Islam, Muslim / Christian Forum - Welcome All
General Category => The Crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ/Yeshua - the Messiah - the Lamb of God => Topic started by: Peter on November 05, 2010, 01:58:38 PM
-
Muslims in this forum often turn to blasphemy against the Word of God, once they come to understand that Mohammed's 7th century religion, teaches the direct opposite of the Gospel.
Charges such as modern Bible version corruption and similar claims abound, even though in the 7th century after the Gospel had been copied tens of thousands of times and was being read in every popular language all over the known world, Mohammed quipped that people of the Gospel should judge by what is revealed therein.
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1704.0
Muslims having to believe that the Gospel had somehow become so "corrupted", that the lengthy accounts that the witnesses of Jesus Christ - indeed it's whole primary subject - is somehow supposed to have become so "corrupted" that it became the very opposite of what it had been, simply because the Gospel is the opposite, of the unhistorical and unsupported claims made in Mohammed's 7th century recitations.
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1912.0
Here's a thread regarding the history and textual integrity of Scripture
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=97.0
You Tube
http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/video.php?clip=strobelT1075
1Cr 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God. Christ crucified (http://www.blueletterbible.org/search/translationResults.cfm?Criteria=crucified&t=KJV&sf=5)
The problem with this line of argument is, of course, that no versions of the Gospel, in any language, from any period throughout the Christian era, have ever contradicted Jesus' sacrifice on the cross to save mankind from sin. That's what the Gospel - the Messiah and the new covenant He ushered in - have been, and will always be about.
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1175.0
And the whole reason they reject the Gospel, as recounted by the witnesses of Jesus Christ, is because they follow the words of a single, 7th century, illiterate southeast Arabian desert dweller.
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=148.0
Mohammed's 23 year record is to the Gospel, as the negative is to a photograph. Mohammed's followers filled with complete resolve as to what to DISbelieve, without a clue offered to them as to who did die on the cross.
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=628.0
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. 10 For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.
At the same time, Muslims are unable to produce any evidence whatsoever, from before Mohammed and the 7th and 8th century Islamic "tradition" creators, that suggests that Mohammed's religion ever existed before Mohammed.
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?board=56.0
So then we would appreciate it, if rather than carrying on with these tired, empty, hollow, and unsubstantiated claims regarding the Gospel, you instead produce for us a single version of the New Testament, from any point in history, in any language whatsoever, that tells a different story other than Jesus was crucified, died and was resurrected, to save all mankind who have faith in His shed blood, from sin.
2Cr 11:3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. 4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or [if] ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with [him].
Heaping on more blasphemy against the Word of God, will never magically create thousands of years of history of Mecca prior to the 4th century, so we can understand the lashing out in frustration.
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?board=56.0
1John 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
In summary, a frustration that is born out of Mohammed's followers standing empty handed, whether in regard to the absence of a pre-Mohammed record that suggests that Mohammed's religion ever existed before Mohammed, or the equally empty and absurd contention, that the whole main subject of the Gospel was once somehow, something other than it has been for the last nearly 2,000 years.
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=97.0
-
For a start, you may want to first indicate the definition of Injeel or Gospel in Islam.
Also, you are good at doing copy and paste work and I worried that you may not actually understand what you paste.
-
Hello relaxboy, and welcome to the forum. We may be able to help in your quest for truth.
For a start, you may want to first indicate the definition of Injeel or Gospel in Islam.
Generally translated into English as, and used synonymously with the term "Gospel", usually referring to one or more of the 4 books of the Gospel.
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/5/47/default.htm
Interestingly, even though Muhammad claimed the Quran is pure Arabic, that is of course false, because it has many non-Arabic words in it like "Injil" for example.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3091.0
Though there's no shortage of Muhammad's followers that have been fooled into proclaiming a 16th century Muhammadan forgery, who have obviously never read that forgery.
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/gospel_of_barnabas.htm
But we won't be well served by wasting time over the etymology of a word, as long as you must disbelieve the whole subject of the Gospel, deny the Son of God and reject His blood that was shed to save us all from sin, as articles of your faith in Muhammad alone.
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/the_lamb_slain.htm
It's also pointless to argue an Arabic word since there is no evidence that the Arabic language even existed prior to about the 3rd century AD:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2561.0
Also, you are good at doing copy and paste work and I worried that you may not actually understand what you paste.
Since scripture is all that I copy and pasted in the post you are replying to, which of those scriptures do you think I "may not actually understand"?
Let's start with this one:
1John 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
Do you believe the 1600 year record of YHWH to mankind or not? Is there something you believe I don't understand about that verse that isn't reinforced by so many other scriptures such as:
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/jesus_the_son_of_god.htm
John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
1 John 2:22 ..... He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.....
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/islam_is_antichrist.htm
-
That is the problem I indicated earlier.
You have the habit of copying and pasting articles without answering the question yourself. It makes me think that you do not know what Muslims actually believe.
So, back to the easy question: In your own words and understanding, what do you think is the Muslims' view of the Injeel. What does the Quran speaks of the Injeel?
Not a tough question right?
-
That is the problem I indicated earlier.
You have the habit of copying and pasting articles without answering the question yourself.
And as I patiently explained, the verses were all that I copy and pasted. I wrote the article myself. But then we are to expect false accusers in these last days:
2 Timothy 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. 2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good...
It makes me think that you do not know what Muslims actually believe.
Let's start the discussion about what Muhammad's followers believe with this. In part they believe that by prostrating themselves toward the Quraish pagan's black stone idol in Mecca 5 times a day, while praying in the "vain repetitions of the heathen (https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=vain+repetitions&t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1)" (as scripture refers to Salat), they will somehow be able to enter paradise while still carrying all of their sins. That they can carry their sins right up there and stand before a Holy and Just God.
http://www.petewaldo.com/sabians_islam.htm#sabian_rituals
But just who is it that every follower of Muhammad will stand before in judgment?
Jhn 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
Judged by the very Son of God that the false prophet Muhammad and his followers deny and blaspheme.
Didn't you ever even investigate the origins of the pagan rituals Muhammad's followers engage in?
http://www.petewaldo.com/hajj_umrah.htm#index
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/origin_of_ramadan.htm
But what is far more important is not what the father of lies trained his followers to believe, but how he fills his followers through his stand-alone "messenger" to DISbelieve the one true God of the inspired scriptures of Jews and Christians. And for what? To follow THE false prophet Muhammad alone.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lEro81ygXQ
So, back to the easy question: In your own words and understanding, what do you think is the Muslims' view of the Injeel. What does the Quran speaks of the Injeel?
Not a tough question right?
Not tough at all. That's why I answered it:
For a start, you may want to first indicate the definition of Injeel or Gospel in Islam.
Generally translated into English as, and is synonymous with the term "Gospel", usually referring to one or more of the 4 books of the Gospel.
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/5/47/default.htm
-
Generally translated into English as, and is synonymous with the term "Gospel", usually referring to one or more of the 4 books of the Gospel.
That is not what Muslims believe of the Gospel.
You see, you have been writing a lot of stuff about the Injeel and thinking this is what Muslims believe, when much of what you think is not what Muslims believe.
That is quite disturbing.... I believe.
-
Generally translated into English as, and is synonymous with the term "Gospel", usually referring to one or more of the 4 books of the Gospel.
That is not what Muslims believe of the Gospel.
You see, you have been writing a lot of stuff about the Injeel and thinking this is what Muslims believe, when much of what you think is not what Muslims believe.
That is quite disturbing.... I believe.
I even left you a link to many translations of the Quran that demonstrates the terms "Gospel" and "Injeel" are used interchangeably:
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/5/47/default.htm
And by Muhammad's 7th century, the Gospel had been translated into every popular language, copied tens of thousands of times, and had been read all over the known world for centuries.
Do you possess the cognitive function and critical thinking skills to understand what I just wrote? Those thousands of copies of the Gospel (or Injeel) in all those languages, would necessarily have been the same in Muhammad's 7th century, as it is today. The whole subject of that Gospel is the crucifixion, death and resurrection of the Messiah, the Lamb of God, who saves all from sin who have faith in His shed blood.
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/the_lamb_slain.htm
-
Of course, we all know Injeel and Gospel are the same. I have not disputed that.
When I asked if you understand what Muslims believe as the Injeel, you sent a barrage of writings about what you think MUslims believe about the Injeel... many of which are not we Muslims believe.
For example, you think we Muslims believe the Injeel is the 4 Gospels in your bible and then claimed Muslims are wrong because you think we Muslims believe the Injeel is corrupted.
Well, that is NOT what we believe.
Surprise?
-
You are wasting forum space by uniform use of large font. It makes the threads contain more pages, to later sort through, than they otherwise would have. If you want to use a little large font here and there for emphasis that's all right, but to use it for all your words also leaves the impression that you believe all of your words are more important than others here, which all of your posts - particularly like this one - demonstrate they are not. Same with your uniform use of obnoxious all bright blue font. Please use black font unless you are using color to emphasize or segregate portions of what you write.
-
Of course, we all know Injeel and Gospel are the same. I have not disputed that.
When I asked if you understand what Muslims believe as the Injeel, you sent a barrage of writings about what you think MUslims believe about the Injeel... many of which are not we Muslims believe.
For example, you think we Muslims believe the Injeel is the 4 Gospels in your bible and then claimed Muslims are wrong because you think we Muslims believe the Injeel is corrupted.
I already answered that and even tried to make you slow down and take a closer look, by asking if you possessed the critical thinking skills to understand it, which it would seem you went on to demonstrate you do not.
And just look at who's copy and pasting nonsense, that he obviously never gave any thought to, now! The one who falsely accused the same. Muslims sometimes seem to think that simply because they are willing to parrot a lie, that their willingness to simply parrot it, will somehow magically make it come true.
Please THINK about it this time. Perhaps if I make it bigger. I wrote: "And by Muhammad's 7th century, the Gospel had been translated into every popular language, copied tens of thousands of times, and had been read all over the known world for centuries."
We even have 3500 partial or complete manuscripts of the Gospel that were penned prior to 300 AD. Since there were tens of thousands of copies by Muhammad's day, that means that in order for you to make the ridiculous claim of corruption after Muhammad's day, each and every one of those tens of thousands of copies of the Gospel, penned in Latin, Syriac, Aramaic, Hebrew, and several other lesser-known languages, would have all had to have been changed in all those various countries and languages uniformly, to such an extent, that the whole subject of the Gospel (the shed blood of the Lamb of God) somehow became the exact opposite of what it was supposed to be. Can't even you see how ridiculous such an idea is?
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/bible_manuscript_errors_.htm
Yet in that same 7th century, in regard to the tens of thousands of copies of the Gospel that were spread all over the "known world", Muhammad's "Allah" is supposed to have proclaimed:
Sura 5:47 Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein.
And of course in order for you to make a claim of corruption before Muhammad's day, you would be pointing out that his "Allah" was foolish for having made such a bad recommendation.
You are stuck between a rock and a hard place my friend.
So as a follower of Muhammad alone, what does that tell you about Muhammad's alter-ego "Allah"? By your calling the Gospel corrupt, you are actually calling your "Allah" "corrupt".
Even if those tens of thousands of copies in all those languages could have been changed uniformly after Muhammad's day, to where the whole subject became the exact opposite of what it was supposed to be, you would be highlighting the deficiency of your "Allah" in his inability to know in advance that the Gospel would become corrupted, after he advised Christians to go by what is revealed in those tens of thousands of copies that existed in Muhammad's day, thereby providing bad advice regarding the Gospel that he was too ignorant to know would eventually become corrupted.
Sura 5:68 Say: "O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord."
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/
Well, that is NOT what we believe.
That's right. Again, you are filled by the father of lies as to what to DISbelieve, with no other "Injeel" to direct us to since no direct opposite Gospel exists, except in the imaginations of Muhammad's modern day followers.
Surprise?[/size]
My only surprise is that you didn't take a moment to think about it, before parroting such an unsupportable, ridiculous, and tired old lie like that.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/#bible_corruption
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/bible_manuscript_errors_.htm
1John 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
In another post at the following link you claimed "At this point, I have not provided you with any lies." but as we can readily see, the scriptures offer a very different opinion than your own on the matter.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=5120.msg19526#msg19526
-
Please THINK about it this time. Perhaps if I make it bigger. I wrote: "And by Muhammad's 7th century, the Gospel had been translated into every popular language, copied tens of thousands of times, and had been read all over the known world for centuries."
We even have 3500 partial or complete manuscripts of the Gospel that were penned prior to 300 AD. Since there were tens of thousands of copies by Muhammad's day, that means that in order for you to make the ridiculous claim of corruption after Muhammad's day, each and every one of those tens of thousands of copies of the Gospel, penned in Latin, Syriac, Aramaic, Hebrew, and several other lesser-known languages, would have all had to have been changed in all those various countries and languages uniformly, to such an extent, that the whole subject of the Gospel (the shed blood of the Lamb of God) somehow became the exact opposite of what it was supposed to be. Can't even you see how ridiculous such an idea is?
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/bible_manuscript_errors_.htm
Yet in that same 7th century, in regard to the tens of thousands of copies of the Gospel that were spread all over the "known world", Muhammad's "Allah" is supposed to have proclaimed:
Sura 5:47 Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein.
And of course in order for you to make a claim of corruption before Muhammad's day, you would be pointing out that his "Allah" was foolish for having made such a bad recommendation.
You are stuck between a rock and a hard place my friend.
So as a follower of Muhammad alone, what does that tell you about Muhammad's alter-ego "Allah"? By your calling the Gospel corrupt, you are actually calling your "Allah" "corrupt".
Even if those tens of thousands of copies in all those languages could have been changed uniformly after Muhammad's day, to where the whole subject became the exact opposite of what it was supposed to be, you would be highlighting the deficiency of your "Allah" in his inability to know in advance that the Gospel would become corrupted, after he advised Christians to go by what is revealed in those tens of thousands of copies that existed in Muhammad's day, thereby providing bad advice regarding the Gospel that he was too ignorant to know would eventually become corrupted.
Sura 5:68 Say: "O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord."
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/
I wonder why you keep saying that I believe the Injeel/Gospel was corrupted. It was NOT.
I state here again, you have the wrong definition of Injeel.... or rather what you think we MUslims define the Injeel is NOT what you define.
Oh, sorry for the big font. I have difficulty reading small print but will lower the font anyway.
-
I wonder why you keep saying that I believe the Injeel/Gospel was corrupted. It was NOT.
I state here again, you have the wrong definition of Injeel.... or rather what you think we MUslims define the Injeel is NOT what you define.
Oh, sorry for the big font. I have difficulty reading small print but will lower the font anyway.
If you have trouble reading the small font you are welcome to use larger font. But I don't see why you can't adjust the font on your screen. On an I-phone you can make the font larger by spreading your fingers apart on the screen, can't you (I don 't own one)?
On a desktop or laptop computer you can hold the Ctrl button down and push the + key repeatedly until the size is good for you to read. To reverse it, hold ctrl button down and push the - key to shrink the font back down.
Also I set my screen to a very low resolution (1024 x 768), which makes the icons on my desktop over an inch square, yet everything I access still seems sharp and clear. (That resolution will include the browser side scroller bar more frequently, but not the bottom scroller bar (at least on my computer). Please let me know if you need help with any of that.
Please excuse my error and please accept my apology. So many Muslims make the claim the Gospel was corrupted (since it is the opposite of the Quran) I thought you were simply repeating it. That's why I presumed when you said "Well, that is NOT what we believe." it was in reference to the Gospel being the 4 gospels of the scriptures, not the reference to corruption. Do an internet or youtube search like "bible is corrupted quran (http://www.bing.com/search?q=gospel+was+corrupted+quran&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=gospel+was+corrupted+q&sc=0-22&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=6FE30E7B583E4721A10DA7CEC19794E1)" and you will see what I mean.
I guess it was the "we" in "NOT what we believe." since you wouldn't seem to be speaking for all those Muslims that make the claim of corruption of the Gospel.
So now you have my interest peaked as to what I will presume will be your fairly unique view.
What is it that you do you do believe about the Injeel/Gospel?
Where is it?
Could you please provide a description, or even better a link, to an online Injeel/Gospel that you are referring to?
-
The Quran says about the Injeel/Gospel:
"It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong)," (3:3).
Also, "And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah," (5:46).
The Gospel (singular) is the revelation given to Jesus (pbuh) for hin to preach to Jews at his time. It is the same as the Quran given to Muhammad (pbuh).
The Quran does not say that the Gospel is a collection of books from phantom writers (Mark, Matthew, Luke or John).
The Gospel is NOT lost. It is included in your scripture. You may delete or add anything in your scripture, but the message of the Injeel will always be in scripture. Your Gospels, your bible might be corrupted, but the true Gospel will never be touched with corruption.
That is why we find the true message of Islam in your scripture.
For example, the Quran says Jesus NEVER claim to be God. If you do your reading, without any bias, you will find the Jesus never claimed to be God in the scripture.
That is the miracle of the Quran, too.
-
Did you try altering the size of the font on your computer, so you wouldn't have to do it in each post?
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2023.msg19533#msg19533
The Quran says about the Injeel/Gospel:
"It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it;........
This highlights the folly of parroting a mass-murdering, thieving, 7th century SW Arabian desert dwelling illiterate. The 1600 year record of the one true God as revealed through all of His prophets and witnesses, isn't "confirmed" by a stand-alone guy who comes along 500 years later and denies its whole subject! Something can't be "confirmed" by its exact opposite.
The New Testament (new covenant) was fulfillment of the old covenant. The very fulfillment that Muhammad and you deny. Denying the whole subject of the Gospel - of the whole Bible.
....... and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong)," (3:3).
Also, "And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah," (5:46).[/i]
The Gospel (singular) is the revelation given to Jesus (pbuh) for hin to preach to Jews at his time. It is the same as the Quran given to Muhammad (pbuh).
The Quran does not say that the Gospel is a collection of books from phantom writers (Mark, Matthew, Luke or John).
The Gospel is NOT lost. It is included in your scripture. You may delete or add anything in your scripture, but the message of the Injeel will always be in scripture. Your Gospels, your bible might be corrupted, but the true Gospel will never be touched with corruption.
See how casually you parrot such ridiculous tripe? You failed to explain to us how people could go back and "delete or add" to the whole subject of a book, after it had been translated into every popular language, copied tens of thousands of times, and had been read all over the known world by Muhammad's day. Yet as many times as that undeniable truth has been shown to you, your rebellious spirit of antichrist won't allow you to admit to the truth.
You claim the Gospel was not corrupted - while your following words demonstrate there is no way for you to believe otherwise - unlike your antichrist brethren who are at least honest enough with themselves to know, that either the Gospel had to have been corrupted, or Muhammad was a lying antichrist false prophet. But you seem smart enough to recognize the impossibility of corruption.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2023.msg19522#msg19522
You can only believe the Bible was corrupted, since the whole subject of the gospel that Muhammad told Christians to go by, was the same in his 7th century as it is today.
Your gospel is a unique fiction of your imagination, even as your post indicated you were speaking for "we Muslims". Your "gospel" does not exist.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2023.msg19522#msg19522
All you are really trying to do is excuse away Muhammad's earlier Mecca drivel, when he was wandering around Mecca dithering on by plagiarizing his buddy Jabr;s stuff, that were later annulled by Muhammad's pure consummate evil Medina surahs:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=452.0
While the Meccans made fun of his endless stream self-contradiction.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=116.0
That's why he had to turn Islam into the imperialistic, political, murder machine, as it remains today, in order to silence voices of truth and reason on pain of death.
http://www.petewaldo.com/banu_qurayza_massacre.htm#jews_torah
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/blasphemy_laws.htm#death_penalty_blasphemy
That is why we find the true message of Islam in your scripture.
For example, the Quran says Jesus NEVER claim to be God.
God gave you the free will to reject the prophets and witnesses of the one true God of the scriptures, to follow a 7th century SW Arabian desert dwelling illiterate. Your choice, your fate:
Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
John 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.
If you do your reading, without any bias, you will find the Jesus never claimed to be God in the scripture.
We have shown you over and over how He did, but Jesus wouldn't need to personally claim anything, that was written about Him by others. Let's look at just what Jesus did claim, since that seems to be your mental limitation, which is the subject of Old Testament prophecy and the whole subject of New Testament fulfillment of it:
Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms (http://www.islamandthetruth.com/psalms_22.htm), concerning me. 45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And ye are witnesses of these things.
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/the_lamb_slain.htm
Why not actually reply to it this time (on the other thread at the link) rather than continuing to dither on with secondary subjects, in efforts to run and hide from the truth of the Gospel?
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=5120.msg19536#msg19536
That is the miracle of the Quran, too.[/size]
But I have shown you how ridiculous such a notion is. A whopping 71 out of 114 suras are subject to abrogation, that were recited over the short span of just 23-years. Some "miracle"! Talk about a confused alter-ego:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=116.0
The Quran is as much the opposite to the Gospel, as Muhammad was the opposite of Jesus Christ.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jesus_or_muhammad.htm
Let alone that all of the various versions of your "miracle" were all collected up and burned, on two separate occasions, except for the preferred version that went through edit.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/textual_history_of_the_koran.htm
-
I have showed you the Quran's definition of the Injeel/Gospel and there you start whining about how we Muslims are wrong.
The topic of this post is on Muslims' view of the Gospel. Christians have the wrong thinking of what Muslims believe, and when we showed them the truth, they start closing their ears and keep throwing insults of their own folly. :)
What can I say.
-
I have showed you the Quran's definition of the Injeel/Gospel and there you start whining about how we Muslims are wrong.
There you go with the disingenuous "we Muslims" again. You don't speak for all Muslims because Muslims are in a state of mass confusion, during this information age. Gee, the Muhammadan wonders, was Muhammad really a mass murderer or not?
http://www.petewaldo.com/banu_qurayza_massacre.htm#jews_torah
Was Muhammad a thief or not?
http://www.petewaldo.com/banu_qurayza_massacre.htm#abraham_on_booty
Was Muhammad a prisoner rapist or not?
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4981.msg19179#msg19179
Was Muhammad a terrorist or not?
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4981.msg19223#msg19223
Sane and rational people with a capacity for critical thought, can easily conclude what the truth is regarding those questions, based entirely on the evidence from Islam's own books.
Indeed when asked who did die on the cross, Muslims will just about offer as many different answers, as the number of Muslims that are asked. As prosecutors would agree, that's the difficulty folks face, when a number of people are all caught trying to tell the same lie.
http://www.petewaldo.com/simon_magnus_gnostics_ebionites_islam.htm
Your brethren claim the Gospel was corrupted - an impossibility post-7th century, that you seem to recognize. While you claim to believe something like: the Gospel would be OK, if it's whole subject were removed.
The equivalent would be for an Arabian pagan to come up to you and say "gee, I believe the Quran and Islam are true, except for that part about there being only one God"
It's simply amazing that you can't seem to understand how preposterous your view is. "Gee, the gospel wasn't corrupted, it's just that its whole subject is the exact opposite of what Muhammad denied".
The topic of this post is on Muslims' view of the Gospel.
Which was a poor title since it should have been "Muslim's viewS of the Gospel". Consisting of one lie after the next.
Christians have the wrong thinking of what Muslims believe, and when we showed them the truth, they start closing their ears and keep throwing insults of their own folly. :)
What can I say.[/size]
All you can say you have been running and hiding from the whole subject of the Gospel since you arrived.
And the reason I spend time like this is not so much that I believe a person such as yourself will come to see the truth, but so that those that come after you that are genuinely seeking out the truth, will see the example of an antichrist that you provide.
-
Your brethren claim the Gospel was corrupted - an impossibility post-7th century, that you seem to recognize. While you claim to believe something like: the Gospel would be OK, if it's whole subject were removed.
The equivalent would be for an Arabian pagan to come up to you and say "gee, I believe the Quran and Islam are true, except for that part about there being only one God"
It's simply amazing that you can't seem to understand how preposterous your view is. "Gee, the gospel wasn't corrupted, it's just that its whole subject is the exact opposite of what Muhammad denied".
Funny. You seemed to have lost the idea of rebutting the Quranic point about the definition and sanctity of the Injeel, and start using what you think what Muslims believe about the Injeel, and say I am wrong. I think this is called argument from fallacy.
Nevertheless, my Muslims brethen, if that is what yiou like to define them is not wrong to say the bible(not the gospel and Torah) is corrupted, as your book contains the writings of men and constant changes to suit each sectarian views.
The topic of this post is on Muslims' view of the Gospel.
All you can say you have been running and hiding from the whole subject of the Gospel since you arrived.
And the reason I spend time like this is not so much that I believe a person such as yourself will come to see the truth, but so that those that come after you that are genuinely seeking out the truth, will see the example of an antichrist that you provide.
Again funny. I have been open to all comments and criticism, and I look forward to more inputs from you.
-
Your brethren claim the Gospel was corrupted - an impossibility post-7th century, that you seem to recognize. While you claim to believe something like: the Gospel would be OK, if it's whole subject were removed.
The equivalent would be for an Arabian pagan to come up to you and say "gee, I believe the Quran and Islam are true, except for that part about there being only one God"
It's simply amazing that you can't seem to understand how preposterous your view is. "Gee, the gospel wasn't corrupted, it's just that its whole subject is the exact opposite of what Muhammad denied".
Funny. You seemed to have lost the idea of rebutting the Quranic point about the definition and sanctity of the Injeel, .......
You repeat the same falsehood, so I again show you how it is a falsehood. It's no different than the other contradictions, like when Muhammad claimed the Quran was pure Arabic, when in fact it is not. Or the doublespeak when he claimed that no verses are abrogated, but only annulled and substituted for by newer ones, and of course annulment of the earlier verse is abrogation.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=116.0
No need to keep using an archaic Syriac word for the Gospel. Just like so much of the rest of Muhammad's self-contradictory drivel (nullifying through substitution, so much of even the more final edited versions of the Quran), one can't have it both ways.
The whole subject of the Gospel - that Jesus was crucified, died and resurrected from the dead to save all mankind from sin through His shed blood - is the same today as it was in the tens of thousands of copies of the Gospel in all those languages spread all over the known world, during Muhammad's day.
..... and start using what you think what Muslims believe about the Injeel, ........
Muslims claim the Gospel was corrupted, even though it is a physical impossibility to go back and uniformly change tens of thousands of copies in so many languages, that were spread all over the known world. Let alone for its whole subject to be added.
https://youtu.be/sJ9X6MQS8LM
(http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/0ec90050.png)
....... and say I am wrong. I think this is called argument from fallacy.
No it is your empty argument, that is necessarily a fallacy.
Nevertheless, my Muslims brethen, if that is what yiou like to define them ........
Christians have called each other brothers and sisters ever since the first century.
I guess I mistakenly projected that onto Muslims, and indeed should have known better, since Sunnis slaughter Shiites over differences in beliefs.
Rather than brothers and sisters Muslims are arch enemies of each other, as displayed all around the Muslim world today.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
Let alone actual brothers killing their sisters, parents killing their children, and other such senseless slaughter in the name of "honor".
Islam is pure consummate evil, as exactly opposed to brotherly love - always the exact opposite of the Gospel.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/the_love_of_god.htm
........ is not wrong to say the bible(not the gospel and Torah) is corrupted, ........
The whole subject of the Bible, of the Gospel, remains unchanged. Because you follow the father of lies through his "messenger" Muhammad you must deny it. Period.
Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul.
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/the_lamb_slain.htm
....... as your book contains the writings of men and constant changes to suit each sectarian views.[/size]
It contains the same subject it did in the first century and Muhammad's seventh century.
The topic of this post is on Muslims' view of the Gospel.
All you can say you have been running and hiding from the whole subject of the Gospel since you arrived.
And the reason I spend time like this is not so much that I believe a person such as yourself will come to see the truth, but so that those that come after you that are genuinely seeking out the truth, will see the example of an antichrist that you provide.
Again funny. I have been open to all comments and criticism, and I look forward to more inputs from you.
Another lie. You have avoided the whole subject of the Gospel, like the plague.
So tell us, do you believe what Muslims teach about the first drop of blood shed by an average sinful Muslim so-called "martyr", not only absolves himself of his own sins through his own shed blood but qualifies him to intercede for seventy of his family members?
-
Muslims claim the Gospel was corrupted, even though it is a physical impossibility to go back and uniformly change tens of thousands of copies in so many languages, that were spread all over the known world. Let alone for its whole subject to be added.
https://youtu.be/sJ9X6MQS8LM
Unlike you, I prefer to keep to the topic of discussion.
Once again, I say here. Muslims do not believe that the Injeel and Taurah, which came from God, are corrupted. However, we do believe that the bible, which also contains the word of men, and have been changed.
Bible scholars, for example, have written that the writings of Mark, Matthew and Luke, came from one or two sources. They are not the originals. They are corrupted with writings and inputs from other men.
Tell me why and how I am wrong here.
-
Muslims claim the Gospel was corrupted, even though it is a physical impossibility to go back and uniformly change tens of thousands of copies in so many languages, that were spread all over the known world. Let alone for its whole subject to be added.
https://youtu.be/sJ9X6MQS8LM
Unlike you, I prefer to keep to the topic of discussion.
Once again, I say here. Muslims do not believe that the Injeel and Taurah, which came from God, are corrupted. However, we do believe that the bible, which also contains the word of men, and have been changed.
We know this is what you believe. But how can you actually believe it? With the Internet, you can actually LOOK at a REAL 7th century translation and compare it to today's translations. Because the 'Bible' circulated in the 7th century says the same thing as the Bible circulated today. That 7th century Bible is the one Muhammad said we should search. Here, I'll quote from it (it is from about the 4th century and was the "official" translation of the Roman Empire... that is the Empire that had control of Medina:
7th century Latin 'Bible':
ego sum Alpha et Omega principium et finis dicit Dominus Deus qui est et qui erat et qui venturus est Omnipotens... et cum vidissem eum cecidi ad pedes eius tamquam mortuus et posuit dexteram suam super me dicens noli timere ego sum primus et novissimus et vivus et fui mortuus et ecce sum vivens in saecula saeculorum
Now the English translation of THAT 7th century Latin:
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, saith the Lord God, who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty... And when I had seen him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying: Fear not. I am the First and the Last, And alive, and was dead. And behold I am living for ever and ever
See, nothing has changed since Muhammad's time with regard to this passage in Revelation where Yeshua = Alpha and Omega
-
Muslims claim the Gospel was corrupted, even though it is a physical impossibility to go back and uniformly change tens of thousands of copies in so many languages, that were spread all over the known world. Let alone for its whole subject to be added.
https://youtu.be/sJ9X6MQS8LM
Unlike you, I prefer to keep to the topic of discussion.
Once again, I say here. Muslims do not believe that the Injeel and Taurah, which came from God, are corrupted.
So where are the Gospel and Torah that you are referring to?
However, we do believe that the bible, which also contains the word of men, and have been changed.
And "once again" the Gospel and Torah you are referring to do not exist. While the tens of thousands of copies of the Gospel that existed in Muhammad's day that he was referring to, that had been read all over the known world for centuries, is the same Gospel that Muhammad's "Allah" told Christians to go by which obviously contains the same whole subject as the one we have today.
So your are tacitly accusing your "Allah" of being foolish for not knowing what was in the Gospel, since he recommended we go by the very same Gospel, of which he denied its whole subject!
(http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/0ec90050.png)
You reject the one true God of the scriptures Yahweh, as revealed through all of His prophets and witnesses, whose people have followed Him through two covenants for 3500 years. To instead follow the Arabian pagan's "Allah", through adopted, adapted and thinly veneered pagan Arabian moon, sun, star and jinn-devil worship rituals:
http://www.petewaldo.com/hajj_umrah.htm#index
To instead follow A SINGLE, STAND-ALONE, 7th century, illiterate (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=452.0), pillaging (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=856.0), plundering (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-raid-caravans.htm), mass murdering (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=127.0), child doing (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=769.msg3047#msg3047), female prisoner abusing (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1564.0), stepson's only wife taking (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=929.0), sex slave prostituting (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=456.0), concubine fornicating (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=856.msg3411#msg3411), vow and oath breaking (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=950.0), blood drenched (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=856.0), imperialistic (http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jihad_islamic_terrorism.htm#islamic_first_jihad), conquering (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=856.0), terrorist (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=953.0), thief (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=608.0) that burned people alive (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=5127.0).
A real piece of work! A man that was THE EXACT OPPOSITE of Jesus Christ.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jesus_or_muhammad.htm
No Muslim has yet succeeded in correcting even a single one of those characterizations of Muhammad. Here's the latest feeble attempt regarding Muhammad as a prisoner rapist:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4981.msg19175#msg19175
Here's a guy that offers a $50,000 reward to anyone who can correct him on an even longer description:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/sinas-challenge/
Your choice, your fate.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jesus_or_muhammad.htm
While you ignore almost all that I reply to you, because you can see it is the truth, but to follow that truth you know you would have to leave Islam. Then your friends and family would abandon you, your parents would disinherit or perhaps even kill you, and if you live in an Islamic country the State likely has statutes that provide the death penalty for you. Didn't you ever wonder why all of that is supposed to seem OK to you? Don't even you find that even a little weird?
In your own Malaysia Islam has not gotten a complete grip, so leaving Islam is only illegal in five of 13 states, and punishable by a fine, imprisonment, and flogging. Of course it's only a matter of time before it's the death penalty.
So why not be a man for once, and explain to us what is just and holy, about Islamic countries providing the death penalty for citizens that leave Islam.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/death_penalty_apostasy.htm
Bible scholars, for example, have written that the writings of Mark, Matthew and Luke, came from one or two sources. They are not the originals.
They are not the originals any more than the Quran is, however the various versions of the Quran were collected up and burned on two separate occasions, in favor of the most preferred version edited on both occasions.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/textual_history_of_the_koran.htm
One out of five verses in the oldest Quran don't even make sense.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2576.0
Nor do the oldest Qurans agree with each other:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4707.0
Your Hadith are the result of being such a mess that individuals have gone through it over the last 1400 years with a "gee I don't like that part so it must be wrong" and "hey this looks good so let's include this" then later "nah that part isn't so hot after all", continuing even today.
Or as ibn Hisham who died in 833 admitted when he was doing his editing of Ishaq's earlier work: Ishaq: 691 "I am omitting things which Ishaq recorded in this book. I have omitted things which are disgraceful to discuss and matters which would distress certain people."
http://www.petewaldo.com/banu_qurayza_massacre.htm
While we have over 5300 partial or complete manuscripts of the Gospel that were penned before 300 AD. You are arguing textual criticism against the 3500 year record of revelation of all of the prophets and witnesses of the one true God, to follow the exact opposite through the 23-year record of a single false prophet as accurately portrayed in my description above. Doesn't that seem even a little odd to you?
The last thing you will find fruitful is textual criticism of a book that a reprobate false prophet causes you to deny the whole subject of. Which of course is why you have been running and hiding from the whole subject of the Gospel ever since you arrived.
They are corrupted with writings and inputs from other men.
So they're not corrupted, they are just corrupted.
Tell me why and how I am wrong here.[/size]
You are an antichrist that rejects Jesus Christ to follow the stunningly reprobate false prophet Muhammad alone.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/islam_is_antichrist.htm
Let alone that your belief in your false prophet, make you even more polytheistic, than you mistakenly believe Christians to be.
-
Muslims claim the Gospel was corrupted, even though it is a physical impossibility to go back and uniformly change tens of thousands of copies in so many languages, that were spread all over the known world. Let alone for its whole subject to be added.
https://youtu.be/sJ9X6MQS8LM
Unlike you, I prefer to keep to the topic of discussion.
Once again, I say here. Muslims do not believe that the Injeel and Taurah, which came from God, are corrupted. However, we do believe that the bible, which also contains the word of men, and have been changed.
Bible scholars, for example, have written that the writings of Mark, Matthew and Luke, came from one or two sources. They are not the originals. They are corrupted with writings and inputs from other men.
Tell me why and how I am wrong here.
Hi relaxboy. If I get you correctly, you are suggesting that the very earliest extant Christian manuscripts (upon which our modern biblical translations like the KJV depend) are themselves corrupted by men and therefore not trustworthy. Is that correct?
If so, then my question is this: What Gospel/Injeel did Muhammed instruct the "People of the Book" to judge by? What commonly understood text or message of the time was he referring to as the Gospel? Surely not the man-made corrupted ones (as you believe) dubbed Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
-
The Gospel is NOT lost. It is included in your scripture.
Ah, ok, so this scripture which Muhammed calls "Gospel" back in AD 632 is the same as is today. Ie, the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark Luke and John (MMLJ).
Now considering the way in which Muhammed both endorses and yet contradicts the Gospel of the Christians, there is only one valid interpretation as far as I can see: The People of the Book (Christians) are expected to know the Gospels of MMLJ but throw out the parts which Muhammed rejects and also to add parts which Muhammed recommends. Now, why would any Christian do so on the command of a blood thirsty conquering tyrant who lived some 600 years after the events described in a foreign land and who was not even of Jewish descent? What makes Muhammed a better witness to the events of Jesus's life - and the meaning of His teachings - than the Gospel writers? Perhaps sitting in a lonely cave for weeks on end communing with and being scared witless by unidentified spirits?
-
Reading the Quran, it is obvious to me that Muhammed was entirely consumed with the things we would expect from a tyrant of this natural world. Namely personal power, control, pride, obsession with material wealth and sex, domination, conquest and the destruction of all who oppose his will.
In contrast, Christianity is about the things which are not of this world. In particular, the things mentioned above which really have no place in the presence of God. If you start by realising this, you might begin to see through Islam and other doctrines claiming to be from God. Jesus said "My Kingdom is not of this world" or words to this effect. The natural world is full of evils of all kind which can ultimately be described as that which opposes the will and nature of God. As far as I can see, Muhammed was entirely that and oblivious to the fact. He never understood the Gospel or the nature of God's message through Christ. A natural man for sure.
It is for this reason you do not understand Jesus's identity and message. You will continue to be baffled by The Trinity so long as you are happy to be consumed by the concerns of this natural world. Jesus said "seek and you shall find" for a reason.
-
Reading the Quran, it is obvious to me that Muhammed was entirely consumed with the things we would expect from a tyrant of this natural world. Namely personal power, control, pride, obsession with material wealth and sex, domination, conquest and the destruction of all who oppose his will.
In contrast, Christianity is about the things which are not of this world. In particular, the things mentioned above which really have no place in the presence of God. If you start by realising this, you might begin to see through Islam and other doctrines claiming to be from God.
Like prostrating oneself toward the Quraish pagan's black stone idol in Mecca 5 times a day, while praying in the "vain repetitions of the heathen", in the names of the Arabian pagan's deity "Allah" and his "messenger" Muhammad. Even squandering money (that could otherwise help the poor) to travel to and kiss the Quraish pagan's black stone idol.
http://www.petewaldo.com/hajj_umrah.htm#index
(http://ivarfjeld.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/42553621_mashaalap416.jpg)
As far as I can see, Muhammed was entirely that and oblivious to the fact. He never understood the Gospel or the nature of God's message through Christ. A natural man for sure.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Romans 9:7 Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, [are they] all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. 8 That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these [are] not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
Galatians 4:22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 23 But he [who was] of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman [was] by promise. 24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. 25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.
http://www.petewaldo.com/children_flesh.htm
Genesis 16:11 And the angel of the LORD said unto her, [Hagar] Behold, thou [art] with child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael; because the LORD hath heard thy affliction. 12 And he will be a wild man; his hand [will be] against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren.
Whether it's Muslims terrorizing and slaughtering non-Muslims, or Sunni's terrorizing and slaughtering Shiites or both of those groups terrorizing and slaughtering the poor Ahmadiyya, the seed of Ishmael and those who join them spiritually are just as was prophesied.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jihad_islamic_terrorism.htm
-
Hi relaxboy. If I get you correctly, you are suggesting that the very earliest extant Christian manuscripts (upon which our modern biblical translations like the KJV depend) are themselves corrupted by men and therefore not trustworthy. Is that correct?
If so, then my question is this: What Gospel/Injeel did Muhammed instruct the "People of the Book" to judge by? What commonly understood text or message of the time was he referring to as the Gospel? Surely not the man-made corrupted ones (as you believe) dubbed Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
The Injeel/Gospel that was revealed to Jesus (pbuh) can be found in the Gospels according to Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, as well as other Gospels which Christians claimed as non-canonical or even apocrypha. When you read your Gospels, you will find that some sayings of Jesus (pbuh) are exactly what the Quran mentions. These are the parts which are divinely revealed.
Others are biography of Jesus and false statements of Jesus and other people.
What Muslims meant by 'corruption' is the the latter... where you claim that the writings of these people are from God, or inspired by God.
-
Hi relaxboy. If I get you correctly, you are suggesting that the very earliest extant Christian manuscripts (upon which our modern biblical translations like the KJV depend) are themselves corrupted by men and therefore not trustworthy. Is that correct?
If so, then my question is this: What Gospel/Injeel did Muhammed instruct the "People of the Book" to judge by? What commonly understood text or message of the time was he referring to as the Gospel? Surely not the man-made corrupted ones (as you believe) dubbed Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?
The Injeel/Gospel that was revealed to Jesus (pbuh) can be found in the Gospels according to Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, as well as other Gospels which Christians claimed as non-canonical or even apocrypha. When you read your Gospels, you will find that some sayings of Jesus (pbuh) are exactly what the Quran mentions. These are the parts which are divinely revealed.
No, many of those would be the parts of Muhammad's so-called "revelations" that were pilfered, plundered, pirated and plagiarized from Christianity, by Muhammad's helper "angels" like Jabr, Waraqa bin Naufal (http://www.petewaldo.com/simon_magnus_gnostics_ebionites_islam.htm), some former nominally Christian and Jewish wives and slaves, with Jewish and Arabic fables from the likes of Tubba.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=452.0
Narrated 'Aisha(R): Volume 4, Book 55, Number 605: "..The Prophet returned to Khadija while his heart was beating rapidly. She took him to Waraqa bin Naufal who was a Christian convert and used to read the Gospel in Arabic....."
Narrated 'Aisha(R): Volume 1, Book 1, Number 3 Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Naufal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, who, during the pre-Islamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as Allah wished him to write.
"From a number of Islamic books we gather that Mohammed was surrounded by many Christians - even if nominal. One of them was Waraqa ibn Naufal, the cousin of Khadija, Mohammed's wife. One of his wives, Umm Habbibah, was formerly the wife of a Christian, Ubaidu'llah ibn Jahsh. Another wife of Mohammed, Miriam, and her sister, Sirin, were Christian slaves given to Muhammad. Biographer Ibn Ishaq records that Abdu'llah ibn Salam (one of the best reciters of the Qur'an) was a seasoned Jewish Rabbi before he became a Muslim and personal friend of Muhammad."(Anatomy of the Quran by G.J.O. Moshay)"
Sura 16.103 We know indeed that they say, "It is a man that teaches him."
Because of course the Quraish knew that it WAS Jabr that was teaching Muhammad. Indeed so often did Muhammad "receive" a "revelation", shortly after another long chat with Jabr, the Quraish's nickname for Jabr was "holy spirit".
The Quraish recognized Muhammad's made-up nonsense, self-contradiction and plagiarized "tales of the ancients" for just what it was, so he became a source of entertainment and amusement for the locals. Particularly after he came up with his tall tale about riding to Jerusalem (and praying in a temple that had been torn down 500 years previous to his claim), up to paradise and back to Mecca, on a flying donkey-mule one night.
http://www.petewaldo.com/muhammads_night_journey.htm
With that whopper most of his small handful of followers left him and he got laughed out of Mecca. The only way Muhammad could have ever peddled his nonsense is the way he eventually did, with his "believe it or die" and "deny it and you die" approach that has continued throughout 1400 years of Islamic history and in much of the Islamic world today.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/the_islamic_state.htm#christian_children_beheaded
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/blasphemy_laws.htm
For pity's sake man, there is not a shred of historical or archaeological evidence that suggests Mecca never even existed until about the 4th century AD!
http://www.historyofmecca.com/
If you were ever man enough to read G.J.O. Moshay's "Anatomy of the Quran", I guarantee you would run from Muhammadanism like a scalded dog. But you won't read it because you have no love of truth. The ability to love truth has been taken away from you, and so you prefer lies from the father of them, just as was prophesied.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/strong_delusion.htm
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=452.0
"We must realize too that Muhammad's main Secretary was a Jew. According to Muslim writer Muhammad Haykall, Muhammad...
'...had chosen him (the Secretary) for his capacity to write letters in Hebrew and Syriac as well as Arabic. After the evacuation of Jews from Madinah, the Prophet no longer trusted a non-muslim to write his letters.'
That means, too, that the Jewish background of Jabr could not be a plausible reason why he couldn't have helped Muhammad in his collection of what is now called the Qur'an. If Muhammad's own Secretary was of "a foreign tougue" and yet well versed in Arabic, Syriac and his own Hebrew language, then it is not inconceivable to get Hebrew scriptures and literature interpreted and translated into Arabic by the Secretary. Since the Secretary was such a brilliant fellow and was versatile in these three languages, therefore, the alleged brilliance of the language of the Qur'an is not a necessary and sufficient proof of heavenly authorship. Rather, it can be a reflection of the brilliance of Jabr, since Muhammad is believed to have been illiterate."
"On Plagiarism
The influences noted above are not just in hearing stories and having them jotted down as revelations. There are hints of outright plagiarism identified by scholars. But, interestingly, we have a serious challenge concerning the sacredness and originality of the Qur'an:
'And if you are in doubt as to which We (Allah) have revealed to Our servant (Muhammad), then produce a chapter like it, and call on your helper, besides Allah, if you are truthful.'
Most Arabs were illiterate at that time. Moreover, many of the original works from which Arabs could have discovered the sources of the Qur'an material were in foreign languages. Informed scholars now laugh at such a challenge since clear evidence now exists to establish outright plagiarism in the Qura'an. We will now cite a few of these.
It has been established that verses 1, 29, 31 and 46 of Sura 54 (Surat al-Qamar) were lifted from a poem of a pre-Islamic Arabic poet, Imraul Qais. Even at the time of Muhammad, some sneered at the challenge to 'produce a chapter like it.' For example the poe Imraul Qais' daughter was still alive when Muhammad started his religion. One day this lady was listening to Muhammad reciting the 'revelations' he had just received hot from heaven from his Angel Jubril. She recognized the verses from her father's poems, and stoood aghast and amused, wondering how these could be a revelation written by Alland and preserved in the 'Preserved Tablet' in heaven from before the creation of the world!
Another time, this lady met Fatima, Muhammad's daughter, reciting the first verse of Surat Qamar. Qais' daughter said:
'Oh that is what your father has taken from my father's poems ('Mollaqat') and calls it something that has come down fto him from heaven!'
If the original works of a secular Arab poet could be seen in the Qur'an, then it is scarcely of any use to maintain the claim that the Qur'an is so wonderful that the most learned Arab or even a spirit could not produce it's kind." (Anatomy of the Quran by G.J.O. Moshay)
Sura 19:28 "O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste!" 29 But she pointed to the babe. They said: "How can we talk to one who is a child in the cradle?" 30 He said: "I am indeed a servant of Allah: He hath given me revelation and made me a prophet;
Jesus speaking as an infant was lifted from an Egyptian apocryphal fable titled "First Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus Christ":
"...Jesus spake even when he was in the cradle, and said: 'Mary, I am Jesus the son of God. That word which thou didst bring forth according to the declaration of the angel..."
Portions of the preceding from "Anatomy of the Quran" by G.J.O. Moshay.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=410.0
Others are biography of Jesus and false statements of Jesus and other people.
What Muslims meant by 'corruption' is the the latter... where you claim that the writings of these people are from God, or inspired by God.[/size]
Sure, the whole subject of the Gospel is the part that wasn't in there.
Sorry my sorely deluded friend, but the whole subject of the Gospel was there in the 1st century when it happened and was written about, it was there in Muhammad's 7th century when "Allah" instructed Christians to go by that same Gospel (thousands of copies of which were being read around the whole "known world" in Muhammad's day), and the same whole subject is in the Gospel of today. You have reduced yourself to little more than outright soiling of our forum with your repetitive Muhammadan antichrist broken-minded blasphemy.
-
Since we are at the topic of the Gospel, allow me to refute your silly arguments:
1. Notice that the hadith mentioned the word 'Gospel', not "Gospels (plural)".
2. There might be other "Gospels" circulating around the Hijaz at that time. What makes you think Waraqa was referring to the Gospel according to Mark, Matthew, Luke and John?
3. You insinuated that Waraqa bin Naufal, Jabal, "Umm Habbibah, was formerly the wife of a Christian, Ubaidu'llah ibn Jahsh. Another wife of Mohammed, Miriam, and her sister, Sirin, were Christian slaves given to Muhammad".... Question is: WHICH ONE ACTUALLY?
Scholars who studied the Quran would tell you that the language, style, of the Quran is consistent throughout the whole 30 Juz. There is only ONE author of the Quran. We believe it is God. If you believe otherwise, tell me the author and provide me the evidence.
-
2. There might be other "Gospels" circulating around the Hijaz at that time. What makes you think Waraqa was referring to the Gospel according to Mark, Matthew, Luke and John?
Well it's entirely possible (and even likely) that Muhammed and his cohorts were heavily influenced by heretical sects claiming to be "christian," promoting their own "gospel." Muhammed certainly had a bizarre view of the Christian Holy Trinity: He thought it was God, Jesus and His mother Mary. Now surely, you must know how wrong that is? You certainly will not find that definition in the canonical Gospel. (notice I use singular Gospel too!)
-
Well it's entirely possible (and even likely) that Muhammed and his cohorts were heavily influenced by heretical sects claiming to be "christian," promoting their own "gospel."
So, we can all agree that the Christians at the Hejaz might have been reading other Gospels than what you only knew. The point I was trying to tell Pete. :)
Muhammed certainly had a bizarre view of the Christian Holy Trinity: He thought it was God, Jesus and His mother Mary. Now surely, you must know how wrong that is? You certainly will not find that definition in the canonical Gospel. (notice I use singular Gospel too!)
Since you already confirmed there were heretical Christians at that time, why am I not surprised that these Christians come with their own brand of trinity. The Quran was strongly against associating God with Jesus, his mother or even the HS.
Oh btw, I bold the statement above to let you know the good news: You can never find the definition of the Trinity in your canonical Gospels (i use plural to help you search all 4 gospels)
-
I would appreciate it if you would for once, actually read and try to comprehend the content of a post. Your eternity may depend on understanding this discussion. As you have aptly demonstrated I know you won't respond to every point, because to do so would make you have to contemplate each point, in the totality of it all. But please try to at least read this whole post.
Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Since we are at the topic of the Gospel, allow me to refute your silly arguments:
1. Notice that the hadith mentioned the word 'Gospel', not "Gospels (plural)".
2. There might be other "Gospels" circulating around the Hijaz at that time. What makes you think Waraqa was referring to the Gospel according to Mark, Matthew, Luke and John?
Little doubt Waraqa was not reading from the Gospel. As I mentioned before, Waraqa was an occult Ebionite priest. The Ebionites adopted the famous 1st century sorcerer/magician Simon Magus' denial of the crucifixion of Christ, along with his disciple basilides' lie that it only appeared that Christ was crucified. So Muhammad most likely picked up his denial of the whole subject of the Gospel by way of Waraqa, an occult Ebionite priest.
http://www.petewaldo.com/simon_magnus_gnostics_ebionites_islam.htm#basilides
3. You insinuated that Waraqa bin Naufal, Jabal, "Umm Habbibah, was formerly the wife of a Christian, Ubaidu'llah ibn Jahsh. Another wife of Mohammed, Miriam, and her sister, Sirin, were Christian slaves given to Muhammad".... Question is: WHICH ONE ACTUALLY?
Likely all of those listed and more, but Jabr was the one that Muhammad even felt compelled to create a special "revelation" about, in transparent efforts to diffuse the common knowledge that he was learning from a man.
Sura 16.103 We know indeed that they say, "It is a man that teaches him."
"The "man that teaches him" is a young "Christian" friend of Muhammad called Jabr, whom Muhammad always visited at Marwah Quraters, not too far from his house. The allegation was that when Muhammad visited Jabr and heard the stories of the Bible, some were put on record. People believed that Muhammad usually presented these parchments and claimed he had received them hot from heaven through the angel Gabriel."
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=452.0
Scholars who studied the Quran would tell you that the language, style, of the Quran is consistent throughout the whole 30 Juz.
We understand you are taught to parrot that, but not only is the language and style different today than in the oldest Quran, but one out of five verses don't even make sense:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2576.0
Nor do the oldest Qurans agree with each other:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4707.0
There is only ONE author of the Quran.
And that author is Muhammad, not only by parroting those around him, but through demonic possession as well. He even used to foam at the mouth when receiving a "revelation". That is a physical sign of demonic possession, not divine inspiration.
I showed you lots of sources that surrounded Muhammad, and since the Quran even contains outright plagiarism and "tales of the ancients", we can know that you have simply been trained to parrot what is provably a lie. Let alone that Muhammad (errr, rather his alter-ego "Allah") made such a mess of his recitations, that a whopping 71 out of only 114 chapters are subject to abrogation. What a miserably confused god!
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=116.0
Let alone the amusingly self-serving "revelations" that allowed Muhammad to satisfy his greed and lust, by awarding him 1/5 of all the captives and property stolen from others, just like a Mafia Don. Another special "revelation" allowed him all the wives he wanted - but only for him, while another allowed him to steal his poor monogamous stepson's only wife. A real piece of work!
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3775.0
We believe it is God.
That's right. You have been indoctrinated to follow the opposer of the one true God, through Satan's "messenger" THE false prophet Muhammad. Why don't you list all the reasons, Muhammad's followers kiss the Quraish pagan's black stone idol, even today.
You follow a mass murdering, female prisoner abusing, terrorist, thief who claimed he didn't know whether he was going to heaven or hell, whose corpse still lies rotting in its shallow grave.
You reject the sinless Messiah as revealed in the 1600 year record of the one true God, who has been given all power/authority in heaven and on earth, who even Muhammadans believe was physically lifted to paradise.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jesus_or_muhammad.htm
If you believe otherwise, tell me the author and provide me the evidence.[/size]
Since Muhammad denied the whole subject of the Gospel, and all of Yahweh's prophets and witnesses as revealed in the 1600 record of revelation of the one true God of Jews and Christians, the author of the Quran can be none other than the opposer of God - Satan. Period.
That's why the stand-alone false prophet Muhammad's followers are filled with complete resolve as to what to DISbelieve, DENY and REJECT. Simply go back and review your posts and you will see what I mean. Let alone that you run from the whole subject of the Gospel like a scalded dog. This is because you are filled with the spirit of antichrist, because you follow Yahweh's opposer, the father of lies, that is Satan himself. You even run and hide from that perfectly applicable label rather than discuss it.
1 John 2:22 .....He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.....
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/islam_is_antichrist.htm
It all began that fateful day when Muhammad himself recognized that a demon met him in the cave of Hira. If Khadijah (whose family was deeply into the occult) hadn't talked him out of, what he knew to be true, there would have never been an Islam.
2Co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
But Muhammad's demon didn't even appear as an angel of light, but rather made Muhammad feel as though it was squeezing the life out of him 3 times.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=3909.msg15957#msg15957
Muhammad's "Allah" (the name of the Arabian pagan's (moon god as the etymology suggests (http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/the_name_allah.htm#etymology_name_allah))) is revealed in the Quran as a conveniently self-admitted terrorist:
Surah 8:12 I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them
Satan's people have always persecuted, terrorized and slaughtered Yahweh's people:
Surah 33:26 "Allah took down the People of the Scripture Book. He cast terror into their hearts. Some you slew, and some you made prisoners. And He made you heirs of their lands, their houses, and their goods, giving you a land which you had not traversed before. And Allah has power over all things."
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jihad_islamic_terrorism.htm
Satan's people continue to mass murder, rape and steal from Yahweh's people, even today:
From the Hoover Institute: "Few people realize that we are today living through the largest persecution of Christians in history, worse even than the famous attacks under ancient Roman emperors like Diocletian and Nero. Estimates of the numbers of Christians under assault range from 100-200 million."
"And most of this persecution is taking place at the hands of Muslims. Of the top fifty countries persecuting Christians, forty-two have either a Muslim majority or have sizable Muslim populations."
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/muslim_persecution_of_christians.htm
And then there's the Arabian pagan moon, sun, star and jinn-devil worship rituals that Muhammad adopted and adapted to fit his 7th century invention, while compelling his followers to engage in the same even against their own better judgment:
Narrated 'Asim: I asked Anas bin Malik: "Did you use to dislike to perform Tawaf between Safa and Marwa?" He said, "Yes, as it was of the ceremonies of the days of the Pre-lslamic period of ignorance.....
http://www.petewaldo.com/hajj___umrah.htm#al_safa_al_marwah
Now why don't you list all the reasons that Muhammad's followers kiss the Quraish pagan's black stone idol?
Top it all off with the absolute matter of fact that there is not a shred of historical or archaeological evidence that suggests that Mecca ever existed before pagan migrants from Yemen initially settled the area in the 4th century AD, and built their Kaaba in the 5th century AD for pagan Arabian moon, sun, star and jinn-devil worship. Muslims engage in the same unto today.
http://www.historyofmecca.com/
Let alone that Muhammad himself may have never existed, but might have been a creation of Caliph Abd Al-Malik:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4708.0
Now please go back and revisit the irrefutable description of Muhammad I posted, and compare Muhammad's behavior with that of the sinless Messiah, the Lamb of God, the Prince of Peace:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2023.msg19575#msg19575
-
Well it's entirely possible (and even likely) that Muhammed and his cohorts were heavily influenced by heretical sects claiming to be "christian," promoting their own "gospel."
So, we can all agree that the Christians at the Hejaz might have been reading other Gospels than what you only knew. The point I was trying to tell Pete. :)
No, not quite. There is only one Gospel but the heretics who influenced Muhammed and called themselves "christian" certainly may have had their own written works, or at the very least, a spoken doctine of their own making which they called "gospel." Such things are not THE Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Muhammed certainly had a bizarre view of the Christian Holy Trinity: He thought it was God, Jesus and His mother Mary. Now surely, you must know how wrong that is? You certainly will not find that definition in the canonical Gospel. (notice I use singular Gospel too!)
Since you already confirmed there were heretical Christians at that time, why am I not surprised that these Christians come with their own brand of trinity. The Quran was strongly against associating God with Jesus, his mother or even the HS.
You should not be surprised at all. However, what ought to surprise you is how easily Muhammed absorbed false heritical teachings as being representative of the real Gospel of Christ. This is not what we would expect of a prophet of God. If Muhammed is to stand against the theology of The Gospel, then he ought to at least understand it properly first. No?
Oh btw, I bold the statement above to let you know the good news: You can never find the definition of the Trinity in your canonical Gospels (i use plural to help you search all 4 gospels)[/size]
Actually I can find The Trinity in the Gospels. Sure, it isn't laid out for you on a plate but then the teachings of Christ never were. Jesus was never obvious about His identity for reasons you can read in The Gospel. This however, is probably something for separate discussion, if you're really interested.
Ultimately my point is that Muhammed was railing against a false heretical form of "christianity." Where else did he get the idea of God, Jesus and His mother as being The Holy Trinity? He never knew the real Gospel and therefore has no standing concerning it. Some "prophet."
-
No, not quite. There is only one Gospel but the heretics who influenced Muhammed and called themselves "christian" certainly may have had their own written works, or at the very least, a spoken doctine of their own making which they called "gospel." Such things are not THE Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Interesting. What then is THE Gospel of Christ? Pls share.
You should not be surprised at all. However, what ought to surprise you is how easily Muhammed absorbed false heritical teachings as being representative of the real Gospel of Christ. This is not what we would expect of a prophet of God. If Muhammed is to stand against the theology of The Gospel, then he ought to at least understand it properly first. No?
Again, what is THE Gospel of Christ?
Actually I can find The Trinity in the Gospels. Sure, it isn't laid out for you on a plate but then the teachings of Christ never were. Jesus was never obvious about His identity for reasons you can read in The Gospel. This however, is probably something for separate discussion, if you're really interested.
The bible never teaches the Trinity. It was a man-made doctrine that many swallowed without question.
Ultimately my point is that Muhammed was railing against a false heretical form of "christianity." Where else did he get the idea of God, Jesus and His mother as being The Holy Trinity? He never knew the real Gospel and therefore has no standing concerning it. Some "prophet."
The word Trinity is NOT in the Quran. Trinity is also not in the bible. It was never taught by Christ.
Of course, Christians over the years have different belief in the trinity. Some have the Mother as one of the members of trinity, others have the holy spirit as the member. The Quran refuted any forms of belief that associate God with anyone.
-
Little doubt Waraqa was not reading from the Gospel. As I mentioned before, Waraqa was an occult Ebionite priest. The Ebionites adopted the famous 1st century sorcerer/magician Simon Magus' denial of the crucifixion of Christ, along with his disciple basilides' lie that it only appeared that Christ was crucified. So Muhammad most likely picked up his denial of the whole subject of the Gospel by way of Waraqa, an occult Ebionite priest.
So, as we are discussing the topic of the Gospel, I finally read that you agree that there were many Gospels around during Muhammad's time. Nonetheless, in these gospels, you can still find the truth. I cannot confirm that Waraqa was reading the Gospels that you read, but God asked the Christians to look deeper in your scripture to find the truth, as spelt out in teh Quran.
[/quote]
-
Little doubt Waraqa was not reading from the Gospel. As I mentioned before, Waraqa was an occult Ebionite priest. The Ebionites adopted the famous 1st century sorcerer/magician Simon Magus' denial of the crucifixion of Christ, along with his disciple basilides' lie that it only appeared that Christ was crucified. So Muhammad most likely picked up his denial of the whole subject of the Gospel by way of Waraqa, an occult Ebionite priest.
So, as we are discussing the topic of the Gospel, I finally read that you agree that there were many Gospels around during Muhammad's time.
Of course there weren't. There was and remains only one Gospel. Its whole subject has been the same for nearly 2,000 years.
Waraqa would have been using Ebionite Gnostic writings, that originated with a 1st century sorcerer.
Do you consider the Ahmadiyya's to be Islamic teachings? No. Sunnis even torture and murder those poor souls for their beliefs.
Nonetheless, in these gospels, you can still find the truth. I cannot confirm that Waraqa was reading the Gospels that you read, but God asked the Christians to look deeper in your scripture to find the truth, as spelt out in teh Quran.
[/size]
One can't get deeper than a book's whole subject, my friend, that you must reject, because you follow Satan through his stand-alone "messenger" Muhammad.
Now it's your turn to answer some of our questions. If you don't answer, your posts will go to spam until you do.
Would you please list for us all the reasons that Muhammad's followers kiss the Quraish pagan's black stone idol in Mecca?
-
Little doubt Waraqa was not reading from the Gospel. As I mentioned before, Waraqa was an occult Ebionite priest. The Ebionites adopted the famous 1st century sorcerer/magician Simon Magus' denial of the crucifixion of Christ, along with his disciple basilides' lie that it only appeared that Christ was crucified. So Muhammad most likely picked up his denial of the whole subject of the Gospel by way of Waraqa, an occult Ebionite priest.
Of course there weren't. There was and remains only one Gospel. Its whole subject has been the same for nearly 2,000 years.
Waraqa would have been using Ebionite Gnostic writings, that originated with a 1st century sorcerer.
Do you consider the Ahmadiyya's to be Islamic teachings? No. Sunnis even torture and murder those poor souls for their beliefs.
That's funny. You openly claimed that the Quran validates the Gospel, quoted a hadith which claim that Waraqa read and wrote the Gospel, and then said that was not the Gospel. So what is the Gospel that the Quran asks the Christian to search??
Now it's your turn to answer some of our questions. If you don't answer, your posts will go to spam until you do.
Would you please list for us all the reasons that Muhammad's followers kiss the Quraish pagan's black stone idol in Mecca?
The topic is on the Gospel, not on the Black Stone.
-
Little doubt Waraqa was not reading from the Gospel. As I mentioned before, Waraqa was an occult Ebionite priest. The Ebionites adopted the famous 1st century sorcerer/magician Simon Magus' denial of the crucifixion of Christ, along with his disciple basilides' lie that it only appeared that Christ was crucified. So Muhammad most likely picked up his denial of the whole subject of the Gospel by way of Waraqa, an occult Ebionite priest.
Of course there weren't. There was and remains only one Gospel. Its whole subject has been the same for nearly 2,000 years.
Waraqa would have been using Ebionite Gnostic writings, that originated with a 1st century sorcerer.
Do you consider the Ahmadiyya's to be Islamic teachings? No. Sunnis even torture and murder those poor souls for their beliefs.
That's funny. You openly claimed that the Quran validates the Gospel, quoted a hadith which claim that Waraqa read and wrote the Gospel, and then said that was not the Gospel.
That's right. It was obviously some heretical writing that I traced back to a first century sorcerer and his disciple and the Ebionites who Waraqa and Muhammad relied on, from which they came up with their denial of the whole subject of the Gospel.
So what is the Gospel that the Quran asks the Christian to search??[/size]
As far as Muslims are taught, that is "Allah's" recommendation, not some random hadith collector that obviously had no more idea of what was in the Gospel than Waraqa or Muhammad did.
So unless your god "Allah" was as illiterate as Muhammad was, your god should have known what was in the Gospel, since it had been translated into every popular language, had been copied tens of thousands of times and had been read all over the known world for centuries. The same Gospel we have today, in which the whole subject is the crucifixion, death and resurrection of the sinless Messiah who saves all from dying in our sins through faith in His shed blood.
But the SW Arabian desert was a backwater that time and civilization had left behind, as attested by the fact that the Arabian pagans were still venerating 360 idols even 6 centuries into the Christian era! Talk about backwards! Even to this day they run back and forth between al-Marwah and al-Safa as the Arabian jinn-devil worshipers did.
http://petewaldo.com/hajj___umrah.htm#al_safa_al_marwah
While the civilized world had even invented the first analog computer, about 8 centuries before Muhammad was ever even born.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism
Compare the pagan's kaaba, no two sides of which are even the same length, with the temple mount that Yahweh had His people build thousands of years before the Quraish pagan's built their kaaba. What a joke! Here's a picture of it inundated with 5' of urban floodwater, that is always laced with sewage.
(http://www.historyofmecca.com/02cf4710.jpg)
Yet Yahweh's temple was built in the civilized world, by Yahweh's people, thousands of years before Satan had his followers cobble together the Kaaba in the 5th century AD, for Arabian pagan moon, sun, star and jinn-devil worship:
(http://www.historyofmecca.com/04f902b0.jpg)
-
Little doubt Waraqa was not reading from the Gospel. As I mentioned before, Waraqa was an occult Ebionite priest. The Ebionites adopted the famous 1st century sorcerer/magician Simon Magus' denial of the crucifixion of Christ, along with his disciple basilides' lie that it only appeared that Christ was crucified. So Muhammad most likely picked up his denial of the whole subject of the Gospel by way of Waraqa, an occult Ebionite priest.
That may be so. But you posted a number of threads on the Quran confirming the Gospel, saying that the Gospel is true and has been circulating for centuries, that the Quran asked Chrisrians to find the truth in the Gospel, and even quoted the hadith to say that Waraqa read and write the Gospel. It was only when we discussed the possibility that Waraqa might be reading other Gospels, that you decided to do a turnaround and say that "Nope. Waraqa read a different Gospel."
So, I asked, what Gospel did the Quran asked Christians to search and find the truth?
and this is your answer:
As far as Muslims are taught, that is "Allah's" recommendation, not some random hadith collector that obviously had no more idea of what was in the Gospel than Waraqa or Muhammad did.
So, now you decided to think that the Quran was wrong and that it should not have asked Christians to search the bible for the truth.
I was hoping that you could be more consistent in presenting your case.
-
Little doubt Waraqa was not reading from the Gospel. As I mentioned before, Waraqa was an occult Ebionite priest. The Ebionites adopted the famous 1st century sorcerer/magician Simon Magus' denial of the crucifixion of Christ, along with his disciple basilides' lie that it only appeared that Christ was crucified. So Muhammad most likely picked up his denial of the whole subject of the Gospel by way of Waraqa, an occult Ebionite priest.
That may be so. But you posted a number of threads on the Quran confirming the Gospel, ........
It would be blasphemy for me to have done as you suggest, since the Quran is the exact opposite of the Gospel, does the exact opposite of confirming the Gospel by denying its whole subject. So all the Quran can do, is condemn Muhammadan Islam as being antichrist blasphemy against the ONE true God, as inspired by Satan through his messenger THE false prophet Muhammad.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/index.htm
We were pointing out what Muhammadans are expected to believe about Muhammad's "Allah". What YOU are required to believe - which is that in the 7th century Muhammad's "Allah" himself told the people of the Gospel to go by what is revealed therein.
So it's absolutely irrelevant what heretical material might have existed around Mecca back then. All that matters is what your "Allah" should have known.
....... saying that the Gospel is true and has been circulating for centuries, that the Quran asked Chrisrians to find the truth in the Gospel, ..........
Indeed, and the Gospel's whole subject is the same today, as it was in the 1st century and Muhammad's 7th century, when his "Allah" is supposed to have recommended that Christians go by what is revealed therein (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2023.msg19527#msg19527). And that's not all:
Sura 5:68 Say: "O People of the Book! ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord."
Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Sura 48.29 ... This is their similitude in the Taurat; and their similitude in the Gospel is: like a seed which sends forth its blade, then makes it strong; it then becomes thick, and it stands on its own stem, (filling) the sowers with wonder and delight. As a result, it fills the Unbelievers with rage at them. Allah has promised those among them who believe and do righteous deeds forgiveness, and a great Reward.
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/
It is indisputable that the subject of the Gospel is the same today, as when Muhammad's followers believe "Allah" said those things, in the 7th century.
The irony is, that it "fills" Muhammad's "Unbelievers" of the Gospel (http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/), "with rage at (http://www.bing.com/search?q=isis+kills+christians&qs=n&form=QBRE&pq=isis+kills+christians&sc=8-21&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=73D93002B70044629FD645AA4A2032E5)" we people of the Gospel.
(http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/0ec90050.png)
........and even quoted the hadith to say that Waraqa read and write the Gospel.
I quoted that about Waraqa, as being just another one of the demented occult sources from which Muhammad actually received his "revealtions", as he dithered his way along inventing his self-serving alter-ego "Allah" and STAND-ALONE 7th century cult. But very few people fell for his foolishness. In the first 13 years Muhammad barely collected a hundred followers, and most of those had the good sense to abandon him, after he came up with his fantastic tall tale about riding around on a flying donkey-mule one night. Even Jim Jones attracted ten times that many into his death cult!
That's why Muhammad eventually had to come up with his "believe me or die" policy, that he enforced with the two lazy caravan plundering bandit tribes of the Oas and Kazraj. Just like in your Malaysia where you would be punished by the State (let alone your family, friends, employer etc.) for leaving Islam. Many Islamic countries provide the ultimate exit penalty, of death, just like the Mafia:
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/death_penalty_apostasy.htm
In your Malaysia the penalty is 3 years in prison for even speaking openly and honestly about Muhammad or Islam as revealed through your own books. It is the father of lies himself that has stripped your freedom, and stolen the truth from your mouths by putting his muzzle on his people, as if his poor souls were a bunch of beaten down submissive dogs:
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/blasphemy_laws.htm#death_penalty_blasphemy
But it doesn't have to be that way my friend:
John 8:36 If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.
As I have shown you, in Waraqa's case Muhammad got his material from an occult Ebionite priest, who was indoctrinated downstream from the first century sorcerer Simon Magus and his disciple Basilides.
http://www.petewaldo.com/simon_magnus_gnostics_ebionites_islam.htm#basilides
Waraqa could have never been a Christiian, simply because he fell for Muhammad's demonic tripe. If Waraqa had known anything about the New Testament, he would have instructed Muhammad to "try the spirit" that met him in that cave, before believing and following it. But Muhammad didn't. That's why he got fooled into following a demon, from straight out of the pit of hell, of the opposer of God.
1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=273.0
It was only when we discussed the possibility that Waraqa might be reading other Gospels, that you decided to do a turnaround and say that "Nope. Waraqa read a different Gospel."
No you misunderstood, since Waraqa was obviously influenced by the opposite of the Gospel, in whatever form it was. I know this because I know that everything in Islam is of Satan because Islam is as opposite to the Gospel as Muhammad was to Jesus Christ.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jesus_or_muhammad.htm
But that doesn't preclude me from believing some of what may be the actual history of Islam, during Muhammad's time and later, since it exposes him as A SINGLE, STAND-ALONE, 7th century, illiterate (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=452.0), pillaging (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=856.0), plundering (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Muhammad/myths-mu-raid-caravans.htm), mass murdering (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=127.0), child doing (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=769.msg3047#msg3047), female prisoner abusing (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1564.0), stepson's only wife taking (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=929.0), sex slave prostituting (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=456.0), concubine fornicating (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=856.msg3411#msg3411), vow and oath breaking (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=950.0), blood drenched (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=856.0), imperialistic (http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jihad_islamic_terrorism.htm#islamic_first_jihad), conquering (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=856.0), terrorist (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=953.0), thief (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=608.0) that burned people alive (http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=5127.0).
A real piece of work! A man that was THE EXACT OPPOSITE of Jesus Christ.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jesus_or_muhammad.htm
So, I asked, what Gospel did the Quran asked Christians to search and find the truth?
and this is your answer:[/size]
As far as Muslims are taught, that is "Allah's" recommendation, not some random hadith collector that obviously had no more idea of what was in the Gospel than Waraqa or Muhammad did.
So, now you decided to think that the Quran was wrong and that it should not have asked Christians to search the bible for the truth.
I was hoping that you could be more consistent in presenting your case.
I have been very consistent, just as in this post, yet because you put all your effort into MISunderstanding, your have rendered your mind unable to grasp it. Either that or you are just faking your inability as taqiyyah to waste everyone's time.
-
No, not quite. There is only one Gospel but the heretics who influenced Muhammed and called themselves "christian" certainly may have had their own written works, or at the very least, a spoken doctine of their own making which they called "gospel." Such things are not THE Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Interesting. What then is THE Gospel of Christ? Pls share.
Well, in a nutshell it goes something like this: The promised Jewish Messiah, Jesus Christ, Son of God, Eternal Word of God, was rejected by the people of the Covenant, mocked, scourged, crucified to death and on the third day rose. Therefore death is defeated and The New Covenant is offered in the Blood of Christ to all who will accept it, including gentiles. That is the central and most important aspect anyway. But you knew that. The question is did Muhammed? His refutation of Jesus' crucifixion is a spurious and inadequate response to the Jewish claim that their forefathers did in fact crucify Him. But where is Muhammed's response to the Christian perspective? It is notably absent.
Actually I can find The Trinity in the Gospels. Sure, it isn't laid out for you on a plate but then the teachings of Christ never were. Jesus was never obvious about His identity for reasons you can read in The Gospel. This however, is probably something for separate discussion, if you're really interested.
The bible never teaches the Trinity. It was a man-made doctrine that many swallowed without question.
Correct, you will not find the literal word "Trinity" in the bible and I did not mean to suggest that you would. It is merely a convenient term, adopted by the Church, with reference to the singular Divine nature of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. Now this you will most definately find in the bible. It is Jesus' claim to Divinity which the Jewish polical and spiritual "elite" of the time actually recognised, leading them to accuse and convict Jesus of blasphemy.
-
Interesting. What then is THE Gospel of Christ? Pls share.
Well, in a nutshell it goes something like this: The promised Jewish Messiah, Jesus Christ, Son of God, Eternal Word of God, was rejected by the people of the Covenant, mocked, scourged, crucified to death and on the third day rose. Therefore death is defeated and The New Covenant is offered in the Blood of Christ to all who will accept it, including gentiles. That is the central and most important aspect anyway. But you knew that. The question is did Muhammed? His refutation of Jesus' crucifixion is a spurious and inadequate response to the Jewish claim that their forefathers did in fact crucify Him. But where is Muhammed's response to the Christian perspective? It is notably absent.
I think the main theme of the Gospel is on gaining eternal life. Jesus wanted his followers to be closer to God, to do good things.
Actually I can find The Trinity in the Gospels. Sure, it isn't laid out for you on a plate but then the teachings of Christ never were. Jesus was never obvious about His identity for reasons you can read in The Gospel. This however, is probably something for separate discussion, if you're really interested.
The bible never teaches the Trinity. It was a man-made doctrine that many swallowed without question.
Correct, you will not find the literal word "Trinity" in the bible and I did not mean to suggest that you would. It is merely a convenient term, adopted by the Church, with reference to the singular Divine nature of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. Now this you will most definately find in the bible. It is Jesus' claim to Divinity which the Jewish polical and spiritual "elite" of the time actually recognised, leading them to accuse and convict Jesus of blasphemy.
[/quote]
The verse that have the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit does not explain nor form the trinity. If it was a statement to be said at baptism, it was not practiced by early Christians. They baptised in the name of Jesus Christ (alone), as indicated in the bible.
The Jewish priests plotted the downfall of Jesus Christ. They falsely accused him of blasphemy. Sadly, Christians, who claimed to be the true followers of Christ, prefer to believe the accusations of the Jews instead of the defense of Christ.
-
Interesting. What then is THE Gospel of Christ? Pls share.
Well, in a nutshell it goes something like this: The promised Jewish Messiah, Jesus Christ, Son of God, Eternal Word of God, was rejected by the people of the Covenant, mocked, scourged, crucified to death and on the third day rose. Therefore death is defeated and The New Covenant is offered in the Blood of Christ to all who will accept it, including gentiles. That is the central and most important aspect anyway. But you knew that. The question is did Muhammed? His refutation of Jesus' crucifixion is a spurious and inadequate response to the Jewish claim that their forefathers did in fact crucify Him. But where is Muhammed's response to the Christian perspective? It is notably absent.
I think the main theme of the Gospel is on gaining eternal life.
Gaining eternal life is the wonderful result, of the "main theme" of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not the "main theme" in and of itself.
Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
You see, my friend, a person doesn't believe in Jesus, when they deny the whole subject of the Gospel. Even honest atheists believe that Jesus existed. They also deny His whole purpose, just like Muslims do.
Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
Unless our sins are atoned for, we will never gain eternal life, but die the "second death" in our sin.
Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Thus the "main theme" is remission of sin through faith in the shed blood of the Messiah, the Lamb of God:
John 1:29 The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.
Just as it was from God's early revelations to mankind:
Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul.
Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Matthew 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
But through Satan's "messenger" Muhammad, his followers are required to DENY Christ was crucified and thus REJECT His shed blood that would save them from dying with their sins - the whole reason the Messiah was made manifest to the world - to spend an eternity in hell with the father of lies.
Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/the_beast.htm
If you had remained ignorant, you might have been spared through that ignorance. But your eyes are wide open now. You will be without excuse when you stand before the very Son of God, that you deny and blaspheme, in judgement.
Jesus wanted his followers to be closer to God, to do good things.[/size]
Good works are the RESULT of salvation, NEVER the path to it. Here is what God thinks of "doing good things" in the absence of remission of sin:
Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
Our righteousnesses being as "filthy rags", is a reference to used women's menstrual cloths.
Actually I can find The Trinity in the Gospels. Sure, it isn't laid out for you on a plate but then the teachings of Christ never were. Jesus was never obvious about His identity for reasons you can read in The Gospel. This however, is probably something for separate discussion, if you're really interested.
The bible never teaches the Trinity. It was a man-made doctrine that many swallowed without question.
But you only make that empty false claim because Muhammad's followers must reject the hundreds of verses that reveal God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit - because you follow Muhammad alone:
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/god_the_father.htm
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/jesus_the_son_of_god.htm
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/spirit_of_god.htm
Even as Islam has its own blasphemous trinity.
Correct, you will not find the literal word "Trinity" in the bible and I did not mean to suggest that you would. It is merely a convenient term, adopted by the Church, with reference to the singular Divine nature of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. Now this you will most definately find in the bible. It is Jesus' claim to Divinity which the Jewish polical and spiritual "elite" of the time actually recognised, leading them to accuse and convict Jesus of blasphemy.
The verse that have the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit does not explain nor form the trinity. If it was a statement to be said at baptism, it was not practiced by early Christians. They baptised in the name of Jesus Christ (alone), as indicated in the bible.
First of all that's patently false because, as you have been shown, it was an ordinance specifically prescribed in scripture.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
But in light of your admission of baptizing in Jesus' name, don't you find it concerning that because you follow Muhammad alone, you must believe that every Christian throughout the last nearly 2,000 years has lived and died in a state of committing Muhammad's only unforgivable sin?
http://www.petewaldo.com/unforgivable_shirk.htm
Secondly, as the links illustrate, you are denying hundreds of verses in the scriptures that reveal the Father, His Son and the Holy Spirit.
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/god_the_father.htm
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/jesus_the_son_of_god.htm
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/spirit_of_god.htm
The Jewish priests plotted the downfall of Jesus Christ. They falsely accused him of blasphemy. Sadly, Christians, who claimed to be the true followers of Christ, prefer to believe the accusations of the Jews instead of the defense of Christ.[/size]
Those pharisees that you choose to join by denying THE Son of God, were so interested in maintaining their personal power, that they refused to believe that Jesus was their promised Messiah.
So they didn't recognize Jesus as their prophesied Son:
Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Psalms 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/jesus_the_son_of_god.htm
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
-
So what kind of a device are you using that won't allow you to enlarge the font on your screen?
-
Gaining eternal life is the wonderful result, of the "main theme" of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not the "main theme" in and of itself.
Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Nah. I only pay attention to what Jesus might have said.
What is eternal life?
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. (John 17:3).
'whom you have sent' is also called a prophet of messenger of God.
It is exactly like the Shahada of the Muslims: We bear witness that there is only one God, and Muhammad (pbuh) is the messenger of God.
Jesus did not say that you must believe in the crucifixion or resurrection to gain eternal life, nor to believe in redemption of sin through shedding of blood. It is through believing in the One true God and believing in his messenger.
This is the fine example of what the Quran asks Christians to study their bible and to find the truth.
First of all that's patently false because, as you have been shown, it was an ordinance specifically prescribed in scripture.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
I have already shown you that the above verse DOES NOT explain the trinity. It only says that there are three personalities, without saying the three are one or the three are one god. In fact, for some who are not familiar with Christology, one could mistake it to mean three, not one... and we cannot really blame anyone as there was really no explanation for the above to spell the trinity.
Secondly, as the links illustrate, you are denying hundreds of verses in the scriptures that reveal the Father, His Son and the Holy Spirit.
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/god_the_father.htm
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/jesus_the_son_of_god.htm
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/spirit_of_god.htm[/size]
The Jewish priests plotted the downfall of Jesus Christ. They falsely accused him of blasphemy. Sadly, Christians, who claimed to be the true followers of Christ, prefer to believe the accusations of the Jews instead of the defense of Christ.[/size]
Those pharisees that you choose to join by denying THE Son of God, were so interested in maintaining their personal power, that they refused to believe that Jesus was their promised Messiah.
So they didn't recognize Jesus as their prophesied Son:
Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
Psalms 2:7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my Son; this day have I begotten thee.
Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/jesus_the_son_of_god.htm
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, 23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
[/quote]
-
Gaining eternal life is the wonderful result, of the "main theme" of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not the "main theme" in and of itself.
Jhn 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Nah. I only pay attention to what Jesus might have said.
But you are only lying to yourself as you have demonstrated over and over again, such as when you ignore Jesus own words about the whole subject of the Gospel and His own prophecy of His crucifixion, death and resurrection, in fulfillment of prophecy:
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/the_lamb_slain.htm
Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me. 45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, 46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And ye are witnesses of these things.
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/psalms_22.htm#psalms_22_16
What you in fact actually mean is that you reject all of the prophets and witnesses of the ONE true God Yahweh, as revealed in His 1600 year record to mankind whose people have followed fhrough two covenants for 3500 years, to follow Muhammad alone, through his heavily abrogated 23-year 7th century record while engaging in thinly veneered pagan Arabian moon, sun, star and jinn-devil worship rituals.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=5136.msg19645#msg19645
What is eternal life?
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent. (John 17:3).
But that isn't the only verse in the Bible.
Which is the whole point. You don't know Jesus Christ. Nor can you, as long as you reject Him to follow the exact opposite in the false prophet Muhammad alone. You even parrot Muhammad's denial of the crucifixion of Christ in blasphemy of the scriptures of the one true God.
'whom you have sent' is also called a prophet of messenger of God.
It is exactly like the Shahada of the Muslims: We bear witness that there is only one God, and Muhammad (pbuh) is the messenger of God.
Which is a lie from straight out of the pit of hell and the father of lies. The Quran is as opposite to the Gospel as Muhammad was to Jesus Christ.
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jesus_or_muhammad.htm
So much so that Muhammad, Islam and all of Muhammad's followers are exactly and specifically antichrist:
1 John 2:22 ..... He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. 23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.....
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/islam_is_antichrist.htm
First of all that's patently false because, as you have been shown, it was an ordinance specifically prescribed in scripture.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
I have already shown you that the above verse DOES NOT explain the trinity.
Nor was it intended to. It was intended to expose the lie you told about the early church only baptizing in Jesus' name only, when the scriptures themselves that Christians follow contain the ordinance.
It only says that there are three personalities, without saying the three are one or the three are one god. In fact, for some who are not familiar with Christology, one could mistake it to mean three, not one... and we cannot really blame anyone as there was really no explanation for the above to spell the trinity.
1Jo 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
But you don't have to rely on just that verse either. Indeed in the very same post you quoted I presented hundreds of verses that proclaim God the Father, His Son and the Holy Spirit. Why don't you try reading the Gospel sometime and come to your own conclusion instead of continuing on in abject blindness?
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/gospel_of_john.htm
Secondly, as the links illustrate, you are denying hundreds of verses in the scriptures that reveal the Father, His Son and the Holy Spirit.
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/god_the_father.htm
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/jesus_the_son_of_god.htm
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/spirit_of_god.htm
Maybe we should look for a place we can find some common ground to reduce the amount of antichrist blasphemy you are exposing us to.
Based on their actions, do you believe that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and the Islamic State are inspired by God and doing God's work, or do you believe they are inspired by Satan and doing Satan's bidding?
-
Jesus did not say that you must believe in the crucifixion or resurrection to gain eternal life, nor to believe in redemption of sin through shedding of blood.
Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul.
Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.
Reject the shed blood of the Messiah to follow THE false prophet Muhammad and his alter-ego "Allah" at your peril. God gave you the free will to do so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lEro81ygXQ
It is through believing in the One true God and believing in his messenger.
But you can't believe in God through a mass murdering, lying, blaspheming, antichrist, terrorist, thief of a false prophet. Believe in Muhammad at your eternal peril.
This is the fine example of what the Quran asks Christians to study their bible and to find the truth.[/size]
No it's an example of abject ignorance to, and blasphemy against, the Gospel. The fact of the matter is, that because you follow Muhammad alone, you are required to deny that Jesus was even crucified.
Of course if you have never sinned, you don't need the blood of Jesus to cleanse you of your sins.
Mat 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Heb 10:12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
1Co 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
So let me ask, do you believe that the first drop of blood shed (http://www.bing.com/search?q=islam+first+drop+blood+intercede+seventy+family+members&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=islam+first+drop+blood+intercede+seventy+family+members&sc=0-0&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=4018fe0b33f84d9c8723fdc3983721c8) by an average sinful Muslim "martyr" who dies inadvertently while killing others during imperialistic conquest, not only absolves himself of his own sins through his own shed blood, but qualifies him to intercede for seventy of his family members?
-
Interesting. What then is THE Gospel of Christ? Pls share.
Well, in a nutshell it goes something like this: The promised Jewish Messiah, Jesus Christ, Son of God, Eternal Word of God, was rejected by the people of the Covenant, mocked, scourged, crucified to death and on the third day rose. Therefore death is defeated and The New Covenant is offered in the Blood of Christ to all who will accept it, including gentiles. That is the central and most important aspect anyway. But you knew that. The question is did Muhammed? His refutation of Jesus' crucifixion is a spurious and inadequate response to the Jewish claim that their forefathers did in fact crucify Him. But where is Muhammed's response to the Christian perspective? It is notably absent.
I think the main theme of the Gospel is on gaining eternal life.
Gaining eternal life is the wonderful result, of the "main theme" of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not the "main theme" in and of itself.
Exactly right Pete. I'd like to expound on this a little.
Relaxboy, the purpose of the Gospel is to communicate the wonderful fact that God offers reconciliation with Himself through the righteous Blood of the self-sacrificing Christ Jesus. By reconciliation, a man becomes unified in The Spirit with God. Only then can a man offer proper and righteous worship to The One and Only - a worship which is not demanded but offered freely and thoughtfully with a glad heart. A firm relationship is established and prayer becomes dynamic, interactive and meaningful. Conversational but with humility and respect, just like how a Son might talk to His Father. It does not involve meaningless robotic and repetitive prostrations towards a useless lump of rock in Mecca.
Everlasting life is simply an amazing product of being in joyous fellowship with God. However, if everlasting life is your primary concern being placed higher than the proper worship of God, then you may be disappointed. Since you claim to acknowledge the words of Jesus, consider this:-
Mat 16:25 “For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it."
-
In regards to the "Gospels", the hebraics of these books are often forgotten.
1. In the Book of Hebrews it is stated that the first generation to leave Egypt (i.e. Israel) were already taught the Gospel in the desert.
2. Yeshua is also known as Melchizedek or the King of Jerusalem. Abraham also meets Yeshua after the battles with the kings of the earth and gives him his tribute. Notice that Abraham isnt surprised nor confused when he meets Yeshua (Rabbinics and the Zohar regarding this comes from Enoch and other books as well) because he has meet him before. (Genesis)
3. Since Melchizedek is the King of Salem or Jerusalem that comes through the the Levite and David line. Islam clearly has nothing to do with the Levites, David or the actual Temple. Which renders the aspect of the Kabaa entirely false because it doesnt fall in line with the priestly line (levites), sons of Zadock. Since Yeshua is a levite due to Mary being from that line, Why does Islam willfully ignore this?
4. Within the book of Matthew, Yeshua mentions that we are to obey the Pharisees because of what they teach but do not follow their actions because they sit on the seat of Moses.
In Judaism, the Seat of Moses is Lo Tasur which is Deuteronomy 17. Since the New Testament wasnt written during the time of Yeshua. He is clearly teaching from the Tanackh (Tanach/Tanak) and not the theory of dispensationalism that the modern day church teacher. Why do Muslims follow pagan feast days instead of the ones in Lev 23, which is upheld by LoTasur?
5. Since Judiasm and Christianity came well before Islam. Why doesnt Islam adhere to the Torah and the seat of Moses when YHVH and his son in the latter says to obey LoTasur? IF you loved moses you would have loved him? Also in the book of Matthew (who is a JEw himself), it says the people called Yeshua a Rabbi. Since Yeshua is himself a Pharisee (Which is why even though many are against him, he has the LEGAL right to stand in front of the Sanhedrin and debate Torah in the first place).
6. The New Testament was originally called the Brit Chadashah, which means the Renewed Testament. There is nothing New under the sun (per Solomon). The Brit Chadashah nearly confirms Yeshua as the Moshiah who came to remove corruption from the Sanhedrin which became a stumbling block for Israel/Gentiles and UPHOLDS the Torah. Islam adds Yeshua to the Koran yet jettison every aspect that make him who he truly is be creating a false image of him.
7. ALL the prophets taught two things.
1. Repent 2. Obey Torah. Every last one of them. How does Mohammed fit into this category?
As a result, because Muslims do not understand Torah and jettison the hebraics of the Brit Chadashah (New Testament), they cannot understand the fullness of what Yeshua is. Please remember that in the Brit Chadashah, it is basically Jews and gentiles adhering to Torah and that "Christianity" wasnt around during the time those events took place.
-
Which renders the aspect of the Kabaa entirely false because it doesnt fall in line with the priestly line (levites), sons of Zadock. Since Yeshua is a levite due to Mary being from that line, Why does Islam willfully ignore this?
It gets even worse. There is not a shred of historical or archaeological evidence that suggests that Mecca ever existed prior to the 4th century AD, or its Kaaba before the 6th century AD, when migrants from Yemen built it for pagan Arabian moon, sun, star and jinn-devil worship. So why is it that Muslims willfully ignore these undeniable physical matters of historical fact? Because they are filled with the spirit of antichrist - with the spirit of the father of lies.
http://www.historyofmecca.com/
-
As a result, because Muslims do not understand Torah and jettison the hebraics of the Brit Chadashah (New Testament), they cannot understand the fullness of what Yeshua is.
They don't understand because they are required to DISbelieve the whole subject of the Gospel, which is salvation by grace through faith in the shed blood of the sacrifice of the Lamb of God. Just as prophesied in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New:
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/the_lamb_slain.htm#crucifixion_fulfilled
Yet as you likely already know, no Muslim can accept salvation through the shed blood of the sacrifice of the Messiah, as an article of their faith in Muhammad alone:
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/#muhammad_on_the_gospel
Let alone that they must deny that Jesus is the Son of God, and even blaspheme Him, which makes each and every Muslim an antichrist as another article of their faith in Muhammad alone:
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/islam_is_antichrist.htm
Indeed so antichrist, that Muslims are taught that to confess that Jesus is the Son of God, or even to pray in Jesus' name (as Christians have for the last nearly 2,000 years), would be to commit the single most "heinous" and only unforgivable sin in Muhammad's specifically counter-gospel, antichrist, anti-religion:
http://www.petewaldo.com/unforgivable_shirk.htm
Again, welcome to the forum Patricio!
-
Thank you brother!
What do muslims believe in regards to the levites and the temple?
What is the Injil? IS that Jesus in the Koran (his name)? or the gospel according to the muslims?
I am studying the link you gave me earlier. I will post the questions I have for you, I just hope I dont overwhelm you!
-
Thank you brother!
What do muslims believe in regards to the levites and the temple?
What is the Injil? IS that Jesus in the Koran (his name)? or the gospel according to the muslims?
I am studying the link you gave me earlier. I will post the questions I have for you, I just hope I dont overwhelm you!
Injil is arabic for Gospel. Though it should be understood that the Koran has no true understanding of the Gospel. In the Koran Jesus is called Isa, though a more accurate translation should be Yeshu. The disconnect for Muslims is that according to Paul's own words, and indeed the entirety of Jesus' mission, the Gospel is summed up in one act. Jesus' sacrifice for us sinners. For Paul stated that, "For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified." Muslims must by necessity of their beliefs deny this, the crux of the Gospel. If anyone has any other understanding of the Gospel than this they do not understand the Gospel. They have but the doctrines of devils.