Discussion with Orangeduck

[Orangeduck]

Since Christians believe that the after life is a continuation of this life, that means Christians don't believe you are "dead" per se. We are alive in the next life. Our bodies are dead on earth, but we live in the next life. That means what we do in this life can help others in the next life. I can pray for people who have "fallen asleep" (as Saint Paul describes it). Our prayers can increase the theosis of those in the afterlife, so the Orthodox Church prays for everyone in hades 3 times a years. And when I say "everyone", I mean it. They pray for muslims, christians, hindus, sikhs, athiests and anyone else and every other faith.

So whatever your theosis is upon death, it will increase slowly. But once Judgement Day arrives (whenever that is), everything is final.

However, since people are alive in the next life, that also means you can ask them to pray for you. That is why Catholics, Orthodox and many Protestants pick a Patron Saint. They pick someone who has very high theosis to be their saint. They ask that Saint to pray for them. I ask my Patron Saiint almost every day to pray for me.

Your theosis can't decrease in the afterlife, which means the Saints will have a better friendship with God than we will. Their theosis can only go up, so I know for a fact that my Saint has a better relationship with God than I do. His prayers are more powerful than mine.

I think I am finally done

I didn't want to rush the responce, but I am positive that as people respond, I will realise that I forgot to mention something, or that I said something in an unclear way.

Peace be with you all

 

[Hulk]

Thanks for taking the time to type down all that. I think there are many questions that should be asked but here are a few that I have.

Jesus dieing on the cross cleanses us of our ruined relationship

Why does an innocent man have to be sacrificed so that you will be forgiven? Isn't God capable of forgiving our sins without having us kill an innocent man? Does this mean that if you were there during the time of Jesus, you as a christian wouldn't have done anything to help him?

Lets assume Christianity is absolutly correct for the sake of the discussion. Knowing what I just told you, you would *NEVER* want to be held accountable. Since God demands perfection, and no one is perfect, what do you think would happen if you told God you wanted to be held accountable for your own sins? How can you, on your own, restore yourself back to level of no imperfection?

Do you think that God doesn't know His own creations? He created us, He knows our weaknesses and our strength, all we can do is try our best even if it isn't perfect. Yes, in the end we can only be saved by His Mercy but that doesn't mean there is no effort to be put into on our part.

Jesus *IS* God. There are not 2 beings in Heaven. God is invisible, but throughout the Old Testament, God has taken a visible and humanized form. This visible and human form of God *IS* Jesus. So Christ is simply God in the flesh.

Does that mean that the burning bush should be part of the Trinity as well? If God and Jesus is one in the same that who was Jesus praying to and who was he crying out to on the cross?

There is only God and if you pray to God, you are praying to Jesus. And if you pray to Jesus, you are praying to God. If you worship Jesus, you are worshiping God.

So are you saying Jesus told people to worship him? Can you provide evidence? If he is God then why does he himself pray and cry out to God?

if taken literally, "hell" would be impossible.

For God to be both an All-Powerful being and a limited being (a man) at the same time is also impossible. Am I wrong to say this?

This would be easier if you knew Kione Greek. Im not suggesting you learn it though...it's a terrible language

Are you implying that you know Koine Greek? You said you converted to Christianity about two years ago, does that mean you learnt Koine Greek within two years? Or were stretching the truth about being an ex muslim so that maybe we feel we can relate?

 

[Muhammad]

Orangeduck,

I gathered from your posts that the main reason you claim to have converted to Christianity is because of its historical basis and admit that it cannot be proven from a theological standpoint:

Hello my friend. Being a HUGE history buff, Christianity held a certain allure to me. The quran says that Christ didn't die in the cross, but historical records say He did. Being a history nut, I saw Christianity as a religion that had a historically sound and mostly verifiable foundation. This was very appealing to me.

If I didn't appreciate history as much as I do, I might not have every studied religion from a secular and historical point of view...and I might still be a muslim.

What caused me to convert to Christianity was the message and the historical basis for the belief. Christianity and Judiasm, whe neither can be proven form a theological stand point, both are historical sound and verifiable.

There is no provable theology. No matter how hard you try, you will never be able to prove theology. That is why I don't like getting into theological debtes. We can debate theology till Judgement Day and neither of us would be able to prove anything.

That was a major reason for my converstion. There is un-provable theology in the Bible, but there is a lot more provable history in the Bible than the Quran.

What is confusing me is that you have shown your historical knowledge of the Qur'an to be appalling, and you are unable to respond to posts made to clarify this. Christianity's historical record and very foundation comes nowhere near to that of Islam, so one wonders how you could claim to have converted on this basis. You even go against your own Christian scholars when you admit the Bible contains errors, yet nothing of the sort can be said of the Qur'an. A simple observation of how many different Bibles are in existence and how there is only ONE Qur'an in every corner of the globe is testimony to this fact.

Please explain.

 

[Alpha Dude]

Fundies do the darndest things.. sounds to me like the OP is using his alleged conversion from Islam to Christianity as a 'conversion tactic' and, in reality, he never was Muslim.

 

[Insaanah]

Or were stretching the truth about being an ex muslim so that maybe we feel we can relate?

Does make you wonder.

For example the following:

I believed everything I was told by my parents, such as:

5) always fast durring islamic holidays

Fasting is forbidden on the Islamic festivals (the two Eids). Only satan fasts on those days, no Muslim does.

For those like many who might not want to read swathes of text, the crux of Orangeduck's belief, as per post 99, and seen from my perspective, is this:

God has set us a standard, perfection, which we can never achieve. Because we can't achieve that unreachable (and thus seems to imply unfair) standard that God has set, our relationship with him is severed, as He won't accept less than perfection. To rectify this, God had to get into a human body, cry as a helpless baby, etc and then allow himself be killed by humans to prove his love to the world, and to cleanse us of our sin. (this seems to imply that He either didn't want to, or was uncapable of, simply freely forgiving us).

 

[YusufNoor]

Re: Easter.

Well, I see that you will spin information any way you can.

i'm not spinning anything at all, simply asking that you verify that "historical event".


I gave you examples of documents that historians consider to be contemporary.

but i am looking for something contemporaneous, as in AT THE SAME TIME. one would imagine that if a man came and claimed to be god, died and was raised from he dead, that this would be a pretty spectacular event! wouldn't you think? so i'm looking for an eyewitness account to this alleged miracle that was written within a month or so of the event. do you have such a document? i would like to see it.


You can choose to reject the concensus of historians, but the burden of proof is on you to give me a reason why you reject them.

no, you came here and said you changed your belief system on account of an "historical event." i'm trying to determine what evidence you have for said event.

I noticed you used the the Quran as your only price of evidence. Unfortunatly, a statement written 600 years after the fact isn't going to convince many rational people.

i was merely pointing out what the Qur'an said and asking how it was wrong. i'm looking for you to prove your claim.

I know you said its a retorical question, but I will answer it

If something historically happened, but a document claims it never happened, then that document is wrong. For example, if I write a document that states the holocaust never happened, then my document would be wrong. The same logic applies to the Bible, quran, and any other book (assuming the book is not meant to be fiction).

i see you are mixing "hot-button issues here, that helps to determine motive...

i see later that you mention Bart Ehrman, i'm familiar with him. i realize that he accepts the crucifiction as historical, but i'm more interested in what he has to say about the documents that report that fiction. i see no evidence that would be admitted in a court of law. hearsay by unknown authors is NOT proof to a rational mind.

i notice that you claim that Jesus, pbuh, spoke Greek. that is not a universally held opinion at all. Jesus, pbuh, would have spoken Aramaic and one would assume had a working knowledge of "Ezran" Hebrew script. one could make a case for it, but not much of a case that he ever preached in it. Saul of Tarsus would be the one who fit the bill on that. so not only are we looking at hearsay by unknown authors, but we are looking at documents produced in another tongue. the case for any authenticity or even accurate translation worsens dramatically.

so, still waiting for your reply on something contemporaneous.

Sam

 

[M.I.A.]

When you, I, or anyone commits a sin, we either miss the mark that God has set for us. It could be we either fail to do what we are supposed to do, or we do something we are not supposed to do. The word has nothing to do with legeality. As stated, if you fail to get a 100% on a test, you sinned, yet you are not in any legeal trouble. You might be asking "what is the mark that God has set for us". We, to be honest, the mark is complete perfection. You may read that and say "perfection is impossible", and you would be correct.

i agree.
i understand what you are saying but it calls into question freedom of choice.
if there is always a compulsion to do something that god has set then that pretty much puts the whole place on rails.. predistination, fate, kismet.

the only choice is to react to the situation.

sin in context is the wronging of our selves or others, the misleading of self or others.
nobody achieves perfection but only an increasing awareness.

i would say that the whole point in life is to struggle against what is naturally occurring..

something brilliant in the quran is when it talks about those that cannot feed themselves.
when they say that if allah swt had willed then he would have fed them.

anybody can understand from that alone how we should approach life.


islam says of the devil that he is a misleader that has vowed to mislead as many as he can.
if there is a concept of original sin.. then you know that guy is involved.

So when we sin, we loose our relationship with God because God demands perfection and will not accept anything less. Jesus dieing on the cross cleanses us of our ruined relationship (if we ask God for it...God will not force us to have a relationship). That is what Christ's death did. It heals our relationship and wipes away our imperfection.

lets look at that specifically, if jesus pbuh was crucified then those that stood by or witnessed obviously missed the mark.. they were not cleansed.

and this is how i uphold my argument, maybe it was gods will that a story should unfold like that. it is more a reflection of jesus's people than himself.
after all by your understanding they should all have had a chance to do what they were suppose to do.. or do something they were not suppose to do.

Jesus dieing on the cross cleanses us of our ruined relationship

no, i think you let go of the only thing he ever sent you to form a relationship with him(well the people of that time did)...back to autopilot.

ignorance is bliss.

everybody can go about professing one god and living out there lives happily. but i guess sometimes you have to step off the path to understand what this place is.

Lets assume Christianity is absolutly correct for the sake of the discussion. Knowing what I just told you, you would *NEVER* want to be held accountable. Since God demands perfection, and no one is perfect, what do you think would happen if you told God you wanted to be held accountable for your own sins? How can you, on your own, restore yourself back to level of no imperfection?

islam is the religion of total submission,
it is also a religion of accountability.

there is a concept in Christianity of atonement. i guess that applies to how accountability works on autopilot.
forgiveness is a concept that needs to be actively enforced or disappears.
..is that gods will or a persons?

well i guess the reward is with allah swt, the choice is with the person.

it is extremely difficult to put any counter argument against you without making myself sound like a fool.. there is a lot of similarity in understanding.. you may not think so.

but if you remove the absolute hate we have in differing opinions, then you remove the excuse for stupid men to do stupid things.

hate the action and not the person..people can change, the whisperer will have no place in your hearts.

everybody has a chance to reinforce atonement, but you want to leave forgiveness to god?

not saying god is powerless, malevolent or non existent.. its just miracles are reserved for special occasions.

it is why i know islam is the correct path, simply because it would oppose oppression and tumult as a matter of faith.
it was sent to upset that autopilot we all live on.

...feel free to continue discrediting each others religion, following those that live simply to do so.

 

[Orangeduck]

Orangeduck,

I gathered from your posts that the main reason you claim to have converted to Christianity is because of its historical basis and admit that it cannot be proven from a theological standpoint:







What is confusing me is that you have shown your historical knowledge of the Qur'an to be appalling, and you are unable to respond to posts made to clarify this. Christianity's historical record and very foundation comes nowhere near to that of Islam, so one wonders how you could claim to have converted on this basis. You even go against your own Christian scholars when you admit the Bible contains errors, yet nothing of the sort can be said of the Qur'an. A simple observation of how many different Bibles are in existence and how there is only ONE Qur'an in every corner of the globe is testimony to this fact.

Please explain.

I challenged you to find me 2 different NTs in Kione Greek. I also gave examples of 2 different Quran's in arabic, so what you said is obviously a lie.

However, it doesn't matter. I will reponds *again* with a historian, and you will *again* counter with some apologetical crap. That is what I have come to expect from you. I will respond with a consensus among people with PHD's from non-biased secular universities, you will counter with an apologetical answer.

It's like this. I will say the earth is round, and you will say it's flat. I will tell you scientists agree it's round, and you will predictably say that not a single scientist agrees with me. I will then give you the name of a scientist who does agree with me.

You will then go to google, type in "is the earth flat". You will ignore the 80 pages of materials that disagrees with you, and look at the one page that supports your claim. You will then copy and paste the quotes on the web page and act as is they are fully authoritative, yet you will have never read the actual books / papers the quotes came from (you did earlier in this thread). Since these quotes (which you have no idea of their context) disagree with me, you will then claim "victory" and say that my knowledge is "appaling" and walk away with a smirk on your face.

So, I have a single question for you. If you can answer it, I will no longer ignore you. Why should I bother wasting my time replying to someone like you?

Now, before you get all pissy, and play the victim and pull out the persecution complex, just keep in mind that everything I said is backed up by examples from things you have said. DOnt get mad at me for the way you acted. You Fundamentials will never change. Take Yusufnoor for example. He asked for a contemporary source. Not only does he not know what "contemporary" means, he also doesn't know what historians consider to be contemporary. I gave him 4 sources that historians consider contemporary, and I told where to go for more sources. So what did he do? He closed his eyes, stuck his fingers in his ears and screamed "LALALALALALALALALA I WANT A CONTEMPORARY SOURCE LALALALALALA" If I gave him 50 contemporary sources, he would still shift the goal post and change the requirements. He does this because he can't stand that undisputed fact that Christ did die on the cross and all historians accept it as a historical fact (beacuse there are many sources that speak of it).

You will also notice that he says my knowldge of history is poor, yet he will say, and I quote "i notice that you claim that Jesus, pbuh, spoke Greek. that is not a universally held opinion at all"

What is funny is, dispite his self proclaimed superiority, he didn't know that the Lingua Franca of the eastern roman empire was Koine Greek (look up Lingua Franca since you don't know what it means). He does know that the Jews translated the OT into Koine Greek ~250 years before Christ lived because of the fact that Greek had surpassed Hebrew and Aramaic as the language of the Jews (just look at jewish historical documents and funeral rites...most are done in Greek). No one argues that Christ spoke aramaic, but to say that is not universally accepted is pure apologetical.

As stated, if you can answer my question (and only answer my question), I will read it and respond. Remember, put away your victim complex because no one hates you (and if they did it would be your own fault). I just dont have time to respond to someone who wont take it seriously and only responds with apologetical crap

 

[Orangeduck]

I will get to some of that now, and the rest later. Normally I put others quotes in green, but this will be different. I will put my own replys in red under your question

Thanks for taking the time to type down all that. I think there are many questions that should be asked but here are a few that I have.


Why does an innocent man have to be sacrificed so that you will be forgiven? Isn't God capable of forgiving our sins without having us kill an innocent man? Does this mean that if you were there during the time of Jesus, you as a christian wouldn't have done anything to help him?





Do you think that God doesn't know His own creations? He created us, He knows our weaknesses and our strength, all we can do is try our best even if it isn't perfect. Yes, in the end we can only be saved by His Mercy but that doesn't mean there is no effort to be put into on our part.


God does know His creation. He does know we are weak, but that is no excuse. Let me give you an example. Parents know their kids will disobey. However, that is still no excuse. WHen a child disobeys, the parent still punishes the child, even though the parent knew the child would not listen. We are weak, but that is no excuse to God.



Does that mean that the burning bush should be part of the Trinity as well? If God and Jesus is one in the same that who was Jesus praying to and who was he crying out to on the cross?

THe burning bush was just 1 of many visible forms God took. The visible form of God *IS* the trinity. It doesn't really matter what form God took, but the fact is that God has appeared to humans. Christians universally attribute the Son to the trinity since that was the form that mattered, but basically, the Son is nothing more than God in a visible form. The trinity is very easy and people (myself included in the past) put too much thought into it a simple concept

So are you saying Jesus told people to worship him? Can you provide evidence? If he is God then why does he himself pray and cry out to God?



For God to be both an All-Powerful being and a limited being (a man) at the same time is also impossible. Am I wrong to say this?

Are you putting limits on what God can do? To be honest, the NT tells us something that God actually cant do. However, can you deity take the form of a duck? I dont say this to be funny, but according to the Quran, Allah absolutly could.


Are you implying that you know Koine Greek? You said you converted to Christianity about two years ago, does that mean you learnt Koine Greek within two years? Or were stretching the truth about being an ex muslim so that maybe we feel we can relate?

I started learned Koine Greek (very slowly) about 2.5 years ago. Depending on where you learn it, you might be required to know flawlessly in 2 years. If you go for your PHD in Biblical scholarship, you will have to know the language in 2 years or less (which is very difficult). I don't have a PDH in Biblical scholarship (nor will I ever), so I have been able to take more time.

 

[M.I.A.]

allah swt being a duck is extremely derogatory, the duck would not agree.

back to idolatary.

even if god was a duck, he is probably not every duck.

today a sign, tomorrow a lunch.. actually its haram but you get the analogy.

nothing is like allah swt, he is unique, alone, without likeness.

if his mercy is ever at hand then it can be infinite and of infinite form.. but nothing is infinite in this world. everything lives and everything dies..in this world.

yet god still is.

i guess it is fitting for an earlier post relating to idolatry and prophets peace and blessings upon them.

 

[Insaanah]

Are you putting limits on what God can do? To be honest, the NT tells us something that God actually cant do. However, can you deity take the form of a duck? I dont say this to be funny, but according to the Quran, Allah absolutly could.

Orangeduck, please do not persist in ignoring posts, and refrain from addressing admins rudely, and stating falsehoods not mentioned in the Qur'an but attributing them to it.

This is what the Qur'an says:

They say: "(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a son!"
Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous!
At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin,
That they attribute to the Most Merciful a son.
For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a son.
There is no one in the heavens and earth but that he comes to the Most Merciful as a servant. (19:88-93)

...Allah is only One Allah. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Disposer of affairs. (4:171, part)

This is at having a son, it does not befit the Majesty of Allah that he should have a son, let alone take the form a duck, astaghfirullah.

He can do whatever He wishes, and whatever He wishes, befits his Exalted and Glorious Majesty.

 

[Hulk]

God does know His creation. He does know we are weak, but that is no excuse. Let me give you an example. Parents know their kids will disobey. However, that is still no excuse. WHen a child disobeys, the parent still punishes the child, even though the parent knew the child would not listen. We are weak, but that is no excuse to God.

Actually parents punish their kids to teach them a lesson, wouldn't you say that is very different from eternal ****ation? If we are going to use an analogy for what you are saying it would be like if Bill Gates smashing his computer because it froze, or worse, he would smash a perfectly fine computer because he so loved that other computer that he put the perfectly good computer in it's place. But Bill Gates wouldn't do that(well he might, his human) because he knows that freezing up is part of the computer's weakness.

The visible form of God *IS* the trinity.

Christians universally attribute the Son to the trinity since that was the form that mattered, but basically, the Son is nothing more than God in a visible form.

So the burning bush *IS* the trinity? Jesus *IS* the trinity? Is Jesus the trinity or is he *PART* of the trinity? According to you, it's ok to say "The Father, The Burning Bush and The Holy Ghost"? What about "The Father, The Burning Bush(or any other *visible forms*, The Son and The Holy Ghost"?

Are you putting limits on what God can do? To be honest, the NT tells us something that God actually cant do. However, can you deity take the form of a duck? I dont say this to be funny, but according to the Quran, Allah absolutly could.

The irony is that you are the one who puts limits in what God can do by saying he is a man, and that he has to punish himself because he loves us and doesn't want to punish us. He has to punish himself instead of just forgiving us.
Also, didn't you say a few posts back that Hell is literally impossible?

I started learned Koine Greek (very slowly) about 2.5 years ago. Depending on where you learn it, you might be required to know flawlessly in 2 years. If you go for your PHD in Biblical scholarship, you will have to know the language in 2 years or less (which is very difficult). I don't have a PDH in Biblical scholarship (nor will I ever), so I have been able to take more time.

So you converted from islam to christianity two years ago but you started learning Koine Greek 2.5 years ago? Can you say how you learned it?

 

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Greetings,

Now, before you get all pissy,

You know there's no need for childish words like that. Show some respect, please!

I challenged you to find me 2 different NTs in Kione Greek. I also gave examples of 2 different Quran's in arabic, so what you said is obviously a lie.

There are no 2 Qur'aan's, nor did you give sound evidence, plus sister Lamees posted her evidence in previous pages, you can't be bothered to check them, this isnt our problem.

He does this because he can't stand that undisputed fact that Christ did die on the cross and all historians accept it as a historical fact (beacuse there are many sources that speak of it).

So, God died on the cross? If he did die who controlled the world? Father? if so, equating to 2 Gods!

You say this:

I will probably always believe in some monotheistic deity

Do you know what 'Monostheism' is?

Are you putting limits on what God can do? To be honest, the NT tells us something that God actually cant do. However, can you deity take the form of a duck? I dont say this to be funny, but according to the Quran, Allah absolutly could.

Yes, God does NOT do that which doesn't suit him. Have you heard of angels? Prophets? Why were they sent? Ever studied their purpose?

If according to the Qur'aan God can take the form of a duck, go ahead and prove it, provide your evidence, please!


Say (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم): "He is Allah, (the) One. "Allah-us-Samad (السيد الذي يصمد إليه في الحاجات) [Allah the Self-Sufficient Master, Whom all creatures need, (He neither eats nor drinks)]. "He begets not, nor was He begotten, And there is none co-equal or comparable unto Him."

 

[Sunnie Ameena]

I might be misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that you are under the impression that Christianity teaches that there is a being called "God" and another being called "Christ / Jesus". If this is actually what you think (and forgive me if I did misunderstand you), then I need to clarify something. We do not believe that Jesus and God are seperate beings. Jesus *IS* God. There are not 2 beings in Heaven. God is invisible, but throughout the Old Testament, God has taken a visible and humanized form. This visible and human form of God *IS* Jesus. So Christ is simply God in the flesh.

Here we go again, answers answers answers, never proof. Ok, let me explain myself so you can understand me. I do not need you to explain anything else to me(as I clearly told you in my earlier post). Clearly you say that God and Jesus are the same, not separate. Well, I was always taught the Trinity (remember, I was born and raised Christian, not you). You know what I mean, after all you are the history buff, God, The Son, and the Holy Spirit. If indeed, there is no difference, then why do Christians acknowledge all three. I will tell you this, irreguardless of what regligion is discussed, there will be debates. But for sure I know that there is indeed one God and that is my God. Whether someone calls him Allah, God, Lord, Father, or Jesus, whether they believe in the Trinity or not, my Father in Heaven will always be utmost in my heart, and soul.

And here is something else for you to ponder, but please, spare me any explanation. You are telling me that God is Jesus and Jesus is God. Here me good, God CAN NOT die. So you are saying that my God died, because Jesus died.

There are not 2 beings in Heaven.

Like I said before, I can not say that I know all there is to know about the Bible, but what I learned, was to memory. We were taught that the Bible says that Jesus died on the cross(Good Friday) and rose on the third day(Easter), and is seated at the right hand of our Father which is in Heaven. So you are basically saying that all that is wrong, because if God and Jesus are the same, then Jesus can not be seated next to God. I think that is part of the reason I originally started reading about Islam. Don't get me wrong, I do believe in Jesus, but I believe in one God and that is Allah.

Ok, I gotta stop, cause, (oh heck, it is just never ending), and I feel I will never get my point across. I love Allah. Thank you Father for all the blessings you have given to me. And most of all, thank you my Heavenly Father for loving me and being in my life.

 

[Muhammad]

Orangeduck,

So, I have a single question for you. If you can answer it, I will no longer ignore you. Why should I bother wasting my time replying to someone like you?

I’m not obliged to answer any such contemptuous questions before my posts are deemed worthy of your attention. The real question is why you felt the need to ignore them in the first place and one can only conclude you were unable to answer, hence you are resorting to this rather predictable cop-out of using discourteous remarks. If you don’t want to accept some of the quotes I’ve used, that’s fine. But instead of having an emotional outburst over historians who must have a PhD, you could have commented on many other points explaining for example why you might find copies of the Qur’an with Surahs arranged in a different order, or simply partial copies that will not contain all Surahs. There was even a referenced narrative regarding an Institute that studied 40,000 manuscripts of the Qur’an spanning different centuries and countries, and found them to contain no variants whatsoever. There was a response to your original claim regarding the San’a manuscripts... and more. All of this had nothing to do with inappropriate googling or false quotes. Please stop repeating nonsense about consensus of historians and nobody being able to bring evidence when it’s right before your eyes.

I challenged you to find me 2 different NTs in Kione Greek.

I haven’t mentioned the NT anywhere in my posts – you were discussing that with someone else. If you want to pursue this, then one thing at a time. This thread began with a discussion on the Qur’an and that was the topic I have been focusing on.

I also gave examples of 2 different Quran's in arabic, so what you said is obviously a lie.

This is nothing but a missionary claim (echoed in fact by the Christian missionary Jochen Katz), clearly demonstrating (often deception, if not) complete ignorance of the science of the Qira’at and Ahruf, something which is well documented and recognised by your own historians. The Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) himself taught certain verses in multiple ways. For a detailed discussion, you can read here:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Qiraat/hafs.html

There is an article by Adrian Brockett (I’m quite sure he has a PhD – feel free to check), titled "The Value of Hafs And Warsh Transmissions For The Textual History Of The Qur'an", which sheds some light on various aspects of differences between the two recitations. He says that,

The transmission of the Qur'an after the death of Muhammad was essentially static, rather than organic. There was a single text, and nothing significant, not even allegedly abrogated material, could be taken out nor could anything be put in.

​

You accused me of lying when I said that Muslims only have one Qur’an. Every year Muslims throughout the world recite the entire Qur’an from memory during the night prayers in Ramadhan. Millions of Muslims visit the holy Mosques in Makkah and Madinah, many of whom have memorised the Qur’an themselves, hearing the recitation of the Imams, following it letter by letter. Do you really think this would be possible if there were different “versions” of the Qur’an? Surely your alleged days as a Muslim must have taught you this much.


Lastly, I should remind you that your very ability to post in this thread is because people on this board have given you the benefit of the doubt and given you the liberty to discuss freely. If you are not prepared to discuss in a civilised and fair manner then please take your misinformed and ill-mannered posting elsewhere.

Regards.

 

[aadil77]

I think we've given you enough chances to respond but you've ignored these posts because you've found yourself in a hole - like every other Christian claiming to be a convert from Islam

Better luck next time

:threadclo