Can the Quran stand the test?

[أبو سليمان عمر]

YOU READ THE BOOK OF matthew luke paul etc we read the book of ALLAH(GOD)

 

[أبو سليمان عمر]

how dare you say that corrupted BOOK OF URS is the word of GOD you should be ashamed of yourself

 

[جوري]

LOL!! You believe in Nostradamus over the Holy Bible!?! Does Nostradamus name his "god"? How do you know that Nostradamus' "god" is not satan?

Ha? where did you get ' believe in Nostradamus over your bible' They are in the same category in my book-- you alleging the bible's boding as a testament to its veracity is as ludicrous, that is what you should have inferred-- but then, what do I expect? you make Gods of men, why not derange meaning a mere post later?

Is divination not considered a sin in Islam?

If by 'divination' you mean prophecies, those uttered by the Prophet as pertains to the future and end of the world events then NO!

You doubt the Gospel and Torah of the Holy Bible that the Quran confirms!!

You should read before you write.. The injeel given the man Jesus, is not the bible that you hold where your forefathers assert fairy tales of men/gods!

Still cutting and jabbing, the fruits of your religion I suppose?

I have no idea what that means, but then I have come to know you as someone who derives great satisfaction out of the most asinine conclusions!

all the best

 

[Follower]

The Torah and Gospel in the Bible is the very same Gospel and Torah that existed in 300, AD 600 AD to today. We know that Paul and Polycarp referenced this Scripture.

Your Quran is not lying to you, who is? Who is preaching such nonsense? You know Muslims never questioned the Holy Bible until 1000 AD.

 

[جوري]

how dare you say that corrupted BOOK OF URS is the word of GOD you should be ashamed of yourself

I have actually posted a large piece for that other fundie with deranged manuscripts from their book as pointed out by their own theologians ..
I honestly don't know what they have to gain from this save for embarrassing themselves and repeatedly ..

The reason for their lack of success aside from obvious erroneous beliefs, is that they don't know the first thing about Islam.. browse a verse or two and then come attributing to it the meaning of their choosing and expect the rest of us to jump on the same bandwagon.. and that I assume is because they themselves don't know the contents of their own book, so by same token they assume Muslims must be the same..

the hilarity

 

[أبو سليمان عمر]

The Torah and Gospel in the Bible is the very same Gospel and Torah that existed in 300, AD 600 AD to today. We know that Paul and Polycarp referenced this Scripture.

Your Quran is not lying to you, who is? Who is preaching such nonsense? You know Muslims never questioned the Holy Bible until 1000 AD.

And the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) differed not amongst themselves until after clear evidence came to them.
And they were not commanded anything more than this; to worship Allah, alone (without making partners with Him in worship) and establish regular devotional prayers and pay the charity due to the poor; and this is the correct Way (way of life and religion).
[Noble Quran 98:4-5]

And verily, among them is a party who distort the Book with their tongues (as they read), so that you may think it is from the Book, but it is not from the Book, and they say: "This is from Allah," but it is not from Allah; and they speak a lie against Allah while they know it.

It is not (possible) for any human being to whom Allah has given the Book and Al-Hukma (the knowledge and understanding of the laws of religion, etc.) and Prophethood to say to the people: "Be my worshippers rather than Allah's." On the contrary (he would say): "Be you Rabbaniyun (learned men of religion who practice what they know and also preach others), because you are teaching the Book, and you are studying it."
[Noble Quran 3:78-79]

Do they seek other than the religious way of life of Allah (the true Islamic Monotheism worshipping none but Allah Alone), while to Him submitted all creatures in the heavens and the earth, willingly or unwillingly. And to Him shall they all be returned.
[Noble Quran 3:83]

And whoever seeks a Way of life other than submission and surrender to Allah's Will (Islam), it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.

[Noble Quran 3:85]

 

[Follower]

Poor arguement- Muslims keep saying the Gospel given to Jesus.

LOL! The Quran given to Mohammad was written by other men, not by Mohammad

Remember that Jesus was the Gospel = Good News.

Kalimatuhu: God's Word 3:45

The word "kalimatuhu" is God's personal word which exists from eternity and is uncreated. Being eternal would also imply that Jesus is both distinct from God,eternally inseperable from God and thus God by nature.

Well kids time for me to hit the sack. Good night.

 

[جوري]

The Torah and Gospel in the Bible is the very same Gospel and Torah that existed in 300, AD 600 AD to today. We know that Paul and Polycarp referenced this Scripture.

You go sell that to your pals the Jews to whom your ineffectual God was sent!

Your Quran is not lying to you, who is? Who is preaching such nonsense? You know Muslims never questioned the Holy Bible until 1000 AD.

I would say you.. a liar and full of nonsense!
and funny you should say it wasn't questioned-- Given the amount of verses of the Quran warning of christian falsehood!

Again you mistake the Injeel for your bibles.. I say pls get your information about Muslims from Muslims rather than your indoctrination classes so you don't come across like such a fool with every post!

all the best

 

[أبو سليمان عمر]

I have actually posted a large piece for that other fundie with deranged manuscripts from their book as pointed out by their own theologians ..
I honestly don't know what they have to gain from this save for embarrassing themselves and repeatedly ..

The reason for their lack of success aside from obvious erroneous beliefs, is that they don't know the first thing about Islam.. browse a verse or two and then come attributing to it the meaning of their choosing and expect the rest of us to jump on the same bandwagon.. and that I assume is because they themselves don't know the contents of their own book, so by same token they assume Muslims must be the same..

the hilarity

:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up MAYBE THEY THINK Matthew or luke will help them well MAY Allah guide them to the true deen (way of life) deen Allah deen al islam
Ameen

 

[جوري]

Poor arguement- Muslims keep saying the Gospel given to Jesus.

How is it poor?

LOL! The Quran given to Mohammad was written by other men, not by Mohammad

What does that mean?

Remember that Jesus was the Gospel = Good News.

Good news your God has died, and he decided to whisper his bidding to paul et al.

Kalimatuhu: God's Word 3:45

What does that mean to you? further just so you are doing this correctly, the verse states:
Be'kalmitin minh!
go run back to your fundies and have them fix it before they assign a meaning..

The word "kalimatuhu" is God's personal word which exists from eternity and is uncreated. Being eternal would also imply that Jesus is both distinct from God,eternally inseperable from God and thus God by nature.

Again wrote it wrong, but then you get everything wrong I am not surprised..

إِذْ قَالَتِ الْمَلآئِكَةُ يَا مَرْيَمُ إِنَّ اللّهَ يُبَشِّرُكِ بِكَلِمَةٍ مِّنْهُ اسْمُهُ الْمَسِيحُ عِيسَى ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ وَجِيهًا فِي الدُّنْيَا وَالآخِرَةِ وَمِنَ الْمُقَرَّبِينَ {45}
[SIZE=-1][Pickthal 3:45] (And remember) when the angels said: O Mary! Lo! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a word from him, whose name is the Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary, illustrious in the world and the Hereafter, and one of those brought near (unto Allah).[/SIZE]


No where does it say, he is me, my man/God.. so get a clue!

Well kids time for me to hit the sack. Good night.

yawns

 

[جوري]

:thumbs_up:thumbs_up:thumbs_up MAYBE THEY THINK Matthew or luke will help them well MAY Allah guide them to the true deen (way of life) deen Allah deen al islam
Ameen

I just find them mildly humerus.. especially when he misquotes the Quran and assigns meanings left and right.. then says the same thing over and over without reading replies..
he'll have a career in telemarketing.. if he can find someone to buy what he is selling!

 

[أبو سليمان عمر]

I just find them mildly humerus.. especially when he misquotes the Quran and assigns meanings left and right.. then says the same thing over and over without reading replies..
he'll have a career in telemarketing.. if he can find someone to buy what he is selling!

well they will try to make their false beliefs look right useing anything they can they cant use the bible it says in there that it is not the word of God by ALL the contradictions in there they see the perfect book (Quran) and try to twist this word and that word to make them self feel better about there false beliefs

 

[جوري]

well they will try to make their false beliefs look right useing anything they can they cant use the bible it says in there that it is not the word of God by ALL the contradictions in there they see the perfect book (Quran) and try to twist this word and that word to make them self feel better about there false beliefs

problem is whether or not he uses the Quran or the bible it makes no difference whatsoever.. I find their beliefs flawed at the very core, the fulcrum upon which all else rests, and the scale never tips in their directions..

It is so absurd, that you'd honestly have to leave all logic behind to accept that, God, the one who went to enunciate the birth of God, and the God born are all one in the same.
And that God wanted all of his commandments abrogated through random toms, dicks, and harries -- and then they come speak of false prophets.. if it isn't everything they preach is the works of a false prophet.

Ask him if his God wasn't circumcised, or ate pigs, or played the organ in the garden of Gethsemane.. God basically hates himself for he prays to himself and forsakes himself, for no good reason, none whatsoever.. then abrogates what he came with for centuries through various prophets through saul-- someone who wasn't even present at the last supper or chosen by Jesus!

that is what they want to sell you.. sob7an Allah 3ama yasifoon

 

[أبو سليمان عمر]

^^^ Mashallah you must read Alot and yes it is very sick i honestly dont know how they live with it but it is what it is. somtimes there are those who seek truth and Alhumdulillah they find it and other time well Summun bukmun AAumyun fahum la yarjiAAoona

 

[جوري]

^^^ Mashallah you must read Alot and yes it is very sick i honestly dont know how they live with it but it is what it is. somtimes there are those who seek truth and Alhumdulillah they find it and other time well Summun bukmun AAumyun fahum la yarjiAAoona

funny you should mention.. 'Read' was the first verse revealed..
but you don't even need to be well read.. all you need is the faculty of reason, (God-Bestowed) Christians love to bury their head in the sand and think all is well with their religion-- but what is worst is that they expect others to buy that too .......

 

[أبو سليمان عمر]

:thumbs_up:thumbs_up

 

[Grace Seeker]

The Paul of the Bible never preached three anymore than Mohammed did.

You know what I mean, I meant he preached the concept of the trinity.

How can this be if, as so many have said here, the concept of the Trinity was invented during the time of Constantine? If Paul preached the concept of the trinity, then that concept cannot have been invented during the time of Constantine.

On the other hand, if I accept your proposal that Paul preached what later came to be labelled by others as the Trinity (a view I have no problem with), then I will ask you to examine whether in doing so Paul did that by teachig the unity or the division of God as one being? I submit to you that Paul never envision the concept of three seperate gods, but always affirmed the reality of only one God who was creator of all and Lord over all.

 

[malayloveislam]

This is what our Arian Catholic brothers said, concerning Trinity:

Nowhere in the Bible is there any reference to the trinity and Jesus never taught trinitarianism to his disciples! Tertullian of Carthage ((140-230 A.D.) a Roman Montanist heretic and the son of a Roman Centurion) first wrote about the Trinity at the end of the second century where he copied elements of Hindu and Greek ideologies, it was not formally introduced into Christianity until the first Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., which was overseen by Emperor Constantine I*. Its justification is loosely linked to different passages scattered between the Old and New Testaments, which only serve to play on ambiguities between different contextual styles, and then concluding that only God is capable of salvation. The concept of the Holy Spirit to be the part of a Trinity was completely unknown to Jesus and was never advocated by him. When Emperor Constantine supposedly embraced Christianity he insisted that the Christian Church adopted many changes so that the church would be familiar to the superstitious Romans, including the deification of Christ and the Holy Spirit, and the polytheising of God through the Trinity. Therefore the concept of the Holy Trinity was forced upon Christianity by the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D.
and was wrong!

This is their view about Jesus:

Jesus Christ was not physically divine but his title was honorific of a man who was worthy of being called “Son of God”, physically human (Romans 1:3), a tzaddik orthodox Jew, and whose Spirit was chosen and sent by God as his messenger: the Angel of Great Counsel. In the Early Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, the word “Son” is not actually used but Jesus is called “Eved” which means Servant or Slave. It is clear that the early Christians were monotheistic both by instinct and by teaching. They lived in the very center of monotheistic faith and it was logically impossible for them to regard Jesus in a way which would annihilate the absolute gulf which existed in their mind between man and God. Consequently Jesus remained essentially distinct from deity. The role which they had attributed to him was of Messiah. It had a connotation which adhered to Orthodox Judaism and conformed to the Jewish nationalistic aspirations. This is obvious from Acts 1:6 when the disciples ask Jesus: “Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom of Israel”? Note also in Matthew 13:57 Jesus himself admits that he is a Prophet: “And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, ‘A prophet is not without honour except in his hometown and in his own house’.”; this is repeated almost word for word in Mark 6:4

As a faithful civilian Muslim, I believe Holy Quran as the word of God. It is not the word of prophet Muhammad, he is just a conveyor of the message, a prophet, and the last messenger of Allah for the last age of the universe. Holy Quran was revealed in three stages. Many Muslims memorize Quran since the time of prophet Muhammad until today. As for the thread starter intention to stir doubt in a civilian Muslim like myself and others, it is a failure.

 

[Grace Seeker]

I don't know what source you are quoting above in the BOLD type, but it is not Arian Christians. You are probably quoting some contemporary source writing about Arians, but those are not the words of actual Arians, so you might want to revise your opening statement wherein you claim: "This is what our Arian Catholic brothers said, concerning Trinity." It isn't. It is from some other source about Arians, but it is most certainly not what Arians actually said.

As for the tenets of Arianism, Arius did not have any problem with the concept that a man could be God, but rather with the question of how God could in all of his fullness become a man? Arius began by reacting against what he perceived (quite correctly) to be heretical teachings that existed at the time that left no room for distinguishing the divinity of God the Father from that of God the Son. You will note that some here in LI try to force Christianity to blur those distinctions, but Arius was right in saying that we must recognize that there are distinctions between the Father and the Son. And he was also right in insisting on preserving a sharp distinction between creator and creation. However, Arius went beyond those important recognitions and began to question how God, the unknowable, immutable, transcendent one, could become fully human without being changed in the process? Yet, even asking that question did not make him heretic. But, unfortunately, driving the question for Arius was a strong Neoplatonic cosmology that sharply distinguished between an unchanging heavenly sphere of existence and the changeable created order. This dualistic starting point (which belongs to Greek philosophy, not the Biblical revelation), along with an assumption that monotheism could allow no distinction between a Father and Son within God, ultimately led him to (in my opinion) press certain biblical passages over against others. Thus Arius minimized the teachings of some scriptural texts in order to produce a version of Christianity more consistent with his presuppositions. In the process, biblical orthodoxy was sacrificed on the altar of Greek philosophy.

Now, I actually respect Arius. He was a diligent Bible student. And he truly sought to understand the biblical text. I just believe he got it wrong.

For instance, Arius did not deny that the scriptures taught that the Word was in the beginning, that the Word was with God, and that the Word even was God (John 1:1). He could still say that the Son was both human and even, in a sense, 'divine', but Arius always qualified that assertion in a crucial way. For Arius, while the divine Word of God existed before all of creation, Arius held that Word was himself created -- the first act of the Father's creation who then created the rest of all that was created. In Arius' own words: "There was [a time] when he [the Son] was not." In Arius' cosmology, instead of pre-existing with the Father, the Word has a beginning before himself going on to create the world and become a man. Thus the Word, was a creature who, precisely because he was created and begotten, could not fully know nor comprehend the mind of God. In other words, for Arius, Jesus was fully human, but not fully God.

The problem that I have with Arius' conclusion, is that to reach it one has to dismiss other passages of scripture which teach that "God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him [Christ]" (Colossians 1:19), "for in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form" (Colossians 2:9).

Athanasius was not the first to challenge Arius. Arius' own bishop, Alexander, disagreed with Arius and in 321 AD, 4 years before the Council of Nicea, declared Arius a heretic. But Arius decided to send letters out to other churches promoting his ideas and it is because of the division his letters caused that Constantine, who wanted peace and unity in his empire more than he cared for any particular theology, called for a council of the bishops to hear and resolve the dispute. 300 bishops came; two were from Rome and the rest from the eastern parts of the empire. This is worth noting, because it is in the eastern portion of the empire that Arius' views were gaining some ground, so his views would receive the most favorable hearing in this council that he might have hoped for. However, Arius' views that Christ was not divine was going to be a hard sell, even to this crowd for the church had long before proclaimed that Jesus was divine:

Ignatius: "God Himself was manifested in human form" (A.D. 105).
Clement: "It is fitting that you should think of Jesus Christ as of God" (A.D. 150).
Justin Martyr: "The Father of the universe has a Son. And He...is even God" (A.D. 160).
Irenaeus: "He is God, for the name Emmanuel indicates this" (A.D. 180).
Tertullian: "...Christ our God" (A.D. 200).
Origen: "No one should be offended that the Savior is also God..." (A.D. 225).
Novation: "...He is not only man, but God also..." (A.D. 235).
Cyprian: "Jesus Christ, our Lord and God" (A.D. 250).
Methodius: "...He truly was and is...with God, and being God..." (A.D.290).
Lactantius: "We believe Him to be God" (A.D. 304).
Arnobius: "Christ performed all those miracles...the...duty of Divinity" (A.D. 305).

In other words, while Arius was not alone in his views, he was definitely in the minority. When the vote was taken, it was a landside against Arius. All but three of the bishops in attendance voted against Arius and to adopt language which would clarify the church's view regarding Jesus' divine nature as: "very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father."

Some think that Constantine was the driving force behind this vote. I do not. While Constantine did call for the council, what he was most interested in was achieving harmony in his empire. The words of the council had been used by the church before Arius. Both Eusebius and Origen make use of the key term "homoousious" (meaning of one substance) in the prior century. And Tertullian is the man who is most generally credited with first coining the phrase "trinitas" (i.e., Trinity) nearly 100 years before any of those who met at Nicea were even born. Lastly, if the Emporer Constantine had favored one side over the other, I suspect he would have favored Arius, for he was later known as an open supporter of Arius and sought to have him reinstated, but Arius died before that was accomplished. So it was the bishops, voicing the overwhelming position of the church, who declared that Arius was wrong and who reaffirmed the long-held view of scripture that Jesus is indeed divine.

However, remember the key discussion at Nicea was not so much about the Trinity, as it was with regard to the question of Jesus' divinity. Arians said that Jesus was a created being. Athanasius distinguised between 'generation' and 'creation'. The Son, Athanasius said, was generated, begotten by God from eternity, but he had no beginning. This generation was eternal and internal to God, whereas creation was in time and external to God. The Son was therefore homoousious (being of the same substance) and co-eternal with the Father, not simply homoiousios (being of similar substance to God) as some of the Arians claimed. The only difference between those two Greek words is the letter 'iota'. But it is the difference between affirming that Christ is God and only saying that Christ is like God. The affirmation that Christ is God is what Nicea was all about. It would be another 50 years before the church, at the Council of Constantinople would articulate what we today call the Nicene Creed (not Nicean, as some mistakenly refer to it) with its formula in which Athanasius' rather long creedal statement is shortened to produce an affirmation of the Trinity.

 

[Follower]

LOL! Gone for a few days and this thread is being answered by everything but proof that the Quran is from GOD.

When Gabriel approached people in the Bible and they were frightened, Gabriel comforted them.
Luke 1
28The angel went to her and said, "Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you."
29Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God.

This is not the case with Mohammad- he was squeezed and pressed until he couldn't breathe.

Bukhari:V1B1N3-V6B60N478
Thereupon he caught me again and pressed me till I could not bear it any more. He asked me to read but I replied, "I do not know how to read or what shall I read?" Thereupon he caught me for the third time and pressed me, "Read in the name of your Lord who has created man from a clot. Read! Your Lord is the most generous." Then the Apostle returned from that experience; the muscles between his neck and shoulders were trembling, and his heart beating severely. He went to Khadija and cried, 'Cover me! Cover me.'

Mohammad was so upset he was going to throw himself off a cliff.

Ishaq:106 "I will go to the top of the mountain and throw myself down that I may kill myself and be at rest."