22 replies to this topic

[abdullahfath]

Jesus is our Lord the messiah sent as an atonement to mend the rift between man and God once and for all, this is why the curtain in the temple was ripped asunder during the crucifixion. For to Mary the holy spirit came and she was with child and through Mary God became flesh that we might be saved. To me personally to say that God cannot be man is to limit God. Its like the child telling the parent, "You can't do that" ... I prefer not to be as such and presumptuous enough to say that God is incapable of anything. And while it is on my mind I also have to wonder and this is just something to think about...everyone wants to talk about the cannonization of the Bible and what books are relevant or corrupted but you have to also realize that literary rates were incredibly low until the Renaissance so the probability that these individuals were reading anything was highly unlikely, and you also have to think that most of the original disciples themselves were illiterate and yet this perception of Jesus being crucified and dying for sin thrived. Logic, I would think, would say that if this is not what was taught by the disciples and their predecessors then older members of the church at the time would have stepped forward to correct this error in teaching.

Also in the Bible whenever a messenger or a prophet questioned God there was a punishment i.e. Moses, Jonah, etc. so why was Muhammad supposed to be immune to this as he went back time and again to ask God to reduce the number of prayers?

Finally anytime that God had a messenger or a prophet he spoke directly with them and not via angel. Why did he not do this with Muhammad? Why was Muhammad visited by an angel instead of hearing the words of God, himself?

[andalusi]

Jesus is our Lord the messiah sent as an atonement to mend the rift between man and God once and for all, this is why the curtain in the temple was ripped asunder during the crucifixion. For to Mary the holy spirit came and she was with child and through Mary God became flesh that we might be saved. To me personally to say that God cannot be man is to limit God. Its like the child telling the parent, "You can't do that" ... I prefer not to be as such and presumptuous enough to say that God is incapable of anything. And while it is on my mind I also have to wonder and this is just something to think about...everyone wants to talk about the cannonization of the Bible and what books are relevant or corrupted but you have to also realize that literary rates were incredibly low until the Renaissance so the probability that these individuals were reading anything was highly unlikely, and you also have to think that most of the original disciples themselves were illiterate and yet this perception of Jesus being crucified and dying for sin thrived. Logic, I would think, would say that if this is not what was taught by the disciples and their predecessors then older members of the church at the time would have stepped forward to correct this error in teaching.

Also in the Bible whenever a messenger or a prophet questioned God there was a punishment i.e. Moses, Jonah, etc. so why was Muhammad supposed to be immune to this as he went back time and again to ask God to reduce the number of prayers?

Finally anytime that God had a messenger or a prophet he spoke directly with them and not via angel. Why did he not do this with Muhammad? Why was Muhammad visited by an angel instead of hearing the words of God, himself?

God became flesh that we might be saved. To me personally to say that God cannot be man is to limit God.

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU CHRISTIANS, where is your logic, what happened to you, to you use your eyes and brain at all????????????

Even dough bible says God is not a man

Hosea 11:9 For I am God, and not man

and you still say God cannot be man is to limit God

How the hell can you believe that GOD WAS LITTLE BABY, AND HIS MOTHER WASHED HIS ASS, BEACUSE HE WAS HELPLESS, AND WHEN HE WAS OLDER, PEOPLE HUMILIATED HIM HALNAKED ON THE CROSS AND KILLED. HOW CAN GOD DIE?? DO YOU SEE HOW STUPID YOUR BELIEF IS, CANT YOU SEE THAT, OR ARE YOU BLIND.

HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD WHO CREATED UNIVERSE WAS THIS

[improper image removed by admin]


HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD WAS LITTLE BABY IN POO, HOW CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD POO IN TOILET???? THIS IS JUST TO MUCH, I AM GLAD THAT I AM NOT CHRISTIAN, I AM REALLY PROUD THAT I AM A MUSLIM, AND DONT HAVE SAME BELIEFS AS YOU CHRISTIANS.

[andalusi]

Finally anytime that God had a messenger or a prophet he spoke directly with them and not via angel. Why did he not do this with Muhammad? Why was Muhammad visited by an angel instead of hearing the words of God, himself?

abdullah, you said that you were a muslim and you say something like this

or a prophet he spoke directly with them and not via angel. Why did he not do this with Muhammad?

oooh, no you were never a muslim, you are liying to us, even small children know in islam that GOd spoke directly to Muhammed on the mirage journey night and you ask such question, who do you try to fool here? not me for sure

[Younes]

Also in the Bible whenever a messenger or a prophet questioned God there was a punishment i.e. Moses, Jonah, etc. so why was Muhammad supposed to be immune to this as he went back time and again to ask God to reduce the number of prayers?

The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) didn't question God. He simply God asked to provide an easier option for his community and God granted him that request. God wasn't displeased with him.

Finally anytime that God had a messenger or a prophet he spoke directly with them and not via angel. Why did he not do this with Muhammad? Why was Muhammad visited by an angel instead of hearing the words of God, himself?

It appears to me that you do not know the Bible that well. God spoke to the Prophets (pbut) via Angels (pbut). This is in the Bible.
22:15 And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second time, 22:16 And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: 22:17 That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;
And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.
(Genesis)


31:11 And the angel of God spake unto me in a dream, saying, Jacob: And I said, Here am I. 31:12 And he said, Lift up now thine eyes, and see, all the rams which leap upon the cattle are ringstraked, speckled, and grisled: for I have seen all that Laban doeth unto thee. 31:13 I am the God of Bethel, where thou anointedst the pillar, and where thou vowedst a vow unto me: now arise, get thee out from this land, and return unto the land of thy kindred.

1Ki 13:18
He said unto him, I am a prophet also as thou art; and an angel spake unto me by the word of the LORD, saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water. But he lied unto him
1Ki 19:7 And the angel of the LORD came again the second time, and touched him, and said, Arise and eat; because the journey is too great for thee. 2Ki 1:3 But the angel of the LORD said to Elijah the Tishbite, Arise, go up to meet the messengers of the king of Samaria, and say unto them, Is it not because there is not a God in Israel, that ye go to enquire of Baalzebub the god of Ekron? 2Ki 1:15 And the angel of the LORD said unto Elijah, Go down with him: be not afraid of him. And he arose, and went down with him unto the king.


Although the Bible speaks of the Prophets (pbut) hearing God's words, it speaks of them hearing through an Angel (pbuh) or they receive the words through dreams:
12:6 And he said, Hear now my words: If there be a prophet among you, I the LORD will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will speak unto him in a dream. 12:7 My servant Moses is not so, who is faithful in all mine house. 12:8
With him will I speak mouth to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches; and the similitude of the LORD shall he behold: wherefore then were ye not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?

[abdullahfath]

Your response on the angels appears to be valid as I have checked it in various Bibles. However, my previous statement before that was perhaps not well understood. You see in the Bible when a prophet or messenger of God questioned a command from God they were reprimanded for that. So, my question is why was Muhammad not reprimanded for questioning the command of God?

[Younes]

Because Muhammad (pbuh) did not question God, i.e. the Prophet (pbuh) did not call God's authority into question. The Prophet (pbuh) acknowledged that what God said must be obeyed. In fact, it was Moses (pbuh) who urged the Prophet (pbuh) to ask God to lower the number of prayers as Moses (pbuh) had plenty of experience with the children of Israel and knew that 50 prayers would be unbearable. In fact, when the number of prayers got down to 5, Moses (pbuh) yet again urged the Prophet (pbuh) to ask for a lower number. The Prophet (pbuh) said that he was shy to return to his Lord anymore. The fact that God lowered the number of prayers is in itself a clear indication that He was not displeased and did not find fault with the Prophet (pbuh) due to him asking for a lower number of prayers.

Asking for an easier option and interceding is not a sin.

I will give you an example from the Bible, (it's in the Qur'an also):
18:20 And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; 18:21 I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know. 18:22 And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD. 18:23 And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? 18:24 Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein? 18:25 That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? 18:26 And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes. 18:27 And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the LORD, which am but dust and ashes: 18:28 Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it. 18:29 And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it for forty's sake. 18:30 And he said unto him, Oh let not the LORD be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there. 18:31 And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the LORD: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty's sake. 18:32 And he said, Oh let not the LORD be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake. 18:33 And the LORD went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.

(Genesis)

Why was not Abraham (pbuh) reprimanded for "questioning God" (as you would put it)? The short answer is that God didn't see it as something for which Abraham (pbuh) should be reprimanded. The same case applies to Muhammad (pbuh). God saw nothing wrong with him asking for a reduced number of prayers.

[abdullahfath]

This is most intriguing to me.... I have found this verse to be true as I have checked it.

However, this takes me back to the original argument of logic:

And while it is on my mind I also have to wonder and this is just something to think about...everyone wants to talk about the cannonization of the Bible and what books are relevant or corrupted but you have to also realize that literary rates were incredibly low until the Renaissance so the probability that these individuals were reading anything was highly unlikely, and you also have to think that most of the original disciples themselves were illiterate and yet this perception of Jesus being crucified and dying for sin thrived. Logic, I would think, would say that if this is not what was taught by the disciples and their predecessors then older members of the church at the time would have stepped forward to correct this error in teaching.

the other two points in the original post have been answered via the Bible but this particular point, I think, is something to ponder upon.

[Younes]

"Logic, I would think, would say that if this is not what was taught by the disciples and their predecessors then older members of the church at the time would have stepped forward to correct this error in teaching."

This statement obviously assumes that the disciples of Jesus (pbuh) taught older members of the mainstream Church and that older members of the mainstream church were correct. I don't know if you know this but early Christianity was very fragmented. There were a lot of competing groups. One group obviously came out on top. So far I have not seen evidence which suggests that the older members of the Church were correct.

[abdullahfath]

I am aware of the competing factions at the time, very much aware but once again my curiosity is peaked as to those that were under the disciples. The real quest here should be to find that which they taught as they are a first hand source.

[Younes]

I am aware of the competing factions at the time, very much aware but once again my curiosity is peaked as to those that were under the disciples. The real quest here should be to find that which they taught as they are a first hand source.

Yes, I agree. We should find what Jesus (pbuh) taught. That's why I talked about the need for a chain of transmission in that other thread. We need to know who was by taught by whom, what was the system of preservation in place etc.

[abdullahfath]

As I understand it through history (secular not Christian) Peter was around for the Council of Nicaea so I have no reason not to believe the Bible. Now, if you know of anyways to prove the Qur'an... or more specifically the prophet hood of Muhammad, that Jesus was not who the Bible says he is... I am all ears as I said several times I am a man of reason

[Younes]

As I understand it through history (secular not Christian) Peter was around for the Council of Nicaea so I have no reason not to believe the Bible. Now, if you know of anyways to prove the Qur'an... or more specifically the prophet hood of Muhammad, that Jesus was not who the Bible says he is... I am all ears as I said several times I am a man of reason

If you mean that Peter the Apostle, the disciple of Jesus (pbuh), was around for the Council of Nicaea, then you are grossly misinformed. No history claims this, not Christian, much less secular. The Council of Nicaea was held in AD 325. This would mean that Peter was over 300-years-old! According to Christians, Peter died sometime in the 1st century (which is entirely beliavable and natural). No way he was around for over 300 years. You need to check your facts.

I put a link to a post which discusses the proofs regarding the Prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh) in that thread which you started titled "Prove the Quran". Did you read it?

[abdullahfath]

While your response to the prove the Qur'an was good for that. It, to me, does not necessarily fit here. Because to say that the Qur'an is true and the Bible false would take more effort. The Bible, to the best of my knowledge, has never been disproved. In order to debunk the Bible one would have to show inaccuracies within, problems with the New and Old Testament, and finally have to show how in fact the authors of the New Testament were not credible. That is, of course, only to disprove the Bible itself. But to merely disprove one as false does not mean that the other is true so the second must be checked for inaccuracies and plausible reasons for certain statements.

Give you an example of what I mean....many would have objected to the notion of the Pentecost had it not actually happened because they could have easily questioned the people who were there and would have known of the event. Or going to the Qur'an while Muhammad himself was unlearned did he not go into Mecca and the other cities where, as I understand it, educated Jews were said to reside? Could he not have learned through listening? If this cannot be the case then why can't it be the case?

[Younes]

Well let me start by saying that I agree that disproving the Bible does not make the Qur'an true nor have I claimed such a thing. So we definately agree on that.

However, I disagree that I would have to disprove that the authors of the NT were not credible. In fact, it would have to be first proved that the authors of the NT were credible and that the NT was transmitted authentically in an unbroken chain of authority starting from Jesus (pbuh) and ending today. Muslims have this link back to the past. So far, I have not seen Christians come up with such a chain of transmission.

Secondly, I wouldn't start by saying that the Bible has to be disproved by showing inaccuracies and such. I would start from 0 and say that the Bible should be first proved to be Divine and transmitted authentically. That is not to say that there aren't inconsistencies between the OT and the OT. There certainly are. I recommend you read Jewish responses on those issues. Often Christians forget that there is not simply one point of view on the Bible and don't know what the Jews' take on the matter is. The reason why I think we should start from scratch is because that is fair. Imagine if I told you that in order to prove the Bible, you would have to start by disproving the Qur'an. You would probably tell me to prove the Qur'an first, right? Well the same thing applies here.

"many would have objected to the notion of the Pentecost had it not actually happened because they could have easily questioned the people who were there and would have known of the event." This is of course assuming that the idea of a Pentecost was around when the people who supposedly were there were alive. You also have to remember that ideas develop. You also have to remember that Christianity spread far and wide and those the disciples of Jesus (pbuh) could not have been in every place.

There were no Jews in Mecca. Mecca was the birth city of the Prophet (pbuh) and lived there for 53 years of his life until he fled because the Quraish wanted to kill him. Yes, immigrated to Medina which had a Jewish population. However, the Prophet (pbuh) had been receiving the revelation of the Quran for 13 years prior to immigrating there and most of the Quran was revealed in Mecca.

Could he have learned? Yes, he could have. The possibility is there. Could Jesus (pbuh) have learned from Rabbis and magicians, and worked with demons? It's also a possibility because there were Rabbis, magicians and demons around. The Quran contains information that was known only by the Jews, yes. It is very similar but that is because the source of that information is God. I suggest you look at all the evidence collectively, i.e. the link I put up with the evidence for Muhammad's (pbuh) Prophethood, and this. This accusation of stealing information or being taught by somebody is rejected in the Quran. Obviously there is going to be similarities. The Quran itself says that the information is similar.

Furthermore, there Jews in Medina who converted to Islam, among them learned Rabbis. They would not convert if they knew that he was taught by their community while he is claiming that he was not taught by one except God. Lastly, I talked in that post about the truthfulness of the Prophet (pbuh). He was known among the Meccans as al-Amin which means the trustworthy one. Only after he proclaimed his Message did he ostracized. However, even when he was ostracized and told that he was a liar, magician, possessed etc. people still entrusted him to safeguard their possessions with him which is sort of ironic when you think of it.

[abdullahfath]

My search is only for the truth, absolute as only the truth can be. However, to the best of my knowledge the Bible (even the New Testament) predates the Qur'an so there is no reason for the Bible to prove itself when the Qur'an came after not the other way around and even if that were not so I know for a fact that the Qur'an clearly points to the Old Testament (most specifically the book of Leviticus). And to top it all off the Old Testament (Torah) is one of the oldest books in existence. By the way, I did read the link that you gave me. I have heard all of that before. What I fail to understand is that every prophet has been foretold. Why isn't Muhammad? In fact why is there testimony in the Old Testament that refers to the suffering messiah if it were not so?

[andalusi]

While your response to the prove the Qur'an was good for that. It, to me, does not necessarily fit here. Because to say that the Qur'an is true and the Bible false would take more effort. The Bible, to the best of my knowledge, has never been disproved. In order to debunk the Bible one would have to show inaccuracies within, problems with the New and Old Testament, and finally have to show how in fact the authors of the New Testament were not credible. That is, of course, only to disprove the Bible itself. But to merely disprove one as false does not mean that the other is true so the second must be checked for inaccuracies and plausible reasons for certain statements.

Give you an example of what I mean....many would have objected to the notion of the Pentecost had it not actually happened because they could have easily questioned the people who were there and would have known of the event. Or going to the Qur'an while Muhammad himself was unlearned did he not go into Mecca and the other cities where, as I understand it, educated Jews were said to reside? Could he not have learned through listening? If this cannot be the case then why can't it be the case?

The Bible, to the best of my knowledge, has never been disproved. In order to debunk the Bible one would have to show inaccuracies within, problems with the New and Old Testament, and finally have to show how in fact the authors of the New Testament were not credible.

there is a lot of mistakes and contradiction in bible, a book of God shall not have contradictions and errors




Jacob father of Joseph?

Matthew 1:16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.

vs

Heli father of Joseph?

Luke 3:23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph, the son of Heli,

this is impossible to explain, dont try to say that heli was father of Mary and such nonsence, beacuse it clearly say Joseph, the son of Heli not Mary, daughter of Heli.

How many horsemen 1700 or 7000 ?

2 Samuel 8:4 And David took from him 1,700 horsemen, and 20,000 foot soldiers. And David hamstrung all the chariot horses but left enough for 100 chariots.
.

vs

1 Chronicles 18:4 And David took from him 1,000 chariots, 7,000 horsemen, and 20,000 foot soldiers. And David hamstrung all the chariot horses, but left enough for 100 chariots.


How old was Ahaziah when he assumed the throne?

2 Kings 8:26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

vs

2 Chronicles 22:2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

22 or 42 years, you can never explain such contradictions in bible, i can keep going forever how much i find in bible such contradictions.


how can word of God contain errors?


Bible says that bible is corrupted

Jeremiah 8:8 New International Version (©1984)
"'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?


God says in quran bible is corrupted

2:79 So woe to those who write the Book with their hands, then say, 'This is from God,' that they may sell it for a little price; so woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for their earnings.

5:13 But because of them breaking their covenant, We have cursed them, and made their hearts become hardened; They changed the Words from their places and have forgotten a portion of what they were reminded. And you will still discover betrayal in them except for a few; so pardon them and overlook; God loves the good doers.

[andalusi]

Could he not have learned through listening? If this cannot be the case then why can't it be the case?

there was no jews in mecca, and if there where what would they learn him? there is so manu critics on jews in quran beacuse they dont follow torah properly, would they learn him that?


if we assume that jews and christian learn him quran, why would they learn him their error beliefs in their relgions????
How could they learn him true facts wich only quran and archeology confirms wich goes against bible teachings.

Like this

Qur'anic Accuracy Vs. Biblical Error: The Kings & Pharaohs Of Egypt

http://www.islamic-a...sephdetail.html

[abdullahfath]

salaam alaiykum...I realized this last night via chatislam....

in other words:
ashadu an la ilaha illa illa-ilah wa ashadu anna muhammadan rasul ullah

[andalusi]

salaam alaiykum...I realized this last night via chatislam....

in other words:
ashadu an la ilaha illa illa-ilah wa ashadu anna muhammadan rasul ullah

so you want to become muslim, or are you allready?

[Younes]

Wa alaikumu as-salam

He's a Muslim now based on the above. Welcome Abdullah Fath.