Islam, Muslim / Christian Forum - Welcome All

What this means:

Those who murder (after claiming Christianity) are not disciples of Yeshua, no matter what they claim.  Hence, they are not Christian.

Those who do not kill -kafir that continue to spread their 'false doctrine' or refuse jizya- (after claiming Islam) are not disciples of Muhammad or adherents to Allah's decrees.  Hence, not Muslim.

The world can't see this because they've chosen to believe the lie.

Just wondering, how likely is it that the world's political elite do not actually understand the true nature of Islam? I think it very unlikely. After all, one only has to read the Quran to grasp the underlying rationale behind the murderous ISIS etc. It might be that they have chosen to fabricate a lie in an attempt to neutralise the teachings of Muhammed. Propaganda wars are a frequent favourite of those who "know best."

It's also worth mentioning the Collyridians who were a mostly female heretical "Christian" sect operating in Arabia prior to Muhammed. Mainly characterised by the deification of Mary, they attempted to worship her as God. Muhammed's mistaken belief that Mary was part of the Christian Trinity may well have something to do with them.

Muhammed's denial Jesus's crucifixion almost certainly originates from Gnostic/Ebionite teachings in the region. It's as if Muhammed attempted to synthesize all of the strange teachings he encountered in a single doctrine. Of course he came up with something more monstrous than all of them put together.

Quote from: relaxboy on August 23, 2016, 02:42:28 AM

Quote from: ps49 on August 18, 2016, 04:46:16 PM

Quote from: relaxboy on August 17, 2016, 08:53:29 PM

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."

I read this and face-palmed:-

friendship between people of different faiths is encouraged by our traditions

They seem to be a little short on objective Islamic "scholars." On the other hand, if they're trying to bury the intolerant and hostile teachings of Muhammed under a wave of hand-wringing political correctness, then they've got their work cut out for sure. The murders will continue in the name of Allah until people realise Allah is a fake.

Quote from: ps49 on August 17, 2016, 02:20:01 AM

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.

Quote from: ps49 on August 17, 2016, 02:20:01 AM

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."

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.

Quote

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?

As it is, I so often find in life generally: The accuser is actually the most guilty of the thing he would pin on others!

Quote from: ps49 on May 12, 2016, 10:11:04 AM

What I'm getting at here is that Muhammed's source of inspiration seems to be very different from that of the Old Testament prophets. The OT prophets always spoke the message of God received from God directly, from the Singular. On the other hand, Muhammed seems here to have been speaking with many spiritual sources. So who were they, if not God directly? And what authority do they have, if not God?

The Quran is directly from God also. The "We" is just a refference to the angels and Jinns that obey Allah's commands, which includes reciting the Quranic verses to Muhammad (peace be upon him) which were newly sent upon them. That doesn't mean that the Quran was inspired by more than one source, however.

I see, but what this actually amounts to is faith in an unidentified group of Jinn to accurately convey the will of God. In contrast, the Old Testament prophets always received revelation directly from God.

Now, surely any reasonable man would naturally harbour the suspiscion that these unidentified Jinn could actually be negative spiritual entities with a very dark agenda. This is why the Bible instructs us to test the spirits and to be very wary of imposters.

Christians knew 600 years before Muhammed that Satan is the master of lies who will stoop to any level to derail the Word of God - even going so far as to impersonate an angel of light. We were warned of an exceptional false prophet to come, who would be anti-Christ in outlook and deceive many, leading them to destruction. It's all in the Bible. So, we have to be careful here. Very, very careful. So then, how careful was Muhammed to test these spirits? Did he test them?

Now consider the fact that Islam is very much anti-Christ in spirit. That might sound harsh but there's no point skirting around the fact that Muhammed contradicts the Word of God as revealed in the Gospels and the Old Testament. You know that much. Muhammed denies the Son of God in his Quran and that is the definition of the spirit of anti-Christ.

Muhammed also contradicts Moses. The Quaran would have us believe that Abraham travelled to Mecca - a thing which Moses would most certainly have recorded in the Torah if it were true.

Now I know that Muslims like to say Jews and Christinas perverted and altered their scriptures and Muhammed came to correct it all. Well, how conspicuously convenient! But how true does that really sound? Muhammed's Quran would have us throw away virtually every foundational instruction of the Old and New Testaments. Actually he would also have Muslims throw away most of the Quran too since most verses have been abrogated away. In contrast, no prophet of the Old Testament needed to abrogate or amend what he wrote. In fact no prophet of the Old Testament abrogated anything said by another prophet - that's because they all received their revelations from the same Source - directly from God. So I contend that no true prophet of God engages in abrogation since God is not capricious - but an unidentified group of Jinn spirits and fallen angels engaged in deception might just be!

And the irrational hatred of Jews which Islam promotes - where does that come from? Whether you like it or not, the Israelites and the nation of Israel was raised by God so as to be a platform from which the blessings of God might be shown to the whole world. Why would Muhammed be so against that? Or more interestingly, why would those unidentified Jinn spirits, who gave him the Quran, be so against the people of God? Why are they so keen to deny The Father and the shed blood of The Son?

PotatoMuslim said:-

The command above is put into its full perspective when we look at the next verse (Surah 5:48) which states:

"And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a guardian over it. So judge between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations away from what has come to you of the truth. To each of you We prescribed a law and a method. Had Allah willed, He would have made you one nation [united in religion], but [He intended] to test you in what He has given you; so race to [all that is] good. To Allah is your return all together, and He will [then] inform you concerning that over which you used to differ."

I'm curious, who is the "we" who Muhammed is supposedly conversing with here? Who is the "we" that revealed the book to him?

PotatoMuslim said:-

And the question is, why did he shed his blood?

I think the prophet Isaiah said a lot about that, several hundreds of years prior to the event. From Isaiah chapter 53:-


Who has believed our report?
And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?

2
For He shall grow up before Him as a tender plant,
And as a root out of dry ground.
He has no form or comeliness;
And when we see Him,
There is no beauty that we should desire Him.

3
He is despised and rejected by men,
A Man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.
And we hid, as it were, our faces from Him;
He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.

4
Surely He has borne our griefs
And carried our sorrows;
Yet we esteemed Him stricken,
Smitten by God, and afflicted.

5
But He was wounded for our transgressions,
He was bruised for our iniquities;
The chastisement for our peace was upon Him,
And by His stripes we are healed.

6
All we like sheep have gone astray;
We have turned, every one, to his own way;
And the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

7
He was oppressed and He was afflicted,
Yet He opened not His mouth;
He was led as a lamb to the slaughter,
And as a sheep before its shearers is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.

8
He was taken from prison and from judgment,
And who will declare His generation?
For He was cut off from the land of the living;
For the transgressions of My people He was stricken.

9
And they[a] made His grave with the wicked—
But with the rich at His death,
Because He had done no violence,
Nor was any deceit in His mouth.

10
Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him;
He has put Him to grief.
When You make His soul an offering for sin,
He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days,
And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.

11
He shall see the labor of His soul, and be satisfied.
By His knowledge My righteous Servant shall justify many,
For He shall bear their iniquities.

12
Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great,
And He shall divide the spoil with the strong,
Because He poured out His soul unto death,
And He was numbered with the transgressors,
And He bore the sin of many,
And made intercession for the transgressors.


So there it is. Read it carefully - perhaps you will gain a glimpse of how a real prophet writes when moved by The Spirit of God.

I'd like to go back to the original point of the thread and in particular this:-

PotatoMuslim said:-

As for the OP in this particular thread, I don't think there is any need for archaeological evidence testifying to the antiquity of Mecca nor of the Kaaba in the first place. Why? Because the high antiquity of them is already historically and unanimously supported by hundreds of academic books and academic sources that we have today. That itself is enough evidence.

I would agree, to some extent, that lack of archaeological evidence isn't always conclusive. However, without it one has to wonder; what is the basis of the said "academic books" and "academic sources" which testify to Mecca's claimed ancient history?

Perhaps you could start by showing us some of these academic works? How old are they? Who authored them? Are they merely fanciful opinion or political in nature? Unfortunately Islam and its adherents have a long record of trying to re-write history (eg the so called "Gospel of Barnabas" - an Islamic forgery and propaganda device) so you hopefully at least understand our scepticism.

Rev 17:4 The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and precious stones and pearls, having in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the filthiness of her fornication.  5 And on her forehead a name was written:

MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT,
THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS
AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS
OF THE EARTH.

Just pondering... what is the merchandise of a harlot? False doctrine?

Rev 17:9 “Here is the mind which has wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits.

Rome?