Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, ali_fatheroforphans said:

Do you then hope that they would believe in you? While a party from among them indeed used to hear the words of Allah, then altered it after they had understood it, and they know(this). (Quran 2:75)

This is where the trouble lies. How many in a party? Did they take the only Torah with them? Actually, no. It says they "heard" then they altered it to suit their needs. Other than those in the temple, people only heard what was written in the Torah, it wasn't on display, there wasn't a copy for all. Whatever was written after it was compiled in 500 something BC, can't change what was on the scrolls.

The Islamic view must be that this "party from among them" had to have been those who guarded the Torah, which was in Jerusalem, archived and guarded. It sounds more like a bunch of Jews in Mecca talking about it.

If someone read you a story, then you told it to others but different, you didn't change what was written. You might have played with the minds of many who will believe your story because they heard it from you first. When they finally see the book, and the story as it's written, what do they believe? If they believe the book, you are cursed. If they believe you, the book written (prior to your knowledge) must have been altered? Timelines...

1 hour ago, ali_fatheroforphans said:

And when they meet those who believe

"They" is a very vague number of Jews. It can't include the entire race, it can't include anyone in charge, it basically sounds like vagabond Jews showing up to tell their tainted stories. Yes, God knows what they did, and woe to them, but they still didn't change what was written 1000 years before them.

There is a stigma that if one Jew wrote something somewhere, it somehow ended up in the Torah. Does that sound reasonable?

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nad_M said:

The best document we have concerning Jesus' uncorrupted teachings are only found through revelation, which the current NT clearly isnt. By the words of its writers, it is but a pamohlet aimed at convincing the reader of its unknown and non-eye witnesses' own doctrines Jn20:31"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." 

In the process, these writers, with their very shallow and distorted knowledge of both the true events surrounding jesus' life as well as the Hebrew bible on which they based most of their misinterpretations (mostly because of their ignirance of the original Hebrew text), have painted Jesus as a false messiah and false prophet. This can be shown through many examples one of which is Jesus' failed prophecies of return.

If Muhammeds revelations were from God, which most people on this planet dont believe. And if they were, the chain through Muhammeds human memory, via his successors ability to find and collect all the genuine, and no false ones, is not very certain. More certain are the observations of the many contemporaries that the Gospel writers have collected. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Son of Placid said:

This is where the trouble lies. How many in a party? Did they take the only Torah with them? Actually, no. It says they "heard" then they altered it to suit their needs. Other than those in the temple, people only heard what was written in the Torah, it wasn't on display, there wasn't a copy for all. Whatever was written after it was compiled in 500 something BC, can't change what was on the scrolls.

 

The distortions of the bani Israel, such as thenone previously alluded to concerning Ibrahim, Ismail, Hagar and their connection to Mecca and the Kaaba were first transmitted oraly, as would any lie be repeated and exagerated, until the matter was obscured beyond recognition as the generations passed. That disfigured truth was eventually put in writing when Genesis was first composed, around the same time different parts of the Torah were written by priests and scribes in the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah during the First Temple period and the Babylonian Exile (9th to 6th centuries BCE), and the subsequent periods of Persian and Hellenistic rule. Most of these parts were stitched together by Ezra the Scribe to create a single historic narrative and legal code for the returning exiles. These authors were not writing fromm historical sources but were reflecting their own ideas, ideologies and rampant prejudices, as well as obviously their historical context.

 

The Quran however sheds light on the approximate period where the prejudice against Ismail began to grow among the Israelites 2:133-4"were you witnesses when death visited Yaqoub, when he said to his sons: What will you serve after me? They said: We will serve your god and the god of your fathers, Ibrahim and Ismail and Ishaq, one Allah only, and to Him do we submit. This is a people that have passed away; they shall have what they earned and you shall have what you earn, and you shall not be called upon to answer for what they did". Up to the time of Jacob and the first few generations that followed, Ismail's rightful place in prophetic history was recognized. What is also interesting here is how the Quran absolves a prophet of God from any type of prejudice, let alone tribal, and shows that his utmost priority in regards to his sons is that they worship the one true, universal God as opposed to the tribal monolatrous Jewish religion later grafted into the religion of Ibrahim, Isaac and Jacob.

What is remarkable is the manner in which the Quran, in its usual pattern of employing words with surgical precision, subtely maintains the idea of a universal religion proclaimed by the Israelites' ancestors. When it quotes the prophet Yusuf claiming physical and spiritual descendency from Ibrahim, Isaac and Jacob, because only direct relatives are mentionned as opposed to 2:133, and to leave no ambiguity as regards the universality of the religion of his relatives, states that the same uprightness God favored him and his ancestors with, was equally bestowed on mankind 12:38"And I follow the religion of my fathers, Ibrahim and Ishaq and Yaqoub; it beseems us not that we should associate aught with Allah; this is by Allah's grace upon us and on mankind, but most people do not give thanks".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, andres said:

If Muhammeds revelations were from God, which most people on this planet dont believe. And if they were, the chain through Muhammeds human memory, via his successors ability to find and collect all the genuine, and no false ones, is not very certain. More certain are the observations of the many contemporaries that the Gospel writers have collected. 

 

The gospel writers, by their own admission, didnt witness any of the hallmarks of Jesus supposed ministry, whether it be the crucifixion or the resurrection. More damning are the contradictory accounts of those very events from gospel to gospel and in light of historical facts.

By the standards of ypur scriptures Muhammad certainly was a prophet of God, regardless of what you and any other followers of the judeo christian scriptures with a shallow knowledge of their own books think. In fact this is such an established reality that the Quran says "they know him as they know their own sons". There is a reason why many learned among the jews could not but see some truth to Muhammad's claim to prophecy but wpuld argue, blinded by their tribal prejudice, that his prophecy only applies to the Ishmaelites.

But that is another discussion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, iraqi_shia said:

But you must see there is a disconnect. 

We do not know what Jesus preached is in the Bible because he never came into contact with it and confirmed it or had any influence in its editing.

What do you think Jesus was preaching? When we hear the phrase "Jesus was preaching the gospel", this could not have been the bible, as by your own admission, the bible did not exist at that time, so what was Jesus preaching?

"A new commandment I give unto you that ye love one another, as I have loved you." Red letter gospel. For your own understanding you should read Matthew chapters 5-7. Tell me if there is anything to disagree with. For the sake of confusion consider it the only part of the Bible that could be considered as "injeel" The idea that the Bible, or the New testament, or the Gospels themselves are injeel is wrong. 

Jesus never had a book, not even the Torah, nor did He have access to it. The elders in the temple were amazed He knew as much as He did and the depth of His understanding. He didn't teach the Torah. It was there and established, His job was to move on. He argued with the leaders, scolded them for their corruptions, did His best to change their corrupted system, never once did He say the scriptures were corrupted. The past scriptures, (torah) was established most of 1100 years before the Quran. The Bible as we know it was established and compiled 300 years before the Quran and the Quran mentions more than once it confirms past scripture. Every prejudice since then comes from ahadith.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Nad_M said:

The gospel writers, by their own admission, didnt witness any of the hallmarks of Jesus supposed ministry, whether it be the crucifixion or the resurrection. More damning are the contradictory accounts of those very events from gospel to gospel and in light of historical facts.

Human witnesses will almost always differ on details, which make it difficult to decide who remembers correct. But on details where they agree their testimony is much stronger evidence than one persons testimony. The 4 Gospel writers were not eyewitnesses., but they knew eyewitnesses. In comparison with historical claims 600 years later, their testimonies stand very much stronger.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Son of Placid said:

"A new commandment I give unto you that ye love one another, as I have loved you." Red letter gospel. For your own understanding you should read Matthew chapters 5-7. Tell me if there is anything to disagree with. For the sake of confusion consider it the only part of the Bible that could be considered as "injeel" The idea that the Bible, or the New testament, or the Gospels themselves are injeel is wrong. 

Jesus never had a book, not even the Torah, nor did He have access to it. The elders in the temple were amazed He knew as much as He did and the depth of His understanding. He didn't teach the Torah. It was there and established, His job was to move on. He argued with the leaders, scolded them for their corruptions, did His best to change their corrupted system, never once did He say the scriptures were corrupted. The past scriptures, (torah) was established most of 1100 years before the Quran. The Bible as we know it was established and compiled 300 years before the Quran and the Quran mentions more than once it confirms past scripture. Every prejudice since then comes from ahadith.

 

There are plenty of things in the Bible I agree with, thats not the issue.

As for you comment, Jesus may God bless him, never had a book, that is your opinion. We believe that he did have a revelation.

Your confirmation that we do not have whatever Jesus had, shows that however you want to phrase it, corruption or loss, there is an issue there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Nad_M said:

The gospel writers, by their own admission, didnt witness any of the hallmarks of Jesus supposed ministry, whether it be the crucifixion or the resurrection. More damning are the contradictory accounts of those very events from gospel to gospel and in light of historical facts.

By the standards of ypur scriptures Muhammad certainly was a prophet of God, regardless of what you and any other followers of the judeo christian scriptures with a shallow knowledge of their own books think. In fact this is such an established reality that the Quran says "they know him as they know their own sons". There is a reason why many learned among the jews could not but see some truth to Muhammad's claim to prophecy but wpuld argue, blinded by their tribal prejudice, that his prophecy only applies to the Ishmaelites.

But that is another discussion

How many eye witnesses saw Muhammad get his revelations from Gabriel? I'm not calling Muhammad a false Prophet, I'm just asking who were the eye witnesses? Who was with him to confirm? If it's all about actual eye witnesses writing as they see, then everybody is out. Considering nothing has been written by God since the tablets, everything revelation was first transferred orally before written.

Besides that, because you don't know the authors, you actually have no idea if they witnessed Jesus in their life time or not. It's just another assumption. How old were the authors? The Gospel according to Mark was written around 40 years after the death of Jesus. Who was dead, who was alive? 

How were the disciples interviewed? How often were they together, how much input had they written themselves? To assume that the gospels were actually written, starting with "once upon a time" is ludicrous. 

These contradictions you speak of. One disciple saw Mary from afar. Next gospel says Mary was close. Voila contradiction! Someone needs to explain what "afar" is, and how much time (within the six hour time frame), did it take walking to get from afar to close? Nope, nobody mentioned anyone walking in the NT, must still be a contradiction. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, iraqi_shia said:

There are plenty of things in the Bible I agree with, thats not the issue.

As for you comment, Jesus may God bless him, never had a book, that is your opinion. We believe that he did have a revelation.

Your confirmation that we do not have whatever Jesus had, shows that however you want to phrase it, corruption or loss, there is an issue there.

Speaking of "how you want to phrase it", I'm not sure I understand the argument between "book" and "revelation" These are two very different things. The Quran mentions injeel nine times, non of which refer to a physical book. Of course Jesus had a revelation. Of course we do not have what Jesus did, we didn't get the revelation, just the book. 

The main issue is that Islam teaches two things. They teach an Islamic view of God, and they teach everything about past religions is wrong and corrupt. You probably heard what was wrong with other religions before you learned what was right about Islam. Islamic contributors are continually comparing the religions to prove incompetence in the past and the perfection of themselves. The prejudice is really obvious to an outsider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, andres said:

Human witnesses will almost always differ on details, which make it difficult to decide who remembers correct. But on details where they agree their testimony is much stronger evidence than one persons testimony. The 4 Gospel writers were not eyewitnesses., but they knew eyewitnesses. In comparison with historical claims 600 years later, their testimonies stand very much stronger.

 

It's not always a case of who is correct and who is incorrect. Often it is the position or perception of the witness.

One of the "contradictions" was; Was Mary far off from the cross or was she close? One disciple says they saw her afar. John said she was right up close enough to hear Jesus speak.

All we have to do is insist the disciples were standing side by side at the same time, (during the six hour event) and nobody moved. Then their statements would collide. If we admit that people can walk and move around, the whole plan is shot. This is how lame most of the trumped up contradictions are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Son of Placid said:

"A new commandment I give unto you that ye love one another, as I have loved you." Red letter gospel. For your own understanding you should read Matthew chapters 5-7. Tell me if there is anything to disagree with. For the sake of confusion consider it the only part of the Bible that could be considered as "injeel" The idea that the Bible, or the New testament, or the Gospels themselves are injeel is wrong. 

 

As to the Injil, some say it is the Taarib (conversion and adoption of a foreign word into the Arabic language, without necessarly retaining the original meaning) of the Greek word evangelion/good news (gospel in English). If that is the case, then the Quran only recognizes one among several -canonical or not- gospels as it speaks of "Injil" in the singular, a revelation stamped into Jesus's heart since his infancy 3:3,48,19:30 a source of guidance, admonition, light and wisdom 3:48,5:44,46 verifying the Torah that precedes it 3:50,5:46 while abolishing to the Jews the self imposed restrictions of their man-made soulless traditions, as well as giving glad tidings of a prophet to come after him.

 

Jesus either put himself into writing or asked his followers to eventually write down (during his lifetime or after the termination of his earthly stay) what was revealed to him since infancy of wisdom, teachings, prophecies, warnings and admonitions 7:157. There is nothing weird or formidable in that statement from the Quran considering the pattern within the Israelite tradition of prophethood of which Jesus was part of. The same was the case of previous Israelite prophets such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel or Habakkuk, Iddo and others 2Chr11:2,12:5,15,13:22. Solomon had his wise utterings, that were either put into writing in his lifetime or later, compiled from scattered suppports under the reign of Hezekiah Prov25:1. It thus certainly is an established trend within the line of the prophets of Israel to commit to writing, whether themsleves or by others, in their lifetime or later, the revelation bestowed upon them. That reality hasnt escaped the rabbinical commentaries (see for example Rashi on Iddo).

 

While part of his scripture or what his first followers remembered and compiled, made it in its uncorrupted form into the current Greek compilation of writings called in English the "New Testament", another part did not make it either due to negligence, forgetfulness, or some was discarded and worse yet obscured and tampered with as it did not fit the message, ideas and bias of the unknown Greek writers and later compilers and editors 5:14-15"..those who say, We are Christians, We made a covenant, but they neglected a portion of what they were reminded of..". The current NT is in great majority a compilation of writings about Jesus, not of Jesus, and while containing some elements of what was revealed to him, the Injil, is in great majority a combination of texts compiled during great political and religious turmoil, reflecting the bias of its writers. The victorious sect, among many other early conflicting christian sects, that thus became "orthodoxy" did not let any competing texts it could lay hands on to survive, either by physically destroying it or discrediting it and leaving it to disapear with time. And thus, though we know there were radically variant sects even in Paul's day, we have not a single text from them. Instead, the vast bulk of surviving material is solely what was approved by the victorious "orthodoxy," who did not win because of their greater adherence to the truth, but their more effective and fortunate politics.

 

That is why the Quran refers to the Book in the hands of its Christian addressees as Injil in the singular; it only recognizes whatever remains from Jesus' revelation among other multiple canonized scriptures in Christian hands as true.

 

The Quran similarily alludes to the suhuf/pages of Abraham and to some of the divine verities they contain and share with both the Quran and the Torah 53:36-38,87:18-19. It is also interesting to note that rabbinical tradition attributes the authorship of the book of Psalms to 9 different others besides David, including Adam, Malchizedek and Abraham.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nad_M said:

until the matter was obscured beyond recognition as the generations passed.

This is human evolution. Look where we are today. Everything is questioned and a new truth evolves daily. The laws of the past have no bearing on today's youth, they disregard everything. Islam has not preserved this either. 

There is absolutely no way you can prove this conspiracy theory. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Son of Placid said:

How many eye witnesses saw Muhammad get his revelations from Gabriel? I'm not calling Muhammad a false Prophet, I'm just asking who were the eye witnesses? Who was with him to confirm? If it's all about actual eye witnesses writing as they see, then everybody is out. Considering nothing has been written by God since the tablets, everything revelation was first transferred orally before written.

Besides that, because you don't know the authors, you actually have no idea if they witnessed Jesus in their life time or not. It's just another assumption. How old were the authors? The Gospel according to Mark was written around 40 years after the death of Jesus. Who was dead, who was alive? 

How were the disciples interviewed? How often were they together, how much input had they written themselves? To assume that the gospels were actually written, starting with "once upon a time" is ludicrous. 

These contradictions you speak of. One disciple saw Mary from afar. Next gospel says Mary was close. Voila contradiction! Someone needs to explain what "afar" is, and how much time (within the six hour time frame), did it take walking to get from afar to close? Nope, nobody mentioned anyone walking in the NT, must still be a contradiction. 

Nobody witnessed Moses receiving the tablets either. What establishes a person's claim to prophethood as true or not isnt based on who witnessed what, but on his message and him being part of a specific pattern, all of which are described within your own scriptures hence the Quranic statement that the people of the book recognize Muhammad as their own sons. Ironically, these same criteria dismiss Jesus as a false prophet/messiah if one accepts his description as made in the NT as true.

The problem with the gospels is that fron the get go, they are attributed to persons who werent and couldnt have been the true witnesses of the events. We arent speaking of witnesses to somr intangible experience, hence your failed attempt at drawing a parallel with testimony to prophecy, but of concrete events allegedly seen by many and yet a superficial reading, let alone a closer scrutiny, is enough to discredit that testimony as false. And you surely know that the difficulties regarding the fundamental issues of christianity such as the crucifixion or resurrection go far beyond what you alluded to.

Edited by Nad_M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Son of Placid said:

This is human evolution. Look where we are today. Everything is questioned and a new truth evolves daily. The laws of the past have no bearing on today's youth, they disregard everything. Islam has not preserved this either. 

There is absolutely no way you can prove this conspiracy theory. 

There is no conspiracy and the internal evidence from the HB itself testifies to deliberate corruption. 

Although the Bani Israel succeeded in establishing a blatant falsehood they failed to blot out all related signs that clearly attest to at least carelesness in the transmission of the truth, but most probably and knowing their long history of tribal prejudice towards their own Israelite brethren as amply seen in their books, deliberate distortions resulting in numerous inconsistencies.

 

Edited by Nad_M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Nad_M said:

As to the Injil, some say it is the Taarib (conversion and adoption of a foreign word into the Arabic language, without necessarly retaining the original meaning) of the Greek word evangelion/good news (gospel in English). If that is the case, then the Quran only recognizes one among several -canonical or not- gospels as it speaks of "Injil" in the singular, a revelation stamped into Jesus's heart since his infancy 3:3,48,19:30 a source of guidance, admonition, light and wisdom 3:48,5:44,46 verifying the Torah that precedes it 3:50,5:46 while abolishing to the Jews the self imposed restrictions of their man-made soulless traditions, as well as giving glad tidings of a prophet to come after him.

Lol, so I don't know what we're arguing about. "verifying the Torah that precedes" is pretty straight forward. It's the man made soulless traditions, ( I call them the man made god laws), that are corrupt. How much do we confuse that with the actual Torah?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Nad_M said:

Nobody witnessed Moses receiving the tablets either. What establishes a person's claim to prophethood as true or not isnt based on who witnessed what, but on his message and him being part of a specific pattern, all of which are described within your own scriptures hence the Quranic statement that the people of the book recognize Muhammad as their own sons. Ironically, these same criteria dismiss Jesus as a false prophet/messiah if one accepts his description as made in the NT as true.

The problem with the gospels is that fron the get go, they are attributed to persons who werent and couldnt have been the true witnesses of the events. We arent speaking of witnesses to somr intangible experience, hence your failed attempt at drawing a parallel with testimony to prophecy, but of concrete events allegedly seen by many and yet a superficial reading, let alone a closer scrutiny, is enough to discredit that testimony as false. And you surely know that the difficulties regarding the fundamental issues of christianity such as the crucifixion or resurrection go far beyond what you alluded to.

Yes, I know the fundamental issues of Christianity, but how many things do you want to get in to? I got stuff to do and my wife wants to vacuum under my chair. Company coming...

First time I have heard Quranic statement that the people of the book recognize Muhammad as their own sons. Please elaborate. 

Actually the Gospels are attributed to the actual eye witnesses. "The Gospel according to...",  points exactly to that. 

Everything wants to point to these authors being some evil gang, but it's rag mag evidence. 

Sorry man, I really gotta go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Son of Placid said:

Lol, so I don't know what we're arguing about. "verifying the Torah that precedes" is pretty straight forward. It's the man made soulless traditions, ( I call them the man made god laws), that are corrupt. How much do we confuse that with the actual Torah?

The Quran accurately sums up Jesus' mission as such 3:50"And a verifier of that which is before me of the Torah and that I may allow you part of that which has been forbidden to you". He verified only the truth remaining in it. He then relieved them from some of the man made complications resulting from the rabbinical soulless interpretation of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Arkon said:

@Son of Placid Can you find these responses? I would definitely take a read.

I went looking, couldn't find what I was looking for. I assume it's between pages 35 and 45 but not sure the title. My messages only go back ten years so looks like I've lost that too. None the less, lol. pick any page, same topics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Nad_M said:

He verified only the truth remaining in it.

Only the truth?   How did He identify this truth?

What's the use of knowing the Torah as He did and telling people you only believe what's true? No details. You're talking about Jesus, what...playing mind games? Was Gabriel in on the game too?   These are serious allegations.

You have two very important figures who seriously came to convey a serious message. They both warn about false teachers, they both give examples. They both mention the corruption of the religions of the time. They both know that allowing these false teachers to alter the scriptures would corrupt it, and they are okay with it? Everybody who followed Jesus would have had a full report on the original Torah and what was changed, same with Gabriel giving Muhammad the same full report. Let's not forget that Gabriel existed long before any scriptures were written. Gabriel has a history of showing up in the OT and NT as well as Muhammad. Not his first time around the block, he's well  known to be quoted.  

Does God protect His Word or not? God says He protects His Word in the Bible. God says He protects His Word in the Quran. Any mention of practicing and failing with the past scriptures? Maybe a promise to do better?

This is the Islamic implication as I see it. This is the aversion I have to the subject. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

Speaking of "how you want to phrase it", I'm not sure I understand the argument between "book" and "revelation" These are two very different things. The Quran mentions injeel nine times, non of which refer to a physical book. Of course Jesus had a revelation. Of course we do not have what Jesus did, we didn't get the revelation, just the book. 

Lets just take what you say as true for a moment. Jesus received a revelation, but we didn't get the revelation. Whether it is book or oral, at this point makes no difference, as Instead we got the highly edited third hand accounts. 

My point is that there is a disconnect between Jesus, and what we have today of his message. Call that corruption or loss, either way, the result is the same. 

Im not saying the Bible is of no value or there is no truth in it, im saying some of it is true, some is the work of man. As a whole its not fair to say the Bible is 100% the revelation from God to Jesus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

Speaking of "how you want to phrase it", I'm not sure I understand the argument between "book" and "revelation" These are two very different things. The Quran mentions injeel nine times, non of which refer to a physical book. Of course Jesus had a revelation. Of course we do not have what Jesus did, we didn't get the revelation, just the book. 

The main issue is that Islam teaches two things. They teach an Islamic view of God, and they teach everything about past religions is wrong and corrupt. You probably heard what was wrong with other religions before you learned what was right about Islam. Islamic contributors are continually comparing the religions to prove incompetence in the past and the perfection of themselves. The prejudice is really obvious to an outsider.

This is an interesting point.  But it is necessary for Muslims to take this stance.

1 hour ago, iraqi_shia said:

Lets just take what you say as true for a moment. Jesus received a revelation, but we didn't get the revelation. Whether it is book or oral, at this point makes no difference, as Instead we got the highly edited third hand accounts. 

My point is that there is a disconnect between Jesus, and what we have today of his message. Call that corruption or loss, either way, the result is the same. 

Im not saying the Bible is of no value or there is no truth in it, im saying some of it is true, some is the work of man. As a whole its not fair to say the Bible is 100% the revelation from God to Jesus. 

I would say that, it is not fair to say that any scripture, including the Quran, is 100% the revelation from God. There is really no way that any of us, could really distinguish divine scripture from scripture written by people, unless of course the authors clearly wrote in a way indicating that they were not God.

Muslims often poke at Christianities scripture, but seldom examine their own "unknowns" and I would say, simply assume things about their own scripture, in order to take this stance that...the Quran is perfect, and everything else is flawed.

From a scientific stance, Muslims appear to be taking a subjective stance of perfection, and are holding that subjective stance, against the subjective stances of other scriptures. Then they're saying, well, according to my ideas, my religion is perfect and yours clearly is not.

 

Many Christians have no issue recognizing that people have interjected and recorded their own personal thoughts, into scripture. It is an accepted reality that the Bible is not wholly, the word of God. Meanwhile, Muslims take this position that, the Quran is, practically word for word, straight from God. Almost as if God, spoke arabic. But, this idea that the Quran is of utmost perfection and straight from God, is something that could never actually be known. Its an assumed reality.

 

Yet here we are, with people speaking as if it is known.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

Only the truth?   How did He identify this truth?

What's the use of knowing the Torah as He did and telling people you only believe what's true? No details. You're talking about Jesus, what...playing mind games? Was Gabriel in on the game too?   These are serious allegations.

You have two very important figures who seriously came to convey a serious message. They both warn about false teachers, they both give examples. They both mention the corruption of the religions of the time. They both know that allowing these false teachers to alter the scriptures would corrupt it, and they are okay with it? Everybody who followed Jesus would have had a full report on the original Torah and what was changed, same with Gabriel giving Muhammad the same full report. Let's not forget that Gabriel existed long before any scriptures were written. Gabriel has a history of showing up in the OT and NT as well as Muhammad. Not his first time around the block, he's well  known to be quoted.  

Does God protect His Word or not? God says He protects His Word in the Bible. God says He protects His Word in the Quran. Any mention of practicing and failing with the past scriptures? Maybe a promise to do better?

This is the Islamic implication as I see it. This is the aversion I have to the subject. 

This confusion is understandable given the baseless conjecture, compiled into the Greek Testament, on which your perception of Jesus' life events is based.

The Quran doesnt list the errors of past scriptures but its words and own version of common events act as a barometer of truth and falsehood.

The same went for Jesus who wasnt going around listing the errors and absurdities of the HB, but his words and deeds testified to the truth and falsehood in them. Most of those words and deeds have been forgotten, misinterpreted or purposefully put aside by the gospels writer's own admission who reported what they did and as they understood it, if not outright fabricated events that do not stand the test of internal and external scrutiny, for the specific purpose of advancing the notion of Jesus being "the messiah, the son of God".

As an example, some of Jesus' miracles namely the ones reported in the Quran where Jesus, with God's leave, creates life from inanimate material and resurrects the dead were meant to demonstrate to an audience highly skeptical of the concept of resurrection due to the almost entire blotting out of the concept of an afterlife from their books, how life can be gathered from dust and how a lifeless body can be risen back. These actions from Jesus acted as a criterion of what is true and false in the HB, confirming the very few passages vaguely attesting to resurrection and exposing the obvious manipulation of a people so greedy for this very life that their aversion for the notion of an afterlife in which one is resurrected and held accountable for his wordly deeds led them to progressively deny the concept.

Finally, 

God placed the responsibility on humans to preserve the integrity of His revelations over time 5:44. But the people themselves, after revelation and knowledge came to them, began to confuse the truth 42:14. At that point God could have judged between the people immidiately when corruption started apearing 41:45 but He has decreed that mankind shall bear the responsibility for straying away from the truth once it has reached them in its unaltered form 2:253, that there will be no compulsion in religion 2:256,18:29 that true believers in their revelations and seeking guidance will find the way to the straight path 2:213 because although the corruption of their scriptures is a historical fact independant of what the Quran says, their corruption is not absolute which is precisely why the Quran refers to itself as the Muhaymin/Guardian of past scriptures, ie it guards what is still true in them, reveals what has been hidden or misintrepreted, exposes their most important falsehoods that are essential for the establishment of the true Faith while disregarding many other such things.

 

The reason for the protection of a revelation is linked to the discontinuation of the institution of prophethood after Muhammad. While the line of Prophethood was active, there was no need to protect the Scriptures as they were secondary compared to the current prophet's word of mouth, which was the primary source of God's religion 35:24"and there is not a people but a warner has gone among them". Each Prophet was always as reliable and as powerful an authority of God's laws as the previous. As no further prophet was to be sent to Mankind, it became crucial for the guidance of man, that the final Message be guarded intact by God Himself until the Final Day. Through the Quran referred to as the Reminder, Guardian, Criterion or Balance all other scriptures are safely restored to their pristine originality and preserved through a divine pledge.

 

Also, many prophets were sent to Israel to warn them of their disobedience but many were rejected, persecuted or killed as Jesus amply says in the NT and as corroborated in their own books. God surely was doing his job by sending Prophets until Muhammad to correct their lies and expose them. It just so happened that Israel was so degraded that the corrupt, even while prophets were busy preaching in their midst, always came back into power to manipulate the truth once again.

 

The prophets specifically targeted in the most harshful ways the elite, the ones supposed to be the upholders of the Torah, transmitters of true knowledge and guardians of piety, for their corruption to the core, down to Jesus who perhaps used the most condemning words of reprove towards the religious leaders Matt23. In the time of Muhammad the transgressions of their leadership were equally pointed 5:62-63"And you will see many of them striving with one another to hasten in sin and exceeding the limits, and their eating of what is unlawfully acquired; certainly evil is that which they do. Why do not the learned men and the doctors of law prohibit them from their speaking of what is sinful and their eating of what is unlawfully acquired? Certainly evil is that which they work".

Edited by Nad_M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

I went looking, couldn't find what I was looking for. I assume it's between pages 35 and 45 but not sure the title. My messages only go back ten years so looks like I've lost that too. None the less, lol. pick any page, same topics.

It's fine, I wouldn't take answering-christianity or answering-islam that serious anyways. But some do actually look like contradictions IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×