Why do muslims use the bible if they don't 'believe' in it?

[westcoast]

I just got somethin to say about using the Bible to prove that Muhamad was prophecised
according to most if not all muslims, the Bible is flawed and what not, so why use it to "prove" you cause? and if all the verses you quoted do indeed "prophecise" mohamad, then what do you make of verses proclaiming the divinity of Jesus Christ? all you're doing is chosing quotes that'll suit your purpose and ignoring the overwhelming majority of quotes in the Bible that suggest otherwise.

[Umar001]

I just got somethin to say about using the Bible to prove that Muhamad was prophecised
according to most if not all muslims, the Bible is flawed and what not, so why use it to "prove" you cause? and if all the verses you quoted do indeed "prophecise" mohamad, then what do you make of verses proclaiming the divinity of Jesus Christ? all you're doing is chosing quotes that'll suit your purpose and ignoring the overwhelming majority of quotes in the Bible that suggest otherwise.

Hi westcoast,

You see, the Bible is something that many use as their ultimate authority. Muslims do have other ways of proving Islam, but if someone believes in the Bible, and there are verses in the Bible which contain information of Muhammad, peace be upon him, then it is only logical for the Muslim to use it, since to Christians the Bible is their authority. This is why some Muslims might use it.

Also, some Muslims use their authority to have a brief overview of what in the Bible is true. So the Qu'ran says Muhammad was propechiesed by Jesus and so forth, so if the Muslim finds this then since this does not conflict the Qu'ran, the Muslim's authority, then he can use it, but when he sees that the Bible says Jesus is son of God or that Angels are sons of God, and the authority of the Muslim, i.e. the Qu'ran says God has no sons, then the Muslim knows not to use this, as this is definetly not part of the message that could have remained.

[ACC]

Maybe we have a thread for this, not sure. Why did God have Jesus be born of a Virgin and not experience death but mohamed was born normally and died (or am I wrong here, he was raised to Heaven too, wast he?)?

[westcoast]

Hi westcoast,

You see, the Bible is something that many use as their ultimate authority. Muslims do have other ways of proving Islam, but if someone believes in the Bible, and there are verses in the Bible which contain information of Muhammad, peace be upon him, then it is only logical for the Muslim to use it, since to Christians the Bible is their authority. This is why some Muslims might use it.

Also, some Muslims use their authority to have a brief overview of what in the Bible is true. So the Qu'ran says Muhammad was propechiesed by Jesus and so forth, so if the Muslim finds this then since this does not conflict the Qu'ran, the Muslim's authority, then he can use it, but when he sees that the Bible says Jesus is son of God or that Angels are sons of God, and the authority of the Muslim, i.e. the Qu'ran says God has no sons, then the Muslim knows not to use this, as this is definetly not part of the message that could have remained.

Hi westcoast,

You see, the Bible is something that many use as their ultimate authority. Muslims do have other ways of proving Islam, but if someone believes in the Bible, and there are verses in the Bible which contain information of Muhammad, peace be upon him, then it is only logical for the Muslim to use it, since to Christians the Bible is their authority. This is why some Muslims might use it.

Also, some Muslims use their authority to have a brief overview of what in the Bible is true. So the Qu'ran says Muhammad was propechiesed by Jesus and so forth, so if the Muslim finds this then since this does not conflict the Qu'ran, the Muslim's authority, then he can use it, but when he sees that the Bible says Jesus is son of God or that Angels are sons of God, and the authority of the Muslim, i.e. the Qu'ran says God has no sons, then the Muslim knows not to use this, as this is definetly not part of the message that could have remained.

it doesn't make any sense to me. If i used the Bible to show the divinity of Jesus Christ, then you'd disagree with my statement because not only do you not believe in the Bible, but the Qu'ran also does not coincide with the teachings of the Bible (i.e Qu'ran saying God has no sons)
secondly a lot of people use and manipulate quotes from the Bible to prove their points, often times using them out of context.
The first quote from the book of Deutoronomy is used in this thread, and they claimed that this is a quote that prophesied the coming of Muhamad. Again, using a quote from the Bible out of context to prove your points:

Almighty God 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 I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

Unfortunately, this quote was not about Muhammad.
"If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me." (John 5:46)

^Is that not crystal clear?

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

[Umar001]

it doesn't make any sense to me. If i used the Bible to show the divinity of Jesus Christ, then you'd disagree with my statement because not only do you not believe in the Bible, but the Qu'ran also does not coincide with the teachings of the Bible (i.e Qu'ran saying God has no sons)

Oh my, so let me put this forth for you:

Islamicly answering, Muslim hold that the Qu'ran is the Criterion, so let me put forth an example for you,

Every generation of your family's male members, i.e. your grandfather and your father and yourself, recieve a letter from a boss, who employs you to do work, say your father dies whilst your young, and you are not due to recieve your letter until the age of 25, as you get older and your father is not there no more, his letter is lost, and so you ask around, maybe your mother and aunt and so forth about what your father's letter contained, and there are various reports, some say it was of big font in blue, others say it stated your wages are 33 pounds, and some reports were conflicting, you then recieve your letter, (I should add that all the letters are the same in core, i.e. wages, fonts, only name of who is sent to changes and minor things), and in your letter you realise that it is in big red font and not blue, and that your wages is 33 pounds, and so because of your letter you can now come closer to knowing what your father's letter contained at it's core.

Sorrry for that long example, but similarly, when the Qu'ran came, it showed the Muslims what the core message of Jesus' teachings were, so when Muslims compare the Bible with the Qu'ran, anything that agrees they say 'it might have been from Jesus' anything that disagrees they say 'this is not'. Just as you would with the accounts that your mother or aunt would give you about your father's letter, if the accounts agrred with your letter which you know is exactly the same, you would say 'maybe my mother knew for sure' and when they disagree, i.e. the font, then you can say 'well this is a mistake and not truly from the letter'.

Eesa.

secondly a lot of people use and manipulate quotes from the Bible to prove their points, often times using them out of context.

If someone has taking something out of context do say, please. Remember context does not mean out of personal interpretation.

The first quote from the book of Deutoronomy is used in this thread, and they claimed that this is a quote that prophesied the coming of Muhamad. Again, using a quote from the Bible out of context to prove your points:

Almighty God 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 I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

Unfortunately, this quote was not about Muhammad.
"If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me." (John 5:46)

^Is that not crystal clear?

First, did Moses only write Dueteronomy 18:18??

Second, we could see whether Jesus' words recorded by John are accurate.

[- Qatada -]

Hi westcoast. :)

Allah! There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-Subsisting, Eternal.

It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).

[Qur'an 3: 2-3]

The Qur'an is the Criterion (Furqan) to verify what was the real message given to Jesus, son of Mary - the Messiah (peace be upon them.)


We believe that Jesus is an honorable Messenger of God, and we believe that he is the Messiah - who will slay the anti christ. He is the servant and Prophet of God, because God is not in need of children. If one was to say that God can have children if He wills, we believe that God only does what befits His Majesty. If God willed, He could pick anyone from among the creation to be His child, but He is way above what they associate with Him.


Don't you see how all the previous prophets called to the worship of God Alone without associating partners with Him? Don't you see the message of Noah, Abraham, Moses? Didn't they call their people to worship God Alone? They never claimed that they were divine, nor did Jesus son of Mary. He ate food, and he drank. He even went to the bathroom like we do. Do you really believe that God would do that?

Remember that I said that God only does what befits His Majesty? Well that fits in with that concept - so God doesn't go to the bathroom. Nor is He in need of any children, rather we are all His servants, and we are obedient to Him. So we worship God Alone, and no-one else. The One who gave us life, the One who provides for us, the One who will cause us to die, and He will bring us back to life and we will be judged on all that we did in this world.


Know that no soul bears the burden of another, and man will only get what he/she strived for. You are responsible for the good and bad you do, and so am i. No-one else is. You have to believe in what was revealed to all the Prophets and not take a pick and mix. Rather we take the whole package. And Muhammad (peace be upon him) recieved the same message as the Prophets of the earlier times - submit to God, your Creator and Provider by obeying His Messenger. If you do, you will be successful, but if you turn away - know that your Creator is Self-Sufficient, and you will be brought to account on the day when every soul will be questioned on what it did in this world.

And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?'" He will say, "Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.

I said not to them except what You commanded me - to worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness.

If You should punish them - indeed they are Your servants; but if You forgive them - indeed it is You who is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.

Allah will say, "This is the Day when the truthful will benefit from their truthfulness." For them are gardens [in Paradise] beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever, Allah being pleased with them, and they with Him. That is the great attainment.

To Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is within them. And He is over all things competent.


[Qur'an The Tablecloth [Al Ma'ida] 5: 116-120]

[جوري]

The Bible Led Me to Islam

A. M. LeBlanc tells how he discovered Islam within the pages of Bible

Source: International Edition Voice of Islam - November 1998, Page 25

During my Christian days there were many verses in the Bible that made me question the religion I was following (Christianity). There was one particular verse, 1 Thessalonians 5:17 which says; "pray without ceasing," that lingered heavily in my mind. I often wondered how a person (Christian) was supposed to pray (be in a state of worship) without ceasing? Without any biblical or divine guidance, the only way I thought this to be possible was to always do good deeds and keep the remembrance of God on my tongue and in my heart.

However, I found this to be impossible to do as a human being. But when I was introduced to Islam in 1987, and began to read and learn more about this way of life, I found that Islam provided divine guidance both from God (Allah) and Prophet Muhammad (SAW) by which a person could pray (be in a state of worship) without ceasing, if it was the Will of God.

Whether waking up, eating, sleeping, putting on clothes, being in the presence of a woman, looking at a woman, going shopping, going to the bathroom, looking in the mirror, traveling, visiting the sick, sitting in a non-religious meeting, taking a bath, having sexual intercourse with one’s wife, yawning, cutting you nails, sneezing, greeting people, talking, hosting guests at home, walking, exercising, fighting, entering one’s house, praying and many other acts, Islam and the guidance therein of the Quran, and the acts and sayings of Prophet Muhammad (SAW), provided ways in which I could observe 1 Thessalonians 5:17. In addition, it allowed me to be at peace with myself and in submission to the one True God - Allah (SWT).

This divine guidance of Islam taught me greatly about my duties, responsibilities and birthright to my Creator (Allah), and more about the religion of Christianity as a Muslim, I [By the Will of Allah (SWT)] felt it necessary to share with you how the Bible led me to Islam.

Christianity

Given the fact that there has never been in the history of the Torah (Old Testament) the religion of God to be named after a Prophet (i.e. Adaminity, Abrahamity, Mosanity, etc.), I hope to explain that Jesus did not preach the religion of Christianity, but a religion that gives all Praise and Worship to The One God.

One of the questions I asked myself as I took an objective (second) look at Christianity was; where did the word Christianity come from and was the word ever mentioned to Jesus? Well, I did not find the word Christianity in the Bible, not even in a Bible dictionary. Specifically, I did not find in the Bible where Jesus called himself a Christian.

The word Christian was first mentioned by a pagan to describe those who followed Jesus. It is mentioned one of three times in the New Testament by a pagan and Jew in Antioch about 43 AD, (Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28 and 1 Peter 4:16) long after Jesus left this earth. To accept the words of pagans as having any value or association with divinity, Jesus or God is contrary to the teachings of all Prophets.

Jesus prophesied that people would worship him uselessly and believe in doctrines made by men (Matthew 15:9).

"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." This verse, Matthew 15:9, is further supported by these words of the Quran:

"And (remember) when Allah will say (on the Day of Resurrection): "O Jesus, son of Mary! Did you say unto men: "Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allah?" He will say: "Glory be to You! It was not for me to say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, You would surely have known it. You know what is in my inner-self though I do not know what is in Yours, truly, You, only You, are the All-Knower o fall that is hidden and unseen.

Never did I say to them aught except what You (Allah) did command me to say: ‘Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.’ And I was a witness over them while I dwelt amongst them, but when You took me up, You were a Witness to all things. (This is a great admonition and warning to the Christians of the whole world)." (Al-Ma’idah 5:116-117)

I found that Biblical verses like John 5:30, John 12:49, John 14:28, Isaiah 42:8 and Acts 2:22 support the above mentioned verses of the Quran.

Before leaving the subject of Christianity, I should mention one small point of observation. If Christians are Christ-like, why are they not greeting each other with the words; Peace be with you (Salamu Alaikum), as Jesus did in Luke 24:36. As you may be aware, the greeting from one Muslim to another Muslim is Assalamu Alaikum; a Christ-like saying.

Various Holy Bibles
It is worth mentioning that the Bible references cited might not be exactly as the Bible you are using. There are MANY Bibles on the market that are used by different Christian sects and all of these sects say that their book, though different, is the word of God. Such Bibles are: The Revised Standard Version 1952 & 1971, New American Standard Bible, The Holy Bible; New International Version, the Living Bible, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures used by Jehovah Witnesses, Roman Catholic Version and the King James Version. A special note: I have not found in any of these Bibles where the "New Testament" calls itself the "New Testament," and nowhere does the "Old Testament" call itself the "Old? Testament." Also, the word "Bible" is unknown within the pages of the Bible.

In addition to the many different Christian sects and Bibles, I have learned that there are also different men, not Prophets, who founded these sects and are using various interpretations of the Bible and/or man-made doctrines as their creed.

I would like to share with you some thoughts that you may not have read or known about the Bible being the word of God. Briefly, let me mention that on September 8, 1957, the Jehovah’s witnesses in their "Awake" magazine carried this startling headline - 50,000 Errors in the Bible. If you ask a Jehovah’s witness about this headline, it may be said that today most of those errors have been eliminated. How many have been eliminated, 5,000? Even if 50 remain, would one attribute those errors to God?

Let me pose another question: if a "Holy" book contained conflicting verses would you still consider it to be Holy? Most likely you will say of course not. Let me share with you some conflicting verses both in the Old and New Testaments:

II Samuel 8:4 (vs)
II Samuel 8:9-10
II Kings 8:26

II Samuel 6:23
Genesis 6:3
John 5:37

John 5:31
I Chronicles 18:4
I Chronicles 18:9-10

II Chronicles 22:2
II Samuel 21:8
Genesis 9:29

John 14:9
John 8:14



Only two contradictions of the New Testament have been mentioned, but others will be referenced when the Trinity, Divinity of Jesus Christ, Divine Sonship of Jesus, Original Sin and Atonement are reviewed.

How could the "inspired words" of God get the genealogy of Jesus incorrect (See Matthew 1:6-16 where it states 26 forefathers up to Prophet David, and Luke 3:23-31 says 41 in number). Or for that matter, give a genealogy to Jesus who had NO father? See II Kings 19:1-37, now read Isaiah 37:1-38. Why is it that the words of these verse are identical? Yet they have been attributed to two different authors, one unknown and the other is Isaiah, who are centuries apart; and yet, the Christians have claimed these books to be inspired by God.

I looked up the word Easter in the Nelson Bible dictionary and learned that the word "Easter" (as mentioned in Acts 12:4) is a mistranslation of "pascha," the ordinary Greek word for "Passover." As, you know Passover is a Jewish celebration not a Christian holiday. I think human hands, all to human, had played havoc with the Bible.

From the brief points mentioned above, and the fact that Biblical scholars themselves have recognized the human nature and human composition of the Bible (Curt Kuhl, The Old Testament: Its Origin and Composition, PP 47, 51, 52), there should exist in the Christian’s mind some acceptance to the fact that maybe every word of the Bible is not God’s word.

As a side note to this subject, let me mention that some Christians believe that the Bible was dictated to Prophet Muhammad (SAW) by a Christian monk, and that is why some of the biblical accounts are in the Quran. After some research, I found that this could not have happened because there were no Arabic Bible in existence in the 6th century of the Christian era when Muhammad (SAW) lived and preached. Therefore, no Arab, not even Prophet Muhammad (SAW) who was absolutely unlettered and unlearned, would have had the opportunity to examine the written text of the Bible in his own language.

The Gospels

If you read Luke 1:2-3, you will learn, as I did, that Luke (who was not one of the 12 disciples and never met Jesus) said that he himself was not an eyewitness, and the knowledge he gathered was from eyewitnesses, and not as words inspired by God. Incidentally, why does every "Gospel" begin with the introduction According to. Why "according to?" the reason for this is because not a single one of the gospels carries its original author’s autograph! Even the internal evidence of Matthew 9:9 proves that Matthew was not the author of the first Gospel which bears his name:

"And as Jesus passed forth thence, He (Jesus) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and He (Jesus) saith unto Him (Matthew), follow me (Jesus). And he (Matthew) arose, and followed Him (Jesus)."

Without any stretch of the imagination, one can see that the He’s and the Him’s of the above narration do not refer to Jesus or Matthew as its author, but a third person writing what he saw or heard - a hearsay account and not words inspired by God.

It is worth noting, and well known throughout the religious world, that the choice of the present four "gospels" of the New Testament (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) were imposed in the Council of Nicea 325 CE for political purposes under the auspices of the pagan Emperor Constantine, and not by Jesus. Constantine’s mind had not been enlightened either by study or by inspiration. He was a pagan, a tyrant and criminal who murdered his son, his wife and thousands of innocent individuals because of his lust for political power. Constantine ratified other decisions in the Nicene Creed such as the decision to call Christ "the Son of God, only begotten of the father."

Literally, hundreds of gospels and religious writings were hidden from the people. Some of those writings were written by Jesus’ disciples, and many of them were eyewitness accounts of Jesus’ actions. The Nicea Council decided to destroy all gospels written in Hebrew, which resulted in the burning of nearly three hundred accounts. If these writings were not more authentic than the four present gospels, they were of equal authenticity. Some of them are still available such as the Gospel of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas which agree with the Quran. The Gospel of Barnabas, until now, is the only eyewitness account of the life and mission of Jesus. Even today, the whole of the Protestant word, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists and other sects and denominations condemn the Roman Catholic version of the Bible because it contains seven "extra" books. The Protestant have bravely expunged seven whole books from their word of God. A few of the outcasts are the Books of Judith, Tobnias, Baruch and Esther.

Concerning Jesus’ teachings of the Gospel (Injeel), the Gospel writers frequently mentioned Jesus preaching the Gospel: Matthew 9:35, Mark 8:35, and Luke 20:1. The word "gospel" is recurrently used in the Bible. However, in the New Testament Greek edition the word Evangeline is used in place of the word gospel, which is translated to mean good news. My question was: what Gospel did Jesus preach? Of the 27 books of the New Testament, only a small fraction can be accepted as the words of Jesus, and only of the 27 books are known to be attributed as the Gospel of Jesus. The remaining 23 were supposedly written by Paul. Muslims do believe that Jesus was given God’s "Good News." However, they do not recognized the present four Gospels as the utterances of Jesus.

The earliest Gospel is that of Mark’s which was written about 60-75 AD. Mark was the son of Barnabas’s sister. Matthew was a tax collector, a minor official who did not travel around with Jesus. Luke’s Gospel was written much later, and in fact, drawn from the same sources as Mark’s and Matthew’s. Luke was Paul’s physician, and like Paul, never met Jesus. By the way, did you know that the names Marks and Luke were not included in the 12 appointed disciples of Jesus as mentioned in Matthew 10:2-4?

Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; the first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

John’s Gospel is from a different source, and was written in about 100 AD. He (John) should not be confused with John, the disciple, who was beheaded by Agrippa I in the year 44 CE long before this gospel was written. It should be accepted as a reliable account of the life of Jesus, and whether it should be included in the scriptures.

Christians, as I once did, boast about the Gospels according to Matthew, according to Mark, according to Luke and according to John. However, if we think about it, there is not a single Gospel according to Jesus himself. According to the preface of the KJV (King James Version) new open Bible study edition, the word "Gospel" was added (see below) to the original titles, "According to John, according to Matthew, according to Luke and according to Mark."

The permission to call "According to" writings the Gospel was not given by Jesus nor by any other divine guidance. These writings; Matthew, Luke, Mark and John, were never originally to be the Gospel. Therefore, Mark 1:1 can not be a true statement that his writing is the gospel of Jesus.

It should be mentioned that Muslims must believe in all Divine scriptures in their original form, their Prophets and making no distinction between them: The Suhuf (Abraham); Torah (Moses); Psalms (David); Gospel - or the Injeel (Jesus); and the Quran (Muhammad). It is clearly stated in the Quran 3:3 that Allah sent down the Torah and the Gospel. However, none of these scriptures remains in its original form now, except the Quran, which was sent for all mankind everywhere and for all times.

In addition to other reasons why the Quran was sent to mankind, as mentioned in 18:4-5 it was sent to warn the Christians of a terrible punishment from God if they cease not in saying: "Allah has begotten a son."

Muslims sincerely believe that everything Jesus (May the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) preached was from God; the Gospel (Injeel): The "good news" and the guidance of God for the Children of Israel. There is no place mentioned in the present four Gospels that Jesus wrote a single word of his Gospel, nor is it mentioned that Jesus instructed anyone to do so. What passes off, as the "Gospels" today are the works of third party human hands. The Quran 2:79 says:
"And woe to those who write the book with their own hands and they say: "This is from Allah (God)." To traffic with it for a miserable price! So woe to them for what their hands do write, and woe to them for what they earn thereby!"

Jesus As the Son of God
Is Jesus the Son of God? Matthew 3:17 could be used by some Christians to support the divine Sonship of Jesus. If Matthew 3:17, "And Lo a voice for heaven, saying, this is my beloved son in whom I am well pleased," is used to support divine Sonship, then there should be no other verse that contradicts or gives equal divine Sonship to another person or persons in the Old or New Testament. However, many references were found in the Old and New Testaments that mentioned someone other than Jesus as having a divine Sonship to God. See Exodus 4:22:

"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 word "Son" must not be accepted literally because God addresses many of his chosen servants as son and sons. The Jews have also claimed Ezra to be the Son of God. The New Testament Greek words used for "son" (pias and paida, which mean servant or son in the sense of servant) are translated as son in reference to Jesus and as servant in reference to others in some translations of the Bible.

Further, the term "Father" as used by Jesus corresponds more closely to the term Rabb, i.e. One who nourishes and sustains, so that in Jesus’ doctrine, God is "Father" – Nourisher and Sustainer – of all men. The New Testament also interprets "son of God" to be mystical: "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." (Romans 8:14). This mystical suggestion is further supported with Jesus being called the only begotten Son of God.

In Psalm 2:7, the Lord said to David:

"...Thou art my son: this day have I begotten thee."

Does this mean that God had two sons? Jesus also said that God is not only his Father but also your Father (Matthew 5:45, 48). Luke 3:38 says:

"...Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the Son of God."

Who is mentioned in Hebrews 7:3 as like unto the Son of God? It is Melchisedec, King of Salem, as mentioned in Hebrews 7:1. He (Melchisedec) is more unique than Jesus or Adam. Why is he not preferred to be the Son of God? Moreover, Adam did not have a mother or father, but was the first human being created by God and in the likeness of God to exist in the Garden of Eden and on earth. Wouldn’t this give more rights to Adam to be called the Son of God in its truest meaning?

I would like to share with you an obvious contradiction between John 3:16, Luke 10:25-28 and Matthew 19:16-17. John 3:16 reads:

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten, Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Now let’s read Luke 10:25-28:

And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, what is written in the law? How readest Thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and Thou shalt live.

These verses tell us that the inheritance of eternal life is for anyone who believes and worships no other God, but the One True God. Luke 10:25-28 agrees with Matthew 19:16-17 which says;

"And behold, one came and said to him (Jesus), Good teacher, what good things shall I do that I may have eternal life? So he (Jesus) said to him, ‘Why do you call me good? – No one is good but One that is, God. But if you want to enter into eternal life, keep the commandments."

There is no commandment that says to worship Jesus, but there that tells us to worship God alone.

In Luke 4:41, Jesus refused to be called the Son of God by demons. Do you think that Jesus would rebuke the demons, or anyone else for that matter, for telling the truth? Unquestionably, no! Jesus rebuked the demons because they were saying something false by calling him the Son of God. Also, if the demons knew that Jesus was the Christ, for Jesus to shut them up because they called him the Christ is a contradiction to Jesus’ mission.

In Luke 9:20 & 21, Jesus said unto his disciples:

"But who say ye that I am? Peter answered saying, "The Christ of God, and Jesus straightly charged them and commanded them to tell no man that thing."

Furthermore, verses like John 3:2, John 6:14, John 7:40, Matthew 21:11, Luke 7:16 and 24:19 confirm that Jesus accepted the title of teacher, Prophet and called himself the son of man in Matthew 8:20, 12:40, 17:9 & 12, 26:24, Luke 9:26, 22:48, 22:69, and 24:7. The most conclusive verse that says Jesus is the son (servant) of man is Mark 14:26 where Jesus is mentioning the Day of Reckoning. Jesus specifically said we would see the son of man, not the Son of God, sitting in the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.

The act of begetting is a physical act and such act is against God’s nature. The Qur’an 19:35 says:


"It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! When He determines a matter He only says to it "Be," and it is." (Maryam 19:35)

The teachings of Jesus as the Son of God were not preached by Jesus nor accepted by Jesus, but were taught by Paul as supported in Acts 9:20:

"And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God."

Did Jesus ever claim to be God or say, "Here am I, your God, worship me"? The answer is no. For there is no single, unequivocal statement in the Bible whereby Jesus himself declares, "I am God, therefore worship me." Virtually all of the more than two thousand verses of the epistles of Paul are his own fabrications to include Romans 9:5 that says, depending upon which Bible you read:

"...Christ came, who is overall, the eternally blessed God."

Christians should know that Paul himself mentions his own gospel, not Jesus, in his epistle to the Romans when he says in Romans 2:16:

"In the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel."

In face, the Pauline epistle to the Romans serves as the foundation of today’s Christianity. Thus, it is the Christians whose efforts will be wasted in this life as they think they were acquiring good by their works when they attribute partners to God, as stated in Chapter 18:103-106 of the Qur’an:


"Say: Shall we tell you of those who lost most in respect of their deeds? Those whose efforts have been wasted in this life, while they thought that they were acquiring good by their works?" they are those who deny the Signs of their Lord and the fact of their having to meet Him (in the Hereafter): vain will be their works, nor shall We, on the Day of judgment, give them any weight. That is their reward, Hell; because they rejected Faith, and took My Signs and My Messengers by way of jest.
(Al-Kahf 18:103-106)

Indeed, it is so strange and ironic, knowing that none of Paul’s epistle to the Romans, more than 430 verses, were ever formulated by Jesus. Paul should have made direct reference to the pristine teachings of Jesus, if only the former claim for apostleship by divine inspiration was indeed true. Instead, large parts of his epistles’ Biblical quotations (notably those in the Epistle to the Romans) were taken from the Old Testament – Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, Psalms, Proverbs, Isaiah, Ezekiel and Hosea. His epistles were, indeed a product of tedious efforts, but that does not make Paul far better than any of the other men who authored the Bible, nor does it make him a Prophet.

Other practices that were adopted under Paul included the following: the Roman sun-day as the Christian Sabbath; the traditional birthday of the Sun-god as the birthday of Jesus; the emblem of the sun-god (the cross of light) to be the emblem of Christians; and, the incorporation of all the ceremonies which were performed at the Sun-god’s birthday celebrations.

As I come to a close concerning the position of Christ, I would like to ask my Christian reader bow down and pray earnestly to God and ask Him to invoke His curse on you, your wife, your sons, and your daughters if what you believe about Christ (Christ is God, Son of God or part of a trinity of God) are false. Likewise, I have learned that if you asked a Muslim to earnestly pray to God to invoke His curse on him, his wife, his sons, and his daughters if what he is saying about Christ (Prophet, Messenger of God, A Word from God) are false, the Muslims are firm in their faith knowing that Christ is not God, nor the Son of God and nor part of a trinity of God. This exercise of asking God to invoke His curse on you and your family may sound a bit cruel, but it would prove two points: (1) you would know that you are on the wrong path; and, (2) it would put you on the right path.

The Crucifixion and Atonement
A very significant event in the Christian doctrine is the Crucifixion of Jesus. Before talking about the many controversies surrounding the Crucifixion, it should be mentioned that it was a gospel of Paul’s which professed the Crucifixion/Resurrection of Jesus (II Timothy 2:8):

"Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel."

In addition, the gospel of the resurrection in Mark 16:9-20 was already removed from the text by gospel writers in the 1952 edition of the Revised Standard Version and then, for some reasons, restored in the 1971 edition. In many Bibles, if not removed, it is printed in small print or between two brackets and with commentary (See the Revised Standard Version, New American Bible and New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures).

The traditional biblical account of Jesus’ Crucifixion is that he was arrested and crucified by the orders and plans of the chief priest and Jewish elders. This account was denied in the 1960’s by the highest Catholic Christian authority, the Pope. He issued a statement in which he said the Jews had nothing to do with Jesus’ Crucifixion.

Did any one of the disciples or the writers of the Gospel see the Crucifixion or the Resurrection? No! In Mark 14:50, it says the disciples forsook Jesus and fled. Even Peter forsook Jesus after the cock crowed three times as Jesus foretold:

(Matthew 26:75) And Peter remembered the word of Jesus, which said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And he went out, and wept bitterly.

The most likely persons whom may have witnessed this moment in Jesus’ life were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, the mother of Zebedee’s children and other women (Matthew 27:55-56). However, there is no statement or account in the Gospels from those women as to what they saw or heard.

The disciple(s) found the sepulchre where Jesus was laid down, empty, and made the conclusion that he was resurrected because the disciples and other witnesses saw him alive after the alleged Crucifixion. Nobody saw the moment he was resurrected. Jesus himself stated that he did not die on the cross in Luke 24:36-41, as explained in the following paragraphs.

Early Sunday morning, Mary Magdalene went to the sepulchre, which was empty. She saw somebody standing who looked like a gardener. She recognized him after a conversation to be Jesus and wanted to touch him. Jesus said (John 20:17):

"Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father..."

Now read Luke 24:36-41:

"And as they (disciples) thus spoke, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are you troubled? And why so thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me end see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands and his feet. And while they yet believed not for joy, and wondered, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat? And they gave him a piece of boiled fish and of a honeycomb. And he took it, and did eat before them."

Does a spiritual or dead body have a need to eat food? Jesus eating of food was to prove to the disciples that he was not a spirit, but rather, he was still alive and not dead.

Jesus being alive and not dead is further supported in his own prophecy (Matthew 12:40):

"For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

Did Jesus fulfill this miracle? Christians would say "yes," because Jesus died and rose three days later according to Luke 24:36 and Matthew 20:19, to name a few verses. However, in line with the miracle of Jonah and according to the Bible, Jesus only spent one day and two nights in the sepulchre, and not three days and three nights as he prophesied.

Jesus was put in the sepulchre just before sunset on Friday (Good Friday) and was found missing before sunrise on Sunday (Easter). If we were to s-t-r-e-t-c-h the time frame a bit, one may say that Jesus spent three days in the earth, but there is no way and I repeat, no way, that Jesus spent three nights in the earth. We must not forget that the Gospels are explicit in telling us that it was "before sunrise" on Sunday morning that Mary Magdalene went to the tomb of Jesus and found it empty.

Consequently, there are some inconsistencies as to whether Jesus fulfilled his own prophecy. Whether he was actually crucified, or if the day (Good Friday) of his alleged Crucifixion is wrong. Another significant point to mention is that Jonah was alive in the belly of the whale. The Christians says, Jesus was dead in the belly of the earth/tomb, and this contradicts Jesus’ own prophecy. Jesus said (Luke 11:30):

"As Jonah was...so shall the Son of man be."

If Jonah was alive, so was Jesus.

One critical event that took place before the alleged Crucifixion was the prayer of Jesus to God for help. Luke 22:42:

"Saying Father if thou be willing, remove this cup (of death) from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine be done."

Jesus’ prayer not to die on the cross was accepted by God according to Luke 22:43 and Hebrews 5:7. Therefore, if all of Jesus’ prayer were accepted by God, including not to die on the cross, how could he have died on the cross?

In Matthew 27:46, it states that while Jesus was on the cross, he said:

"Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani (My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?).

If Jesus said these words, it represents a blatant declaration of disbelief according to all theological authorities. This is a great insult as such words could only come from an unbeliever in God. Further, it is incredible that such words should come from a Prophet of God, because God never breaks His promise and His Prophets never complained against His promise, especially when the Prophet’s mission is understood. It could be said that whoever relates that this statement was said by a Prophet (Jesus), is a disbeliever.

Muslims believe, as the Qur’an states, Jesus was not crucified. It was the intention of his enemies to put him to death on the cross, but Allah saved him from their plot. Qur’an 4:157:

"That they (Jews) said boasting, "We killed Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah, but they (Jews) killed him not, nor crucified him..."

(An Nisa 4:157)

[westcoast]

Hi westcoast. :)

Allah! There is no god but He,-the Living, the Self-Subsisting, Eternal.

It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).

[Qur'an 3: 2-3]

The Qur'an is the Criterion (Furqan) to verify what was the real message given to Jesus, son of Mary - the Messiah (peace be upon them.)


We believe that Jesus is an honorable Messenger of God, and we believe that he is the Messiah - who will slay the anti christ. He is the servant and Prophet of God, because God is not in need of children. If one was to say that God can have children if He wills, we believe that God only does what befits His Majesty. If God willed, He could pick anyone from among the creation to be His child, but He is way above what they associate with Him.


Don't you see how all the previous prophets called to the worship of God Alone without associating partners with Him? Don't you see the message of Noah, Abraham, Moses? Didn't they call their people to worship God Alone? They never claimed that they were divine, nor did Jesus son of Mary. He ate food, and he drank. He even went to the bathroom like we do. Do you really believe that God would do that?

Remember that I said that God only does what befits His Majesty? Well that fits in with that concept - so God doesn't go to the bathroom. Nor is He in need of any children, rather we are all His servants, and we are obedient to Him. So we worship God Alone, and no-one else. The One who gave us life, the One who provides for us, the One who will cause us to die, and He will bring us back to life and we will be judged on all that we did in this world.


Know that no soul bears the burden of another, and man will only get what he/she strived for. You are responsible for the good and bad you do, and so am i. No-one else is. You have to believe in what was revealed to all the Prophets and not take a pick and mix. Rather we take the whole package. And Muhammad (peace be upon him) recieved the same message as the Prophets of the earlier times - submit to God, your Creator and Provider by obeying His Messenger. If you do, you will be successful, but if you turn away - know that your Creator is Self-Sufficient, and you will be brought to account on the day when every soul will be questioned on what it did in this world.

And [beware the Day] when Allah will say, "O Jesus, Son of Mary, did you say to the people, 'Take me and my mother as deities besides Allah ?'" He will say, "Exalted are You! It was not for me to say that to which I have no right. If I had said it, You would have known it. You know what is within myself, and I do not know what is within Yourself. Indeed, it is You who is Knower of the unseen.

I said not to them except what You commanded me - to worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord. And I was a witness over them as long as I was among them; but when You took me up, You were the Observer over them, and You are, over all things, Witness.

If You should punish them - indeed they are Your servants; but if You forgive them - indeed it is You who is the Exalted in Might, the Wise.

Allah will say, "This is the Day when the truthful will benefit from their truthfulness." For them are gardens [in Paradise] beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever, Allah being pleased with them, and they with Him. That is the great attainment.

To Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is within them. And He is over all things competent.


[Qur'an The Tablecloth [Al Ma'ida] 5: 116-120]

fi sabilah i appreciate you taking time to respond. as i stated before, you're taking the term "Son of God" in the literal sense, hence this quote from your post:
"Nor is He in need of any children"

^To Christians, Jesus and God are one, not 2 distinct entities. Many fail to grasp this concept, and continue to assume that Christians believe that Jesus is indeed literally God's son. as in George Bush president is son of George Bush senior, ex president. that's not how it is.



and to purest ambrosia, i'm sure Jesus is mentioned in the Qu'ran as a messenger, but seeing as how i dont believe in the Qu'ran do you see that it would be pointless to provide proof in a text i dont believe in? I also wont use the Qu'ran to emphasize any of my points regarding Jesus. If only it were simple enough for Muslims NOT to use the Bible as proof of Muhammad's prophethood, seeing as how they do not believe in the Bible.

waka waka

[- Qatada -]

The difference is that we can actually use the arguments from Qur'an because many stories are mentioned of the children of Israel from there, even though the Messenger of Allaah himself was illiterate, he never had any contact with the jews or christians either in Makkah, and this is when alot of the stories of the earlier Prophets from the children of Israeel were revealed.

It also states many things which will happen in the future, like on the day of judgement.


If i were to ask you what the trinity is - you probably wouldn't be able to explain it well [no offense intended.] However, if we use common sense and go back to the message of the previous prophets - the main laws were that your Lord is One, and that others besides Him shouldn't be worshipped.

So why is it that Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him)'s message would be totally different to the rest of the Prophets messages? Isn't that a contradiction that your Lord is One. And isn't it common sense that 3 doesn't equal 1? God doesn't make religion hard for us to grasp, especially matters of creed and faith. Especially things which depend wholely on salvation.


Rather your God is One God, the One who created you from a drop of fluid, then gave you life and provides for you, then He causes you to die, and then He brings us back to life and we return to Him, this day we will be judged by Him, the Most Just. Those who obeyed all the Messengers will succeed and be entered into paradise, whereas those who rejected God and His Messengers will be punished for their disbelief.


Doesn't that make much more sense, isn't that the same message as all the previous prophets? Following a religion just because ones forefathers followed it is totally looked down upon in the sight of God, rather we seek the truth by using the logic and sense which God has bestowed upon us. I hope you may use your intelligence and wisdom to find the truth, because if you are sincere - God will make you successful in this world and the hereafter.



Regards.

[جوري]

and to purest ambrosia, i'm sure Jesus is mentioned in the Qu'ran as a messenger, but seeing as how i dont believe in the Qu'ran do you see that it would be pointless to provide proof in a text i dont believe in? I also wont use the Qu'ran to emphasize any of my points regarding Jesus. If only it were simple enough for Muslims NOT to use the Bible as proof of Muhammad's prophethood, seeing as how they do not believe in the Bible.

waka waka

You don't believe in the Quran... yet it does exist independent of your belief! .... and show you how much you know :rollseyes .... as far as I am concerned you don't know the first thing about Muslims... if you did then you'd not have volunteered yourself to make such foolish statements... hide your ignorance or read up before a debate pls.

آمَنَ الرَّسُولُ بِمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْهِ مِن رَّبِّهِ وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ كُلٌّ آمَنَ بِاللّهِ وَمَلآئِكَتِهِ وَكُتُبِهِ وَرُسُلِهِ لاَ نُفَرِّقُ بَيْنَ أَحَدٍ مِّن رُّسُلِهِ وَقَالُواْ سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا غُفْرَانَكَ رَبَّنَا وَإِلَيْكَ الْمَصِيرُ {285}

[Pickthal 2:285] The messenger believeth in that which hath been revealed unto him from his Lord and (so do) believers. Each one believeth in Allah and His angels and His scriptures and His messengers - We make no distinction between any of His messengers - and they say: We hear, and we obey. (Grant us) Thy forgiveness, our Lord. Unto Thee is the journeying.


lastly we have quoted you loads of verses from the bible in the post preceding this one so at this point until you read up and do some homework there really is no point in engaging you!... When I debate I like it when the other party has at least an acceptable baseline of knowledge... I will not loan myself to sub par debate... This isn't the coba cabana-- this is a respectful forum... What are you ... two with a temper tantrum?

[westcoast]

long quote removed

i read all of that, believe it or not
and the best part was the quote about the jehova's witnesses finding all the "contradictions" in the bible, which i guess you'd use it as proof of it being invalid, correct?
Yet somehow Muslims find themselves using this "contradictory" text to prove Muhammad's prophethood. Where does any of this make sense?
Even if this were true, how does this prove there is corruption in the original Greek manuscripts from which the King James version was translated?
and since the Qu'ran doesnt directly translate from the original Arabic to English, is this proof that the Qu'ran is corrupted? I dont speak a word of arabic, and the Qu'ran's i've read are English translations. I suppose they're all corrupt as well.

thanks for the effort though

[- Qatada -]

Anything which is a translation isn't Qur'an ^ :) it's simply a translation. We also believe that the Gospel was revealed to Jesus peace be upon him, yet you know that today it doesn't remain in the language which Jesus recieved it in. Some christians say that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and may have spoken Greek - whatever the case - the earliest manuscripts which can be found are 300years after Jesus son of Mary was raised to God, not any earlier.

Therefore the authenticity of the bible is doubtful, and depending on what denomination you're from - you're likely to differ on what translation you have. We have the Qur'an in the original language, which was written by the companions of the final Messenger of Allaah, Muhammad (peace be upon him) and therefore we don't need to doubt its authenticity. :)

[westcoast]

You don't believe in the Quran... yet it does exist independent of your belief! .... and show you how much you know :rollseyes .... as far as I am concerned you don't know the first thing about Muslims... if you did then you'd not have volunteered yourself to make such foolish statements... hide your ignorance or read up before a debate pls.

آمَنَ الرَّسُولُ بِمَا أُنزِلَ إِلَيْهِ مِن رَّبِّهِ وَالْمُؤْمِنُونَ كُلٌّ آمَنَ بِاللّهِ وَمَلآئِكَتِهِ وَكُتُبِهِ وَرُسُلِهِ لاَ نُفَرِّقُ بَيْنَ أَحَدٍ مِّن رُّسُلِهِ وَقَالُواْ سَمِعْنَا وَأَطَعْنَا غُفْرَانَكَ رَبَّنَا وَإِلَيْكَ الْمَصِيرُ {285}

[Pickthal 2:285] The messenger believeth in that which hath been revealed unto him from his Lord and (so do) believers. Each one believeth in Allah and His angels and His scriptures and His messengers - We make no distinction between any of His messengers - and they say: We hear, and we obey. (Grant us) Thy forgiveness, our Lord. Unto Thee is the journeying.


lastly we have quoted you loads of verses from the bible in the post preceding this one so at this point until you read up and do some homework there really is no point in engaging you!... When I debate I like it when the other party has at least an acceptable baseline of knowledge... I will not loan myself to sub par debate... This isn't the coba cabana-- this is a respectful forum... What are you ... two with a temper tantrum?

why even quote the bible to begin with, especially if you DO NOT BELIEVE IN IT
you wont see me quoting the Qu'ran in attempts to prove anything about Jesus, but rather, if i quote the Qu'ran it would be strictly to probe or question its content. Every quote you post from the Qu'ran is pointless especially if your attempting to negate Christian beliefs, for the most obvious reason in the world, that we dont believe in it
and its funny how you continue to whine about "i hate this debate its not as fun as other debates you dont know anything :(" yet you continue to reply to me and copy and paste all kinds of quotes and passages

make up your mind buddy.

[Umar001]

i dont know if you're from england or if english is your 2nd language but i really cannot understand what you're asking or saying.
example:
"First, did Moses only write Dueteronomy 18:18"

^ what? and the analogy of u used is really confusing..
im sorry i couldnt respond accordingly, i just dont know what to make of your post lol

Lol, you made a big rave about how muslim can use the Bible for what ever they use it for. I gave you an example of how a document can in fact testify to the truth or false hood of statements with regards to the content of a previous similar document.

As for me question asto whether Moses only wrote Dueteronomy 18, I asked that because you seemed to use a statement from the Gospel according to John to kind of imply that when it was said If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me." (John 5:46) it meant that Dueteronomy 18 was about Jesus.

You made a major fallacy, that being that you assumed that, if we believe John recorded Jesus' words, that Jesus was referring to Dueteronomy 18 whilst Jesus could be referring to any other part of Mosaic Scripture.

Eesa.

[جوري]

i read all of that, believe it or not
and the best part was the quote about the jehova's witnesses finding all the "contradictions" in the bible, which i guess you'd use it as proof of it being invalid, correct?
Yet somehow Muslims find themselves using this "contradictory" text to prove Muhammad's prophethood. Where does any of this make sense?
Even if this were true, how does this prove there is corruption in the original Greek manuscripts from which the King James version was translated?
and since the Qu'ran doesnt directly translate from the original Arabic to English, is this proof that the Qu'ran is corrupted? I dont speak a word of arabic, and the Qu'ran's i've read are English translations. I suppose they're all corrupt as well.

thanks for the effort though

??? what you are writing here is a Non Sequitur!--- compounded by your strange ability to both pose and answer your own questions... Again, and this really is the last time... until you read up and can provide something other than a belief or a subjective view and strip it from both fallacy and insolence toward Muslims, can you expect a reply back. We get people like you every now and then they either reform, move on or educate themselves so they have proper armament for an honest debate.

peace!

[Umar001]

why even quote the bible to begin with, especially if you DO NOT BELIEVE IN IT
you wont see me quoting the Qu'ran in attempts to prove anything about Jesus, but rather, if i quote the Qu'ran it would be strictly to probe or question its content. Every quote you post from the Qu'ran is pointless especially if your attempting to negate Christian beliefs, for the most obvious reason in the world, that we dont believe in it
and its funny how you continue to whine about "i hate this debate its not as fun as other debates you dont know anything :(" yet you continue to reply to me and copy and paste all kinds of quotes and passages

make up your mind buddy.

You've just answered your own question.

You ask:

why even quote the bible to begin with, especially if you DO NOT BELIEVE IN IT

Well why do you think lol, you answered:

Every quote you post from the Qu'ran is pointless especially if your attempting to negate Christian beliefs, for the most obvious reason in the world, that we dont believe in it

Theres not much point in us telling you Jesus is not son of God because the Qu'ran says so.

Nice debate with yourself right there :)

[westcoast]

Anything which is a translation isn't Qur'an ^ :) it's simply a translation. We also believe that the Gospel was revealed to Jesus peace be upon him, yet you know that today it doesn't remain in the language which Jesus recieved it in. Some christians say that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and may have spoken Greek - whatever the case - the earliest manuscripts which can be found are 300years after Jesus son of Mary was raised to God, not any earlier.

Therefore the authenticity of the bible is doubtful, and depending on what denomination you're from - you're likely to differ on what translation you have. We have the Qur'an in the original language, which was written by the companions of the final Messenger of Allaah, Muhammad (peace be upon him) and therefore we don't need to doubt its authenticity. :)

and the earliest copy of the qu'ran was written exactly how many years after muhammad died?
and of course there aren't ANY contradictions in the Qu'ran, because it is the epitome of perfection isnt it?
Explain the different accounts/descriptions of how man was created:
"Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood," (96:2).
We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape, (15:26).
"The similitude of Jesus before Allah is as that of Adam; He created him from dust, then said to him: "Be". And he was," (3:59).
"But does not man call to mind that We created him before out of nothing?" (19:67, Yusuf Ali). Also, 52:35).
"He has created man from a sperm-drop; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer! (16:4).

so according to the perfect, infallible Qu'ran, man was made from blood clots, clay, dust, nothing, and sperm?

[- Qatada -]

Hi westcoast.


The earliest copy was written within one year after the Messenger of Allaah, Muhammad (peace be upon him) passed away. :) There is an Uthmani copy which is within the Museum of Istanbul today, you can even see the pictures here inshaa Allaah [God willing.]

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...s/topkapi.html


By the way, i really hope you don't keep posting anti islamic articles on the site - because it's against forum rules.

But for the benefit of the doubt, since you're new here, i'll quote you the answer to that question:

The Quran says in sura 96.1 & 96.2 that man was created from a blood clot, but 21.3 & 24.45 says from water,19.67 from nothing, 3.59 & 35.11 from clay, 15.26 from mud and 16.4 & 75.37 says from a thickened liquid. Which part of the Quran is wrong?

What was Man created from?

The allegation is as follows:

What was man created from? A blood clot [96:1-2], water [21:30, 24:45, 25:54], "sounding" (i.e. burned) clay [15:26], dust [3:59, 30:20, 35:11], nothing [19:67] and this is then denied in 52:35, earth [11:61], a drop of thickened fluid [16:4, 75:37]

The obvious explanation to this question is that these references describe different aspects or stages in man's creation. This has always been the understanding of such verses.

We will give a brief explanation of each verse, while presenting them in chronological order.

Most of the references refer to two different aspects of creation: Original creation and Embryological development.
Original creation
19:67 Does not man remember that We created him before, and he was nothing?
The phrase and he was nothing is the translation of the arabic wa lam yaku shay. Some confusion may have resulted because Yusuf Ali's translation renders it as out of nothing, which is not very accurate at all. The phrase literally means, and he was nothing.

Hence, this verse states that human beings were nothing, and Allah brought us into existence. This is a tremendous favour bestowed upon us, that we may be thankful to Allah swt.

This is allegedly in contradiction to the following verse:

52:35 Were they created by nothing, or were they themselves the creators?
Ibn Kathir Ad-Damishqi (d.1372CE) has explained this verse as follows in his renowned Tafsir Al-Qur'an Al-Azim:

Allah asks them, were they created without a maker or did they create themselves Neither is true. Allah is the One Who created them and brought them into existence after they were nothing.(Tafsir Ibn Kathir, Abridged, Darussalam Publishers & Distributors, 2000, vol. 9, p. 297)

Hence, this verse is not in contradiction to the previous verse at all, after closer examination. Even if we choose to translate verse 52:35 as "Were they created from nothing..." it would also be correct as Allah swt developed the human being from previously created substances.

20:55 Thereof (the earth) We created you, and into it We shall return you, and from it We shall bring you out once again

The original creation of Adam pbuh was from the dust of the earth.

30:20 Among His Signs is this, that He created you from dust; and then,- behold, ye are men scattered (far and wide)!

This dust was then mixed with water to produce what is mentioned in the following verse:
15:26 And indeed, We created man from dried (sounding) clay of altered mud [min hama’in masnoon]

An interesting commentary on these verses has been provided here:
http://harunyahya.com/miracles_of_the_quran_p1_08.php#1

Sheikh Muhammad Mutwalli Ash-Sha`rawi also comments:

If we take dust and add water to it, it will be mud. If it is left for some time, it will turn into clay. These are simply the stages of the creation of man. Man thus comes from dust, turned into clay after the addition of water. If we scrutinize this issue, we will find out that man, in his daily life, needs earth and depends on it in so many aspects. It is this earthy soil where we grow the plants upon which we live. Thus, preserving the materials of man depends on the source from which these materials are created.


Scientists have analyzed the human body and found that it is composed of 16 substances including oxygen and manganese. These elements are no more than the elements of the earth?s crust. This experiment was not meant for proving the credibility of the Qur'an; rather, it was solely for scientific research purposes.


In addition, death itself serves as a proof of creation. When we try to demolish a building, we follow the reverse order of building it; we start with the last floor. By the same token, since we have not eye-witnessed the creation of man, then we shall see how death occurs. Actually, we witness several deaths everyday. When man dies, his soul leaves his body, then the decline starts; his body becomes dry (which is similar to the stage of clay) and then decays and turns finally into dust which was his original substance. Life is given to man through the soul that is blown into his body. When the soul departs, man dies and starts his way back to his original form going through the stages of his first creation. Thus, death stands as a living proof for creation (SOURCE)

21:30...We made of water every living thing. Will they not then believe?
This verse explains that all living things are composed of water.

Dr. Zakir Naik has commented on the above verse by saying:

Only after advances have been made in science, do we now know that cytoplasm, the basic substance of the cell is made up of 80% water. Modern research has also revealed that most organisms consist of 50% to 90% water and that every living entity requires water for its existence. Was it possible 14 centuries ago for any human-being to guess that every living being was made of water? Moreover would such a guess be conceivable by a human being in the deserts of Arabia where there has always been scarcity of water? (SOURCE)

The following link also comments on this:
http://www.-----------------------/scientific_58.html

Embryological development

16:4 He has created man from a nutfah; and behold this same (man) becomes an open disputer!

Dr. Omar Abdul Rehman has explained this as follow:

Nutfah (The drop)

Al-Nutfah in Arabic means a drop or a small part of fluid and Nutfah in general describes a stage where the beginnings of a human being are found in this fluid (Ref: 6A, 12/6; 17/118; 19/120: 13A, 3/436: 15A, 17/116: 1C, 2/121: 7B, 3/116: 4D, 9/235-6: 5D, 6/258: 4A, 30/234: 7A, 4/336: 10A, 13/9: 12A, 4/288). Its real meaning can only be deduced from the text of Qur'an; evidently it is a comprehensive term and includes male and female gametes and part of their natural environments of fluid. It also includes zygote, morula and blastocyst till implantation in the uterus. This is illustrated by the following citation:

"was he not a drop or part of germinal fluid (Mani) emitted or programmed" (Surah Al- Qiyama, Ayah 37)

Here "Mani" means male or female germinal fluid (Ref: 1D, 5/276: 5D, 10/348:2D, 6/2497).

The Prophet's Hadith confirms the fact that the offspring is created from part of the germinal fluids.

"Not from all the fluid is the offspring created"

(Sahih. Muslim: Kitab Al-Nekah, Bab Al-Azl)

It is also known that not all parts of the ejaculate are equally potent in the fertilisation process. "In the first portion of the ejaculate are the spermatozoa, epididymal fluids, and the secretions from the Cowper and prostate gland fluids. In the last portions of the ejaculate are the secretions of the seminal vesicles. Most spermatozoa appear in the first part of the ejaculate, which is made primarily of prostatic secretions. Thus spermatozoa in the initial portion of the ejaculate have better motility and survival than those in the later portions, which are chiefly vesicular in origin". (SOURCE)

And concerning the verse:
96:2 Created man, out of a (mere) clot of an Alaqah
Dr. Omar Abdul Rehman states:

The 'Alaqah stage

"Then (thumm) We made the drop into an 'Alaqah". (Surah Al-Mu 'minun, Ayah 14)

In Arabic the word ‘Alaqah in fact has several meanings;

• 
  
  something which clings or a suspended thing (Ref: 7B, 5/440: 1D, 4/125: 2D, 4/1529: 3D, 343: 4D, 10/267: 5D, 7/20)
• a leech-like structure (Ref: 9A, 3/242: 20A, 2/281: 7B, 5/139: 2D, 4/1529: 3D, 343: 4D, 10/267)

Amazingly each of these terms can be applied to the developing embryo with stunning precision. All of these terms encompassed by the word ‘Alaqah describe the appearance of the embryo as well as its relationship with the womb. From the discussion below it becomes clear that the embryo resembles a primitive multicellular organism which is attached to a host and feeding on its blood.

a) something which clings

Modern science informs us that once the egg has been fertilised in the Fallopian tube it undergoes successive divisions to form a ball like structure of 12-16 cells by the third day. This structure is called a blastocyst and it reaches the uterus in 4 to 5 days. The blastocyst then lies free in the uterine secretions for a further 2 days. About a week after fertilisation the blastocyst begins to attach and implant into the uterine wall. By the 11th to 12th day it is completely embedded in the uterine wall. At this stage chorionic villosities begin to develop like roots in the soil, these draw nourishment from the uterus necessary for the blastocyst's growth. These formations cover the whole blastocyst and make it literally cling to the uterus. By the end of the second week implantation is complete. Inside the blastocyst the embryo is anchored to the wall of the chorionic cavity by a connecting stalk. Hence, these different ways of clinging and attachment seem to represent the most dominant features from day 7 to 21, and are perfectly described in the Qur'anic description by the word ‘Alaqah. For greater detail see S. Hussain (1986) ‘Al-‘Alaq:the mystery explored, Ark Journal, London, pp. 31-36.

b) a suspended thing

The 3 week old embryo inside the blastocyst which is embedded in the uterine wall is seen to be suspended in the chorionic cavity by means of the connecting stalk and is surrounded by the amniotic cavity and the yolk sac. Therefore, the term ‘Alaqah accurately describes the suspended embryo after it has been implanted.

c) a leech-like structure

The word ‘Alaqah can also be translated as ‘leech like structure'. The leech is a elongated pear shaped creature which thrives on blood sucking. At this stage of development the embryo from top view does bear a resemblance to a leech. This resemblance is even more marked if the 24 day old embryo is seen from the side. It is also interesting to note that the embryo is now dependent on the maternal blood for its nutrition and behaves very much like a leech!. (For greater detail see Moore, KL. ‘A scientists interpretation of references to embryology in the Qur'an.' Journal of the Islamic Medical Association of US and Canada, 1986, 18:15, and Moore, KL. and Azzindani, AMA.: "The Developing Human, Clinically Orientated Embryology, With Islamic Additions". 3rd Ed., Dar Al-Qiblah and WB Saunders).

In conclusion, whichever of the above terms are used to translate the word ‘Alaqah they are all stunningly accurate descriptions of the embryo at this stage in it's development as confirmed by modern science.

There is a gap of a few days between the stages of implantation (Nutfah) and 'Alaqah and this period is clearly explained by the above Ayah:

The word "Thumm" in Arabic is a conjunction indicating a time lag and the Ayah will, therefore, mean that after some time we created the "Nutfah" into 'Alaqah. (SOURCE)

These explanations make it evident that each verse is describing different stages in the creation of man.

[westcoast]

You made a major fallacy, that being that you assumed that, if we believe John recorded Jesus' words, that Jesus was referring to Dueteronomy 18 whilst Jesus could be referring to any other part of Mosaic Scripture.

Eesa.

yes, he could, and what other part of the scripture could he be referring to? Why would he even mention Moses if not for that passage? You'll be hard pressed to find any other possible explanation to that quoted passage from John.

[Umar001]

yes, he could, and what other part of the scripture could he be referring to? Why would he even mention Moses if not for that passage? You'll be hard pressed to find any other possible explanation to that quoted passage from John.

So let me ask you, within the 5 books of Moses there is no other prophecy about Jesus?

You assume a point and then try to prove it. Amazing.

[- Qatada -]

Maybe we have a thread for this, not sure. Why did God have Jesus be born of a Virgin and not experience death but mohamed was born normally and died (or am I wrong here, he was raised to Heaven too, wast he?)?

The same can be said about Prophet Adam though, how come God created him without a father or a mother? :) So you see that God does whatever He wills, out of His eternal wisdom.

We also know that Jesus son of Mary never died, rather he was raised upto God. Why? Because he will come down again, since he is the Messiah - and he will slay the anti christ. If he died and then came to slay the anti-christ, that would mean that someone who's died has come back to this world, which doesn't make sense, since once someone dies - they leave this world and they cannot enter this world again. That's what death represents.

So by Jesus actually not being killed, he will return to this world since his mission isn't fulfilled yet. Then once his mission is fulfilled, he will marry and have children, then he will die a natural death and then be raised infront of His Lord on the Day of Judgement. And he will be a dweller of God's paradise in God's Mercy.


Muhammad (peace be upon him) fulfilled his mission, and therefore he died a natural death. He will also be raised up on the day of Judgement and we know without a doubt that the prophets of God will be rewarded for their good. Because God is the Most Just, and who is truer to His word than Allaah? No-one. If we obey the Messengers of God and submit to God by accepting all the prophets, we hope to be of those who will gain God's Mercy and pleasure, and we hope our final abode is the true home of Paradise.



And Allaah knows best.


Regards. :)

[westcoast]

fi sabilah, what "anti islamic" articles are you talking about? i havent posted any links to anything smh

secondly, look at how lengthy that "explanation" was, the Qu'ran is said to be very clear and direct as to cause no confusion, yet the different accounts of man's creation stated in the Qu'ran are clearly cause for confusion hence the necessary in-depth explanation you provided
You say that all the different quotes i posted are just "stages" in which man was created, i.e how a pizza is made from flour, dough etc. The metaphorical description of God making man out of the dust or clay of the earth is ancient and predates the Qur'an by thousands of years; it is found in the Bible in Genesis 2:7.

Surah 86:6
He is created from a drop emitted-
Khuliqa min ma-in dafiqin

86:7 Proceeding from between the backbone and the ribs:
Yakhruju min bayni alssulbi waalttara-ibi

86:8 Surely (Allah) is able to bring him back (to life)

^ this passage claims that the "ejected liquid" i.e sperm originates from between the spine and the ribs. what is your "explanation" for that? semen is created in a region far below the ribs, at least in humans it is.

[westcoast]

We also know that Jesus son of Mary never died, rather he was raised upto God.

who is we? and biblical and actual historical accounts of Jesus' crucifixion are wrong i suppose...

[Umar001]

who is we? and biblical and actual historical accounts of Jesus' crucifixion are wrong i suppose...

I like that you didnt refer to the Bible as a Historical Account. That's nice, rather that theres a Biblical account and a Historical.

Well, it would be impressive if there was hardcore historical evidence of the death of Jesus, why? because then people couldn't deny his existance. If such hardcore evidence existed then people wouldnt be able to or even think about denying existance of the person that is Jesus.

[westcoast]

So let me ask you, within the 5 books of Moses there is no other prophecy yea?

Uh, the thought of Moses only prophecy being that of the quoted Deutoronomy verse is pretty sad. this being said, a close examination of Moses' other prophecies clearly deal with different matters, as can be seen/read in books such as Deutoronomy and Leviticus

peace

[Umar001]

Uh, the thought of Moses only prophecy being that of the quoted Deutoronomy verse is pretty sad. this being said, a close examination of Moses' other prophecies clearly deal with different matters, as can be seen/read in books such as Deutoronomy and Leviticus

peace

So in the books of Moses the author only prophecies about Jesus once?

[westcoast]

I like that you didnt refer to the Bible as a Historical Account. That's nice, rather that theres a Biblical account and a Historical.

Well, it would be impressive if there was hardcore historical evidence of the death of Jesus, why? because then people couldn't deny his existance. If such hardcore evidence existed then people wouldnt be able to or even think about denying existance of the person that is Jesus.

I dont think a religious text can ever be widely accepted as "actual" historical evidence(except for its followers), for the very reason that both Islam and Christianity both disagree on the events that happened. you cant convince me otherwise and vice versa

[- Qatada -]

It's kinda sad since you ignored all my other points, however - here's the explanation to that:

Where does the semen spring from during coitus?

During coitus semen is ejaculated from the two storage areas called the seminal vesicles, and NOT FROM THE TESTICLES.

Let man look at (and bear in mind) the substance he is created from! (He is) created from the surging fluid, which springs from between the spine and the ribs! 86:5-7

What is definitely excluded is the scrotal pouch, which is below the spine! Semen does not spring from there during coitus!

Also excluded is the thorax, since it is not between the ribcage and the spine, but is rather inside the ribcage.

The area not excluded is the abdomen and the pelvic cavity! The Quran is 100% correct. Semen is stored in the seminal vesicles to be ejaculated during coitus.

The exact words of the Quran

The exact Arabic words: Bain usSulbe watTaraib

Sulb = backbone, loin, lower back; Taraib = ribs, breastbone, chest.

Bain = between, among, amidst

It is a phrase in Arabic that is similar to the English phrase, “somewhere between the front and the back”

It would mean that the semen springs from “somewhere between the front and the back” of the body. In other words, somewhere from inside the body!

If one was to insist upon the literal meaning, one would still find that the Quran is 100% correct literally, too. The seminal vesicles are anterior to the sacrum and coccyx (lower back, loin) and the ribs are anterior to the seminal vesicles.

If one was to draw a line from the tip of the coccyx, to the upper portion of the seminal vesicle _ either one of the two_ and extend the line forward it will catch the ribcage.

The seminal vesicles from which the semen spurts out during coitus, lies between the ribs and the coccyx!

(He is) created from the surging fluid! Which springs from between the spine and the ribs! 86:6-7

Why does the Quran simply not say, Abdominal cavity?

Only a creator of the universe can reveal words that remain precise and accurate for thousands of years even in this changing world. Every generation feels as if the Quran was revealed specifically for them, and only yesterday.

That is the miracle of the Quran! Its words seem always to be in agreement with what science has observed and determined with certainty.

[Umar001]

I dont think a religious text can ever be widely accepted as "actual" historical evidence(except for its followers), for the very reason that both Islam and Christianity both disagree on the events that happened. you cant convince me otherwise and vice versa

Well as history goes unless someone believes the Qu'ran to be from God then it'd be illogical to look at it for the historical account of Jesus' life.

But the Qu'ran could be used as historical source to look at the time of Muhammad, where there is any biographical speech refering to Muhammad then the Qu'ran could become a source. This is of course for those who understand that the Qu'ran has not changed.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

Peace,

theres no need to use the bible at all. Calling to islam is enough but its still a bit amazing that people dont see the flaws in the bible. I'll mention a few if you would like.

Theres incest in it (judah...), a man was ordered to kill his wife for saving his father.

this is all too strange...

[westcoast]

So in the books of Moses the author only prophecies about Jesus once?

No, and i'm sure you'd know this, as you'd probably consider them prophecies about Muhammad, correct?
anyway, here's another, if u care:
"Genesis 49:10
The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs[1] and the obedience of the nations is his. "

prophecy that The Messiah would come from the tribe of Judah, which is reiterated again in Luke 3:23-34

peace

[westcoast]

Peace,

theres no need to use the bible at all. Calling to islam is enough but its still a bit amazing that people dont see the flaws in the bible. I'll mention a few if you would like.

Theres incest in it (judah...), a man was ordered to kill his wife for saving his father.

this is all too strange...

yes, there isnt a need to use the Bible; and please dont get into incest, or any kind of sexual related topics, that is by far the easiest accusations against Muhamad that i've seen utilized.

[westcoast]

Well as history goes unless someone believes the Qu'ran to be from God then it'd be illogical to look at it for the historical account of Jesus' life.

But the Qu'ran could be used as historical source to look at the time of Muhammad, where there is any biographical speech refering to Muhammad then the Qu'ran could become a source. This is of course for those who understand that the Qu'ran has not changed.

aside from the Qu'ran, what proof is there that Muhammad existed? Seriously speaking now;

[- Qatada -]

Westcoast, we actually have a whole science on hadith [the prophetic way, his manners, his character, his life, the lives of his companions etc.] It's all recorded and authenticated etc. so we actually believe with proof instead of doubt.

You can read about the sciences from here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/islamic-...m-hadeeth.html


I also urge you to read this:
http://www.islamicboard.com/587743-post147.html



Regards.

[Umar001]

aside from the Qu'ran, what proof is there that Muhammad existed? Seriously speaking now;

Do you know how to distinguish and ascertain excistance from evidences?

[جوري]

aside from the Qu'ran, what proof is there that Muhammad existed? Seriously speaking now;

aside from the NT what proof is there that Jesus existed? seriously speaking also... And I use the NT only since Jews don't believe in Jesus as a son or a messenger!

[Umar001]

No, and i'm sure you'd know this, as you'd probably consider them prophecies about Muhammad, correct?
anyway, here's another, if u care:
"Genesis 49:10
The scepter will not depart from Judah, nor the ruler's staff from between his feet, until he comes to whom it belongs[1] and the obedience of the nations is his. "

prophecy that The Messiah would come from the tribe of Judah, which is reiterated again in Luke 3:23-34

peace

And peace be upon you also.

Thanks, well if thats the case then Jesus when he said what he is reported to have said by John could be reffering to this.

You just assume he is reffering to Deuteronomy 18.

[westcoast]

Westcoast, we actually have a whole science on hadith [the prophetic way, his manners, his character, his life, the lives of his companions etc.] It's all recorded and authenticated etc. so we actually believe with proof instead of doubt.

You can read about the sciences from here:
http://www.islamicboard.com/islamic-...m-hadeeth.html


I also urge you to read this:
http://www.islamicboard.com/587743-post147.html



Regards.

okay^
However, it is important to point out that many hadiths are taken as 2nd closest to the Qu'ran in terms of official texts in which Muslims should believe/behave live their lives etc. My friend told me that most Muslims accept these hadiths, but his family does not and turn to only the Qu'ran for their beliefs.
Hadiths were written many years after Muhammad died and many offer grandiose accounts of Muhammad's existence, often times fabricating events to make him look great n what not
examples of this are accounts of "miracles" he supposedly created, which are refuted by the Qu'ran itself. disbelievers questioned muhammad's authenticity, and he said ""Glory to my Lord! Am I aught but a man,- a messenger?" Surah 17:93 along with many other Quranic passages stating that Muhammad was JUST a messenger of the word.

[- Qatada -]

If you've actually looked at the link you'll understand the sciences of it, i can make a statement too - but if i don't look at the proofs, then that's just blind following. And by the way - ask your friend how they pray, you learn it from the prophetic way.


All the Messengers of God were humans, yet God gave them miracles by His will. So there is nothing confusing about that because the miracles performed by the prophets can't be replicated by no-one except a true prophet of Allaah. So there is no confusion.

[westcoast]

^i think i addressed the topic of the prayers in another thread, but i'll repeat it here

where in the Qu'ran does it specifically state that muslims must pray exactly 5 times a day? i'm not saying its not in there, i'm asking because i've looked for it and haven't found it in the Qu'ran itself. if the Qu'ran is the word of Allah, then Muslims must follow what it says, and since they specifically state that prayers = 5 times daily, then it must be in the Qu'ran.

peace

[westcoast]

^also, in the hadiths it states that muhammad split the moon and that this was a miracle of his, yet as i quoted above he told his disbelievers that he was "just a messenger"

do i believe the Qu'ran, or the Hadith?

[جوري]

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيمِ
اقْتَرَبَتِ السَّاعَةُ وَانشَقَّ الْقَمَرُ {1}

[Pickthal 54:1] The hour drew nigh and the moon was rent in twain.

وَإِن يَرَوْا آيَةً يُعْرِضُوا وَيَقُولُوا سِحْرٌ مُّسْتَمِرٌّ {2}

[Pickthal 54:2] And if they behold a portent they turn away and say: Prolonged illusion.

وَكَذَّبُوا وَاتَّبَعُوا أَهْوَاءهُمْ وَكُلُّ أَمْرٍ مُّسْتَقِرٌّ {3}

[Pickthal 54:3] They denied (the Truth) and followed their own lusts. Yet everything will come to a decision

وَلَقَدْ جَاءهُم مِّنَ الْأَنبَاء مَا فِيهِ مُزْدَجَرٌ {4}

[Pickthal 54:4] And surely there hath come unto them news whereof the purport should deter,

LUNAR DATA SUPPORT IDEA THAT COLLISION SPLIT EARTH, MOON
NASA by Douglas Isbell, David Morse


Find More Results for: "NASA moon splitting "
SPACE SCIENCE:...
A new kind of life
NASA's carelessness is...
Electron-Spin Filters...
Analysis of data from NASA's Lunar Prospector spacecraft has confirmed that the Moon has a small core, supporting the theory that the bulk of the Moon was ripped away from the early Earth when an object the size of Mars collided with the Earth.

Scientists presented this result and other findings today in a series of papers at the 30th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in Houston, TX. Their data show that the lunar core contains less than four percent of the Moon's total mass, with the probable value being two percent or slightly less. This is very small when compared with the Earth, whose iron core contains approximately 30 percent of the planet's mass.

"This is a critical finding in helping scientists determine how the Earth and Moon formed," said Dr. Alan Binder of the Lunar Research Institute, Tucson, AZ, principal investigator for Lunar Prospector.

Similarities in the mineral composition of the Earth and the Moon indicate that they share a common origin. However, if they had simply formed from the same cloud of rocks and dust, the Moon would have a core similar in proportion to the Earth's. A third theory suggests that the moon was captured fully intact by the Earth's gravity.


Based on information first gathered during the Apollo era, scientists suggested that the Moon was formed when a Mars-sized body hit the Earth during its earliest history. "This impact occurred after the Earth's iron core had formed, ejecting rocky, iron-poor material from the outer shell into orbit," Binder explained. "It was this material that collected to form the Moon.

"Further analysis of Lunar Prospector data to refine the exact size of the lunar core and the amounts of elements like gold, platinum and iridium in lunar rocks -- all of which are concentrated with metallic iron -- is required," Binder added. "This will do much to pin down for good if the 'giant impact' model of the formation of the Moon is correct, or if the Moon formed in a different manner."

The current data come from gravity measurements conducted by Dr. Alex Konopliv of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA. His results indicate that the Moon's core radius is between 140 and 280 miles (220 and 450 kilometers). This result is consistent with independent magnetic data, evaluated by Dr. Lon Hood of the University of Arizona, Tucson, which suggest that the core radius is between 180 and 260 miles (300 and 425 km).

In other results from Lunar Prospector, Dr. Robert Lin of the University of California at Berkeley, Dr. Mario Acua of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, and Hood also found that a broad section of the southern far-side of the Moon has large localized magnetic fields in its crust. These fields occur opposite the large Crisium, Serenitatis and Imbrium basins -- three of the "seas" that cover much of the Moon's near side. This result supports earlier evidence linking strong magnetized concentrations on one side of the Moon with young, large impact basins on the other side.

Results of efforts to map the composition of the lunar crust have surpassed the expectations of the spectrometer team, led by Dr. William Feldman of the Department of Energy's Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. Data obtained are so good that the distribution of thorium has been mapped with a resolution of 36 miles (60 kilometers). At this amount of detail, scientists can detect individual deposits rich in thorium and related elements. Their current observations suggest that thorium was excavated by impacts of asteroids and comets, and then distributed around craters, rather than being deposited by volcanic activity.

Lunar Prospector conducted its primary mapping mission at an altitude of 63 miles (100 kilometers) for almost one year after its arrival in lunar orbit on Jan. 11, 1998. In December and January, the spacecraft's altitude was lowered to approximately 15 miles by 23 miles (24 kilometers by 37 kilometers). Analyses of data from the lower-altitude observations are expected to further improve scientific understanding of the origin, evolution and physical resources of the Moon.

The $63 million mission is managed by NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, and was developed under NASA's Discovery Program of lower-cost, highly focused small scientific spacecraft.

Further information about Lunar Prospector, its science data return, and relevant charts and graphics can be found on the project website at:

http://lunar.arc.nasa.gov

[IMG]

[/IMG]

-end-


WITNESS OF MOON SPLITTING (A MIRACLE OF PROPHET MUHAMMAD (PBUH ))

CHAKRAWATI FARMAS KING OF MALABAR, INDIA

The incident relating to King Chakrawati Farmas is documented in an old manuscript in the India Office Library, London, which has reference number: Arabic, 2807, 152-173. It was quoted in the book "Muhammad Rasulullah," by M. Hamidullah:

"There is a very old tradition in Malabar, South-West Coast of India, that Chakrawati Farmas, one of their kings, had observed the splitting of the moon, the celebrated miracle of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) at Mecca, and learning on inquiry that there was a prediction of the coming of a Messanger of God from Arabia (Detail given bellow), he appointed his son as regent and set out to meet him. He embraced Islam at the hand of the Prophet, and when returning home, at the direction of the Prophet, died at the port of Zafar, Yemen, where the tomb of the "Indian king" was piously visited for many centuries."

The old manuscript in the 'India Office Library' contains several other details about King Chakrawati Farmas and his travel[1].

The king spent weeks in seclusion. In the midst of his quiet life, he set out on the journey along with the Arab travelers who'd promised him earlier. On the way, they stopped by Koylandi and from there to Dharmapatnam where they halted for 3 days. Then they set out to Shehr Muqalla. On reaching there, they set for the Hajj pilgrimage and thereafter returned to Malabar. He aspired to spread the message of Islam. But on the way, he fell sick and breathed his last.

A tradition of the Holy Prophet has also been reported from one of the companions, Abu Saeed al Kaudri, regarding the arrival of Cheraman Perumel. "A king from India presented the Messenger of Allah with a bottle of pickle that had ginger in it. The Holy Prophet distributed it among his companions. I also received a piece to eat ". (Hakim reports in 'Al Musthadrak )

Umar Qazi's poem on Cheraman Perumal.
Umar Qazi was well aware of the story of Cheraman Perumal - the first Indian to accept Islam. He narrates it thus in one of his poems inscribed on the walls of Ponnani Juma Masjid.

Kodungallur was a center of festivals established by the great Emperor Cheraman Perumal .....
The major part of all the minor kingdoms were under his rule ...
As such, one day he saw he saw the moon split into two (a miracle of Holy Prophet performed in Arabia) on a clear cloudless night ....
As a result the love for Holy Prophet grew in his heart and he became the earliest Muslim of this nation....[2]

Moon Splitting in The Quran
The splitting of the moon is mentioned in the Holy Qur'an, Surah Al-Qamar (54), Verses 1-3:

The hour drew nigh and the moon was rent in twain.
And if they behold a portent they turn away and say:
Prolonged illusion.
They denied (the Truth) and followed their own lusts.
Yet everything will come to a decision.

Moon Splitting in Hadiths
Narrated Abdullah bin Masud: "During the lifetime of the Prophet the moon was split into two parts and on that the Prophet said, 'Bear witness (to thus).' (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Virtues and Merits of the Prophet (pbuh) and his Companions, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 830)"

Narrated Anas: "That the Meccan people requested Allah's Apostle to show them a miracle, and so he showed them the splitting of the moon. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Virtues and Merits of the Prophet (pbuh) and his Companions, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 831)"

Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: "The moon was split into two parts during the lifetime of the Prophet. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Virtues and Merits of the Prophet (pbuh) and his Companions, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 832)"

Narrated Anas bin Malik: "The people of Mecca asked Allah's Apostle to show them a miracle. So he showed them the moon split in two halves between which they saw the Hiram' mountain. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Merits of the Helpers in Madinah (Ansaar), Volume 5, Book 58, Number 208)"

Narrated 'Abdullah: "The moon was split ( into two pieces ) while we were with the Prophet in Mina. He said, "Be witnesses." Then a Piece of the moon went towards the mountain. (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Merits of the Helpers in Madinah (Ansaar), Volume 5, Book 58, Number 209)"

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Abbas: "During the lifetime of Allah's Apostle the moon was split (into two places). (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Merits of the Helpers in Madinah (Ansaar), Volume 5, Book 58, Number 210)"

Narrated 'Abdullah: "The moon was split (into two pieces). (Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Merits of the Helpers in Madinah (Ansaar), Volume 5, Book 58, Number 211)"[3]

According to Maududi, the traditionists and commentators have agreed that this incident took place at Mina in Makkah about five years before the Holy Prophet's Hijra (migration) to Madinah.

The Moon had split into two distinct parts in front of their very eyes. The two parts had separated and receded so much apart from each other that to the on-lookers (in Makkah) one part had appeared on one side of the mountain and the other on the other side of it. Then, in an instant the two had rejoined. This was a manifest proof of the truth that the system of the universe was neither eternal nor immortal, it could be disrupted.

This incident indicated that huge stars and planets could split asunder, disintegrate, collide with each other, and everything that had been described in the Qur'an on the Resurrection could happen. The Holy Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) invited the people's attention to this event only with this object in view and asked them to mark it and be a witness to it. But the disbelievers described it as a magical illusion and persisted in their denial. They were reproached in Surah Al-Qamar (The Moon) for their stubbornness.

Other Relevant Notes
It is due to this incident about their king, the people of Malabar became the first community in India to accept Islam. Subsequently, they increased their trade with Arabs, as the Arab ships used to pass by their shores on the way to China before the advent of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Before Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), Malabar also had a Christian community dating back from the earliest followers of Prophet Jesus ('Isa), pbuh. St. Thomas is believed to have migrated to India and died there. This community remained untouched by later theological developments in Christianity until the arrival of Portugese traveler Vasco da Gama.

When the British were consolidating their stronghold in India, they deployed the largest naval operation (on the shores of India) against the Muslims of Malabar[4].

Predictions of the coming of a Messanger of God from Arabia
Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) was commanded by God to inform that he was not the only Messenger of God to the world [Al Qur'an 46:9]. Scholars say that there had been some 124,000 Prophet sent to the world who preached in the language of the respective people [A Qur'an 14:4]. The true religion they preached and their scriptures got corrupted with passage of time (with the exception of Al Qur'an). However, the message on the last and greatest Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) is retained till date in the scriptures of all major world religions.

The Hindu scriptures identify the greatest Prophet to come mentioning details of his birth, events of his life, his followers, etc. Some even give his Arabic name or its equivalents! This article will help creating right belief (Iman) in other religionists.

Further, it will help Muslims appreciate yet another facet of greatness of Prophet (Pbuh) and deepen their Iman. We will see here only a sample of the overwhelming evidences!

Prophet (Pbuh) Foretold in India (A) Hindu scriptures
There is no doubt that God sent Prophets (Pbuh) to people of India. There is no mention of any Indian Prophet or scripture in Holy Qur'an. But Bukhari records Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh) as saying he was enjoying breeze wafting from India laden with fragrance of Tawhid (unity of God). The four Vedas (scriptures) of Hindus and their epics are said to be 5000-10,000 years old. They contain a great deal of monotheistic ideas, and of course, prophecies on Hadrath Muhammad (Pbuh).

Bhavishya Puran
This is a Sanskrit work of prophecies. The title means 'Book of the Future'. Since Hinduism is based in India it was, and still is, taken for granted that its sages will be born in India itself. Contrary to this belief the Book says that a great master will appear in a foreign country (mlechcha acharya) and live in a sandy region (marusthal). His name will be Mahaaamad. Within a short span of 18 couplets Mahaamad is mentioned five times.

There is an interesting information in Bhavishya Purana that Mahaamad would appear to Bhoj, ruler of Dhar, and say that he would establish the religion of meat eaters, by the command of Ishwar i.e. God. There is a tradition that long afterwards, Bhoj got terrified on seeing the full moon split into two. Learned men consulted holy books and told him that it was one of the signs of the Universal Master to be born in a country to the West. Bhoj sent his minister to Prophet (Pbuh) in Arabia, who named the king Abdullah. The Tomb of Abdullah is still there at Dhar...

Mahabharat
This is a Hindu epic describing the struggle and triumph of good against evil. It was written by sage Vyas who also authored Bhavishya Purana. Mahabharata says that in the last eon called Kali Yug (in which we now live) a great sage will appear with name Mahaamad. He would preach about unity of God. He will be driven away from his native place by his own folk. By him the world would get peace. (Islam means peace). Mahabharat further says that cloud will provide him shade. It is recorded in history that Buhaira, the Christian priest of Syria observed this sign with Muhammad e in his boyhood and identified him as the last Prophet anticipated for millennia.

Kalki Puran
The signs and events of the final Avatar Kalki point out to final Prophet Muhammad (Pbuh). They fit those of Muhammad (Pbuh) neatly and perfectly. They are as follows;

Kalki will appear in the last on Kali Yug and will be the guide for the entire world.

He will be born on the 12th day of the month. Prophet (Pbuh) as born on 12th Of Rabiyyul Awwal).

His parents will be: Vishnu Bhagat and Soomati meaning servant of God (the Cherisher) and peace. (Messenger's (Pbuh) father's name was Abdullah, God's servant and mother was Amina refuge giver which includes the idea of 'peace'.)

He will be with a beauty par-excellence. His body will be fragrant.

He will get wisdom on a mountain. (Messenger (Pbuh) was conferred Prophethood on Mt.Hira)

He will receive a horse from God, which will be faster than lightning. Riding it he will go around the earth and seven skies. (During Mi'raj Prophet (Pbuh) got Buraq meaning lightning and toured the entire universe.)

Kalki will split the moon. Like Bhoj, Cheraman (Zamorin) Perumal the ruler of Indian kingdom of Kerala, witnessed splitting of the moon performed by Prophet (Pbuh). After gathering the facts he sailed to Arabia and became Muslim at Prophet's (Pbuh) hand. His Tomb is near the city of Salala in Oman[5].

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

I would suggest rather than bombarding people with many different questions in this thread, let's deal with one thing at a time.

Going back to the topic and the original question: why do Muslims use the Bible if they don't believe in it, this has already been asked before, such as in this recent thread: http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...changed-3.html

The main point to note is that we believe in the Bible as well as the Torah as originally being revealed by God to their respective peoples. Over time, the people changed these books and this meant that truth could no longer be distinguished from falsehood.

When the Qur'an was revealed, it abrogated the previous scriptures and brought the people back onto the Straight Path. Furthermore, Allaah promised to protect it from being corrupted like the previous scriptures had been, which is why it is a trustworthy Book over the others.

This is why the Qur'an and the hadeeth are used as a criterion to determine whether or not something is true in the previous scriptures such as the Bible: anything that contradicts the Qur'an and the hadeeth is to be rejected. Seeing as many parts of the Bible are of unknown authenticity, we cannot use it as a source of knowledge as we cannot deny their authenticity nor can we convincingly affirm them. However, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) explained that all the knowledge that was essential to know was available in the Qur'an and the hadeeth.

I hope this has helped you to understand the matter, and Allaah (swt) knows best.

Peace.

[westcoast]

SMH once again someone keeps deleting my posts.
response to ambrosia's impossibly long post:

the hadiths state that MUHAMAD "split the moon" this is what the Qu'ran says:
Surah[ 10:20] They say, "How come no miracle came down to him from his Lord?" Say, "The future belongs to GOD; so wait, and I am waiting along with you."

[29:50] They said, "If only miracles could come down to him from his Lord!" Say, "All miracles come only from GOD; I am no more than a manifest warner."


So is the recollection of the accounts that occurred valid in the Hadith and not the Qu'ran then? Clearly, if the Qu'ran is to be taken as the word of God, then the above quotes nullify your claims about muhammad splitting the moon.

[NoName55]

SMH once again someone keeps deleting my posts.

because moon is off topic, another discussion, focus on one thing instead of jumping around

http://www.islamicboard.com/691356-post43.html

when post is deleted you get a PM which gives reason (in this case reason given was "off topic posts: Moon is discussed elsewhere on forums"

topic at hand is: Why do muslims use the bible if they don't 'believe' in it?

[جوري]

SMH once again someone keeps deleting my posts.
response to ambrosia's impossibly long post:

the hadiths state that MUHAMAD "split the moon" this is what the Qu'ran says:
Surah[ 10:20] They say, "How come no miracle came down to him from his Lord?" Say, "The future belongs to GOD; so wait, and I am waiting along with you."

[29:50] They said, "If only miracles could come down to him from his Lord!" Say, "All miracles come only from GOD; I am no more than a manifest warner."


So is the recollection of the accounts that occurred valid in the Hadith and not the Qu'ran then? Clearly, if the Qu'ran is to be taken as the word of God, then the above quotes nullify your claims about muhammad splitting the moon.

The Quran Happened over a period of 23 yrs not all at once.. so until you can discern which sura came before which... which sura is (madanya or makkia and for what purpose....and respectfully I have my doubts that you do can you then quote a verse out of context and say will this speaks of no miracles preformed.. since we did quote you (FROM THE QURAN) in the above the MIRACLE preformed OF THE SPLITTING OF THE MOON... in fact you didn't have to go through the entire text to see it.. it was in the first few lines.. affirmed in hadith and later by NASA... .. I must ask you have you read the entire sura (10) and know of whom it speaks? Quoting out of context makes you appear foolish!

And... Yes miracles are from G-D... who did you think they were from? this is true of messengers even before prophet Mohammed PBUH...

Lastly you can't prove Christ (PBUH) existed if it weren't for the bible and the Quran later affirming-- there are volumes of literature out there written by non-muslims who can refute any number of events in the bible... in other words short of the bible and the Quran you can't really attest that Jesus (PBUH) preformed any miracles... where as the Quran is Prophet Mohammed's greatest miracle ... its wonders never cease, its transcendent-- you'll have to be a native Arabic speaker to actually understand and appreciate why... but it shouldn't be a deterrent from appreciating it nonetheless
peace!

[جوري]

NoName isn't deleting your posts! he and I both had our posts deleted as well! with a request to be kinder although I can't imagine why at this point you don't even read what we have written--- this is from the Quran... again for the last time with 3 different transliteration--

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيمِ
اقْتَرَبَتِ السَّاعَةُ وَانشَقَّ الْقَمَرُ {1}

[Shakir 54:1] The hour drew nigh and the moon did rend asunder.
[Yusufali 54:1] The Hour (of Judgment) is nigh, and the moon is cleft asunder.
[Pickthal 54:1] The hour drew nigh and the moon was rent in twain.

وَإِن يَرَوْا آيَةً يُعْرِضُوا وَيَقُولُوا سِحْرٌ مُّسْتَمِرٌّ {2}

[Shakir 54:2] And if they see a miracle they turn aside and say: Transient magic.
[Yusufali 54:2] But if they see a Sign, they turn away, and say, "This is (but) transient magic."
[Pickthal 54:2] And if they behold a portent they turn away and say: Prolonged illusion.

peace!

[Woodrow]

we will now continue on with the thread staying on topic. All off topic posts will be deleted if I see them.

Any questions about deleted posts please take it up with the Mods and not with other members. Only mods and admins have the ability to delete posts and threads. We are identified on our avatars.

[MustafaMc]

May the One God guide you to the truth!

I am a former Christian who read the Bible before and after becoming a Muslim. Yes, I have quoted from the Bible, but not to prove that it prophesied the coming of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. Since Christians accept the Bible as the word of God, I point out certain verses in a different light in order to stimulate a more unbiased understanding. You may find it hard to believe, but reading the same verses after converting to Islam meant something completely different from my new perspective.

I believe that Jesus, peace be upon him, was also a Prophet and a Messenger of God. I also believe in the Gospel, or Injeel, that was revealed through him to the "lost sheep of Israel". However, I don't accept the New Testament of the Bible as the original, unadulterated message, but rather a collection of legitimate (and some fabicated) sayings and actions of Jesus and of his disciples and also some letters of Paul. Note that Paul (Saul) staunchly opposed Jesus' disciples, e.g. stoning of Stephen, until he "saw the light" on the road to Damascus. Where did Paul get the "Gospel" that he defends in Galatians? Does this make him a de facto prophet also?

I am amazed at the amount of Truth that remains in the Bible. The greatest commandment according to Mark 12:29 is the very foundation of Islam. How many times is Jesus (pbuh) quoted in Matthew, Mark and Luke as refering to himself as the Son of God? How many times as the Son of Man? The verses that you refer to, e.g. John 16:7-15, regarding the "Comforter" or "Counseler" mean something to me that is different from what Christians interpret. Yes, I understand this passage to mean that Jesus (pbuh) foretold the coming of Muhammad (pbuh), but Christians have been taught this refers to the Holy Spirit.

When I read the Bible, I compare it to my "Gold Standard", the Quran, in order to discern truth from falsehood. For example, how can Hebrews 7:1-3 refer to any other than God Himself. How can any man have no father and no mother? How can any man have no beginning of days (creation Adam & Eve, birth all else) and no end of life (death)?

[westcoast]

The verses that you refer to, e.g. John 16:7-15, regarding the "Comforter" or "Counseler" mean something to me that is different from what Christians interpret. Yes, I understand this passage to mean that Jesus (pbuh) foretold the coming of Muhammad (pbuh),

funny how when convenient, the Bible is valid so as to prove the validity of Muhamad. Yet if i tried to use that passage to mean differently, it's "wrong" and whatever else you claim.
You either reject the Bible or accept what it states, simple and plain. you cant pick whatever works to your advantage and reject things that clearly negate what you claim.

peace

[جوري]

funny how when convenient, the Bible is valid so as to prove the validity of Muhamad. Yet if i tried to use that passage to mean differently, it's "wrong" and whatever else you claim.
You either reject the Bible or accept what it states, simple and plain. you cant pick whatever works to your advantage and reject things that clearly negate what you claim.

peace

Why not exercise cognitive conservatism a little less... you come across as abrasive and combative, and not genuine in wanting to learn, which is the ultimate purpose of this forum...and I say this because thrice I quoted you an answer to your question from the Quran and again you asked the same question!... You are entitled to your views and opinions and you may state your reasons in accordance to your understanding, and it is the burden of proof of those whom you make the request to explain the reasoning behind what they write. If you still don't like what they wrote then you can disagree amicably-- no one is coercing you into a conversion and I assume you came here willingly?

peace!

[Woodrow]

funny how when convenient, the Bible is valid so as to prove the validity of Muhamad. Yet if i tried to use that passage to mean differently, it's "wrong" and whatever else you claim.
You either reject the Bible or accept what it states, simple and plain. you cant pick whatever works to your advantage and reject things that clearly negate what you claim.

peace

It is quite logical. the original source of the Bible was from Allah(swt) Some of it does remain unchanged and that which is in agreement with the Qur'an we view as being unchanged.

i.e. Even though you do not believe the Qur'an is the Word of Allah(swt) would you not agree that that Isa(as) was born of a virgin as is also stated in the Bible. and that at least that much of the Qur'an is true even if you do not believe another word of it.

Actually we are not to use the Bible as a valid source to prove Islam. However, since many of us are reverts and are familiar with the Bible. We often go back to old habits and quote from the Bible.

[westcoast]

NoName isn't deleting your posts! he and I both had our posts deleted as well! with a request to be kinder although I can't imagine why at this point you don't even read what we have written--- this is from the Quran... again for the last time with 3 different transliteration--

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمنِ الرَّحِيمِ
اقْتَرَبَتِ السَّاعَةُ وَانشَقَّ الْقَمَرُ {1}

[Shakir 54:1] The hour drew nigh and the moon did rend asunder.
[Yusufali 54:1] The Hour (of Judgment) is nigh, and the moon is cleft asunder.
[Pickthal 54:1] The hour drew nigh and the moon was rent in twain.

وَإِن يَرَوْا آيَةً يُعْرِضُوا وَيَقُولُوا سِحْرٌ مُّسْتَمِرٌّ {2}

[Shakir 54:2] And if they see a miracle they turn aside and say: Transient magic.
[Yusufali 54:2] But if they see a Sign, they turn away, and say, "This is (but) transient magic."
[Pickthal 54:2] And if they behold a portent they turn away and say: Prolonged illusion.

peace!

throughout the Qu'ran muhammad is said to be just a messenger, and that his only miracle is being able to deliver the word of allah through the Qu'ran. Not only that, when pressed by people of his time to show them miracles he pointed out the futility of miracles by stating that prophets in passed times came with miracles and they still killed them or didnt believe them
"Quran 03: 138
"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?" if you are truthful? "

again;
the only clear specific detail that actually says muhamad "split the moon" is found in the hadiths, which are NOT the word of allah
Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 58, Number 208
"The people of Mecca asked Allah's Apostle to show them a miracle. So he showed them the moon split in two halves between which they saw the Hiram' mountain."

^you see how easy they make it seem for the prophet to perform such a miracle? BUT in the qu'ran, non believers told him:
"Q. 17: 90
They say: "We shall not believe in thee, until thou cause a spring to gush forth for us from the earth,"
(we wont believe in you until you perform this miracle)
---to which Muhamad responded:
"Q. 17: 93
Say: "Glory to my Lord! Am I aught but a man,- a messenger?"
Surely causing a spring to come from the earth is nothing to a man who can "split the moon" right?

There are lots of inconsistencies when one refers to the hadiths and cross references them with the Qu'ran.

[westcoast]

It is quite logical. the original source of the Bible was from Allah(swt) Some of it does remain unchanged and that which is in agreement with the Qur'an we view as being unchanged.

i.e. Even though you do not believe the Qur'an is the Word of Allah(swt) would you not agree that that Isa(as) was born of a virgin as is also stated in the Bible. and that at least that much of the Qur'an is true even if you do not believe another word of it.

Actually we are not to use the Bible as a valid source to prove Islam. However, since many of us are reverts and are familiar with the Bible. We often go back to old habits and quote from the Bible.

okay, explain exactly where the Bible no longer becomes valid, i've read various places throughout this website that everything in the New Testament isnt "good" or whatever, yet they continue to quote from it.. i dont get it

[جوري]

lol... I really don't know what is wrong with you?... I thank you for highlighting your ignorance & repeatedly... and I thank you for affirming that you are not familiar with one verse in the Quran... least of which one which is quoted to you repeatedly... Enjoy the soliloquy of your Argumentum ad ignorantiam!

oh and by the way this is what 3.138 really says... so how about you read the actual Quran--before you cut and paste from your various ready sources I think it is a bit embaressing for you to have this sort of a dent in your fecund little manifestos...

هَـذَا بَيَانٌ لِّلنَّاسِ وَهُدًى وَمَوْعِظَةٌ لِّلْمُتَّقِينَ {138}

[Pickthal 3:138] This is a declaration for mankind, a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil)

[westcoast]

lol... I really don't know what is wrong with you?... I thank you for highlighting your ignorance & repeatedly... and I thank you for affirming that you are not familiar with one verse in the Quran... least of which one which is quoted to you repeatedly... Enjoy the the soliloquy of your Argumentum ad ignorantiam!

huh?
what i typed is clear

1) hadiths stating muhammad split the moon
2) Qu'ranic passages clearly showing how disbelievers at the time of Muhamad were weary of his message and challenged him to perform miracles to prove he was from God
3) To which he responded that he is just a messenger.

Where is the ignorance in that?

Imagine if I was simply an observer who was becoming interested in Islam, and provided you with quotes from the Qu'ran which i found confusing. This is how you would respond? "LOL !!you're ignorant, you dont know the quran!!!"

Come on buddy, i'm quoting YOUR holy book where it says people tested muhamad by challenging him to perform miracles and he responded with not a miracle but saying that he is just a messenger.
THOSE ARE QUOTES FROM THE QU'RAN.

[westcoast]

"oh and by the way" i realized it isnt 3: 138
it is
3:183 (check for urself)


clearly you see how one would make that mistake while typing. but i've since then found my error and corrected it

ITS A MIRACLE!

[جوري]

Do you speak Arabic? law taqdar an taqra'a hazha fa'anta 7imar

You have conveniently left out the part of the post where we pointed out your blatant misquote of the Quran here it is again
هَـذَا بَيَانٌ لِّلنَّاسِ وَهُدًى وَمَوْعِظَةٌ لِّلْمُتَّقِينَ {138}
[Pickthal 3:138] This is a declaration for mankind, a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil)...

furthermore which part of Sura 54 verses one and two-- with three different transliteration FROM THE QURAN do you not understand? I mean are you suffering from Attention deficit disorder or do you have problems with your occipital lobe that your vision is failing you? Please read before you type.. also verify from the Quran instead of other sources so you don't come across like a fool time and again..

[جوري]

"oh and by the way" i realized it isnt 3: 138
it is
3:183 (check for urself)


clearly you see how one would make that mistake while typing. but i've since then found my error and corrected it

ITS A MIRACLE!

We can only hope you see the error with the rest as well but I doubt it...

الَّذِينَ قَالُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ عَهِدَ إِلَيْنَا أَلاَّ نُؤْمِنَ لِرَسُولٍ حَتَّىَ يَأْتِيَنَا بِقُرْبَانٍ تَأْكُلُهُ النَّارُ قُلْ قَدْ جَاءكُمْ رُسُلٌ مِّن قَبْلِي بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ وَبِالَّذِي قُلْتُمْ فَلِمَ قَتَلْتُمُوهُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ {183}

[Pickthal 3:183] (The same are) those who say: Lo! Allah hath charged us that we believe not in any messenger until he bring us an offering which fire (from heaven) shall devour. Say (unto them): Messengers came unto you before me with miracles, and with that (very miracle) which ye describe. Why then did ye slay them? (Answer that) if ye are truthful!

فَإِن كَذَّبُوكَ فَقَدْ كُذِّبَ رُسُلٌ مِّن قَبْلِكَ جَآؤُوا بِالْبَيِّنَاتِ وَالزُّبُرِ وَالْكِتَابِ الْمُنِيرِ {184}

[Pickthal 3:184] And if they deny thee, even so did they deny messengers who were before thee, who came with miracles and with the Psalms and with the Scripture giving light.

Where in these verses is the implication that Mohammed (PBUH) can't perform miracles?--- And again which part of sura 54 did you not understand?

[Woodrow]

okay, explain exactly where the Bible no longer becomes valid, i've read various places throughout this website that everything in the New Testament isnt "good" or whatever, yet they continue to quote from it.. i dont get it

For beginners name one line in the NT that is the Injil which was revealed to Isa(as) That has been completely left out. There is not a single statement in the NT that is the word of Isa(as).

It is true that Mark, John Paul and Matthew did witness events. But, we only read of their interpretations as was later translated by Paul. No where in the NT do we read the actual words of Isa(as)

Does this mean that the teachings of Isa(as) were not valid until we got Paul's version? Was not the words of Isa(as) good enough to have been preserved? People threw away or lost the true words of Isa(as) and after rejecting them turned and accepted the words of Paul.

The NT is the word of Paul and not the words of Isa(as)

[westcoast]

Do you speak Arabic? law taqdar an taqra'a hazha fa'anta 7imar

You have conveniently left out the part of the post where we pointed out your blatant misquote of the Quran here it is again
هَـذَا بَيَانٌ لِّلنَّاسِ وَهُدًى وَمَوْعِظَةٌ لِّلْمُتَّقِينَ {138}
[Pickthal 3:138] This is a declaration for mankind, a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil)...

furthermore which part of Sura 54 verses one and two-- with three different transliteration FROM THE QURAN do you not understand? I mean are you suffering from Attention deficit disorder or do you have problems with your occipital lobe that your vision is failing you? Please read before you type.. also verify from the Quran instead of other sources so you don't come across like a fool time and again..

no, i dont speak arabic now im sad :(
and most of the world doesnt either, clearly i've been misguided by EVIL flawed translations of the Qu'ran, as have other non-arabic persons who have taken the time to read it. A religion meant for "mankind" is limited to those who are fluent in arabic. awwwww, how unlucky are we all. give me 3 years, i will learn arabic just for the sake of this debate, read the Qu'ran in its entirety, THEN and only then will I be able to pose any questions
and attention deficit has what exactly to do with the argument? a better accusation would have been reading comprehension, but since my rebuttal clearly dealt with your claims then no, that's not the case with me either :)

and why did u mention 3:138 again, i already said it was 3:183 pal :D
and seeing as how you like to throw out random logical fallacies to attack my posts, how about you're continued ad hominem replies calling me a fool and suggesting i have some sort of disorder LOL
stick to the topic at hand young grasshopper, all i'm doing is quoting. and if i was so foolish why have you dedicated your entire day to entertaining my posts? hahahaha

[جوري]

I am not your pal!...
you write various assumptions and answer them for yourself which is mildly amusing!
There are 1.8 billion Muslims in the world only 20% of them from Arabic countries and it is the fastest growing religion in spite of your tedious effort here which inspires no more than a minor shrug of the shoulders... I assure you, your feelings about my religion mean squat to me!

You should at least know what you are talking about or Quoting when having a debate-- don't you think? I mean did your English teachers think it ok for you to read cliff notes and come argue the book? You misquote and you don't read answers---and you call your drivel a rebuttal?

[westcoast]

For beginners name one line in the NT that is the Injil which was revealed to Isa(as) That has been completely left out. There is not a single statement in the NT that is the word of Isa(as).

It is true that Mark, John Paul and Matthew did witness events. But, we only read of their interpretations as was later translated by Paul. No where in the NT do we read the actual words of Isa(as)

Does this mean that the teachings of Isa(as) were not valid until we got Paul's version? Was not the words of Isa(as) good enough to have been preserved? People threw away or lost the true words of Isa(as) and after rejecting them turned and accepted the words of Paul.

The NT is the word of Paul and not the words of Isa(as)

lol what? the john paul mark etc's accounts were "translated" by paul? where did you get that from?
and nowhere in the new testament do you read the words of Jesus? Really?


"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by Me." - JOHN 14:6

"For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses neither will your father forgive your trespasses." - MATTHEW 6:14-15

"For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." - LUKE 14:11

^are those enough quotes? or are they "corrupt" now? these quotes are taken from the same books that Muslims claim prophesied the coming of Mohamad, so they should be valid correct?

[Woodrow]

lol what? the john paul mark etc's accounts were "translated" by paul? where did you get that from?
and nowhere in the new testament do you read the words of Jesus? Really?


"I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by Me." - JOHN 14:6

"For if you forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father also will forgive you; but if you do not forgive men their trespasses neither will your father forgive your trespasses." - MATTHEW 6:14-15

"For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted." - LUKE 14:11

^are those enough quotes? or are they "corrupt" now? these quotes are taken from the same books that Muslims claim prophesied the coming of Mohamad, so they should be valid correct?

Not a one of them do we read as a quote from Isa(as) we are reading what was quoted by John, Matthew and Luke.

The common language in use in the holy land at the time of Isa(as) was Aramaic. That would have been the language spoken by Isa(as) and the Apostles. Yet the earliest existing writings were written in Greece and written in Greek. Somebody translated from Aramaic to Greek. Aramaic is very similar to Arabic. A person who understands Arabic can understand Aramaic, and like Arabic it is impossible to translate into a non semetic language without loosing most of the meaning or changing the meaning.

The only Early writings I can find in Aramaic were those preserved by the Coptics and the Sabians prior to the coming of Paul. If you get a chance read the NT in the preserved Aramaic. But, don't look for Paul in it as it was written before his time.

Now going back to this part:

^are those enough quotes? or are they "corrupt" now? these quotes are taken from the same books that Muslims claim prophesied the coming of Mohamad, so they should be valid correct?

They probably are corrupt. It is just an interesting fact that your own scriptures would mention that. Sort of a good example as to how Jumbled the NT has become through translations and mistranslations. Besides I really doubt if any Muslims would ever attempt to teach Islam by using the NT. It is just a handy reference point to find almost common grounds with non-Believers.

Peace, Yes we will disagree and I doubt if we will come to any mutual understanding over the Nature of Isa(as) or the teachings of Islam. But, at least we can agree to disagree with mutual respect.

[Woodrow]

the significance of the NT being translated into Greek can be seen by looking at just one part in the original NT. Both the Coptics and the Sabians have retained the Lord's Prayer in the original Aramaic.

Here it is in the original Aramaic and with an English Translation. This is what it looked like before Paul got a hold of the NT.

The Prayer To Our Father
(in the original Aramaic)

Abwûn
"Oh Thou, from whom the breath of life comes,

d'bwaschmâja
who fills all realms of sound, light and vibration.

Nethkâdasch schmach
May Your light be experienced in my utmost holiest.

Têtê malkuthach.
Your Heavenly Domain approaches.

Nehwê tzevjânach aikâna d'bwaschmâja af b'arha.
Let Your will come true - in the universe (all that vibrates)
just as on earth (that is material and dense).

Hawvlân lachma d'sûnkanân jaomâna.
Give us wisdom (understanding, assistance) for our daily need,

Waschboklân chaubên wachtahên aikâna
daf chnân schwoken l'chaijabên.
detach the fetters of faults that bind us,
like we let go the guilt of others.

Wela tachlân l'nesjuna
Let us not be lost in superficial things (materialism, common temptations),

ela patzân min bischa.
but let us be freed from that what keeps us off from our true purpose.

Metol dilachie malkutha wahaila wateschbuchta l'ahlâm almîn.
From You comes the all-working will, the lively strength to act,
the song that beautifies all and renews itself from age to age.

Amên.
Sealed in trust, faith and truth.
(I confirm with my entire being)


How does that compare with the earliest known Greek translations? How do you know that everything else did not undergo the same metamorphisis.


Now if that was what Luke 2-4 and Matthew 9-15 are supposed to say if they are quoting Isa(as) how did the discrepancy come about when you read todays NT? My conclusion was that Paul did not want it to appear Isa(as) was reciting the Jewish Kaddish, so The actual quotes were kind of Greekafied. A touch of Poetic License? Anyhow, the words used in todays NT as being the words of Isa(as) as quoted by Luke and Matthew are not what Isa(as) said.

[NoName55]

http://www.thenazareneway.com


Nazarene Transliteration of the Lord's Prayer

Avvon d-bish-maiya, nith-qaddash shim-mukh.

Tih-teh mal-chootukh. Nih-weh çiw-yanukh:

ei-chana d'bish-maiya: ap b'ar-ah.

Haw lan lakh-ma d'soonqa-nan yoo-mana.

O'shwooq lan kho-bein:

ei-chana d'ap kh'nan shwiq-qan l'khaya-ween.

Oo'la te-ellan l'niss-yoona:
il-la paç-çan min beesha.

Mid-til de-di-lukh hai mal-choota
oo khai-la oo tush-bookh-ta
l'alam al-mein.

Aa-meen.


Translation


Oh Thou, from whom the breath of life comes, who fills all realms of sound, light and vibration.
May Your light be experienced in my utmost holiest.
Your Heavenly Domain approaches.
Let Your will come true - in the universe (all that vibrates) just as on earth (that is material and dense).
Give us wisdom (understanding, assistance) for our daily need, detach the fetters of faults that bind us, (karma) like we let go the guilt of others.
Let us not be lost in superficial things (materialism, common temptations), but let us be freed from that what keeps us from our true purpose.
From You comes the all-working will, the lively strength to act, the song that beautifies all and renews itself from age to age.

Sealed in trust, faith and truth.
(I confirm with my entire being)

In Luke's far simpler version, 11. 2-4 NIV, it has become:

"'Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread. Forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And lead us not into temptation.'


The New Testament in Modern English (1963, tr. Phillips)
According to the New Testament, the Lord's Prayer is the name given to the only form of prayer Christ taught his disciples (Matt. 6:9-13). The closing doxology of the prayer is omitted by Luke (11:2-4), also in the R.V. of Matt. 6:13. This prayer contains no allusion to the atonement of Christ, nor to the offices of the Holy Spirit. All Christian prayer is based on the Lord's Prayer, but is also guided by that of His prayer in Gethsemane and of the prayer recorded by John 17. The Lord's Prayer is now comprehensive, the simplest and most universal form of prayer.
Our Heavenly Father, may your name be honored; May your kingdom come, and your will be done on earth as it is in Heaven. Give us this day the bread we need, Forgive us what we owe to you, as we have also forgiven those who owe anything to us. Keep us clear of temptation, and save us from evil.

The Lord's Prayer Dated (1700-)

Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

The Lord's Prayer Dated 1611 AD (King James Bible)


Most modern English speakers should be able to understand this version of the Lord's Prayer. Note the use of u in place of v. It is not until fairly recently that u an v have been considered separate letters.
Our father which art in heauen, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth as it is in heauen. Giue us this day our daily bread. And forgiue us our debts as we forgiue our debters. And lead us not into temptation, but deliuer us from euill. Amen.

The Lord's Prayer Dated 1384 AD

Most modern English speakers should be able to understand some of this version of the Lord's Prayer when written. Spoken it would sound a great deal different; for instance, ou is pronounced like oo and in general the vowels have their continental value (oorra fahderr thut arrt in ai(r)venas ulwid bai(r) thee nahma, with trilled rr). Note the use of the letter þ, this has essentially the same value as "th" in modern English.
Oure fadir þat art in heuenes halwid be þi name; þi reume or kyngdom come to be. Be þi wille don in herþe as it is doun in heuene. yeue to us today oure eche dayes bred. And foryeue to us oure dettis þat is oure synnys as we foryeuen to oure dettouris þat is to men þat han synned in us. And lede us not into temptacion but delyuere us from euyl.

The Lord's Prayer Old English (c. 450-1100)

This version of the Lord's Prayer probably isn't recognizable by the majority of modern English speakers. 1000 AD is before the Norman invasion of England and therefore many of the words in Modern English that were taken from French are not yet present in the Language.
Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum si þin nama gehalgod tobecume þin rice gewurþe þin willa on eorðan swa swa on heofonum urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us to dæg and forgyf us ure gyltas swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge ac alys us of yfele soþlice.

The Lord's Prayer in Greek

Matthew's second century mistranslation of the Lord's Prayer in crude Greek, the commonly accepted version of the Lord's Prayer from which all others are translated.
ΠΑΤΕΡ ΗΜΩΝ Ο ΕΝ ΤΟΙΣ ΟΥΡΑΝΟΙΣ
ΑΓΙΑΣΘΗΤΩ ΤΟ ΟΝΟΜΑ ΣΟΥ (what looks like π, is γι: αγιασθητω)
ΕΛΘΕΤΩ Η ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑ ΣΟΥ
ΓΕΝΗΘΗΤΩ ΤΟ ΘΕΛΗΜΑ ΣΟΥ,
ΩΣ ΕΝ ΟΥΡΑΝΩ ΚΑΙ ΕΠΙ ΤΗΣ ΓΗΣ
ΤΟΝ ΑΡΤΟΝ ΗΜΩΝ ΤΟΝ ΕΠΙΟΥΣΙΟΝ
ΔΟΣ ΗΜΙΝ ΣΗΜΕΡΟΝ
ΚΑΙ ΑΦΕΣ ΗΜΙΝ ΤΑ ΟΦΕΙΛΗΜΑΤΑ ΗΜΩΝ,
ΩΣ ΚΑΙ ΗΜΕΙΣ ΑΦΙΕΜΕΝ ΤΟΙΣ ΟΦΕΙΛΕΤΑΙΣ ΗΜΩΝ
ΚΑΙ ΜΗ ΕΙΣΕΝΕΓΚΗΣ ΗΜΑΣ ΕΙΣ ΠΕΙΡΑΣΜΟΝ,
ΑΛΛΑ ΡΥΣΑΙ ΗΜΑΣ ΑΠΟ ΤΟΥ ΠΟΝΗΡΟΥ.
ΑΜΗΝ.

Transliteration:
Pater hêmôn ho en toes ouranoes; hagiasthêtô to onoma sou; elthetô hê basileia sou; genêthêtô to thelêma sou, hôs en ouranô, kae epi tês gês. ton arton hêmôn ton epiousion dos hêmin sêmeron; kae aphes hêmin ta opheilêmata hêmôn, hôs kae hêmeis aphiemen toes opheiletaes hêmôn; kae mê eisenenkês hêmas eis peirasmon, alla rhysae hêmas apo tou ponerou. hoti sou estin hê basileia kae hê dynamis kae hê doxa eis tous aeônas; amên.

The 'Pater Noster' in Latin:
Prior to the Protestant Reformation, the Our Father was universally recited in Latin by clergy and laity alike. Hence it was then most commonly known as the Pater Noster. The rather curious English translation we have today is due to Henry VIII's efforts to impose a standard English version.
Pater Noster, qui es in caelis, Sanctificetur nomen tuum. Adveniat regnum tuum, Fiat voluntas tua, sicut in caelo, et in terra. Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie, Et dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris. Et ne nos inducas in tentationem, Sed libera nos a malo. Amen.

[mkh4JC]

Only two contradictions of the New Testament have been mentioned, but others will be referenced when the Trinity, Divinity of Jesus Christ, Divine Sonship of Jesus, Original Sin and Atonement are reviewed.

How could the "inspired words" of God get the genealogy of Jesus incorrect (See Matthew 1:6-16 where it states 26 forefathers up to Prophet David, and Luke 3:23-31 says 41 in number). Or for that matter, give a genealogy to Jesus who had NO father? See II Kings 19:1-37, now read Isaiah 37:1-38. Why is it that the words of these verse are identical? Yet they have been attributed to two different authors, one unknown and the other is Isaiah, who are centuries apart; and yet, the Christians have claimed these books to be inspired by God.

Did a little digging, this is what I found:

Kingship

To understand the need for these two genealogies, it is important to understand the two requirements for kingship in the Hebrew Scriptures. These were developed after the division of the kingdom after the death of Solomon.…

One was applicable to the southern Kingdom of Judah, with its capital in Jerusalem, while the other was applicable to the northern Kingdom of Israel, with its capital in Samaria. The requirement for the throne of Judah was Davidic descendancy. No one was allowed to sit on David's throne unless he was a member of the house of David. So when there was a conspiracy to do away with the house of David (Isaiah 7:5-6), God warned that any such conspiracy was doomed to failure (Isaiah 8:9-15).

The requirement for the throne of Israel was prophetic sanction or divine appointment. Anyone who attempted to rule on Samaria's throne without prophetic sanction was assassinated (1 Kings 11:26-39; 15:28-30; 16:1-4, 11-15; 21:21-29; 11 Kings 9:6-10; 10:29-31; 14 8-12).

With the background of these two biblical requirements for kingship and what is stated in the two New Testament genealogies, the question of Jesus' right to the throne of David can be resolved.

Matthew's Genealogy

In his genealogy, Matthew breaks with Jewish tradition and custom. He mentions the names of four women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth and Bathsheba (who is the one to whom the pronoun "her" in verse six refers). It was contrary to Jewish practice to name women in a genealogy. The Talmud states, "A mother's family is not to be called a family." Even the few women Luke does mention were not the most prominent women in the genealogy of Y'shua. He could have mentioned Sarah, but did not. However, Matthew has a reason for naming these four and no others.

First, they were all Gentiles. This is obvious with Tamar, Rahab and Ruth. It was probably true of Bathsheba, since her first husband, Uriah, was a Hittite. Here Matthew hints at something he makes clear later: that while the main purpose of the coming of Jesus was to save the lost sheep of the house of Israel, the Gentiles would also benefit from his coming. Second, three of these women were guilty of sexual sins. Bathsheba was guilty of adultery, Rahab was guilty of prostitution and Tamar was guilty of incest. Again, Matthew only hints at a point he later clarifies: that the purpose of the Messiah's coming was to save sinners. While this fits into the format of Old Testament genealogy, it is not Matthew's main point.

Matthew's genealogy also breaks with tradition in that he skips names. He traces the line of Joseph, the step-father of Jesus, by going back into history and working toward his own time. He starts tracing the line with Abraham (verse 2) and continues to David (verse 6). Out of David's many sons, Solomon is chosen (verse 6), and the line is then traced to King Jeconiah (verse 11), one of the last kings before the Babylonian captivity. From Jeconiah (verse 12), the line is traced to Joseph (verse 16). Joseph was a direct descendant of David through Solomon, but also through Jeconiah. The "Jeconiah link" is significant in Matthew's genealogy because of the special curse pronounced on Jeconiah in Jeremiah 22:24-30:

As I live," declares the LORD,
"even though Jeconiah the son of Jehoiakim
king of Judah were a signet ring on my right
hand, yet I would pull you off…
"Is this man Jeconiah a despised, shattered jar?
Or is he an undesirable vessel?
Why have he and his descendants been hurled out
and cast into a land that they had not known?
"O land, land, land, Hear the word of the LORD!!
"Thus says the LORD, 'Write this man [Jeconiah] down childless,
A man who will not prosper in his days;
For no man of his descendants will prosper
Sitting on the throne of David, Or ruling again in Judah.'
No descendant of Jeconiah would have the right to the throne of David. Until Jeremiah, the first requirement for messianic lineage was to be of the house of David. With Jeremiah, it was limited still further. Now one had to be not only of the house of David, but apart from Jeconiah.

According to Matthew's genealogy, Joseph had the blood of Jeconiah in his veins. He was not qualified to sit on David's throne. He was not the heir apparent. This would also mean that no real son of Joseph would have the right to claim the throne of David. Therefore if Jesus were the real son of Joseph, he would have been disqualified from sitting on David's throne. Neither could he claim the right to David's throne by virtue of his adoption by Joseph, since Joseph was not the heir apparent.

The purpose of Matthew's genealogy, then, is to show why Y'shua could not be king if he were really Joseph's son. The purpose was not to show the royal line. For this reason, Matthew starts his Gospel with the genealogy, presents the Jeconiah problem, and then proceeds with the account of the virgin birth which, from Matthew's viewpoint, is the solution to the Jeconiah problem. In summary, Matthew deduces that if Jesus were really Joseph's son, he could not claim to sit on David's throne because of the Jeconiah curse; but Jesus was not Joseph's son, for he was born of the virgin Miriam (Matthew 1:18-25).

Luke's Genealogy

Unlike Matthew, Luke follows strict Jewish procedure and custom in that he omits no names and mentions no women. However, if by Jewish custom one could not mention the name of a woman, but wished to trace her line, how would one do so? He would use the name of her husband. (Possible Old Testament precedents for this practice are Ezra 2:61 and Nehemiah 7:63.) That would raise a second question: If someone studied a genealogy, how would he know whether the genealogy were that of the husband or that of the wife, since in either case the husband's name would be used? The answer is not difficult; the problem lies with the English language.

In English it is not good grammar to use a definite article ("the") before a proper name ("the" Matthew, "the" Luke, "the" Miriam): however, it is quite permissible in Greek grammar. In the Greek text of Luke's genealogy, every single name mentioned has the Greek definite article "the" with one exception: the name of Joseph (Luke 3:23). Someone reading the original would understand by the missing definite article from Joseph's name that this was not really Joseph's genealogy, but his wife Miriam's.

Furthermore, although many translations of Luke 3:23 read: "…being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli…," because of the missing Greek definite article before the name of Joseph, that same verse could be translated as follows: "Being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph the son of Heli…".1 In other words, the final parenthesis could be expanded so that the verse reads that although Y'shua was "supposed" or assumed to be the descendant of Joseph, he was really the descendant of Heli. Heli was the father of Miriam. The absence of Miriam's name is quite in keeping with the Jewish practices on genealogies. The Jerusalem Talmud recognized this genealogy to be that of Miriam and not Joseph and refers to Miriam as the daughter of Heli (Hagigah 2:4).

Also in contrast to Matthew, Luke begins his genealogy with his own time and goes back into history all the way to Adam. It comes to the family of David in versees 31-32. However, the son of David involved in this genealogy is not Solomon but Nathan. So, like Joseph, Miriam was a member of the house of David. But unlike Joseph, she came from David's son, Nathan, not Solomon. Miriam was a member of the house of David apart from Jeconiah. Since Jesus was Miriam's son, he too was a member of the house of David, apart from Jeconiah.

In this way Jesus fulfilled the biblical requirement for kingship. Since Luke's genealogy did not include Jeconiah's line, he began his Gospel with the virgin birth, and only later, in describing Y'shua's public ministry, recorded his genealogy.

However, Jesus was not the only member of the house of David apart from Jeconiah. There were a number of other descendants who could claim equality with Y'shua to the throne of David, for they too did not have Jeconiah's blood in their veins. Why Jesus and not one of the others? At this point the second biblical requirement for kingship, that of divine appointment, comes into the picture. Of all the members of the house of David apart from Jeconiah, only one received divine appointment. Luke 1:30-33 states:

And the angel said to her, 'Do not be afraid, Miriam; for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb, and bear a son, and you shall name Him Y'shua. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and His kingdom will have no end.'
On what grounds then could Jesus claim the throne of David? He was a member of the house of David apart from Jeconiah. He alone received divine appointment to that throne: "The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David."

While Matthew's genealogy showed why Y'shua could not be king if he really were Joseph's son, Luke's genealogy shows why Y'shua could be king. When he returns, he will be king.

Two things may be noted by way of conclusion. First, many rabbinic objections to the messiahship of Jesus are based on his genealogy. The argument goes, "Since Jesus was not a descendant of David through his father, he cannot be Messiah and King." But the Messiah was supposed to be different. As early as Genesis 3:15, it was proposed that the Messiah would be reckoned after the "seed of the woman," although this went contrary to the biblical norm. The necessity for this exception to the rule became apparent when Isaiah 7:14 prophesied that the Messiah would be born of a virgin: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel." Whereas all others receive their humanity from both father and mother, the Messiah would receive his humanity entirely from his mother. Whereas Jewish nationality and tribal identity were normally determined by the father, with the Messiah it would be different. Since he was to have no human father, his nationality and his tribal identity would come entirely from his mother. True, this is contrary to the norm, but so is a virgin birth. With the Messiah, things would be different.

In addition, these genealogies present a fourfold portrait of the messianic person through four titles. In Matthew 1:1 he is called the Son of David and the Son of Abraham. In Luke 3:38 he is called the Son of Adam and the Son of God. As the Son of David, it means that Jesus is king. As the Son of Abraham, it means that Jesus is a Jew. As the Son of Adam, it means that Jesus is a man. As the Son of God, it means that Jesus is God. This fourfold portrait of the messianic person as presented by the genealogies is that of the Jewish God-Man King. Could the Messiah be anyone less?

Sorry, here's the source: http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publicat.../5_6/genealogy

Don't know how to edit my post.

[zaria]

Hi westcoast,

You see, the Bible is something that many use as their ultimate authority. Muslims do have other ways of proving Islam, but if someone believes in the Bible, and there are verses in the Bible which contain information of Muhammad, peace be upon him, then it is only logical for the Muslim to use it, since to Christians the Bible is their authority. This is why some Muslims might use it.

Also, some Muslims use their authority to have a brief overview of what in the Bible is true. So the Qu'ran says Muhammad was propechiesed by Jesus and so forth, so if the Muslim finds this then since this does not conflict the Qu'ran, the Muslim's authority, then he can use it, but when he sees that the Bible says Jesus is son of God or that Angels are sons of God, and the authority of the Muslim, i.e. the Qu'ran says God has no sons, then the Muslim knows not to use this, as this is definetly not part of the message that could have remained.

Alhamduillah, Wonderful response

[westcoast]

the significance of the NT being translated into Greek can be seen by looking at just one part in the original NT. Both the Coptics and the Sabians have retained the Lord's Prayer in the original Aramaic.

Here it is in the original Aramaic and with an English Translation. This is what it looked like before Paul got a hold of the NT.
The Prayer To Our Father
(in the original Aramaic)

Abwûn
"Oh Thou, from whom the breath of life comes,

d'bwaschmâja
who fills all realms of sound, light and vibration.

Nethkâdasch schmach
May Your light be experienced in my utmost holiest.

Têtê malkuthach.
Your Heavenly Domain approaches.

Nehwê tzevjânach aikâna d'bwaschmâja af b'arha.
Let Your will come true - in the universe (all that vibrates)
just as on earth (that is material and dense).

Hawvlân lachma d'sûnkanân jaomâna.
Give us wisdom (understanding, assistance) for our daily need,

Waschboklân chaubên wachtahên aikâna
daf chnân schwoken l'chaijabên.
detach the fetters of faults that bind us,
like we let go the guilt of others.

Wela tachlân l'nesjuna
Let us not be lost in superficial things (materialism, common temptations),

ela patzân min bischa.
but let us be freed from that what keeps us off from our true purpose.

Metol dilachie malkutha wahaila wateschbuchta l'ahlâm almîn.
From You comes the all-working will, the lively strength to act,
the song that beautifies all and renews itself from age to age.

Amên.
Sealed in trust, faith and truth.
(I confirm with my entire being)


How does that compare with the earliest known Greek translations? How do you know that everything else did not undergo the same metamorphisis.


Now if that was what Luke 2-4 and Matthew 9-15 are supposed to say if they are quoting Isa(as) how did the discrepancy come about when you read todays NT? My conclusion was that Paul did not want it to appear Isa(as) was reciting the Jewish Kaddish, so The actual quotes were kind of Greekafied. A touch of Poetic License? Anyhow, the words used in todays NT as being the words of Isa(as) as quoted by Luke and Matthew are not what Isa(as) said.

what do you mean "before got a hold of it" as if paul's actions were to make the religion his or something. christians dont worship paul or hold him anywhere nearly as high as Jesus if that's what you're insinuating
secondly, i've found that same aramaic version of the prayer, and it lends itself to many different translations,i.e old english translation of it
"Our Father-Mother Who art above and within:
Hallowed be Thy Name in twofold Trinity.
In Wisdom, Love and Equity Thy Kingdom come to all.
Thy will be done, As in Heaven so in Earth.
Give us day by day to partake of Thy holy Bread, and the fruit of the living Vine."
etc etc (taken from the same source you quoted)
none of those languages (hebrew aramaic arabic) can be translated exactly word by word, so if one is to learn about a religion they should learn the ancient language? i mean that's what someone suggested to me in another thread, noting that my translated version of the Qu'ran isnt ''valid"

[westcoast]

Isaiah 7:14 prophesied that the Messiah would be born of a virgin: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call his name Immanuel."

how specific is that? additionally, the book of Isaiah is a part of the dead sea scrolls that were recovered in the dead sea like 60 years ago, none of which are "translated" but remain in their original language. what then would you make of the above quoted verse, if you found it in its original language in those scrolls? would you still deny the fact that Jesus was prophesied in the old testament i.e the scrolls from the Dead Sea?

[NoName55]

DID YOU HEAR WHAT HAPPENED TO SAUL?
Chapter 43 (Excerpts)

One of the most influential testimonies to "Christianity" was when Saul of Tarsus, perhaps Christianity's most rabid antagonist, became the apostle Paul. Saul was a Hebrew zealot, a religious leader.... he was so vehemently anti-Christian ... .... Paul began his pursuit to death of "the sect of the Nazarenes" (Acts 26:9-11). He literally "laid waste the church" (Acts 8:3). He set out for Damascus with documents authorizing him to seize the followers of Jesus and bring them back to face trial.

Then something happened to Paul. (yeah right!)

And it came about that as he journeyed, he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; and he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" And he said, "Who art Thou, Lord?" And He said, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, but rise, and enter the city, and it shall be told you what you must do." And the men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice, but seeing no one. And Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; and leading him by the hand, they brought him into Damascus. And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and the Lord said to him in a vision, "Ananias." And he said, "Behold, here am 1, Lord." And the Lord said to him "Arise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire at the house of Judas for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for behold, he is praying, and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him, so that he might regain his sight" (Acts 9:1-12).

The Encyclopedia Britannica describes him before his conversion as an intolerant, bitter, persecuting, religious bigot -proud and temperamental. After his conversion he is pictured as patient, kind, enduring and self-sacrificing.

[mkh4JC]

DID YOU HEAR WHAT HAPPENED TO SAUL?
Chapter 43 (Excerpts)

One of the most influential testimonies to "Christianity" was when Saul of Tarsus, perhaps Christianity's most rabid antagonist, became the apostle Paul. Saul was a Hebrew zealot, a religious leader.... he was so vehemently anti-Christian ... .... Paul began his pursuit to death of "the sect of the Nazarenes" (Acts 26:9-11). He literally "laid waste the church" (Acts 8:3). He set out for Damascus with documents authorizing him to seize the followers of Jesus and bring them back to face trial.

Then something happened to Paul. (yeah right!)

And it came about that as he journeyed, he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; and he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" And he said, "Who art Thou, Lord?" And He said, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, but rise, and enter the city, and it shall be told you what you must do." And the men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice, but seeing no one. And Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; and leading him by the hand, they brought him into Damascus. And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and the Lord said to him in a vision, "Ananias." And he said, "Behold, here am 1, Lord." And the Lord said to him "Arise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire at the house of Judas for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for behold, he is praying, and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him, so that he might regain his sight" (Acts 9:1-12).

The Encyclopedia Britannica describes him before his conversion as an intolerant, bitter, persecuting, religious bigot -proud and temperamental. After his conversion he is pictured as patient, kind, enduring and self-sacrificing.

Well, let's just assume that that really happend to Paul, just for argument's sake, would it not change his perspective on things? Indeed, would it not change just about anybody's perspective?

[westcoast]

DID YOU HEAR WHAT HAPPENED TO SAUL?
Chapter 43 (Excerpts)

One of the most influential testimonies to "Christianity" was when Saul of Tarsus, perhaps Christianity's most rabid antagonist, became the apostle Paul. Saul was a Hebrew zealot, a religious leader.... he was so vehemently anti-Christian ... .... Paul began his pursuit to death of "the sect of the Nazarenes" (Acts 26:9-11). He literally "laid waste the church" (Acts 8:3). He set out for Damascus with documents authorizing him to seize the followers of Jesus and bring them back to face trial.

Then something happened to Paul. (yeah right!)

And it came about that as he journeyed, he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him; and he fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" And he said, "Who art Thou, Lord?" And He said, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting, but rise, and enter the city, and it shall be told you what you must do." And the men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice, but seeing no one. And Saul got up from the ground, and though his eyes were open, he could see nothing; and leading him by the hand, they brought him into Damascus. And he was three days without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

Now there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and the Lord said to him in a vision, "Ananias." And he said, "Behold, here am 1, Lord." And the Lord said to him "Arise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire at the house of Judas for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for behold, he is praying, and he has seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him, so that he might regain his sight" (Acts 9:1-12).

The Encyclopedia Britannica describes him before his conversion as an intolerant, bitter, persecuting, religious bigot -proud and temperamental. After his conversion he is pictured as patient, kind, enduring and self-sacrificing.

First, i'd like to thank you for bringing me into the light about Paul, because quite frankly i was completely unaware of his story. So thank you. Really
Secondly, seeing as how you doubt that a man can change or be changed by the power of God is pretty sad. The encyclopedia isnt needed in describing how Paul was prior to his change, i'm pretty certain the Bible covers that well enough.
Thirdly, Paul was "intolerant bitter persecuting, religious" etc etc, that's so sad :( ... yet paul isnt revered by any christians, not that i know of at least
which brings me to:

Sahih Bukari
Volume 2, Book 24, Number 577:

Narrated Anas:

Some people from 'Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them, so Allah's Apostle (p.b.u.h) allowed them to go to the herd of camels (given as Zakat) and they drank their milk and urine (as medicine) but they killed the shepherd and drove away all the camels. So Allah's Apostle sent (men) in their pursuit to catch them, and they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut, and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron and they were left in the Harra (a stony place at Medina) biting the stones. (See Hadith No. 234, Vol. 1)

Muhammad was so much better right? This is an accepted recollection of the acts of the prophet muhammad, having people's hands and feet cut off and their eyes gouged out with hot iron? Come on
Jesus spoke about love and forgiveness... Muhammad did that ^^

[Woodrow]

what do you mean "before got a hold of it" as if paul's actions were to make the religion his or something. christians dont worship paul or hold him anywhere nearly as high as Jesus if that's what you're insinuating

That appears to be the most significant time when the most changes occurred in the NT.

No Christians do not worship Paul, but they have been misled by Paulistic ideology. Christians had strayed from Christianity and have accepted Paulism and threw away the true words of Isa(as).

Peter was pushed into the background and given the Title of the first Pope and the Vicar of Christ. But, his words and what ever he had said was not preserved and was over ridden by the writings of Paul.

If Christianity had remained Christianity and the people had not strayed from the Teachings of Isa(swt) There would have been no reason for Allah(swt) to resend his word through Muhammad(PBUH).

Isa(as) did have the true word and he was a true Prophet and he will return to destroy the anti-Christ.

As Muslims we have much love and Respect for Jesus(as). It pains us to see how Christianity has corrupted his beautiful words and has spread so many lies about him.

If you want to read the Beautiful and wonderful truth about Isa(swt) read about him in the Qur'an. There are even many more Miracles that Allah(swt) performed through Jesus(swt) than what are mentioned in the Bible.

There is Much more written about Isa(as) than what is mentioned about him in the Bible. He was a truly magnificent and beautiful Prophet(PBUH) and the truth about him is much more beautiful than the lies and Blasphemy that are spread about him. Learn the Truth about Isa(as) and learn to truly love and accept Him.

[Keltoi]

That appears to be the most significant time when the most changes occurred in the NT.

No Christians do not worship Paul, but they have been misled by Paulistic ideology. Christians had strayed from Christianity and have accepted Paulism and threw away the true words of Isa(as).

Peter was pushed into the background and given the Title of the first Pope and the Vicar of Christ. But, his words and what ever he had said was not preserved and was over ridden by the writings of Paul.

If Christianity had remained Christianity and the people had not strayed from the Teachings of Isa(swt) There would have been no reason for Allah(swt) to resend his word through Muhammad(PBUH).

Isa(as) did have the true word and he was a true Prophet and he will return to destroy the anti-Christ.

As Muslims we have much love and Respect for Jesus(as). It pains us to see how Christianity has corrupted his beautiful words and has spread so many lies about him.

If you want to read the Beautiful and wonderful truth about Isa(swt) read about him in the Qur'an. There are even many more Miracles that Allah(swt) performed through Jesus(swt) than what are mentioned in the Bible.

There is Much more written about Isa(as) than what is mentioned about him in the Bible. He was a truly magnificent and beautiful Prophet(PBUH) and the truth about him is much more beautiful than the lies and Blasphemy that are spread about him. Learn the Truth about Isa(as) and learn to truly love and accept Him.

With all due respect, which I hope you know I do have for you, I've heard this line many times but nothing is supplied to point to the truth of this claim. Simply saying something happened doesn't make it so. I realize this is part of Islamic belief, that early Christians changed the message of Jesus Christ, for some untold reason, and that Paul is somehow the architect of this corruption. What do you believe gives evidence of this?

[ManchesterFolk]

We should rename this thread "cut and paste war" can anyone think for themselves, or do you all trust a bunch of liars with agendas?

[Woodrow]

With all due respect, which I hope you know I do have for you, I've heard this line many times but nothing is supplied to point to the truth of this claim. Simply saying something happened doesn't make it so. I realize this is part of Islamic belief, that early Christians changed the message of Jesus Christ, for some untold reason, and that Paul is somehow the architect of this corruption. What do you believe gives evidence of this?

And with all respect to you. I doubt very much that I can give you a convincing argument as to why I believe that to be true. However, it is something I came to believe while I was still a Christian and was one of the reasons I left Christianity and become a self styled agnostic who called himself a Buddhist.


We know that at the time of Paul, Pauline doctrine began to make changes within the Early Christian Church. We do know that one of the first changes Paul made was to do away with the Requirement that a Person first convert to Judaism and then practice the Christian rite of Judaic Worship. The Early Christians considered them selves Jews and that they had simply fulfilled the early promises of Judaism, however they were still Jews. It strikes me odd that while Isa(as) and his apostles considered themselves Jews, somehow Paul took it upon himself to seperate Christians from Jews. Up until Paul, Christianity was a sect of Judaism it was not a seperate or new religion.

It is things like that and the obvious lack of any of Peter's words that makes me believe that Paul managed to hijack the religion and change it to his own beliefs of what he wanted Christianity to become.

[westcoast]

We should rename this thread "cut and paste war" can anyone think for themselves, or do you all trust a bunch of liars with agendas?

i dont know why but i laughed when i read this haha
im cutting and pasting from the Qu'ran, if that helps
peace

[Keltoi]

And with all respect to you. I doubt very much that I can give you a convincing argument as to why I believe that to be true. However, it is something I came to believe while I was still a Christian and was one of the reasons I left Christianity and become a self styled agnostic who called himself a Buddhist.


We know that at the time of Paul, Pauline doctrine began to make changes within the Early Christian Church. We do know that one of the first changes Paul made was to do away with the Requirement that a Person first convert to Judaism and then practice the Christian rite of Judaic Worship. The Early Christians considered them selves Jews and that they had simply fulfilled the early promises of Judaism, however they were still Jews. It strikes me odd that while Isa(as) and his apostles considered themselves Jews, somehow Paul took it upon himself to seperate Christians from Jews. Up until Paul, Christianity was a sect of Judaism it was not a seperate or new religion.

It is things like that and the obvious lack of any of Peter's words that makes me believe that Paul managed to hijack the religion and change it to his own beliefs of what he wanted Christianity to become.

I know we aren't going to come to an agreement here, but I wanted to respond to some of the points you bring up.

As for Paul doing away with the requirement that a person first convert to Judaism. Paul believed, as did many other early church leaders, that Jesus Christ brought a New Covenant. Paul believed it was his duty as well as the duty of Christians as a whole, to spread the Message of Jesus Christ outside the borders of Israel as part of this New Covenant. In other words, to create a "new" Israel. Instead of believing that only Jews were the "People of God", Christians believed all that was necessary was belief, regardless of racial or ethnic origin.

I'm not sure what lack of Peter's words you are referring to. Could you be more specific on what issue Peter's words are missing from?

[Woodrow]

I'm not sure what lack of Peter's words you are referring to. Could you be more specific on what issue Peter's words are missing from?

This may possibly be a separate argument in your view. I was formerly a Catholic and Catholics believe that Peter was the direct successor to Isa(as) on Earth. (The First Pope) But, there is basically no historical records of any Church Doctrine that he established etc. It is like he vanished and then was over shadowed by Paul.

[westcoast]

I'm not sure what lack of Peter's words you are referring to. Could you be more specific on what issue Peter's words are missing from?

This may possibly be a separate argument in your view. I was formerly a Catholic and Catholics believe that Peter was the direct successor to Isa(as) on Earth. (The First Pope) But, there is basically no historical records of any Church Doctrine that he established etc. It is like he vanished and then was over shadowed by Paul.

catholics are weird, they worship and pray to mary and other saints and have all kinds of idols and images in their churches. plus the idolatry related to the pope is ridiculous to me. i never understood that if catholics hold in regard the teachings of the old testament why do they pray to mary kiss all these pictures of her and crosses and the pope's ring smh
"I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another..." -Isaiah 42:8

the end

[- Qatada -]

"I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another..." -Isaiah 42:8

So why do people worship Jesus son of Mary peace be upon them aswell? Why not just your LORD alone as he has stated? :)

[Woodrow]

catholics are weird, they worship and pray to mary and other saints and have all kinds of idols and images in their churches. plus the idolatry related to the pope is ridiculous to me. i never understood that if catholics hold in regard the teachings of the old testament why do they pray to mary kiss all these pictures of her and crosses and the pope's ring smh
"I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another..." -Isaiah 42:8

the end

Would it be safe to say that you do not believe in Catholicism?

[westcoast]

Would it be safe to say that you do not believe in Catholicism?

Yup. I have many catholic family members, my grandmother for one.. and through her i have learned of many weird customs they have.. for example, a beaded necklace with a cross (rosary) in which they have all kinds of prayers, one dedicated to mary..
Also in mexico they have a saint for pretty much everybody, a saint for prostitutes, a saint for thieves, a saint for illegal immigrants (believe it or not) and each person has a saint they pray to. In the news they showed some segment of illegal immigrants preparing to cross the U.S-Mexico border, and they were kneeling to the "saint of illegals" LOL or whatever his name is to keep them safe
and prostitutes "pray" to the "saint of prostitutes" so they dont catch any venereal diseases

absolutely ridiculous.

[- Qatada -]

Regarding saints:

Is not Allah enough for his Servant? But they try to frighten thee with other (gods) besides Him! for such as Allah leaves to stray, there can be no guide.

And such as Allah doth guide there can be none to lead astray. Is not Allah Exalted in Power, (Able to enforce His Will), Lord of Retribution?

If indeed thou ask them who it is that created the heavens and the earth, they would be sure to say, "Allah". Say: "See ye then? the things that ye invoke besides Allah,- can they, if Allah wills some Penalty for me, remove His Penalty?- Or if He wills some Grace for me, can they keep back his Grace?" Say: "Sufficient is Allah for me! In Him trust those who put their trust."

[Qur'an 39: 36-38]

[Woodrow]

It is quite interesting that Catholics make up over 1/2 of the worlds Christians. Yet the remainder of the worlds Christians do not even use the same Bible. It seems that there is some error someplace if each thinks the other's Bible is in error.

So here we have 2 very distinct groups that can not agree on which is the true Bible.

This is one reason I am convinced that a true intact bible no longer exists. The Bible of today is not what Isa(as) revealed.

Yes, all versions of the Bible do contain some truths and those truths are in the Qur'an. This only shows that at some point the Bible did have the full word of God(swt) and that is why it is valid to use the parts that are in agreement with the Qur'an, as evidence for refutations.

[westcoast]

catholics are wrong for the simple fact that they have idols when the old testament in both Bibles clearly forbids it

ps: my grandma slapped me when i told her not to pray to mary :(
peace

[Woodrow]

Yup. I have many catholic family members, my grandmother for one.. and through her i have learned of many weird customs they have.. for example, a beaded necklace with a cross (rosary) in which they have all kinds of prayers, one dedicated to mary..
Also in mexico they have a saint for pretty much everybody, a saint for prostitutes, a saint for thieves, a saint for illegal immigrants (believe it or not) and each person has a saint they pray to. In the news they showed some segment of illegal immigrants preparing to cross the U.S-Mexico border, and they were kneeling to the "saint of illegals" LOL or whatever his name is to keep them safe
and prostitutes "pray" to the "saint of prostitutes" so they dont catch any venereal diseases

absolutely ridiculous.

You have pretty well summed up how we as Muslims view all people who call themselves Christians. There are some big errors someplace.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

catholics are wrong for the simple fact that they have idols when the old testament in both Bibles clearly forbids it

ps: my grandma slapped me when i told her not to pray to mary :(
peace

may Allah reward you and give you guidance.

you seem like a logical fella :).


Doesnt the unique monotheism of islam attract you?

No other religion like islam so strongly forbids associating other partners to God :).


I wish you the best west.

[Woodrow]

may Allah reward you and give you guidance.

you seem like a logical fella :).


Doesnt the unique monotheism of islam attract you?

No other religion like islam so strongly forbids associating other partners to God :).


I wish you the best west.

Ameen to those words Brother and I too also pray for the Best for Westcoast and all non-believers.

[Nσσя'υℓ Jαииαн]

^^Ameen!

[Keltoi]

The differences between the Catholic Church and the Protestant schism are fairly pronounced, but revolve mainly around Catholic religious traditions and rituals. I do not consider Catholics to be any more "polytheistic" than Baptists. All Christians worship the One God, and He only. The Virgin Mary and the Saints are important to Catholic tradition and not so much to Christian faith.

[mkh4JC]

In terms of Catholics, like Westcoast, I would not put much stock in much of anything they say. I'll just list a few reasons. For one, they don't believe that you as a human being can have power over sin and your past lifestyle, which the Bible clearly states. Two, they believe that the Pope is infallible when talking about the things of God. Three, I don't believe their traditions are inspired by the God of the Bible, because if they were, then he would have spelled it out quite perfectly in the New Testament, so there could be no misunderstanding about them, just like he spelled out all of the rituals that the Jews were to abide by in the Old Testament. So yeah, try not to judge Biblical Christianity on what Catholics believe.

[westcoast]

In terms of Catholics, like Westcoast, I would not put much stock in much of anything they say. I'll just list a few reasons. For one, they don't believe that you as a human being can have power over sin and your past lifestyle, which the Bible clearly states. Two, they believe that the Pope is infallible when talking about the things of God. Three, I don't believe their traditions are inspired by the God of the Bible, because if they were, then he would have spelled it out quite perfectly in the New Testament, so there could be no misunderstanding about them, just like he spelled out all of the rituals that the Jews were to abide by in the Old Testament. So yeah, try not to judge Biblical Christianity on what Catholics believe.

your entire post is null and void as i'm not a catholic but have iterated the same thing in a different thread.
nice try though.

[Pygoscelis]

This is a misinterpretation of the coma I think. As he wrote it, he wasn't calling you a Catholic, he was saying that you agree with what he was writing.

[deen_2007]

^^^^^^^ Ameen. (to IbnAbdulHakim & Woodrows Dua)

[mkh4JC]

This is a misinterpretation of the coma I think. As he wrote it, he wasn't calling you a Catholic, he was saying that you agree with what he was writing.

Yeah, that's what I meant. I was actually agreeing with you, Westcoast:D

[MustafaMc]

I do not consider Catholics to be any more "polytheistic" than Baptists. All Christians worship the One God, and He only. The Virgin Mary and the Saints are important to Catholic tradition and not so much to Christian faith.

I disagree. Catholics display statues of both Jesus on the cross and Mary. The Hail Mary prayer is an example of Catholics praying to someone other than Allah. Catholics also refer to Mary as the "Mother of God", but Protestants (Baptists) do not believe this. Muslims revere Mary as one of the most respected women of all time and a sura (chapter) of the Quran details her life story more than the New Testament.

The fundamental principle of Islam is that Allah is the One and only God and that He is not begotten (born) to any parent and He does not beget (sire) any children. We Muslims have no mental image of Allah when we pray, but we are aware that he "sees" us in a way that I don't comprehend.

[Keltoi]

I disagree. Catholics display statues of both Jesus on the cross and Mary. The Hail Mary prayer is an example of Catholics praying to someone other than Allah. Catholics also refer to Mary as the "Mother of God", but Protestants (Baptists) do not believe this. Muslims revere Mary as one of the most respected women of all time and a sura (chapter) of the Quran details her life story more than the New Testament.

The fundamental principle of Islam is that Allah is the One and only God and that He is not begotten (born) to any parent and He does not beget (sire) any children. We Muslims have no mental image of Allah when we pray, but we are aware that he "sees" us in a way that I don't comprehend.

Actually, Protestants do consider Mary to be the mother of Jesus Christ. Protestants and Catholics believe Jesus Christ to be God, so logically Mary then becomes the "Mother of God" in that limited sense, as being the birth mother of Jesus Christ.

[mkh4JC]

Actually, Protestants do consider Mary to be the mother of Jesus Christ. Protestants and Catholics believe Jesus Christ to be God, so logically Mary then becomes the "Mother of God" in that limited sense, as being the birth mother of Jesus Christ.

Yes, but Protestants don't claim to have visions of Mary, sometimes with Mary talking back and forth with them (heard this on EWTN once). Nor do they claim that Mary intercedes for them, a position described in the Bible as Christ's and Christ's alone.

[Keltoi]

Yes, but Protestants don't claim to have visions of Mary, sometimes with Mary talking back and forth with them (heard this on EWTN once). Nor do they claim that Mary intercedes for them, a position described in the Bible as Christ's and Christ's alone.

On that we do agree.

[MustafaMc]

Actually, Protestants do consider Mary to be the mother of Jesus Christ. Protestants and Catholics believe Jesus Christ to be God, so logically Mary then becomes the "Mother of God" in that limited sense, as being the birth mother of Jesus Christ.

Yes, your logic is correct. However, ask ANY Baptist if Mary is the "Mother of God" and he/she will say no.

[MustafaMc]

I do not mean any disrespect to either Mary or Jesus (pbuh) - actually, quite the opposite as they are among the most honored of human beings to have ever lived.

I also don't know whether Catholics hold Mary as divine, but the logical interpretation of "Mother of God" implies at least an equivalent relationship with God. I refer to the respect that is commanded in one of the 10 Commandments - Honor thy father and mother.

Christians generally hold Jesus to be synonymous with God - being at the same time God and Son of God. In the Southern region of USA, there is a comon saying, "Lord help me, Jesus!" However, Jesus referred back to God when he said one must do the will of God (his Father) to enter heaven. Mt 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Please, compare these concepts to how Muslims respect Muhammad (pbuh) as only the Prophet and Messenger of Allah and in no sense do we hold him as equal with Allah. We do not pray to Muhammad, nor do we ask him to help us.

[SeekingOne]

^To Christians, Jesus and God are one, not 2 distinct entities. Many fail to grasp this concept, and continue to assume that Christians believe that Jesus is indeed literally God's son.

Westcoast, making absolute statements can (and usually will) come back to undermine you.

The truth of the matter is that not all Christians believe or accept that Jesus and God are one. Many Christians believe they are distinct entities.

From the United Methodist Book of Discipline, Article I, The Confession of Faith:

"We believe in the one true, holy, and living God, Eternal Spirit, who is Creator, Sovereign and Preserver of all things visible and invisible. He is infinte in power, wisdom, justice, goodness and love, and rules with gracious regard for the well-being and salvation of men, to the glory of his name. We believe the one God reveals himself as the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, distinct but inseparable, eternally one in essence and power." [Emphasis mine]

If we accept your hypothesis that God and Jesus are one, then how can we reconcile that with the above statment of the one true God being sovereign? Please remember the concept of the Father, Son and Spirit being one is not a Biblical 'mystery', it is an innovation of man.

Let me ask a question of you - If God and Jesus are one, then who do you suggest was the Sovereign Preserver of all things seen and unseen, during the two days and nights the Bible alleges He was allegedly dead and buried? Christians say God and Jesus are one, so they are willing to accept that God is not eternal and that God could die?

I understand what your Christian faith wants you to believe, but I ask you to attempt consideration of this concept without that predisposition.

It was the realization of the above contradictions that led this former United Methodist pastor to revert to Islam. Alhamdulillah!

[Redeemed]

Westcoast, making absolute statements can (and usually will) come back to undermine you.

The truth of the matter is that not all Christians believe or accept that Jesus and God are one. Many Christians believe they are distinct entities.

From the United Methodist Book of Discipline, Article I, The Confession of Faith:

"We believe in the one true, holy, and living God, Eternal Spirit, who is Creator, Sovereign and Preserver of all things visible and invisible. He is infinte in power, wisdom, justice, goodness and love, and rules with gracious regard for the well-being and salvation of men, to the glory of his name. We believe the one God reveals himself as the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, distinct but inseparable, eternally one in essence and power." [Emphasis mine]

If we accept your hypothesis that God and Jesus are one, then how can we reconcile that with the above statment of the one true God being sovereign? Please remember the concept of the Father, Son and Spirit being one is not a Biblical 'mystery', it is an innovation of man.

Let me ask a question of you - If God and Jesus are one, then who do you suggest was the Sovereign Preserver of all things seen and unseen, during the two days and nights the Bible alleges He was allegedly dead and buried? Christians say God and Jesus are one, so they are willing to accept that God is not eternal and that God could die?

I understand what your Christian faith wants you to believe, but I ask you to attempt consideration of this concept without that predisposition.

It was the realization of the above contradictions that led this former United Methodist pastor to revert to Islam. Alhamdulillah!

The Bible does not mention Trinity; however it does speak of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and each of these are referred to as God through out the Scriptures. Christians cannot explain how that is possible, but they believe with God all things are possible and with child like faith except it as true. Jesus said, "Unless you become as a child, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." God spoke in the beginning. He said, "Let us make man in our image and likeness." Who was He talking to? Christians believe that there is only one God. They believe that God is a Spirit. Since He is Holy, He is the Holy Spirit and Jesus is God's word that was made flesh and dwelt amongst us (The Son of the living God). His name is Immanuel (God with us) God dwelt with us in the form of Jesus because He could identify with us better. And as many as received Him to them gave He the power to become the sons of God. It is written we are being conformed to the image of Jesus if we are His.

[NoName55]

The Bible does not mention Trinity;

That shows me how little your knowledge of Bible is, for it is mentioned once and it keeps getting chucked out then put back in then thrown out again.

you can find it in kjv but I am not going to tell you exactly where so that you will be forced to read it all so that you might come across some of thousand of contradictions and fabrications contained therein. by the way did you know that more than 80 % of new testament material is fabricated?

No, Not my claim but Christian scholars said it

[Keltoi]

That shows me how little your knowledge of Bible is, for it is mentioned once and it keeps getting chucked out then put back in then thrown out again.

you can find it in kjv but I am not going to tell you exactly where so that you will be forced to read it all so that you might come across some of thousand of contradictions and fabrications contained therein. by the way did you know that more than 80 % of new testament material is fabricated?

No, Not my claim but Christian scholars said it

80% huh? :rollseyes What "Christian" scholars would these be?

[Redeemed]

your entire post is null and void as i'm not a catholic but have iterated the same thing in a different thread.
nice try though.

Why wouldn't you want anyone to know your faith? I would think you're not a Christian for sure. True Christians are not ashamed to share their beliefs.

[MustafaMc]

That shows me how little your knowledge of Bible is, for it is mentioned once and it keeps getting chucked out then put back in then thrown out again.

you can find it in kjv but I am not going to tell you exactly where so that you will be forced to read it all so that you might come across some of thousand of contradictions and fabrications contained therein. by the way did you know that more than 80 % of new testament material is fabricated?

No, Not my claim but Christian scholars said it

I did not find the word "Trinity" but I found it implied here. Matthew 28:19-20 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Note how Jesus (pbuh) told them to teach others to follow what he had commanded the disciples to observe - not to teach others that he was the Son of God.

[Redeemed]

Maybe we have a thread for this, not sure. Why did God have Jesus be born of a Virgin and not experience death but mohamed was born normally and died (or am I wrong here, he was raised to Heaven too, wast he?)?

The devil doesn't want people to see that Jesus can set them free.

[Woodrow]

The devil doesn't want people to see that Jesus can set them free.

Perhaps you may also want to look at the other side of that coin.

The devil doesn't want people to see that knowing the true teachings of Jesus(as) can set them free.

[islamirama]

Narrated Ubaidullah bin Abdullah bin Utba:

Ibn Abbas said, "O Muslims? How do you ask the people of the Scriptures, though your Book (i.e. the Quran) which was revealed to His Prophet is the most recent information from Allah and you recite it, the Book that has not been distorted? Allah has revealed to you that the people of the scriptures have changed with their own hands what was revealed to them and they have said (as regards their changed Scriptures): This is from Allah, in order to get some worldly benefit thereby." Ibn Abbas added: "Isn't the knowledge revealed to you sufficient to prevent you from asking them? By Allah I have never seen any one of them asking (Muslims) about what has been revealed to you."

Sahi Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 48, Number 850

[Kashnowe]

i'm sure this has been asked before but i can't seem to find it.

so what proof do muslims have that the quran is the word of God?

i think its a good point that just because the quran has remained unchanged that that means it is more reputable than the bible. i can write a book in english today and claim it is the word of God and in 1000 years it will remain unchanged and people will still be reading it.....this doesn't mean it is the word of God.

so that argument about the bible being wrong because it was translated is really a poor one.....

[Redeemed]

Narrated Ubaidullah bin Abdullah bin Utba:

Ibn Abbas said, "O Muslims? How do you ask the people of the Scriptures, though your Book (i.e. the Quran) which was revealed to His Prophet is the most recent information from Allah and you recite it, the Book that has not been distorted? Allah has revealed to you that the people of the scriptures have changed with their own hands what was revealed to them and they have said (as regards their changed Scriptures): This is from Allah, in order to get some worldly benefit thereby." Ibn Abbas added: "Isn't the knowledge revealed to you sufficient to prevent you from asking them? By Allah I have never seen any one of them asking (Muslims) about what has been revealed to you."

Sahi Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 48, Number 850

Sahi Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 48, Number 850
__________________
This dunya is like a shadow. If you try to catch it, you will never be able to do so. If you turn your back towards it, it has no choice but to follow you. Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah


I don't have time to chase shadows or run from them. I need to forget those things which are behind and press forward into the kingdom of God and the high calling of God! To know God and make Him known.

[Redeemed]

Perhaps you may also want to look at the other side of that coin.

The devil doesn't want people to see that knowing the true teachings of Jesus(as) can set them free.

How can your Jesus set us free?:?

[islamirama]

i'm sure this has been asked before but i can't seem to find it.

so what proof do muslims have that the quran is the word of God?

i think its a good point that just because the quran has remained unchanged that that means it is more reputable than the bible. i can write a book in english today and claim it is the word of God and in 1000 years it will remain unchanged and people will still be reading it.....this doesn't mean it is the word of God.

so that argument about the bible being wrong because it was translated is really a poor one.....

Bible is not longer what it was before. it has been changed numerous times thru out history. Men keep changing it to suit their needs. King Henry got the new version out so he could divorce his wife and get a new one. There's too many fallacies and contradictions. When is a book no longer that of the author? at what point do you take and add so much to it that it no longer conveys the message the original author wrote? Most recently in the news, Germany is coming out with a new bible. This bible will be in simple english so everyone can understand it (ppl seem to be getting dumber), and this new version will take out anything that it anti-gay and anti-jewish in there. So tell me again what part of the orginal message is left in there?

The fact that something has been unchanged itself proofs how authentic and reliable the material is in that book. If you can't even verify something is the authentic source what else can you go on? We already know as it is confirmed even by non-Muslims that Quran has been unchanged and is today as it was 1400yrs ago.

So the question left than is, what proof is there that this is the book from God? since it's not changed, then it means we are looking at the original stuff of the author. And for the proof, you would have to read the book and see for yourself. See what is written in the book and compare that to the knowledge humans had at that time in history. And then ask if it was possible for humans to know that, much less an illiterate man preaching this book?

So read the book yourself and see what is said in there and see for yourself. perhaps you can look at this site www.islam-guide.com and tell me how did Quran knew all this with limited human knowledge over 1400yrs ago?

Lastly, check these videos out.

european Scientist converts to islam
Anatomy : Scientist converted to islam after reading Quran.

Modern day miracles

[islamirama]

Sahi Bukhari, Volume 3, Book 48, Number 850
__________________
This dunya is like a shadow. If you try to catch it, you will never be able to do so. If you turn your back towards it, it has no choice but to follow you. Ibn Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah


I don't have time to chase shadows or run from them. I need to forget those things which are behind and press forward into the kingdom of God and the high calling of God! To know God and make Him known.

Perhaps you should ask what my signature means before you go on about the kingdom of God. and blah blah

[Woodrow]

How can your Jesus set us free?:?

He is the Same Isa(as) that you love. Your love for him can set you free of the bonds of misdirecting your worship of Allah(as) Follow Isa(as) Truly love him and accept the message he wanted you to have and worship the One God(swt)

[MustafaMc]

He is the Same Isa(as) that you love. Your love for him can set you free of the bonds of misdirecting your worship of Allah(as) Follow Isa(as) Truly love him and accept the message he wanted you to have and worship the One God(swt)

This post was well put. Christians see Jesus' (pbuh) supposed death on the cross and his resurrection as means to set them free from the bondage of sin. I agree with your point of accepting the truth of Jesus' message and being set "free of the bonds of misdirecting your worship of Allah."

Matthew 7:21-23 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out demons, and by thy name do many mighty works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

We believe on the Day of Judgement that Jesus (pbuh) will disassociate himself from Christians and their worship of him.

[Redeemed]

Bible is not longer what it was before. it has been changed numerous times thru out history. Men keep changing it to suit their needs. King Henry got the new version out so he could divorce his wife and get a new one. There's too many fallacies and contradictions. When is a book no longer that of the author? at what point do you take and add so much to it that it no longer conveys the message the original author wrote? Most recently in the news, Germany is coming out with a new bible. This bible will be in simple english so everyone can understand it (ppl seem to be getting dumber), and this new version will take out anything that it anti-gay and anti-jewish in there. So tell me again what part of the orginal message is left in there?

The fact that something has been unchanged itself proofs how authentic and reliable the material is in that book. If you can't even verify something is the authentic source what else can you go on? We already know as it is confirmed even by non-Muslims that Quran has been unchanged and is today as it was 1400yrs ago.

So the question left than is, what proof is there that this is the book from God? since it's not changed, then it means we are looking at the original stuff of the author. And for the proof, you would have to read the book and see for yourself. See what is written in the book and compare that to the knowledge humans had at that time in history. And then ask if it was possible for humans to know that, much less an illiterate man preaching this book?

So read the book yourself and see what is said in there and see for yourself. perhaps you can look at this site www.islam-guide.com and tell me how did Quran knew all this with limited human knowledge over 1400yrs ago?

Lastly, check these videos out.

european Scientist converts to islam
Anatomy : Scientist converted to islam after reading Quran.

Modern day miracles

How can you pr:)ve that what Jesus said in the Bible isn't true?

[Woodrow]

How can you pr:)ve that what Jesus said in the Bible isn't true?

It is impossible to prove anything he said is not true. A negative can not be proven. It is the responsibility of the person making the statement to prove it is true.



I could say that in the bible in Algothira chapter three verse seventy six that it specificaly states that the only way to get to Poughkeepsie NY is by swallowing a whole caramel apple without chewing.

You can not prove that statement is false.

[Redeemed]

It is impossible to prove anything he said is not true. A negative can not be proven. It is the responsibility of the person making the statement to prove it is true.



I could say that in the bible in Algothira chapter three verse seventy six that it specificaly states that the only way to get to Poughkeepsie NY is by swallowing a whole caramel apple without chewing.

You can not prove that statement is false.

My testimony is what proves that Jesus is the Lord of my life who leads me to the Father, When I accepted Him as the Lord of my life God's spirit bore witness with mine that I was saved and blessed. Those who want a sign of prove that Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords will get a sign of prove soon enough. For those who do not believe in the Son of God, it is written: "This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; (to prove) and there shall be no sign given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. For Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation." Besides, you can prove that swallowing a apple without chewing it will not get you to NY. There are large animals that can swallow it whole, or their throats are big enough to get a large animal to force swallow. That is, by the way, as ridiculous an argument as your claim that Christians copied Greek Mythology. :enough!:

[MustafaMc]

My testimony is what proves that Jesus is the Lord of my life who leads me to the Father, When I accepted Him as the Lord of my life God's spirit bore witness with mine that I was saved and blessed.

Your post proves nothing more than to show that you and Christians worship Jesus (pbuh) instead of the One God. May Allah guide you to the Truth and lead you out of the darkness.

[Woodrow]

My testimony is what proves that Jesus is the Lord of my life who leads me to the Father, When I accepted Him as the Lord of my life God's spirit bore witness with mine that I was saved and blessed. Those who want a sign of prove that Jesus is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords will get a sign of prove soon enough. For those who do not believe in the Son of God, it is written: "This is an evil generation: they seek a sign; (to prove) and there shall be no sign given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. For Jonas was a sign unto the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation." Besides, you can prove that swallowing a apple without chewing it will not get you to NY. There are large animals that can swallow it whole, or their throats are big enough to get a large animal to force swallow. That is, by the way, as ridiculous an argument as your claim that Christians copied Greek Mythology. :enough!:

actually there is no way you can prove that swallowing an apple without chewing it will not get you to Poughkeepsie.

true i can not prove that it will, but nobody can prove it can not.

the argument is to simply show that nobody can disprove another person's statements. No matter how ridiculous they are. That is why the burden of proof is to show that a statement is true. Not for somebody else to prove it false.

Just because you swallow an apple and do not get to Poughkeepsie, does not prove the statement false. there could have been extenuating circumstances that stopped it from getting you to Poughkeepsie. Maybe a yellow Mercedes interfered with the transportation waves.

I can understand that you would not accept what I present as proof that Christianity was corrupted by influences from paganism. There is plenty of documentation that Christianity was exposed to many of the pagan beliefs and there were concessions made to make Christianity more palatable. The Crucifixion/resurrection Son of God theme was very common throughout the pagan religions of the area and the times.

But by the same token I have not seen any evidence presented to show that Isa(as) is the Son of God(swt) and that He was sacrificed because God(swt) did not have the power to forgive our sins.

[Redeemed]

Your post proves nothing more than to show that you and Christians worship Jesus (pbuh) instead of the One God. May Allah guide you to the Truth and lead you out of the darkness.

What we do to each other we do to Christ, and if we honor Jesus the same as the Father, we honor God. Jesus said, if you hear me you hear Him, but if you despise me you despise Him, and he that despises Him despises the One who sent Jesus!!+o(

[Woodrow]

What we do to each other we do to Christ, and if we honor Jesus the same as the Father, we honor God. Jesus said, if you hear me you hear Him, but if you despise me you despise Him, and he that despises Him despises the One who sent Jesus!!+o(

there is not a Muslim alive who despises Jesus(as) we love him deeply.

we can even agree that Allah(swt) sent Him to spread the Injil. But, those who came not long after Jesus began teaching something that was at best only a small part of the Injil and the remainder was to serve purposes other than God(swt)

there is no evidence to show any verification that Jesus ever said " if you hear me you hear Him, but if you despise me you despise Him, and he that despises Him despises the One who sent Jesus!!"

In order to be able to use the NT as proof for anything Validation has to be shown that the NT is true and accurate. I have yet to see one unbiased bit of evidence that would even show the possibility of it being true.

[Kashnowe]

I could say that in the bible in Algothira chapter three verse seventy six that it specificaly states that the only way to get to Poughkeepsie NY is by swallowing a whole caramel apple without chewing.

You can not prove that statement is false.
__________________

i think i can prove that statement false.

i can get in a car and drive to poughkeepsie. so swallowing a whole apple is proven to not be the only way to get there.

actually there is no way you can prove that swallowing an apple without chewing it will not get you to Poughkeepsie.

true i can not prove that it will, but nobody can prove it can not.

again the original statement says the only way. and i surely can think of thousands of ways to get there. therefore i can swallow the apple and when nothing happens then you are completely and utterly wrong.

the argument is to simply show that nobody can disprove another person's statements. No matter how ridiculous they are. That is why the burden of proof is to show that a statement is true. Not for somebody else to prove it false.

bob: my right arm is 8 inches longer than my left (another persons statement)
cletus: no its not (someone objecting)
bob: oh yeah it is. if you think i'm wrong then prove it
cletus pulls out a measuring tape and measures each arm showing a once centimeter difference (cletus disproved bob's original statement)

[Woodrow]

i think i can prove that statement false.

i can get in a car and drive to poughkeepsie. so swallowing a whole apple is proven to not be the only way to get there.

Nope, because you forgot the possability that you were mislead and only believed you were in Poughkeepsie.

again the original statement says the only way. and i surely can think of thousands of ways to get there. therefore i can swallow the apple and when nothing happens then you are completely and utterly wrong.

Nope, because you actully went to poughkeepsie and entered a time warp and returned before you left so you think you did not go to Poughkeepsie

bob: my right arm is 8 inches longer than my left (another persons statement)
cletus: no its not (someone objecting)
bob: oh yeah it is. if you think i'm wrong then prove it
cletus pulls out a measuring tape and measures each arm showing a once centimeter difference (cletus disproved bob's original statement)

each arm is in a different location of the space time continuum. Measuring devices and measurements alter as you move from one location to another. They may appear identical, but they are not and we can not truly measure them because our reference for measurement has to move and as it moves it is no longer the same measurement.


Again, I can not prove any of those statements, however they can not be disproven because every possible arguement would have to be disproved, no matter how rediculous the argument is. the will be an infinite range of refutations that would need to be disproven, although nobody could probably prove any of the refutations to be true.

You can not disprove a statement because every claim of a disproof would result in a refutation that needs to be disproven.

[Redeemed]

Nope, because you forgot the possability that you were mislead and only believed you were in Poughkeepsie.




Nope, because you actully went to poughkeepsie and entered a time warp and returned before you left so you think you did not go to Poughkeepsie





each arm is in a different location of the space time continuum. Measuring devices and measurements alter as you move from one location to another. They may appear identical, but they are not and we can not truly measure them because our reference for measurement has to move and as it moves it is no longer the same measurement.


Again, I can not prove any of those statements, however they can not be disproven because every possible arguement would have to be disproved, no matter how rediculous the argument is. the will be an infinite range of refutations that would need to be disproven, although nobody could probably prove any of the refutations to be true.

You can not disprove a statement because every claim of a disproof would result in a refutation that needs to be disproven.

This gets us nowhere. Its like asking the question: When a tree falls in the woods and no one is around, does it make noise?

[Woodrow]

Point being those are the type questions Christians ask and challange them to be disproven. They can not be disproven. It is essential that the presenter of a statement give irrefutable proof that the statement is true if they expect the statment to be believed. Because it can not be proven false, is not proof it is true.

So going back on topic, where is unbiased proof that Jesus(as) said any of the things he is alleged to have said? the only proof is the Bible itself, and so far I have not seen any valid proof that the Bible is true.

[Keltoi]

Point being those are the type questions Christians ask and challange them to be disproven. They can not be disproven. It is essential that the presenter of a statement give irrefutable proof that the statement is true if they expect the statment to be believed. Because it can not be proven false, is not proof it is true.

So going back on topic, where is unbiased proof that Jesus(as) said any of the things he is alleged to have said? the only proof is the Bible itself, and so far I have not seen any valid proof that the Bible is true.

What is your evidence that the Qu'ran is true? I predict you will say because of what it contains. You believe it to be the truth. Can you prove to me that the Qu'ran is true?

[Muslim Knight]

What is your evidence that the Qu'ran is true? I predict you will say because of what it contains. You believe it to be the truth. Can you prove to me that the Qu'ran is true?

"The Romans have been defeated. In the nearer land (Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine), and they, after their defeat, will be victorious. Within three to nine years. The decision of the matter, before and after (these events) is only with Allah, (before the defeat of Romans by the Persians, and after, i.e. the defeat of the Persians by the Romans). And on that Day, the believers (i.e. Muslims) will rejoice (at the victory given by Allah to the Romans against the Persians).." (Al-Quran, Surah Ar-Rum, 30:2-4)

It was a fulfilled prophecy. According to Abdullah Yusuf Ali, during the revelation of these verses, the Prophet and the earliest Muslims were facing oppression in Makkah for the first 10 years since the birth of Islam. The verses prophesied that the Romans, first defeated by the Persians, will return later and rout their long time enemy.

Eight years later, as mentioned in the Suraah, the Muslim army consisting of 313 fighters defeated 1000-strong Mushriks from Makkah in Battle of Badr, coinciding the same time the Romans under Emperor Heraclius defeated the Persians under Kisra (Chosroes, Emperor of Persia). Fulfilling the prophecy, how can the Quran not be true, then?


The Prophet's staunchiest and most inviterate opponent, Abu Lahab, was already condemned in the Quran (in Surah Al-Masad) to be a resident of Hell when he die. But this (Abu Lahab's death) did not occur until 10 years later, in the aftermath of Badr. During that time he could have easily ruined Islam for one minute by going up to the Prophet and saying, "Muhammad, I repent and embrace Islam. Does your Quran forgives me?" The verses were already revealed and written down that he would die the most inviterate unbeliever! But he did not do that (embrace Islam), and to his death bed he remained the enemy of Islam. Allah says that Abu Lahab will die an unbeliever and the prophecy is fulfilled regardless.

Again, how can the Quran not be true then?

[Hemoo]

besides the Quran have been transmited (orally and written) generation by generation from the time of the prophet (P.B.U.H) till now.

and there are chains of recitors of the Quran from the time of the prophet till our time now.

there are some current recitors and they give an IJAZA (like a authorization or licence) to their students that makes these students follow up with the chain of recitors. there is one of those recitors i know about, he is in alexandria - Egypt, his name is Muhammad Abd Al-hamid Abd Ullah.

so the Quran has been transmitted by big number of Muslims whom did not have the chance to meet with each others and decide to lie about it. this is named TWATUR.

[syilla]

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/13658-prove-quran-not-word-god.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/13998-prove-quran-word-god.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/islamic-...allah-swt.html

http://www.theinimitablequran.com/HomePage.html posted by sis kitten (thank you :))

The Qur'an challenges humanity to attempt to match the reality of the Qur'anic text, the smallest chapter (surah) to be exact. In chapter 2 verse 23 the Qur'an states:

"And if you are in doubt about which We have revealed to Our Servant then bring one chapter like it"

In order to understand this challenge one must first understand the reality of the Qur'an. With regards to its language there are many features which render the Qur'an matchless, unique and miraculous. The main arguments with regards to its linguistic and literary superiority will be briefly explained below.

http://www.islamicboard.com/discover...ote-quran.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/basics-i...ion-quran.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/islamic-...sir-qadhi.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/basics-i...n-science.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/basics-i...bic-quran.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...cy-romans.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ing-quran.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/exchange...yclopedia.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/exchange...les-quran.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/basics-i...-miracles.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/discover...hat-quran.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/islamic-...years-ago.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/discover...tml#post531399

http://www.islamicboard.com/discover...n-answers.html

http://www.islamicboard.com/refutati...ors-quran.html

i want to add more...but is already 5.09pm and i haven't pray asr yet...and after this i'm going back...so InshaAllah maybe next time...or maybe somebody else can add some more.

[MustafaMc]

Point being those are the type questions Christians ask and challange them to be disproven. They can not be disproven. It is essential that the presenter of a statement give irrefutable proof that the statement is true if they expect the statment to be believed. Because it can not be proven false, is not proof it is true.

So going back on topic, where is unbiased proof that Jesus(as) said any of the things he is alleged to have said? the only proof is the Bible itself, and so far I have not seen any valid proof that the Bible is true.

This is a very good point. If one were to approach the Bible without prior bias that it is the Word of God, how could he possibly come to believe that it is Divine?

If the NT of the Bible was comprised of the inerrant words spoken by Jesus (pbuh), Christians would have an argument to present. There are only a handful of quotes even attributed to Jesus (pbuh) in the Gospels, but as far as I know no two of the Gospels quote Jesus (pbuh) exactly the same in identical situations - prime example is differences in "the Lord's Prayer".

Then we get into the whole situation of Saul "The Persecutor" receiving a "revelation" after Jesus' accension and becoming Paul "The Evangelist"...

[MustafaMc]

What is your evidence that the Qu'ran is true? I predict you will say because of what it contains. You believe it to be the truth. Can you prove to me that the Qu'ran is true?

I would have to say, "Probably not." However, Muslims accept the Quran as the Word of God because they accept Muhammad (pbuh) as the final Prophet of God. There is no question that the Quran is the unchanged, unadulterated, inerrant words spoken by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) over 1,400 years ago that he claimed were revealed to him through the Angel Jibrael (Gabriel). We accept this as true. The Quran was revealed over a period of 23 years and each portion was immediately written down and memorized ver batim. We believe that every word of the Quran is a direct quote of the Message revealed through Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

We also have the hadith that were recorded later as transmitted through the companions of Prophet Muhammad. The hadith bears some semblance to the Gospels and the Book of Acts in the NT. However, there is a distinct difference between the Quran and hadith and for that matter between the Quran and the Bible.

[Keltoi]

I would have to say, "Probably not." However, Muslims accept the Quran as the Word of God because they accept Muhammad (pbuh) as the final Prophet of God. There is no question that the Quran is the unchanged, unadulterated, inerrant words spoken by Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) over 1,400 years ago that he claimed were revealed to him through the Angel Jibrael (Gabriel). We accept this as true. The Quran was revealed over a period of 23 years and each portion was immediately written down and memorized ver batim. We believe that every word of the Quran is a direct quote of the Message revealed through Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

We also have the hadith that were recorded later as transmitted through the companions of Prophet Muhammad. The hadith bears some semblance to the Gospels and the Book of Acts in the NT. However, there is a distinct difference between the Quran and hadith and for that matter between the Quran and the Bible.

Yes, to your line of reasoning all you have stated makes the Q'uran the truth. Yet you can't "prove" it. That is my only point. Woodrow brought up the issue that we as Christians must "prove" the Bible to be corrrect. I as a Christian can ask Muslims to do the same thing. Neither of us are going to be convinced by the "proof" of the other. So in my opinion that is a failed exercise and not particularly constructive.

[islamirama]

Yes, to your line of reasoning all you have stated makes the Q'uran the truth. Yet you can't "prove" it. That is my only point. Woodrow brought up the issue that we as Christians must "prove" the Bible to be corrrect. I as a Christian can ask Muslims to do the same thing. Neither of us are going to be convinced by the "proof" of the other. So in my opinion that is a failed exercise and not particularly constructive.

All the converts from christianity to Islam would disagree with you. You want proof of Quran and bible? go to www.beconvinced.com

[MustafaMc]

Yes, to your line of reasoning all you have stated makes the Q'uran the truth. Yet you can't "prove" it. That is my only point. Woodrow brought up the issue that we as Christians must "prove" the Bible to be corrrect. I as a Christian can ask Muslims to do the same thing. Neither of us are going to be convinced by the "proof" of the other. So in my opinion that is a failed exercise and not particularly constructive.

Yes, proving a belief is a difficult thing to do. Can you reply with an explanation for why you believe the Bible is the Word of God?

[Keltoi]

Yes, proving a belief is a difficult thing to do. Can you reply with an explanation for why you believe the Bible is the Word of God?

Personally, it took me a long time to find my faith. I considered myself an athiest at one point. However, being an athiest left me feeling spiritually unfulfilled, which means I wasn't really an athiest. After exploring Christianity all over again I found my faith and what I feel in my heart and soul is the Truth and the path to salvation. Probably one of those events that isn't easily put into words.

[Umar001]

Yes, to your line of reasoning all you have stated makes the Q'uran the truth. Yet you can't "prove" it. That is my only point. Woodrow brought up the issue that we as Christians must "prove" the Bible to be corrrect. I as a Christian can ask Muslims to do the same thing. Neither of us are going to be convinced by the "proof" of the other. So in my opinion that is a failed exercise and not particularly constructive.

I have to disagree, else there'd be no reverts or converts.

[Redeemed]

I have to disagree, else there'd be no reverts or converts.

The fact is that a man that is convinced against is will is of the same opinion still. If one does not believe the Bible is the word of God, even if it could be proved to one who loves their religion, they will not revert or be convinced to change or repent. Reverts have nothing to do with what can be proved, because it is the condition of one's heart and whether or not God is drawing them to truth. You can't prove the Qur'an anymore than we can the Bible; so I don't understand this fetish with proving the Bible. Wicked people tried to get Jesus to prove Himself with a sign. He said they’d get a sign - the sign of Jonah (God's Judgment).:enough!:

[Keltoi]

I have to disagree, else there'd be no reverts or converts.

Reverts and converts are one thing, but "proving" the absolute truth of the Qu'ran or the Bible is something else. I've known quite a few people who converted to Christianity, but it wasn't because someone provided "proof" for them. Using my own experience as an example, it wasn't "proof" that led me to find my faith in Christianity and reject athiesm. There is an obvious element of spirituality here that isn't easily defined in a paragraph or probably even a novel. We has human beings usually go where our hearts lead us, and mine led me to Jesus Christ. I'm sure many Muslims would say the same about Islam.

[MustafaMc]

Reverts and converts are one thing, but "proving" the absolute truth of the Qu'ran or the Bible is something else. I've known quite a few people who converted to Christianity, but it wasn't because someone provided "proof" for them. Using my own experience as an example, it wasn't "proof" that led me to find my faith in Christianity and reject athiesm. There is an obvious element of spirituality here that isn't easily defined in a paragraph or probably even a novel. We has human beings usually go where our hearts lead us, and mine led me to Jesus Christ. I'm sure many Muslims would say the same about Islam.

I would have to agree with you that a "change of heart" or conversion comes from within and can't be forced from without. Allah teaches in the Quran that He guides whomsover He wills to.

Quran 14:4 We have not sent any Rasool (Messenger) except that he speaks the language of his own people, so that he could explain to them clearly. Then Allah leaves in error whom He will and guides whom He pleases: He is the Mighty, the Wise.

That is why I chose the name "Mustafa" which was one of the names for Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and it means "chosen". I felt honored in a most humble way (oxymoron if I ever wrote one) that Allah chose to show me (despite my imperfections and sins) the Truth of Islam. It was a moment of inspiration that led to what I call a "paradigm shift" in my belief system regarding the Creator and my relationship to Him.

[Balthasar21]

Muslims use bible when its convenient for them , Then again their own Quraan tell them to read the scriptures that came before the Quraan . If one would read the Quraan / Bible they would see that they're not to much diffrent .

[rav]

First, did Moses only write Dueteronomy 18:18??

Shalom (Peace),

A proper refutation to this allegation has already been posted numerous times on this forum.

[MustafaMc]

Muslims use bible when its convenient for them , Then again their own Quraan tell them to read the scriptures that came before the Quraan . If one would read the Quraan / Bible they would see that they're not to much diffrent .

Please, quote to me surah and ayat where Muslims are commanded to read the scriptures that came before the Quran. Else stop this lying and spreading of falsehood!:raging: :enough!:

[Balthasar21]

Please, quote to me surah and ayat where Muslims are commanded to read the scriptures that came before the Quran. Else stop this lying and spreading of falsehood!:raging: :enough!:

Go back and read some of the above post ok .

[MustafaMc]

Go back and read some of the above post ok .

No, you made the claim now substantiate it. The monkey is on your back to prove what you said, or to retract it.

[Redeemed]

No, you made the claim now substantiate it. The monkey is on your back to prove what you said, or to retract it.

Case in point. That is why I repeat. I won't tell you go back and locate what I said.

[MustafaMc]

Case in point. That is why I repeat. I won't tell you go back and locate what I said.

The question was not directed to you. Are you and Balthasar21 one and same person, or group of people?

[Redeemed]

The question was not directed to you. Are you and Balthasar21 one and same person, or group of people?

I am aware of that. There really is no reason to patronize me.

[MustafaMc]

Case in point. That is why I repeat. I won't tell you go back and locate what I said.

Perhaps you (or anyone else) would be so kind as to point me to the post where the evidence for the claim has been presented.

[Redeemed]

Perhaps you (or anyone else) would be so kind as to point me to the post where the evidence for the claim has been presented.

The claim for what?

[MustafaMc]

The claim for what?

Oh, I thought you knew..."Case in point. That is why I repeat. I won't tell you go back and locate what I said."

The claim that the Quran teaches Muslims to study the Bible and seek guidance from it.

[Redeemed]

Oh, I thought you knew..."Case in point. That is why I repeat. I won't tell you go back and locate what I said."

The claim that the Quran teaches Muslims to study the Bible and seek guidance from it.

I am totally lost, cause I don't know what you are talking about. Did I say that the Quran teaches Muslims to seek guidance from the Bible?

[MustafaMc]

I am totally lost, cause I don't know what you are talking about. Did I say that the Quran teaches Muslims to seek guidance from the Bible?

No, but that is what Balthasar21 was claiming and that is the point that I asked for evidence to which you responded on his behalf regarding repeating of your posts. By the way when you do repeat yourself, you should say something to the effect of "As I have said before...."

[Redeemed]

No, but that is what Balthasar21 was claiming and that is the point that I asked for evidence to which you responded on his behalf regarding repeating of your posts. By the way when you do repeat yourself, you should say something to the effect of "As I have said before...."

Yes, Sir!

[Allah-creation]

to save you from hell fire

[tears4husain]

For starters who ever said that muslims dont believe in the bible? We dont believe in what was added to the bible by people who opposed the message and messengers of God. Not only is it muslims, but it was a team of christian scholars who revised the bible and took out the only proof of the trinity because of it not being authentic. There are alot of things that were revised because of its falsehood by christian scholars.The firat declaration of Islam is all through bible "THE IS NO GOD BUT ONE" from begining to end. As well as ablution,Qiyam(standing before Allah),ruku(bowing before Allah),sajda(prostrating before Allah) and qunut/dua(suplicating to Allah) from begining to the end of the bible, why is it there because its authentic! The bible is a complied revelation of Allah,but do to mankinds greed of power, jealousy,disbelief and ignorance they altered it, our ancestors!

[A-Way-Of-Life]

I agree IbnAbdulHakim, There is no need to use the bible. The bible has a lot of mistakes this is why we have the quran. I think it is best calling people to islam using the Quran and the life of the prophet (SAS) The bible has a lot of false things in it.


I do have some questions about the bible.

First question: Is it true that nowhere in the bible
does Jesus (PBUH) say he "is God" or the "son of god"?

Second question: when Jesus (PBUH) says "father" in the bible, what does this mean? I really doubt he used "father" to adress God. Was it something the gospel writers added in?

[IbnAbdulHakim]

This is not brother IbnAbdulHakim but his cousin Md Mashud posting on his account

What it is, is that when Muslims (well atleast the practice I've seen) used the bible to, as you say, prophesise the Prophet Mohammad :saw:, they do not read what you have written in English. The misguidance that you believe is just due to mistranslation, or just blatent fabrication. Alot of things which were ORIGINALLY written are contradictory of what is being read and perceived by the Christians today.

People have greatly studied languages - the original language that the Bible was even given out. Tell me somthing, because I find this funny, is that Christians say Jesus. If Jesus was here alive today, and you lot screamed "SAVE US JESUS" - He would look towards you and think "Who are they talking to?". His name was not Jesus, Jesus cannot be formed in the language at the time of Prophet Isa. It is fact no one in the past called him Jesus, yet today all Christians call him Jesus? This is just one of the million fabrications/mistranslations that is given out to the bible.

This is no minor issue. If your name is Thomas, and people started calling you Khomas, you'll be like "No, thats not my name" - and you would be correct as they have no right to call you somthing that you are not. This is not about language problems, in which some languages may find difficult to abbreviate stuff. But in the English language, it is perfectly call Prophet Isa as he was called before, yet its a forced change.... Disgusting really. This applies to many names. People actually read how Islam perceives names and think this is the "Islamic" version of the name. NO, this is not the case, we say it as their name really WAS and thats how it should be. We say Ibrahim as he was called, not Abraham, we say Musa not Moses, we say Yahya not John. You just change stuff to make everything latinised for what reason?

If you can't even say the names correctly, how much of the Bible do you think you can really give the original context? Pretty much very little...

So when a Muslim as said prophesies, he does not take the words as you read it - He will explain the mistranslation/fabrication to that sentence - because if you was to read the original context of those sentences (which we do not call corrupt - the actual corruption is after huge translation and mixed views) you would agree that yes the Prophet is prophesised.

I hope that makes it clearer why people say Bible is corrupt - Its just people use the original bible context to explain what Christianity follows to - Not the book you read it as today. We only really use it most of the time to show how wrong it is due to its many mistakes in its current form.

[believer]

This is not brother IbnAbdulHakim but his cousin Md Mashud posting on his account

What it is, is that when Muslims (well atleast the practice I've seen) used the bible to, as you say, prophesise the Prophet Mohammad :saw:, they do not read what you have written in English. The misguidance that you believe is just due to mistranslation, or just blatent fabrication. Alot of things which were ORIGINALLY written are contradictory of what is being read and perceived by the Christians today.

People have greatly studied languages - the original language that the Bible was even given out. Tell me somthing, because I find this funny, is that Christians say Jesus. If Jesus was here alive today, and you lot screamed "SAVE US JESUS" - He would look towards you and think "Who are they talking to?". His name was not Jesus, Jesus cannot be formed in the language at the time of Prophet Isa. It is fact no one in the past called him Jesus, yet today all Christians call him Jesus? This is just one of the million fabrications/mistranslations that is given out to the bible.

This is no minor issue. If your name is Thomas, and people started calling you Khomas, you'll be like "No, thats not my name" - and you would be correct as they have no right to call you somthing that you are not. This is not about language problems, in which some languages may find difficult to abbreviate stuff. But in the English language, it is perfectly call Prophet Isa as he was called before, yet its a forced change.... Disgusting really. This applies to many names. People actually read how Islam perceives names and think this is the "Islamic" version of the name. NO, this is not the case, we say it as their name really WAS and thats how it should be. We say Ibrahim as he was called, not Abraham, we say Musa not Moses, we say Yahya not John. You just change stuff to make everything latinised for what reason?

If you can't even say the names correctly, how much of the Bible do you think you can really give the original context? Pretty much very little...

So when a Muslim as said prophesies, he does not take the words as you read it - He will explain the mistranslation/fabrication to that sentence - because if you was to read the original context of those sentences (which we do not call corrupt - the actual corruption is after huge translation and mixed views) you would agree that yes the Prophet is prophesised.

I hope that makes it clearer why people say Bible is corrupt - Its just people use the original bible context to explain what Christianity follows to - Not the book you read it as today. We only really use it most of the time to show how wrong it is due to its many mistakes in its current form.

Salaamu alaikum bro!

I could'nt have said it better! I just learned something very important from what you just stated. May Allah bless you and guide you further in your dawa.

It would be nice if you can make further elaborations... specially on the reason why the Bible need to be LATINIZED.

That will definitely show more light.

[Woodrow]

Salaamu alaikum bro!

I could'nt have said it better! I just learned something very important from what you just stated. May Allah bless you and guide you further in your dawa.

It would be nice if you can make further elaborations... specially on the reason why the Bible need to be LATINIZED.

That will definitely show more light.

:w:

I can not resist the opportunity to express my opinion here. One of my interests is Linguistics. Language is much more complex than the simple exchange of words, it is the formation of ideas and connotations. We not only speak our thoughts, language also shapes our thoughts.

The Romans in their conquests Latinized all the conquered. The language was one of the first things they attempted to enforce. Possibly without even understanding it, they had conquered the minds of their captives when they changed the daily speech to Latin. The people no longer thought as their original heritage, they now thought as Romans.

This goes back a long ways, even going to pre-Christianity the Romans changed the Ancient Greek mythology into Latin. The Greek God's became Roman God's and the Greek Mythology was swallowed up to become Roman religious beliefs.

So it was with Christianity. As the Romans changed the Language of the Early Christians to Latin, the Bible was no longer the beliefs of a Jewish denomination, but became a Roman belief. the need to change the Christian beliefs into Latin removed the seat of Christianity from the Mideast to Rome. Because of this, todays Christianity has more resemblance to Roman Beliefs than to the original Christian beliefs. It was necessary to Latinize the names of the people, upon doing so, even while knowing the people of the Bible were of Mideastern heritage, the connotation is that of Roman and European. this became very visually apparent in the Medieval Art. This paved the way for the justification of the Crusades. It was now a Latin religion that was perceived as being held hostage and corrupted by the "different" people that resided in the Mideast.

The thought connotation became "How could these people that did not look like or speak like the people of the Bible, possibly be of the same god?"

For the Western Christian it is necessary for the names of the people in the Bible be Latinized, anything different would look like a different person. The name Isa(as) or Yeshua(as) invokes a totally different thought picture than the name Jesus(as). This was one of the biggest steps for the final transition of separating Christianity from it's origins and removing it completely from the Injil that Isa(as) taught.

After the Bible became translated into English,virtually none of the Mideastern concepts remained. today the Bible can only be accurately traced back to the Latin and Classical Greek, yet even then the Translations carry a Latinized flair. The bible of today is not a book of the Aramaic or Hebrew speaking people of the Mideast during the time of Isa(as), it is a translation of Roman thought with some Greek influence.

So, yes the Bible NEEDS to be Latinized, otherwise it will be found to be a Greco/Roman invention and not the word of God(swt)

[Keltoi]

:w:

I can not resist the opportunity to express my opinion here. One of my interests is Linguistics. Language is much more complex than the simple exchange of words, it is the formation of ideas and connotations. We not only speak our thoughts, language also shapes our thoughts.

The Romans in their conquests Latinized all the conquered. The language was one of the first things they attempted to enforce. Possibly without even understanding it, they had conquered the minds of their captives when they changed the daily speech to Latin. The people no longer thought as their original heritage, they now thought as Romans.

This goes back a long ways, even going to pre-Christianity the Romans changed the Ancient Greek mythology into Latin. The Greek God's became Roman God's and the Greek Mythology was swallowed up to become Roman religious beliefs.

So it was with Christianity. As the Romans changed the Language of the Early Christians to Latin, the Bible was no longer the beliefs of a Jewish denomination, but became a Roman belief. the need to change the Christian beliefs into Latin removed the seat of Christianity from the Mideast to Rome. Because of this, todays Christianity has more resemblance to Roman Beliefs than to the original Christian beliefs. It was necessary to Latinize the names of the people, upon doing so, even while knowing the people of the Bible were of Mideastern heritage, the connotation is that of Roman and European. this became very visually apparent in the Medieval Art. This paved the way for the justification of the Crusades. It was now a Latin religion that was perceived as being held hostage and corrupted by the "different" people that resided in the Mideast.

The thought connotation became "How could these people that did not look like or speak like the people of the Bible, possibly be of the same god?"

For the Western Christian it is necessary for the names of the people in the Bible be Latinized, anything different would look like a different person. The name Isa(as) or Yeshua(as) invokes a totally different thought picture than the name Jesus(as). This was one of the biggest steps for the final transition of separating Christianity from it's origins and removing it completely from the Injil that Isa(as) taught.

After the Bible became translated into English,virtually none of the Mideastern concepts remained. today the Bible can only be accurately traced back to the Latin and Classical Greek, yet even then the Translations carry a Latinized flair. The bible of today is not a book of the Aramaic or Hebrew speaking people of the Mideast during the time of Isa(as), it is a translation of Roman thought with some Greek influence.

So, yes the Bible NEEDS to be Latinized, otherwise it will be found to be a Greco/Roman invention and not the word of God(swt)

Just some thoughts on this. I'm not quite following your logic about the "Latinization" of the Bible. Rome didn't seek out Christianity, Christianity came to them. That was the mission of the disciples and the early Christian Church. That is what never made sense to me about the whole "Paul distorted Christianity" conspiracy. The early manuscripts of the Christian faith were written in Greek, as that was the language of commerce during this period of time, and also because of the people the message was intended to reach, i.e. the Gentiles. Many of the new converts and clerics of the church were not Hebrew or Aramaic speakers. The OT and the NT were constantly being translated to reach people of different languages. Examples being the Syriac and Coptic translations.

Contrary to the belief of many, Greek was the primary language of the Roman Empire for quite some time. It was the Hellenistic language spread by the conquests of Alexander the Great. While Latin was growing in use as the power of the Roman Empire increased, Greek, more specifically Koine Greek, was the dominant language in use by the geographic area we are referring to, especially in the case of writing.

The point is that the language of NT translations mean absolutely nothing as far as "proving" some distortion of the original Christian teachings.

[believer]

What happened to the Hebrew bible?

[Keltoi]

What happened to the Hebrew bible?

Around 300 BC the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek because most Jews did not speak Hebrew any longer. It was called the Septuagint. Copies of the original Hebrew Bible have been lost or destroyed, although some exist in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

[believer]

Around 300 BC the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek because most Jews did not speak Hebrew any longer. It was called the Septuagint. Copies of the original Hebrew Bible have been lost or destroyed, although some exist in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Hi Keltoi,

I appreciate your response... but, how did that happen? ... I mean, how did the Jews came about to not speaking Hebrew anymore that time? why the sudden change? why did they speak Greek all of a sudden at that point in history? Any information who destroyed the original Hebrew Bible or who have kept it? thank you for shedding some light... and for continuing to shed light in this issue.

[NoName55]

What happened to the Hebrew bible?

:sl:

Best to wait for a Jewish member or ask in Jewish thread (if you want an answer closerer to the truth)

Jewish Bible and the OT are 2 very different Books, The OT may have started out as the Bible but Chinese whispers have transformed it to quite something else

:w:

[Keltoi]

Hi Keltoi,

I appreciate your response... but, how did that happen? ... I mean, how did the Jews came about to not speaking Hebrew anymore that time? why the sudden change? why did they speak Greek all of a sudden at that point in history? Any information who destroyed the original Hebrew Bible or who have kept it? thank you for shedding some light... and for continuing to shed light in this issue.

Contrary to what No Name stated, the "truth" on this matter is one based on historical record. One doesn't have to be Jewish to reply.

It is widely accepted that the language of the "marketplace" during the Second Temple Period in Israel was Aramaic. However, those living in more Hellenistic towns also spoke Greek as a second language. Granted, Aramaic and Hebrew are closely related...sort of like Spanish and Italian. That doesn't mean all Jews stopped speaking Hebrew altogether, it was still widely used in Jewish scholarship and religious practice, and probably to a certain extent in the family. The Septuagint was created primarily for those Jews who were living outside of Judea, and some inside Judea, who did not speak Hebrew.

As for what happened to the original Hebrew Bible, I don't think anyone really knows the answer to that question. However, there is very little doubt that the copies made from the original are exact. Unless I'm mistaken, Jewish scribes were known to memorize the exact number of words and letters the Bible contained.

[islamic]

Muslims believe that the Bible contain some words of God, some words of prophets, some words of historians ..and some other words.
We muslims, DON'T USE THE BIBLE in our daily life, we have the Final and Last testament, the Holy Quran.
Now, many christians are telling us: "the Bible is book from God, my Bible says this, my Bible says that ..., we have the proof, we have the truth.. ".
Now, we muslims say: "Let us see that truth, let us examine that proof, because we can not believe something without seeing is it really true or is it false".
that's why, WE MUSLIMS are using the Bible, because you are telling us that is a Book from God. So, we proof you again and again that IT IS NOT a Book from God, it has been changed time after time, and we are comparing our Quran and The Bible, to tell you HOW a reall book from God looks like (the Quran), and how a reall Book NOT FROM GOD looks like (the Bible).
We have the Quran to believe in, and according to the Quran, we judge what is FALSE in the Bible, and what LITTLE is left as a word of God in the Bible.

[dwa2day]

......................
So why is it that Jesus son of Mary (peace be upon him)'s message would be totally different to the rest of the Prophets messages? Isn't that a contradiction that your Lord is One. And isn't it common sense that 3 doesn't equal 1? God doesn't make religion hard for us to grasp, especially matters of creed and faith. Especially things which depend wholely on salvation.

Regards.

Hi Qatada
I fail to see how the prophets of the Old Testament differ to Jesus Teachings as stated above. Especially note that there are 353 of their prophecies regarding Jesus that were fulfilled by Jesus. http://www.accordingtothescriptures....rophecies.html
Please can you offer biblical support for this so that I can more full evaluate you statement. Please make note which translation of the bible used as well as the verse you are comparing too.
Thanking you in advance.

Regards
Doug

[dwa2day]

:w:

I can not resist the opportunity to express my opinion here. One of my interests is Linguistics. .............................

So, yes the Bible NEEDS to be Latinized, otherwise it will be found to be a Greco/Roman invention and not the word of God(swt)

Clearly you have no idea as to how the Bible is translated. And I doubt the Quran would stand up to the same standard of textual criticism you apply to the Bible.

[dwa2day]

......................
Now, we muslims say: "Let us see that truth, let us examine that proof, because we can not believe something without seeing is it really true or is it false".

May I send you a bible for you to read?

[dwa2day]

.....................................As for what happened to the original Hebrew Bible, I don't think anyone really knows the answer to that question. However, there is very little doubt that the copies made from the original are exact. Unless I'm mistaken, Jewish scribes were known to memorize the exact number of words and letters the Bible contained.

May I add to your post the following:-
Let’s explore some rule the Hebrew scribes followed to when coping text.
1. They could only use clean animal skins, both to write on, and even to bind manuscripts.
2. Each column of writing could have no less than forty-eight, and no more than sixty lines.
3. The ink must be black, and of a special recipe.
4. They must verbalize each word aloud while they were writing.
5. They must wipe the pen and wash their entire bodies before writing the word “Jehovah,” every time they wrote it.
6. The letters, words, and paragraphs had to be counted, and the document became invalid if two letters touched each other.
7. The middle paragraph, word and letter must correspond to those of the original document.
8. There must be a review within thirty days, and if as many as three pages required corrections, the entire manuscript had to be redone.
9. As no document containing God’s Word could be destroyed, they were stored, or buried, in a genizah – a Hebrew term meaning “hiding place.” These were usually kept in a synagogue or sometimes in a Jewish cemetery.

Yes ok rules are in place and dose not account for human error. So by comparing the Dead Sea Scrolls (100BC to 100AD) with the with Masoretic Text and Greek Septuagint we will have an indication of the type and extent of the errors. I quote Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div. “the Qumran texts have provided compelling evidence that buttresses our faith in the integrity of the manuscripts on which our translations are based. It is now up to Bible believers to allow these texts to direct our attention to divine concerns and become the people God intends us to be.”


Regards
Doug

[dwa2day]

This is not brother IbnAbdulHakim but his cousin Md Mashud posting on his account

What it is, is that when Muslims (well atleast the practice I've seen) used the bible to, as you say, prophesise the Prophet Mohammad :saw:, they do not read what you have written in English. The misguidance that you believe is just due to mistranslation, or just blatent fabrication. Alot of things which were ORIGINALLY written are contradictory of what is being read and perceived by the Christians today.

People have greatly studied languages - the original language that the Bible was even given out. Tell me somthing, because I find this funny, is that Christians say Jesus. If Jesus was here alive today, and you lot screamed "SAVE US JESUS" - He would look towards you and think "Who are they talking to?". His name was not Jesus, Jesus cannot be formed in the language at the time of Prophet Isa. It is fact no one in the past called him Jesus, yet today all Christians call him Jesus? This is just one of the million fabrications/mistranslations that is given out to the bible.

This is no minor issue. If your name is Thomas, and people started calling you Khomas, you'll be like "No, thats not my name" - and you would be correct as they have no right to call you somthing that you are not. This is not about language problems, in which some languages may find difficult to abbreviate stuff. But in the English language, it is perfectly call Prophet Isa as he was called before, yet its a forced change.... Disgusting really. This applies to many names. People actually read how Islam perceives names and think this is the "Islamic" version of the name. NO, this is not the case, we say it as their name really WAS and thats how it should be. We say Ibrahim as he was called, not Abraham, we say Musa not Moses, we say Yahya not John. You just change stuff to make everything latinised for what reason?

If you can't even say the names correctly, how much of the Bible do you think you can really give the original context? Pretty much very little...

So when a Muslim as said prophesies, he does not take the words as you read it - He will explain the mistranslation/fabrication to that sentence - because if you was to read the original context of those sentences (which we do not call corrupt - the actual corruption is after huge translation and mixed views) you would agree that yes the Prophet is prophesised.

I hope that makes it clearer why people say Bible is corrupt - Its just people use the original bible context to explain what Christianity follows to - Not the book you read it as today. We only really use it most of the time to show how wrong it is due to its many mistakes in its current form.

Hi Md Mashud

What I think you should first understand is the purpose of the modern day translation of the Bible. To do this one needs to understand the reformation and the bible of the Bible of the middle ages. At this time the majority of people did not read or write and the priest and popes of the time were not ethical in preaching the truth to the people. Faith dwindled under the trinary of the Catholic Church. People like Calvin, Wycliffe and Luther began see this and as learned men could read the Latin and saw the error of Catholic leader. This lead to the translation of the Bible into languages for common people around 1500 -1900. In the same manner a Greek or Latin copy of the bible will do no good to anyone in Iceland other than a door stop. Why because Gods intention is to have all of creation know his precepts so we all go to heaven not just you and me.

Yes we are human and errors do occur in translation as pointed out in your post. Yes keeping the original name would have been a good solution. Yet I serious doubt this would have changed the Muslims view of the Bible as it would not solve the conflict in the crucifixion debate for example.

However the reformation and modern translations should not be seen as corrupt. For example most Christian today do not accept the KJV as a good translation it is filled with errors and why do we know this because human error can now be reduced with the aid of modern technology. Yet in 1611 at least the true underlining message of salvation could be read and was no longer hidden from the masses

Yes when I am serious about a topic I too do not rely on the copy I have. Correct exegeses comes from the original transcripts and asking questions such what was the target audience, what were there traditions and how would they have understood the passage in discussion. As you have clear point what is the root of the word been read.

Saying “Jesus save me” would be ignored by God, Allah or the Messiah whatever name you chose is putting your personal restriction onto a God who create the universe. Personal I have used the name of Jesus directly in the face of conflict and seen people delivered of demonic forces, a man stopped dead in his tract before assaulting someone to name a few. But that off topic.

Personally I think the true problem is our cultural background, living is westernised world free choice is the name of the game, I do not believe Muslims have this same freedom when it comes to Islam. If it were so Christians would be allowed to preach at Meca.

Regards
Doug

[Kiro]

Christians use the Qu'ran to debunk Muslims

Also, I don't think all of the Bible is corrupt, just bits of pieces that are either lost or changed.

For example, the prophesied one should be in all versions of the bible and should be up to the scholars of Christianity on what is right and keeping some verses in tact.

[dwa2day]

I agree IbnAbdulHakim, There is no need to use the bible. The bible has a lot of mistakes this is why we have the quran. I think it is best calling people to islam using the Quran and the life of the prophet (SAS) The bible has a lot of false things in it.

I do have some questions about the bible.

First question: Is it true that nowhere in the bible
does Jesus (PBUH) say he "is God" or the "son of god"?

Second question: when Jesus (PBUH) says "father" in the bible, what does this mean? I really doubt he used "father" to adress God. Was it something the gospel writers added in?

Hi A-Way-Of-Life
With reference to your opening statement I will be more than happy to answer mistakes you noted are in the bible. Please can you be specific with reference.

You raise two very good questions. To fully comprehend this you would have to also understand the trinity, this in itself is not easy for most Christians. So I will avoid this for now in my explanation / answer to your questions.

“Is it true that nowhere in the bible does Jesus (PBUH) say he "is God" or the "son of god"?

The Bible never records Jesus saying the precise words, “I am God.” That does not mean, however, that He did not proclaim that He is God. Take for example Jesus’ words in John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” We need only to look at the Jews’ reaction to His statement to know He was claiming to be God. They tried to stone Him for this very reason: “You, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33). The Jews understood exactly what Jesus was claiming—deity. When Jesus declared, “I and the Father are one,” He was saying that He and the Father are of one nature and essence. John 8:58 is another example. Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth … before Abraham was born, I am!” Jews who heard this statement responded by taking up stones to kill Him for blasphemy, as the Mosaic Law commanded (Leviticus 24:16).
John reiterates the concept of Jesus’ deity: “The Word [Jesus] was God” and “the Word became flesh” (John 1:1, 14). These verses clearly indicate that Jesus is God in the flesh. Acts 20:28 tells us, “Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.” Who bought the church with His own blood? Jesus Christ. And this same verse declares that God purchased His church with His own blood. Therefore, Jesus is God!

Regarding the Son of God.
Mark says it at the outset of his gospel (1:1).
The angel told Mary her child would be the Son of God (Luke 1:35).
John the Baptist said the same thing (John 1:34).
Nathanael said it (John 1:49).
Martha believed it (John 11:27).
The centurion said so (Matthew 27:54).
Jesus claimed that He said so (John 10:36).
Jesus clearly implies it in John 11:4.
The demons called Jesus the Son of God (Matthew 8:29; Luke 4:41; Mark 3:11).
The charge against Jesus was that He claimed to be the Son of God (Matthew 27:43; John 19:7), a claim He never denied, and virtually admitted (Luke 22:70).
The Gospel of John was written to convince the reader that Jesus was the Son of God (John 20:31).
Why, you might ask, does Jesus not say so plainly. I think the answer is found in Matthew 16:15-17:
15 He said to them, “And who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven!” (Matthew 16:15-17).

Jesus did not want Peter and His disciples to believe He was the Son of God just because He said so. He wanted God to bring them to this conclusion, based upon the overwhelming evidence of Scripture and our Lord’s life and teaching.


When Jesus (PBUH) says "father" in the bible, what does this mean? I really doubt he used "father" to adress God. Was it something the gospel writers added in?

The term Father in Heaven is used by Jesus some 181 times in the gospels. About once in every 140 words spoken by Jesus. Jesus was speaking about His Father. His central message and purpose was to restore us to a relationship with our Daddy in Heaven.

I fully understand from a Muslim view this is not the manner to relate to our Creator. However consider the family unit here. Father Mother and Son. The father is the king of the household, the mother the support and the child. It is through the direction and respect commanded from the father that instructs the child. He still calls you daddy and you heart melts like butter. Thus in time the formation of a solid father son relationship. Thus the reason God, in the form of Jesus broke through the bounds of time to interact with us so we could see that his law were as important as a direct relationship in love with Him.

Regards
Doug

[Futuwwa]

Thread necromancy! What is dead may never die!

[dwa2day]

Christians use the Qu'ran to debunk Muslims

Also, I don't think all of the Bible is corrupt, just bits of pieces that are either lost or changed.

For example, the prophesied one should be in all versions of the bible and should be up to the scholars of Christianity on what is right and keeping some verses in tact.

Please can you offer references for your statement "the prophesied one should be in all versions of the bible" show what is excluded in what bible.

Regards
Doug

[Born_Believer]

Hi Dough,

If you want to understand the context of John 10:30, please watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTT5BiS9kxk
@dwa2day

[dwa2day]

Hi Dough,

If you want to understand the context of John 10:30, please watch this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTT5BiS9kxk
@dwa2day

Hi Born Believer.
Thank you for the reference to the YouTube clip. I must say was quit impressed with Ahmed Deedat understanding of the context of John 10:30. Yet his global reference missed a very important point, thus the reason tone should read the Word of God not memorise it. You will notice when the bile writes about the one true God of Creation, it is type with a capital letter “G” = God. Reference to any other god of is a god of this world not of heaven.
Rightly so is Satan the god of this world as he has been give full control to rule the word till God sees fit.
Trust this help your understanding.

Regards
Doug

[Kiro]

Please can you offer references for your statement "the prophesied one should be in all versions of the bible" show what is excluded in what bible.

Regards
Doug

The caller. Or comforter. When Prophet Jesus says there will be someone after this.

I hope this is the correct reference.
Gospel of John chapter 16 verse 7:






"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not
come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you".



John chapter 14 verse 16:
"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever."

Muslims believe Prophet Muhammad :saws: is this comforter

[Serinity]

The caller. Or comforter. When Prophet Jesus says there will be someone after this.

I hope this is the correct reference.
Gospel of John chapter 16 verse 7:






"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not
come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you".



John chapter 14 verse 16:
"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever."

Muslims believe Prophet Muhammad :saws: is this comforter

"another" implies that it is not Jesus. Jesus could read and write. The Prophet :saw: or comforter spoken of, is described as illiterate.

The best candidate is Prophet Muhammad :saw: . It is very clear.

All indicates towards it being Prophet :saw: . So clear Imo.

If I said:

"Here I have the code, next time there will be sent ANOTHER code / Comforter.. I.e. NOT the previous code / Jesus."

"we have made strawberry milk for 2 years, next year we will make another Milk."

or:

Customer: my phone broke! it is smoked!
Employee: hmm, send it over here, we will provide you with another one."
Customer: mkay, here ya go.
Employee gets the phone, sends the other one.
Custmer: YEHAAAA, a NEW phone!!!!

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/de...nglish/another

[Born_Believer]

Hi Born Believer.
Thank you for the reference to the YouTube clip. I must say was quit impressed with Ahmed Deedat understanding of the context of John 10:30. Yet his global reference missed a very important point, thus the reason tone should read the Word of God not memorise it. You will notice when the bile writes about the one true God of Creation, it is type with a capital letter “G” = God. Reference to any other god of is a god of this world not of heaven.
Rightly so is Satan the god of this world as he has been give full control to rule the word till God sees fit.
Trust this help your understanding.

Regards
Doug

No offense but that made zero sense.

You can't refute a single point made in the video? Are you denying what Jesus himself said in the Bible, or that he was at the temple, considering that's what your own Bible is telling you. Do you know what Psalms says about the issue of Gods and the Jews describing themselves as such, which is what Jesus says in John? I bet you don't even know which part of Psalms I'm referring to. Check it out.

Also, this is not a linguistic discussion on how God is spelled or not. This is a discussion upon the basis of the verse you yourself quoted. If you wish to avoid or ignore or twist the context for your own means, go ahead. Remember, this will be on your soul, not mine.

[dwa2day]

The caller. Or comforter. When Prophet Jesus says there will be someone after this.

I hope this is the correct reference.
Gospel of John chapter 16 verse 7:
"Nevertheless I tell you the truth; it is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not
come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you".
John chapter 14 verse 16:
"And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever."

Muslims believe Prophet Muhammad [IMG]file:///C:/Users/User/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image001.png[/IMG] is this comforter

Hi Kiro
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss this with you. Yes your references are correct, but please know I also would have understood the topic. For your reference the King James Bible is not known for been a good translation, however it by no means dose it misrepresent the topic at hand.

To answer your question we need to go to the Greek word used in the translation. For this you can use a Strong’s Greek- English dictionary or an English Greek linear Bible, this the original Greek transcript directly translated word for word into English. That is it the Strong’s reference number, then under that the Greek word, underneath that the Greek word in English, then the common word used in translation, under that if it is a nown or adjective. So we get this from the on line inter liner bible. (http://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/16.htm and http://biblehub.com/greek/3875.htm)

Original Word: παράκλητος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: paraklétos
Phonetic Spelling: (par-ak'-lay-tos)
Short Definition: an advocate, comforter, helper, Paraclete
Definition: (a) an advocate, intercessor, (b) a consoler, comforter, helper, (c) Paraclete.

Take note there are 111 Greek manuscripts available today that pre date Islam, all of which use the words paraklétos in all reference to comforter.

This is the Helper advocate and comforter referred to in Acts 2:1-4 (KJV)
And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Muslims have suggested that Ahmad is the translation of periklutos, celebrated or the Praised One, which is a corruption of parakletos. Of the 5,000 odd Greek manuscripts that postdate Islam none refer a word periklutos only Paracletos. Not to mention it does not appear in any Greek dictionary I know off.

Hope this helps you.

Regards
Doug

[dwa2day]

No offense but that made zero sense.

You can't refute a single point made in the video? Are you denying what Jesus himself said in the Bible, or that he was at the temple, considering that's what your own Bible is telling you. Do you know what Psalms says about the issue of Gods and the Jews describing themselves as such, which is what Jesus says in John? I bet you don't even know which part of Psalms I'm referring to. Check it out.

Also, this is not a linguistic discussion on how God is spelled or not. This is a discussion upon the basis of the verse you yourself quoted. If you wish to avoid or ignore or twist the context for your own means, go ahead. Remember, this will be on your soul, not mine.

Hi Born_Believer
Make it about whatever you wish. The fact remains, when the bible refers to God of Creation it is spelt with a capital “G”. If the bible refers to any other god it is spelt with a small “g”. Muslims trying to use a lesser god quoted in the bible to refer to Jesus is manipulating scripture for the own gain.
What the Bible say about Jesus I accept as truth. But that’s not the discussion is it. The discussion is your you tube clip and the mixing up of the respective gods noted in the bible and the One true God to miss lead and lie to you. Do not believe me stop watch you tube and start reading.

Regards
Doug

[Born_Believer]

Hi Born_Believer
Make it about whatever you wish. The fact remains, when the bible refers to God of Creation it is spelt with a capital “G”. If the bible refers to any other god it is spelt with a small “g”. Muslims trying to use a lesser god quoted in the bible to refer to Jesus is manipulating scripture for the own gain.
What the Bible say about Jesus I accept as truth. But that’s not the discussion is it. The discussion is your you tube clip and the mixing up of the respective gods noted in the bible and the One true God to miss lead and lie to you. Do not believe me stop watch you tube and start reading.

Regards
Doug

I've highlighted the part which is just 100% wrong. You will never hear a Muslim claim Jesus manipulated anything. Where did you get that from? It is your so called scholars that have manipulated Jesus' words, not ours. It is your so called scholars who have given him the label of God and Son of God and Trinity and so on. We have done no such thing.

Once again, at no point have you even attempted to try and refuse the points raised in the video. Was Jesus not at the temple of Solomon and surrounded by Jews? Did they not accuse him of claiming to be a prophet/messenger/messiah? Did they not accuse him of claiming to be divine? What was Jesus' response? Did he reply "Yes, I am God" ?

No he did not. His reply was as follows: "Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’^[d]? ³⁵ If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— ³⁶ what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?"

At what stage does he describe himself as God? He flat out denies the false divinity of the Jews themselves and when given the opportunity, does not proclaim himself divine. Why did he not simply state, "Yes, I am God". Capital G and all? Does God in the Bible not state, "I am not the father of confusion"? Why then is Jesus being so cryptic...if he indeed is claiming divinity.

So you are once again left, trying to find an unequivocal statement by Jesus himself where he claims to be God. "I and my Father are one" is not the correct answer because that is in relation to both Jesus' and Gods mission of guiding people to the right path, explained using the metaphor of sheep. It has nothing to do with divinity and Jesus proclaims it in relation to the first accusation (are you are a messiah or not?). Jesus does not repeat the same thing following the second accusation (are you God?).

[dwa2day]

Hi Born Believer.
Let me deal with the objections you have come up with and trust you will gain a better understanding.

I've highlighted the part which is just 100% wrong. You will never hear a Muslim claim Jesus manipulated anything. Where did you get that from?

In your post #181 you made reference to a you tube clip. www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTT5BiS9kxk In this clip Ahmed Deedat (a Muslim) put John 10:30 in the correct context, however then quotes three scripture out of context to (Exodus, Psalms and II Corinthians) to show Jesus claim to been One with the Father is nothing less than a god of the world equal to Satan. The clip makes it clear.

It is your so called scholars that have manipulated Jesus' words, not ours. It is your so called scholars who have given him the label of God and Son of God and Trinity and so on. We have done no such thing.

Both Jews and Christians view the Bible as the inspired word of God. It is Islam claim that it is corrupt and unreliable, that’s fine with me it’s your belief. In the same manner I believe the Bible and its doctrines that Jesus is the Son of God and as well as the doctrine of the Trinity as rendered in correct reading of the Bible. This is my belief, the fact you do not like it is not the discussion. However if you wish to discuss specifics were you feel we have manipulate the scripture I am open to it. Then bring points with references to the verses in question noting clearly your objection.

Once again, at no point have you even attempted to try and refuse the points raised in the video. Was Jesus not at the temple of Solomon and surrounded by Jews? Did they not accuse him of claiming to be a prophet/messenger/messiah? Did they not accuse him of claiming to be divine? What was Jesus' response? Did he reply "Yes, I am God" ?

I am in full agreement with John 10:22-30 as it has been written in the bible. I do not think I can make this more clear to you.

QUOTE=Born_Believer;2927707]No he did not. His reply was as follows: "Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’[d]? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?" [/QUOTE]

Firstly keep in mind John 10 is all about spiritual blindness. In the same way as one looks for ones spectacles for 20 minutes to find them right there in plain sight on the desk. In the same way the Jews were looking for the Messiah. What Messiah were they looking for?
The Feast of Dedication refers us to some Jewish history (John 10:22). The Jews at the time would know this feast was about remembering Judas Maccabeus army reclaiming the temple from the Syrian king Antiochus Epiphanes (167BC) who had set up a pagan alter to displace the alter of Israel’s God. This understanding is found in the Christian study guides in the same manner you would find greater knowledge of Muhammad by reading the Hadeeth.
So what Messiah were the Jews expecting? One who would come with an army to defeat the roman occupation of Israel! Thus the Jews were blinded to Jesus message by placing their personal form off a Messiah in the place of what the scripture, they claimed to know was prophesying.

Can Jesus be both Man and God as claimed, well it fulfils the prophecy in Jerimiah 23:5-6 that the Messiah would be both God and man. See also John 13:13, 1Timonthy 3:16

QUOTE=Born_Believer;2927707]………I have said you are “gods”’[d]? 35 If he called ,…. [/QUOTE]

Take note of the d] reference, the foot note would refer you to Psalm 82:6. Meaning Jesus is quoting from the Psalm. Elohim is the Hebrew name for God, the creator and ruler of the universe. However God passed the right to man to have dominion over the world, Genesis 1:28. The right to be king and ruler of the world.
Thus in reading Psalm 82 Jesus is re enforcing His statement, I have given you authority to man to rule but we have become gods unto yourself blind to using Gods model to rule. We have chosen to follow our own evil system which ignores the weak and poor that we should be adding. The Psalmsest concludes inverses 6-8 it Gods rule he seeks not rules of the world.

At what stage does he describe himself as God?

John 1:1-3 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made... 1:14 - And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,
John 5:17,18 - “My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.” Therefore the Jews sought to kill Him, because He not only broke the Sabbath, but also said that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.
John 5:23 - that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.
John 8:24 - “Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for if you do not believe that I AM [He], you will die in your sins.”
John 8:58 - Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”
John 10:30-33 - Jesus answered them, “I and My Father are one.” Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?” The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”
John 14:6-7 - Jesus said to him, “I AM the way, the truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.”

Why did he not simply state, "Yes, I am God". Capital G and all? Does God in the Bible not state, "I am not the father of confusion"? Why then is Jesus being so cryptic...if he indeed is claiming divinity.

It is not about been cryptic it is about free choice. We see this in the previous chapter, John 9 were Jesus heals a blind man from birth and is questioned by the Jewish leaders. He knows he was healed by God through Jesus. However the Jewish leaders are blind to the scripture they know. Note this is a direct fulfilment of the prophecy in Isaiah 35:5-6 a ministry of miracles.

God’s law is to be followed out of love for God and in relationship with Him. The Old Testament is proof we as human cannot do it on our own, the final chapter of Gods plan of salvation is Jesus Christ, the one we must chose, because we believe in Him and believe Gods plan of redemption for our sins.

"I am not the father of confusion"?

I assume you are referring to 1 Corinthians 14:33 (NKJV) For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints.

Yes I believe this and see no confusion by Gods hand in scripture. It is us humans in seeking our own desires that create confusion manipulation of the truth to justify one’s personal aims.

So you are once again left, trying to find an unequivocal statement by Jesus himself where he claims to be God. "I and my Father are one" is not the correct answer because that is in relation to both Jesus' and Gods mission of guiding people to the right path,

It is not the right answer to you as it does not fit your belief and that fine with me. I trust you will offer my faith the same respect.

I am unsure what you want to know about the sheep?

Regards
Doug

[popsthebuilder]

I just got somethin to say about using the Bible to prove that Muhamad was prophecised
according to most if not all muslims, the Bible is flawed and what not, so why use it to "prove" you cause? and if all the verses you quoted do indeed "prophecise" mohamad, then what do you make of verses proclaiming the divinity of Jesus Christ? all you're doing is chosing quotes that'll suit your purpose and ignoring the overwhelming majority of quotes in the Bible that suggest otherwise.

If permissible here on this sight; perhaps you could refer to scripture(bible) stating the divinity of Christ as a man, as opposed to simply asserting such. Thanks

Peace

[popsthebuilder]

it doesn't make any sense to me. If i used the Bible to show the divinity of Jesus Christ, then you'd disagree with my statement because not only do you not believe in the Bible, but the Qu'ran also does not coincide with the teachings of the Bible (i.e Qu'ran saying God has no sons)
secondly a lot of people use and manipulate quotes from the Bible to prove their points, often times using them out of context.
The first quote from the book of Deutoronomy is used in this thread, and they claimed that this is a quote that prophesied the coming of Muhamad. Again, using a quote from the Bible out of context to prove your points:

Almighty God 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 I will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

Unfortunately, this quote was not about Muhammad.
"If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote of me." (John 5:46)

^Is that not crystal clear?

Did you say that the bible and Quran are different in teachings? That is to say they are of two different wills. This is not the case whatsoever.

The two are nearly one and the same, though one leans more on the written law than the law of the selfless heart both lead to the same thing when the bias of self is removed from the equation.

Peace

[dwa2day]

I just got somethin to say about using the Bible to prove that Muhamad was prophecised
according to most if not all muslims, the Bible is flawed and what not, so why use it to "prove" you cause? and if all the verses you quoted do indeed "prophecise" mohamad, then what do you make of verses proclaiming the divinity of Jesus Christ? all you're doing is chosing quotes that'll suit your purpose and ignoring the overwhelming majority of quotes in the Bible that suggest otherwise.

What I would like to see is Islam take the Bible, re edit it to what suits them, call it the Islamic Bible and get on with their faith. This will then define the true preservative of the use of the bible and stop the biblical gymnastics.

Regards
Doug

[crimsontide06]

I personally believe in sharing Islam. There is no reason to argue about Christianity, the prophet(pbuh) as far as I know never got into arguments and debates about Jesus....etc. He only brought the message to worship God and only God...

If your religion is the correct one, you shouldn't be trying to use another religion's text to prove yours or disprove theirs.

I just got somethin to say about using the Bible to prove that Muhamad was prophecised
according to most if not all muslims, the Bible is flawed and what not, so why use it to "prove" you cause? and if all the verses you quoted do indeed "prophecise" mohamad, then what do you make of verses proclaiming the divinity of Jesus Christ? all you're doing is chosing quotes that'll suit your purpose and ignoring the overwhelming majority of quotes in the Bible that suggest otherwise.

[dwa2day]

I personally believe in sharing Islam. There is no reason to argue about Christianity, the prophet(pbuh) as far as I know never got into arguments and debates about Jesus....etc. He only brought the message to worship God and only God...

If your religion is the correct one, you shouldn't be trying to use another religion's text to prove yours or disprove theirs.

I agree, yet Islam uses the Bible as there source of Islam but denies it teachings , 66 books by 44 different authors written over 1,500 against on man's revelation. This makes no sense.

Regards
Doug

[Nisthar]

Hi A-Way-Of-Life
With reference to your opening statement I will be more than happy to answer mistakes you noted are in the bible. Please can you be specific with reference.

You raise two very good questions. To fully comprehend this you would have to also understand the trinity, this in itself is not easy for most Christians. So I will avoid this for now in my explanation / answer to your questions.

“Is it true that nowhere in the bible does Jesus (PBUH) say he "is God" or the "son of god"?

The Bible never records Jesus saying the precise words, “I am God.” That does not mean, however, that He did not proclaim that He is God. Take for example Jesus’ words in John 10:30, “I and the Father are one.” We need only to look at the Jews’ reaction to His statement to know He was claiming to be God. They tried to stone Him for this very reason: “You, a mere man, claim to be God” (John 10:33). The Jews understood exactly what Jesus was claiming—deity. When Jesus declared, “I and the Father are one,” He was saying that He and the Father are of one nature and essence. John 8:58 is another example. Jesus declared, “I tell you the truth … before Abraham was born, I am!” Jews who heard this statement responded by taking up stones to kill Him for blasphemy, as the Mosaic Law commanded (Leviticus 24:16).
John reiterates the concept of Jesus’ deity: “The Word [Jesus] was God” and “the Word became flesh” (John 1:1, 14). These verses clearly indicate that Jesus is God in the flesh. Acts 20:28 tells us, “Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.” Who bought the church with His own blood? Jesus Christ. And this same verse declares that God purchased His church with His own blood. Therefore, Jesus is God!

Regarding the Son of God.
Mark says it at the outset of his gospel (1:1).
The angel told Mary her child would be the Son of God (Luke 1:35).
John the Baptist said the same thing (John 1:34).
Nathanael said it (John 1:49).
Martha believed it (John 11:27).
The centurion said so (Matthew 27:54).
Jesus claimed that He said so (John 10:36).
Jesus clearly implies it in John 11:4.
The demons called Jesus the Son of God (Matthew 8:29; Luke 4:41; Mark 3:11).
The charge against Jesus was that He claimed to be the Son of God (Matthew 27:43; John 19:7), a claim He never denied, and virtually admitted (Luke 22:70).
The Gospel of John was written to convince the reader that Jesus was the Son of God (John 20:31).
Why, you might ask, does Jesus not say so plainly. I think the answer is found in Matthew 16:15-17:
15 He said to them, “And who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven!” (Matthew 16:15-17).

Jesus did not want Peter and His disciples to believe He was the Son of God just because He said so. He wanted God to bring them to this conclusion, based upon the overwhelming evidence of Scripture and our Lord’s life and teaching.


When Jesus (PBUH) says "father" in the bible, what does this mean? I really doubt he used "father" to adress God. Was it something the gospel writers added in?

The term Father in Heaven is used by Jesus some 181 times in the gospels. About once in every 140 words spoken by Jesus. Jesus was speaking about His Father. His central message and purpose was to restore us to a relationship with our Daddy in Heaven.

I fully understand from a Muslim view this is not the manner to relate to our Creator. However consider the family unit here. Father Mother and Son. The father is the king of the household, the mother the support and the child. It is through the direction and respect commanded from the father that instructs the child. He still calls you daddy and you heart melts like butter. Thus in time the formation of a solid father son relationship. Thus the reason God, in the form of Jesus broke through the bounds of time to interact with us so we could see that his law were as important as a direct relationship in love with Him.

Regards
Doug

In my opinion, Its very clear that christains have misunderstood the message sent to them. Also, its pity that you could not find a solid verse from the bible that supports your primary belief. I read the verses you quoted before and all i could understand is that “The Word was God”. This is referring to the bible. and “the Word became flesh” (John 1:1, 14). Now the second verse is talking about the actual representation of the verses. It is clear that Prophet Isa (pbuh) acted only according to the message sent down to him. So, this verse clearly states that.

“Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.”
Everyone reading this verse could only understand one thing. I know you would also get it. But you are just quoting to prove a lie. Everyone knows the god created all the things and everything belongs to him. Its so simple that a common man can understand it without a explanation. Its just the explanation thats wrong.

You can disagree with my explanation. But you should know that a verse like this in the bible can be misinterpreted in many ways. Also, most of the christain scholars have accpeted that there is interpolation in the current bible.


Your answer reminded of me a video that i saw long time back, if you want you could watch it here, its speech from yusuf estes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHFgcRGIrH0

[Nisthar]

I agree, yet Islam uses the Bible as there source of Islam but denies it teachings , 66 books by 44 different authors written over 1,500 against on man's revelation. This makes no sense.

Regards
Doug

Ok, you should first understand that islam does not uses bible as its source. But as muslims, we believe in injil , the original word of god sent down to prophet Isa (pbuh). Not just injil, but we believe in all the revelations sent down to all the prophets before prophet Isa (pbuh). I don't know why you asked this question in the first place. Its very clear to most christains.

[dwa2day]

[QUOTE=Nisthar;2928293]In my opinion, Its very clear that christains have misunderstood the message sent to them. Also, its pity that you could not find a solid verse from the bible that supports your primary belief. I read the verses you quoted before and all i could understand is that “The Word was God”. This is referring to the bible. and “the Word became flesh” (John 1:1, 14). Now the second verse is talking about the actual representation of the verses. It is clear that Prophet Isa (pbuh) acted only according to the message sent down to him. So, this verse clearly states that.

“Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.”
Everyone reading this verse could only understand one thing. I know you would also get it. But you are just quoting to prove a lie. Everyone knows the god created all the things and everything belongs to him. Its so simple that a common man can understand it without a explanation. Its just the explanation thats wrong.

You can disagree with my explanation. But you should know that a verse like this in the bible can be misinterpreted in many ways. Also, most of the christain scholars have accpeted that there is interpolation in the current bible.

Your answer reminded of me a video that i saw long time back, if you want you could watch it here, its speech from yusuf estes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHFgcRGIrH0[/QUOTE]

I am sorry you do not understand my explanation and as Christians we understand this as spiritual blindness and thus the reluctance to see the truth.
With reference to John1:1 as long as you view this passage as Isa a mere prophet and not as Jesus Christ the Son of God you will not understand the passage.

Claiming I am simply quoting to prove a lie and my explanation is wrong with out supporting your statement is simply a measure of poor character and proves the weakness of your argument.
Regards
Doug

[dwa2day]

………………… we believe in all the revelations sent down to all the prophets before prophet Isa (pbuh).

If this is what you believe then why do you not accept the 300 plus prophecies regarding Jesus Christ from these prophets?

If you believe in these prophets how then this is not the source of your faith as their writings are way before the Quran.

Most Christians do not understand this, they have just not asked. This is the biggest problem I have with Muslims, there is never a clear answer, it always clouded in Mystery. To prove my point answer this question.

Where can I get a copy of the Injil to read?

Regards

Doug

[Nisthar]

If this is what you believe then why do you not accept the 300 plus prophecies regarding Jesus Christ from these prophets?

If you believe in these prophets how then this is not the source of your faith as their writings are way before the Quran.

Most Christians do not understand this, they have just not asked. This is the biggest problem I have with Muslims, there is never a clear answer, it always clouded in Mystery. To prove my point answer this question.

Where can I get a copy of the Injil to read?

Regards

Doug

Yes, there would be prophecies about prophet Isa (pbuh). One of the prophecy is that Isa (pbuh) would be a prophet. Also, Its not just about prophet Isa (pbuh), prophet muhammed (pbuh) is prophesied in the bible. Check this for reference: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ed-Turkey.html


As for your previous comment, i say that we agreeing calling prophet Isa(pbuh) as son of god same way as prophet Adam(pbuh) is called son of god. Infact, According to the Bible every righteous person who follows the Commandments of God is referred to as ‘son of God’. Only the word begotten is the problem.
The word ‘begotten’ mentioned in the Gospel of John, Chap 3 vs. 16 has been thrown out from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible as an interpolation, as a fabrication. The Revised Standard Version has been revised by 32 Christian Scholars of the highest eminence, backed by 50 different co-operating denominations and these Scholars have removed this blasphemous word without any ceremony as an interpolation, concoction, fabrication, and adulteration. Yet the majority of Christians are unaware of this important fact because they do not read their own Bibles. The priests in their sermons continue to use this blasphemous verse and indoctrinate the masses with false teachings.

So if you are still using this blasphemous word, please stop using it because it does NOT exist in the original manuscripts of the Bible and has been thrown out of the Bible.

[dwa2day]

Yes, there would be prophecies about prophet Isa (pbuh). One of the prophecy is that Isa (pbuh) would be a prophet. Also, Its not just about prophet Isa (pbuh), prophet muhammed (pbuh) is prophesied in the bible. Check this for reference: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ed-Turkey.html

As for your previous comment, i say that we agreeing calling prophet Isa(pbuh) as son of god same way as prophet Adam(pbuh) is called son of god. Infact, According to the Bible every righteous person who follows the Commandments of God is referred to as ‘son of God’. Only the word begotten is the problem.
The word ‘begotten’ mentioned in the Gospel of John, Chap 3 vs. 16 has been thrown out from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible as an interpolation, as a fabrication. The Revised Standard Version has been revised by 32 Christian Scholars of the highest eminence, backed by 50 different co-operating denominations and these Scholars have removed this blasphemous word without any ceremony as an interpolation, concoction, fabrication, and adulteration. Yet the majority of Christians are unaware of this important fact because they do not read their own Bibles. The priests in their sermons continue to use this blasphemous verse and indoctrinate the masses with false teachings.

So if you are still using this blasphemous word, please stop using it because it does NOT exist in the original manuscripts of the Bible and has been thrown out of the Bible.

Hi Nisthar.
Again I asked one simple question and you avoid in answering it. Why? Because you can not/ further if you read the Quran you will know that Mohammad attested to the authority of the entire Bible. See Surha 3:3.
You are greatly deceived when you claim Mohammad is prophesied in the Bible and again, I ask why use our text to prove your faith, can Islam not stand on its own two feet as a religion.
Bible translations are based on the source document of which there are some 300 plus which predate Islam and thus the truth stands simply through available ancient text to refer to. Something the Quran fails dismally in. Thus your rendering of John 3:16 is incorrect and not accepted by any Christian standards, if they do I say to you they are no better than Satan.
Please show your reference material regarding John3:16 as not been in the ancient text. If not please accept that our faith is that Jesus Christ, is the only begotten Son of God, came to earth as a human. Die on the cross for our sins and overcame death and is risen sitting at the right hand of God the Father interceding on our behalf.
Your comments on priest and blasphemy I doubt come from credible source other than you need to slander one faith. Further proves the point that.
Please can you answer the question, where can I get a copy of the Injil?

Regards
Doug

[Nisthar]

Hi Nisthar.
Again I asked one simple question and you avoid in answering it. Why? Because you can not/ further if you read the Quran you will know that Mohammad attested to the authority of the entire Bible. See Surha 3:3.
You are greatly deceived when you claim Mohammad is prophesied in the Bible and again, I ask why use our text to prove your faith, can Islam not stand on its own two feet as a religion.
Bible translations are based on the source document of which there are some 300 plus which predate Islam and thus the truth stands simply through available ancient text to refer to. Something the Quran fails dismally in. Thus your rendering of John 3:16 is incorrect and not accepted by any Christian standards, if they do I say to you they are no better than Satan.
Please show your reference material regarding John3:16 as not been in the ancient text. If not please accept that our faith is that Jesus Christ, is the only begotten Son of God, came to earth as a human. Die on the cross for our sins and overcame death and is risen sitting at the right hand of God the Father interceding on our behalf.
Your comments on priest and blasphemy I doubt come from credible source other than you need to slander one faith. Further proves the point that.
Please can you answer the question, where can I get a copy of the Injil?

Regards
Doug

I thought you will be understood after my previous comments. We do not believe in the interpolated bible (sorry if that hurts you, but its true). But we believe that the original bible is the word of god.

Also, in my opinion, you know much less about islam. Because, "Mohammad attested to the authority of the entire Bible. See Surha 3:3." Its not prophet muhammad's (pbuh) word. Its the direct word of god. Also, did you checked the meaning of the verse? It says:

"He has sent down upon you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming what was before it. And He revealed the Torah and the Gospel."

Its not saying to believe in the message of bible and torah. It means to believe the original bible and torah was true word before its changed. Same as jesus (pbuh) said to believe in the prophets before him.

"Bible translations are based on the source document of which there are some 300 plus which predate Islam and thus the truth stands simply through available ancient text to refer to. Something the Quran fails dismally in". Did you read the quran? Do you have any proof of the ancient documents that support bible?. Do you know that coming of prophet muhammad (pbuh) is prophesied in the bible multiple times?

Deuteronomy 18:18
Isaiah 29:12
Song of Solomon 5:16
John 16:7
John 16:12-14

You can check the John 3:16 Revised Standard Version (RSV). The Revised Standard Version has been revised by 32 Christian Scholars of the highest eminence, backed by 50 different co-operating denominations. You can't just call them all satans.

[dwa2day]

This is your statment!

as muslims, we believe in injil , the original word of god sent down to prophet Isa (pbuh).

My question is were can I get a copy to read?

Third time I have asked and you still avoid the question. One must then assume this Injil you refer to is a fantasy of the Islamic faith. Thus the reason you have to hijack the bible. Yet you do not follow your own Qurans message as noted in Surha 3:3 and others. Thus if you do not accept the Quran teaching about the Bible. What else are you avoiding.
This is not about me or my faith, its about you and your salvation. That fact is you have been lied to, look at the facts for yourself and your family. Make an informed decision.

I say again re John 3:16. Any Christian who dose not believe this scripture is nothing less than Satan. You on the other hand simply deny it, well until you accept it you are just as lost.

Re Mohammad in the Bible, please stop listing to you leaders and do the research your self and then make a decision.

Re proof of Biblical text, the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint are the two main ones, then there are the Dead sea scrolls that predate the Masorectic text by 900 years and are exactly the same. Again do the homework. There are over 5,000 copies of the new testament in dating back as far as the first century. The list is endless. The Quran, 1 copy dated around the 8th century, hidden and no one may compare it to Islamic teachings or today Quran.

Regards
Doug

[MidnightRose]

This is your statment!

Originally Posted by Nisthar
as muslims, we believe in injil , the original word of god sent down to prophet Isa (pbuh).

My question is were can I get a copy to read?

Third time I have asked and you still avoid the question. One must then assume this Injil you refer to is a fantasy of the Islamic faith. Thus the reason you have to hijack the bible. Yet you do not follow your own Qurans message as noted in Surha 3:3 and others. Thus if you do not accept the Quran teaching about the Bible. What else are you avoiding.
This is not about me or my faith, its about you and your salvation. That fact is you have been lied to, look at the facts for yourself and your family. Make an informed decision.

I say again re John 3:16. Any Christian who dose not believe this scripture is nothing less than Satan. You on the other hand simply deny it, well until you accept it you are just as lost.

Re Mohammad in the Bible, please stop listing to you leaders and do the research your self and then make a decision.

Re proof of Biblical text, the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint are the two main ones, then there are the Dead sea scrolls that predate the Masorectic text by 900 years and are exactly the same. Again do the homework. There are over 5,000 copies of the new testament in dating back as far as the first century. The list is endless. The Quran, 1 copy dated around the 8th century, hidden and no one may compare it to Islamic teachings or today Quran.

Regards
Doug

Hello again Sir,

It is not correct of you to use certain verses of the Qur’an such as Surah 3, verse 3 to state that the Qur’an tells Muslims to believe in the Bible – whereas the Bible isn’t even a recognized book in Islamic theology, the Injil is. It is the Injil that the Qur’an is referring to.

In good faith, I will assume you must have missed the Qur’anic verse in my initial post to you:

“We sent Isa, son of Maryam, and gave him the Injeel.” (Surah 57: part of verse 27)

The Bible wasn’t given to Isa :as:. It was put together many years after Isa :as: left this world.

Perhaps you should look into the history of the Catholic Church to figure out the fate of the Injil. In a PM, you yourself told me that I was hiding things like the Catholic Church did in the Middle Ages. Now we’re supposed to believe that this corrupt institution has come clean on everything. That’s your choice if you do.

So no, the Qur’an does not confirm the Bible, it confirms the Injil – which has been lost.

As far as your comparing Qur’anic with Biblical authenticity: there is no comparison. You base your Faith on archaeological findings and information from anonymous sources – we base ours on studying the character of the person transmitting the message. Please do refer to post http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ml#post2928102

[popsthebuilder]

The teachings and example of the Christ is preserved in the bible, though many focus on other things. It is too verified through the Quran, and other core religious texts as well.

People act like these books refute one another, which simply is not the case. Anyone can discern it for themselves if they could but let go of pride and fear and have that GOD will direct them.

Peace

[MidnightRose]

Hi pops,

The teachings and example of the Christ is preserved in the bible,...

I didn't dismiss the Bible (i.e. Torah/Jewish & New Testament/Christian in one book) as an important book. As this is about Isa :as:, in at least a couple of places I mentioned the Islamic perspective in relation to the New Testament:

"At best, the New Testament is a historical record (ahadith) with questionable chains of transmission"

So I am not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I am just specifying what the Qur'an is talking about.

though many focus on other things.

In order to ascertain and maintain the soundness of what our beloved Prophet :saws: said, we do have to focus on specifics.

[popsthebuilder]

Hi pops,



I didn't dismiss the Bible (i.e. Torah/Jewish & New Testament/Christian in one book) as an important book. As this is about Isa :as:, in at least a couple of places I mentioned the Islamic perspective in relation to the New Testament:

"At best, the New Testament is a historical record (ahadith) with questionable chains of transmission"

So I am not throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I am just specifying what the Qur'an is talking about.



In order to ascertain and maintain the soundness of what our beloved Prophet :saws: said, we do have to focus on specifics.

I wasn't responding to you. I was just stating the truth in general.

Saying that the best of what can be extracted from the bible is a historic account of some sorts is, well, just not true.

Everything I read in the Quran is verified with the Bible. Everything I read in the bible is verified by the Quran. There are minor differences, but they teach the same things for the same reason to the faithful and submissive to GOD and the will of GOD.

If you refute that then you should study some more. If you don't refute it then you should be openly honest about it even amongst fellow Muslims.

We all have the potential to remove fear, greed and pride leaving only truth. Questioning ones own motives at the core level is helpful in shedding light on one's own internal manipulation.

Not saying that you or anyone else are being self manipulated, again just stating the truth.

Peace

[MidnightRose]

I wasn't responding to you. I was just stating the truth in general.

Saying that the best of what can be extracted from the bible is a historic account of some sorts is, well, just not true.

Everything I read in the Quran is verified with the Bible. Everything I read in the bible is verified by the Quran. There are minor differences, but they teach the same things for the same reason to the faithful and submissive to GOD and the will of GOD.

If you refute that then you should study some more. If you don't refute it then you should be openly honest about it even amongst fellow Muslims.

We all have the potential to remove fear, greed and pride leaving only truth. Questioning ones own motives at the core level is helpful in shedding light on one's own internal manipulation.

Not saying that you or anyone else are being self manipulated, again just stating the truth.

Peace

Hi again,

One of my responsibilities as Moderator here on IB is to clarify the Islamic position on matters and make sure these clarifications are made - particularly - when un-Islamic things are mentioned and false statements are made about Islam.

And yes, I am proud. I am proud of the Messenger of Allah :saws: - who brought the Truth from the Lord to humanity. In Islam, there is no understanding of Allah without Muhammad :saws:.

He :saws: can not be taken out nor his position be watered down to fit the misguided sensitivities of people. Furthermore, my pride only increases knowing that Islam has something called the isnaad and the various Islamic sciences - so we can verify Truth from falsehood.

There is no Lord except Allah, and Muhammad is His Messenger.

* Please note that the pride I have in Islam and my own personal pride are mutually exclusive - having no relationship whatsoever.

[dwa2day]

Hi Najimuddin.
Before we put the Injl to rest, I comment on the following form your post.

Perhaps you should look into the history of the Catholic Church to figure out the fate of the Injil. In a PM, you yourself told me that I was hiding things like the Catholic Church did in the Middle Ages. Now we’re supposed to believe that this corrupt institution has come clean on everything. That’s your choice if you do.

In understanding history one can be empowered not to make the same mistake again. When an institution say “Because I say so” like the Catholic church did in the middle ages it takes the single most import human right away from people, The Right to Make Their Own Choice. Do the maths your self.

As far as your comparing Qur’anic with Biblical authenticity: there is no comparison. You base your Faith on archaeological findings and information from anonymous sources – we base ours on studying the character of the person transmitting the message.

Clearly you have no understanding of the importance of Historical facts and how they authenticate any given premise one may have. Weather you choose to engage in the historical record or not has no bearing of the discussion, simply ha lack of insight into the truth on your part.

The Injil
The Quran makes the following statements about the Injil:
And in their footsteps, We sent 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) confirming the Taurat (Torah) that had come before him, and We gave him the Injeel (Gospel), in which was guidance and light and confirmation of the Taurat (Torah) that had come before it, a guidance and an admonition for Al-Muttaqun (the pious - see V.2:2). S. 5:46 Al-Hilali & Khan; cf. S. 57:27

He [Jesus] said, "Lo, I am God's servant; God has given me the Book, and made me a Prophet." S. 19:30 Arberry

It is He Who has sent down the Book (the Qur'an) to you (Muhammad SAW) with truth, confirming what came before it. And he sent down the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel). S. 3:3 Al-Hilali & Khan

Sura 5:46 states that the Injil was given to Jesus by Allah. Sura 19:30 and 3:3 then clarify that the Injil is a book just as the Qur'an and the Torah are books that were sent down by Allah.

The Qur'an also contains a second set of statements regarding the Injil:
Let the people of the Injeel (Gospel) judge by what Allah has revealed therein. ... S. 5:47 Al-Hilali & Khan

Say: "People of the Book, you do not stand on anything, until you perform the Torah and the Gospel [Injil], and what was sent down to you from your Lord." ... S. 5:68 Arberry

Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel [Injil] (which are) with them. S. 7:157 Pickthall

[Say (O Muhammad SAW)] "Shall I seek a judge other than Allah while it is He Who has sent down unto you the Book (The Qur'an), explained in detail." Those unto whom We gave the Scripture [the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] know that it is revealed from your Lord in truth. So be not you of those who doubt. S. 6:114 Al-Hilali & Khan

These verses make clear that the Injil is the book of the Christians, the book that is with them and which they believe in. The author of the Qur'an even admonishes the Christians to fully obey (the Torah and) the Injil that they have.

However, here is the problem: when we look at the New Testament, the book which is the Scripture of the Christians, we see that it nowhere makes the claim that it is a book that was "given to Jesus". On the contrary, the New Testament consists of several books that were written by followers of Jesus (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) After the ascension of Jesus.

Therefore, the Injil can EITHER be a book given to Jesus, OR it can be the book that the Christians hold as they Holy Scriptures, but it cannot be both. The essential nature of the Qur'an and the Bible are very different. A book "given to Jesus" in a similar way as Muhammad claims to have received the Qur'an does not exist and Christians have never claimed that such a book existed at any time.

Muhammad apparently assumed that the Scripture of the Christians (and Jews) would be very similar to the Qur'an, the book which he thought he received from Allah. However, Muhammad was clearly ignorant of the matter. This claim of S. 5:46 is merely a wrong idea that sprang from the mind of Muhammad.

Had the author of the Qur'an made only statements like those found in S. 5:46 and 19:30, it might have been an option for Muslims to claim that the Injil of Jesus was simply lost. Thus if Jesus indeed did received such a book but, somehow, it disappeared. Muslims could have said that the NT clearly is something very different from the Injil as defined by the Qur'an, and could have concluded that therefore they do not believe in the Christian New Testament since the Qur'an does not endorse it.

However, the second set of statements above prevents this explanation. The Qur'an identifies the Injil as the Scripture of the Christians. Thus, since the Injil is the book of the Christians, the Qur'an makes a blatantly wrong claim about the basic nature of the Injil. It neither is nor ever was a book given to Jesus.

How could this error arise in the mind of Muhammad? He may have heard statements like in the first verse of the Gospel according to Mark:
The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, ... and mistakenly thought that this meant the same as "the Torah of Moses" i.e. a revelation given to a prophet in form of a book. However, reading the context shows that it means "this is the beginning of the Gospel ABOUT Jesus Christ"; the Gospel is the message telling us about the life and teaching of Jesus, written up by his followers, not a book given to Jesus himself.

Muhammad projected his own experience of receiving revelation of a book (the Qur'an) on Jesus and simply assumed that the book OF Jesus that was held sacred by his followers must also have been a book given to Jesus (like the sacred book of the Muslims is the book given to Muhammad). However, Muhammad was wrong about this, and this mistake exposes the Qur'an as a forgery. The Qur'an is not divine revelation but a collection of mistaken assumptions by its author.

In most cases when the Qur'an contradicts the Bible, Muslims shout, "but the Bible is corrupted", as if that is the answer and solution to every such problem. There are at least two reasons why this response will not solve the problem.

First, the Qur'an never claims that the Injil is corrupted. There are certain accusations against the Jews, but no charge that the Christians corrupted their Scripture. The Qur'an does not support the Muslim claim of Bible corruption.

Second, even if there had been some corruption of certain passages, small changes resulting in certain shifts of meaning, this cannot possibly explain the above contradiction in the Qur'an. Here we have a fundamental difference in the nature of the book which cannot be accounted for either with gradual changes or with a sudden change.
For illustration: The Qur'an is (allegedly) a book that was "sent down" from Allah to Muhammad. It was (supposedly) not written by Muhammad but given to him by Allah. On the other hand, the Hadith are memories of the companions and followers of Muhammad, formulated and written up by Muslims long after the death of Muhammad. They are their recollection of what Muhammad said and did.

Would it be possible for anyone to change the Qur'an (the book given to Muhammad) into a collection of hadiths without the Muslim community realizing that their scripture had changed into something entirely different?

Without doubt, the Muslim answer will be a resounding NO.

But if that is impossible for the Muslim book and community, why would any Muslim think that this would have been possible in the Christian community? Originally, the Christians had a "book given to Jesus" but one day they woke up and their scripture had turned into a collection of writings by followers of Jesus and nobody realized the change, and nobody protested against it? Believing such a theory demands a lot of blind faith in the Qur'an. It is impossible. Anyone with the least bit of common sense will have to conclude that this cannot possibly have happened, and this implies that the author of the Qur'an simply made an error regarding the nature of the Christian Scripture.

Regards
Doug

[popsthebuilder]

Hi again,

One of my responsibilities as Moderator here on IB is to clarify the Islamic position on matters and make sure these clarifications are made - particularly - when un-Islamic things are mentioned and false statements are made about Islam.

And yes, I am proud. I am proud of the Messenger of Allah :saws: - who brought the Truth from the Lord to humanity. In Islam, there is no understanding of Allah without Muhammad :saws:.

He :saws: can not be taken out nor his position be watered down to fit the misguided sensitivities of people. Furthermore, my pride only increases knowing that Islam has something called the isnaad and the various Islamic sciences - so we can verify Truth from falsehood.

There is no Lord except Allah, and Muhammad is His Messenger.

* Please note that the pride I have in Islam and my own personal pride are mutually exclusive - having no relationship whatsoever.

There is nothing wrong with being proud of the messengers of GOD. I would hope that all would look to clarify discrepancies and lies regardless of whom they are directed towards or come from. I'm glad your pride in GOD and His messengers isn't conflated with your personal pride. That is a good thing surely. My entire point was that the messengers of GOD are all of GOD and of one accord, yet instead of emulating this; people choose to draw dividing lines based on pride fear and greed. You, being a mod have no doubt read my posts in the past. I consider myself faithful and submissive to GOD alone. My initial post, again, was in general, and not anti Islamic or against the Quran.

Peace

[MidnightRose]

Hi Najimuddin.
Before we put the Injl to rest, I comment on the following form your post.

In understanding history one can be empowered not to make the same mistake again. When an institution say “Because I say so” like the Catholic church did in the middle ages it takes the single most import human right away from people, The Right to Make Their Own Choice. Do the maths your self.

Math?

Yes, this corrupt institution violated human rights in multiple ways since its inception.

They corrupted the very foundation of belief for those that claim to follow Isa :as: – by for example, like you mentioned, hiding things. The hierarchy within are known liars and criminals – with examples that extend into contemporary society.

Clearly you have no understanding of the importance of Historical facts and how they authenticate any given premise one may have. Weather you choose to engage in the historical record or not has no bearing of the discussion, simply ha lack of insight into the truth on your part.

We have no meeting point on the determination of scriptural authenticity. We’re talking about qualitatively different things. We have a different understanding of facts and their interpretation.

As I mentioned in a previous post, you base your Faith on archaeological findings and anonymous sources – Muslims base theirs on evaluating the trustworthiness of the transmitter of the message.

I invite you to investigate and learn about the Islamic method of verifying authenticity by clicking on the following links. They provide a decent introductory discussion on these matters:

https://ahadithnotes.com/2016/08/13/...o-the-prophet/

&

https://ahadithnotes.com/2016/09/04/...at-from-chaff/

There's a lot more.

The Injil
The Quran makes the following statements about the Injil:
And in their footsteps, We sent 'Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary) confirming the Taurat (Torah) that had come before him, and We gave him the Injeel (Gospel), in which was guidance and light and confirmation of the Taurat (Torah) that had come before it, a guidance and an admonition for Al-Muttaqun (the pious - see V.2:2). S. 5:46 Al-Hilali & Khan; cf. S. 57:27

He [Jesus] said, "Lo, I am God's servant; God has given me the Book, and made me a Prophet." S. 19:30 Arberry

It is He Who has sent down the Book (the Qur'an) to you (Muhammad SAW) with truth, confirming what came before it. And he sent down the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel). S. 3:3 Al-Hilali & Khan

Sura 5:46 states that the Injil was given to Jesus by Allah. Sura 19:30 and 3:3 then clarify that the Injil is a book just as the Qur'an and the Torah are books that were sent down by Allah.

The Qur'an also contains a second set of statements regarding the Injil:
Let the people of the Injeel (Gospel) judge by what Allah has revealed therein. ... S. 5:47 Al-Hilali & Khan

Say: "People of the Book, you do not stand on anything, until you perform the Torah and the Gospel [Injil], and what was sent down to you from your Lord." ... S. 5:68 Arberry

Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel [Injil] (which are) with them. S. 7:157 Pickthall

[Say (O Muhammad SAW)] "Shall I seek a judge other than Allah while it is He Who has sent down unto you the Book (The Qur'an), explained in detail." Those unto whom We gave the Scripture [the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] know that it is revealed from your Lord in truth. So be not you of those who doubt. S. 6:114 Al-Hilali & Khan

These verses make clear that the Injil is the book of the Christians, the book that is with them and which they believe in. The author of the Qur'an even admonishes the Christians to fully obey (the Torah and) the Injil that they have.

However, here is the problem: when we look at the New Testament, the book which is the Scripture of the Christians, we see that it nowhere makes the claim that it is a book that was "given to Jesus". On the contrary, the New Testament consists of several books that were written by followers of Jesus (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) After the ascension of Jesus.

This is not a logical statement to make in regards to Islam. Why would anyone look into the New Testament to find a passage stating that it was a book given to Isa :as: when the New Testament was compiled after Isa :as: left this world?

This should make it clear that the Injil the Qur’an is talking about is not the New Testament and definitely not the Bible.

This is where the corruption lies.

Therefore, the Injil can EITHER be a book given to Jesus, OR it can be the book that the Christians hold as they Holy Scriptures, but it cannot be both. The essential nature of the Qur'an and the Bible are very different. A book "given to Jesus" in a similar way as Muhammad claims to have received the Qur'an does not exist and Christians have never claimed that such a book existed at any time.

Muhammad apparently assumed that the Scripture of the Christians (and Jews) would be very similar to the Qur'an, the book which he thought he received from Allah. However, Muhammad was clearly ignorant of the matter. This claim of S. 5:46 is merely a wrong idea that sprang from the mind of Muhammad.

Had the author of the Qur'an made only statements like those found in S. 5:46 and 19:30, it might have been an option for Muslims to claim that the Injil of Jesus was simply lost. Thus if Jesus indeed did received such a book but, somehow, it disappeared. Muslims could have said that the NT clearly is something very different from the Injil as defined by the Qur'an, and could have concluded that therefore they do not believe in the Christian New Testament since the Qur'an does not endorse it.

However, the second set of statements above prevents this explanation. The Qur'an identifies the Injil as the Scripture of the Christians. Thus, since the Injil is the book of the Christians, the Qur'an makes a blatantly wrong claim about the basic nature of the Injil. It neither is nor ever was a book given to Jesus.

How could this error arise in the mind of Muhammad? He may have heard statements like in the first verse of the Gospel according to Mark:
The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, ... and mistakenly thought that this meant the same as "the Torah of Moses" i.e. a revelation given to a prophet in form of a book. However, reading the context shows that it means "this is the beginning of the Gospel ABOUT Jesus Christ"; the Gospel is the message telling us about the life and teaching of Jesus, written up by his followers, not a book given to Jesus himself.

Muhammad projected his own experience of receiving revelation of a book (the Qur'an) on Jesus and simply assumed that the book OF Jesus that was held sacred by his followers must also have been a book given to Jesus (like the sacred book of the Muslims is the book given to Muhammad). However, Muhammad was wrong about this, and this mistake exposes the Qur'an as a forgery. The Qur'an is not divine revelation but a collection of mistaken assumptions by its author.

Why then, my (missionary?) friend are you attempting to make Muslims believe that the Qur'an confirms the Bible?

In most cases when the Qur'an contradicts the Bible, Muslims shout, "but the Bible is corrupted", as if that is the answer and solution to every such problem. There are at least two reasons why this response will not solve the problem.

First, the Qur'an never claims that the Injil is corrupted. There are certain accusations against the Jews, but no charge that the Christians corrupted their Scripture. The Qur'an does not support the Muslim claim of Bible corruption.

Second, even if there had been some corruption of certain passages, small changes resulting in certain shifts of meaning, this cannot possibly explain the above contradiction in the Qur'an. Here we have a fundamental difference in the nature of the book which cannot be accounted for either with gradual changes or with a sudden change.
For illustration: The Qur'an is (allegedly) a book that was "sent down" from Allah to Muhammad. It was (supposedly) not written by Muhammad but given to him by Allah. On the other hand, the Hadith are memories of the companions and followers of Muhammad, formulated and written up by Muslims long after the death of Muhammad. They are their recollection of what Muhammad said and did.

As we've already established, the Injil is not the New Testament and definitely not the Bible. Hence, there is no contradiction in the Qur'an.

Since you believe the Qur'an is a forgery, it's interesting that you're using Qur'anic verses to support your argument.

The Qur'an does support the Muslim claim of Christian scriptural corruption, since the Injil itself is lost and the Christians are using something totally different than what the Lord gave Isa:as:.

Would it be possible for anyone to change the Qur'an (the book given to Muhammad) into a collection of hadiths without the Muslim community realizing that their scripture had changed into something entirely different?

Without doubt, the Muslim answer will be a resounding NO.

But if that is impossible for the Muslim book and community, why would any Muslim think that this would have been possible in the Christian community? Originally, the Christians had a "book given to Jesus" but one day they woke up and their scripture had turned into a collection of writings by followers of Jesus and nobody realized the change, and nobody protested against it? Believing such a theory demands a lot of blind faith in the Qur'an. It is impossible. Anyone with the least bit of common sense will have to conclude that this cannot possibly have happened, and this implies that the author of the Qur'an simply made an error regarding the nature of the Christian Scripture.

Regards
Doug

With all the liars and criminals in the Catholic Church, I beg to differ with you by saying it is completely possible. It is absolutely possible that you only know what the Church hierarchy released to the public. To think otherwise demands that we believe that criminals and liars with a vested interest in protecting their positions decided to come clean on everything.

In light of this: You can believe that Muhammad :saws: was mistaken. There is no compulsion for you to believe in Islam. May the Lord guide you to the Truth.

You cannot, however, say that he was a corrupt individual - as his integrity has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

For the convenience of our readership I will reproduce a portion of a previous post I made that gives a synopsis relating to the foundation of Islamic belief and practice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The foundation of the Islamic faith is based on the truthfulness of the Messenger of Allah :saws:.

The renowned Islamic scholar, Mawlana Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi :rh:has mentioned:

"Absolute truthfulness and dependability of a messenger of God constitute the first and the most essential factor for acceptance of his mission."

Source: (Muhammad Rasulullah: The Apostle of Mercy, p. 111)

The wisdom of Allah is indeed amazing. Muhammad :saws: interacted with society for 40 years prior to being commissioned as a Prophet by Allah. This resulted in the Prophet Muhammad's :saws: truthfulness being confirmed by all who knew him. It is for this reason that he was known as Al-Amin. Those that refused to acknowledge the message of revelation realized that he wasn't a liar. Thus, their rejections were for a variety of other reasons.

As stated of the Prophet :saws: by Mawlana Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi :rh::

"From early youth, the unobtrusive youngman was known for his gentle disposition and austere purity of his life as well as his candidness, honesty and integrity and the stern sense of duty. His was the straight and narrow path and none could find the slightest fault with him. The fair character and honourable bearing of the Apostle won for him, in the flower of his youth, the title of Al-Amin, the Trusty, from his fellow citizens."

Source: (Muhammad Rasulullah: The Apostle of Mercy, pp. 97-98)

The reports of the Prophet Muhammad's :saws: truthfulness are of the highest degree of authenticity due to their being mutawatir. The definition of this Islamic term is:

"A mass-transmitted report that is transmitted from one generation to the next in such large numbers, that one could not imagine that they conspired to forge it."

(See The Preservation of Hadith)

According to the principles of Islam, one of the processes involved in evaluating a report is the scrutiny of the reporter's biography. In an Islamic context, the messenger is of no less importance than the message itself. For a glimpse of who Mawlana Sayyid Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi :rh: was, please see the following: About Mawlana Abul Hasan Ali Nadwi.

In light of this, the knowledge of the Shari'ah has a specific method of transmission. There are no clerics in Islam. There are people who have spent time and effort learning Islam and it's principles. They become experts (i.e. scholars/ulama) in understanding, practicing, and explaining Islam to others and are known by various titles (i.e. Shaykh, Maulana, etc.) People, thus, look to them for guidance. These subject-matter experts are not a separate class of people as in Catholicism, for example.

"The method in which this divine knowledge was passed down to us by our predecessors was from heart to heart which required one to be under the direct tutorship and supervision of ‘Ulama. The first teacher of this ummah was our beloved Rasulullah (sallallahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) who taught the Sahaba (radhiyallahu ‘anhum), they then taught the Tabi’een (rahimahumullah), who in turn taught the Tab’e Tabi’een (rahimahullah) and who in turn taught our predecessors. As such, the knowledge of Shari’ah was transferred from generation to generation in this manner."

Source: http://www.askimam.org/public/question_detail/30663

The knowledge of Shari’ah continues to be transmitted this way. The verification of its authenticity can be ascertained by becoming acquainted with the people who are part of this method of education. The image below shows the chains of transmission in ahadith for Shaykh Mansur Memon Madani, Shaykh al-Hadith Abdul Moiz, Shaykh Ibrahim Memon Madani, and Mufti Husain Ahmed Madani. They are all currently teachers at Darul Uloom Canada.

Image obtained from:http://enterthesunnah.com/bloggers-short-bios/.

A high quality version can be obtained by clicking on the following link: https://bukhari2013.files.wordpress....4/05/sanad.pdf

With the context established above, if-then statements and/or criteria for comprehending the authenticity of Islamic narratives – such as the Qur’an – are not contingent on non-Islamic understandings/philosophy/logic. Shaikh Ibrahim Madani - a high-level subject matter expert of traditional Islam - has stated that the correct way for a Muslim to understand everything, including historical narratives in the Qur’an, is through what Muhammad :saws: has taught us.

For example:

• All historical narratives in the Qur’an are from Allah.
• Muhammad’s :saws: truthfulness is established beyond a reasonable doubt.
• Therefore, the authenticity of Qur’anic narratives are not contingent on non-Muslim beliefs/philosophy/logic.
• They are contingent on what Muhammad :saws: told us.

We, as Muslims, do not accept any other authority on this matter and we learn the context of this information from subject-matter experts like those mentioned above.

[dwa2day]

Math? .........................
We, as Muslims, do not accept any other authority on this matter and we learn the context of this information from subject-matter experts like those mentioned above.

Hi najimuddin
Thank you for your reply.
With regard to your comments on post, it seems to me you have a foot on both sides. I say this as if the Quran dose not refer to the Bible as I have noted, then clearly you do not accept the writing of the Quran. Yet at the same time you claim authority in the biblical writings when you claimed in your previous post Mahammad is prophesied in the Bible.

Regarding your links, thank your and explanation. In simplicity all you are saying is the Isnad is the chain of authorities (Muslim Scholars) attesting to the historical authenticity of Islam. Similar to when one get his friends together to make a club and they agree on the mission statement.
Problem with this is it is only valid for the group not accepted rules of apologetics. That is to say it is easy to get likeminded people to agree on their own rules. Just the the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages.

Regards
Doug

[MidnightRose]

Hi najimuddin
Thank you for your reply.
With regard to your comments on post, it seems to me you have a foot on both sides. I say this as if the Quran dose not refer to the Bible as I have noted, then clearly you do not accept the writing of the Quran. Yet at the same time you claim authority in the biblical writings when you claimed in your previous post Mahammad is prophesied in the Bible.

A study of my posts will show that you are clearly mistaken as I would never do such a thing.

Furthermore, a study of your words quoted above in comparison to both our posts are not in line with reality. In fact, they are misleading.

Regarding your links, thank your and explanation. In simplicity all you are saying is the Isnad is the chain of authorities (Muslim Scholars) attesting to the historical authenticity of Islam. Similar to when one get his friends together to make a club and they agree on the mission statement.
Problem with this is it is only valid for the group not accepted rules of apologetics. That is to say it is easy to get likeminded people to agree on their own rules. Just the the Catholic Church of the Middle Ages.

Regards
Doug

A reading of the articles provide much more than your simple explanation.

It is clear you are not here to learn and have expressed a desire (both implicitly and explicitly) to take Muslims away from Islam. For this reason, I am disabling your account.

Rest assured. I will not delete your posts. Nothing will be hidden.