split/retitled: Let people of the Gospel judge by what's revealed therein

[PotatoMuslim]

Please begin with this single point.
By Muhammad's 7th century the Gospel 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. Indeed we have 5300 partial or complete manuscripts that date prior to 300 AD.
The whole subject of that Gospel, just as today, was of course the crucifixion, death and resurrection of the Passover Lamb of God, who saves all from sin who have faith in His shed blood.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/bible_manuscript_errors_.htm

In that same 7th century Muhammad quipped:

Sura 5:47 Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.

Please explain how you reconcile Muhammad having made, what your claims of bible corruption can only lead you to conclude, was such a foolish recommendation.

That is not actually a "single point," because now you're bringing in issues such as crucifixion, the death and resurrection of Jesus, having faith that he shed his blood for our sins, the consistency of Biblical manuscripts, etc. You're pretty much going all over the place, so it's not a single point.

In spite of that, I still responded to at least some of those points, all of which you moved to the spam section, then brought them back to this section, and then again moved them to spam. By doing all of this, you are acting like a big, trapped loser, which is exactly what I expected.

[PeteWaldo]

Please begin with this single point.
By Muhammad's 7th century the Gospel 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. Indeed we have 5300 partial or complete manuscripts that date prior to 300 AD.
The whole subject of that Gospel, just as today, was of course the crucifixion, death and resurrection of the Passover Lamb of God, who saves all from sin who have faith in His shed blood.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/bible_manuscript_errors_.htm

In that same 7th century Muhammad quipped:

Sura 5:47 Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.

Please explain how you reconcile Muhammad having made, what your claims of bible corruption can only lead you to conclude, was such a foolish recommendation.

That is not actually a "single point," because now you're bringing in issues such as crucifixion, the death and resurrection of Jesus, having faith that he shed his blood for our sins, the consistency of Biblical manuscripts, etc. You're pretty much going all over the place, so it's not a single point.

In spite of that, I still responded to at least some of those points, all of which you moved to the spam section, then brought them back to this section, and then again moved them to spam. By doing all of this, you are acting like a big, trapped loser, which is exactly what I expected.

I guess including the reason made it a little too confusing for you. Let's make it simpler.

By Muhammad's 7th century the Gospel 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 whole subject of the Gospel then, just as today, is absolutely dependent on the crucifixion and death of Christ.

In that same 7th century Muhammad quipped:

Sura 5:47 Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.

Please explain how you reconcile Muhammad having made, what your claims of bible corruption can only lead you to conclude, was such a foolish recommendation.

[PotatoMuslim]

By Muhammad's 7th century the Gospel 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 whole subject of the Gospel then, just as today, is absolutely dependent on the crucifixion and death of Christ.

I've already given substantive replies to that point, even though the main subject - per the title of the this thread - is Mecca and not the history of the Gospels.

[ExMilitary]

By Muhammad's 7th century the Gospel 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 whole subject of the Gospel then, just as today, is absolutely dependent on the crucifixion and death of Christ.

I've already given substantive replies to that point [...snip...]

Would you be willing to provide a link, or to at least quote your substantive replies regarding the crucifixion and death?  The only "substantive" reply I see is with regard to the Quran's commentary on the crucifixion.

Here's what I found...

Surah 4:157 That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

One of the interpretations of that verse is that the death of Jesus was only an apparent or an external perception, because there are other verses which say that those who are killed in the way of God are not dead but alive, with their Lord, but we just do not perceive it. See the two verses below:

"And say not of those who are killed in the way of God: 'They are dead.' Nay, they are living, but you perceive (it) not." (Surah 2:154)

"Think not of those who are killed in the Way of Allah as dead. Nay, they are alive, with their Lord, and they have provision." (Surah 3:136)

So, that is how the following verse is to be interpreted:

"And their saying: 'Surely we have killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the apostle of God'; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure. Nay! God took him up to Himself; and God is Mighty, Wise." (Surah 4:157-158)

So the Quran mentions the death of Jesus in a unique and dignified manner (i.e. because he was killed in the way of God).

If there are more, please share them.

[PotatoMuslim]

The only "substantive" reply I see is with regard to the Quran's commentary on the crucifixion.

I provided scholarly commentaries as well, and other comments including what the Jews believe regarding the death and crucifixion of Jesus, which are all parallel to the Muslim view regarding the subject.

Like this:

Yet their practice and their beliefs are very much different, because Christians parted ways from the Jews once they began upholding the New Testament in addition to the Old Testament.

According to the Old Testament, for example, it is considered to be a great blasphemy and a sin to attribute Jesus as being God Himself or anything of that sort. To the Jews and Muslims, Jesus was only a Prophet of God, nothing else. And he didn't come to earth to perform any kind of a sacrifice on himself for anyone's sins. However, one of the core beliefs of Christianity is the death of Jesus/God as an "atonement" for sins. That is one of the central beliefs of Christians today which are in contradiction with Muslim and Jewish beliefs. Christians believe in original sin but Jews and Muslims clearly don't. See the comparison chart below:
http://christianityinview.com/xncomparison.html

This:

And the question is, why did he shed his blood? Apparently, according to Mark and Luke, the answers are quite different:

"So what is the reason for Jesus’ death in Luke? The matter becomes clearer in Luke’s second volume, the book of Acts, where the apostles preach about the salvation that has come in Christ in order to convert others to the faith. In none of these missionary sermons is there a single word about Jesus’ death being an atonement. Instead, the constant message is that people are guilty for rejecting the one sent from God and having him killed. The death of the innocent one (Jesus) should make people repent of their sins and turn to God, so he can forgive them (see Acts 2:36–38; 3:17–19). Luke’s view is that salvation comes not through an atoning sacrifice but by forgiveness that comes from repentance." (Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, p. 93-94)

"The death of Jesus is important to both Mark and Luke. But for Mark, his death is an atonement; for Luke, it is the reason people realize they are sinful and need to turn to God for forgiveness. The reason for Jesus’ death, then, is quite different, depending on which author you read." (Ehrman, 94)

This:

The purpose of the Messiah was to bring back people to the worship of the one God just as all the other Prophets have done and THAT is how he "saves", "delivers," or "rescues." Not by dying on a cross for the sins of other people which he is not even responsible for. Just because his name means one who "rescues' or "delivers" doesn't mean that he also had to go through a very painful suffering or a sacrifice for doing that.

And this:

I recognize it, and it's just one of the many ways that typical Christian missionaries like yourself twist the meanings of that verse and quote it as a proof of a so-called "suffering" Messiah. Even the Jews found it ridiculous.

"In reality, the idea that Jesus was the suffering Messiah was an invention of the early Christians. It is no wonder that the apostle Paul, writing decades after Christians had come up with this idea, indicates that it is the greatest 'stumbling block' for Jews (1 Corinthians 1:23). Even though this is the very foundation for all Christian belief, to many Jews it was a ridiculous claim." (Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, 236)

[ps49]

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

PotatoMuslim said:-

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

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

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

[ExMilitary]

And the question is, why did he shed his blood? Apparently, according to Mark and Luke, the answers are quite different:

"So what is the reason for Jesus’ death in Luke? The matter becomes clearer in Luke’s second volume, the book of Acts,

Wait, let's look in Luke's first volume and see what Yeshua says:

Luke 22:19-20 19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

Here is that new covenant Yeshua refers to:

Jeremiah 31:31, 34b “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah... For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

where the apostles preach about the salvation that has come in Christ in order to convert others to the faith. In none of these missionary sermons is there a single word about Jesus’ death being an atonement.

Really?  well... let's take a look, then, into Luke's second volume at one of those "missionary journeys" and see what is said:

Acts 20:27-29  For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

So, Luke accounts that the actual purchase of the redeemed people of God came through the blood of Yeshua, thereby initiating/sealing the New Covenant.  What is important to me, in this discussion, is what Yeshua said and what His Apostles taught, because that is all that Muhammad had to work with.

Instead, the constant message is that people are guilty for rejecting the one sent from God and having him killed. The death of the innocent one (Jesus) should make people repent of their sins and turn to God, so he can forgive them (see Acts 2:36–38; 3:17–19).

Why does this 'scholar' (whom I do not claim) say "In none of these missionary sermons..." and then use NON-MISSIONARY sermons to make his point?  - that question is rhetorical, no need to answer.  Let's just stick to what scripture actually says rather than what 'scholars' who desire to sell books say.

Luke’s view is that salvation comes not through an atoning sacrifice but by forgiveness that comes from repentance." (Bart Ehrman, Jesus Interrupted, p. 93-94)

As I've shown, this is a myopic, agenda-driven view that proves this 'scholar' is not "rightly dividing the word of truth".  The point of Acts isn't for Luke to present his view on doctrine, but, rather "to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us... to write... an orderly account." (Luke chapter 1) Luke is testifying to history, not his own view of doctrine.


Now, back to the question:  Was Muhammad (in Sura 5:47) admitting that Luke's "second volume", which specifically states that the blood of Yeshua purchased (redeemed) the Christians, is an accurate representation of God's will?  Because that is what is "revealed therein".

If I am to follow Muhammad's advice (Sura 5:47), I would have to conclude that the "church of God [was] purchased with [Yeshua's] blood".

[ps49]

PotatoMuslim said:-

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[PotatoMuslim]

Wait, let's look in Luke's first volume and see what Yeshua says:

Luke 22:19-20 19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

Here is that new covenant Yeshua refers to:

Jeremiah 31:31, 34b “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah... For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

Well, the verse in Luke does not say that the blood that he shed for us is what allowed salvation/forgiveness. There is no mention of forgiveness in that verse. The verse in Jeremiah, on the other hand, mentions forgiveness (along with the new covenant) but it does not say that it will come about specifically through Yeshua's blood sacrifice. There is no mention of blood in that verse. The only thing the two verses have in common is a mention of the "new covenant." And the new covenant probably has different interpretations which do not regard the blood shed as the core of the subject. For instance, the new covenant in Jeremiah either points to Jesus himself or simply an "agreement" between God and his people, not necessarily the blood that he shed, whereas the new covenant in Luke is symbolized by a cup ("This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you"). So, my point is, the connection between Jesus's blood shedding and forgiveness of sins doesn't seem well-established per the verses you quoted.

Thank you for your concise and intelligible responses, though.

[PotatoMuslim]

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

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

The sources are all here:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4954.msg19053#msg19053

Not surprisingly, though, Petewaldo moved all those posts to the spam section because he doesn't want others to see that I actually replied to his points.

[PeteWaldo]

By Muhammad's 7th century the Gospel 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 whole subject of the Gospel then, just as today, is absolutely dependent on the crucifixion and death of Christ.

I've already given substantive replies to that point, even though the main subject - per the title of the this thread - is Mecca and not the history of the Gospels.

Good point so I will split if off into its own thread and eventually move it to the appropriate forum section. Meanwhile atonement of sin through shed blood is not some New Testaemt concept, but rather the subject of the whole bible dating back to when Yahweh first began to reveal Himself to His people. It is of course the whole purpose of the alter in the temple Yahweh had His people build in THE Holy Land of the prophets and patriarchs, of which the temple mount still stands in Jerusalem today.



Old Testament or New, the truth of the subject of the scriptures is the same:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=atonement+sin&t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1

Leviticus 17:11 For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul.
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/the_lamb_slain.htm

Compare the temple mount to the Kaaba that the Quraish pagans cobbled together during the 6th century AD in the SW Arabian desert (no 2 sides of which are the same length), for Arabian pagan moon, sun star and jinn-devil worship, that was periodically inundated by floodwater that is always laced with human sewage:

[PeteWaldo]

By Muhammad's 7th century the Gospel 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 whole subject of the Gospel then, just as today, is absolutely dependent on the crucifixion and death of Christ.

I've already given substantive replies to that point....

But as you repeatedly run and hide from the point, you make it increasingly made more obvious, that you know more than anybody that your claim couldn't be more false, which is of course the reason you partially quoted. Let's try it yet again. Your repeated failure to answer is a testimony to all of the Muslims that will read this thread into the indefinite future. Again, my friend.....

By Muhammad's 7th century the Gospel 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 whole subject was the same in the first century as it was in the 7th century as it is today.

In that same 7th century Muhammad quipped:

Sura 5:47 Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.

Please explain how you reconcile Muhammad having made, what your claims of bible corruption can only lead you to conclude, was such a foolish recommendation.

Here's a Muslim on the subject that actually exhibits a capacity for critical thought:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuCPgpQl34g

[PotatoMuslim]

In that same 7th century Muhammad quipped:

Sura 5:47 Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.

Please explain how you reconcile Muhammad having made, what your claims of bible corruption can only lead you to conclude, was such a foolish recommendation.

That verse doesn't contradict anything that I've said so far, so it's not necessary for me to reply to that.  But, I'll do it now, and here is what the verse basically means:

When Allah said "Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein," it simply means that the people of the Gospel should judge only by what Allah has revealed, not the things that people have added and edited to what Allah revealed. That is why the next sentence says: "If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah has revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel."

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

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

So, in other words, the Quran was sent as a "confirmation" and a "guardian" which is to be used to determine what is revealed from Allah and what is not. Anything in the Gospels that contradict what the Quran teaches, then that is not from Allah.

[ExMilitary]

Wait, let's look in Luke's first volume and see what Yeshua says:

Luke 22:19-20 19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.

Here is that new covenant Yeshua refers to:

Jeremiah 31:31, 34b “Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah... For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.”

Well, the verse in Luke does not say that the blood that he shed for us is what allowed salvation/forgiveness. There is no mention of forgiveness in that verse. The verse in Jeremiah, on the other hand, mentions forgiveness (along with the new covenant) but it does not say that it will come about specifically through Yeshua's blood sacrifice. There is no mention of blood in that verse. The only thing the two verses have in common is a mention of the "new covenant." And the new covenant probably has different interpretations which do not regard the blood shed as the core of the subject. For instance, the new covenant in Jeremiah either points to Jesus himself or simply an "agreement" between God and his people, not necessarily the blood that he shed, whereas the new covenant in Luke is symbolized by a cup ("This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you"). So, my point is, the connection between Jesus's blood shedding and forgiveness of sins doesn't seem well-established per the verses you quoted.

Thank you for your concise and intelligible responses, though.

Hebrews Chapter 9

11 But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. 13 For if the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh, 14 how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? 15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.

16 For where there is a testament, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. 17 For a testament is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. 18 Therefore not even the first covenant was dedicated without blood. 19 For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God has commanded you.” 21 Then likewise he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. 22 And according to the law almost all things are purified with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no remission.

23 Therefore it was necessary that the copies of the things in the heavens should be purified with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24 For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 not that He should offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the Most Holy Place every year with blood of another— 26 He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.


i.e. not "with the blood of another", but with His OWN blood.  Christ performed, in the heavens, the same ritual of which a copy was made on earth.  In the copy, the high priest would sprinkle blood on the mercy seat for atonement.  There is no question that Paul is making a parallel here with the blood (without which there is NO remission of sins).

There is no question that the blood of Yeshua is integral to the remission of sin and a core part of the message of the gospel.

[ps49]

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

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

The sources are all here:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4954.msg19053#msg19053

Not surprisingly, though, Petewaldo moved all those posts to the spam section because he doesn't want others to see that I actually replied to his points.

So, it seems then, that the main basis for claiming an ancient Mecca (ie pre AD 400) is the somewhat dubious claim that Abraham visited there at some point during his travels, circa 1800 BC. I say dubious for two main reasons:-

1) According to the book of Genesis there is no record of Abraham ever journeying further south than the area around Beersheba (southern Israel) and northern Sinai/Egypt. His journeys are recorded in quite some detail so it seems incredible that such a massive and important endeavour as to journey to the site of Mecca would be omitted. Not to mention the equally arduous return journey which he must have undertaken to arrive back at Hebron.

2) I accept that lack of archaeological evidence is not always conclusive - afterall we cannot reasonably expect that every person, animal or structure that has ever existed should leave some kind of permanent mark in the physical world. On the other hand, an iron age town of such significance as to cause Abraham to travel 1200km over dreadful terrain ought reasonably to have archaeological markers dating further back than AD 400. The really ancient stuff is hard to find, sure, but we ought to be able to find something older than AD 400 ish if the site has been populated and venerated for nearly 4000 years? Archaeologically speaking, that's pretty recent.

So what it amounts to is this: Muhammed is asking us to reject the recorded movements of Abraham as per the Torah, or at least to add extra details beyond that which was revealed by God, just because he says so. He is also asking us to ignore the lack of archaeological evidence for what must have been a significant settlement. He also seems to obfuscate or dispense with the writings of the great prophets of Israel such as Isaiah and Zecharia. This is from a pagan gentile who began preaching around AD 613 in a land far removed from that of Abraham. A man who according to his own Quran was obsessed with terror, violence, theft, murder, rape and power. Jesus warned us of false prophets, who come in sheeps' clothing but are inwardly ravenous wolves. He also said that "we shall know them by their fruit" or something along those lines. In other words, we know the people of God by their actions and words. So I'm afraid to say that Islam really doesn't stack up to much for me.

[ps49]

PotatoMuslim said:-

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

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

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

[PeteWaldo]

In that same 7th century Muhammad quipped:

Sura 5:47 Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.

Please explain how you reconcile Muhammad having made, what your claims of bible corruption can only lead you to conclude, was such a foolish recommendation.

That verse doesn't contradict anything that I've said so far, so it's not necessary for me to reply to that.  But, I'll do it now, and here is what the verse basically means:

When Allah said "Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah has revealed therein," it simply means that the people of the Gospel should judge only by what Allah has revealed, not the things that people have added and edited to what Allah revealed.

The half-truths and taqiyyah of Islamic dissimulation don't work in this forum my friend. You should know that by now. Either that, or your reading and comprehension skills are as appallingly compromised as your capacity for critical thought. The "therein" refers to what is in the Gospel not the Quran. What is revealed in the Gospel is the subject of that Quran verse.
Since by the 7th century when Muhammad recommended that, the Gospel had been translated into every major language, copied tens of thousands of times and had been read all over the known world for centuries, the Gospel that existed was the same one that proclaims the crucifixion, death and resurrection of Christ. That's the whole subject.

That is why the next sentence says: "If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah has revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel."

Referring to the "people of the Gospel" judging by what is revealed in the light of the Gospel!

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

"And We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture and as a guardian over it.

But  of course it  is  ridiculous to believe that the 1600 year record  of Yahweh as revealed through all of His prophets and witnesses, would be "confirmed" almost 600 years after the scriptures were closed by the exact opposite through a heavily abrogated  23-year 7th century years record, that is in fact the EXACT OPPOSITE of that 1600 year record!

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

Completely unrelated since the verse referred to what's revealed in the Gospel.

So, in other words, the Quran was sent as a "confirmation" and a "guardian" which is to be used to determine what is revealed from Allah and what is not. Anything in the Gospels that contradict what the Quran teaches, then that is not from Allah.

So then you agree it was pure buffoonery for Muhammad's alter-ego "Allah" to make what you can only conclude was such a poor recommendation, since Muhammad later denied the whole subject of the Gospel.

Here's the real answer my friend. That verse is from Muhammad's early Mecca drivel, when he was wandering around inventing his nonsensical tripe, while the Quraish rightfully made fun of his foolishness. Verses like that, that Muhammad later regretted saying, are why verses in a whopping 71 out of only 114 chapters of the Quran are subject to annulment or substitution.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=116.0

2:106 (Asad) Any message which, We annul or consign to oblivion We replace with a better or a similar one. Dost thou not know that God has the power to will anything?

Or as THE false prophet Muhammad further explained away nullifying his earlier Mecca drivel by his later Medina pure evil that calls his orthodox followers into imperialistic conquest against non-Muslims:

Surah 16:101 When We substitute one revelation for another, and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages), they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=116.0

Far easier for you to have said something more like:  "Yea Surah 5 is from Muhammad's earlier Mecca drivel, when he didn't know whether he was coming or going, so there is a ton of self-contradiction in his early Mecca attempts to repeat what he learned from his good friend Jabr. Better for people to focus on his later Medina pure satanic evil in which he commands his orthodox followers to terrorize, slaughter, conquer and steal from non-Muslims and force them into submission to Muhammad's followers."

Bukhari, V1 B2 #24 Narrated Ibn 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle....."
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jihad_islamic_terrorism.htm#ordered_to_fight

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

The thing that baffles me the most, is how Muslims themselves can't see they are serving Satan, through his Quran and the hadith.

[ps49]

PotatoMuslim said:-

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

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

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

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

[PotatoMuslim]

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

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

[PeteWaldo]

Nice epic fail to reply to my post that exposed your effort to substitute taqiyyah in place of an answer.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4969.msg19109#msg19109

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

The Quran is directly from God also.

Which makes it even more amazing that someone would follow a 7th century illiterate's claim that he spoke for a god, that was so lost in self-contradiction and foolishness, but even worse, calling his followers to the pure satanic evil of slaughter, rape and thievery. So conspicuously the opposer of the one true God of the scriptures.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=116.0
http://petewaldo.com/fables_fantasies.htm

Yet you have chosen to bet your eternity on a false prophet and his alter-ego, while you deny blaspheme the one true God of the scriptures of the Jews and Christians.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=2693.0

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

The Quran was inspired by Jabr, Tubb'a, wives and concubines and others, and perhaps most importantly and most satanically by Waraqa bin Naufal who was an occult Ebionite priest:
http://petewaldo.com/simon_magnus_gnostics_ebionites_islam.htm#ebionites

[PotatoMuslim]

I'm not going to engage with you on those points because you are clearly mocking the Quran.

"And it has already been revealed to you in the Book (the Quran) that when you hear the Verses of Allah being rejected and mocked at, then do sit with them, until they engage in a conversation other than that; Indeed, (if you stayed) then you would be like them. Surely, Allah will gather the hypocrites and the disbelievers all together in Hell." (Surah 4:140)

"When you hear those who engage in vain discourse about Our Verses, then turn away from them until they enter into another theme. And if Satan causes you to forget, then do not sit, after the remembrance, in the company of the wrong-doers." (Surah 6:68)

I've already quoted those verses before, but I was lingering only to discuss the reasons why you consider my posts to be spam. I understand the reasons now:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4954.msg19112#msg19112

Also, it's funny how you slowly averted from discussing Mecca (which I've given substantive replies to), and instead bringing up other points now. That's spamming, isn't it?

[PotatoMuslim]

Nice epic fail to reply to my post that exposed your effort to substitute taqiyyah in place of an answer.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4969.msg19109#msg19109

But it's certainly not as epic as your epic fail to reply to my replies. That said, let everyone judge for themselves now:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160513221812/http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4970.0

And this is how much you've been able to reply to:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4964.0

[ps49]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[PeteWaldo]

I'm not going to engage with you on those points because you are clearly mocking the Quran.

You are not going to engage, because I pointed out that you already misrepresented what the verse says in your earlier feeble and false explanation of it.
As if the verse were talking about the Quran rather than the Gospel:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4969.msg19105#msg19105

You have no explanation (except of course that you must believe the verse to be false and thus to be thrown out along with the rest of the Quran verses that were annulled (al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh)) which is the real reason you are refusing to engage, as the typical Muslim antichrists that come here with shattered capacity for critical thought. Besides the spirit of antichrist wiping it out, I also blame Muslims being compelled to numb their brains 5 times a day by dithering on in the "vain repetitions of the heathen" as the scriptures refer to Salat.
Let's show your contemporaries the verse, that you pretended was talking about the Quran, again:

Sura 5:47 Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.

Which is exactly what we "people of the Gospel" in this forum do. We believe in the crucifixion death and resurrection of Christ - the whole subject of the Gospel - even as Satan fills atheists and others with the spirit of antichrist to deny it.

Just as understood by this Muslim that actually exhibits a capacity for critical thought:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuCPgpQl34g

But it's certainly not as epic as your epic fail to reply to my replies. That said, let everyone judge for themselves now:
https://web.archive.org/web/20160513221812/http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4970.0

We can understand your desire to have your posts remain in a vacuum, absent of truth.

And this is how much you've been able to reply to:
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4964.0

Which demonstrates that even though you spammed a mess into the forum - specifically against forum rules - I was gracious enough to respond to several points starting from the beginning of your spam, in order to encourage you to engage in the points you were ignoring, which additional subjects we can move to when you begin to engage in a response to this question.

Why don't you try to get just a little bit honest, and actually respond to the surah that regards the Gospel, that starts off this post. Here's a few more that further demonstrate the conspicuous nature of your false explanation.
Again remember, that by Muhammad's 7th century the Jewish as well as the Christian scriptures had been translated into every popular language, copied tens of thousands of times, and had been read all over the known world for centuries:
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/

Sura 57.27 Then, in their wake, We followed them up with (others of) Our messengers: We sent after them Jesus the son of Mary, and bestowed on him the Gospel; and We ordained in the hearts of those who followed him Compassion and Mercy.

Sura 10:94 If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee: the Truth hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt.

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." It is the revelation that cometh to thee from thy Lord, that increaseth in most of them their obstinate rebellion and blasphemy. But sorrow thou not over (these) people without Faith.

sura 4:136 O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His Messenger, and the scripture which He hath sent to His Messenger and the scripture which He sent to those before (him). Any who denieth Allah, His angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Day of Judgment, hath gone far, far astray.

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.

Sura 2.62 Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Sura 80.13 (It is) in Books held (greatly) in honour, 14 Exalted (in dignity), kept pure and holy,15 (Written) by the hands of scribes- 16 Honourable and Pious and Just.
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/

[PeteWaldo]

The Quran is directly from God also.

Which makes things so much worse since, rather than just Muhammad and his reprobate orthodox followers being terrorists, it is actually Muhammad's god that you follow that is the terrorist:

Quran 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
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/jihad_islamic_terrorism.htm#terror

Since you were so conspicuously confounded by the Surah that regarded the people of the Gospel and what is revealed in our Gospel, let's move to a question that shouldn't offer you any difficulty.

Would it be your opinion that Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and The Islamic State are motivated by God or by Satan?