefs!all the best

This adds nothing to the thread and shows you simply have no idea what logic means as any 4th grader can tell you that it is not possible to prove a negative.

[جوري]

This adds nothing to the thread and shows you simply have no idea what logic means as any 4th grader can tell you that it is not possible to prove a negative.

Is it logical to ask an illogical question in rhetoric and accuse others of not knowing what logic is? you've had ample opportunity in prior threads which you yourself started questioning the integrity on the Quran based on its content and historic/scientific accuracies, you were unable to sustain them, and at the same time were unable to defend the deficiencies in your own bible (and they were listed both for chronological 'disorder' and lack of agreement between texts plus lack of cohesive logical sense in more than one thread and properly sourced for your perusal ...It is mind boggling your insistence on the same argument over and over as if to elicit a different response from some other member to pounce on..

all the best

[kite runner]

Commenting in the original post

Good information and I know how hard it is to get the information from both the Bible and Quran so I appreciate your time and effort to get the post up and running.

[Hugo]

Is it logical to ask an illogical question in rhetoric and accuse others of not knowing what logic is? you've had ample opportunity in prior threads which you yourself started questioning the integrity on the Quran based on its content and historic/scientific accuracies, you were unable to sustain them, and at the same time were unable to defend the deficiencies in your own bible (and they were listed both for chronological 'disorder' and lack of agreement between texts plus lack of cohesive logical sense in more than one thread and properly sourced for your perusal ...It is mind boggling your insistence on the same argument over and over as if to elicit a different response from some other member to pounce on..

The thread in question was closed down by the moderators even though it still attracts many visitors. If you want to persist in your delusion that the arguments presented there are not important then ask the visitors why they still go there or do you kid yourself it is to read your diatribes, insults and huge insertions? Better still ask for it to be re-opened and let's revisit the subject but don't spoilt this thread in your usual vindictive manner

[جوري]

The thread in question was closed down by the moderators even though it still attracts many visitors. If you want to persist in your delusion that the arguments presented there are not important then ask the visitors why they still go there or do you kid yourself it is to read your diatribes, insults and huge insertions? Better still ask for it to be re-opened and let's revisit the subject but don't spoilt this thread in your usual vindictive manner

all the best

you had more than one thread on the matter, and I can't honestly think of a bigger delusion than the one lived by christians.. on this very thread I have posted various biblical errors which you have refused to comment on. Pointing out very patent obvious flaws for which you personally demand nothing but utmost meticulous detail when comes to the Quran with aversion to any explanation that doesn't cater to your preconceived prejudices but grossly negligent at best when it comes to Christianity with the desire to constantly bury your face in the sand and pretend that it doesn't exist simply doesn't qualify as 'usual vindictive' I can't think of anyone more vitriolic when speaking out against Islam, the prophet of the Quran to your host as much as you.. although there are close followups at least they know when to call it quits and run to lick their wounds!

all the best

[Al-manar]

Firstly, what makes you think the Qu'ran can be trusted

away from the question of authority(which I give it little care even for the bible),the internal evidence itself is more than enough for me to make it all the way trusted..... but that is not the topic at the moment....

you have mentioned Pesher before but I am unsure from what you say that you have any grasp of what it means, you assertion that the Gospel writers used it makes no sense as they were not writing a commentary on an existing scripture but offering eye witness reports.

Any elementary reading to the gospels shows that the writers tried by all means to infuse the hearsay reports (which you call testimony) with as much as possible old testament passages...... in doing that lots of scholars accused them of using a pesher like technique...

Originally Posted by Marilyn J. Lundberg
A Pesher is a kind of commentary on the Bible that was common in the community that wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls. This kind of commentary is not an attempt to explain what the Bible meant when it was originally written, but rather what it means in the day and age of the commentator, particularly for his own community. In the Isaiah Pesher, or commentary on the book of Isaiah, a verse or verses from Isaiah are quoted. Then the commentary begins, often introduced by the word "pesher," or "the interpretation of the word..." If we were to write a commentary in this way today we might quote a bible verse and then say, "and the meaning of the verse is..." and go on to show the significance of the verse for our own church, synagogue, or society.

The community which the gospel writers belong to, though being a Jewish group but just as the Qumran group applied quotations from the book of Habakkuk to their founder (the teacher of righteousness) they were convinced that these prophecies found their fulfillments and their ultimate meaning in this person and the community he founded. The quotations they used in the book of Habakkuk indicate that the Qumran group felt free to adapt and shape the text in the light of their convictions about its fulfillment .this type of pesher method is what Matthew and his school exercised with the formula quotations. Matthew’s school shaped and rendered these key quotations to fit the contours of their traditions (a mixture of true and false hearsay accounts) about Jesus and his teachings.
What are they saying about Matthew?p,230 By Donald Senior


extensive dealing with that serious matter,with quotes from the scholarly world of the NT, will be included in the following important,crucial item which I believe will be the core of the whole thread...

[Al-manar]

Item :7

Biblical Errancy vs Quranic Inerrancy


while an error-free book won't alone prove it as divine, errancy from any kind should get the book under suspicion ..
both the bible and The Quran claims inerrancy:

Holy Quran 41:42 No falsehood can approach it(the Quran) from before or behind it: It is sent down by One Full of Wisdom, Worthy of all Praise.

in the clearest of terms the bible also claims to be the verbal ,plenary inspired word of God
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.

not only inerrancy is specifically affirmed in the bible and the Quran but an inference as well:
the belief of a divine, error-free book is the one that is held by the church for seventeen centuries.
Due to the produced indisputable evidence of inaccuracies in the bible, a tiny minority of modern Christian scholars , began to be more realistic denying the concept that the bible is an error-free book…. Such concept, though realistic, has a tremendous obstacle to gain popularity among Christians ,as it Ignores the serious consequences for declaring that the bible is errant,the consequences would be the answer to the question:

Does Biblical Errancy matter?

quotes by some of the scholars of mainstream Christianity :

“the very nature of inspiration renders the bible infallible, inspiration involved infallibility from start to finish, if inspiration allows for possibility of errors ;then inspiration ceases to be inspiration.
Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible

“Even if the errors are supposedly in ‘minor’ matters, any error opens the Bible to suspicion on other points which may not be so ‘minor.’ If inerrancy falls, other doctrines will fall too.” If we can’t trust Scripture in things like geography, chronology, and history, then how can we be sure we can trust it in its message of salvation and sanctification?
Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, Victor Books, Wheaton, IL, 1987, electronic media.


Again. a belief in limited inerrancy demands the impossible__that a fallible exegete become an infallible discerner and interpreter of (the word of God)within the scripture .This opens the door for confusion and uncertainty ,undergirded by either subjectivism or personal bias.
Indeed can the holy spirit inspire error; can the spirit of truth inspire untruth.?
Handbook of Biblical Evidences By John Ankerberg, John Weldon


“By this word ( inerrancy) we mean that the Scriptures possess the quality of freedom from error. They are exempt from the liability to mistake, incapable of error. In all their teachings they are in perfect accord with the truth.
E. J. Young, Thy Word Is Truth, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1957, p. 113

‘Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives’ (James Montgomery Boice, Does Inerrancy Matter?, Oakland: International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1979, p. 13.)


If the biblical record can be proved fallible in areas of fact that can be verified, then it is hardly to be trusted in areas where it cannot be tested. As a witness for God, the Bible would be discredited as untrustworthy. What solid truth it may contain would be left as a matter of mere conjecture, subject to the intuition or canons of likelihood of each individual. An attitude of sentimental attachment to traditional religion may incline one person to accept nearly all the substantive teachings of Scripture as probably true. But someone else with equal justification may pick and chose whatever teachings in the Bible happen to appeal to him and lay equal claim to legitimacy. One opinion is as good as another. All things are possible, but nothing is certain if indeed the Bible contains mistakes or errors of any kind (Gleason Archer ,Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties pp. 23-24).


Some say that the Bible is inspired in the same sense that great literature is inspired, as the plays of Shakespeare or the poems of Tennyson and Browning. Such people sometimes say, "I know the Bible is inspired because it inspires me." Really they mean that the Bible is not the infallible Word of God but that it is a good inspiring book even though it has mistakes. Some say that God gave the general thought and left it to men to write it down so that of necessity there would be some slight errors. Some say that the New Testament is authoritative and true, but the Old Testament is imperfect and is simply a survival of primitive religious thinking. Some so-called scholars, who are not scholars enough to know what the Bible claims for itself nor the evidence that it is true, teach a so-called "progressive revelation" and say that none of the Bible is reliable except the very words of Jesus, and they doubt many of the statements of the gospels. Many good men are deceived by these theorists and quote them. Some people say that the Bible contains the Word of God but that not all of it is the Word of God. If one must find for himself or depend upon some modernistic scholar to say just how much of the Bible is really the Word of God and authoritative, of course no two living men, on that plan, would perfectly agree as to what was true and what was not. Some good men very foolishly say that the Bible is inspired and reliable for religious knowledge but is not necessarily true in scientific matters, or in history (John R. Rice, Verbal Inspiration of the Bible, Sword of the Lord Publishers, p. 1).


"The Bible is the inerrant... Word of God. It is absolutely infallible, without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc." (Jerry Falwell,Finding Inner Peace and Strength,Doubleday, 1982, p. 26, ).


It(The Bible) does not err in its revelation, its assertions relative to doctrine, ethics, history, et al. The autographs were absolutely and totally free from error. The Bible gives a faultless record of everything with which it deals (including lies and faults, at times); it chronicles the record of those errors but does not sanction them. It does claim infallibility in all that it does teach, however. Further, when accurately transmitted/translated, the translation is also inspired, the Word of God" (Biblical Inerrancy: The First Annual Gulf Coast Lectures, Church of Christ, Portland, Texas, 1993, pp. 33-34).


I believe that God moved the men who wrote the Holy Bible so that the very words they wrote and the very thoughts they expressed were given to them by God and miraculously preserved from every possibility of error. I further believe that Holy Scriptures "since they are the Word of God, contain no errors or contradictions, but are in all their parts and words infallible truth, also in those parts that treat of historical, geographical, and other secular matters" . I will go even further since Jesus went further. I believe that the Bible is not only verbally inspired, but is also totally accurate in its tense, mood, voice, and case (in the original autographs) because Jesus says so
William Bischoff, a pastor in Bridgeton, Missouri.


"... But how do you know Jesus except as he is presented to you in the Bible? If the Bible is not God's Word and does not present a picture of Jesus Christ that can be trusted, how do you know it is the true Christ you are following? You may be worshipping a Christ of your own imagination." (Does Errancy Matter by James Boice, page 24)

Once conceding there are errors in the Bible, you have opened a Pandora's Box. How do you know which parts are true if you admit some parts are false. As ICBI said: "... But this position (claiming truthfulness for those parts of the Bible where God, as opposed to men has spoken-ed). is unsound. People who think like this speak of Biblical authority, but at best they have partial Biblical authority since the parts containing errors obviously cannot be authoritative. What is worse, they cannot even tell us precisely what parts are from God and are therefore truthful and what parts are not from God and are in error. Usually they say that the "salvation parts" are from God, but they do not tell us how to separate these from the non-salvation parts." (Does Errancy Matter by James Boice, page 8)

the last valid arguments should be,not only,applied to the bible but the Quran as well....

to be continued

[Hugo]

Any elementary reading to the gospels shows that the writers tried by all means to infuse the hearsay reports (which you call testimony) with as much as possible old testament passages...... in doing that lots of scholars accused them of using a pesher like technique...

Can you explain what an 'elementary reading' entails?
You do not seem to know what 'hearsay' means, it means that a report has no evidence to back it up, an example is the supposed revelation of the Qu'ran to Mohammed - he is the only witness and by definition it is hearsay. In contrast the Gospels had many witnesses and therefore it cannot be hearsay.

I am unsure what 'Matthews school' means but you seem to be of the view that anyone who makes a quotation from an earlier work is using pesher. If that were true then David in the Psalms was using pesher as he often quotes extensively from the books of Moses - so he was using pesher before it was even invented. In a similar way, I can argue that since the Qu'ran uses Biblical stories extensively that Mohammed must have been using pesher as well.

Of course the Biblical writers everywhere quote from earlier books. Jesus himself is recorded as having referred to the OT on many occasions. The Gospels are eye witness reports and there seems little if any doubt about that.

[Al-manar]

Can you explain what an 'elementary reading' entails?

The elementary reading is the one that you should do, to open the first page of the gospel of Matthew and learn that Matthew not merely recording a story about Jesus but tried to infuse some old testament verses making the impression that it has a connection and meaning applied to what happened in his narrative regarding jesus

Eg; He began falsely claiming that the virgin birth of jesus was prophesied in the Old Testament ,passing by other passages eg; Jeremiah 31:15 Psalm 22; Isaiah 53 etc… the same did the other writers of the gospels …..
All that will be exposed in details soon …..

you seem to be of the view that anyone who makes a quotation from an earlier work is using pesher.

That is not what I said… the problem is not quoting the old ,it is, what are you gonna do with what you quote ?

If that were true then David in the Psalms was using pesher as he often quotes extensively from the books of Moses

If David(just as ALL of the writers of the new testament) tried to twist the text applying it to the wrong time and place then he surely used a pesher like technique .....

Jesus himself is recorded as having referred to the OT on many occasions. The Gospels are eye witness reports and there seems little if any doubt about that.

I don’t think Jesus referred to the Old Testament the way it depicted in the gospels, cause if that is true then we have no choice but to accuse him as a big deceiver
But that is not the way we muslims think… we instead give the lie for the writers not Jesus peace be upon him….

[Al-manar]

Item :7

Biblical Errancy vs Quranic Inerrancy P.2

Another problem with accepting the supernatural claims of a book that proved fallible in areas of the natural,is that such approach would turn all world myths into facts and the supernatural claims of such scriptures would turn into facts too ,One religion is as true as another !....

The claim that the gospels were written by eye witnesses eg, disciples ?

That is simply false:
Not only the narrators making themselves anonymous to the readers ,but also the text itself suggests strongly that the writers(whatever who were) were not eyewitnesses….
Not only the writer suggested himself aware of the things Jesus said and done , the Events the followers of Jesus do not know about (eg,the trial of Jesus), but also knows the inner feelings, thoughts of both jesus and others in the new testament ……
Besides ,it is totally absurd if we assume that the writers wrote their eye testimonies, if we have areas in the gospels that requires logically a reaction from them……
just for example: The writers supposedly witnessed the resurrection , and assuming that true, would raise lots of questions
Where were they during the resurrection and the visit of the women? The text suggests that they know what was inside the tomb…… if so ,that necessarily requires them accompanying the women inside ,if so were they silent ? no contact from any kind between them and the women? No reaction at all none ever was struck in the process.?!!!!!
Their master been resurrected and not one word or reaction ,from them, in the event?!!!

To get the matter worse ,though claimed to be eye witnesses, they would later contradict each others in almost every detail in the story !!!!!

With all due respect, It is foolishness ,accepting the whole narrations of the gospels as based on eye witnesses…

To sum up , not only the bible directly claims to be the verbal inspiration ,but that is something to be inferred as ,besides the quotation mentioned before, the text itself suggests strongly to be either verbally inspired by God or based on a hearsay account (which would include both truth and falsehood)and the writer own imaginary production…….



Till next Part

peace\

[Hugo]

The elementary reading is the one that you should do, to open the first page of the gospel of Matthew and learn that Matthew not merely recording a story about Jesus but tried to infuse some old testament verses making the impression that it has a connection and meaning applied to what happened in his narrative regarding Jesus.

Eg; He began falsely claiming that the virgin birth of jesus was prophesied in the Old Testament ,passing by other passages eg; Jeremiah 31:15 Psalm 22; Isaiah 53 etc… the same did the other writers of the gospels ….

As far as I know there is only one ref to the OT in Matthew chapter 1 in verse 23 which recalls Isaiah 7:14. Now you of course can argue that Isaiah is not referring to Jesus but you cannot argue it is false and ultimately it is a matter of faith. I fail to see that this has anything to do with Jeremiah 31:15 which practically everyone agrees is referring to the murder of children committed by Herod and Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 are about the suffering of Jesus. Again you can decide that these passages are about something else but just because YOU say so will not make it true.

If David(just as ALL of the writers of the new testament) tried to twist the text applying it to the wrong time and place then he surely used a pesher like technique .....

David was NOT a NT writer. But here you are not it seems to me being honest, anything that does not quite fit your view means that Biblical writers 'twisted' the text - hardly an open minded view is it.

I don’t think Jesus referred to the Old Testament the way it depicted in the gospels, cause if that is true then we have no choice but to accuse him as a big deceiver. But that is not the way we muslims think… we instead give the lie for the writers not Jesus peace be upon him….

The is just absurd and now you are substituting evidence with your own opinion. If you know so much about Jesus and you regard the NT gospels as unreliable where do you get your information?

[Hugo]

The claim that the gospels were written by eye witnesses eg, disciples ?That is simply false: Not only the narrators making themselves anonymous to the readers ,but also the text itself suggests strongly that the writers(whatever who were) were not eyewitnesses. Not only the writer suggested himself aware of the things Jesus said and done, the Events the followers of Jesus do not know about (eg,the trial of Jesus), but also knows the inner feelings, thoughts of both jesus and others in the new testament Besides ,it is totally absurd if we assume that the writers wrote their eye testimonies, if we have areas in the gospels that requires logically a reaction from them just for example: The writers supposedly witnessed the resurrection , and assuming that true, would raise lots of questions Where were they during the resurrection and the visit of the women? The text suggests that they know what was inside the tomb…… if so ,that necessarily requires them accompanying the women inside ,if so were they silent ? no contact from any kind between them and the women? No reaction at all none ever was struck in the process.?!!!!! Their master been resurrected and not one word or reaction ,from them, in the event?!!!

I cannot follows this argument. It is true that two women were this first witnesses to the resurrection but do you think they they kept it to themselves? If you bother to read the accounts you will see that they told the disciples and some of them saw the empty tomb and later we read the Jesus also appeared to them.

To get the matter worse,though claimed to be eye witnesses, they would later contradict each others in almost every detail in the story ! With all due respect, It is foolishness ,accepting the whole narrations of the gospels as based on eye witnesses. To sum up , not only the bible directly claims to be the verbal inspiration ,but that is something to be inferred as ,besides the quotation mentioned before, the text itself suggests strongly to be either verbally inspired by God or based on a hearsay account (which would include both truth and falsehood)and the writer own imaginary production

It is nonsense to say there is disagreement in almost every detail - no one but you thinks that. It does not even seem to occur to you that sometimes even those that witness the same event will recount it with variations - in fact if they did not then I would suspect it was fix up of the text. Therefore, if the are variations then to me that is strong evidence that they are indeed eye witness accounts.

[Al-manar]

David was NOT a NT writer.

you misunderstood me ,i didn't mean he is NT writer....

As far as I know there is only one ref to the OT in Matthew chapter 1 in verse 23 which recalls Isaiah 7:14. Now you of course can argue that Isaiah is not referring to Jesus but you cannot argue it is false and ultimately it is a matter of faith.

I can argue it is false and it is not ultimately a matter of faith !!!

there is nothing supernatural in Matthew's treatment of the text,in order to call it a matter of faith.......
he wasn't claiming something extraordinary.... the man made it simple:
Jesus was born of a virgin and such birth was predicted in the Old testament, Isaiah 7:4
our task to verify his claim is very easy...we don't need a time machine to get to Isaiah ,just to read the text which he quoted from,in context.....

I accept that after you get reading the context and still believe that Matthew was truthful,inspired ,to be a matter of faith but the blind one.....

I fail to see that this has anything to do with Jeremiah 31:15 which practically everyone agrees is referring to the murder of children committed by Herod and Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53 are about the suffering of Jesus. Again you can decide that these passages are about something else but just because YOU say so will not make it true. .

don't worry we are going to have a long run with such passages to find out how solid the accusation against the writers....

[Hugo]

I can argue it is false and it is not ultimately a matter of faith !!! there is nothing supernatural in Matthew's treatment of the text,in order to call it a matter of faith.......
he wasn't claiming something extraordinary.... the man made it simple: Jesus was born of a virgin and such birth was predicted in the Old testament, Isaiah 7:4 our task to verify his claim is very easy...we don't need a time machine to get to Isaiah ,just to read the text which he quoted from,in context..... I accept that after you get reading the context and still believe that Matthew was truthful,inspired ,to be a matter of faith but the blind one.....

Yes of course you can argue it is false but you cannot prove it one way or the other that is why it is a matter of faith - I accept the Gospel accounts as a trustworthy witness and of course like any scripture it has to be interpreted and I guess you are disposed to only see the context of the Isaiah verse as being about Ahaz and therefore can't or will not even consider other interpretations.

Let me give an example, Muslim message boards are replete with stories of scientific miracles hidden in the Qu'ran and I guess you have no difficulty accepting them and in so doing accepting an interpretation so why the difficulty here?

[Al-manar]

I cannot follows this argument. It is true that two women were this first witnesses to the resurrection but do you think they they kept it to themselves?

Thanx for giving the christian endorsement on my previous point; none of the gospel writer(s) ever witnessed ,at least,the resurrection....they wrote ,according to you,what they heard ,not what they've seen.... and that is what we need to agree on,at least,in that moment....

It is nonsense to say there is disagreement in almost every detail - no one but you thinks that.

the coming dozens of scholary quotes would prove otherwise..

It does not even seem to occur to you that sometimes even those that witness the same event will recount it with variations .

variations from what kind? complementary or contradictory (as those in the narratives) ?

if the are variations then to me that is strong evidence that they are indeed eye witness accounts.

"...but if the witnesses are inspired of God then there is no reason for their disagreeing on anything, and if they do disagree it is a demonstration that they were not inspired...." Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 11, p. 295

"These contradictions are gross and palpable and demonstrate that the NT is not inspired, and that many of its statements must be false." Ibid., p. 276

I guess you are disposed to only see the context of the Isaiah verse as being about Ahaz and therefore can't or will not even consider other interpretations.

that is a false accusation...... If you read my posts in the thread(for eg;in the trinity issue) you will find out easily that I'm not that guy who reject the idea that sometimes a text has more than one possible meaning ....
but to shift from the literal meaning ,there must be strong reasons to do so....
the problem with the writer of Matthew (also Mark,luke,joh,Paul,peter) is that they neither follow the literal nor the metaphorical..... they have passed all the limits of interpretation ,proving themselves unworthy of trust.......

well..... that serious matter needs introduction and background (at least for the muslim bro&sis) who read the thread...... now I take the matter step by step and trying as much as possible to be consistent.....

Let me give an example, Muslim message boards are replete with stories of scientific miracles hidden in the Qu'ran .

that is ,indeed, a false analogy

you compare the un-inspired muslim X who interpret the verse Y in the Quran

with

M the inspired writer of the gospel who interpret the verse N in the bible ?!!

Are you serious ?!!!

the interpretation of the muslim X would never be (the word of God) but HIS understanding of the word of God) which can be verified and questioned......

while the interpretation of the writer of the gospel is claimed to be the inspired word of God and above criticism........

clear?

[Hugo]

Thanx for giving the christian endorsement on my previous point; none of the gospel writer(s) ever witnessed ,at least,the resurrection....they wrote ,according to you,what they heard ,not what they've seen.... and that is what we need to agree on,at least,in that moment....

The trouble is that when like you all the research (if you can call it that) is done by recycling what is found in websites its obvious you are just cherry picking the bits you want and never actually go to a source. For example, in post 138 you used 12 different websites and you must know how unreliable web sites as no checks are made on what people say there. Let us now look through the resurrection witnesses and I only do it now because you clearly have not read even one of the Gospels accounts all the way through for your self. I will use the accounts to summarise:

1. There is no doubt that Jesus died on the cross and was buried in a tomb. If one reads Matthew chapter 27 we have the details including that a guard was placed there so no one could move the body.

2. In Matthew chapter 28 we have the two Mary's finding the empty tome, the guards gone and meeting the risen Jesus.

3. In John chapter 20 we have the famous story about Thomas; who when the other disciples told him they had seen the risen Jesus flatly refused to believe it. A week later when they were all indoors, including Thomas Jesus appeared to them.

4. In Luke chapter 24 we have another famous story of Jesus meeting two men on the road to Emmaus.

5. Peter in Acts chapter 2 said "God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact".

6. Paul lists several witnesses in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Among Jesus' disciples, there were 500 other witnesses and one might note the Jewish Law of Moses required at least two or three witnesses (Deuteronomy 17:6).

So how credible were all the "witnesses" claiming to have actually seen the resurrected Son of God? Their accounts have withstood the test of time (over 2000 years). Many of them were put to death since they could not renounce their testimonies of His resurrection. If you wish to dismiss these accounts then that is a matter between you and God and no amount of scholarly quotes would prove otherwise.

but to shift from the literal meaning ,there must be strong reasons to do so....
the problem with the writer of Matthew (also Mark,luke,joh,Paul,peter) is that they neither follow the literal nor the metaphorical..... they have passed all the limits of interpretation ,proving themselves unworthy of trust.......

Nothing can be simply read as literal there must always be interpretation and in fact this principles was annunciated by one of Islam's most famous scholars - Ibn Rushd and it agrees with how both Jews and Christians see the Bible and what you simply cannot accept is that the gospel writers were just reporting what they saw and heard either directly or from other witnesess.

Whether something is inspired or not is a matter of faith not a matter of a few rules that you invent so making you own tiny mind the measure of all things and setting limits on what God might do or how he works. We see this in what you say about Islam, Islamic writers are inspired and Biblical ones are not. You draw a line around your early scholars and impute or more precisely decide that they have immutability without a thought and certainly not a shred of evidence - does it not even occur to you how biased your whole outlook is?

[Al-manar]

you must know how unreliable web sites as no checks are made on what people say there.

My knowledge is both through books in my library , books on Pc ,sites , whenever I quote a book I make the reference.. ,such books I doubt you ever read or will ever read one day....

Let us now look through the resurrection witnesses .

No my dear, let's now look through the resurrection itself(at least for the moment)...

There is no doubt that Jesus died on the cross and was buried in a tomb..

If I ask how you know such statement be true, you would say because it is in the Bible. instead of asking yourself is the Bible true?
have you ever heard of the saying: Quoting from a work is fruitless unless you first prove the book is valid, truthful and reliable. ?

In Matthew chapter 28 we have the two Mary's finding the empty tome, the guards gone and meeting the risen Jesus.

yes, and In Matthew 28 we have Mary Magdalena been informed by an angel that Jesus had risen besides she had even seen Jesus and touched him after leaving the tomb ....
if that is true , why the other inspired writer of John (20:1)made her telling Peter that the body of Jesus had been stolen?
your witnesses now in trouble , would you help them gaining some credibility, answering that question?

waiting for your answer(supported by the bible).................

[Hugo]

My knowledge is both through books in my library , books on Pc ,sites , whenever I quote a book I make the reference.. ,such books I doubt you ever read or will ever read one day....

It might be but every single post of yours I have checked shows that almost exclusively you quote from websites - I can give you full listings if you wish and will do so from now on so there is no misunderstanding.

No my dear, let's now look through the resurrection itself(at least for the moment)... as we agreed before NONE ever supposed to be witnessed a so called resurrection wrote ONE word about it.... you know better than me that ,the ears are “more mistrustful” than the eyes....

No one agreed, that was just your faulty reading of what was written and in my post I gave you Biblical reports of eye witness accounts to the resurrection - for example Peter was a witness and in Acts he says so. You can decide they are not reliable, you can put your own interpretation on what is there but you cannot deny what is actually written in the NT unless you wander off into corruption then we have nothing in common and you have no basis of knowing anything much about Jesus

If I ask how you know such statement be true, you would say because it is in the Bible. Instead of asking yourself is the Bible true? have you ever heard of the saying: Quoting from a work is fruitless unless you first prove the book is valid, truthful and reliable?

No Christians don't do that, they believe these accounts are true because the accounts have all the hallmarks of truthful eyewitnesses but no one can prove it one way or the other and now it's a matter of faith. What you are suggesting about books and proof is a paradox, a circular argument and it is therefore valueless. This form of fallacious argument is ancient and well known and was first debunked by Socrates who said "Is what is holy holy because the gods approve it, or do they approve it because it is holy".

In the case of the Bible we have to read it and consider what it says as well as test the message to see if its consistent through all 66 books and of course see how its message plays out in the lives of those who believe. But even to begin that process one has to believe in God and so we are back to faith as there is no possible way to prove that God exists. Similarly, there is no way to prove the Qu'ran is from God and its just fallacious to invent supposed tests such as saying its grammatically perfect therefore must be from God.

yes, and In Matthew 28 we have Mary Magdalena been informed by an angel that Jesus had risen besides she had even seen Jesus and touched him after leaving the tomb .... if that is true , why the other inspired writer of John (20:1)made her telling Peter that the body of Jesus had been stolen? your witnesses now in trouble , would you help them gaining some credibility, answering that question?

In Matthew 28 we first read that an Angel told her Jesus had risen from the dead and later we read she came face to face with Jesus so I see nothing problematic there. In John 20 we have the same story of Mary finding the empty tomb and then telling Peter now I cannot see how that precludes Mary later coming face to face with Jesus - it is not necessary that all these events happened within seconds of each other is it? One might ask why John did not report the meeting between Mary and Jesus or why Matthew did not tell us about Peter but those would be conjectures and are unanswerable - but they are very convincing proof that these are genuine accounts and that no one has fiddled with the records to make them agree.

The trouble with the way you look at all this is that if indeed they did agree word for word letter for letter you would conclude it was a conspiracy because you have decided what you want to believe before you have examined the evidence. Of course the same thing can afflict us all unless we think it all through with care and honesty. In any discussion one brings assumption and presuppositions and the only guard against this is to try as hard as one can to be aware of them otherwise you end up in effect lying to yourself.

I guess you bring to this discussion an unshakable trust in the Qu'ran and that colours everything you say and that is problematic and it may help you (and me) if you keep these two aphorisms in mind because they both point to the very worst in research:

If facts do not conform to theory, they must be disposed of.
Researchers should always state the opinion on which their facts are based

.

[جوري]

It might be but every single post of yours I have checked shows that almost exclusively you quote from websites - I can give you full listings if you wish and will do so from now on so there is no misunderstanding.

Quoting from articles or websites doesn't make him incorrect in fact that is how one loans their opinion some factual credence.. instead of leveling the charges against your book, you'd derail another thread into this endless meaningless drivel?.. no one is interested in your personal opinion.. people are only interested in the facts.. if you have opposing tales in your book you hold as 'inspired by God' and your entire faith rests on shaky arguments uncorroborated in more than one text, and with nameless authors, as well in defiance of all possible logic that the mind can conceive then by God you are in alot of trouble!
deflecting away doesn't answer the pertinent questions Hugo!

all the best

[Hugo]

Quoting from articles or websites doesn't make him incorrect in fact that is how one loans their opinion some factual credence.. instead of leveling the charges against your book, you'd derail another thread into this endless meaningless drivel?.. no one is interested in your personal opinion.. people are only interested in the facts.. if you have opposing tales in your book you hold as 'inspired by God' and your entire faith rests on shaky arguments uncorroborated in more than one text, and with nameless authors, as well in defiance of all possible logic that the mind can conceive then by God you are in alot of trouble! deflecting away doesn't answer the pertinent questions Hugo!

Oner can of course debate this but I don't know any any University or Journal that would allow free quoting from any website. If they allow it at all it is always based on them being for example online Journals, Government papers or academic bodies but certainly not the kind of recycled drivel that often flows endlessly through web sites of the kind we see here. How can you even suggest that it is acceptable as there is no possible way to know if its reliable or not. People say they are quoting from a book but does it not is strike you as odd that invariably that exact same quote is found on several Muslim apologetic sites. I can and do check postings and in general I know where most of the quotes comes from and I cannot recall a single case where the site would be regarded as reliable in ANY scholarly sense. One does not of course expect high scholarly standards on a discussion boards as it would be virtually impossible to police but we can expect simple honesty and readers need to understand that if they want to shall I say become expert in some topic then they cannot do it here and must research it through well respected sources.

All faith is in some way shaky because they can never have what might be called material evidence to support them and Islam is no different and never can be. Let's face it who would believe that God sent an angel to a man in a cave who remembered what the angel said and later got people to write it all down only to find that all the stories were just copies of things found elsewhere - do you see the point, do you see its impossible to verify - you see it as fact I see it as fable.

[جوري]

All faith is in some way shaky because they can never have what might be called material evidence to support them and Islam is no different and never can be. Let's face it who would believe that God sent an angel to a man in a cave who remembered what the angel said and later got people to write it all down only to find that all the stories were just copies of things found elsewhere - do you see the point, do you see its impossible to verify - you see it as fact I see it as fable.

I know you want Islam to be 'no different' but that isn't the case, and your refusal to accept that is more to do with your own personal agenda and dilemma than the fact of the matter.. We can always put God's word to the test and see the Quran as the inimitable unadulterated word of God, but such isn't the case with the bibles.. and I know you have attempted to discredit the Quran before in several threads but failed to do so.. should leave you with two conclusions either accept the obvious or find a shallow hole for one in which to hide your head..

all the best

[Hugo]

I know you want Islam to be 'no different' but that isn't the case, and your refusal to accept that is more to do with your own personal agenda and dilemma than the fact of the matter.. We can always put God's word to the test and see the Quran as the inimitable unadulterated word of God, but such isn't the case with the bibles.. and I know you have attempted to discredit the Quran before in several threads but failed to do so.. should leave you with two conclusions either accept the obvious or find a shallow hole for one in which to hide your head..

It is not a question of wanting anything but from a proof positive point of view it is no different from any other faith and in my view much weaker and holds on to its followers more through fear of the hereafter that faith in a living God. It is simply disingenuous to talk about putting Gods word to the test as if there is some way to prove unquestionably his existence so if we cannot get past that obstacle its pointless drivel to try to show that something is the "inimitable unadulterated word of God" by inventing tests and then demanding they can ONLY be used in the Qui'ran and never based on falsification as would be proper scientific practice, you simply assume it is God's word, think up a test and then rejoice when lo and behold it agrees with you supposition - re-enforces your certainties but can never be allowed to dent them and if it does its the evil West or that person is not a scholar or he has blue eyes or anything but face up to the truth.

[Al-manar]

Peter was a witness and in Acts he says so.

Peter(if we assume him as a disciple) is not the writer of Acts,have you any doubt about that?

You can decide they are not reliable,.

the matter of reliability is in your hand now,just clear up the obvious contradiction,between the so called witnesses, I shew.

In Matthew 28 we first read that an Angel told her Jesus had risen from the dead and later we read she came face to face with Jesus so I see nothing problematic there.

yes,in other words let's say Matthew is not VS Matthew in that point....

In John 20 we have the same story of Mary finding the empty tomb and then telling Peter now I cannot see how that precludes Mary later coming face to face with Jesus

I see,you need some help here,as it is obvious you didn't get the nature of the problem yet !

let's quote the text (both Matthew and John):


Matthew 28

1And on the eve of the sabbaths, at the dawn, toward the first of the sabbaths, came Mary the Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre, 2and lo, there came a great earthquake, for a messenger of the Lord, having come down out of heaven, having come, did roll away the stone from the door, and was sitting upon it, 3and his countenance was as lightning, and his clothing white as snow, 4and from the fear of him did the keepers shake, and they became as dead men. 5And the messenger answering said to the women, `Fear not ye, for I have known that Jesus, who hath been crucified, ye seek; 6he is not here, for he rose, as he said; come, see the place where the Lord was lying; 7and having gone quickly, say ye to his disciples, that he rose from the dead; and lo, he doth go before you to Galilee, there ye shall see him; lo, I have told you.' 8And having gone forth quickly from the tomb, with fear and great joy, they ran to tell to his disciples; 9and as they were going to tell to his disciples, then lo, Jesus met them, saying, `Hail!' and they having come near, laid hold of his feet, and did bow to him.



The narrative of Matthew is clear:
Sunday morning Mary Magdalena came to the tomb ,found the tomb empty, was informed that Jesus was risen ,then while going to tell the disciples she met Jesus ,talked to him,touched him .....

Now get a look at the narrative of John that throws the table on Matthew's narrative:


John 20

1And on the first of the sabbaths, Mary the Magdalene doth come early there being yet darkness to the tomb, and she seeth the stone having been taken away out of the tomb, 2she runneth, therefore, and cometh unto Simon Peter, and unto the other disciple whom Jesus was loving, and saith to them, `They took away the Lord out of the tomb, and we have not known where they laid him.'


Did you get the problem? I talk about the contradictory and you resort to the complementary!!!!
My English is not that perfect but I think I provided the problem in clear,direct terms....

I didn't say the problem ,is that Matthew says something that John decided to skip (which is another kind of problem) or vice versa.....

plainly put it, why Matthew says Mary was informed that jesus was risen and met him before going to the disciples ,contradicts John saying that she neither been informed nor met jesus before going to the disciples?

solution ??????

[جوري]

and in my view .

Like I said no one is interested in your point of view with additives and preservatives.. people are interested in facts!

all the best

[Hugo]

Peter(if we assume him as a disciple) is not the writer of Acts,have you any doubt about that? the matter of reliability is in your hand now,just clear up the obvious contradiction,between the so called witnesses, I shew.

Can we just pause here - you accuse me of not understanding but I think I see your arguments but before I give a fuller answer may I just recite them and perhaps you will confirm my understanding.

1. Witnesses and writers may not be the same person. If we take a case in point we know that Acts clearly records Peter as an eyewitness but since Peter did not personally write that report it is therefore second or third hand. That is you observation of the facts and one supposes your conclusion is that therefore the report in this case of Peter seeing the risen Jesus is either false or unreliable? One might draw a further conclusion that if the report had been personally written by Peter it must necessarily be true or more generally your argument is that all second hand accounts are false or unreliable and all first hand ones are true and may be trusted?

2. Lack of agreement between resurrection accounts. Your observation is that the resurrection accounts do not match perfectly and a case in point is that of Mary Magdalene as recorded in Matthew and John. From this you conclude that the accounts are fabricated in some way and therefore the Bible cannot be trusted or be God's word. Again generalising your argument it becomes if accounts of some event differ one must at least suspect fabrication and moreover in such a case it can never be possible to take an alternative view.

[Al-manar]

Can we just pause here - you accuse me of not understanding but I think I see your arguments but before I give a fuller answer may I just recite them .

waiting for your fuller answer,before giving my fuller comment...

[Hugo]

waiting for your fuller answer,before giving my fuller comment...

Let us be clear, I have asked you to confirm that I have understood your argument as you accused me of not being able to follow it, since it would be pointless to supply a fuller answer to your allegations unless we have some common ground - do you agree?

[Al-manar]

it would be pointless to supply a fuller answer to your allegations unless we have some common ground - do you agree?

The only common ground ,is when you answer,directly without philosophy my simple question....
why you give me the impression that you Evade answer ?

Do you agree that Matthew 28 and John 20 contradicting each others ,if not what is your textual support?

by the way,any next excuses not to answer would get the readers of the thread to be sure that you try by all means to avoid answering by using such tactic...

[Hugo]

The only common ground ,is when you answer,directly without philosophy my simple question....why you give me the impression that you avoid answer like the plague?
Do you agree that Matthew 28 and John 20 contradicting each others ,if not what is your textual support?

It seems you refuse to confirm your argument and I can only wonder why. I will make two posts (so that each is not too long) on on the issues and assume, I can do no other, that my understanding of your argument is correct.

Your Argument 1 - Witnesses and writers may not be the same person so reports are unreliable. If we take a case in point we know that Acts clearly records Peter as an eyewitness but since Peter did not personally write that report it is therefore second or third hand. That is you observation of the facts and one supposes your conclusion is that therefore the report in this case of Peter seeing the risen Jesus is either false or unreliable? One might draw a further conclusion that if the report had been personally written by Peter it must necessarily be true or more generally your argument is that all second hand accounts are false or unreliable and all first hand ones are true and may be trusted?

Assuming you accept the Acts account then there is no disagreement on the facts; Peter's report of seeing the risen Jesus is not first hand, he did not write it.

Firstly, the fact that Peter's experience is recorded as a second hand report does not make it untrue or necessarily unreliable. In a court of law for example, one often hears a witness recounting what someone said so it is not unusual and perfectly acceptable as evidence if it is corroborated.

Secondly, there is no reason why the writer of Acts did not confirm the facts with Peter and others, since there were many witnesses, the resurrection facts. Ipso facto there is no reason to suspect that Peter's experience was a fiction.

If I now turn to the more general point of logic. If you say second hand reports are untrue or unreliable it cannot just apply to the Bible but must be generally true. I would argue that it is perfectly acceptable to doubt a report first or second hand and that is why we always seek corroboration.

It might help you to see this point more clearly if we consider the Qu'ran. Firstly, it is without doubt a second hand report, first from the angel and then from Mohammed. Secondly, there was no corroboration, no one else saw the angels or heard anything - no one checked or could check with the angel or God. Ipso facto it must be regarded as false or unreliable. Indeed one might regard the case for authenticity as worse since the Qu'ran reports the same Biblical stories but the accounts do not agree and since the Biblical ones are much much older much more reliable.

[Al-manar]

Hugo .. Hugo

my point was clear, why the so called inspired writers contradict each others in the narratives of the resurrection, you insist that they are trustworthy and telling the truth and I shown you just one example of the contradictions in their narratives which shows they were neither inspired nor trustworthy....


do you need to read again the consequences of a text claimed to be inspired containing contradictions, errors from any kind ? http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ml#post1341209



anyway I know you won't ever answer me. why?

because the problem I highlighted (the Mary Magdalena problem)is the one that the biggest names in the scholarly world of the NT ,failed miserably to solve.... I know you realize that, that is why you avoided it like a plague

anyway I won't behave childish , remindin you time after time that you failed to clear it up, I would just pretend that I never asked you ......

[Hugo]

my point was clear, why the so called inspired writers contradict each others in the narratives of the resurrection, you insist that they are trustworthy and telling the truth and I shown you just one example of the contradictions in their narratives which shows they were neither inspired nor trustworthy....do you need to read again the consequences of a text claimed to be inspired containing contradictions, errors from any kind ? http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ml#post1341209

I have not deviated - I saw it that you were making two points, one about the writers and one about supposed contradictions. I have answered the first in post 160 and either you have not read it or you have nothing further to say one way or the other.

Tomorrow I will deal with your other finding regarding difficulties of reconciliation on the question of Mary Madeline. No one in the Christian church from its beginning would question your comment that the Matthew and John accounts differ but at the same time that has not driven us to conclude that they are false accounts. The problem for you is that you have assume only one conclusion is possible and that the two accounts cannot be reconciled. This of course is a a common mistake and from time to time we all make it. However, tomorrow I will reply on the Mary Madeline issue fully.

[Al-manar]

I have not deviated - I saw it that you were making two points,one about the writers

and did you get the first regarding the writers?!

I doubt it..... the one regarding the writers was no more than (the writers weren't eyewitnesses to what they wrote)... it is your own imagination ,misreading my posts that led you to post :

Your Argument 1 - Witnesses and writers may not be the same person so reports are unreliable.

your argument is that all second hand accounts are false or unreliable and all first hand ones are true and may be trusted.

Hugo it is time to know that Al-manar care more for the text not its writers....

tomorrow I will reply on the Mary Madeline issue fully..

Ok I trust your promise that time..

[Hugo]

and did you get the first regarding the writers?! I doubt it..... the one regarding the writers was no more than (the writers weren't eyewitnesses to what they wrote)... it is your own imagination ,misreading my posts that led you to post

I find this post almost offensive given that after you accused me of not following your argument I stated what I understood as your arguments but YOU refused to to confirm or deny what I said.

[Hugo]

Here is my response to your question regarding difficulties with harmonising two Gospel accounts relating to the resurrection. In this case I have used as essay written by Bishop Ryle in 1880 and if you want to explore it further see Ryle's Expository thoughts on the Gospels Volume 4 ISBN 085234 0788. If you want further accounts you can do no better than read "Who Moved the Stone" by Frank Morison ISBN 978-0571032594. If you care to visit Amazon you will find many other similar texts. YOu may also be aware that Ahmed Deedat has written a book with the same name. In attempting to harmonizing the accounts which the four Evangelists give of the appearances of Jesus, after He rose again from the dead, there is undeniably some difficulty. But it is probably far more apparent than real. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, each tell their own story; with no appearance of any concert or collusion about them. How to reconcile the seeming discrepancies in their narratives, has exercised the skill of commentators in every age. We might begin by listing the order of Christ's eleven appearances between His resurrection and ascension are as follows :

1. To Mary Magdalene alone (Mark 16:9, John 20:14);
2. To certain women returning from the sepulchre (Matt 28:9,10);
3. To Simon Peter alone (Luke 24:34);
4. To two disciples going to Emmaus (Luke 24:18);
5. To ten Apostles at Jerusalem, and some other disciples, Thomas being absent (John 20:19);
6. To eleven Apostles at Jerusalem, Thomas being present (John 20:26-29);
7. To seven disciples fishing at the sea of Tiberias (John 21:1);
8. To eleven Apostles on a mountain in Galilee, and perhaps some others with them (Matt, 28:16);
9. To above five hundred brethren at once (1 Cor 15:7);
10. To James only (1 Cor 15:7);
11. To all the Apostles, and probably some others, on Mount Olivet, at His ascension.

Most of these eleven appearances require little or no explanation. The ninth and tenth in the list are only recorded by Paul; and some think that the appearance to five hundred at once, is the same as that to the eleven in Galilee, though I doubt it. The appearance to Peter is one of which we know nothing except the fact. However, the only appearances, about which there is any difficulty, are first two in the list and to my own mind the difficulty is by no means insurmountable.

The knot to be untied is this. Mark expressly says that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene. (Mark 16:9.) John also describes this appearance; and it is quite plain from his account that Mary Magdalene was alone. (John 20:11-13.) Yet Matthew says that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to the sepulchre together, saw an angel, and heard that Jesus had risen, ran to tell disciples, and were met on the way by Jesus, and both saw Him at the same time. Now how is this to be explained? How can the account of these three witnesses be made to harmonize and agree? Bishop Ryle begins each section with "I believe" and so is acknowledging that he does not from the Gospel record have everything that is needful but at the same time it is undeniable that a reconciliation is possible.

1. I believe that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary did not go alone to the sepulchre, on the morning of the resurrection. By comparing Mark 16:1, and Luke 23:55, and 24:1, with Matt 28:1, it is evident that several "other women" accompanied them.
2. I believe that, on arriving at the sepulchre, the company of women saw the stone rolled away from its mouth. At once, on seeing this, Mary Magdalene realised that the body of Jesus had been removed from the tomb, and, without waiting a moment, she ran off to Peter and John, and told them, as recorded in John 20:1,2, This incidentally is the view of Chrysostom and Cyril (both writing c. 370)
3. I believe that, while Mary Magdalene ran off to tell Peter and John, the other women went up to the sepulchre, found the body gone, saw a vision of angels, were told that Jesus had risen, and were commanded to go and tell the disciples. They departed to tell the news. Some went in one direction and some in another; Mary and Salome with one party; Joanna with another.
4. I believe that while this was going on, Mary Magdalene, who had run off alone to tell Peter and John, found them, and then all three came to the sepulchre shortly after the other women went away. Whether Mary got there at the same time as Peter and John, perhaps admits of doubt.
5. I believe that Peter and John saw the empty sepulchre, and went away, leaving Mary Magdalene weeping there.
6. I believe that, as soon as Peter and John went away, Mary Magdalene saw the two angels, and immediately after saw Jesus himself, and was told to carry a message to His brethren. (John 20:17.)
7. I believe that in the meantime the other women had gone in two or three directions, to tell the other disciples who lived in different parts of Jerusalem from that of Peter and John. Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Salome, were yet on their way when Jesus met them, very shortly after He had appeared to Mary Magdalene.
8. I believe that one party of women, with Joanna at their head, saw nothing of our Lord, but went to the disciples and told them the message of the angels.
9. I believe that, shortly after this, Jesus appeared to Simon Peter, who very likely had gone again to the grave on hearing Mary Magdalene's report.
10. I believe that in the course of the same day our Jesus appeared to the two disciples on the way to Emmaus, who had left Jerusalem after Joanna and the women reported the vision of angels, but before Jesus appeared to Peter.
11 Finally, I believe that on the evening of the same day that Jesus appeared to the Apostles, and others with them, Thomas being absent. Luke says, "The eleven Apostles were gathered together." But he evidently means the Apostles generally, as a, body. This was our the fifth appearance on the day that He rose.

I don't know whether this scheme of reconciliation will satisfy everyone. I content my-self with saying that I see far fewer difficulties in it than in any other scheme that I have met with. I see, moreover, nothing unfair or unreasonable about it, and nothing which is not consistent with the variety that may justly be expected from the testimony of four independent witnesses.

[Al-manar]

Here is my response to your question regarding difficulties with harmonising two Gospel accounts relating to the resurrection.

well,thank you for keeping your promise,though I didn't ask you to give a supposed harmony between all the contradictions(which you call difficulties) in the narratives...
I do intend to deal in details with the resurrection later,as the problem with the crucifixion,resurrection is bigger than mere contradictions.... contradictions is just one aspect of the problem(details later)....

In this case I have used as essay written by Bishop Ryle in 1880 and if you want to explore it further see Ryle's Expository thoughts on the Gospels Volume 4 ISBN 085234 0788. If you want further accounts .........................

I needn't read any further apologetic work on the resurrection,I read all the old and new supposed scenarios of harmonization, and they all fail to make the narratives trustful ...
unlike many people(even some muslims) who insist on just one possible understanding of a text, I'm very tolerant with varied understandings to the same text ,in the condition that there must be a support .......

the scenarios supposed by the christian Apologists are all pure conjecture,not only unsupported by the text but against the text itself.....

I would address the point of Mary Magdalena(the one that I asked specifically) according to Bishop Ryle

2. I believe that, on arriving at the sepulchre, the company of women saw the stone rolled away from its mouth. At once, on seeing this, Mary Magdalene realised that the body of Jesus had been removed from the tomb, and, without waiting a moment, she ran off to Peter and John, and told them, as recorded in John 20:1,2,

you know why the writer gets the chapter and number of John and none else from the other writers?
cause the problem is there where Matthew 28 etc...

the Bishop argues that Mary Magdalena departed before getting the message of the angels,Is that possible?

yes it is possible with John's narrative but impossible with Matthew etc...narratives...

this is the narrative of Matthew in context:

Matthew 28

1And on the eve of the sabbaths, at the dawn, toward the first of the sabbaths, came Mary the Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre, 2and lo, there came a great earthquake, for a messenger of the Lord, having come down out of heaven, having come, did roll away the stone from the door, and was sitting upon it, 3and his countenance was as lightning, and his clothing white as snow, 4and from the fear of him did the keepers shake, and they became as dead men.
5And the messenger answering said to the women, `Fear not ye, for I have known that Jesus, who hath been crucified, ye seek; 6he is not here, for he rose, as he said; come, see the place where the Lord was lying; 7and having gone quickly, say ye to his disciples, that he rose from the dead; and lo, he doth go before you to Galilee, there ye shall see him; lo, I have told you.' 8And having gone forth quickly from the tomb, with fear and great joy, they ran to tell to his disciples; 9and as they were going to tell to his disciples, then lo, Jesus met them, saying, `Hail!' and they having come near, laid hold of his feet, and did bow to him.


What does (they) in bold refer to? the answer that both contextually and grammatically, refers to the Mary Magdalena and the other Mary......

Matthew 28:1-10 grammatically requires the understanding that Mary Magdalene was present throughout this part of Matthew’s narrative. since Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were the only women mentioned in this passage, Mary Magdalene was necessarily a part of the antecedent of the pronouns they and them.
the grammatical structure of Matthew's text will not allow this early departure of Mary Magdalene or the other Mary. If they departed before "the angels popped in," then just who the hell were the women whom the angel spoke to in Matthew 28:5? The two Marys were the only women that Matthew mentioned in his narrative.

1. By names, who were “the women” who went to the tomb in Matthew’s narrative?

2. What is your textual basis for this answer?

3. If you excluded Mary Magdalene from your answer to number 1, what was your textual basis for this exclusion.

4. By names, who were “the women” whom the angel told that Jesus had risen (v:5)?

5. If you excluded Mary Magdalene from your answer to number 4, what was your textual basis for this exclusion?

6. By names, who were “the women” who ran from the tomb and encountered the resurrected Jesus (vs:8-10).

7. If you excluded Mary Magdalene from your answer to number 6. what was your textual basis for this exclusion?

8. If you included Mary Magdalene in your answers, how do you explain Mary Magdalene’s telling Peter and John that the body of Jesus had been stolen if she had by this time encountered both the angel and the risen Jesus?

I don't know whether this scheme of reconciliation will satisfy everyone

It might appear satisfactory to the simple-minded, but not the critically minded .

I see, moreover, nothing unfair or unreasonable about it, and nothing which is not consistent with the variety that may justly be expected from the testimony of four independent witnesses.

You are at it again !

depend upon what the variations are. Variations that involve only the inclusion or exclusion of details may very well not contradict the idea of inerrancy, but variations that involve rank inconsistencies do contradict the idea of inerrancy

As I have repeatedly pointed out, all of the gospel writers were allegedly inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent entity, so the "knowledge" of each writer should have been equal. Whatever Mark knew, Matthew, Luke, and John would have known, and whatever Matthew knew, Mark, Luke, and John would have known, and so on, because they were all "inspired" by the same omniscient entity. If not, why not?

If the Bible is indeed "the word of God," as biblical inerrantists claim, then it can be the word of God only if it is the word of God and not the word of Isaiah or Jeremiah or John or Mark or the apostle Paul. If the gospel of Mark contains only what Mark knew from his own personal experiences or familiarity with "oral traditions" and included by choices that he himself made, then what was the purpose of divine "inspiration"?

If the gospel writers were indeed "inspired" by the omniscient, omnipotent "Holy Spirit," then they were not writing what they chose to write or what they knew from "oral traditions" or their own personal experiences but were writing what they were directed by the omni-one to write..

Well, hugo presented what he think to be satisfactory reconciliation,and I presented the refutation to such scenario.....

the difference between both ,is that the one suggested by the christian apologists is mere a conjecture goes against the text while the critical view has a solid textual support...

[muslim787]

[INDENT]
what you have attempted was to copy hearsay which really back fired on you and as such the challenge really still stands, you don't have to make a separate thread when you can pick up exactly where you have left off with my challenge the last time. I told you that I'll be waiting for the errors and contradiction .. you ran away after two failed attempts.. Only you can be faulted for that!

Salams Sister,

Smashing effort all you fine Muslims are putting into this thread. Could you kindly direct me to the other thread, so I may slowly catch up.

Jazak Allah Kharin

[جوري]

:sl:

is anyone else getting this message when they attempt to post a large post/

Fatal error: Maximum execution time of 30 seconds exceeded in /home/islamicf/public_html/includes/functions_wysiwyg.php on line 266

:w:

[جوري]

Salams Sister,

Smashing effort all you fine Muslims are putting into this thread. Could you kindly direct me to the other thread, so I may slowly catch up.

Jazak Allah Kharin

:sl: I am having a difficult time posting, pls. go into my profile or his and you'll find them that way insha'Allah

:w;

[Hugo]

well,thank you for keeping your promise,though I didn't ask you to give a supposed harmony between all the contradictions(which you call difficulties) in the narratives...
I do intend to deal in details with the resurrection later,as the problem with the crucifixion,resurrection is bigger than mere contradictions.... contradictions is just one aspect of the problem(details later)....

I don't suppose we can go further here. The Bible presents 11 recorded incidents of very many people seeing Jesus after the resurrection and all of these people were sceptical to begin with with Thomas being perhaps the most outspoken critic of the sightings. If you now for whatever reason decide that all of this is a fiction well that is for you alone. However, it does seem to me that you are not entirely objective. Let me cite two examples that will illustarte what I mean:

1. The Qu'ran was an entirely private revelation (just like any revelation or vision) so it is technically hearsay yet YOU I assume believe it absolutely even though the revelation events are impossible to corroborate. So you are not bringing any criticality because one cannot apply one set of criteria of reliability to the Bible and another to the Qu'ran.

2. If I confine myself the the hadith accounts that speak of your prophet then they are all second-hand accounts, none were written by him. Now it is quite permissible to find a chain of narrators and feel certain that someone is reporting his words or deeds accurately but these reports often, very often contain mystical elements that cannot be corroborated yet you accept them I guess without question. For example in the following did Aisha see Gabriel or did the prophet tell he this later or what?

Sahih Al-Bukhari (Volume 5, Book 59, Number 443)

Narrated 'Aisha: When the Prophet returned from Al-Khandaq (i.e. Trench) and laid down his arms and took a bath, Gabriel came and said (to the Prophet ), You have laid down your arms? By Allah, we angels have not laid them down yet. So set out for them." The Prophet said, "Where to go?" Gabriel said, "Towards this side," pointing towards Banu Quraiza. So the Prophet went out towards them.

So I ask you again, are you being intellectuality honest? Please note this is not about what you believe because that is entirely a matter for you as you weight up whatever evidence you have within your own conscience. But once we move into the supernatural no proof is ultimately possible.

[Al-manar]

I don't suppose we can go further here.

I agree, as the matter of harmonizing the resurrection narratives is a hopeless case .....

The Bible presents 11 recorded incidents of very many people seeing Jesus after the resurrection and all of these people were sceptical to begin with

You have just brought another problem with the narratives.... the so called apostles' skepticism of a resurrection is one of the obvious defects of the narratives..... read the following interesting article:

John's account of the resurrection has Peter and another disciple running to the empty tomb after hearing from Mary Magdalene that the body of Jesus was gone. The unnamed disciple, outrunning Peter, arrived at the tomb first and waited:

Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen wrappings lying there, and the cloth that had been on Jesus' head, not lying with the linen wrappings but rolled up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; for as yet they did not understand the scripture, that he must rise from the dead. Then the disciples returned to their homes (20:6-10, NRSV).
Luke also indicated that the disciples of Jesus had not expected his resurrection, for Luke said that after Peter looked inside at the linen cloths, "he went home, wondering at that which had come to pass" (24:12). Numerous references to the apostles' skepticism of a resurrection appear elsewhere in the New Testament (Lk. 24:11,38; Jn. 20:24-25; Matt. 28:17).
From one perspective, that the disciples did not yet understand the scripture that Jesus must rise from the dead, as John alleged, is not at all surprising, for the simple reason that there were no scriptures that said he would rise from the dead. Luke had Jesus telling his disciples the night of the resurrection that "it is written that the Christ should suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day" (24:46). The Apostle Paul also alleged that the scriptures said that Christ would be raised on the third day (1 Cor. 15:4). That is the claim, but the claim and the reality are two different things. One could search the OT scriptures until doom's day, and he would find nothing written about a Messiah who would rise from the dead on the third day.

One will find nothing in the OT scriptures about a risen Messiah, period! Bibliolaters like to point to Psalm 16, which Luke claimed that both Peter and Paul quoted as proof of Jesus's resurrection (Acts 2:25-31; 13:35-37), but the context of the whole psalm does not support the application that the apostles gave to the verses they quoted. In my booklet, Prophecies: Imaginary and Unfulfilled, I have analyzed in detail this psalm and Peter's and Paul's application of it, so I won't repeat myself here except to say that anyone who reads the apostles' quotation in context will see a dubious connection at best between it and the alleged resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. Despite the often repeated New Testament claim, there just are no prophecies of a resurrected Messiah in the OT scriptures.

From another perspective, however, if the resurrection really did catch the apostles by surprise, one has to wonder why. Certainly they had been told enough that it would happen. In the context of the famous passage where Jesus promised Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, it was clearly said that Jesus told his disciples that he would be killed and then resurrected:


From that time began Jesus to show unto his disciples that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes and be killed, and the third day be raised up (Matt. 16:21).
Parallels to this passage are found in Mark 8:31 and Luke 9:22. Jesus even repeated the statement to his apostles at least twice:

And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be delivered up into the hands of men; and they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised up. And they were exceeding(ly) sorry (Matt. 17:22-23).
And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples apart, and on the way he said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him unto the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify: and the third day he shall be raised up (Matt. 20:17-19).

Some parallel accounts of these passages (Mk. 9:31; Luke 18:32-34) say that the disciples didn't understand what Jesus was saying, but this is just another case of textual discrepancies in the Bible, because Matthew clearly indicated that they did understand him. The first time they were told, for example, Peter took Jesus aside, rebuked him, and said, "God forbid it Lord! This must never happen to you" (Matt. 16:22). The second time Jesus told them, Matthew said that they were "exceedingly sorry," but how could they have been exceedingly sorry about something they didn't even understand? Besides, considering the general acceptance of the phenomenon of resurrection in those times (Mk. 6:14-16), what was there to misunderstand when a man said he would "rise again" after he had been killed?
In view of what Jesus said in the last passage cited above, the postcrucifixion conduct of the apostles is almost impossible to understand. On the way to Jerusalem, he took them aside, told them that he would be (1) delivered up to the chief priests and scribes, (2) condemned to death, (3) delivered to the Gentiles to be mocked, (4) scoured, (5) crucified, and (6) raised on the third day. After their arrival in Jerusalem, the apostles saw Jesus (1) delivered up to the chief priests and scribes, (2) condemned to death, (3) delivered to the Gentiles and mocked, (4) scoured, and (5) crucified, yet somehow, after personally witnessing these five specific fulfillments of Jesus's statement, they didn't expect him to be resurrected. Why? One would think that if Jesus had really told them to expect all of these things, after witnessing the precise fulfillment of the first five of his predictions, they would have surely expected at least a possibility of the sixth. So rather than the women's having to run to tell the apostles about the empty tomb they had found, one would think that the apostles would have been on the scene themselves that third-day morning at least waiting to see if Jesus would come forth.

But they weren't there (according to the story). They had to be sought out and told, and even then they considered the news the women brought to them to be only "idle talk" (Luke 24:11). The women were telling them exactly what Jesus had said would happen, and they thought their words were just idle talk! At the tomb, the angels said to the women, "(R)emember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying that the Son of man must be delivered up into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again" (Luke 24:7). The next verse says that "they remembered his words." So the women were able to remember that Jesus had said this, but the apostles whom Jesus had taken aside on the way to Jerusalem expressly for the purpose of telling them to expect his death and resurrection apparently couldn't remember that he had said it. They just looked into the tomb and went home, "for as yet they did not understand the scripture, that he must rise from the dead." Is that what we are supposed to believe?

If the apostles didn't yet understand that Jesus had been destined to rise from the dead, they were a pretty exclusive club, because just about everybody else knew what to expect. As we just noticed, the women remembered immediately that Jesus had said that he would rise from the dead, and they weren't the only disciples (disciples, not apostles) who understood this. In the conversation that Jesus had with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus on resurrection day, Cleopas, after summarizing the events surrounding the trial and crucifixion of Jesus, clearly indicated that he understood a resurrection was supposed to happen the third day:


But we hoped that it was he who should redeem Israel. Yea and besides all this, it is now the third day since these things came to pass (Luke 24:21).
It seems, then, that just about everyone who had been associated with Jesus knew that he was supposed to be resurrected except the apostles. Jesus had apparently entrusted the furtherance of his important cause to a bunch of dimwits who couldn't understand plain language.
Even the enemies of Jesus understood that he had predicted his resurrection. After Jesus had been put into the tomb, they came to Pilate to ask that precautions be taken to prevent a staged fulfillment of the prediction:

The next day, that is, after the day of Preparation, the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate and said, "Sir, we remember what that impostor said while he was still alive, 'After three days I will rise again.' Therefore command the tomb to be made secure until the third day; otherwise his disciples may go and steal him away, and tell the people, 'He has been raised from the dead,' and the last deception would be worse than the first" (Matt. 28:62-64, NRSV).

So the women remembered that Jesus had predicted his resurrection, the disciples at Emmaus remembered it, and the enemies of Jesus remembered it. Everyone apparently remembered it except Jesus's own handpicked apostles. That's a little hard to believe.
Bibliolaters preach that the Bible is an inerrant work of unity and harmony so perfect that it can be explained only by the doctrine of verbal inspiration. It makes great sermon fodder to feed to gullible pulpit audiences, but this discrepancy in what the apostles didn't know but should have known about an impending resurrection of their leader is a glitch in the Bible that must be explained before rational people can accept the inerrancy theory.

To be continued

[Hugo]

I agree, as the matter of harmonizing the resurrection narratives is a hopeless case ..... You have just brought another problem with the narratives.... the so called apostles' skepticism of a resurrection is one of the obvious defects of the narratives..... read the following interesting article:

As usual you don't give the source in full and your long Farrell Till insert can be found everywhere and in this case it looks as if you copied it from infidels.org so I guess you regard that avowedly atheist site as authoritative. If so one can also copy from that site and I will quote using your method.

Flew argues that Islam is one of the "Great and terrible systems of divinity and philosophy that lie round about us, which, if true, might drive a wise man mad." He demonstrates the Koranic basis for Islamic hatred of infidels and then points out why this religion is not credible.

This perhaps illustrates your whole method of flawed research, you only look for items that support your own pre-disposition. In this case Farrell is well known and atheist and so we have to take seriously what he says but also see it in the context of his world view. In this case he puts huge emphasis on 'understand' and cannot it seems fathom how you could know something, how you could remember something but not understand it or even believe it can happen. The problem with you and Farrell is that you assume that there is only one possible explanation and conveniently it is the one you would like to be true.

If you are keen on web sites why not have a look at Islam Watch - here is the forward for the site, see if you can find something there that will be if use to you.

We are a group of Muslim apostates, who have left Islam out of our own conviction when we discovered that Islam is not a religion at all. Most of us took a prolong period of time to study, evaluate, and contemplate on, this religion of our birth. Having meticulously scrutinized Islam, we concluded that it is not a religion of peace at all, as touted by smooth-talking, self-serving Muslims and their apologists from non-Muslim from backgrounds. The core of Islam—that is, the Qur'an, Hadis and Sharia—is filled with unbounded hatred for the unbelievers, unbelievably intolerant toward them and extremely cruel and merciless to Muslims, who dare to deviate from its doctrine.

[جوري]

As usual you don't give the source in full and your long Farrell Till insert can be found everywhere and in this case it looks as if you copied it from infidels.org so I guess you regard that avowedly atheist site as authoritative. If so one can also copy from that site and I will quote using your method.

this is coming from a guy who quotes the likes of 'ibn waraq' as authoritative.. there is a difference indeed.. one is dispensing with an opinion (additives as you yourself are so fond of taking recorded history and spinning it in a new weave) and the other gives your side by side parallels which you can check for yourself to draw your own conclusion..

question is why are you such a hypocrite Hugo (I mean how do you live with yourself and reconcile your hypocrisy)? what is your criteria for scholarship?

all the best

[Al-manar]

As usual you don't give the source in full and your long Farrell Till insert can be found everywhere and in this case it looks as if you copied it from infidels.org so I guess you regard that avowedly atheist site as authoritative.

This perhaps illustrates your whole method of flawed research, you only look for items that support your own pre-disposition.

Hugo, Hugo

I'm gonna give you a sincere advice,why?cause ,in spite of what comes obvious to me post after post of how limited your knowledge in not only the Quran but the bible as well,your tactic of personal attack ,your attempts by all means shifting to other offtopic arguments to escape my irrefutable points, still I need you(with all your cons) in the thread !........ your presence as a christian is better than one sided conversation....

now back to my advice which I direct to you and even some muslims:

one of sad Phenomenon is that some people would sacrifice interesting,solid knowledge merely cause the scholar(as the source) said something that they would disagree with......

your naive argument is when atheists criticize the bible ,their arguments would be nonsense and the reasons? well,they are athiest....

that is surely absured......and not the way we think....

truth is where you find,and nonesense is where you find too.............

by the way such naive,narrow minded approach is not confined to you as I said before,but even some radical muslims suffer from it.....

just the muslim x who follow the school x of thought ,find any other work from another school of thought , immediately avoid it as hell !!!

even if he may find within the work a breath of fresh air that hardly found in the works of his school of thought...
those narrow minded persons deprived themselves from knowledge ,and sacrificed the whole package of the other schools (which surely contains things they agree on)......


Farrell till (the ex-christian missionary) though now atheist,but believe it or not ,would say the truth about the bible that he studied for 50 years !.....

not only Farrell,but Satan, the father of lies ,sometimes tells the truth:

Holy Quran :He said: "Because thou hast thrown me out of the way, lo! I will lie in wait for them on thy straight way:Then will I assault them from before them and behind them, from their right and their left: Nor wilt thou find, in most of them, gratitude

............

now would you enlighten me and farrell till , showing how you sentence ( one could remember something but not understand it or even believe it can happen) be applicable to the so called disciples who didn't know but should have known about an impending resurrection of their leader?


next time I need direct biblical quotations,otherwise don't bother....

[Hugo]

I'm gonna give you a sincere advice,why?cause ,in spite of what comes obvious to me post after post of how limited your knowledge in not only the Quran but the bible as well,your tactic of personal attack ,your attempts by all means shifting to other offtopic arguments to escape my irrefutable points, still I need you(with all your cons) in the thread !........ your presence as a christian is better than one sided conversation....

I am not aware that I made personal attacks but I do question you logic and consistency in applying the same principles everywhere. We can see also what can only be arrogance since you know nothing about what I know or don't know and your 'irrefutable' arguments. In the case of the resurrection there are 11 sightings to dozens of people but your reject every one and that does not even sound reasonable and the least a reasonable person would be agnostic. I have then contrasted why might be you attitude to the Qu'ran and shown that based on Muslim accounts it is irrefutable that the Qu'ran was an entirely private revelation, there were no witnesses to what was said and no one saw the messenger - but you accept this without question and at least I would go as far as being agnostic.

your naive argument is when atheists criticize the bible ,their arguments would be nonsense and the reasons? well,they are athiest....that is surely absured......and not the way we think....

There is nowhere in my post where I say this and you are inventing it. My whole point was that you chose an atheist site; presumably because you regard it as trustworthy yet the same site contains a large number of articles that show that Islam is sham and false - so there is no consistency in your way of working and it amounts to cherry picking because in this site all the articles on Christianity cannot be right whilst all the ones on Islam must be wrong.

truth is where you find,and nonesense is where you find too.............by the way such naive,narrow minded approach is not confined to you as I said before,but even some radical muslims suffer from it.....

I have shown above where the narrow mind occurs and it is arrogant and dangerous for anyone to think as you do that somehow they are above all this and its the rest who are ignorant and narrow minded. Do you think you are the only one who can uncover truth, does it every occur to you that your knowledge and insight is as limited as the next man? Perhaps you would be wise to take what Socrates said, one of the clearest and most honest thinkers that ever lived and he could only say "if I have any authority it is based on the certain knowledge that I know nothing".?

Now would you enlighten me and farrell till, showing how you sentence (one could remember something but not understand it or even believe it can happen) be applicable to the so called disciples who didn't know but should have known about an impending resurrection of their leader?

It is simple and it is obscured in your mind because you cannot even imagine that other explanation are possible. There is no doubt that for the disciples the death of Jesus was very traumatic, their hopes dashed in a matter of days and hours. Do you not at least appreciate this; cannot you see how devastating it was - do you understand what Aeschylus meant when he said "Ah, mortal affairs: in times of good fortune you may compare them to a shadow; but ill fortune, a watery sponge wipes out the picture at a stroke." Have you never had disappointment and hopes dashed in front of your eyes and found it almost impossible to go on (if not then your turn will come)? Here in the gospel story we have one day people shouting praises and throwing palm leaves in his way and the next day they are calling for crucifixion and so why is it so far fetched to you or Till that they might doubt the words of Jesus that he would rise again? (event mentioned by all four Canonical Gospels (Mark 11:1-11, Matthew 21:1-11, Luke 19:28-44, and John 12:12-19) the triumphant entry of Jesus into Jerusalem in the days before his Passion. For the crowds calling for crucifixion see Matthew 27:20-31).

[Al-manar]

We can see also what can only be arrogance since you know nothing about what I know or don't know

I'm afriad your posts have introduced you to me and the other readers ,well... I judge the person based on what he says or write not what is in his brain...

My whole point was that you chose an atheist site; presumably because you regard it as trustworthy

Hugo,You are at it again. When will you ever learn?

Do I need to reset myself again?!

quoting from a work,site,person something doesn't neccesarily require the whole work,author etc .... to be a fountain of truth that above criticism ....
If Satan once tells the truth I would quote him...

There is no doubt that for the disciples the death of Jesus was very traumatic,

what has that to do with his prediction of a resurrection?

their hopes dashed in a matter of days and hours.

What were those hopes? and upon what basis they built such hopes?don't forget to support your answer from the gospels?

you never had disappointment and hopes dashed in front of your eyes

I don't know how his death disappointed them ,if he predicted in several occasions a resurrection and victory over death..... don't you think resurrection should build the greatest hope ever?....


(Matt. 16:21). From that time began Jesus to show unto his disciples that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes and be killed, and the third day be raised up

Mark 8:31-38
31He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again. 32He spoke plainly about this


Luke 9:22
21 And he strictly charged and commanded them to tell this to no one,22 saying, "The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised."


(Matt. 17:22-23). And while they abode in Galilee, Jesus said unto them, The Son of man shall be delivered up into the hands of men; and they shall kill him, and the third day he shall be raised up. And they were exceeding(ly) sorry

(Matt. 20:17-19). And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples apart, and on the way he said unto them, Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be delivered unto the chief priests and scribes; and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him unto the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify: and the third day he shall be raised up


Hugo, in that point,If you can't come up with anything better, I suggest that you come up with nothing at all. Enough is enough.

[Al-manar]

Item :7

Biblical Errancy vs Quranic Inerrancy P.3


Having shown both what the Quran and bible claim about themselves regarding inerrancy, the following step we need to show how they view each others ....


The Quran on Bible corruption

Is it true that in the Quran ,the Bible is referred to as being corrupted?

what is the nature of that corruption?is it tahreef -Lafthi ( adding,omitting, substituting words ) or false Interpretations or both?

Is it true that in the Quran ,the Bible is referred to as being corrupted?

yes ,the bible(both old and new testaments) ,according to the Quran, is partially corrupted:

we can get such fact through both direct accusation and inference :


1- Any time the Quran mentions something biblical yet contradicts,denies it ,then we can safely infer that the Quran accuses the bible indirectly to be tampered with ...

Jesus was crucified ,according to the bible yet wasn't crucified ,according to the Quran etc.... a huge list of such disagreements between both the books showing the Quran affirms a biblical corruption....


2- Though I think the previous inference should be, and alone, a proof of a Quranic accusation of biblical tampering,yet the Quran talks even directly and accuses the human tampering with the word of God in several ways:


1- attacking the false claims of inspiration:

Holy Quran :

6:21 Who doth more wrong than he who inventeth a lie against God.

6:93 Who can be more wicked than one who inventeth a lie against God, or saith, "I have received inspiration," when he hath received none.

[003:078] Among them(the Jews) are those who twist their tongues to imitate the scripture, that you may think it is from the scripture, when it is not from the scripture, and they claim that it is from GOD, when it is not from GOD. Thus, they utter lies and attribute them to GOD, knowingly.

[002:079] Woe, then, to those who write the book with their hands and then say: This is from Allah, so that they may take for it a small price; therefore woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.

In that category we can include Paul who claimed to be inspired 1 Thessalonians 2:13when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men

also the writer of 2 Peter 1:21...

not only with the bible ,the verse could be applied safely with any human being who falsely claimed to be inspired ..

eg; The mormon founder ,the Qadiany sect and their founder who claimed in his book to be receiving inspiration,also the radical Sufi sects and their claims of divine inspiration ...... etc etc etc..


2- Attacking the textual corruption ( adding,omitting, substituting words ) :


[002:075] Do you ( believers) covet that they will believe in your religion inspite of the fact that a party of them (Jewish religious figures) used to hear the Word of Allah (the Taurat), then they used to change it knowingly after they understood it .

the previous verse could be applied to the textual corruption and the interpretation(comes later) as well..


[004:046] Of the Jews there are some who pervert words from their times and places; and say, we have heard, and have disobeyed.


but the Jews referred to are those jews living the time of Muhammad or ?

[005:013] But because of their breach of their covenant(the Jews before Islam), We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard; they change the words from their (right) places and forget a good part of the message that was sent them, nor wilt thou cease to find them- barring a few - ever bent on (new) deceits: but forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds): for God loveth those who are kind.


3- attacking false interpretations:

What is that, changing the words from their right times and places? it is to misquote, misinterpret, twist, distort, pervert, misapply , and concoct an existing text..

it is the third category of corruption after 1-providing a text from nowhere divine 2-altering,adding,omitting the text

such third category is the most interesting one,and I never got its meaning clearly till recent years after studying profoundly the matter ...

due to the huge importance of such matter ,we gonna have a long run with it in next posts Inshallah

peace

[Hugo]

Having shown both what the Quran and bible claim about themselves regarding inerrancy, the following step we need to show how they view each others ....Is it true that in the Quran ,the Bible is referred to as being corrupted? what is the nature of that corruption?is it tahreef -Lafthi (adding, omitting, substituting words) or false Interpretations or both? Is it true that in the Quran ,the Bible is referred to as being corrupted? yes ,the bible(both old and new testaments) ,according to the Quran, is partially corrupted:

1- Any time the Quran mentions something biblical yet contradicts,denies it ,then we can safely infer that the Quran accuses the bible indirectly to be tampered with ...

If one is going to be involved in a critical exercise like this then it requires a high degree of discipline, intellectual honesty and knowledge and sadly these all seem to be missing here. The Bible is much much older than the Qu'ran and there are many extant copies of it - some complete some partial but all you are able to say is the tendentious phrase "we can safely infer". Here we have a book, the Qu'ran, whose content cannot be corroborated in any way as the revelation, like any revelation, was an entirely private affair.

In ANY historical setting the older documents take precedence and so you have zero justification for what you say. There are many copies of the NT that are are perhaps 500 years older that the Qu'ran and for the OT as much as 1,000 years older - what do you have for the Qu'ran, given that if we take away events related to Muslim history there is nothing in it that cannot be found elsewhere in earlier literature.

If I now take your point about Jesus not dying on the cross and I take it you are referring to Q4:156-159 "That they rejected Faith; That they uttered against Mary A grave false charge; That they said 'We killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messenger of Allah.' But they killed him not, Nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. Nay, Allah raised him up Unto Himself; and Allah Is Exalted in Power, Wise. And there is none of the people of the book (Jews and Christians) But must believe in him Before his death; And on the Day of Judgement He will be a witness Against them."

Here we have a very odd statement indeed. I think we might agree that God is the creator of the unimaginable vastness of the Universe and you would say that the Qu'ran was written before even time began, held in heaven. Yet here we have verses that say that God before time began wrote in the book that something did not happen, why would God say to himself, "I must make a note that something did not happen" - it makes no sense and no historian writes about what did not happen for the simple reason there is zero evidence to support it.

[Al-manar]

If one is going to be involved in a critical exercise like this then it requires a high degree of discipline, intellectual honesty and knowledge and sadly these all seem to be missing here.

In spite of such supposed cons, there is something would attract you to be a regular reader to my posts,isn't it?

The Bible is much much older than the Qu'ran

What has that to do with the Question of infallibility? there are other so called inspired books more older than the bible, would you accept them as truly inspired? if not why not?

If I now take your point about Jesus not dying on the cross and I take it you are referring to Q4:156-159
Here we have a very odd statement indeed. I think we might agree that God is the creator of the unimaginable vastness of the Universe and you would say that the Qu'ran was written before even time began, held in heaven. Yet here we have verses that say that God before time began wrote in the book that something did not happen, - it makes no sense and no historian writes about what did not happen for the simple reason there is zero evidence to support it.

you erred twice


1- the burden of proofs is on the shoulder of the one who makes the allegation...
It is the bible that makes the allegation of a crucifiction,resurrection moreover alledges significance to the alledged event ...

its allegations are rejected due to several reasons including clear,direct contradictions (and other factors dicussed later)

it is not the Quran that has to prove something never happened, the burden of proofs is on the shoulder of the bible ...


2-

why would God say to himself, "I must make a note that something did not happen"

you refer to Quran 4:156-159 ,well,it seems you find it strange that God has a preknowledge of the falshoods spread by some people sometimes,isn't it?

well,do I need to quote a biblical passages where God exposing some falshoods spread by the Jews and other people?

I won't do this time,I trust you can find them,but if you will insist next post,then I will have to quote the bible and give you a hand.

all the best

[Hugo]

What has that to do with the Question of infallibility? there are other so called inspired books more older than the bible, would you accept them as truly inspired? if not why not?

I think you miss the point, it is usual when looking at documents to accept the earliest ones as more authentic that later ones. In the case of the Qu'ran we have a document that was written thousands of years after the OT and several hundred years after the NT. If therefore the Qu'ran recounts a biblical story with differences then how can the Qu'ranic version be correct? There would have to be very compelling reasons to think so and I can find none.

1- the burden of proofs is on the shoulder of the one who makes the allegation... It is the bible that makes the allegation of a crucifiction,resurrection moreover alledges significance to the alleged event ... its allegations are rejected due to several reasons including clear,direct contradictions (and other factors dicussed later)

The NT simply reports that fact attested by many eye witnesses that is proof enough in any court of law and as usual you assume that because there are difficulties with the accounts that the ONLY explanation is that it did not happen. At the same time you accept what the Qu'ran says when it is impossible to verify what it says and indeed you do not even seem to understand that it is impossible to prove that something did not happen.

you refer to Quran 4:156-159 ,well,it seems you find it strange that God has a preknowledge of the falshoods spread by some people sometimes,isn't it?

No I don't find it odd that God knows everything from eternity to eternity. What I find strange is that God in a supposed book that was written before time began would bother to tell us about something that did not happen. Yes I think there are cases where the Bible records false beliefs but it is always done in an historical setting and never as far as I know because "God had foreknowledge" of particular instances and I don't know of a single case where the Bible tells us about something that did not happen. But there are warnings such as those found in Acts 13:10 "And said, O full of all subtlety and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?" Galatians 1:7 "Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ." So there have always been those who refuse to accept the Gospel so you not a new phenomenon are you?

[Al-manar]

it is usual when looking at documents to accept the earliest ones as more authentic that later ones.

what kind of documents are you refering to? those sourced by the divine or by the human?

The NT simply reports that fact attested by many eye witnesses that is proof enough in any court of law

you repaet yourself again !!!

At the same time you accept what the Qu'ran says when it is impossible to verify what it says

Again ,it is the bible that asserts(so the burden on its shoulder) not the Quran....

. What I find strange is that God in a supposed book that was written before time began would bother to tell us about something that did not happen.

Have we someone,here, who is fond of repeating himself?!!

But there are warnings such as those found in Acts 13:10 "And said, O full of all subtlety and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?" Galatians 1:7 "Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ." So there have always been those who refuse to accept the Gospel so you not a new phenomenon are you?

you know what is the sad part in Galatians 1:7 ?it is from a writer(s) who already perverted the Old Testament(I will prove that in details later),yet blames those who would pervert his gospel later !!!

[جوري]

^^ in addition to that, how is the bible a compilation of eye witnesses if written some centuries after the fact of the matter.. disagree on content, with dubious authors and illogical events of inconsistent sequence as well composed of letters of a self-proclaimed apostle (the ilk of Saul) whose 'conversion' there is no eye witness to, and perversion is obvious to the naked eye.. Hugo must live on an alternate planes whereby his nonsense is somehow perceived as scholarly wisdom?

[Al-manar]

^^ in addition to that, how is the bible a compilation of eye witnesses if written some centuries after the fact of the matter.. disagree on content, with dubious authors and illogical events of inconsistent sequence as well composed of letters of a self-proclaimed apostle (the ilk of Saul)

If you note sis τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ ,till now I haven't raised the question of date and authorship of the new testament, cause I think it is inferior of importance to the question of content...

the question, what the text has to say ?... is the crucial one .... as it would decide what kind of author (whether inspired or forger)?

next posts would be journey into the internal realm of the bible , I think with all the problems therin ,If once,someone provides me with irrefutable proofs that Jesus is the one who inspired the New Testament from A to Z ,I would immediately not only accuse Jesus as a false prophet but also I would quit being a muslim believing the Quran who would view Jesus as truthful etc....

Hugo should argue the question of authorship with anyone but me.... I'm not the one who would scratch the surface but prefer going to the core....

peace

[جوري]

If you note sis τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ ,till now I haven't raised the question of date and authorship of the new testament, cause I think it is inferior of importance to the question of content...

the question, what the text has to say ?... is the crucial one .... as it would decide what kind of author (whether inspired or forger)?

next posts would be journey into the internal realm of the bible , with all the problems therin ,If someone provides me with irrefutable proofs that Jesus is the one who inspired the New Testament from A to Z ,I would immediately not only accuse Jesus as a false prophet but also I would quit being a muslim believing the Quran who would view Jesus as truthful etc....

Hugo should argue the question of authorship with anyone but me.... I'm not the one who would scratch the surface but prefer going to the core....

peace

I got you.... for most getting to the core is rather futile when the surface is so questionable .. would you eat a can of beans that has been lying there open for an x period of time and whose contents has clearly festered while mocking that which is better? to me that speaks of a very warped psychology ..

:w:

[Al-manar]

Item :7

Biblical Errancy vs Quranic Inerrancy P.4

before going into the three kinds of tampering ,we would answer some common questions related to the topic.....

1- Why the Quranic focus on the jews when accuses directly of biblical corruption ,why not using the word (christians)?

the answer cause the New testament is a jewish production, it was composed by Jews eg,Mark, Matthew etc......

if both the old and new testaments are jewish production then ,it is understood why the Quranic accusation of a jewish tampering.


2- Would the pious,religious Jews corrupt the word of God?

yes, that is the human nature...

before Judaism we have clues that religious people from different times and places forged for the sake of God, even in Islam some religious persons forged Hadiths !!....

no wonder man would always lie for his vain desires...


3- Why would the religious, lie,corrupt the word of God?

A- To gain religious statue which mostly leads to materialistic benefit.... ,some forgers had good intentions of a religious reform ,so they were seduced to put the divine signature under their theories to attract the masses and get them taking the ideas of reform seriously ...

the group of the dead sea scrolls ,and some of the writers of the NT could be included in such category ,they weren't conspirators (with the literal meaning of the word) to Judaism but they tried to reform it (the way they thought to be effective)..... ,in other words they believed that the END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS.

B- In order to gain deminance, they forged supporting documents under the names of earlier authorities,altering the words of the sacred text, to make them more patently orthodox and to prevent their misuse by christians who espoused abberant views.

That last motive is exposed in details in the book, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament.Bart D. Ehrman




4- would early christians die for a lie?

no wonder ,as long as ,from a christian point of view, muslims are dying for a lie too...
Nazists died for a lie .. etc etc etc....

propaganda would turn the biggest lie to the sweetest truth which you would kill and die for...


To be continued

[Hiroshi]

The Qur'an says nothing bad about the Bible, the Torah and the Injil. Rather, it says that these give guidance and light (Surah 5:46). And the Bible that was in existence at the time of the rise of Islam remains unchanged from that time. We still have manuscripts from very early centuries. How then can it be true then that the Bible has such errors that it is of no value?

[Ramadhan]

The Qur'an says nothing bad about the Bible, the Torah and the Injil. Rather, it says that these give guidance and light (Surah 5:46). And the Bible that was in existence at the time of the rise of Islam remains unchanged from that time. We still have manuscripts from very early centuries. How then can it be true then that the Bible has such errors that it is of no value?

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt (until proven otherwise) of being ignorant about this particular and yet very important issue, and hence I am going to give you proper responses.



From Islamqa:

What sura in the Quran is related or mentions about the curruption of the Torah and Gospel?



Praise be to Allaah.

Allaah says about the Jews (interpretation of the meaning): “Do you (faithful believers) covet that they will belive in your religion in spite of the fact that a party of them (Jewish rabbis) used to hear the Word of Allaah (the Tawraat), then they used to change it knowingly after they understood it?” [al-Baqarah 2:75]

Qutaadah said: “The phrase ‘then they used to change it knowingly after they understood it’ refers to the Jews, who used to hear the words of Allaah, then they altered it after they had understood what it meant.”

Abu ‘Aaliyah said: “They took what Allaah had revealed in their Book describing Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and changed its meaning.” Ibn Zayd said: “The phrase ‘[they] used to hear the Word of Allaah (the Tawraat), then they used to change it’ refers to the Tawraat which Allaah revealed to them; they changed it, making what it permitted forbidden, and what was forbidden allowed, changing the truth to falsehood and falsehood to truth…” [Tafseer Ibn Katheer]

Allaah also said (interpretation of the meaning): “Among those who are Jews, there are some who displace words from (their) right places and say: ‘We hear your word (O Muhammad) and disobey,’ and ‘Hear and let you (Muhammad) hear nothing.’ And Raa’ina [in Arabic this means, ‘Be careful, listen to us and we listen to you,’ whereas in Hebrew it means ‘an insult.’] with a twist of their tongues and as a mockery of the religion (Islam). And if only they had said, ‘We hear and obey,’ and ‘Do make us understand,’ it would have been better for them, and more proper, but Allaah has cursed them for their disbelief, so they believe not except for a few.” [al-Nisaa’ 4:46]

The phrase “[they] displace words from (their) right places” means that they misinterpret them and understand them in a way that Allaah did not intend, doing this deliberately and inventing lies against Allaah. [Tafseer Ibn Katheer]

Allah says (interpretation of the meaning): “So because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard. They change the words from their (right) places and have abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them. And you will not cease to discover deceit in them, except a few of them. But forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds). Verily, Allaah loves al-Muhsineen (good-doers).” [al-Maa’idah 5:13]

The phrase “because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them” refers to the fact that they broke the Covenant which had been made with them, so Allaah cursed them, i.e., He kept them away from following the True Guidance. “[We] made their hearts grow hard” means that they will not benefit from any preaching because their hearts are so hard. “They change the words from their (right) places” means that they play havoc with the words of Allaah and misinterpret His Book, taking it to mean things that were never meant and attributing to Allaah things that He never said; may Allaah protect us from that.

“[They] have abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them” means that they stopped following its teachings because they did not want to follow them. Al-Hasan said: “They did not adhere to their religion or keep their duties towards Allaah, without which no deeds are acceptable to Him; their fitrah (innate nature) was not sound and their deeds were not righteous.” [Tafseer Ibn Katheer]

So it becomes quite clear that the ways in which the Children of Israel tampered with the Tawraat and Injeel include the following:
Changing Omitting Adding things and attributing to Allaah words that He did not say Misinterpreting the words of Allaah.

When Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was sent, the original Tawraat and Injeel had already been altered and distorted. Allaah revealed the Qur’aan to His Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and guaranteed that He Himself would preserve it, as He says (interpretation of the meaning): “Verily We: it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e., the Qur’aan) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption).” [al-Hijr 15:9]

This distinguishing feature was not found in any Book before the Qur’aan. From the time of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) until the present (more than fourteen hundred years) the Qur’aan has stayed the same, and not a single letter of it has been changed, as ancient manuscripts and the hearts of generation after generation of people who have memorized the entire text and earned the title of “haafiz” bear witness. We ask Allaah to guide us to the true and straight path. And Allaah knows best.

Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

[Ramadhan]

From Islamqa:

The Gospels that are extant nowadays were written after the time of ‘Eesa (peace be upon him) and have been tampered with a great deal
It is well known among us Muslims that Allaah revealed the Gospel (Injeel) to ‘Eesa (peace be upon him), but when I studied some things about Christianity, they told me that the Gospel was not brought by the Messiah, rather it was written by the disciples of the Messiah after the crucifixion (or after Allaah raised him up to Him, as it says in the Qur’aan). How can we reconcile between the two views?.

Praise be to Allaah.

There is no contradiction between the two views such that we would need to ask how they can be reconciled. Rather the reason why the questioner is confused is that he is mixing up two things that we must believe in and that are both true, praise be to Allaah.

The first issue is the Gospel that was revealed from the Lord of the Worlds to the Prophet of Allaah ‘Eesa (peace be upon him). Belief that Allaah revealed a Book to His Prophet ‘Eesa and that the name of this book was the Gospel (Injeel), are basic principles of faith that we must believe in. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“The Messenger (Muhammad) believes in what has been sent down to him from his Lord, and (so do) the believers. Each one believes in Allaah, His Angels, His Books, and His Messengers. (They say,) ‘We make no distinction between one another of His Messengers’ — and they say, ‘We hear, and we obey. (We seek) Your forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the return (of all)’”

[al-Baqarah 2:285]

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to Jibreel, when he asked him about faith, as mentioned in the well-known hadeeth: “Faith means to believe in Allaah, His angels, His books, His messengers, the Last Day, and to believe in His divine will and decree, both good and bad.” (Agreed upon).

Disbelieving in that or doubting it is misguidance and kufr or disbelief in Allaah. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“O you who believe! Believe in Allaah, and His Messenger (Muhammad), and the Book (the Qur’aan) which He has sent down to His Messenger, and the Scripture which He sent down to those before (him); and whosoever disbelieves in Allaah, His Angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Last Day, then indeed he has strayed far away.

137. Verily, those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe (again), and (again) disbelieve, and go on increasing in disbelief; Allaah will not forgive them, nor guide them on the (right) way”

[al-Nisa’ 4:136-137]

“Verily, those who disbelieve in Allaah and His Messengers and wish to make distinction between Allaah and His Messengers (by believing in Allaah and disbelieving in His Messengers) saying, “We believe in some but reject others,” and wish to adopt a way in between.

151. They are in truth disbelievers. And We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating torment”

[al-Nisa’ 4:150-151]

The second issue is the Gospel or, more precisely, the Gospels that the Christians have today. Although one of the basic principles of our faith is to believe in the Gospel that was revealed to ‘Eesa, we also believe that there is no longer any book that remained as it was revealed by Allaah, neither the Gospel nor anything else, apart from the Qur’aan. Even the Christians themselves do not believe that the books that they have before them were revealed in that form from God, nor do they claim that the Messiah wrote the Gospel or at least that it was written during his lifetime. Imam Ibn Hazm (may Allaah have mercy on him) says in al-Fasl fi’l-Milal (2/2):

We do not need to try hard to prove that the Gospels and all the books of the Christians did not come from God or from the Messiah (peace be upon him), as we needed to do with regard to the Torah and the books attributed to the Prophets that the Jews have, because the Jews claim that the Torah that they have was revealed from God to Moosa, so we needed to establish proof that this claim of theirs is false. With regard to the Christians, they have taken care of the issue themselves, because they do not believe that the Gospels were revealed from God to the Messiah, or that the Messiah brought them, rather all of them from first to last, peasants and kings, Nestorians, Jacobites, Maronites and Orthodox are all agreed that there are four historical accounts written by four known men at different times. The first of them is the account written by Matthew the Levite who was a disciple of the Messiah, nine years after the Messiah was taken up into heaven. He wrote it in Hebrew in Judaea in Palestine, and it filled approximately twenty-eight pages in a medium-sized script. The next account was written by Mark, a disciple of Simon ben Yuna, who was called Peter, twenty-two years after the Messiah was taken up into heaven. He wrote it in Greek in Antioch in the land of the Byzantines. They say that the Simon mentioned is the one who wrote it, then he erased his name from the beginning of it and attributed it to his disciple Mark. It filled twenty-four pages written in a medium-sized script. This Simon was a disciple of the Messiah. The third account written was that of Luke, a physician of Antioch who was also a disciple of Simon Peter. He wrote it in Greek after Mark had written his account, and is similar in length to the Gospel of Matthew. The fourth account was written by John the son of Zebedee, another disciple of the Messiah, sixty-odd years after the Messiah has been taken up into heaven. He wrote it in Greek, and it filled twenty-four pages in a medium-sized script. End quote.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said in al-Jawaab al-Saheeh (3:21):

With regard to the Gospels that the Christians have, there are four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They are agreed that Luke and Mark did not see the Messiah, rather he was seen by Matthew and John. These four accounts which they call the Gospel, and they call each one of them a Gospel, were written by these men after the Messiah had been taken up into heaven. They did not say that they are the word of God or that the Messiah conveyed them from God, rather they narrated some of the words of the Messiah and some of his deeds and miracles. End quote.

Moreover, these books which were written after the time of the Messiah did not remain in their original form. The original versions were lost long ago. Ibn Hazm said:

With regard to the Christians, there is no dispute among them or anyone else that only one hundred and twenty men believed in the Messiah during his lifetime… and all of those who believed in him concealed themselves and were afraid during his lifetime and afterwards; they called people to his religion in secret and none of them disclosed himself or practised his religion openly, because any of them who was caught was executed.

They continued in this manner, not showing themselves at all, and they had no place where they were safe for three hundred years after the Messiah was taken up into heaven.

During this time, the Gospel that had been revealed from Allaah disappeared, apart from a few verses which Allaah preserved as proof against them and as a rebuke to them, as we have mentioned. Then when the Emperor Constantine became a Christian, then the Christians prevailed and started to practise their religion openly and assemble in safety.

If a religion is like this, with its followers practicing it in secret and living in constant fear of the sword, it is impossible for things to be transmitted soundly via a continuous chain of narrators and its followers cannot protect it or prevent it from being distorted.

End quote. Al-Fasl, 2/4-5.

In addition to this huge disruption in the chain of transmission of their books, which lasted for two centuries, these books did not remain in the languages in which they were originally written, rather they were translated, more than once, by people whose level of knowledge and honesty is unknown. The contradictions in these books and their shortcomings are among the strongest evidence that they have been distorted and that they are not the Gospel (Injeel) that Allaah revealed to His slave and Messenger ‘Eesa (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Allaah indeed spoke the truth when He said (interpretation of the meaning):

“Had it been from other than Allaah, they would surely, have found therein many a contradiction”

[al-Nisa’ 4:82].
Islam Q&A

[Al-manar]

Welcome Hiroshi to the thread....

The Qur'an says nothing bad about the Bible, the Torah and the Injil.

Yes the Quran says nothing bad about the Torah and the Injil...but what is the the Torah and the Injil ?

according to the Quran ,saying the Torah and Injil are not the same as saying the Old and New testament....

And the Bible that was in existence at the time of the rise of Islam remains unchanged from that time. We still have manuscripts from very early centuries..

there we go to another Issue, there is a difference between the Quranic claim of biblical corruption and validity of such accusation.....

I never addressed the validity of the Quranic claims yet ..... that issue is coming soon....

before going there don't you think that the author of the Quran viewed the bible as partially corrupted?

The Qur'an says nothing bad about the Bible

If the gospel claims a crucifiction,resurrection of jesus,yet the quran denies , don't you think that the author of the Quran didn't accept the bible as wholly true? you believe that the Quran said nothing bad about the bible,yet it says something (bad) like denying the crucifiction,resurrection? don't you think so?

regards

[Zafran]

The Qur'an says nothing bad about the Bible, the Torah and the Injil. Rather, it says that these give guidance and light (Surah 5:46). And the Bible that was in existence at the time of the rise of Islam remains unchanged from that time. We still have manuscripts from very early centuries. How then can it be true then that the Bible has such errors that it is of no value?

Salaam

The Quran doesnt talk about the Bible - It talks about the Injeel and the Torah. The torah is not in its perfect form and the Injeel well you have gospels but the Quran talks about the Injeel. The original books no doubt had light in them. what you have today is not the same as the original.

peace

[Hugo]

what kind of documents are you refering to? those sourced by the divine or by the human?

And exactly how can we know that a document is of divine origin? We cannot go and ask whoever that divine person is can we, we cannot check his handwriting and the paper is was written down on?

you know what is the sad part in Galatians 1:7 ?it is from a writer(s) who already perverted the Old Testament(I will prove that in details later),yet blames those who would pervert his gospel later !!!

I look forward to seeing your 'proofs' and to get such proof you will have to stretch back at least a 1,000BC. By the way, has it even occurred to you that the Galatians verses might very well be speaking about you?

[Hugo]

Hugo should argue the question of authorship with anyone but me.... I'm not the one who would scratch the surface but prefer going to the core....

Who is or was the provable author of the Qu'ran? I ask this question because whatever rules or criteria you cook up for the Bible or indeed any book must apply everywhere?

[Hugo]

The Quran doesnt talk about the Bible - It talks about the Injeel and the Torah. The torah is not in its perfect form and the Injeel well you have gospels but the Quran talks about the Injeel. The original books no doubt had light in them. what you have today is not the same as the original.

Since we don't have the originals as you allege how can we know for certain that they are not the same as we have today? You seem to be in a very odd position of believing in this 'original' Injeel but you have never seen it. We KNOW the complete Bible as we have it today was available centuries before the Qu'ran saw the light of day so did Mohammed check it out after the relevant Qu'ranic verses appeared by looking at some 'original'?

[جوري]

Since we don't have the originals as you allege how can we know for certain that they are not the same as we have today? You seem to be in a very odd position of believing in this 'original' Injeel but you have never seen it. We KNOW the complete Bible as we have it today was available centuries before the Qu'ran saw the light of day so did Mohammed check it out after the relevant Qu'ranic verses appeared by looking at some 'original'?

How do we know for sure? well because god wouldn't make mistakes and have memory lapses (along with other slips) if the book is authored by him!
maybe the problem is that you beseech a lesser god who couldn't salvage himself against a couple of oafs or choose apostles that wouldn't denounce him that he should naturally be equally ineffectual at writing an error free book cohesive book to guide mankind.

not a difficult deduction to make without hordes of nonsensical statement.. employ logic sometime you might arrive to the same conclusions!

all the best

[Hugo]

1- Why the Quranic focus on the jews when accuses directly of biblical corruption, why not using the word (christians)?.the answer cause the New testament is a jewish production, it was composed by Jews eg,Mark, Matthew etc......

Are you saying that Allah could not make a distinction between Jew and Christian?

3- Why would the religious, lie,corrupt the word of God?[/B]A-[/B] To gain religious statue which mostly leads to materialistic benefit....

The OT records sins, serious sins, grievous sins for every one of it major characters including Abraham - it is therefore rather hard to see how anyone might gain 'religious stature' by showing in graphic detail that the founding fathers of their faith were just as weak and sinful as any one else and in some cases worse. The idea you express that this activity made them more 'patiently orthodox' is an absurdity

That last motive is exposed in details in the book, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament.Bart D. Ehrman

Just as a matter of interest have you actually read all of this book? Have you read other commentators such as Daniel B. Wallace or F.F. Bruce or are you content to find something the props up your own view? Ehrman writes in a lively style and there is no doubt he is a competent scholar but so are the others I mentioned. My own view is that he pushes his thesis to far and props it up with silly ideas - for example, he talks about the Christianity being literary and how it was necessary to read to the early Christians and seem to forget that books were rare and valuable - in the first century you could not order from Amazon. You might like to know that there are similar books on the Qu'ran and the criticisms they contain are much more devastating, but I guess you would not even bother reading them would you?

[Hugo]

How do we know for sure? well because god wouldn't make mistakes and have memory lapses (along with other slips) if the book is authored by him!

Well maybe, just maybe if this God of yours exists he would shape up to you expectations but it always worries me when people start deciding what God can and cannot do especially when it is designed to prop up a dogma and into the bargain uses circular arguments as you do. If we speak of the Qu'ran it is easy to find web sites and books that rubbish the idea that it is in any way divine or faultless: consider "A Guide To Quranic Contradictions" by Abul Kasem or "In search of the Original Koran by Mondher Sfar or Sam Shamoun's "Variant Readings of the Quran" etc etc.

[جوري]

]Well maybe, just maybe if this God of yours exists he would shape up to you expectations but it always worries me when people start deciding what God can and cannot do especially when it is designed to prop up a dogma and into the bargain uses circular arguments as you do. If we speak of the Qu'ran it is easy to find web sites and books that rubbish the idea that it is in any way divine or faultless: consider "A Guide To Quranic Contradictions" by Abul Kasem or "In search of the Original Koran by Mondher Sfar or Sam Shamoun's "Variant Readings of the Quran" etc etc.

God either exists or he doesn't, we are not going back to atheism when here discussing religion.. However, God should be at least in keeping with the definition of the terms which doesn't conform to my particular idea of God, God by his very definition should exist beyond the human reductionist approach, it isn't Islam that reduces god to the lowest common denominator and renders him meek worst yet-dead!
Yes of course the websites you frequent are filled with drivel you all to frequently spew on here and you have had two miserable attempts to prove the Quran in error, you couldn't carry them through for obvious reasons. Not the case with the bible is it? I mean even someone in grade school can browse through it and be slapped left and right with chronological errors, illogical events, and disgraceful description that spare no one and confusions galore.. I mean for starters how many sons did god have.. was it Adam? Israel? Jesus, or Satan? hmmmm

Adam, which was the son of God. Luke 3:38
or?
Israel is my son, even my firstborn." II Samuel 7:14 and I Chronicles 22:10: "...and he shall be my son (Solomon)." Jeremiah 31:9: "

...and Ephraim is my firstborn." Also, Psalm 2:7.

The sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them. Job 1:6

Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. -- Job 2:1

strange indeed-- what should we deem in allegory and what should we deem literal?

BTW I totally welcome you to bring the contents of the 'variant readings' so we can discuss them!

all the best

[Hugo]

The Gospels that are extant nowadays were written after the time of ‘Eesa (peace be upon him) and have been tampered with a great deal
It is well known among us Muslims that Allaah revealed the Gospel (Injeel) to ‘Eesa (peace be upon him), but when I studied some things about Christianity, they told me that the Gospel was not brought by the Messiah, rather it was written by the disciples of the Messiah after the crucifixion (or after Allaah raised him up to Him, as it says in the Qur’aan). How can we reconcile between the two views?.

It seems obvious that the Gospels that tell the story of Jesus could hardly have been written before he died? One cannot reconcile these two views since there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that there was anything else except the Gospels as we now them and if the Muslim position is that Jesus 'brought' them then where are they or is your, and that of Mohammed's faith here completely blind? One has to remember that the Gospels as we have them today were available fully long before the time of Islam's prophet so if as you say God preserved the Qu'ran did he forget about the Injeel?

We do not need to try hard to prove that the Gospels and all the books of the Christians did not come from God or from the Messiah (peace be upon him), as we needed to do with regard to the Torah and the books attributed to the Prophets that the Jews have, because the Jews claim that the Torah that they have was revealed from God to Moosa, so we needed to establish proof that this claim of theirs is false.

Can you tell us how you will do this? It is a principle in science that we need to falsify. That is we need to state a way that in principle it would be possible to falsify a claim. This applies to any writing, including those that claims to be supernatural - so how would you go about falsifying the claim that the Qu'ran is God given? If you cannot find a way then what we are dealing with might or might not be true - we cannot tell.

With regard to the Christians, there is no dispute among them or anyone else that only one hundred and twenty men believed in the Messiah during his lifetime; and all of those who believed in him concealed themselves and were afraid during his lifetime and afterwards; they called people to his religion in secret and none of them disclosed himself or practised his religion openly, because any of them who was caught was executed.

This is pure nonsense. We ONLY have the Biblical accounts and they show this statement to be false on every point.

During this time, the Gospel that had been revealed from Allaah disappeared, apart from a few verses which Allaah preserved as proof against them and as a rebuke to them, as we have mentioned. Then when the Emperor Constantine became a Christian, then the Christians prevailed and started to practise their religion openly and assemble in safety.

How do you know this and where are these 'few verses' - why does anyone invent this stuff?

[Zafran]

Since we don't have the originals as you allege how can we know for certain that they are not the same as we have today? You seem to be in a very odd position of believing in this 'original' Injeel but you have never seen it. We KNOW the complete Bible as we have it today was available centuries before the Qu'ran saw the light of day so did Mohammed check it out after the relevant Qu'ranic verses appeared by looking at some 'original'?

I was specifically replying to someone elses post who was talking about how the Quran views the "bible". The bible has had books taken out and kept in - we still dont know what goes where. 66 books and 73 books is a starter. By the way the bible has 4 gospels. The Injeel is quite simple its what Jesus pbuh taught - his gospel - his good news.

[syed_z]

Since we don't have the originals as you allege how can we know for certain that they are not the same as we have today? You seem to be in a very odd position of believing in this 'original' Injeel but you have never seen it. We KNOW the complete Bible as we have it today was available centuries before the Qu'ran saw the light of day so did Mohammed check it out after the relevant Qu'ranic verses appeared by looking at some 'original'?

Michael Hart has the following to say in his book “The Hundred”

Paul, more than any other man, was responsible for the
transformation of Christianity from a Jewish sect into a world
religion. His central ideas of the divinity of Christ and of
justification by faith alone have remained basic to Christian
thought throughout all the intervening centuries ... Indeed, the
influence of Paul’s ideas has been so great that some scholars
have claimed that he, rather than Jesus, should be regarded as
the principal founder of the Christian religion.

(by the way Michael Hart was a Christian and he accepted Muhammad to be the # 1 person in his book of 100 most influential personalities)

According to the Holy Qur’an, Prophet Isa (AS) was appointed a prophet only for the Israelites (Aal-e-Imran 3:49 & Al-Saff 61:6), and this is confirmed by his sayings which appear in the Gospels (Matthew 10:5,6 & 15:24),


(Quran 3:49) and he will be a Messenger to the Children of Israel.' (And when he came to them he said): 'I have come to you with a sign from your Lord. I will make for you from clay the likeness of a bird and then I will breathe into it and by the leave of Allah it will become a bird. I will also heal the blind and the leper, and by the leave of Allah bring the dead to life.



(Gospel Mathew 10:5-6) These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles (non jews), and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.



It was Pauls innovations which were spread among the Pagans of Rome, who were very impressed by the Heavenly Religion.... while Jesus (a.s) clearly had told not to preach it to Non Jews, as this Message was not for all mankind...


.....also none of the writers of the four so-called authentic gospels — i.e., Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John — ever met with the prophet Jesus himself. These gospels were written between 70 C.E and 115 C.E. but their earliest available manuscripts date back to the fourth century C.E, making their authenticity rather dubious.


A number of different gospels were in circulation throughout the early period of Christianity, the manuscripts of which were freely altered and amended by the copyists in order to suit the doctrines of their particular sect. The four gospels that are included in the New Testament were accepted as genuine by the Church — and the rest were rejected as apocryphal, and their possession prohibited — not on the basis of merit, but only because these four books were in conformity with the official Church dogma. The Worshiping of the Idol of Jesus is one of the effects of Pagan festivities which have entered Christianity religion from Pagan Roman civilization after their conversion.

[Hugo]

God either exists or he doesn't, we are not going back to atheism when here discussing religion.. However, God should be at least in keeping with the definition of the terms which doesn't conform to my particular idea of God, God by his very definition should exist beyond the human reductionist approach, it isn't Islam that reduces god to the lowest common denominator and renders him meek worst yet-dead!

Then tell me how I can know God exists, or to use the scientific method, tell me a way in which his existence might be falsified? All we know about God is found in the Bible and there is nothing new in the Qu'ran. Islam sadly does reduce God to the small, why would the God who made the immeasurable vastness of eternity, created the intricate and beautiful laws of nature that holds the Universes together write in a book that you say existed before even time began, bother to put into it that a man may marry his adopted sons ex wife?

Yes of course the websites you frequent are filled with drivel you all to frequently spew out here and you have had several miserable attempts to prove the Bible in error, you couldn't carry them through for obvious reasons. Not the case with the Qu'ran is it? I mean even someone in grade school can browse through it and be slapped left and right with chronological errors, illogical events, and disgraceful descriptions, obvious copies of stories found elsewhere .. I mean for starters who was the first Muslim, was it Adam, Abraham, Moses ...

I like the idea of looking at Qu'ranic variant readings and lets add contradiction as well - if the Moderators will allow it I will create one?

[Hugo]

Michael Hart has the following to say in his book [B]“The Hundred” by the way Michael Hart was a Christian and he accepted Muhammad to be the # 1 person in his book of 100 most influential personalities)[B]

So Michael Hart is right - have a look in the list you refer to and you will also find Hitler and Stalin

It was Pauls innovations which were spread among the Pagans of Rome, who were very impressed by the Heavenly Religion.... while Jesus (a.s) clearly had told not to preach it to Non Jews, as this Message was not for all mankind...

Paul only went to Rome at the very end of his ministry and he was imprisoned there and probably executed there as well. Jesus said according to Mark 16:15 "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."

.....also none of the writers of the four so-called authentic gospels — i.e., Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John — ever met with the prophet Jesus himself. These gospels were written between 70 C.E and 115 C.E. but their earliest available manuscripts date back to the fourth century C.E, making their authenticity rather dubious.

It is best if you get your facts right as there are fragments as early as 70AD and complete NT dated around 300AD

[جوري]

Then tell me how I can know God exists,

Don't pose yourself as a christian and then ask for proof of God on a thread unrelated to the matter!

or to use the scientific method, tell me a way in which his existence might be falsified?

Well if you know something about the scientific method, you'd know that you can't set out to prove something, you can either reject it or fail to reject, this again has nothing to do with the thread.. it is a matter of common sense which is apparently lacking in your end!

All we know about God is found in the Bible and there is nothing new in the Qu'ran.

Anyone can arrive to the truth of God, the same way Abraham did, the same way Muhammad did whilst raised amongst pagan with no books.. God is what goes with nature, and fitrah:
O My servants, all of you are astray except for those I have guided, so seek guidance of Me and I shall guide you. Hadith Qudsi..
What you see or don't see is inconsequential otherwise.. I find you to have no credibility, none whatsoever!

Islam sadly does reduce God to the small, why would the God who made the immeasurable vastness of eternity, created the intricate and beautiful laws of nature that holds the Universes together write in a book that you say existed before even time began, bother to put into it that a man may marry his adopted sons ex wife?

The Quran covers all facets of man's life whether to do with nature, marriage, inheritance, adoption, the cosmological universe, the creation of man, lessons of old, poetic eloquence.. there is nothing in the Quran that hasn't been covered or has its foundation set so that we have a complete, political, social, economic, spiritual system to the very end of days.. and that is in fact what I'd expect from a sound religion to leave nothing to chance but to guide through every aspect of man's life!

I like the idea of looking at Qu'ranic variant readings and lets add contradiction as well - if the Moderators will allow it I will create one?

I believe you have had a carte blanche so far, and raised the topic time and again and faltered more times where a rational human being would have had the good sense to walk away after such public humiliations .. I'll give you that I admire your ability to take several slaps in the face, regroup and re-pose the same questions again.. by all means I am sure we'll all look forward to your ibn warraq thesis!

all the best

[syed_z]

It seems obvious that the Gospels that tell the story of Jesus could hardly have been written before he died? One cannot reconcile these two views since there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that there was anything else except the Gospels as we now them and if the Muslim position is that Jesus 'brought' them then where are they or is your, and that of Mohammed's faith here completely blind? One has to remember that the Gospels as we have them today were available fully long before the time of Islam's prophet so if as you say God preserved the Qu'ran did he forget about the Injeel?

Can you tell us how you will do this? It is a principle in science that we need to falsify. That is we need to state a way that in principle it would be possible to falsify a claim. This applies to any writing, including those that claims to be supernatural - so how would you go about falsifying the claim that the Qu'ran is God given? If you cannot find a way then what we are dealing with might or might not be true - we cannot tell.

This is pure nonsense. We ONLY have the Biblical accounts and they show this statement to be false on every point.


How do you know this and where are these 'few verses' - why does anyone invent this stuff?

You people follow Paul... Not Jesus (Peace be upon him)


The concept of the Trinity was established by people after Jesus (pbuh) left this World. This concept appealed very much to the Roman Pagan civilization, who had been worshiping Idols for past many years. Before Christianity as declared by the State at the Council of Nicea 325 AD, there were Fifty Gospels in circulation out of which 4 were selected as Gospels which would be accepted by the Church.


Concept of Trinity...

Formerly, all the Nazarites held the belief of Tawhîd (Unity of Allah) and observed most of the principles in the Torah. Later on when Pagan Romans mixed with the early followers of Jesus (a.s) they mixed their own mythologies in Christianity. It was sometime around the year 300 AD when Arius of Alexandria proclaimed the
belief of Unity and announced that the doctrine of the Trinity was wrong and void. Before the Council took place, there was much fighting which had taken place between Unitarians and Trinitarians. In the (first) Nicene council convened by Constantine the Great in 325, belief in the Unity was rejected and Arius was excommunicated.


The early followers of Jesus (a.s) knew very well that Unity of Allah is the real Message of Jesus. After Jesus (a.s) left, the Gospels which were translated from the Original Language Armaic in to Greek , was done by translators of whom there is no information what so ever. The 1st 4 Gospels were written after Isa (a.s) but they were written in original Language, Armaic, however there is NO RECORD of how they were translated in to Greek.. Jesus never Spoke Greek !! Muhammad (saw) spoke Arabic....who did the translation ?..... Hugo talks about Quran ?? He doesn't even know that we have even the Hadith literature way better and in a specialized way preserved than the Gospels.... for which InshAAllah i can prove....

[جوري]

You people follow Paul... Not Jesus (Peace be upon him)

Mr. Hugo is still to establish for us who is god's true and first son as per his bible before he moves on to other endeavors or to establish some semblance of credibility to this book he holds with some esteem!

:w:

[Hugo]

Anyone can arrive to the truth of God, the same way Abraham did, the same way Muhammad did whilst raised amongst pagan with no books.. God is what goes with nature, and fitrah:

Well, I am anyone, so fine, then I am totally happy that I have arrived at Christian truth through faith just like Abraham did..

The Quran covers all facets of man's life whether to do with nature, marriage, inheritance, adoption, the cosmological universe, the creation of man, lessons of old, poetic eloquence.. there is nothing in the Quran that hasn't been covered or has its foundation set so that we have a complete, political, social, economic, spiritual system to the very end of days.. and that is in fact what I'd expect from a sound religion to leave nothing to chance but to guide through every aspect of man's life!

This this is a logical absurdity for several reasons: we do not know what might turn up in the future so we cannot know that it covers everything, anything you say is there is an interpenetration, there is nothing there that is not found elsewhere except oddities such as the prophet may marry his adopted sons ex wife. This kind of interpretive view locks you into stagnation because you cannot even let yourself imagine another interpretation other than those made in the 11 the century - why do you think that there was practically zero progress in the Muslim empires for nearly a 1,000 years? Have you ever bothered to read people like Sayyid Jamal al-Din Afghani or Muhammad Abduh?

[syed_z]

Does Hugo know what Gospel of Barnabas Is ?? I don't think many Muslim Brothers and Sisters know either....

Barnabas was the ONLY Disciple of Jesus who had met Jesus (a.s)... his Gospel was taken away and termed as apocryphal.


The Gospel of Barnabas was among the books that were banned in 325 C.E by the Nicean Council. It was forbidden by the Decree of the Western Churches in 382 C.E ,it was again banned by Pope Innocent in 465 C.E, and then by the Glasian Decree in 496 C.E. To this day, Christian authorities refuse to accept the Gospel of Barnabas as authentic, despite striking similarities between this Gospel and the documents discovered in 1947 in the caves of Qumran, popularly called the Dead Sea Scrolls. This is because the Gospel of Barnabas proclaims absolute Divine Unity, criticizes the pagan innovations of St. Paul, declares the truth about the myth of Crucifixion and and, above all, contains unambiguous prophecies regarding the advent of Prophet Mohammad (SAW), all of which is enough to destroy the very foundations of the Christian faith as it exists today.


However, any unbiased comparative study of the New Testament, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Gospel of Barnabas is bound to reveal that this gospel is the correct and genuine account of the life and teachings of Prophet Isa (AS), notwithstanding the flimsy objections being raised by the Christians.

..in other Words, Gospel of Barnabas also verifies what Quran says about Allah (swt), Muhammad (saw) and clears Jesus (a.s) of all false allegations.


Concept of Trinity...

The earliest references to be found about Concept of Trinity or Divine Son Ship of Jesus (a.s), evidence was to be found in the writings of St Paul and NOT before, and there is no proof that Jesus Himself said that, and they were adopted by the Council in 325 Ad.

[جوري]

Well, I am anyone, so fine, then I am totally happy that I have arrived at Christian truth through faith just like Abraham did..

Did Abraham call upon Jesus? In fact Christianity is so monolithic in its beliefs that no one who ponders creation would ever come up with such a contorted religion of dying mangods.

This this is a logical absurdity for several reasons: we do not know what might turn up in the future so we cannot know that it covers everything, anything you say is there is an interpenetration, there is nothing there that is not found elsewhere except oddities such as the prophet may marry his adopted sons ex wife. This kind of interpretive view locks you into stagnation because you cannot even let yourself imagine another interpretation other than those made in the 11 the century - why do you think that there was practically zero progress in the Muslim empires for nearly a 1,000 years? Have you ever bothered to read people like Sayyid Jamal al-Din Afghani or Muhammad Abduh?

The only absurdity here is your inability to understand what having a solid foundation means for the future.. When you go to medical school or engineering school, are you able to predict what diseases will arise 600 hundred years from now, or how architecture will be in the future or will you always have the ability and foundation to deal with whatever the future brings?
As for progress, you must live in a bubble, Muslims are very successful abroad as they are domestically, it is a matter of geopolitical conditions rather than a religious one.. more science comes out of Iran than the U.S, so tells us your western sources!
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...y-country.html

and Muslims fare better in the west than the natives, so tells us the government consensus..

btw how was that progress working out for the west when not 200 years ago a man was called a quack for making a connection between washing his hands and reducing the rate of infection by his other medical colleagues...

Try to come out of the cesspool from whence you get your info. you might finally be able to see what it is that others see wrong with you!

all the best

[syed_z]

Well, I am anyone, so fine, then I am totally happy that I have arrived at Christian truth through faith just like Abraham did..


This this is a logical absurdity for several reasons: we do not know what might turn up in the future so we cannot know that it covers everything, anything you say is there is an interpenetration, there is nothing there that is not found elsewhere except oddities such as the prophet may marry his adopted sons ex wife. This kind of interpretive view locks you into stagnation because you cannot even let yourself imagine another interpretation other than those made in the 11 the century - why do you think that there was practically zero progress in the Muslim empires for nearly a 1,000 years? Have you ever bothered to read people like Sayyid Jamal al-Din Afghani or Muhammad Abduh?

Do you know you worship the Sun of God and NOT the Son of God on a SUNDAY... ? :)

[جوري]

Do you know you worship the Sun of God and NOT the Son of God on a SUNDAY... ? :)

in fact they worship satan for he too was the son of god according to their book!

[syed_z]

in fact they worship satan for he too was the son of god according to their book!

where does it say that... in their Book ?

and i think there are many Christians who are Innocent of What Hugo talks and how he talks about Islam... so my point of view is to tell the truth... however i know many Christians do NOT want to worship the Satan, they worship God...

[جوري]

where does it say that... in their Book ?

and i think there are many Christians who are Innocent of What Hugo talks and how he talks about Islam... so my point of view is to tell the truth... however i know many Christians do NOT want to worship the Satan, they worship God...

well they worship the 'son of god' as per their book god had many sons and first born, and satan was one of them, I have posted it on the previous page, but here it is again:

Adam, which was the son of God. Luke 3:38
or?
Israel is my son, even my firstborn." II Samuel 7:14 and I Chronicles 22:10: "...and he shall be my son (Solomon)." Jeremiah 31:9: "

...and Ephraim is my firstborn." Also, Psalm 2:7.

The sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them. Job 1:6

Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. -- Job 2:1


:w:

[Zafran]

absurd to think that the muslims were stagant for 1000 years - lets wipe out the Ottomans, Mamelukes and Mughals - no cities were bulit no progress happend they just didnt happen did they. They gave nothing to the world. Lets forget about them just the way western civ likes to forget about christainty.

[syed_z]

Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD. -- Job 2:1

Well sister.. i see that Israel and jesus and Moses , all were called Sons of God because we are all Children of God as not biologically, as the Christians think or their Church thinks, but as brother in Humanity and God referring all as Sons is not literal....

Also Satan, does not refer to as the Son, he is being differentiated from the sons of God.... he is not being talked about as being one of the Sons...

Also Sister... if you don't mind... Bible is the Word of God and we as Muslim have to respect as much as we can.... and not say anything wrong... YES point out the error but make sure whatever we interpret we should know what we're saying because those were also Words of our God/Allah.... :)



...let not anger swerve you from Justice...

[جوري]

Well sister.. i see that Israel and jesus and Moses , all were called Sons of God because we are all Children of God as not biologically, as the Christians think or their Church thinks, but as brother in Humanity and God referring all as Sons is not literal....

Also Satan, does not refer to as the Son, he is being differentiated from the sons of God.... he is not being talked about as being one of the Sons...

Also Sister... if you don't mind... Bible is the Word of God and we as Muslim have to respect as much as we can.... and not say anything wrong... YES point out the error but make sure whatever we interpret we should know what we're saying because those were also Words of our God/Allah.... :)



...let not anger swerve you from Justice...

The bible isn't the word of God, where would you get that idea?

2:79 Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: "This is from Allah," to traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.

amongst other verses on the matter.. God has no sons, I am not really sure why you are making excuses for their corruption?

Results مَا لَكُمْ لَا تَرْجُونَ لِلَّهِ وَقَارًا {13}
[Pickthal 71:13] What aileth you that ye hope not toward Allah for dignity

It is justice and reverence that motivates me not anger!

:w:

[جوري]

absurd to think that the muslims were stagant for 1000 years - lets wipe out the Ottomans, Mamelukes and Mughals - no cities were bulit no progress happend they just didnt happen did they. They gave nothing to the world. Lets forget about them just the way western civ likes to forget about christainty.

he has also conveniently ignored the articles on the previous page that speak of modern science coming more out of the Muslim world than it does out of the west, but we shouldn't look to the ignorant for validation.. the dark ages are all they have and what they'd like to keep..

:w:

[syed_z]

The bible isn't the word of God, where would you get that idea?

2:79 Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: "This is from Allah," to traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.

amongst other verses on the matter.. God has no sons, I am not really sure why you are making excuses for their corruption?

Results مَا لَكُمْ لَا تَرْجُونَ لِلَّهِ وَقَارًا {13}
[Pickthal 71:13] What aileth you that ye hope not toward Allah for dignity

It is justice and reverence that motivates me not anger!

:w:

Interesting sister...how much have you read the Quran ?


(2:4) who believe in the Book We have sent down to you (i.e. the Qur'an) and in the Books sent down before you, and firmly believe in the Hereafter.

The Bible is corrupted however NOT ALL is corrupted... it still mentions the Prophecies of Muhammad (Saw) arrival ? Do you know that ?

We as Muslims are supposed to believe in all that was revealed before Prophet Muhammad (saw).... do you know you cannot be A Muslim if you did not believe in the Previous Scriptures ???

[جوري]

Interesting sister...how much have you read the Quran ?

al7mdlillah I have a large chunk of it memorized and Arabic is my mother tongue how about you?

(2:4) who believe in the Book We have sent down to you (i.e. the Qur'an) and in the Books sent down before you, and firmly believe in the Hereafter.

The injil and the Torah in existence today have nothing to do with the Injil and the Torah that Allah swt speaks of in the Quran!
Do you believe for instance that prophet lut slept with his daughters after being drunk? that is what the bible says amongst other things equally abominable.

The Bible is corrupted however NOT ALL is corrupted... it still mentions the Prophecies of Muhammad (Saw) arrival ? Do you know that ?

Yeah, let the christians tell you about that one!
problem is how do you sort through that which is sound and that which is corrupted? and why would you if Allah swt has given you the Furqan? the criterion to end all disputation!

We as Muslims are supposed to believe in all that was revealed before Prophet Muhammad (saw).... do you know you cannot be A Muslim if you did not believe in the Previous Scriptures ???

Who said that I don't believe in what was revealed before? Do you know that you can't be a Muslim and believe in the blasphemous things that bible says of God?

:w:

[Asiyah3]

Well sister.. i see that Israel and jesus and Moses , all were called Sons of God because we are all Children of God as not biologically, as the Christians think or their Church thinks, but as brother in Humanity and God referring all as Sons is not literal....

We are in no way children of God not literally nor metaphorically.

Allah is one.

[syed_z]

2:79 Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: "This is from Allah," to traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.

this Verse that you have referred to sister... is talking about the interpolations they have done with their hands... NOT THE whole Book itself is written by them! No! For that you need proof that WHOLE bible is wrong or corrupted.... Even the European Scholars have accepted that Bible has many interpolations , specially the old and new testament both, but it is not ALL corrupted....


rather Quran tells us how to address the People of the Scriptures (Bible)...


29:46) Argue not with the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) except in the fairest manner, unless it be those of them that are utterly unjust. Say to them: “We believe in what was revealed to us and what was revealed to you. One is our God and your God; and we are those who submit ourselves to Him.”


1st of all we are not supposed to deal with them through unfair means.... second... the God is telling Muslims "Qul" i.e SAY We Believe in what was revealed to us and what was revealed to You. Our God is the same as yours !.... When Allah (swt) says SAY that is we have to believe in their Scriptures.... and the reason why Muhammad (saw) once told us that NOT to exceed the limit in arguing lest we say anything wrong that might make us fall in to Sin, because there are still words of God in them....


...Unless it be those who are Unjust.... refers to characters like Hugo... who argue to create mischief... so even with them argue in a manner which will not make you fall in to sin, because their scriptures have Words of God.... so point out the errors, and im sure you can find plenty because there are many errors in the Bible and many scholars have written books on them like Dr Zakir Naik... make sure you have their books before you say anything about their books....

[جوري]

We are in no way children of God not literally nor metaphorically.

Allah is one.

Allah swt is one and individual.. do people contemplate the meaning of Qul hwa Allah ahad? it doesn't say Qul hwa Allah wahid.. Ahad is decisive for 'indivisible' wahid means just one.. sob7an Allah.. people should contemplate the Quran before asking others if they'd read it..



it is sad how much is lost to others in the translation.. Al7mdlillah that the Quran is preserved in its original tongue and that our scholars of old have done an amazing job preserving the sunnah.. al7mdlillah 3la ni3mat al'islam..

:w:

[syed_z]

The injil and the Torah in existence today have nothing to do with the Injil and the Torah that Allah swt speaks of in the Quran!
Do you believe for instance that prophet lut slept with his daughters after being drunk? that is what the bible says amongst other things equally abominable.

The reason why you use Furqan as Criterion you mentioned... so we can use the Quran to tell what is right and what is wrong in the Bible ... so if Bible talks about Lut sleeping with daughters We are NOT to believe...... but when Bible says that Lut was the nephew of Abraham (a.s) we do not say NO even though Quran confirms it... so i agree that we believe in that Part which is right and we do NOT believe in that Part which is corrupt....


does that mean we are NOT supposed to believe at all ?? So are you saying we Reject all those Verses of Quran which tell us to Believe in the Bible Scriptures, even the correct ones ?


You know what i am saying... i said NO to uncorrupted and YES to the right words...

So if jesus in Gospel of Mark Chapter 10 Verses 5-6 said.....

I only come to Children of Israel... then does Quran say the same ? Yes it does... in chapter 3:49 It say

(3:49) and he will be a Messenger to the Children of Israel.' (And when he came to them he said): 'I have come to you with a sign from your Lord.


so are you saying we reject that as well ??

[جوري]

this Verse that you have referred to sister... is talking about the interpolations they have done with their hands... NOT THE whole Book itself is written by them! No! For that you need proof that WHOLE bible is wrong or corrupted.... Even the European Scholars have accepted that Bible has many interpolations , specially the old and new testament both, but it is not ALL corrupted....

.

Which part do you take to be true and which part do you take to be fiction? and what a trap you are setting yourself up for in doing so?
Which christians is Allah swt referring to in the Quran?
Methodist Episcopal Church , Southern Baptist Convention , Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints , Lutheran Church. Mennonite Church, Methodist , Pentacostal Church, Presbyterian Church, Catholic, Jehovah's, Quakers. Unitarian Universalist to name a few, is God's name Jesus?

please akhi just quit while you are ahead!

:w:

[syed_z]

@ Vale Lily...

Sister... lets go one at a time !

You said so we REJECT even that part which is Right in the Bible ?

[جوري]

The reason why you use Furqan as Criterion you mentioned... so we can use the Quran to tell what is right and what is wrong in the Bible ... so if Bible talks about Lut sleeping with daughters We are NOT to believe...... but when Bible says that Lut was the nephew of Abraham (a.s) we do not say NO even though Quran confirms it... so i agree that we believe in that Part which is right and we do NOT believe in that Part which is corrupt....


does that mean we are NOT supposed to believe at all ?? So are you saying we Reject all those Verses of Quran which tell us to Believe in the Bible Scriptures, even the correct ones ?
?

I have already stated believing that Allah swt revealed 5 books of which you only mention two others, has no bearing on what Christians say or believe, and I have no desire to repeat myself. Yes God has revealed other books, it is a fact! and I don't see anyone denying said fact.. it is also a fact that said books have been corrupted at the hands of men (so is mentioned in the Quran) so I have no idea why you are arguing?
I indeed reject the trinity, and reject the corrupted religions which christians subscribe to.. I don't believe in dying gods, I don't believe in ineffectual gods, I don't believe in gods that reveal themselves before charlatans and abrogate their commandments, if you desire to sort through that and find a morsel, be my guest, but that is your cross to bear not mine!

:w:

[جوري]

@ Vale Lily...

Sister... lets go one at a time !

You said so we REJECT even that part which is Right in the Bible ?

No, I said we don't know which parts are corrupt and which aren't which renders it null and void for us as a book!
the only purpose it would serve is in finding numerous errors to showcase to christians on the folly of their beliefs, and those best equipped to do so are those like brother MustafaMC for he was a devout christian before he was a devout Muslim.. Al7mdlillah for letting him out of the darkness into the light.. aside from that very purpose the bible as it is holds no value and we can't say it is from God. A book from God is preserved and free of perversion!

:w:

[Asiyah3]

Allah swt is one and individual..

Al7mdlillah that the Quran is preserved in its original tongue and that our scholars of old have done an amazing job preserving the sunnah.. al7mdlillah 3la ni3mat al'islam..

:w:

Jazakiallah. I can't believe I heard that from the mouth of a Muslim. SubhaanAllah!

[syed_z]

Which part do you take to be true and which part do you take to be fiction? and what a trap you are setting yourself up for in doing so?
Which christians is Allah swt referring to in the Quran?
Methodist Episcopal Church , Southern Baptist Convention , Greek Orthodox Archdiocese, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints , Lutheran Church. Mennonite Church, Methodist , Pentacostal Church, Presbyterian Church, Catholic, Jehovah's, Quakers. Unitarian Universalist to name a few, is God's name Jesus?

please akhi just quit while you are ahead!

:w:

Trap ? No sister.... you have misunderstood the Quran i think... we are supposed to believe in that Part of their Scripture which confirms what Quran says... is that hard to understand ? It simple...


1) Muhammad (pbuh) prophesised in the book of Deuteronomy (BIBLE)

a) God Almighty speaks to Moses in Book of Deuteronomy chapter 18 verse 18:

"I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall
command him."


The Bretherin of Children of Israel, are the Arabs and particularly Mustaribah (Arabianized) group among them, which traces its descent to Ishmael and Abraham, and since it is this group to which belong Muhammad's tribe the Quraish, the above biblical passage refers to this Verse his advent... !

also Mentioned In CHapter 18 Verse 15...

Do we reject all of this ?





Do we reject this ?

[syed_z]

I indeed reject the trinity, and reject the corrupted religions which christians subscribe to.. I don't believe in dying gods, I don't believe in ineffectual gods, I don't believe in gods that reveal themselves before charlatans and abrogate their commandments, if you desire to sort through that and find a morsel, be my guest, but that is your cross to bear not mine!

i dont either... but that does not mean that believing in that part which is what Quran confirms is incorrect...

[جوري]

Brother I don't want to argue you with you, I assure you those Christians who come to Islam don't do so because something in the bible spoke of the prophet Mohamed (p) they do it because they've read the Quran and understood it. .. Maybe this is something of value to those who offer da3wa but I doubt it has any influence on these staunch satanists who worship men and are hell bent on crusading against Islam..

so I offer you the best wishes with that but I want no part of it..

:w:

[syed_z]

aside from that very purpose the bible as it is holds no value and we can't say it is from God. A book from God is preserved and free of perversion!

(13:38)...Every age had its revelation.
(13:39) God annuls or confirms whatever He wills (of His earlier scriptures) for wwith Him is the source of all revelation....


ok may be you did not know where it said in the Quran....

A book which God lets corrupt and a Book which God does not let corrupt , is His decision... he tested the Jews and Christians by giving them the Scriptures to see whether they would preserve it or not.... and many failed.... but Quran Allah (swt) decided to preserve as this is the Final Testament.... before Allah used to send another revelation after every now and then....


so that ahy i asked you How much have you read quran ? :)

[syed_z]

it is a fact! and I don't see anyone denying said fact.. it is also a fact that said books have been corrupted at the hands of men (so is mentioned in the Quran) so I have no idea why you are arguing?

my purpose is to explain and help and NOT ARGUE with you so you do not fall in error in which you were falling...and so that is why it is mentioned in the Quran...

(2:4) who believe in the Book We have sent down to you (i.e. the Qur'an) and in the Books sent down before you, and firmly believe in the Hereafter

(2:5) Such people are on the right way from their Lord and such are truly successful.

The condition for one to have Belief in Allah and to Succeed in the Life and Hereafter is to have Belief that "Yes Bible was the Word of God revealed before, yes it has many errors however, NOT all is error.."

[جوري]

(13:38)...Every age had its revelation.
(13:39) God annuls or confirms whatever He wills (of His earlier scriptures) for wwith Him is the source of all revelation....


ok may be you did not know where it said in the Quran....

A book which God lets corrupt and a Book which God does not let corrupt , is His decision... he tested the Jews and Christians by giving them the Scriptures to see whether they would preserve it or not.... and many failed.... but Quran Allah (swt) decided to preserve as this is the Final Testament.... before Allah used to send another revelation after every now and then....


so that ahy i asked you How much have you read quran ? :)

:sl:

fact is even if they weren't grossly corrupted, said revelations were only sent to a specific group of people.. the Quran is meant for ALL mankind so there is no point wasting anymore time mulling over which parts of it have some integrity and which don't..

:w:

[syed_z]

:sl:

fact is even if they weren't grossly corrupted, said revelations were only sent to a specific group of people.. the Quran is meant for ALL mankind so there is no point wasting anymore time mulling over which parts of it have some integrity and which don't..

:w:

Actually the point lies in this Verse....

3:64) Say: 'People of the Book (Jews and Christians) Come to a word common between us and you: that we shall serve none but Allah and shall associate none with Him in His divinity and that some of us will not take others as lords beside Allah.' And if they turn their backs (from accepting this call), tell them: 'Bear witness that we are the ones who have submitted ourselves exclusively to Allah.'


The invitation here is for the two parties to agree on something believed in by one of them, the Muslims, and the soundness of which could hardly be denied by the other party, the Christians. For this was the belief of their own Prophets and had been taught in their own scriptures. Their scriptures even though with a lot of interpolations still have hundreds of Verses which speak about God being One and prophets being just their Message bearers... the advent of Prophet Muhammad.... House of God in Makkah..... etc... many things mentioned in the Quran are mentioned in those Books... for which Quran refers to as "Common Terms"...

Under the light of this Verse if Christians and jews, those who would like to come to terms, if understand what Quran says what is in their Scriptures, with a clear mind, then this would help them learn the truth and Believe in Prophet Muhammad (saw).... in case of Jews , Jesus as well... this would also help those who understand see the interpolations in their scriptures which would help them go on to the right path.....there are many Jews and Chrsitians who are good human beings.....NOT every one is like those who argue unnecessarily....


So its NOT pointless...

[syed_z]

Jazakiallah. I can't believe I heard that from the mouth of a Muslim. SubhaanAllah!

We are in no way children of God not literally nor metaphorically.

Allah is one.

Hope your doing fine sister... Asalaam O Alaikum...


sister i did not mean what you thought i meant... i kn0w None is Like Him.... God knows my intention i did not mean to say what you thought... the mouth of a muslim was trying to explain some one something.... so i know that...

(17:111) And say: "All praise be to Allah Who has neither taken to Himself a son, nor has He any partner in His kingdom, nor does He need anyone, out of weakness, to protect Him.

:)

[Hugo]

Does Hugo know what Gospel of Barnabas Is ?? I don't think many Muslim Brothers and Sisters know either.... Barnabas was the ONLY Disciple of Jesus who had met Jesus (a.s)... his Gospel was taken away and termed as apocryphal.

Most of this post is copied from http://www.hamditabligh.net and that itself is a piece that is endlessly circulated by Muslims and they easily accept this Gospel (99.99% of the time without reading it) and reject the other 4 New Testament Gospels without reading them either - cherry picking again. Barnabus is not a long book and you can get it from Amazon.

The original twelve disciples/apostles are listed in Matthew 10:2-4 and Barnabas is not mentioned so your post is confusing since every Christian will think of him or herself as a disciple but make the simple distinction between that and the 12 disciples of Jesus. The Gospel of Barnabas is much like the other Gospels in length. Two manuscripts are known to have existed, both dated to the late sixteenth centuary; one in Italian and one in Spanish with the bulk devoted to an account of Jesus' ministry, largely harmonised from accounts also found in the canonical gospels.

In some key respects, it conforms to the Islamic interpretation of Christian origins and contradicts the New Testament teachings of Christianity. Some Islamic organizations cite the Gospel of Barnabas in support of Muhammad's ministry. However, this book also claims that Muhammad is the Messiah among many other Islamic beliefs. This Gospel is considered by the majority of academics, including Christians and some Muslims to be late and pseudepigraphical but suggest that it may contain remnants of an earlier apocryphal work edited to conform to Islam. A "Gospel according to Barnabas" is mentioned in two early Christian lists of apocryphal works dated 6th/7th century.

This work clearly contradicts the New Testament biblical accounts of Jesus and his ministry but has strong parallels with the Islamic faith, not only mentioning Muhammad by name, but including the shahadah. It is anti-Pauline and anti-Trinitarian in tone. In this work, Jesus is described as a prophet, not the son of God, while Paul is called "the deceived". Furthermore, the Gospel of Barnabas states that Jesus escaped crucifixion by being raised alive to heaven; while Judas Iscariot the traitor was crucified in his place. These beliefs; in particular that Jesus is a prophet of God and raised alive without being crucified; conform with Islamic beliefs but cannot be found in the usual Gospel accounts.

The Gospel of Barnabas was little known outside academic circles until recent times, when a number of Muslims have taken to publishing it to argue against the orthodox Christian conception of Jesus but conveniently forgetting the usual canonical gospels. It generally resonates better with existing Muslim views though often conflicts with them so one often finds bits of it used to support Muslim beliefs but when the text does not we get rolled out the usual Muslim argument of corruption.

Finally, the book is riddled with anachronisms, some examples will do: Jesus is said to have been born during the rule of Pontius Pilate, which began after the year 26, there is reference to a jubilee, held every hundred years rather than every fifty years as described in Leviticus: 25, the Gospel talks of wine being stored in wooden casks whereas wine in 1st century Palestine was always stored in wineskins and jars, the Gospel includes quotations from the OT, but they correspond to readings as found in the Latin Vulgate.

[Hugo]

absurd to think that the muslims were stagant for 1000 years - lets wipe out the Ottomans, Mamelukes and Mughals - no cities were bulit no progress happend they just didnt happen did they. They gave nothing to the world. Lets forget about them just the way western civ likes to forget about christainty.

I will post a reply to this in the thread on what make something good mas it is not appropriate perhaps here.

[Al-manar]

I can't believe all such posts in just few hours !

it is good indeed ,enriching the thread with different views...I hope just we keep the discussion civile,productive and more important, on topic

several points in the last posts need to be addressed, I will get some for the time...

Are you saying that Allah could not make a distinction between Jew and Christian?

I didn't say so...

I look forward to seeing your 'proofs' and to get such proof you will have to stretch back at least a 1,000BC.

I will prove it,without going back a 1,000BC, as we will invoke 1,000 BC to be tested...

has it even occurred to you that the Galatians verses might very well be speaking about you? .

I don't think so.
And if it really about us ,then we should be included in the same basket with the writer of Galatians...
he perverted the old testament and we perverted his gospel !!....

And exactly how can we know that a document is of divine origin?*

Its extraordinary content...

Who is or was the provable author of the Qu'ran? I ask this question because whatever rules or criteria you cook up for the Bible or indeed any book must apply everywhere?

I never applied such rule (Authorship)for the bible yet... I know you are in a hurry to get there, thinking you are going to do better hence....but I assure you ,once we go there, you will immediately(as usual) shift the discussion to another arena etc....


to be continued

[Al-manar]

The OT records sins, serious sins, grievous sins for every one of it major characters including Abraham

Ah.... I see you imitiating those genius christians who would argue
A contradictory bible is more convincing to be divine than non-contradictory one ...
A bible with immoral stories is more convincing to be divine than a pure one...

etc.....

I debunked such nonesense in my posts before ....

you won't believe that some people would corrupt the text for gaining statue and legetimacy, and I'm going to quote dozens of New Testament passages showing clearly that the Authors corrupted the meaning of the Old Testament for for purposes of indoctrination to gain religious legitimacy and status...

that would be included in the third type of corruption I refered to before......

not only that , I will provide other quotes (in the right time) showing how would the author plays with the word of God for wordly gain...

just as a matter of interest have you actually read all of this book?

yes I did , and I guess you never read it , why? cause none honest ,would read it (in spite of the cons that might be therin) would say:

The idea you express that this activity made them more 'patiently orthodox' is an absurdity

[Asiyah3]

Hope your doing fine sister... Asalaam O Alaikum...


sister i did not mean what you thought i meant... i kn0w None is Like Him.... God knows my intention i did not mean to say what you thought... the mouth of a muslim was trying to explain some one something.... so i know that...

(17:111) And say: "All praise be to Allah Who has neither taken to Himself a son, nor has He any partner in His kingdom, nor does He need anyone, out of weakness, to protect Him.

:)

:wa:

Okay thanks, al-hamdulillah. ^^

[Grace Seeker]

Peace

The following comparative study is the harvest of my personal reflection on the two books that are believed by about half of the population of the world to be God's inspired word.....

the study is throughly ,would be by topics (items),and the focus would be mostly on the textual disagreements ...

It seems to me as if this thread has lost its focus. Is it possible to get back to simply noting the textual disagreements (or perhaps even occassional similitudes), rather than trying to prove one text more authoritative or true than the other?

[Al-manar]

It seems to me as if this thread has lost its focus. Is it possible to get back to simply noting the textual disagreements (or perhaps even occassional similitudes), rather than trying to prove one text more authoritative or true than the other?

welcome back Grace seeker to the thread...

my wish always to keep the thread on topic (which is varied issues) ...

you know what is my intention for the thread? it is to get muslims and christians to know what is exactly Islam position regarding christianity.....and vice versa..

to be honest ,I never intended my posts to be directed at non-muslims ,or I wish to be a preacher attracting non-muslims to Islam .......

all my goal to strengthen the faith of the muslim members ,opening their eyes to see ,who are we(as muslims) in this world of comparative religions? what are the real problems of the bible from a Quranic point of view? where they diasgree,and why? suggesting some clues to judge both, on the other hand what are the misconceptions of muslims regarding the bible?

I didn't intend the posts to be mere Quoting both the books ,without comments, giving reasons which narrations should be trusted... that doesn't mean I should all the way criticise the bible.... I will criticise some muslim arguments used against the bible ..... isn't that fair?

I trust that ,till now,I kept myself on topic as much as possible ......

[Grace Seeker]

Well, if you're happy with it as it is, then who am I to say differently. It is after all your thread. But I'm not interested in the point/counterpoint stuff that you and Hugo are doing, so I think I need to start another thread if that is what this one is about. Peace.

[glo]

It seems to me as if this thread has lost its focus. Is it possible to get back to simply noting the textual disagreements (or perhaps even occasional similitudes), rather than trying to prove one text more authoritative or true than the other?

Personally, I would be very interesting in exploring the similitudes between Qu'ran and the Bible.

[Hugo]

=Al-manar;1348224]Ah.... I see you imitiating those genius christians who would argue. A contradictory bible is more convincing to be divine than non-contradictory one ...A bible with immoral stories is more convincing to be divine than a pure one...

TRY to see the point, on the one hand you talks about reasons for corruptions such as status or legitimacy and then cannot explain why someone would deliberately damage the reputation of its principal characters and hope to gain by it the status and legitimacy you claim. You appear to think that because you say something that equals it must be true.

Proof means that the phenomenon we are looking at is always true, it’s not a matter of belief but something that cannot be avoided (like gravity for example). For example Archimedes principle is always true for everyone, all the time, everywhere, is accepted by all and cannot be avoided or ignored by anyone. So when we are speaking if things related to faith we can never get proof of this nature because there will always be unprovable elements.

That is why in science we never start out by trying to show something is true but rather we set out to find a way to falsify it and if we cannot find such a way then it cannot be proved one way or the other. So its best not to kid yourself that you can show that something is divine, you can choose to believe it of course but no more than that.

yes I did , and I guess you never read it , why? cause none honest ,would read it (in spite of the cons that might be therin) would say:

I cannot make any sense of this as you appear to be saying that none who are honest would read Ehrman's book?

[muslim787]

Quran honours prophet Jesus pbuh and even attributes miracles to him, not mentioned in the Bible.

Talking as an infant:

Qur'an chapter 9 titled Maryam

He spake: Lo! I am the slave of Allah. He hath given me the Scripture and hath appointed me a Prophet, (30) And hath made me blessed wheresoever I may be, and hath enjoined upon me prayer and almsgiving so long as I remain alive, (31)

Made clay birds and breathed life into them:

Qur'an chapter titled Imran 3:

And He will teach him the Scripture and wisdom, and the Torah and the Gospel, (48) And will make him a messenger unto the Children of Israel, (saying): Lo! I come unto you with a sign from your Lord. Lo! I fashion for you out of clay the likeness of a bird, and I breathe into it and it is a bird, by Allah's leave. I heal him who was born blind, and the leper, and I raise the dead, by Allah's leave. And I announce unto you what ye eat and what ye store up in your houses. Lo! herein verily is a portent for you, if ye are to be believers. (49)

All thw w's dot gutenberg.org /etext / 6516


The above was all kept out of the New Testament: Download and use keyword searches to include "Cradle" and "Birds"

Skeptics dismiss the banned books as fables. I'll let you decide for yourselves.

[Al-manar]

TRY to see the point, on the one hand you talks about reasons for corruptions such as status or legitimacy and then cannot explain why someone would deliberately damage the reputation of its principal characters

damaging the reputation of the pious,prophets is something the Jews were famous for .....
or you need to know what have they accused Jesus with?!

and hope to gain by it the status and legitimacy you claim.

I didn't talk about those who damaged the reputation of the prophets, I talked about those who created a role for jesus,he was not supposed to do ,and searched as much passages as in the old testament to convince the masses with their imaginary agenda (details later)....

I cannot make any sense of this as you appear to be saying that none who are honest would read Ehrman's book?

I said none honest ,would read the book, should say(as you):
The idea you express that this activity made them more 'patiently orthodox' is an absurdity

But I'm not interested in the point/counterpoint stuff that you and Hugo are doing,

me neither very interested in the counterpoints that Hugo do, cause most of it, so irrelevant...
and I would add,should be disappointing for the chrisrtians...

so I think I need to start another thread if that is what this one is about.

though we both go in the opposite direction ,I find you wiser than lots of the christians I argued with before....
I wish Hugo would learn some of your wisdom...

Personally, I would be very interesting in exploring the similitudes between Qu'ran and the Bible.

glo , I find you as some christians I knew in the board (eg; Eric,grace-seeker and others)... have sincere peaceful intentions towards muslims.....

that is something so welcomed and positive.... just the sad part ,you are just a minority, a voice in wildreness who call for tolerance and peaceful co-existence ,such fews peaceful christians ,unfortunately ,their efforts are not that effective as they are living among the voice of the majority that preaches, hatred,intolerance ......

anyway.... thank you for your efforts, and remember always though I have problems with the bible I have no problem at all with the nice,good christians as you.......

[syed_z]

@Hugo

This work clearly contradicts the New Testament biblical accounts of Jesus and his ministry but has strong parallels with the Islamic faith, not only mentioning Muhammad by name, but including the shahadah. It is anti-Pauline and anti-Trinitarian in tone. In this work, Jesus is described as a prophet, not the son of God, while Paul is called "the deceived". Furthermore, the Gospel of Barnabas states that Jesus escaped crucifixion by being raised alive to heaven; while Judas Iscariot the traitor was crucified in his place. These beliefs; in particular that Jesus is a prophet of God and raised alive without being crucified; conform with Islamic beliefs but cannot be found in the usual Gospel accounts.

In some key respects, it conforms to the Islamic interpretation of Christian origins and contradicts the New Testament teachings of Christianity. Some Islamic organizations cite the Gospel of Barnabas in support of Muhammad's ministry. However, this book also claims that Muhammad is the Messiah among many other Islamic beliefs. This Gospel is considered by the majority of academics, including Christians and some Muslims to be late and pseudepigraphical but suggest that it may contain remnants of an earlier apocryphal work edited to conform to Islam. A "Gospel according to Barnabas" is mentioned in two early Christian lists of apocryphal works dated 6th/7th century.

well we can clearly see from Historical sources that Christianity with the Concept of Trinity formed as part of the Religion was not a following of many people, rather it was the Church which had forced this Concept over the Majority of people living under the Rule of Emperor Constantine 1....


There are many Famous figures, who did NOT want to worship Jesus as God and did not believe in that Concept, because it was 1st of all clear to them that Jesus (a.s) was just a human being like every one and had said many times, what he was , i.e Just a Prophet come to teach the Lost Sheep of Israel (jews) and not to the whole world.... and NEVER claimed divinity....


i) "My Father is greater than I."
[The Bible, John 14:28]

(ii) "My Father is greater than all."
[The Bible, John 10:29]

(iv) "…I with the finger of God cast out devils…."
[The Bible, Luke 11:20]

(v) "I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me." [The Bible, John 5:30]


Jesus (a.s) never said that he could perform any miracles by himself, it was God who was doing it for him.... and was just a Prophet of God like Muhammad (Saw)...


"Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know."

[The Bible, Acts 2:22]



so all of these Beliefs which Verify was Quran says about Jesus (a.s) are also to be Found in the 4 Gospels which the Church selected... and NOT only in Gospel of Barnabas...if Gospel of Barnabas is the Only one that resembles Quranic Belief in Allah, then why does the 4 Gospels say what Belief of Islam verifies ? ...Quran says...

(5:17) Indeed those who said: 'Christ, the son of Mary, he is indeed God', disbelieved.

(4:171) People of the Book! Do not exceed the limits in your religion, and attribute to Allah nothing except the truth. The Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, was only a Messenger of Allah, and His command that He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him (which led to Mary's conception). So believe in Allah and in His Messengers, and do not say: (Allah is a) trinity. Give up this assertion; it would be better for you. Allah is indeed just one God. Far be it from His glory that He should have a son. To Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth. Allah is sufficient for a guardian.



God Sent Jesus (a.s)


(i)"… and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me."
[The Bible, John 14:24]





Where does Jesus say in the 4 Gospels... that I am God or I have all the Power... or Worship me ?

No Divinity... Jesus rather taught Contrary to what the Church Dogma is, the salvation lies in Believing in God and NOT believing in Jesus as His son.... rather Jesus says to keep commandments of God, in order to achieve Salvation and NOWHERE in the Gospels it is said that Jesus said he would die for the Sins of Mankind...


"And behold, one came and said unto him, ‘Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?’

And he said unto him, ‘Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.’ "
[The Bible, Mathew 19:16-17]




Jesus was a Muslim ..... A Muslim by definition means the One who Submits his Will to the Will of Al Mighty God...

John 5:30 "I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.


(Quran 3:19)The true religion with Allah is by submitting your Will to the Will of God. The People of the Book (Jews and Christians) adopted many different ways rather than follow the true way of Islam even after the knowledge of truth had reached them, and this merely to commit excesses against one another. Let him who refuses to follow the ordinances and directives of Allah know that Allah is swift in His reckoning.

[Grace Seeker]

glo , I find you as some christians I knew in the board (eg; Eric,grace-seeker and others)... have sincere peaceful intentions towards muslims.....

that is something so welcomed and positive.... just the sad part ,you are just a minority, a voice in wildreness who call for tolerance and peaceful co-existence ,such fews peaceful christians ,unfortunately ,their efforts are not that effective as they are living among the voice of the majority that preaches, hatred,intolerance ......

anyway.... thank you for your efforts, and remember always though I have problems with the bible I have no problem at all with the nice,good christians as you.......

Not to be intentionally contentious, but I'm not sure whether you are getting your overall view of Christians from this and other internet forums or from personal contact -- where I believe that people like Glo are the rule and not the exception. I say that because I find that forums frequently introduce us to people with entrenched positions (whatever the issue). I would hope that in the real world your experience with flesh and blood Christians would be better than what one finds here. I know I have to keep reminding myself, that my first-hand experiences with Muslims are all much better than what I generally encounter online.

Peace.

[glo]

Not to be intentionally contentious, but I'm not sure whether you are getting your overall view of Christians from this and other internet forums or from personal contact -- where I believe that people like Glo are the rule and not the exception. I say that because I find that forums frequently introduce us to people with entrenched positions (whatever the issue). I would hope that in the real world your experience with flesh and blood Christians would be better than what one finds here. I know I have to keep reminding myself, that my first-hand experiences with Muslims are all much better than what I generally encounter online.

Peace.

Hey, Grace, for one brief moment I was feeling special there ... until you came along!! :D

But on a serious note, I agree with Grace Seeker.

I came to this forum largely to get to know and understand Islam and Muslims better - with the intention of being able to relate better, build friendships and - in the long run - make better communities and neighbourhoods.

The good news is that I have learned a lot about Islam and on the whole understand Muslims better, and I have made some great friends here in this forum from all religions and none.

But I also find that very often people's views of each other become polarised and entrenched.
We stop seeing each other as human beings, who share the same basic humanity with the same needs, desires and feelings - and start seeing each other as labels: Christians, Muslims, atheists etc, etc
In that sense I sometimes wonder whether this forum has been beneficial, or whether it is serving to strengthen stereotypes we already have of each other, rather than demolishing them ...

In real life we are more likely to see the human in each other and to respond to each other's human need.