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

[PotatoMuslim]

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!

I don't think that abrogation is anything problematic. There are indeed some (I'd say probably 20 at most) verses in the Quran which are abrogated by other verses. However, this is not contradictory because the Quran makes it clear that some of the earlier laws were true only for a specific situation and a specific time, thus being over-ruled by a new law from God. The essence of abrogation is that it marks the end of the validity of the abrogated verses because their heed and effect was of a temporary or limited nature. In other words, God reveals a new law and announces the end of the validity of the earlier law. Also, considering that Quran was revealed over a period of twenty-three years in ever-changing circumstances, it is not difficult to imagine the necessity of such a concept, and that's why I feel that this is appropriate.

Here's a link that explains abrogation further and how Muslim scholars view it:
http://www.ilmgate.org/abrogation-in-the-quran/

[PotatoMuslim]

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

I didn't say that the verse wasn't talking about the Gospel, so you are  the one who is misrepresenting what I said, actually. What I said is that the verse needs to interpreted in relation to the verse right after it, which states: "And We have revealed to you, (O Muhammad), the Book in truth, confirming that which preceded it of the Scripture (i.e. the Gospel) 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." Given that, it is now clear that the Quran is being given precedence over the Gospel in matters of truth. You can't always interpret a verse correctly simply by ignoring verses that come before and after it, which is what you've done.

But you can go ahead and keep saying that I gave a "feeble and false explanation" of it. I still know that I'm right.

[ps49]

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!

I don't think that abrogation is anything problematic. There are indeed some (I'd say probably 20 at most) verses in the Quran which are abrogated by other verses. However, this is not contradictory because the Quran makes it clear that some of the earlier laws were true only for a specific situation and a specific time, thus being over-ruled by a new law from God. The essence of abrogation is that it marks the end of the validity of the abrogated verses because their heed and effect was of a temporary or limited nature. In other words, God reveals a new law and announces the end of the validity of the earlier law. Also, considering that Quran was revealed over a period of twenty-three years in ever-changing circumstances, it is not difficult to imagine the necessity of such a concept, and that's why I feel that this is appropriate.

Here's a link that explains abrogation further and how Muslim scholars view it:
http://www.ilmgate.org/abrogation-in-the-quran/

I'm not too concerned about knowing the exact number of Quranic verses abrogated, though it must be a lot more than twenty. Virtually all of the earlier peaceful verses of the Meccan period have been undoubtedly annulled or altered by the later violent and hateful writings of the Medinan period. Therefore, what Muhammed left to posterity is nothing much more than a war manual and a license to terrorise "infidels" until they submit - a fact which goes a long way to explain the Islamic madness we see on the news almost every day.

Anyway, I'm aware of the traditional Islamic justifications for abrogation, however, the fact remains that no prophet of the Old Testament had any use of it. This despite the changing times of 1600 years prophetic witness. This fact alone ought to sound alarm bells; the use of abrogation is highly divergent from the established pattern of prophetic writings.

Muhammed wasn't even from the line of Jacob (something we can agree on) which makes him even more conspicuously diverse from the others. He just seems to pop up from amongst the gentiles, label himself a prophet and claim that everything written by the prophets of the House of Jacob is wrong. So he's really not very plausible right from the get go, even before we consider all of the atrocities which later follow.

Tell me, what did Muhammed prophesy anyway? Do you know that there is a great wealth of already fulfilled prophecy from the Old and New Testaments?

http://www.israelinbibleprophecy.com/

[PeteWaldo]

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!

I don't think that abrogation is anything problematic.

Yet it doesn't even seem to concern you that Muhammad's alter-ego "Allah" that you follow, suffered from such a state of abject confusion over the short span of just 23 years.

Certainly orthodox Muslims like abu Bakr al-Bagdati don't find abrogation "problematic", as they fully understand that Muhammad's early Mecca drivel like "no compulsion in religion" is abrogated by a host of his later so-called "revelations" that command his followers to imperialist conquest and subjugation of non-Muslims.

Why don't you tell us when, and by whose authority, Muhammad's command to go forth and terrorize and slaughter were annulled. If you can't, then why aren't you joining orthodox Muslims in the violence of Islamic Jihad? Muhammad even had words for such:

Surah 2.216 fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.

There are indeed some (I'd say probably 20 at most) verses in the Quran which are abrogated by other verses.

Why risk bearing false witness through idle speculation, when there are verses in a whopping 71 out of only 114 chapters that are subject to abrogation through "al-Nasikh wal-Mansoukh".
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=116.0

However, this is not contradictory because the Quran makes it clear that some of the earlier laws were true only for a specific situation and a specific time, thus being over-ruled by a new law from God. The essence of abrogation is that it marks the end of the validity of the abrogated verses because their heed and effect was of a temporary or limited nature. In other words, God reveals a new law and announces the end of the validity of the earlier law. Also, considering that Quran was revealed over a period of twenty-three years in ever-changing circumstances, it is not difficult to imagine the necessity of such a concept, and that's why I feel that this is appropriate.

Here's a link that explains abrogation further and how Muslim scholars view it:
http://www.ilmgate.org/abrogation-in-the-quran/

[PeteWaldo]

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.

Such a sad and pathetic tragedy. Muhammad's followers will spend all day denying that Jesus was crucified so they can reject the shed blood of the sacrifice of the Lamb of God that would save them - of the sinless Messiah - while they are instead taught that the first drop of blood shed by an average-Joe sinful Muslim so-called "martyr", that dies inadvertently while in the act of slaughtering others when engaged in imperialistic conquest, not only absolves himself of his own sins through his own shed blood, but it qualifies him to intercede for seventy of his family members. Men that behaved as sinfully as the example that their "messenger" set.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=4981.msg19179#msg19179

From many Islamic sites, including Islam Today for example:
"In the hadîth, the Prophet (peace be upon him) says: 'The martyr can intercede for seventy members of his family.'”

Whereas the actual martyrs, were those that were killed while defending their families, friends and community from the onslaught of Islamic Jihad.
Yet another perfect inversion of the truth that Satan, through his "messenger" Muhammad, foisted on his followers.

Here's the Hadith on Muhammad in the role of a "helper" of his "Allah":
http://www.falseprophetmuhammad.com/the_trinity.htm

[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.

Such a sad and pathetic tragedy. Muhammad's followers will spend all day denying that Jesus was crucified so they can deny the shed blood of the sacrifice of the Lamb of God that would save them - of the sinless Messiah - while they are instead taught that the first drop of blood shed by an average-Joe sinful Muslim so-called "martyr", that dies inadvertently while in the act of slaughtering others when engaged in imperialistic conquest, not only absolves himself of his own sins through his own shed blood, but it qualifies him to intercede for seventy of his family members. Men that behaved as sinfully as the example that their "messenger" set.

From many Islamic sites, including Islam Today for example:
"In the hadîth, the Prophet (peace be upon him) says: 'The martyr can intercede for seventy members of his family.'”

Whereas the actual martyrs, were those that were killed while defending their families, friends and community from the onslaught of Islamic Jihad.
Yet another perfect inversion of the truth that Satan, through his "messenger" Muhammad, foisted on his followers.

Yes, I've come to the conclusion that Islam severely diminishes reading comprehension when it comes to understanding both the Quran and the Bible.