Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - relaxboy

Pages: [1] 2
1
Ancient Jews have their own 'Kaaba' and 'hajar aswad' (special stone):

Jacob on his way to Padan-aram saw a vision and
built the next morning a pillar of stone which he called
Beth-El, i.e. the House of the Lord (Genesis 28:18-19).

Twenty years later the same Prophet, Jacob, was
ordered by God to go to Beth-El (Genesis 35:4,14,15).
Jacob removed all the strange Gods prior to going there.

A special stone was erected as a monument by
Jacob and his father-in-law upon a heap of stones
called Gal'ead in Hebrew, and Yaghar sahdutha by Laban
in his Aramaic language, which means "a heap of
witness." But the proper noun they gave to the erected
stone was Mizpah (Gen. 31: 45-55)

The Mizpah (See also http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=673&letter=M&search=mizpah) later on
became the most important place of worship, and a
center of the national assemblies in the history of the
people of Israel:

It was here that Naphthah - a Jewish hero -
made a vow "before the Lord," and after beating
the Ammonites, he is supposed to have offered
his only daughter as a burnt offering (Judges 11).

It was at Mizpah that four hundred thousand
swordsmen from the eleven tribes of Israel
assembled and "swore before the Lord" to
exterminate the tribe of Benjamin for an
abominable crime committed by the Benjamites of
Geba' and succeeded (Judges 41)

At Mizpah all the people were summoned by
the Prophet Samuel, where they "swore before
the Lord" to destroy all their idols and images,
and then were saved from the hands of the
Philistines (I Sam. 7).

It was here that the nation assembled and
Saul was appointed king over Israel (1 Sam. 10)

The real meaning of Mizpah is the locality or place in which a stone is set and fixed. It will be seen that
when this name, Mizpah, was first given to the stone erected upon a heap of stone blocks, there was no edifice built around it. It is the spot upon which the sacred stone rests, that is called Mizpha. From the Mizpah was built a building, an edifice.

The special stone is Mizpah to the Jews and hajar aswad to the Arabs. It was upon the locality, the point where the hajar aswad was set, that the cubic Ka'aba built. There were once many sacred stones but in the past was filled with idols. Only one special stone exists today after Muhamamd (pbuh) got rid of all the idols in the Ka'aba.

The stone (hajar aswad and Mizpah) was selected as the best suitable material upon which a traveling devotee could performed his religious services around it. The stone was erected to commemorate the vows and certain promises which a prophet or righteous man made to his Creator, and the revelation he received from God. Consequently, it was a sacred monument to perpetuate the memory and the sacred character of a great religious event.


Accusing Muslims of practising pagan ceremonies is like accusing Abraham, Jacob and other important prophets of God of doing teh same.

2
The Spirit or Ruh is a creation of God to help in God's ways. The Spirit not not god. The Jews believe in the same spirit as the Muslims.

3
I just want to inform you that the rituals that Muslims performed during pilgrimage can be traced back to the same rituals that early Jews (and maybe even current Jews) performed.

Similarly, the practice of placing a symbolic stone on a sacred place can be found in the OT, performed by early Jews.

I will provide you the details later but it really defeats your assumption that Muslims followed paganistic rituals, as even Jews followed the same rituals for centuries.

4
Thanks for listing down all the quotes regarding Jesus, the son of Mary and the Messiah.

Having taken the opportunity to list them down, are you saying the Quran is wring that Jesus was a messenger of God?

Is the Quran wrong stating that Jesus was the Messiah?

Are these statements against your Christian belief?

I do not think so.

5
Your question has no relevance to the topic : Know the Real Jesus in the BIble.

Nonetheless your question:

Does Muhammad's "Allah" have a spirit, as revealed in those surahs, or do you believe Muhammad lied about that too?

Here is what the Quran says of the spirit:

[4.171] O People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but the truth.
Christ Jesus the son of Mary was a Messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary,
And a Spirit proceeding from Him.

This spirit is NOT God. Rather, it is the creation of God:

They ask thee concerning the Spirit.
Say: "The Spirit (cometh) by command of my Lord:
Of knowledge it is only a little that is communicated to you."
If it were Our Will, We could take away that which We* have sent thee by inspiration:
Then wouldst thou find none to plead thy affair in that matter against Us. (Quran 17:85-86)


6

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]

7
You stated clearly that you believe that the Son = the Father, and did not answer how if the three members of the trinity are co-equal, the Son would say that the Father is greater than the Son?

I am still trying to think how this works
:)

8
Your knowledge of Islam is rather low. You would rather cover your lack of knowledge with errors and blatant lies.

First and foremost, Muslims are NOT required to kiss the black stone during their pilgrimage.
The Prophet did kiss the black stone, but he did not indicate that all Muslims must kiss the stone. It is not a directive.
Muslims do follow the Prophet in his way of life. For example, he taught Muslims how to pray, how to keep yourself clean etc. Some of these are the directives and order from God and his Prophet... and we Muslims follow and submit to the will of God.

As there is no directive on kissing of the stone, Muslims can kiss the stone if they want to, and to avoid kissing the stone... if they want to.

Even if Muslims kiss the stone, there is no connection to idolatry... if you are trying to insinuate that.



9



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.

Quote
Quote
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.


10

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:


Quote
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.

11

Please list for us all the reasons that Muhammad's followers kiss the Quraish pagan's black stone idol in Mecca.[/size]
There is no particular reason.

Narrated 'Abis bin Rabia: 'Umar came near the Black Stone and kissed it and said "No doubt, I know that you are a stone and can neither benefit anyone nor harm anyone. Had I not seen Allah's Apostle kissing you I would not have kissed you."
(Bukhari Hadith 1494)

This is not on the topic of the Gospels, the OP. I will only entertain questions related to the original post

12

You've put little to no effort into engaging in an exchange. You were already provided the answers earlier, ou were just too blind to see them. As you quotes illustrate, Jesus is the Son of God and God His Father. They have been coexistent from before the world was.
So, you are saying that Jesus is also the Father? The Son = the Father?
Is there a heretical Christian sect which believe in that?

Oh one other thing. I only reply questions that relates to the topic. If you want me to share my thoughts on other matters, pls open a new thread and we can discuss in good faith.
[/quote]

13
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.

14
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]

15



Mark the words I colored in Red.

and compare to this:

“I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me. (John 5:30)

"...the Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)

“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34)

“I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” (John 20:17)

Tell me, do you think Jesus has a God?[/size]

I made an effort to list down some of the statements of Christ to prove that Jesus has a God, he was a messenger of God, he can do nothing without God's permission. This is clearly a refutation of the trinitarian creed that says that the Father, the Son and the holy spirit are co-eternal, co-equal and that none is greater or less than the other.


 

16

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.

Quote

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?



Quote
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.


Quote
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.

17

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)

18
Quote
They are of one essence, or one being. Coexistent from before the world ever was.
That was what you wrote regarding the Father, Jesus (the Son) and I think what you called the Trinity.
Maybe, I should quote the Athanasian Creed and then explain why the trinitarian belief is NOT consistent with the Gospels:


Quote
For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity.

.... take out the word "Catholic" if you like, but I think the whole concept of trinity is the same for all Christian sects.

Mark the words I colored in Red.

and compare to this:

“I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me. (John 5:30)

"...the Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)

“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34)

“I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” (John 20:17)

Tell me, do you think Jesus has a God?


19
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.



20


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.

21
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.

22
Quote
You would think he might have gotten the drift, back when I pointed out who has all power on heaven and earth. But rather than reply he ran away from it instead. Typical Muslim non-responsiveness because neither Muhammad nor Islam can stand in the light of truth:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=5120.msg19510#msg19510

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
The better translation is 'authority' rather than 'power'.

Then Jesus approached them and told them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

Essentially, the verse was saying that Jesus was given 'authority' by God, not that the 'authority' was his in the first place.

Jesus cannot do anything without the consent/authority of God. Jesus himself said he was powerless without God' help:
“I can do nothing on my own. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me. (John 5:30)

"...the Father is greater than I." (John 14:28)

There you go: Jesus cannot be a god because he clearly said Gid is greater than Jesus. QED




23
Quote
Of course it is, since we have repeatedly shown that the whole subject of the Gospel was necessarily the same in the 7th century, as it is today. There was, and is, only one Gospel.
https://youtu.be/sJ9X6MQS8LM
Right. ExMilitary agreed there was no Arabic Bible at Mecca/Medina during Muhammad's time.
On the other hand, Christians and Jews at that area might have other competing scriptures and beliefs than the mainstream Judaism and Christianity. There were already many other Gospels around at that time, in the Hijaz and the surrounding area, and possibly in Christendom in the 7th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-canonical_books_referenced_in_the_Bible

It is rather dishonest to claim that There was, and is, only one Gospel


24


The Latin Vulgate was circulated as the official translation of the Roman empire a couple of hundred years before your prophet.  This included North Africa, the Sinai Peninsula, Israel, etc...

The Latin Vulgate says "beginning and end", "Alpha and Omega"...
Other manuscripts... from the North Africa region... Alpha and Omega...

This is what the "People's Book" said when Muhammad encouraged them to search it.

The Alpha and Omega is DIRECTLY connected to the life, death, and resurrection of Yeshua.  Alpha and Omega = the one who lives, was dead, and now is alive forevermore.
There is no evidence of an Arabic Bible at Mecca and Medina in the 7th century. Do your research or prove to me otherwise.

In fact, I am not surprised if the 'bible' of the Jews and Christians at that time was not exactly the Bible you have today.





Quote
2. The Alpha and Omega was linked to the 'Almighty' or 'Yahweh' or what the Christians called 'the Father'.
If you claim Alpha and Omega refers to Jesus, 'the Son' as well, and because of that you claim Jesus was God, then for another time I will ask you to confirm:

Are you saying that Jesus = Father, the Son = the Father??

If not, what are you trying to tell the readers here?[/size][/color]

I will be surprised if you say that the Son = the Father.
However, you have not made your position clear.


Quote
One thing at a time.  You claimed that Jesus never said he was God.  Do you accept that Yeshua referred to himself as Alpha and Omega, beginning and end, Almighty  -  in the very book/manuscripts that the "people of the book" were using (either reading or being taught from) during Muhammad's lifetime?
Jesus NEVER claimed the title, Alpha and Omega.
I do not think there was an Arabic bible at the time of Muhammad (pbuh).
There was also no record of the Christians at Mecca/Medina at that time who referred to Jesus as the Alpha and Omega. Show me, otherwise.

25

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.

Pages: [1] 2