Muslims on the Gospel

[relaxboy]

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.

[PeteWaldo]

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, 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.

[relaxboy]

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.

[ps49]

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!)

[relaxboy]

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)

[PeteWaldo]

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)) 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

[ps49]

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."

[relaxboy]

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.

[relaxboy]

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]

[PeteWaldo]

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?

[relaxboy]

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.

[PeteWaldo]

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.



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:

[relaxboy]

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.

[PeteWaldo]

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. 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, "with rage at" we people of the Gospel.

........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, pillaging, plundering, mass murdering, child doing, female prisoner abusing, stepson's only wife taking, sex slave prostituting, concubine fornicating, vow and oath breaking, blood drenched, imperialistic, conquering, terrorist, thief that burned people alive.
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.

[ps49]

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.

[relaxboy]

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.

[PeteWaldo]

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.

[PeteWaldo]

So what kind of a device are you using that won't allow you to enlarge the font on your screen?

[relaxboy]

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]

[PeteWaldo]

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?

[PeteWaldo]

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 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?

[ps49]

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."

[Patricio81]

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.

[PeteWaldo]

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/

[PeteWaldo]

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!