Islam has copied (say the Christians and the Jews)

[Zafran]

I know this isn't directed at me, but I always looked at the branches of Christianity as separate religions. They all follow the teachings of Jesus, but Catholics and Protestants and Evangelicals and Baptists all have different beliefs and practices. Its really only the Catholics who believe in the Trinity...

This doesnt change the fact that a dispute in the 16th century went so far that one group believed that certain books shouldnt be in the bible whilst the others did and still do. Both are the so called protectors of the bible - yet they hold a different book.

Whats shocking is that this happend in the 16th century and not some time when christ walked the earth.

The trinity is believed by most christians - i believe all the groups you have named believe in it not just the catholics.

 

[Hugo]

There are no versions of the Quran other then the one we have - if there are you'll have to prove it to us.

I cannot prove it or disprove it because Uthman BURNED all the evidence now that would make anyone suspicious don't you think? But again tell me where I can go to look at the ONE original copy, surely there must be just ONE? You no doubt have an Arabic Qu'ran and it is almost certainly based on the 1924 Cairo edition so what did those people in Cairo use to set the type in 1924? Uthman redacted a copy, he edited it together it did not just fall out of the sky into his hands did it? If we can believe the hadith Zaid collected verses on the witness of two people - this story only make sense if there was doubt.

On the other hand there are many versions of the bible for example the 66/73 books difference between the catholics and Protestants - thats a good place start. - some believe that the inspired word of God shouldnt have the books in the canon - the catholics differ - Dont forget that this dispute took place in the 16th century effecting the bible itself. How many years is this after christ now.

The books of the Bible can be chosen by anyone, Muslims for example love the book of Barbabus but the whole Christian church recognised the usual 66 books as part of the cannon. Some add the apocryphal books (I have copies in my Bible) but they are generally treated more like one would a commentary. I presume you are speaking of the reformation when you speak of the 16th? Indeed lots of things we find in the Qu'ran and hadith the Christian Church would regard as totally apocryphal.

 

[جوري]

I cannot prove it or disprove it because Uthman BURNED all the evidence now that would make anyone suspicious don't you think? But again tell me where I can go to look at the ONE original copy, surely there must be just ONE? You no doubt have an Arabic Qu'ran and it is almost certainly based on the 1924 Cairo edition so what did those people in Cairo use to set the type in 1924? Uthman redacted a copy, he edited it together it did not just fall out of the sky into his hands did it? If we can believe the hadith Zaid collected verses on the witness of two people - this story only make sense if there was doubt.

The four original copies of the Quran dating back to Uthmanic times are in existence today? did you read the book that you have been so apt at misquoting? Why should we be suspicious of a very meticulous system that took the witness of two hafith with every verse and a back up check to written parchment.. if you have different copies, or see a rift in the Quran itself then bring it on!

The books of the Bible can be chosen by anyone, Muslims for example love the book of Barbabus but the whole Christian church recognised the usual 66 books as part of the cannon. Some add the apocryphal books (I have copies in my Bible) but they are generally treated more like one would a commentary. I presume you are speaking of the reformation when you speak of the 16th? Indeed lots of things we find in the Qu'ran and hadith the Christian Church would regard as totally apocryphal.

let me re-quote myself :

well I guess if god has been to hell and akin to some animal like a sheep or goat or whatever else you want to have him as, and died, and prayed to himself, and didn't know if the earth bore fruit, and didn't know that something he created was going to crucify him, and didn't know that the apostles he chose were worthless, that he'd have to rescind his previous message through a charlatan, then you are right, the unknown authors have no bearing on the matter, because frankly you have no standards whatsoever. and if you have known and so proven, then don't come and ask for something else especially that has been amply elucidated and left for you to examine critically, from a historical, contextual, transcendental etc. point of view!

folks with that big a problem on their hand, really don't get to pick what is 'apocryphal' when not only is a question of validity is always at hand but also a question with logic!

all the best

 

[Zafran]

I cannot prove it or disprove it because Uthman BURNED all the evidence now that would make anyone suspicious don't you think? But again tell me where I can go to look at the ONE original copy, surely there must be just ONE? You no doubt have an Arabic Qu'ran and it is almost certainly based on the 1924 Cairo edition so what did those people in Cairo use to set the type in 1924? Uthman redacted a copy, he edited it together it did not just fall out of the sky into his hands did it? If we can believe the hadith Zaid collected verses on the witness of two people - this story only make sense if there was doubt.

How can you prove that "Uthamn burned all the evidence"? Every copy of the Quran is the same in arabic that I have seen Be it from Cairo, Beirut, UK, USA etc - I havent seen another Quran in arabic.

The books of the Bible can be chosen by anyone, Muslims for example love the book of Barbabus but the whole Christian church recognised the usual 66 books as part of the cannon. Some add the apocryphal books (I have copies in my Bible) but they are generally treated more like one would a commentary. I presume you are speaking of the reformation when you speak of the 16th? Indeed lots of things we find in the Qu'ran and hadith the Christian Church would regard as totally apocryphal.

2 bibles catholics believe the inspired word of God has 73 books - whilst the other group 66 books. 2 very different bibles indeed. the so called canon itself is still debated and what is actually meant to go into it - we're not talking about apocryphal here - we're talking the accpeted books by one group and rejected by the other. The books that make the bible or inspred word of God in christian eyes - disputed in the 16th century. Nice try in changing the subject though - there are two bibles even in christian eyes.

 

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Greetings

I cannot prove it or disprove it because Uthman BURNED all the evidence now that would make anyone suspicious don't you think? But again tell me where I can go to look at the ONE original copy, surely there must be just ONE? You no doubt have an Arabic Qu'ran and it is almost certainly based on the 1924 Cairo edition so what did those people in Cairo use to set the type in 1924? Uthman redacted a copy, he edited it together it did not just fall out of the sky into his hands did it? If we can believe the hadith Zaid collected verses on the witness of two people - this story only make sense if there was doubt..

The same you cannot prove or disprove your bible i suspect

Clearly what you mentioned is a lie and you seem to have no knowledge of the Quraan and Islaam at all, i suggest you quit acting like a "scholar" of Islaam! First you interpret Quranic verses yourself and now this?

Im sure you`ve read how the Quran was revealed right? Instead of talking about how it fell out of the sky and trying to make sarcastic claims as such.

And can you please post this hadeeth of Zaid collecting verses on the witness of the two people, thanks

peace

 

[*Hana*]

I know this isn't directed at me, but I always looked at the branches of Christianity as separate religions. They all follow the teachings of Jesus, but Catholics and Protestants and Evangelicals and Baptists all have different beliefs and practices. Its really only the Catholics who believe in the Trinity...

Peace David:

Seems you are seriously lacking some knowledge here my friend. While all the above groups may have different beliefs and practices, they all claim the same thing...The Bible...whatever version you opt to follow, is the word of God. (Most tend to use the KJV). And it is NOT only the Catholics that believe in the Trinity. lol The vast majority of Christian sects believe in a Triune God. And, quite frankly, some of these sects don't even believe Catholics are Christians, which is beyond comical to me. A Christian, is very simply, a follower of Christ. THAT is the definition. Now, how they choose to twist, turn, ignore, add, etc., to Biblical text is what makes one sect differ from another.

Peace,
Hana

 

[DavidK565]

Peace David:

Seems you are seriously lacking some knowledge here my friend. While all the above groups may have different beliefs and practices, they all claim the same thing...The Bible...whatever version you opt to follow, is the word of God. (Most tend to use the KJV). And it is NOT only the Catholics that believe in the Trinity. lol The vast majority of Christian sects believe in a Triune God. And, quite frankly, some of these sects don't even believe Catholics are Christians, which is beyond comical to me. A Christian, is very simply, a follower of Christ. THAT is the definition. Now, how they choose to twist, turn, ignore, add, etc., to Biblical text is what makes one sect differ from another.

Peace,
Hana

Hi Hana,

We're all lacking in some knowledge, I'd imagine. What I explained with the different branches was how I said I saw it. I certainly don't claim to know everything (not close), and I could be wrong about the trinity. Honestly, it doesn't affect my day-to-day life, so I don't care.

But what I do know is that whether you are an evangelical or a Catholic or whatever, they believe that the teachings they have compiled to be the TRUTH, and all other groups have *******ized the teachings of Jesus. Its that type of myopic vision that makes religions so interesting to me.

What I was trying to get across was that to an outsider (a Jew, a muslim, etc), it all looks like variations of the same material which can sometimes be contradictory, but within each branch of the religion, THEY have the truth and the correct canon and the other people don't.

 

[*Hana*]

Hi Hana,

We're all lacking in some knowledge, I'd imagine. What I explained with the different branches was how I said I saw it. I certainly don't claim to know everything (not close), and I could be wrong about the trinity. Honestly, it doesn't affect my day-to-day life, so I don't care.

While I agree we all lack knowledge, one shouldn't state things as factual when they are not. I'm sorry, but if you are going to engage in the conversation at hand, you should have some basic knowledge of the topic. To state only Catholics follow the trinity proves my point, which is the point I was making.

But what I do know is that whether you are an evangelical or a Catholic or whatever, they believe that the teachings they have compiled to be the TRUTH, and all other groups have *******ized the teachings of Jesus. Its that type of myopic vision that makes religions so interesting to me.

Of course everyone believes they have truth. The purpose here is to refute the allegations that the Qur'an was copied from the Bible. It is also to discuss our differences in faith as well as the unity of faiths. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but when you speak without knowledge who will take it seriously. At least one should learn the basics of the faiths being discussed so you can share your opinion based on knowledge and not making a statement and presenting it as fact when it clearly is not.

What I was trying to get across was that to an outsider (a Jew, a muslim, etc), it all looks like variations of the same material which can sometimes be contradictory, but within each branch of the religion, THEY have the truth and the correct canon and the other people don't.

Again, obviously, or there would be no need for discussion. But, you can't discuss stripture on any level if you don't understand the very basis of their belief.

With peace,
Hana

 

[Ramadhan]

The dead come out of hell in the resurrection.

I thought in your previous post you said that after we die, there is nothing, you said even soul dies when we die.
So why there are "dead" in hell before resurrection?
who/what is this "dead"
and if this "dead" does not have conscience (as you said in previous post), why is it in hell? what's the purpose?

 

[Ramadhan]

Its really only the Catholics who believe in the Trinity...

You are completely wrong here.

Only extremely few minorities (unitarians and jehovah winesses) who numbers only in few millions that do NOT believe in jesus as god.
99% christians believe in jesus as god.

 

[DavidK565]

You are completely wrong here.

Only extremely few minorities (unitarians and jehovah winesses) who numbers only in few millions that do NOT believe in jesus as god.
99% christians believe in jesus as god.

Seems you're right. Interesting....

 

[DavidK565]

While I agree we all lack knowledge, one shouldn't state things as factual when they are not. I'm sorry, but if you are going to engage in the conversation at hand, you should have some basic knowledge of the topic. To state only Catholics follow the trinity proves my point, which is the point I was making.

Hana, this is what is called an "error". Those of us not graced with divinity tend to make them frequently. The original post I made was about comparing the texts from the different branches of Christianity. A previous post was asserting the incongruities of the books of the bible. I was saying that the books in the biblical cannons differ because of the slightly different takes on their faith, and as such, I looked at them as separate religions. The trinity statement was a side comment that was clearly erroneous.

 

[Grace Seeker]

If someone feels that a quote from the Qur'an has invalidated their belief, that means they are not comfortable with their own beliefs!

Peace.

And I don't feel that a quote from the Qur'an (a quote that differs with the Biblical record) invalidates my beliefs. What I feel is that it shows that the Qur'an is not the perfect book that you take it to be.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Except that NOWHERE in YOUR scripture does jesus say or claim he is god and NOWHERE in YOUR scripture does he ask people to worship him at all, let alone as god.

Asked and answered. This point is meaningless.
First, no true prophet would ever have to testify regarding himself that he was a prophet: Jesus said, "If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid" (John531). So, if you think that Jesus sounds like a prophet, understand that the words of Jesus basically mean that Muhammad could not be a prophet for he testified with regard to himself.

Second, there are many who testified with regard to Jesus. Among them John the Baptist, Thomas, Peter, Paul, and even God himself.

Third, when people treated any of the disciples like God, they all refused such treatment. When people treated Jesus this way, he accepted it. If he was just a prophet, he was a poor one for accepting such acts.

Fourth, whether Jesus ever used the words "I am God" or not we will never actually know. He may have, for not all of his words are recorded in the scriptures. But even if he didn't (and I expect that if he had they would have been recorded), his actions and the things he did say were understand by those around him to be equivalent to him to have made divine claims for himself. He claimed to forgive sins. He referred to himself as being one with the Father. He declared, "before Abraham was, I am." These things led others to accuse him of blasphemy for equating himself with God. When asked to recant such accusations, he did not, but accepted them.

Fifth, Jesus pointedly asked people to receive from him what only God has the ability to offer -- life.

You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life. (John 5:39-40).

Sixth, Jesus claims to possess a position alongside God in a way that no Muslim would ever be able to either acknowledge of any human, and that no one who was a true prophet and only a prophet would ever claim:

And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began. (John 17:5)

Seventh, Jesus never says that he is NOT God. And though Jesus may not have said "I am God" in so many words, others did say that of him (see Thomas' confession in John 20:28), and Jesus praised them for it.

Also, the scriptures record God saying that Jesus is God, see Hebrews 1:8.


You can argue all you want from an Islamic perspective that Jesus is not God, that God has no partners. But you have to stay with the Islamic scriptures to maintain that point. The Christian scriptures say otherwise. And if you try to twist them into saying that Jesus was only a prophet of Islam, then he is the most intersting prophet of Islam claiming that God was a Father, that God has a Son, and that somehow not only was he a partner of God, but that he invited his disciples (who are clearly human) to become partners of God as well and to one day not just join him in paradise, but to even share in God's glory.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Hi Hana,

We're all lacking in some knowledge, I'd imagine. What I explained with the different branches was how I said I saw it. I certainly don't claim to know everything (not close), and I could be wrong about the trinity. Honestly, it doesn't affect my day-to-day life, so I don't care.

But what I do know is that whether you are an evangelical or a Catholic or whatever, they believe that the teachings they have compiled to be the TRUTH, and all other groups have *******ized the teachings of Jesus. Its that type of myopic vision that makes religions so interesting to me.

What I was trying to get across was that to an outsider (a Jew, a muslim, etc), it all looks like variations of the same material which can sometimes be contradictory, but within each branch of the religion, THEY have the truth and the correct canon and the other people don't.

David, there is some truth in what you speak in terms of each of us thinking that we have the best and most correct interpretation of scripture. But Hana is right in suggesting that we do share a great deal in common with one another, much more than we disagree over. And one of those things is belief in the Trinity. All Christians that I know accept the points of the Nicene Creed even if they don't actually use creeds as a part of their denominational practice. I don't think that you can say being a follower of Christ is sufficient to define who is and isn't a Christian. You see, people have different ideas of exactly who Christ is. The "Christ" that some people follow, I don't even recognize. There are many people who would deny Christ's divinity, his atoninng death on the cross and his resurrection, and promote the idea of Jesus just being some great moral teacher and claim that they follow his teachings. I know of number of Buddhists who don't believe in the existence of God at all who would be Christian by your standard.

You'll find that most people who call themselves Christian, regardless of denomination, will affirm the divinity of Jesus even as at the same time we affirm his full humanity as well; they will identify him as the second person of the Trinity; they will acknowledge that his death brings about the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God the Father; they will assert the historical reality of his resurrection, and after having said all of that they will speak about the importance of acknowledge as not just having a moral and ethical teaching, but that he is Lord and calls us to follow that teaching as well and love others as he first loved us. These things are pretty universal in Christendom, and where they are absent historically we have said that any teachings to the contrary are not genuine Christianity, but heresy. Where we disagree with each other most frequently has to do not with the major points of theology with regard to God, but ecclesiology and church governance.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Hana, this is what is called an "error". Those of us not graced with divinity tend to make them frequently. The original post I made was about comparing the texts from the different branches of Christianity. A previous post was asserting the incongruities of the books of the bible. I was saying that the books in the biblical cannons differ because of the slightly different takes on their faith, and as such, I looked at them as separate religions. The trinity statement was a side comment that was clearly erroneous.

There are different lists of canonical books, but not for the reason you have suggested. And they hardly would cause Christianity to divide into different religions. In fact, this Sunday we celebrate the unity of the Church in a celebration called "World Communion Sunday". Not quite all, but most all churches will be recognizing the existence of our brothers and sisters in other denominations as being one in Christ together.

 

[Hiroshi]

Now i must say honesly that God can never Die and is ever living, and since he created this earth why does he need to be burried into his own creation?

So, what are you saying? Are you saying that Jesus isn't God? You are right. I agree with you.

 

[Hiroshi]

I thought in your previous post you said that after we die, there is nothing, you said even soul dies when we die.

So I did. There is nothing until the resurrection. And there is no conscious torment in hell.

So why there are "dead" in hell before resurrection?
who/what is this "dead"
and if this "dead" does not have conscience (as you said in previous post), why is it in hell? what's the purpose?

There are a number of different words in the Bible that are commonly translated "hell". One of these is "sheol" in Hebrew corresponding to "hades" in Greek. This is where we go when we die and we stay there until the resurrection. Basically, it means "the grave" but not just an individual grave. It means the common grave of all mankind.

Another word translated "hell" is "Gehenna" which means: "the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom". This was the location of a burning rubbish dump to the South and South East of Jerusalem. No one was tortured in the rubbish fires of Gehenna, it was just a place of destruction. Those who are finally destroyed by God as condemned sinners are said to go to Gehenna. Gehenna probably corresponds more closely to the Arabic word in the Qur'an "Jahannam".

But the original meaning of "hell" in English came from "hades", not "Gehenna".

 

[Ramadhan]

Second, there are many who testified with regard to Jesus. Among them John the Baptist, Thomas, Peter, Paul, and even God himself.

Excuse my rudeness, but I don't take seriously any claim from Paul, as he never even met jesus and was even enemy against jesus.

Now, did god say: jesus is god, worship him?
did Peter etc say: jesus is god, let's worship him?

evidence please.

Asked and answered. This point is meaningless.

Nope. I refuted you when you gave me all those verses.

Do you think it's meaningless to ask proof whether Jesus is god in your scripture?

It seems you have very lax attitude towards whom you consider as god.

All we want is direct proof from YOUR scripture where Jesus unambiguous say that he is god and ask people to worship him.

but now you say god never make claim that he is god.
is this a christian view?
so what's the point of having faith in god? and all those religions and hereafter and heaven and hell? and knowing your god?

The mind boggles.

You can argue all you want from an Islamic perspective that Jesus is not God, that God has no partners.

Have I even written a SINGLE QURAN AYAT in this discussion?

Grace seeker, i expect more from a bible scholar and professional christian.

 

[Ramadhan]

There are a number of different words in the Bible that are commonly translated "hell". One of these is "sheol" in Hebrew corresponding to "hades" in Greek. This is where we go when we die and we stay there until the resurrection. Basically, it means "the grave" but not just an individual grave. It means the common grave of all mankind.

Another word translated "hell" is "Gehenna" which means: "the Valley of the Sons of Hinnom". This was the location of a burning rubbish dump to the South and South East of Jerusalem. No one was tortured in the rubbish fires of Gehenna, it was just a place of destruction. Those who are finally destroyed by God as condemned sinners are said to go to Gehenna. Gehenna probably corresponds more closely to the Arabic word in the Qur'an "Jahannam".

But the original meaning of "hell" in English came from "hades", not "Gehenna".

This contradicts your previous statement.

If we completely cease to exist (both body and soul), then how come we go to hell/hades after we die?