Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

1 Follower

About SolidRock

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  1. Thanks to all of you who took the time to respond -- may the peace and love of the Lord Jesus Christ be upon you. A few of my questions were never answered, or if they were, I missed the answers: What exactly happened at Banu Qurayza? Did the Jews attack Muhammad first, or was Muhammad out spreading the love of Allah, and when the Jews wouldn't convert, they were killed? What exactly happened there, and who started that battle? I honestly don't know, so please enlighten me and cite your sources... I'm truly interested in hearing the Muslim version of the story. Further, according to Islam, did Muhammad personally kill anyone? Did he personally order or approve of anyone being killed? Finally, according to Islam, did Jesus ever kill anyone or order / approve of their execution? As always, please provide the sources for your answers so I can do some research. (And for the record, my refusal to ever embrace Islam is based on the fact that many of its claims fly in the face of centuries of recorded history regarding events like the covenant between God and Isaac, the crucifixion and death of Jesus on the cross, God's deep love and affection for the Jewish peopke, etc. Many Muslims have told me that the Bible is corrupted and can't be trusted, but no Muslim has ever been able to produce a copy of a scripture dating from before this alleged corruption occurred... the whole Koran story sounds fishy and simply doesn't mesh with the thousands of years of recorded history before it -- but instead of doing the logical thing and questioning why the Koran conflicts so starkly with recorded history, we're expected to do the illogical thing and discard centuries of recorded history and blindly embrace the Koran because Muhammad said so. Sorry, not for me... the Bible clearly states that after His resurrection from the dead, many false prophets would arise. I'm quite sure I know who at least one of them was. Peace, The Rock <><
  2. Hello, Just wanted to spell out a number of different reasons why I will never be a Muslim: First, I ABSOLUTELY DO "submit to the will of God". However, Muslims will disagree, and that's fine -- because we disagree on what is the will of God. I submit to the will of God of Christianity WILLINGLY -- NOT because I'm being FORCED to convert to Islam and worship Allah, under threat of a forced tax (Qur'an 9:29) or death (multiple verses in the Qur'an). I submit to the will of God because the God of Christianity LOVES ME -- I haven't seen a single verse that says Allah loves his people (can someone show me a verse in the Qur'an that says Allah loves you?) I submit to the will of God because the God of Christianity has PROMISED me salvation simply because I believe in Jesus Christ and try my best, as a sinner, to follow in His footsteps (Romans 10:9-10) -- to my knowledge, Muslims have NO promise of Heaven (unless they die killing "unbelievers"). I submit to the will of God because the God of Christianity -- Jesus Christ -- is ALIVE, risen from the dead and appearing in bodily form to hundreds of people after His crucifixion, death on the cross and burial in a sealed tomb before being raised up to Heaven before their eyes. The prophet of Islam is long since dead and gone. I submit to the will of God because the God of Christianity -- Jesus Christ -- never hurt anyone... He healed the sick, comforted the weak and the weary, and LOVED people into the kingdom of God. The prophet of Islam was a fighter and a warrior, FORCING people to convert or die, and if I'm not mistaken, if he didn't actively participate, he at least was present and approved of the beheading of hundreds of Jews during the attack at Banu Quraya. God's truth doesn't need to be forced upon people, only false teachings have to be forced upon people. I submit to the will of God because the Bible -- God's Word -- is the ONLY book in the world that people are being killed for believing. Knowing how evil Satan is, and knowing how Satan will stop at nothing to corrupt, pervert and destroy God's Word, the fact that there is so much hatred of the Bible in the world, to the point where it is the ONLY book in the world that people are murdered simply for believing -- that's all the proof I need to know that it is indeed the Word of God. Peace, The Rock <><
  3. Ok, so it sounds like you're saying that Muhammad was most likely a believer in one God, but the only knowledge he (or anyone else in his community) would have had about Noah, Moses or Abraham would have been from the corrupted Bible that existed at the time. Is that correct?
  4. I'm trying to understand something, and I'm a little confused... In my discussions with Muslims over the years, I've been told that the Bible has been corrupted and cannot be trusted (even though no Muslim has been able to tell me when the Bible supposedly became corrupted). I've also been told that Islam honors Noah, Moses, Abraham and Jesus as great prophets of God. But here's my question -- before the Qur'an was revealed, what did Muhammad and those in his community know about Noah, Moses and Abraham, and where did they get their information about those prophets from? Did they have their own historical records, or were they getting their knowledge from a corrupted Bible? Or was the Bible correct 1,400 years ago in Muhammad's time, and only got corrupted after the Qur'an was revealed? To word the question better, was the Bible ALREADY corrupted in Muhammad's time? If so, the corruption (at least the corruption of the New Testament) would have to have occurred during the 600 years between the time of Jesus and the time of Muhammad. And if the Old Testament had been corrupted in Jesus' time, He would have said so, but since He didn't, then both the OT and the NT would have to have suddenly become corrupted during the 600 years between Jesus and Muhammad (even though no corruption happened for thousands of years prior to that, and no corruption has occurred since then -- I find it amazing that the corruption could only have occurred in the time after Jesus, leading up to Muhammad!). Is that the Muslim belief? Again though, the main question is, what did Muhammad know about Noah, Moses and Abraham prior to the revelation of the Qur'an, and where did he get that knowledge from? The corrupted Bible, or another source? Peace, The Rock <><
  5. Hello PeaceLoving. I don't have the time to watch a dozen videos, but thank you anyway. My point was simply this, and it's based on simple logic -- you either believe Muhammad was a true prophet of God or you don't. If you do, you're a Muslim. If you don't, then by definition, if you don't believe he was a true prophet, then he had to be a false prophet. If you believe he was a false prophet, then the only two possibilities I see are that he was either a deceiver himself, or he was deceived. Since anyone who believes he was a true prophet of God would be a Muslim, anyone who doesn't believe he was a true prophet of God (that is, any non-Muslim, such as a a Christian), has to, by definition, believe Muhammad was a false prophet. Are you suggesting that you can be a Christian and at the same time, believe Muhammad was a TRUE prophet of God? Hello Reisiger, With all due respect, I don't think your attempt to show contradictions in the Bible regarding the last moments of Jesus' life hold any water... if they were describing the clothes He was wearing on His final day, and one Gospel said He was wearing red socks, another Gospel said He was wearing a white robe, and a third Gospel said He was wearing black sandals, your logic dictates that you'd call those contradictions, when in fact they would all be true. If every Gospel was identical, there would be no need for four Gospels. Each brought their own perspective. Peace, The Rock <><
  6. To clarify, I'm not suggesting at all the the prophet of Islam was a deceiver. I'm saying that I believe the Qur'an was revealed to your prophet by the Deceiver, not by God or an angel of God, and the prophet of Islam was thereby deceived. I realize this position is likely to be offensive to Muslims, but if you think about it, it's pretty much a no-brainer that we have to believe something like this since we don't accept your prophet as being a true prophet of God. Peace, The Rock <><
  7. Hello Reisiger. Thanks for your post. To answer your question, yes, I do believe the Qur'an would say things like that if it was revealed by "you know who". Think about it -- both Christians and Muslims know he is the Great Deceiver, so we have to expect him to be very devious and clever -- and evil. If he was going to present a false book, it would have to sound like it came from God, and it would have to contain just enough truth to be believable, but just enough falsehood to lead people down the path to destruction. That's exactly what I believe is the case with the Qur'an. Reisiger, to add one more comment to my last post, the reason I believe this is because again, the prophet if Islam is the first and only prophet who said that the prior prophets were wrong -- no other prophet, including Jesus, said they had to "set the record straight" because the prior writings had become "lost" or "corrupted". Only your prophet did that, as he presented something new that conflicted in a number of different ways with the centuries old historical writings of the prior prophets. Further, the historical records about Jesus tell us that there is salvation and eternal life available to us by believing in His crucifixion, death on the cross in atonement for our sins, and His resurrection. Now, what does a Great Deceiver seek to do? Deceive! That's why it makes sense that this Deceiver would try to rob God's children of their salvation through Jesus Christ by claiming that it (the crucifixion) never really happened, that Jesus was "just another prophet", and that all of the true writings about Him had been "lost", despite the centuries of historical writings that prI've otherwise . I hope you can see how far, from a Christian perspective, you have to stretch thjngs in order for the Qur'an to be true.
  8. Hello, One of the Muslims in this thread was basically saying that the scientific data in the Qur'an proves that it's from God, since there's no way an illiterate man like Muhammad could have known it... so my point was that the scientific data in the Qur'an doesn't prove that it came from God -- that scientific data was already in the Bible, in the book of Job.
  9. Hello Reisiger, Thanks for your great explanation. My response would be that we pretty much agree on what you said -- but we differ on the definition of "the will of God". We also disagree, perhaps, on the "forced" submission to the will of God. Christians believe in peace, love and voluntary, willful submission to the will of God, out of love, not out of fear or coercion. I know Muslims will repeatedly say "there is no compulsion in the religion", but all over the world, every day, we see examples of "convert or die!" orders being given to people to convert to Islam or be killed. I know Muslims always say "that's not Islamic", but it's never Christians, Jew, Hindus, Buddhists or any other religion issuing those orders -- it's always Muslims. And, quite frankly, until Muslims rise up by the millions, in unison, to condemn those atrocities, they have no right to claim it's not Islamic. When Muslims sit quietly, say nothing and do nothing while these atrocities are being committed, they are sending an implicit message that they don't disagree with those atrocities. (Why isn't Iran bombing the hell out of ISIS?). You know, I know ISIS is killing Muslims too, but the fact remains -- just about every vicious terrorist organization in the world just happens to be Islamic, and until the rest of the Muslim world stands up and eliminates the vicious terrorism within its own ranks, all Muslims will be (unfairly) vilified. It's sad, and I honestly feel bad for the peace loving Muslims who get a bad name, but they will continue to get a bad name until they take some serious, strong action (not just paying lip service, but actively, through military force) against these vicious radicals. On another note, the Qur'an, in a number of different places, commands Muslims not to make friends with non-Muslims (3:28, 3:118, 5:51, 5:80 and other verses). Do Muslims agree that they are forbidden to make friends with Christians and Jews? Peace, The Rock <>< Hello Reisiger, Thanks again for your post. Here's where it gets hairy, and I might bow out out after this post, depending on the reactions I get: First, many of the scientific things in the Qur'an are actually already listed in the book of Job in the Bible, written centuries before the Qur'an. That deflates the Muslim argument about how Muhammad couldn't possibly have known that scientific stuff -- he didn't have to, as it's already in the Bible. But here's the statement that might get me booted from this site for disrespect, but I'm not afraid of getting booted because it needs to be said: I never said I thought Muhammad, and illiterate man, had written the Qur'an. I have no problem whatsoever with believing that the Qur'an was revealed to him. However, my position is that whoever the being was that revealed the Qur'an to Muhammad, it wasn't God -- or any angel of God. I don't believe a true angel of God would reveal information that directly contradicted much of the prior recorded history, refuted the words of the prior prophets, denied the historical records of the crucifixion of Jesus, and more. I don't believe such blatant contradictions came from God. You can guess who I believe they came from, but I don't believe (nor will I ever believe) that it was from God. Someone more knowledgeable and more powerful than man, yes... but God, no. Peace, The Rock <><
  10. Someone (above) said that they don't need 2,000 year old records that date from the time of Jesus, because they have the truth directly from God in the Qur'an -- but that's exactly my point! When you completely disregard the historical records we do have, because you don't have any such records, and choose instead to believe and trust a new book that contradicts the historical records and eyewitness accounts of the people who were there at the time, and claim that your new book is from God, that logic simply doesn't pass the smell test. Common sense says that if something new comes along, you don't immediately embrace it and discard everything that came before it, saying the other stuff "must be" corrupted since your new book says something different. Common sense dictates that you take everything that was known for hundreds of years before, and compare your new book to it to see if it agrees -- and if it conflicts, your new book must be false. Muslims are looking at things backward, in my humble opinion. Using this (Muslim) logic, another new book could come out tomorrow that says the Qur'an isn't quite right, and this new book which claims to be from God has been revealed to "set the record straight". Would you believe this new book that came out tomorrow and discard the Qur'an as obviously corrupted? If not, then why would you have done it 1,400 years ago? There's no difference. None of the prior prophets refuted or had to "set the record straight" because the other prophets' words had been "lost" or "corrupted" -- every single prophet before, agreed with the prior prophets (no corruption!). Only Muhammad presented a new book that conflicted with the prior prophets -- how then, is that "logical" to Muslims? It doesn't make any sense, unless of course you just want to believe it despite its conflict with prior recorded history.
  11. If Muslims want to draw the conclusion that the Bible is corrupted because there are, admittedly, some apparent contradictions and inconsistencies in it, then why don't we go back to the oldest surviving copy we have? Would Muslims accept, for example, the Dead Sea Scrolls as valid? After all, the way to counter "corruption" is to look at a pre-corruption version of the text, which means the oldest surviving copies. And, to answer Haydar Husayn's question, no, I'm not asking you to tell me whether or not Jesus said the Bible was corrupted using a source you believe is corrupted (the New Testament), you can tell me whether or not Jesus said the Bible was corrupted using a Muslim source -- if you have one. Because, since Muslims accept that Jesus was a great prophet, surely you know something about Him other than what the Koran tells you, having been written some 600 years after the fact. What information do Muslims have about Jesus, that dates from the time of Jesus? Muslims believe Jesus was a Muslim, so what did the other Muslims who knew Him say about Him? Where are the 2,000 year old Muslim records about Jesus? Christians were able to save our records about Him for 2,000 years -- did the Muslims save theirs?
  12. Sorry, Andres -- I just noticed that you're a Christian. I'd really like a direct response to my question from a Muslim. I'd like a Muslim to admit / acknowledge that Muhammad was the first prophet to say the Bible was corrupted and cannot be trusted, if that is indeed the case. If another prophet before Muhammad said the Bible is corrupted and cannot be trusted, I'd like to know who that prophet was. That's all I'm asking... hopefully some Muslims will be willing to answer that simple question. Peace, The Rock <><
  13. Andres, are you a Muslim?
  14. It seems to me that Muslims are avoiding the specific question I asked, and I'm just trying to get that question answered. Here's my specific question again, and it's a yes or no question: Since Muslims accept Jesus as a great prophet, they should believe what He said. Did He, or did He not (yes or no) say the Bible (the Old Testament, which was the only Bible they had in Jesus' time) was corrupted? If Jesus did say the Bible they were using in His time was corrupted, I'd like to know. If Jesus didn't say the Bible they were using in his time was corrupted, I'd like to know that too. What did Jesus say about the Bible? Did He say it was corrupted, or not? This will help me determine when the corruption of the Bible would have occurred. With all due respect, the reason I'm asking this specific question is because it seems to me that nobody (no prophets) claimed the Bible was corrupt until the time of Muhammad. Is that a true statement? Thanks. Peace, The Rock <>< (Just as a side note, God didn't write the Bible, but God didn't write the Koran either. Nobody gave anybody a physical book -- God's Word was revealed to a number of prophets and the words were written down and assembled into books. Neither God, nor Gabriel handed a book to Muhammad, or Jesus or any prophet.)
  15. Greetings, I think we can all agree that Muslims say the Bible is corrupted and cannot be trusted. So here's my question -- We agree that there have been many different prophets of God throughout the centuries, although Christians and Muslims differ on who some of those prophets were. According to Islam, who was the FIRST prophet to claim the Bible was corrupted? Christians don't believe Muhammad was a true prophet of God, but obviously Muslims believe he was -- so I'm assuming that in Islam, Muhammad was the next (or last) prophet after Jesus. There weren't any prophets between Jesus and Muhammad, were there? If Jesus was the last prophet before Muhammad, then is there any record of Jesus saying the Bible was corrupted? If so, I'd like to see it. If not, then the Bible must not have been corrupted in the time of Jesus, because if it was, surely He would have said so! So that means that if He didn't say so, then this corruption had to have happened exclusively during the six hundred year period between the time of Jesus and the time of Muhammad. Am I right about the timing of this corruption? I'm just trying to understand when the corruption of the Bible would have occurred. Thanks in advance, The Rock <><