IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : The Holy Gospel did not evolve!

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by honetoLarry, we...

Fri, 21 Sep 2012 15:02:45 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 21 September 2012 at 3:02pm

Originally posted by honeto

Larry,
we are not discussing here what is the difference between the OT and NT Testaments rather if they changed over time. All I have shown you is to prove my point with ample evidence that leads a fair minded person to conclude that yes they did change indeed.
Any other issue is to be discussed in appropriate thread please.
Hasan

   No, Hasan, you did NOT "prove" your point with "ample evidence" that would lead a "fair minded" person to "conclude" that yes, they did change the book.

   You create your own "facts" using the Qur'an as your source, and simply declare that you are right and that everyone should acknowledge your supposed "truths."

   And, as usual, any points that you either can not, or will not, address, is blown off with a demand that the writer "discuss" in the "appropriate thread please."

   But you seem to have no problem using the "inappropriate" thread for the discussion that you just replied to and which you believe "proves" you right.

   Hypocrite!

Larry

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Larry, we are not discussing here...

Thu, 20 Sep 2012 15:37:42 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 20 September 2012 at 3:37pm

Larry,
we are not discussing here what is the difference between the OT and NT Testaments rather if they changed over time. All I have shown you is to prove my point with ample evidence that leads a fair minded person to conclude that yes they did change indeed.
Any other issue is to be discussed in appropriate thread please.
Hasan

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by honetoLarry, you...

Wed, 19 Sep 2012 16:52:21 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 19 September 2012 at 4:52pm

Originally posted by honeto

Larry,
you missed the point as obvious in your reply.
Here is my response: The Quran is not the third Testament. In Islam we are told there were many many prophets and books that came before this (the Quran).
And, never did I say that Allah send corrupt testaments before. What you failed to read was that the only reason we saw God repeated His word so many times and sent so many of His apostles was due to some people who refused the word of God when it did not serve their purpose, they changed the original message for some worldly gain.

"...was due to some people who refused the word of God when it did not serve their purpose, they changed the original message for some worldly gain."

   Between the Old Testament, New Testament and the Qur'an, the only "people" who "changed" the original message are the Muslims. The Old and New Testaments compliment each other, the New Testament continuing the teachings and, especially the prophecies, in the Old Testament. The only "book" that has substantial differences with the earlier Old and New Testaments is the Qur'an.

   How we know it? that's what I explained to you above. When you read something that is claimed to be pure word of God, it should reflect that quality. I do not find the Bible to stand that simple test, and I have my proofs.

   You say, "When you read something that is claimed to be pure word of God, it should reflect that quality. I do not find the Bible to stand that simple test and I have my proofs."

   "Proofs", do you mean "proofs" from the Qur'an? That is not "proof" other than to another Muslim, I could say I have "proofs" from the Bible, would you accept that as "proof?"

   And the Qur'an is supposedly "preserved" in perfect form in heaven "on tablets preserved."

   The Qur'an claims to be written in "pure" Arabic, but the Qur'an contains actual words from various foreign languages. It contains Hebrew words, Aramaic words, Assyrian words, Greek words, Ethiopian words, etc. These are not "derivations" in Arabic, they are actual foreigh words. Why would the Qur'an, written in "pure" Arabic, have foreign words within it's own text?

   Qur'an 43:3, "We have made it a Qur'an in Arabic, that ye may be able to understand (and learn wisdom).

   Qur'an 39:28, "(It is) a Qur'an in Arabic, without any crookedness (therein): in order that they may guard against Evil."

   Qur'an 26:195 "In the perspicuous Arabic tongue."

   Qur'an 16:103, "We know indeed that they may say, "It is a man that teaches him." The tongue of him they wickedly point to is niotably foreign, while this is Arabic, pure and clear."

   Just a few examples.

Larry
Hasan

Edited by Larry - 19 September 2012 at 4:52pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by CaringheartSomehow...

Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:25:29 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 19 September 2012 at 3:25pm

Originally posted by Caringheart

Somehow Hasan I think you have the intelligence to know that everything you say relates to what you follow, you are just not ready to admit it.

Caringheart,
I do my homework and what I said is based on that. I could not have said this out of respect before before knowing this truth.

Hasan

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Larry, you missed the point as...

Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:17:13 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 19 September 2012 at 3:17pm

Larry,
you missed the point as obvious in your reply.
Here is my response: The Quran is not the third Testament. In Islam we are told there were many many prophets and books that came before this (the Quran).
And, never did I say that Allah send corrupt testaments before. What you failed to read was that the only reason we saw God repeated His word so many times and sent so many of His apostles was due to some people who refused the word of God when it did not serve their purpose, they changed the original message for some worldly gain. How we know it? that's what I explained to you above. When you read something that is claimed to be pure word of God, it should reflect that quality. I do not find the Bible to stand that simple test, and I have my proofs.
Hasan

Edited by honeto - 19 September 2012 at 3:18pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by honeto Originally...

Thu, 13 Sep 2012 14:45:48 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 13 September 2012 at 2:45pm

Originally posted by honeto

Originally posted by Larry

Hasan,

   You are the one who brought up the "Santa Claus thingy," so don't act like that I am trying to "divert" attention from other things.

   And yes, the Bible was written by 66 different authors, you seem to think that because the Qur'an was "written" by one person, that that is what makes it the "true" holy text. But there are no source materials for the Qur'an because any previous writings and sources that were in it prior to Uthman's "standardized" copy were completely destroyed by Muslim authorities, which made authenticating the text impossible.

   The Bible has a coherent form, that moves from the beginning to the end that is logical, historically accurate (There are many ancient sources that back up the Bible's historical writings), contains extensive geneaologies of Old Testament Patriarchs and prophets, etc. The amazing thing about the Bible is that with 66 different writers the form, cohesiveness and linear structure, along with a high degree of accuracy and agreement between the different writers is remarkable.

   The Qur'an has no logical form or commentary, it is simply put together by using the lengths of the various "chapters" to determine its form and it is repetitive, has many discrepancies (one, in particular, the different number of days that God used to create the world), is verbose and the style and content changes from Muhammad's time in Mecca and then later in Medina, and includes in many places, Muhammad, his immmediate family, his allies, his enemies, etc. Why would revelations from God Himself concern Muhammad, his personal life, his actions, family and financial details that say how much money the "prophet" and his family are entitled to from any spoils of war or other "income."

   There are also variant copies of the Qur'an, namely, those of Ibn Masud, who does not include Chapters 1, 113 and 114, and Ubay B Ka'ab who has two additional chapters, Surah al-Khal and Surah al-Afd, not found in Uthman's astandardized version.

   Sorry, but I simply don't buy it. I am very happy to say that I have complete faith in the Bible and in it's prophecies, histories, geneaologies, poetry, musical forms, and message. Whether or not you accept that is irrelevant to me.

   There is an interesting article concerning the contents, histories, stories, form, etc. of the Qur'an at;

   http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/quran.htm

Larry

Larry,
there is nothing accurate in the Bible, at least that's what we have seen so far through the Biblical quotes we have studied.
Also, what really fascinating is the fact that its contents do not agree within itself. That bring us to the hard reality that if the All Knowing was behind it, it would not have those problems. So the conclusion and only thing left is to admit that humans without divine guidance tempered with it's contents. Since humans are not all knowing and can be inconsistent, only they can be behind Bible's current inaccurate and inconsistent state.
To admit that fact will leave us in the middle of nowhere, and Godless? No, of course not, and don't believe if anyone who tells you that it does.
God is God of truth, who does not compromise on truth.
Admitting that fact will only bring us closer to God, and closer to His pure word, the Final Testament, The Quran, not to mention, bring us our salvation.
We accept it, we benefit from it. If we reject it, we have ourselves to blame for covering up the falsehood and keeping ourselves and others from truth.
Hasan

Hasan,

   You say there is "nothing accurate in the Bible." And, "Admitting this fact (that God is the God of truth) will only bring us closer to God, and closer to His pure word, the Final Testament, the Qur'an, not to mention, bring us salvation."

   It's funny that you use the word "Testament" in your reply, is that to make it look like the Qur'an is REALLY the third installment of God's Word (even though His first two "Testaments" are hopelessly corrupted)?

   Here are a couple of examples of errors or oddities in the Qur'an.

   There are errors concerning confusion between Mary, recorded in the Qur'an as the sister of Aaron and the daughter of Imran (Biblical Amran) as well as the mother of Jesus (by implication in Surahs 19:28, 66:12, though the two, Mary and Miriam lived 1,570 years apart.

   The name for Jesus in the Qur'an, Issa, is incorrect. Issa is the Arabic equivalent of Esau, the name for the twin brother of Jacob. The correct Arabic name for Jesus would be Yesuwa, similar to the Hebrew Yeshuwa.

   The Jinn. The Jinns were forced to work for Solomon, making him whatever he pleased, such as palaces, statues, large dishes and brass fountains (Surah 34:11-13. A malignant Jinn was even commissioned to bring the Queen of Sheba's throne in the twinkling of an eye (Surah 27:38-44).

   King Solomon was taught the speech of birds (Surah 27:16) and the speech of ants (Surah 27:18-19). In his battles he used birds extensively to drop clay bricks on Abrah's army (Surah 105:3-4), and marched them in military parades (Surah 27:17).

   The ants, upon seeing Solomon and his army arriving in their valley (and, by implication recognizing who he was), talk among themselves to flee underground so as not to be crushed (Surah 27:18).

   The Qur'an completely misrepresents the doctrine of the Trinity. Surah 5:116 mistakenly thought that the Christians worshipped three gods; the Father, the Mother (Mary) and the Son (Jesus). But Christians do not recognize this false doctrine at all.

   These are just a few of the things that were listed on the website I named before;

   http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/quran.htm

   So you see, the Bible isn't the only "supposedly corrupted" holy book around, the Qur'an contains numerous errors, misrepresentations, untruths, etc.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 13 September 2012 at 3:06pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by FriendshipAssalamu...

Thu, 13 Sep 2012 13:35:31 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 13 September 2012 at 1:35pm

Originally posted by Friendship

Assalamu alaika Larry.I am regretting having a discourse with you. You are not sincere and you do not fear God. I am not here to joke. Tell me the book and the chapter according to your claim: There are numerous places in the New Testament (red Lettering included)
where Jesus says that he is the Son of God. But Muslims reject ANY of
those statements as "corrupt." Give me the addition. My addition is the King James version translated from the original tongues, Longmeadow and printed in the USA. Copyright 1984, 1977 by Thomas Nelson Inc. You said: I don't use a Qur'an. But you said that you read the Qur'an!You said: There were plenty of "rainbows" before Noah. If you are quoting from the Bible then you are telling lies.You said: They are not "holy"
things, they are simply the result of water mist in the air coupled with
sunlight, which has a prismatic effect that is seen in rainbows.Response. I am older than you. I learned that in my physics class 52 years ago. You have nothing to show me on that. You said: The statement that the "Levi clan" somehow appointed Muhammad as their
"political leader" is odd to say the least. The Banu Qurayza tribe sure
didn't "appoint" Muhammad as their leader either (and 800 of them were
beheaded by their "political leaders."Response: This shows that you are ignorant of the Torah.Larry, I will never discuss with you for you are not intelligent.Friendship.

   Friendship,

   I have never accused you of being not "intelligent," "ignorant," "not sincere," not "fearing" God," etc. But I am glad that you no longer want to discuss things with me, now that I know your true feelings about me, I would find it difficult to maintain a friendly attitude toward you or attempt to answer your hypocritical statements.

   Larry

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by FriendshipAssalamu...

Thu, 13 Sep 2012 13:20:23 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 13 September 2012 at 1:20pm

Originally posted by Friendship

Assalamu alaika Larry.Yes indeed, the source of Qur'an meaning to 'read' and to 'compare' is derived from the languages of Jurhum and that spoken in Palestine up to the time the mother of Ishmael left Palestine. Let us learn from the philologists. There are words that are spoken from the neighbouring countries like Muhsanat, Kahanama Iranian word changed to Jahannama, Ra'ina a Hebraic word changed to 'unzurna' etc. I do not speak Hebrew but there are a lot of words that have a common root with Arabic. All verses starting with prophetic say, are Arabiciseds. The medinan Arabs did not know the meaning of the abbreviated alphabets unlike the Levi clan. So when the alphabets for example� A-L-M were revealed, their leader came to the holy Apostle and said your kingdom is going to last for 41 years for A=30, L=10, M=1 (or in a reverse form). Muhammad did not argue with him.� Understand that whenever the holy Apostle addressed those with Islam before him, they never disputed with him.Larry! There is inconsistency between what you claim to profess with that in the time of Muhammad. Those Christians and Jews in his time never denied his Message. Now you cannot say today their Torah and Bible were adulterated and that what is with you today is the authentic one. Don't be biased please and use your faculty to understand Allah. Be independent and a slave!I hope I have answered you. I am waiting for your answer also.Friendship.

   Friendship,

   My point about the Qur'an not being written in pure Arabic comes from the Islamic belief that there is a perfect Qur'an preserved in heaven that is identical to the Qur'an used by Muslims on earth. Why would a "perfect" Qur'an in heaven use words from different earthly languages, whether for the benefit of those who do not speak "pure" Arabic or whether there are "root" forms of Arabic in it? If an Arabic text is "pure" it would not be necessary to borrow words from Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Syriac, Assyrian, Ethiopian, etc.

   "Be independent and a slave?"

   That is an oxymoron, slaves are not independent and people who are independent are not slaves. I am not a "slave" of Jesus Christ, I am a follower of, and believer in, His holy nature as the Son of God. God does not ask us to be "slaves," He wants us to have true faith in Him, not to grovel on our bellies before Him like the ancients did before their idols.

Larry



Edited by Larry - 13 September 2012 at 1:29pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Somehow Hasan I think you have...

Wed, 12 Sep 2012 16:30:06 +0000

Author: Caringheart
Subject: 19811
Posted: 12 September 2012 at 4:30pm

Somehow Hasan I think you have the intelligence to know that everything you say relates to what you follow, you are just not ready to admit it.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by LarryHasan, You...

Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:39:10 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 12 September 2012 at 2:39pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Assalamu alaika Larry.I am regretting...

Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:21:23 +0000

Author: Friendship
Subject: 19811
Posted: 12 September 2012 at 2:21pm

Assalamu alaika Larry.

I am regretting having a discourse with you. You are not sincere and you do not fear God. I am not here to joke.
Tell me the book and the chapter according to your claim: There are numerous places in the New Testament (red Lettering included) where Jesus says that he is the Son of God. But Muslims reject ANY of those statements as "corrupt." Give me the addition. My addition is the King James version translated from the original tongues, Longmeadow and printed in the USA. Copyright 1984, 1977 by Thomas Nelson Inc.

You said: I don't use a Qur'an. But you said that you read the Qur'an!
You said: There were plenty of "rainbows" before Noah.
If you are quoting from the Bible then you are telling lies.
You said: They are not "holy" things, they are simply the result of water mist in the air coupled with sunlight, which has a prismatic effect that is seen in rainbows.
Response. I am older than you. I learned that in my physics class 52 years ago. You have nothing to show me on that.
You said: The statement that the "Levi clan" somehow appointed Muhammad as their "political leader" is odd to say the least. The Banu Qurayza tribe sure didn't "appoint" Muhammad as their leader either (and 800 of them were beheaded by their "political leaders."
Response: This shows that you are ignorant of the Torah.
Larry, I will never discuss with you for you are not intelligent.

Friendship.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Assalamu alaika Larry.Yes indeed,...

Wed, 12 Sep 2012 14:04:31 +0000

Author: Friendship
Subject: 19811
Posted: 12 September 2012 at 2:04pm

Assalamu alaika Larry.

Yes indeed, the source of Qur'an meaning to 'read' and to 'compare' is derived from the languages of Jurhum and that spoken in Palestine up to the time the mother of Ishmael left Palestine. Let us learn from the philologists. There are words that are spoken from the neighbouring countries like Muhsanat, Kahanama Iranian word changed to Jahannama, Ra'ina a Hebraic word changed to 'unzurna' etc. I do not speak Hebrew but there are a lot of words that have a common root with Arabic.
All verses starting with prophetic say, are Arabiciseds. The medinan Arabs did not know the meaning of the abbreviated alphabets unlike the Levi clan. So when the alphabets for example A-L-M were revealed, their leader came to the holy Apostle and said your kingdom is going to last for 41 years for A=30, L=10, M=1 (or in a reverse form). Muhammad did not argue with him. Understand that whenever the holy Apostle addressed those with Islam before him, they never disputed with him.
Larry! There is inconsistency between what you claim to profess with that in the time of Muhammad. Those Christians and Jews in his time never denied his Message. Now you cannot say today their Torah and Bible were adulterated and that what is with you today is the authentic one. Don't be biased please and use your faculty to understand Allah. Be independent and a slave!
I hope I have answered you. I am waiting for your answer also.

Friendship.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Friendship,! Did you just say...

Wed, 12 Sep 2012 11:14:29 +0000

Author: Caringheart
Subject: 19811
Posted: 12 September 2012 at 11:14am

Friendship,

! Did you just say that Muhammad was Messiah? Was that an error?

Medina when Muhammad arrived was actually a place called Yathrib.

The oasis of Yathrib had been settled by Arab Jewish tribes as early as the Roman period. In the early centuries of the Common Era its population was primarily Jewish. (http://www.pbs.org/wnet/heritage/episode3/atlas/map2.html#)

It warrants some serious study. There is much to be learned.

http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/xstnc-7.html
(A very good well-balanced debate)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medina)

http://www.freejesus.net/home/viewtopic.php?t=5160&sid=a48f19473d2ae84a4f97a920339a9997

Edited by Caringheart - 12 September 2012 at 11:34am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Friendship, You did not comment...

Wed, 12 Sep 2012 03:05:44 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 12 September 2012 at 3:05am

Friendship,

You did not comment on my post that showed that there are non-Arabic words in the Qur'an. Do you have an answer as to why, since supposedly there is a pure Arabic Qur'an in heaven that is identical to the Qur'an here on earth?

Larry

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by FriendshipAssalamu...

Wed, 12 Sep 2012 02:53:48 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 12 September 2012 at 2:53am

Originally posted by Friendship

Assalamu alaika Larry.You said: Christians cannot accept Islam because it denies that Jesus Christ is
the Son of God. The problem many Muslims have with this view is that
they see Jesus Christ as separate from God and not an extension of God

   That is the problem, Muslims see Jesus Christ as simply human with no divine nature.

Himself.My Response: First of all Muhammad never explained defined Islam as a system of life peculiar to him sent to mankind from Allah.Secondly: It is not only the followers of Muhammad who rejected the idea of Jesus the son of Maryam is the son of Allah. The followers of Muhammad are the only followers of Islam who respect Jesus (Isa bin Maryam) and purified him. Carefully read your Quran 43:79-89.

   I don't use a Qur'an.

Thirdly: There is no where in the New Testament where logically, and according to theme of speech indicates Jesus addressing himself as the son of Allah. I asked you to comment and explain to me the difference between RED SELF PRONOUNCING RED LETTER OF THE BIBLE FROM BLACK LETTER. You have not yet responded and no christian has ever given me a sensible explanation. Why is it now the Bible does not contain the self pronouncing red letter.

   There are numerous places in the New Testament (red Lettering included) where Jesus says that he is the Son of God. But Muslims reject ANY of those statements as "corrupt."

   Forthly. There is no where in the Old Testament (The Message sent to Moses) a single clause or word leading to that. Larry! Today I see rainbow in the sky only during the summer. This rainbow began during the time of Noah. No one knows how long ago.

   There were plenty of "rainbows" before Noah. They are not "holy" things, they are simply the result of water mist in the air coupled with sunlight, which has a prismatic effect that is seen in rainbows.

When then did Allah began having spouses?

   Who was "Maryam's spouse and who was the father of Jesus?"

Finally, Larry if you believe in peace, that form of peace was achieved in Medina after the tribes appointed Muhammad as their political leader. The Levi clan of the children of Israel were participants.

   The statement that the "Levi clan" somehow appointed Muhammad as their "political leader" is odd to say the least. The Banu Qurayza tribe sure didn't "appoint" Muhammad as their leader either (and 800 of them were beheaded by their "political leaders."

The followers of Christ also in Najran accepted the leadership of Muhammad.

   There is a difference between "political leaders" and true prophets of God. Did the Christians in Najran have a choice whether to accept Muhammad as their "leader?"

   There is no second alternative. Conclusively, Muhammad was logically that Messiah! But you will never agree.Friendship.

   How you figure that Muhammad was the "Messiah" is bizarre. The Qur'an refers to Jesus as the Messiah, not Muhammad.

Edited by Larry - 12 September 2012 at 2:58am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, You are the one who brought...

Wed, 12 Sep 2012 02:07:34 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 12 September 2012 at 2:07am

Hasan,

   You are the one who brought up the "Santa Claus thingy," so don't act like that I am trying to "divert" attention from other things.

   And yes, the Bible was written by 66 different authors, you seem to think that because the Qur'an was "written" by one person, that that is what makes it the "true" holy text. But there are no source materials for the Qur'an because any previous writings and sources that were in it prior to Uthman's "standardized" copy were completely destroyed by Muslim authorities, which made authenticating the text impossible.

   The Bible has a coherent form, that moves from the beginning to the end that is logical, historically accurate (There are many ancient sources that back up the Bible's historical writings), contains extensive geneaologies of Old Testament Patriarchs and prophets, etc. The amazing thing about the Bible is that with 66 different writers the form, cohesiveness and linear structure, along with a high degree of accuracy and agreement between the different writers is remarkable.

   The Qur'an has no logical form or commentary, it is simply put together by using the lengths of the various "chapters" to determine its form and it is repetitive, has many discrepancies (one, in particular, the different number of days that God used to create the world), is verbose and the style and content changes from Muhammad's time in Mecca and then later in Medina, and includes in many places, Muhammad, his immmediate family, his allies, his enemies, etc. Why would revelations from God Himself concern Muhammad, his personal life, his actions, family and financial details that say how much money the "prophet" and his family are entitled to from any spoils of war or other "income."

   There are also variant copies of the Qur'an, namely, those of Ibn Masud, who does not include Chapters 1, 113 and 114, and Ubay B Ka'ab who has two additional chapters, Surah al-Khal and Surah al-Afd, not found in Uthman's astandardized version.

   Sorry, but I simply don't buy it. I am very happy to say that I have complete faith in the Bible and in it's prophecies, histories, geneaologies, poetry, musical forms, and message. Whether or not you accept that is irrelevant to me.

   There is an interesting article concerning the contents, histories, stories, form, etc. of the Qur'an at;

   http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/quran.htm

Larry

Edited by Larry - 12 September 2012 at 2:36am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Assalamu alaika Larry.You said:...

Wed, 12 Sep 2012 01:59:51 +0000

Author: Friendship
Subject: 19811
Posted: 12 September 2012 at 1:59am

Assalamu alaika Larry.

You said: Christians cannot accept Islam because it denies that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The problem many Muslims have with this view is that they see Jesus Christ as separate from God and not an extension of God Himself.

My Response: First of all Muhammad never explained defined Islam as a system of life peculiar to him sent to mankind from Allah.
Secondly: It is not only the followers of Muhammad who rejected the idea of Jesus the son of Maryam is the son of Allah. The followers of Muhammad are the only followers of Islam who respect Jesus (Isa bin Maryam) and purified him. Carefully read your Quran 43:79-89.
Thirdly: There is no where in the New Testament where logically, and according to theme of speech indicates Jesus addressing himself as the son of Allah. I asked you to comment and explain to me the difference between RED SELF PRONOUNCING RED LETTER OF THE BIBLE FROM BLACK LETTER. You have not yet responded and no christian has ever given me a sensible explanation. Why is it now the Bible does not contain the self pronouncing red letter.
Forthly. There is no where in the Old Testament (The Message sent to Moses) a single clause or word leading to that. Larry! Today I see rainbow in the sky only during the summer. This rainbow began during the time of Noah. No one knows how long ago. When then did Allah began having spouses?
Finally, Larry if you believe in peace, that form of peace was achieved in Medina after the tribes appointed Muhammad as their political leader. The Levi clan of the children of Israel were participants. The followers of Christ also in Najran accepted the leadership of Muhammad. There is no second alternative. Conclusively, Muhammad was logically that Messiah! But you will never agree.

Friendship.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Ahmadi Muslim, You make a distinction...

Wed, 12 Sep 2012 01:37:53 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 12 September 2012 at 1:37am

Ahmadi Muslim,

   You make a distinction between "Islam's God" and refer to Judaism and Christianity as "man-made" religions. This is the point that I have made repeatedly, that, for all the talk about "People of the Book," in reality the "God" of Islam is NOT the same God as that of the "People of the Book" Jews and Christians (and Sabeans, who were pagans), thanks for clearing that point up.

   You call Islam "the original religion of Abraham." But the Jews and Christians recognized Abraham as one of the first Jewish Patriarchs millenia, in the case of Jews and centuries, in the case of Christians, before Islam ever existed. Also, "Abraham" or "Ibrahim" are not Arabic names, the true Arabic form of Abraham is "Abu Raheem."

   For Islam to conveniently say that it was the "original" religion of God is simply a statement with no basis in fact. This historical "revisionism" is a common characteristic of Islam and Muslims. Show me ANY historical proof, by ANY ancient writer or historian, outside of Islam and the Qur'an, that shows that Islam or Muhammad existed prior to the 7th century C.E.

   I can show historical written ancient works, such as those of Flavius Josephus and many Roman writers and historians, that show that Judaism has been a faith for more than three thousand years and that Christianity has been a faith for more than two thousand years.

   You continually use the Qur'an to make your points, but the Qur'an is not a "source" that is accepted by historians in relation to which religions were the earliest and which came later. Just as it would be if I used the Bible as the source material to prove that Christianity is the only "true" religion. But there are many widely-accepted ancient sources outside of the Bible that back up the statements and beliefs of both the Jews and Christians.

   And I repeat that the "prophet" Muhammad himself never made ANY "prophecies" that were later fulfilled after the writing of the Qur'an. This is the standard for true prophets of God in the Old Testament or Torah. And this is a primary reason why Jews and Christians reject Islam as the "true" religion of God.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 12 September 2012 at 2:39am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Respectfully differ with you...

Tue, 11 Sep 2012 19:35:45 +0000

Author: Ahmadi Muslim
Subject: 19811
Posted: 11 September 2012 at 7:35pm

Respectfully differ with you on the following three points you raise:

1. That we are human therefore flawed and not without sin.

2. That God came Himself to earth physically, lived among us, suffered and died for our sins so we could achieve salvation.

3. In the end we will all die and be with God to enjoy eternal peace and life.

According to Islam humans are not flawed. Like all other creation they are a perfect creation of God. However, by design, they have the God given ability to disaobey God and therefore sin, so man could be adjudged in the end. As you said in the end we will all die and enjoy eternal peace. If God can give us peace after we die why can't He give us peace while we are alive? He very well can if He wants to. It sounds so illogical that God would first create man with a flaw, then find it necessary to punish man for this flaw, then find it necessary to come down physically, suffer, die and resurect just so He can forgive man and in the end he will forgive us anyway and give us eternal peace.

Islam's God is a very just God. He will not punish man for God's own flawed design of man. He can forgive man's sins without physically coming down and killing Himself. Islam;s God showed man both the right way and the wrong way and then gave him choice to choose. He also repeatedly sent Prophets with new laws, spread over time, to suits man's developing intelligence. Both Bibles clearly state that these books were for certain peoples, for a certain area with geographical limitations. It is Islam that is for ALL the people and for ALL the times. It is the final culmination of God's one and only religion for man - Islam - the original religion of Abraham.

All other divisions like Judaism, Christianity and other religions are man made.

Jews believe that their Messiah will be the last Prophet, whenever he comes. Christians believe that Jesus will be the last Messiah, whenever, he comes. The majority of Muslims believe that Jesus Christ will be the last Messiah, whenever he comes. Each religion takes great pride in having the last Messiah (Prophet).

The Holy Quran, however, says that God never changes his modus oprendi. History tells us that God has always sent Prophets for man's guidance. Therefore, God will continue to send Prophets. It is the last law that will never be renewed. Therefore, there will never be a Prophet that will bring a new law. Islam is the last law and Prophet Muhammad is the Last Law Bearing Prophet. God's modus oprendi will hence never change.

More only if you wish to learn about this concept. Otherwise you are welcome to stick to your views and belief system. In the end you will be judged by your Creator, just as I will be, and the matter shall be settled with Him, then.

Good Luck!

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Larry, thanks for explaining Santa...

Mon, 10 Sep 2012 15:06:22 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 10 September 2012 at 3:06pm

Larry,
thanks for explaining Santa Claus.
again you are simply trying to divert the attention from the topic at hand.
We have seen through various verses posted from the Bible and your own admittance to the fact that Bible has been written by many people over time. And its has progressed to its present statue through the process called transformation. May be it is this transformation that is to be blamed for objectionable material we see in the Bible. Simply, in its present state it does not qualify as pure revelation from God anymore.
Hasan

Edited by honeto - 10 September 2012 at 3:15pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Ahmadi Muslim, I respect your...

Sun, 09 Sep 2012 23:03:26 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 09 September 2012 at 11:03pm

Ahmadi Muslim,

   I respect your views and see that you are sincere in your beliefs, but it doesn't change the fact that Christians cannot accept Islam because it denies that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The problem many Muslims have with this view is that they see Jesus Christ as separate from God and not an extension of God Himself. I can see why people not familiar with Christianity may feel confused or not understand the nature of God from a Christian viewpoint. The doctrine of the Trinity, that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are all of the same substance is the core of Christian belief.
   The difficulty that Christians have with Islam is due to the fact that we see Jesus Christ as the fulfillment of prophecy and that He came to earth to bring the New Testament that does not destroy the Old Testament, but completes it and fulfills its prophecies.
   We believe that Jesus Christ came to earth, lived and taught as a normal human but then was tried for His teachings, he was convicted, beaten, sacrificed on the cross and then resurrected after three days to bring salvation to mankind, who does not merit salvation by their own actions because they are human and therefore flawed and are not without sin.
   We see Jesus Christ as the final fulfillment of earlier scripture and that it will be Jesus Christ who returns at the end of time to judge all of mankind. That is why, to a Christian, the Qur'an and Islam have no place because Jesus Christ was the FINAL fulfillment of all Biblical prophecy and the Bible testifies to this by ending in the Revelation that describes what will happen at the end of the world, at the judgment of all mankind.
   At the end of time the old world will pass away to be replaced with a new world where mankind will finally be with God Himself for eternity in a heaven where all human difficulties will pass away from them and they will enjoy eternal peace and life.
   Islam incorporates many of these same themes and beliefs so there is much that Christianity and Islam has in common. But the core belief of Christianity, that God Himself came to earth to achieve salvation for all mankind is the critical difference that prevents Christians from believing that Islam is an extension of Biblical scripture.
   I agree with you that all believers in God should try and achieve peace and harmony between us because that is the state that brings us all closer to God, however we see Him.

Larry

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Peace Larry,I wish you would...

Sun, 09 Sep 2012 21:31:52 +0000

Author: Caringheart
Subject: 19811
Posted: 09 September 2012 at 9:31pm

Peace Larry,

I wish you would not change my words.

What I actually said was that I view homosexuality no different than I view adultery.

The Bible is clear on its view of both and that the one is the improper nature that God allows man to be given over to.... "unnatural attractions"... "given with lust male for male and even female for female" It is all in the Bible. You say you belong to God. Do you believe then in His Word? Can you belong to God if you reject His Word?

My uncle knows my views, and I do not say that he is a product of satan. I say that he has attractions that come from man's weakness to give in to temptations that are unnatural... wherever they come from really does not matter, they are temptations to do what is not in God's design. I do not believe people are "born that way". I believe the mind at some point in development becomes confused. In my uncle's case, he had an uncle who behaved in a sexual way with him, and when he told his mother his mother disbelieved him. This created problems in relationship with both genders. There are things that happen in life that can cause a person to seek love wherever they think they can find it. I have always displayed love and caring to my uncle because I knew that he needed it, but still I did not compromise on truth in my dealing with him. He was able to accept this. He did not attempt to live in denial. Mostly it was just an issue that we skirted, except when he felt the need to bring it up as an antagonism, in which case he was sure to get my feelings on the matter.

You don't have to care what I support. I only hope that I am in the majority... and my post was simply about the fact that, if the country of the United States is more religious than non-religious... meaning if they believe in God and His Word... then I ought to be in the majority, and a majority determines the society.

"How can there be an "abberation" in "God's design?"
Ok, since you missed it... satan has been messing with God's design ever since God created man... by using temptation and deceit.

I did not say that I did not have any sin. I said "I have no plank in my eye". I see my own sin clearly. It is the truth that sets you free. I do not deny my sins. A practicing homosexual is denying his sin, just as a practicing adulterer is denying his sin.

Obama supports abortion by not only making it legal, but by forcing businesses to support and pay for it as well, even when it is against their conscience. No woman is forced to do anything. Abortions went on long before they ever became legal, but they skyrocketed since the time they were made legal. You are right it was between a woman and her God and her conscience, now it has been normalized and the conscience is dulled. And as I said, I don't think you will find many women later in life saying I'm so glad I had that abortion at the time in my life when my conscience was dulled.
As far as rape - read some stories about women who have carried these children to term. Accepting God's will is part of the journey through life. The trouble is, no one accepts any will other than their own anymore, even when there was a greater plan and blessing in God's plan that may never be realized.
Many women have made the choice to carry children to term even though it could result in her death. This is part of accepting God's will and plan. This is belonging to God and not self-will.

So you don't believe in paganism? How then do you believe in God who spoke always against it?

Did God make a mistake when He destroyed Sodom and Gomorrha?

People reject God's message because it is inconvenient and interferes with their own self-will.

Can you not see the curses that are coming down on the United States? ... or 'can you not even discern the signs of the times'?

I'm not explaining and we have no choice but to tolerate. This does not mean I can not speak. I bear no one ill will. I do have a say in the society in which I would like to live, whether or not it comes about. If the United States is a religious country then they should make a vote that reflects a support of God's laws. That's all I say.
_____________________________________

18 When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

20 Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumbling-block before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
21 Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul.
_________________________________________

How much do you really love your family members if you refuse to warn them?
'faithful are the wounds of a friend and deceitful the kisses of an enemy'

Does God not show His love for us, according to the scriptures, by His discipline, even if it seems harsh to us at the time? Does He not have our greater good in mind?

Edited by Caringheart - 15 September 2012 at 6:16pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : LarryIslam does not claim...

Sat, 08 Sep 2012 20:02:55 +0000

Author: Ahmadi Muslim
Subject: 19811
Posted: 08 September 2012 at 8:02pm

Larry

Islam does not claim Jerusalam to be exclusively for Muslims.

We are all children of Abraham. We are one family as far as God is concerned. All of earth was made by God for all His people. Jerusalam is holy only for religous reasons. Which religion? The religion of Abraham. God tells Muslims to follow the religion of Abraham. Hence the division of humans into Jews, Christians and Muslims is manmade. As far as God is concerned we are one people, one creation and supposed to be following one religion. Islam is the end result a progressive religion of Abraham. Hence, it is one continous religion, gradually progressing to be the final religion for all mankind.

The Quran says in Sura al-Anbia vs 106 (107) that the Holy land belongs to the rightous. Not to Jews, Christians or Muslims but to the righteous. That settles the issue. Whoever does the right thing, deals with fellow humans with justice and leads a righteous life, and is righteous in the eyes of God, he shall inherit the Holy Land.

In the end may I remind all my brothers and sisters, that the possession, occupation, right etc etc of the Holy Land is only temporary. At the end of the day we are all going away to meet our Lord. This earth is temporary abode. Whatever time we have here lets live in peace and harmony, doing justice to each other, loving each other and hoping that we are the righteous ones in the eyes of God - because that is the bottom line anyways.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by FriendshipAssalamu...

Sat, 08 Sep 2012 15:10:36 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 08 September 2012 at 3:10pm

Originally posted by Friendship

Assalamu alaika Larry.I want you and all those described and called as the People of the Book to learn Arabic so that we can form a formidable body to fight injustice, discrimination, tyranny and all the evils saturating the earth. Muhammad was never and today will never be a tribal, regional leader.

   I have seen no evidence, whatsoever, that Muhammad ever left the Arabian peninsula, which would make him a "regional" and "tribal" (Quryash) leader. As far as reading the Qur'an in pure Arabic is concerned, it is not purely Arabic in character, there are foreign, non-Arabic words in the Qur'an. For example:

   Harut and Marut are Persian names for angels.

   Syriac words are; Taboot, Taghouth, Zakat and Malakout.

   Hebrew words are; Sakinah, Heber, Maoon, Taurat, Jehannim and Tufan (deluge).

   Greek words; Injil (Gospel) was borrowed, the Arabic equivalent of Bisharah. Iblis is not Arabic, it is a corruption of the Greek word Diabolos.

   Christian Aramaic; Qiyama (resurrection).

   Christian Ethiopic; Malak is Ethiopic word for angel.

   He indeed took that mantle of teaching peace prosperity to the world as was done by the prophets and messengers before him. In the same manner that Allah sent only messengers and prophets to the Children of Israel from themselves to defeat their enemies, this role has been overtaken by Muhammad and his followers.

   You say that the "role" of the Children of Israel has been "overtaken" by "Muhammad and his followers," at least it seems that way by Muslim beliefs, but that is certainly not the belief the original "Children of Israel", the Jews.

Let us go by the Torah-� false prophet can be known for whatever he says will never materialize- it is falsehood. Let us do litmus test for a second! I am a scientist and I believe in experiments as a way to progress. What does it take to apply the written and oral law? Who is afraid of it. Please read this book: sbpra/allamadrsanisalihmustapha.Do not trust the knowledge of his present followers. In 1927 Professor Phillip Khyuri Hitti a Christian Meronite Arab described the Arabs as doing lip service to the teachings of Muhammad. This is the teaching to bring world� stability and progress.� An Egyptian Arab judge claimed that 98% of the Muslims are illiterate. The remaining 2% are no better than the 98%. Do you know the reason? This is because they have monopolized the Qur'an saying that no one should touch it besides them. Its this not an indirect way of denying that Muhammad is sent as warner and a bringer of glad tidings to the world?

   I have no idea of what "Professor Philip Khyuri Hitti, a Christian Meronite Arab" says or why what he says matters to anyone who is Jewish or Christian, I have never heard of him. And your statement that the Torah does not say that a "false prophet," can be known by his prophecies never materializing, is simply untrue, that is exactly what the Old Teastament says is the proof of a "true prophet of God." Any "prophet" making false prophecies would be stoned to death.

What is the genesis of Arab spring?

   The uprising in Tunisia, I believe, and the resulting collapse of so many autocratic and dictatorial regimes in the area.

   Jerusalem was named 668 times in the qur'an- 667 in the Bible compromising of the Torah and the Injeel revealed to Jesus son of Maryam and once in Qur'an 30, where it is named indirectly.

   I saw nothing in Qur'an 30 that even comes close to naming Jerusalem, even "indirectly,"why would Muhammad not know the name of Jerusalem?

   Also, in Qur'an 30:27 it says in part,

"...To Him (Allah) belongs the loftiest similitude (we can think of) in the heavens and the earth, for He is Exalted in Might, full of wisdom." Who is "we" of (we can think of?")

   That is not true, the name Jerusalem is never mentioned even ONCE in the Qur'an, even "indirectly" (whatever that means).� At that time Muhammad rejoiced. Please note that if Muhammad were to mention every positive evidence, how long is he going to live? 1000 years like Noah?

   If Muhammad was going to mention Jerusalem then he would have in the Qur'an. The writers of the Bible didn't "live for 1,000 years" and yet they still had time to mention Jerusalem 667 times. How much time does it take a person to name the third most "holy" city in Islam even ONCE? And I saw nothing in Qur'an 30 that even comes close to naming Jerusalem.

   Muhammad has more right to Jerusalem than his cousins because� he made a recess in his house and named it Jerusalem wall.

   So, you think that by Muhammad "making a recess in his house in Arabia that he called "Jerusalem wall" means Muslims have the primary claim to Jerusalem the city? I didn't realize that it was that easy to take over someone else's city, in another country, no less.

   That was the direction he faced to pray until the G-d of Abraham changed the direction for him.

   Muhammad originally said said he had a "revelation" from God that Mecca was the qibla, but soon after said that said it was really Jerusalem, and then a short time later after another "revelation" changed the qibla back to the original Mecca, particularly after the Jews in Medina refused to believe that Muhammad was a true prophet of God. It was not long after that that 800 Jewish men and boys of the Qurayza tribe were beheaded by Muslims.

The companions of the holy Apostle who never harbored any malice to the People of the Book wanted to take Muhammad to Jerusalem for burial close to his grandfather - Abra called Abraham later.

   So, now you are claiming that Muhammad's grandfather is Abraham? That would mean that Muhammad's "grandfather" lived for over 4,000 years. Why didn't the "companions" bury Muhammad in Jerusalem if that was where his "grandfather" Abraham (originally "Abram" in the Old Testament) was buried? or are you saying that Muhammad claimed that Abraham was his direct ancestor? if that was true then the earlier "descendents" of Abraham, the Jews, have more of a claim.


   Tell me Larry, where Jesus faced when he was praying in Matthew 36-43?

   Jesus was praying in the garden of Gethsemane in Matthew Chapter 26: 36-43. It doesn't say which direction He was facing, but since the Garden of Gethsemane overlooks Jerusalem, I would suppose He was facing the Temple Mount, as all observant Jews did, and Jesus was certainly a Jew. The "last supper" (seder) was in commemoration of the Jewish Passover.

Also know that when Umar the second caliph went to Jerusalem, he refused to pray in the prayer place of the Bishop for fear that the Muslims will claim right over Jerusalem. There was mutual respect and this can be achieved by the time you learn Arabic and read the explanation of the way of life Muhammad lead and not relying on reading the bare Qur'an that is yet to bring peace and stability to the world.

   Your statement only goes to show that Muslims have made a habit of claiming "holy places" of the "holy places" of other faiths, as is shown by Umar's "fear" that Muslims would "claim" Jerusalem, which is exactly what they did, when they took over the city. I don't see any sign that the Muslims of today give "mutual respect" to Jews to enter their own sacred Temple Mount. The Temple Mount in Jerusalem is the first and ONLY "holiest" place to the Jews. Why do Muslims today say that the Jews have NO claim, whatsoever, to any part of the Temple Mount?

   Your arguments concerning Jerusalem are simply unsustainable.

� Friendship .

Larry

Edited by Larry - 09 September 2012 at 11:29pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Assalamu alaika Larry.I want you...

Sat, 08 Sep 2012 14:07:03 +0000

Author: Friendship
Subject: 19811
Posted: 08 September 2012 at 2:07pm

Assalamu alaika Larry.

I want you and all those described and called as the People of the Book to learn Arabic so that we can form a formidable body to fight injustice, discrimination, tyranny and all the evils saturating the earth. Muhammad was never and today will never be a tribal, regional leader. He indeed took that mantle of teaching peace prosperity to the world as was done by the prophets and messengers before him. In the same manner that Allah sent only messengers and prophets to the Children of Israel from themselves to defeat their enemies, this role has been overtaken by Muhammad and his followers. Let us go by the Torah- false prophet can be known for whatever he says will never materialize- it is falsehood. Let us do litmus test for a second! I am a scientist and I believe in experiments as a way to progress. What does it take to apply the written and oral law? Who is afraid of it. Please read this book: sbpra/allamadrsanisalihmustapha.
Do not trust the knowledge of his present followers. In 1927 Professor Phillip Khyuri Hitti a Christian Meronite Arab described the Arabs as doing lip service to the teachings of Muhammad. This is the teaching to bring world stability and progress. An Egyptian Arab judge claimed that 98% of the Muslims are illiterate. The remaining 2% are no better than the 98%. Do you know the reason? This is because they have monopolized the Qur'an saying that no one should touch it besides them. Its this not an indirect way of denying that Muhammad is sent as warner and a bringer of glad tidings to the world? What is the genesis of Arab spring?
Jerusalem was named 668 times in the qur'an- 667 in the Bible compromising of the Torah and the Injeel revealed to Jesus son of Maryam and once in Qur'an 30, where it is named indirectly. At that time Muhammad rejoiced. Please note that if Muhammad were to mention every positive evidence, how long is he going to live? 1000 years like Noah?
Muhammad has more right to Jerusalem than his cousins because he made a recess in his house and named it Jerusalem wall. That was the direction he faced to pray until the G-d of Abraham changed the direction for him. The companions of the holy Apostle who never harbored any malice to the People of the Book wanted to take Muhammad to Jerusalem for burial close to his grandfather - Abra called Abraham later.
Tell me Larry, where Jesus faced when he was praying in Matthew 36-43? Also know that when Umar the second caliph went to Jerusalem, he refused to pray in the prayer place of the Bishop for fear that the Muslims will claim right over Jerusalem. There was mutual respect and this can be achieved by the time you learn Arabic and read the explanation of the way of life Muhammad lead and not relying on reading the bare Qur'an that is yet to bring peace and stability to the world.

Friendship .

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, As far as the "Santa...

Sat, 08 Sep 2012 13:05:18 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 08 September 2012 at 1:05pm

Hasan,

   As far as the "Santa Claus thingy," do you really believe that Muhammad traveled to Jerusalem on the back of the strange and mythical creature, Al Buraq? Who was said to be white in color, between the size of a donkey and a mule, has the face of a woman, the wings of an eagle and the tail of a peacock?

   You say that I "refuse to examine the source (the Bible) rather blindly believe it, probably as part of your "family tradition."

   And I suppose that your "blind belief" in Islam has NOTHING to do with your own "family tradition?"

   I have no difficulty in examining "the Bible" which clearly explains everything concerning Christianity.

   "Santa Claus" (who is not a complete "myth") comes from St. Nicholas, also called Nikolaus of Myra, who was a historic 4th Century A.D. saint and Greek Bishop of Myra in Lycia. He was born in 270 A.D. and died on Dec. 6, 346 A.D. (Julian Calendar) in Myra. St. Nicholas was particularly known as a "bringer of gifts." "Santa Claus" is derived from the Dutch, Father Christmas, "Sinterklaas."

   Adult Christians in the United States do not believe that "Santa Claus" is a real person. He is a symbol, beloved by children, of Christmas, the holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ. "Santa Claus" is seen in almost all countries of the world, part of the Western culture that has been adopted in relatively recent times by many countries, even Arab nations. Does that mean they "believe" in him?

Larry

Edited by Larry - 08 September 2012 at 2:21pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by Caringheart Originally...

Sat, 08 Sep 2012 12:45:19 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 08 September 2012 at 12:45pm

Originally posted by Caringheart

Originally posted by Larry

Caringheart,

   Tell you "where" I thought you were nasty or venomous" in your post? How about, "Obama supports VILE things to any God fearing, God honoring person...etc.)"

   Or, "a vote for Obama is a vote for EVIL." Oh, I see, God is in the electoral system of the United States and tells us who to "vote" for?

   Then, you have the nerve to ask me if I believe in God or the Word of God!

   I do not need to be lectured by YOU.

   I have gay members of my own family, do you consider them to be "vile" also? How DARE you judge ANYONE, who do you think you are?

   Then you say the most st**id thing; "God's design is for the benefit of His creation." How can there be an "abberation" in "God's design?"

   So, my gay family members WEREN'T "created" by "God?" Who created them, Satan? I read a statement once; "Poor God, the st**idities He gets blamed for."

   And here is a reminder from God's "Word" to you.

   Matthew 7:1-5,

   1. "Judge not, that you be not judged."
   2. "For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you."
   3. "And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?"
   4. Or, how can you say to your brother, 'let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye?"
   5. "Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

   But, evidently, this citation does not apply to YOU, because you are such a "God fearing" and "God honoring" person, far above the "vile" people that you accuse, trying to justify your own prejudice, self-righteousness and bigotry, and using God and His "Word" as the excuse to do it, as so many other self-described, self-appointed "good" Christians. And yes, you ARE judging others, no matter how carefully you try to conceal it behind your long-winded, puritanical, self-righteous and hypocritical facade.

   And the only "pit" the United States is "falling" in is the one in your own mind.

Larry

Hello again Larry,(We really should put this in another thread)But anyway, first, I only said "A vote for Obama is a vote for evil" in this latest post, i.e., before you accused me of saying "venomous things"... so that part does not support the reason for your initial accusation.As far as voting... you either want a return to paganism or you support what made the country great to begin with... a nation established with the principles of God in mind.

   Does that mean I should vote for Mitt Romney? Is he "God's choice" for president of the United States?

I do not consider gay people to be vile unless they act against natural design and act on their impulses, just as I could not approve a person who acts upon his impulses of attraction to children.

   Oh, I see, how can someone "act against their natural design if this "design" was created by God? And gee, what a nice person you are, comparing my family members to child molesters. I guess that means that you feel Satan is more powerful than God?

� One who belongs to God will not act on these wrong impulses.� No different than how an unmarried person remains chaste if they belong to God.� I do not view homosexuality any different that I view adultery. I too have an uncle who has been confused about his sexuality and I have always shown him love.

   I'm sure that your "uncle" would be so happy to know that you feel he is a product of Satan! I'm glad I'm not your uncle. And the only person that is "confused" by your uncle's homosexuality is you, he was born that way. Unless you feel that "normal" people are not born "normal" they choose to be that way? You can't have it both ways.

� This does not mean I am going to support making this type of confusion part of the society in which I live.

   Who cares what you "support" and what you don't? I cannot believe how self-righteous and judgmental (Yes, I said "judgmental") you are.

� Satan is the author of confusion.� I will always work against confusion." How can there be an "abberation" in "God's design?" I guess I just answered that question.

   No, as a matter of fact you did not answer the question.

As far as God's part.� God gives all of us our crosses to bear, and we either choose to bear them, or we choose our own way(following the lure of satan.� Just like Eve chose to listen to the wiles of satan.� We can all be deceived.).� I have my cross to bear as well.� I have chosen submission to God and His will.� I see the wisdom of it, and I experience the peace and freedom of it.And I already told you... there is no plank in my eye.

   Congratulations, you're the only person, other than Jesus Christ, who has no "plank" in your eye. You must be so proud. I would never state that I had no sin in my life, there was only one person who was sinless, and it ain't you.

� I only support the will of God.I did not accuse any person of being vile.� I said we have a president who is willing to support vile things... like murder, and things that defile God's design and plan for life.

   By "murder" do you mean a woman having an abortion? Obama never said he "supports" it, he supports a woman's right to decide what happens to her own body. Just for fun, do you think that a rape victim should be "forced" to carry the child of her rapist? (Is "rape" part of "God's Plan?") And what if the "rapist" is her own father, the same? or, what if the mother will die if she tries to take the pregnancy to term? Maybe if you were raped you might think differently, or had a loved one that was told she would die if she tried to take the pregnancy to term, but I suppose you wouldn't. How would you tell a loved one to die for their pregnancy? That "God" wants it that way?

As far as pits... Watch some programs sometime, or read, about what the world was like when paganism ruled.� Remember the Romans?� 'The fall of all great societies begins in the moral decline of its people.

   "Paganism?" Please!

'As I said, I am not judging,

   "Not judging?" You could have fooled me.

but I will support a society that is supportable... one that God will bless rather than curse.Are you sure you know God?I'm sorry that all this hits a nerve with you, but that is nothing new.� Most people don't like to submit their wills.� It is why the message of God has been rejected since the beginning of time.

   No, the reason that many people reject "God's message" is that it comes from a self-righteous and judgmental person like you. You should try a little humility, it might suit you better.

� People remain blind to the fact that doing God's will is for their benefit.� People are much more interested in their own will and want God to give them their wishes... as if God were our personal genie.I will quote someone else who once wrote;"How can you ask Me to bless something which I have already spoken about?"^14�If
my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and
pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I
hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.^13�If
I stop up the heavens that there be no rain, or if I command the locusts to
devour the land, or if I send pestilence among my people;

Is not the United States already experiencing some of these things?^18�When
I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not
warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save
his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood
will be on your hands[you are accountable].^20�Again,
When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit
iniquity, and I lay a stumbling-block before him, he shall die: because
thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his
righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood
will be on your hands[and held against you].^21�Nevertheless
if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth
not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast
delivered thy soul.

Yeah, people like you always know all the "damnation" quotes in the Bible. You should pay more attention to what Jesus Christ had to say, but most "good" Christians never seem to like that part. You know, the part in Matthew Chapter 7. But I forgot, you have no "planks" in your eyes.

May your day be blessed Larry,Caringheart[side note:� I doubt you will find many women saying later in life, 'I'm so glad I had that abortion.']Also, sorry you feel like I am lecturing.� I am just conversing.� [IMG]smileys/smiley1.gif" align="absmiddle" alt="Smile" />

If this is your idea of "conversing" I would rather you didn't, thank you. Your messages become more disturbing each time you "explain" your beliefs and what you will, or will not, "tolerate" in others.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 08 September 2012 at 2:11pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by Friendship ...

Sat, 08 Sep 2012 12:38:57 +0000

Author: Caringheart
Subject: 19811
Posted: 08 September 2012 at 12:38pm

Originally posted by Friendship

Greetings Friendship,
I was responding to this, your statement;

"You know better than me that the Bible stipulated that the G-d of Abraham listens to only the one with a clean heart."

I was agreeing with you. If there are more religious than non-religious in the U.S. then yes, wouldn't that be the thing which should determine the outcome of the election? Support of one who supports Godly principles rather than undermines them?

Caringheart

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by honeto[/quot "...

Sat, 08 Sep 2012 12:15:24 +0000

Author: Caringheart
Subject: 19811
Posted: 08 September 2012 at 12:15pm

Originally posted by honeto

[/quot

" you even refuse to examine your source (the Bible) rather blindly believe it probably as part of your family tradition."

The things you say reveal much about your reality.

"What we and any person of reason are asking you is that to examine at least your claims in the light of your source, only then you can be sure if at least they match with your source!
What we have seen so far is that they do not, and I can understand that it can be hard for someone who always believed that they did, but never had to really examine and test them for themselves."

This is precisely what I would say about you.
Sorry, but it's what I see in you. :-/
Just sayin'.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally...

Sat, 08 Sep 2012 11:00:32 +0000

Author: Caringheart
Subject: 19811
Posted: 08 September 2012 at 11:00am

Is not the United States already experiencing some of these things?

¹⁸WhenI say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him notwarning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to savehis life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but I will hold you accountable for their blood.

²⁰Again,When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commitiniquity, and I lay a stumbling-block before him, he shall die: becausethou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and hisrighteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but I will hold you accountable for their blood.
²¹Neverthelessif thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he dothnot sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hastdelivered thy soul.

May your day be blessed Larry,
Caringheart

[side note: I doubt you will find many women saying later in life, 'I'm so glad I had that abortion.']

Also, sorry you feel like I am lecturing. I am just conversing.

Edited by Caringheart - 08 September 2012 at 12:26pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by LarryHasan, You...

Sat, 08 Sep 2012 10:06:45 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 08 September 2012 at 10:06am

Originally posted by Larry

Hasan,

You are starting to sound like iec786.

Larry

Larry,
because you refuse to back up your claims and you say things and words that don't make any sense. You said you base your belief in God the Father, God the son but unless God is giving you this revelation directly, you refuse to pay attention to your source, you even refuse to examine your source (the Bible) rather blindly believe it probably as part of your family tradition.
What we and any person of reason are asking you is that to examine at least your claims in the light of your source, only then you can be sure if at least they match with your source!
What we have seen so far is that they do not, and I can understand that it can be hard for someone who always believed that they did, but never had to really examine and test them for themselves.
It's like the Santa Claus thingy, you believed it to be true until the day you reached maturity, and the whole myth fell apart.
And don't think its your only straw of hope to safety thus you rather hang on to it, this straw will not save you. There is a huge boat of safety right in your reach, the boat of truth and it can be your best savior. Don't miss it! Salvation lies only in service to your creator and none else, a message of Islam.
Hasan

Edited by honeto - 08 September 2012 at 10:21am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by Caringheart Caringheart,...

Sat, 08 Sep 2012 03:26:35 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 08 September 2012 at 3:26am

Originally posted by Caringheart

Caringheart,

   Tell you "where" I thought you were nasty or venomous" in your post? How about, "Obama supports VILE things to any God fearing, God honoring person...etc.)"

   Or, "a vote for Obama is a vote for EVIL." Oh, I see, God is in the electoral system of the United States and tells us who to "vote" for?

   Then, you have the nerve to ask me if I believe in God or the Word of God!

   I do not need to be lectured by YOU.

   I have gay members of my own family, do you consider them to be "vile" also? How DARE you judge ANYONE, who do you think you are?

   Then you say the most st**id thing; "God's design is for the benefit of His creation." How can there be an "abberation" in "God's design?"

   So, my gay family members WEREN'T "created" by "God?" Who created them, Satan? I read a statement once; "Poor God, the st**idities He gets blamed for."

   And here is a reminder from God's "Word" to you.

   Matthew 7:1-5,

   1. "Judge not, that you be not judged."
   2. "For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you."
   3. "And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye?"
   4. Or, how can you say to your brother, 'let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye?"
   5. "Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."

   But, evidently, this citation does not apply to YOU, because you are such a "God fearing" and "God honoring" person, far above the "vile" people that you accuse, trying to justify your own prejudice, self-righteousness and bigotry, and using God and His "Word" as the excuse to do it, as so many other self-described, self-appointed "good" Christians. And yes, you ARE judging others, no matter how carefully you try to conceal it behind your long-winded, puritanical, self-righteous and hypocritical facade.

   And the only "pit" the United States is "falling" in is the one in your own mind.

Larry

Originally posted by Larry

Larry,I did not "go off" on Obama.� There was no nastiness or venom in my post, just a statement of fact.� Tell me please where I was nasty and venomous?Do you believe in God?� Do you believe in the Word of God?Anyone who believes in God knows that the things which Obama supports are evil.Killing God's creation is evil.God created them male and female... male and female He created them for one another.� Anything else is an abberation of God's design.God's design is for the benefit of His creation.Now if you do not see that, that is you.If you do not believe in God, and you believe in self-determinism and only use scripture to back up your ideas... to be your own God... well that is you and you will see to where it leads the world... We have seen it before in history.� God is clear in His Word about what is acceptable and what isn't, and what happens to a people who reject and turn away from Him and His design.� What do you think has happened to the country of the United States?� Why do you think it is so much in decline?� Its foundations that were built on solid rock are now shifting sands.� The foundations have been pulverized.� The one who builds his foundation upon sand is a fool.� There is no plank in my eye, and I am not judging.� I am not casting stones.� I will make my vote a vote for God and not for evil.� A vote for Obama is a vote for evil.

"And when Romney/Ryan make deep cuts in medicare and medicaid, along with food stamps for the hungry, to poor people and their children, as they said they would do, what will you have to say then?"

What will I say then?� Well let me see... since I am on Social Security and I depend on Medicare and Medicaid... Hmmm, let's see, what does that say about me?� It says that I am not thinking about my own selfish self.� It says I put my reliance on God and am prepared to accept what He sends my way, even if it be death.� It says, that I know, that these things need to happen for people to step up and do what people ought to be doing... i.e., according to God's plan... to help one another... to do what Jesus said... to love.� It is not the governments job to do these things.� Trials are made for people to be better people to each other.It says that I can see that the greater good is served by serving God, and not self.I just read in the Qur'an today;

36:46 Never came a token of the tokens of their Lord to them, but they did turn away from it!
36:47 And when they are told, 'Give to others out of what God has provided for you', the disbelievers say to the believers, 'Why should we feed those whom God would feed if He wanted?� Ye must be deeply misguided.'

Muhammad too, was trying to correct the mindset of his people.And yes, I know what I am talking about.� I used to work in International Business.� I know how International economy is supposed to work. � I worked for IBM, Siemens, and Dole companies.� As long as America does not have to pick itself up by its bootstraps, it will not do so.� America is in decline and has been for some time.� America is too centered on self... on entertainment... on recreation... on easy living.� America has lost its way.� There is not enough incentive, motivation, or innovation in America which was once great in these things.� China is far ahead of America now in its innovations.� It is far better prepared to face the future.� Trials and hardships spur people on to work for better things.How did people get through the worst times in the history of the United States... the depression?� I'll tell you... it brought out the good in people... people helped each other... people, children and grandchildren alike, helped their families instead of being selfish and expecting everything to be for themselves.� Some cultures still know how to live this way... God's way.� Hard times can make people learn to work hard, but since they have lost their way morally I fear that this is not what would happen today.� I fear that much of this generation of today would have more of a criminal mindset.� They are so used to being 'given'... 'Give me, give me, give me'... In the country of the United States no one wants to work for what they get anymore.� India has the moral mindset and work ethic that the United States once had.� India is moving ahead.� The United States is falling into a pit.God sends trials.� We do not always know why those trials come to us, but how we deal with them, testifies as to whether or not we belong to God.� Belonging to God means accepting God's will.� Are you familiar with the story of Job? I'll quit here.[IMG]smileys/smiley27.gif" align="absmiddle" alt="Heart" />

Edited by Larry - 08 September 2012 at 3:57am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Greetings to you also, Friendship, Where...

Sat, 08 Sep 2012 03:04:41 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 08 September 2012 at 3:04am

Greetings to you also, Friendship,

   Where you get the idea that the "followers of Muhammad" have "more right" on Jerusalem than I have as a Christian, I have no idea. I never said I had ANY "right" on Jerusalem other than that there are some very ancient Christian churches and shrines there, particularly the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, where Jesus was crucified and buried. But that does not mean that Christianity has a "claim" on Jerusalem because of that fact.
   Jerusalem is holy to the Jewish people who have lived there for over 3,000 years, millennia before the first Muslim ever set eyes on it and has been the direction of prayer of Jews ever since then to this very day (it was the original "qibla" for Muslims for a very short time until Muhammad changed it to Mecca).
   I would think that if Islam has any "right" or claim on Jerusalem it would have been mentioned at least ONCE in the Qur'an, but it is not.
   The Al-Aqsa mosque and the shrine of the Dome of the Rock are built on the Temple Mount where the two Jewish Temples, that of Solomon and King Herod, were built and later destroyed.
   I know that Islam claims that the mention of the "furthest mosque" in the Qur'an refers to the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. But in the seventh century, when Muhammad supposedly received his "revelations" from Allah, there were NO mosques in Jerusalem at all. They were not built there until after the death of Muhammad.
   This is history, attested to by many ancient written accounts from many different civilizations and historical personages such as Flavius Josephus and many Roman historians, who, by the way, referred to the geographical location of Jerusalem as "Judea."
   So the fantasy that somehow the Muslims have a primary claim to Jerusalem is simply not borne out by any sources OTHER than Islam (but, as I said, there is simply NO mention of Jerusalem in the Qur'an at all), which came millenia after the Jewish people lived there and built their Temples to their God, YHWH. And neither Jews nor Christians believe that Allah is the same God that they worship.
   Show me some actual historical "proof" that Muslims have a primary claim on Jerusalem using anything OTHER than the Qur'an, or later Islamic writings, which, the Qur'an, as I said before, never mentions Jerusalem even one time.
   As I said, Jerusalem IS mentioned in the Bible 667 times, in both the Old and New Testaments, which would give the primary claim to the city to the Jews.
   I have read the entire Qur'an in English on this site, why I should need to learn Arabic to read it in that language I have no idea. The Bible is written in many languages, including the English version that I, and evidently you, read. And, if the "original" language is important, I suppose you need to learn ancient Greek and Aramaic to read the "real" Bible. As I said, I read the entire Qur'an here and I have to say, truthfully, that I was not that impressed with the Qur'an when I read it. It seemed to repeat itself over and over, saying the same basic thing, that people need to believe in Allah and His "Prophet" Muhammad or they will burn in hell forever. It did not have the extensive histories, geneaologies, biographies, beliefs and practices and, most of all, prophecies, made first in the Old Testament and later fulfilled in the New Testament of Jesus Christ, found in the Holy Bible.
   So, I have respect for you and your religion but do not believe that it has anything to do with my faith, other than naming historical personages and places written of long before Muhammad and Islam ever existed in both the Old and New Testaments.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 08 September 2012 at 2:06pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted...

Fri, 07 Sep 2012 17:42:33 +0000

Author: Caringheart
Subject: 19811
Posted: 07 September 2012 at 5:42pm

Originally posted by Larry

Larry,
I did not "go off" on Obama. There was no nastiness or venom in my post, just a statement of fact. Tell me please where I was nasty and venomous?

Do you believe in God? Do you believe in the Word of God?

Anyone who believes in God knows that the things which Obama supports are evil.
Killing God's creation is evil.
God created them male and female... male and female He created them for one another. Anything else is an abberation of God's design.
God's design is for the benefit of His creation.

Now if you do not see that, that is you.
If you do not believe in God, and you believe in self-determinism and only use scripture to back up your ideas... to be your own God... well that is you and you will see to where it leads the world... We have seen it before in history. God is clear in His Word about what is acceptable and what isn't, and what happens to a people who reject and turn away from Him and His design. What do you think has happened to the country of the United States? Why do you think it is so much in decline? Its foundations that were built on solid rock are now shifting sands. The foundations have been pulverized. The one who builds his foundation upon sand is a fool. There is no plank in my eye, and I am not judging. I am not casting stones. I will make my vote a vote for God and not for evil. A vote for Obama is a vote for evil.

"And when Romney/Ryan make deep cuts in medicare and medicaid, along with food stamps for the hungry, to poor people and their children, as they said they would do, what will you have to say then?"

What will I say then? Well let me see... since I am on Social Security and I depend on Medicare and Medicaid... Hmmm, let's see, what does that say about me? It says that I am not thinking about my own selfish self. It says I put my reliance on God and am prepared to accept what He sends my way, even if it be death. It says, that I know, that these things need to happen for people to step up and do what people ought to be doing... i.e., according to God's plan... to help one another... to do what Jesus said... to love. It is not the governments job to do these things. Trials are made for people to be better people to each other.
It says that I can see that the greater good is served by serving God, and not self.

I just read in the Qur'an today;

36:46Never came a token of the tokens of their Lord to them, but they did turn away from it!
36:47And when they are told, 'Give to others out of what God has provided for you', the disbelievers say to the believers, 'Why should wefeed those whom God would feed if He wanted? Ye must be deeply misguided.'

Muhammad too, was trying to correct the mindset of his people.

And yes, I know what I am talking about. I used to work in International Business. I know how International economy is supposed to work. I worked for IBM, Siemens, and Dole companies. As long as America does not have to pick itself up by its bootstraps, it will not do so. America is in decline and has been for some time. America is too centered on self... on entertainment... on recreation... on easy living. America has lost its way. There is not enough incentive, motivation, or innovation in America which was once great in these things. China is far ahead of America now in its innovations. It is far better prepared to face the future. Trials and hardships spur people on to work for better things.

How did people get through the worst times in the history of the United States... the depression? I'll tell you... it brought out the good in people... people helped each other... people, children and grandchildren alike, helped their families instead of being selfish and expecting everything to be for themselves. Some cultures still know how to live this way... God's way. Hard times can make people learn to work hard, but since they have lost their way morally I fear that this is not what would happen today. I fear that much of this generation of today would have more of a criminal mindset. They are so used to being 'given'... 'Give me, give me, give me'... In the country of the United States no one wants to work for what they get anymore. India has the moral mindset and work ethic that the United States once had. India is moving ahead. The United States is falling into a pit.

God sends trials. We do not always know why those trials come to us, but how we deal with them, testifies as to whether or not we belong to God. Belonging to God means accepting God's will. Are you familiar with the story of Job?

I'll quit here.

Edited by Caringheart - 07 September 2012 at 6:13pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Assalamu alaika Larry.The followers...

Fri, 07 Sep 2012 01:30:45 +0000

Author: Friendship
Subject: 19811
Posted: 07 September 2012 at 1:30am

Assalamu alaika Larry.

The followers of Muhammad have more right on Jerusalem than you who called yourself 'Christian'.
I have learned English language and I read the Bible with all of its commentaries. You should also learn Arabic and read the Qur'an so as not to be influenced and be misdirected.
Please let us have a common platform form.
Friendship.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Friendship, You say "The...

Thu, 06 Sep 2012 05:52:24 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 06 September 2012 at 5:52am

Friendship,

    You say "The Qur'an is very clear on the position of the Jews."

   You also say that "Jerusalem does not belong to any nation but to the Children of Jacob"

   "Jerusalem" is mentioned 667 times in the Bible.

   "Jerusalem" is mentioned 0 times in the Qur'an.

   "Palestine" is not mentioned either.

   Ezekiel 36:24

   "For I will take you from among the nations, gather you out of all countries, and bring you back into your own land."

Larry

Edited by Larry - 06 September 2012 at 5:58am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Caringheart, I am surprised by...

Thu, 06 Sep 2012 05:05:48 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 06 September 2012 at 5:05am

Caringheart,

   I am surprised by the nastiness and venom of your comments concerning President Obama. He supports "vile" things? he doesn't support abortion, he believes the matter is between the woman, her doctor and her conscience, while the Republicans would force victims of rape and incest to bear the children of their rapist or relative. Same-sex marriage? Why do you care? What does it have to do with you? It is a civil matter. In this country people are supposed to all have the same rights UNDER THE LAW and not UNDER RELIGIOUS COERCION. One can get married in church or on a rollercoaster if they feel like it, the only thing that is REQUIRED is a LICENSE issued by the STATE they live in. How can the state say that they are denying a marriage license, with all the legal and tax advantages this confers on the couple, to a couple who love each other just because some supposedly "religious" people think it is bad or because of custom? Who are YOU to tell someone they can't get married because YOU don't like it? And what "religion" should we follow to enforce your bigotry and prejudice? Christianity? Judaism? Hinduism? Buddhism? After all this self-righteous talk you have sent to me about being a forgiving and humble Christian and then you go off on the President and people you DON'T EVEN KNOW. "Real" Christians always seem to forget the part of the Bible where Jesus tells us NOT to JUDGE others, but, good Christians like YOU seem to know better than Jesus what to do, it is so much more interesting to cast the first stone.
   And when Romney/Ryan make deep cuts in medicare and medicaid, along with food stamps for the hungry, to poor people and their children, as they said they would do, what will you have to say then? Let them eat cake? So go ahead and vote for Romney/Ryan and then I want you to tell the hungry child to stop whining about it and get a job, or go face to face with a rape victim and tell her that YOU don't believe in abortion so she HAS to bear the child of the man who just raped her.
   Hypocrite!

Larry

Edited by Larry - 06 September 2012 at 5:35am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, You are starting to sound...

Thu, 06 Sep 2012 04:52:14 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 06 September 2012 at 4:52am

Hasan,

You are starting to sound like iec786.

Larry

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Assalamu alaika Caringheart. But...

Thu, 06 Sep 2012 03:00:03 +0000

Author: Friendship
Subject: 19811
Posted: 06 September 2012 at 3:00am

Assalamu alaika Caringheart.

But you have no ground to attack Husain Obama because a certain percentage of your population are obsessed about one who reasons and believes that success has to come from many buckets. Anyway in my 1996 King James version of the Bible the authors/author explained that Verses written with red ink are direct statement of Jesus, whilethose written in black print are not his statement. According to the trends in the Qur'an this is like : Allah said; Say O Muhammad; Muhammad said etc. For example according to the methodology of teaching the holy Qur'an and if at all what the author/authors of the 1996 Bible believed, I will regard all what is written in Matthew 27:12-46 (all black print) as an invention and interpolation. Matthew 27:11 confirms this when Jesus said:Thou sayest. further confirming Matthew 27: 37 in black print. Matthew 46 in red print is exactly what Muhammad said when he had no alternative but to visit Ta'if after the death of his wife and uncle. He made a similar remark before the start of the battle of Badr. This is the meaning of Qur'an- similarity after reading the scriptures. In a nutshell, I am pointing to the reality that there is no difference between the speech of Jesus son of Maryam and what is in the Qur'an. Why would the Jews in particular reject the reasoning of the one calling the world to unite stop bloodshed and restore them Jerusalem? Were not the followers of Muhammad who restored Jerusalem to them? Look at the nonsense during the Democrats convention that the name of Jerusalem must be included in their final draft! Is it not more civilized to ask Husain Obama the details of how Jerusalem was transferred to the then Jewish nation and that he must revert to the Islam (submission to the G-d of Abraham, etc) of his ancestors for that is the only way the present Jewish race could get back their land? I argued in an earlier post that Jerusalem does not belong to any nation but to the children of Jacob. If the present Jewish nation is sincere why not support and empower those calling for their freedom? The Qur'an is very clear on the position of the Jews.

Friendship

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by FriendshipAssalamu...

Wed, 05 Sep 2012 19:21:26 +0000

Author: Caringheart
Subject: 19811
Posted: 05 September 2012 at 7:21pm

Originally posted by Friendship

Assalamu alaika Larry.I asked this question some years back and no one answered. I am repeating this question to you:What is the difference between the 1996 (or so) version of the James version of the Bible with red print and those with black print? Anyone with a sound knowledge of the holy Qur'an and its explanations, will certainly see similarity and continuity with the red lettered verses. The author of that Bible said that those red lettered verses were the true words of Jesus son of Maryam. The black lettered verses were not his saying that is not the words of Allah. Please get hold of that edition of Bible and read carefully. If you disagree then, there is something wrong in your faith.Although this forum is to bring understanding, the participants lack the basic knowledge to explain the basis of revelation. What are we looking for? Election is coming in America. The Americans are looking for a leader who will solve your economic problem.� You know better than me that the Bible stipulated that the G-d of Abraham listens to only the one with a clean heart. You know very well that Abemilech was given the well and Abraham had to negotiate with him for peace. He did not use force. Korah's wealth was destroyed because he was stingy.� The same teaching and lesson is applicable to the teaching of Muhammad. So why do we not for a common platform to solve our social-economic problem but keep on arguing on irrelevancy adding fuel to a blazing prairie-fire!Friendship.�

Interesting Friendship, I think I was having a similar thought today. At least if I understand what you are saying. I don't quite understand what the black and red lettering references pertain to...
Anyway today I was thinking... Are there not more religious than non-religious in the U.S? If so wouldn't that make the choice for president obvious? Obama supports vile things to any God fearing, God honoring, person... abortion, same sex marriage...
I agree, if the U.S does not begin by fixing her foundations, she is lost.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Assalamu alaika Larry.I asked...

Wed, 05 Sep 2012 15:35:15 +0000

Author: Friendship
Subject: 19811
Posted: 05 September 2012 at 3:35pm

Assalamu alaika Larry.

I asked this question some years back and no one answered. I am repeating this question to you:
What is the difference between the 1996 (or so) version of the James version of the Bible with red print and those with black print?
Anyone with a sound knowledge of the holy Qur'an and its explanations, will certainly see similarity and continuity with the red lettered verses. The author of that Bible said that those red lettered verses were the true words of Jesus son of Maryam. The black lettered verses were not his saying that is not the words of Allah.
Please get hold of that edition of Bible and read carefully. If you disagree then, there is something wrong in your faith.
Although this forum is to bring understanding, the participants lack the basic knowledge to explain the basis of revelation.
What are we looking for? Election is coming in America. The Americans are looking for a leader who will solve your economic problem. You know better than me that the Bible stipulated that the G-d of Abraham listens to only the one with a clean heart. You know very well that Abemilech was given the well and Abraham had to negotiate with him for peace. He did not use force. Korah's wealth was destroyed because he was stingy. The same teaching and lesson is applicable to the teaching of Muhammad. So why do we not for a common platform to solve our social-economic problem but keep on arguing on irrelevancy adding fuel to a blazing prairie-fire!

Friendship.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by LarryWhatever,...

Wed, 05 Sep 2012 13:23:24 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 05 September 2012 at 1:23pm

Originally posted by Larry

Whatever, Hasan, You base your faith on a book, I base my faith on God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. I will put the truths of the Holy Bible against the Qur'an any day. As I have said before, in Christianity and Judaism we did not have "burning" parties" to make sure that every Bible said the exact same thing.

The deliberate destruction of the original Qur'an, created two years after the death of Muhammad, Hafsah's Codex, which Uthman used to create "four perfect copies" and then returned the original Qur'an to Hafsah, is proof enough that there was a problem with the contents.

If you expect me to believe the same fairy tale that differences in "punctuation" and "pronunciation" were the reason for the destruction of this original Qur'an, you have the wrong person. "Perfect" works do not require "editing."

Larry

Larry, is that the reason you have been dodging my questions, not answering them. And writing irrelevant and out of context things simply running away from truth. but you have no escape, may be just a little while. Save yourself.
Hasan

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by Larryiec786, You...

Wed, 05 Sep 2012 08:19:41 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 05 September 2012 at 8:19am

Originally posted by Larry

iec786,

   You are the only one NOT answering questions, as you can see from my last reply to your message. You made the statements and I responded to them with my opinion. Then you accuse me and say:

   "When you cannot answer just carry on babling and you will get away from it."

   But you always have been the consummate hypocrite.

   I will no longer answer or respond to any of your posts, I'm tired of asking questions or making points and replying to your posts, only to have you run away from the questions that you will not answer, then accuse me of not answering YOU!

Larry

You have no answers sitting and crying about it is useless.

Please do not threaten me with posting or anything.If you cannot answer then keep quite and stop crying like a baby.Grow up.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Gospel is a term used over 75...

Wed, 05 Sep 2012 00:07:07 +0000

Author: donamorison
Subject: 19811
Posted: 05 September 2012 at 12:07am

Gospel is a term used over 75 times in the New Testament. While it has various nuances of meaning, it's most fundamental meaning from the Greek is "good news." But good news of what? According to the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology edited by Walter Elwell, "the gospel is the joyous proclamation of God's redemptive activity in Christ Jesus on behalf of man enslaved by sin."

Another usage for the term is to refer to specific books in the Bible that set forth the life and teaching of Jesus, for example the Gospel of Matthew, etc.

The importance of the gospel cannot be overstated. Indeed, it is the culminating concept of the entire Bible. So as the biblical writers proclaimed this good news to all, so we in turn proclaim it to our readers. As it says in the most famous of all Bible passages:

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : iec786, You are the only one...

Mon, 03 Sep 2012 15:52:23 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 03 September 2012 at 3:52pm

iec786,

   You are the only one NOT answering questions, as you can see from my last reply to your message. You made the statements and I responded to them with my opinion. Then you accuse me and say:

   "When you cannot answer just carry on babling and you will get away from it."

   But you always have been the consummate hypocrite.

   I will no longer answer or respond to any of your posts, I'm tired of asking questions or making points and replying to your posts, only to have you run away from the questions that you will not answer, then accuse me of not answering YOU!

Larry

Edited by Larry - 03 September 2012 at 4:01pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : When you cannot answer just carry...

Sun, 02 Sep 2012 22:47:58 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 02 September 2012 at 10:47pm

When you cannot answer just carry on babling and you will get away from it.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by iec786 Originally...

Sun, 02 Sep 2012 06:04:46 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 02 September 2012 at 6:04am

Originally posted by iec786

Originally posted by Larry

iec786,

I find it interesting, and typical of you, that your claim that the Bible is "plagiarized" was "plagiarized" by you from another source that you do not credit.

Once again you prove your incomparable and utter hypocrisy.

Larry

Christian scholars of the calibre of Bishop Kenneth Cragg
euphemistically calls this stealing, "reproduction"
2
and take pride in it. lol

I see you could not reply to the article could you. [IMG]smileys/smiley36.gif" align="middle" />

When you say "article" are you speaking of the "reproduction" you made using someone else's work that you simply took without giving credit to the real author while pretending that it was something that you wrote yourself? I can only assume that your mental state is, as we say here, two cards short of a full deck. And, even more bizarrely, you are evidently using Bishop Kenneth Cragg, a Christian, to justify your blatant and painfully obvious plagiarisms? You need to find someone else to bore with your st**idities and ignorance. Please let me know when you decide to act like a person with even the slightest degree of personal and intellectual integrity.

Edited by Larry - 02 September 2012 at 6:17am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : The Quran says “Those to whom...

Fri, 31 Aug 2012 13:58:41 +0000

Author: Kish
Subject: 19811
Posted: 31 August 2012 at 1:58pm

The Quran says �Those to whom the burden of the Torah was entrusted and yet refused tobear it are like a donkey laden with books.��(S) 62:5

How can the Qurancredit the �Torah, Psalms and Gospel� by saying observe them, then discreditthem by saying they have errors?

The Quran teachesthese three writings the Torah, Psalms and Gospel are from God correct?

The Quran teachesthat they should both be recognized and obeyed, correct? What am I missinghere, either they are from God or they are not.

You say �The Quran confirms the previous, uncorruptedscripture.�

Why didn�t Jesus say the Torah, Psalms and Gospel werecorrupted when he was on earth? He never did, in fact he confirms the previous uncorruptedscriptures as you say Muhammad did. These are major, major, major conflicts myfriend.

The Gospel (Four different writers) never said the Psalms and the Torah are in error nor the Psalms (King David and others) the Torah. This is a grave error that has been made against these "Holy Scriptures" because 2 Timothy 3:16 says " All Scripture isinspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting thingsstraight, for disciplining in righteousness.

Are you saying that God's inspired scriptures are wrong? Or are you saying it's interpretations are wrong there is a difference?

Qur�an reads: �Afterthose prophets We sent forth Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming the Torahalready revealed, and gave him the Gospel, in which there is guidance andlight, corroborating that which was revealed before it in the Torah, a guideand an admonition to the righteous. Therefore let the followers of the Gospeljudge in accordance with what Allah has revealed therein. Evil-doers are thosethat do not base their judgements on Allah�s revelations.� (S) 5: 46, 47.

Why would Muhammad say the previous scriptures werecorrupted when Jesus who the Quran holds in high esteem does not? I think you�re really going out on the limbhere. Can one really have guidance and light in the Gospel if it were corruptedwith errors and falsehoods?

From what I see thus far respectively your explanation doesn�t seem to bein harmony with what even the Quran is telling us because I thought the Quran waswritten for the purpose of confirming these books and not to reject its faith.

(S) 2:41 Andbelieve in what I reveal, confirming the revelation which is with you, and benot the first to reject Faith therein, nor sell My Signs for a small price; andfear Me, and Me alone.

Waaminoo bima anzaltu musaddiqanlimamaAAakum wala takoonoo awwala kafirinbihi wala tashtaroobi-ayatee thamananqaleelan wa-iyyaya faittaqooni

Children of Israel. . . Have faith in My revelations, which confirm your Scriptures.�

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by Larryiec786, I...

Wed, 29 Aug 2012 22:55:10 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 29 August 2012 at 10:55pm

Christian scholars of the calibre of Bishop Kenneth Cragg
euphemistically calls this stealing, "reproduction"
2
and take pride in it. lol

I see you could not reply to the article could you.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Comparing the revealed books...

Wed, 29 Aug 2012 20:34:17 +0000

Author: Ahmadi Muslim
Subject: 19811
Posted: 29 August 2012 at 8:34pm

Comparing the revealed books (Quran and Bible) with Sunnah of the Prophet and human renderings of the Prophets sayings and doings is like comparing apples to oranges.

Why do we have to argue just for the sake of arguing.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by Ahmadi...

Wed, 29 Aug 2012 20:26:19 +0000

Author: Ron Webb
Subject: 19811
Posted: 29 August 2012 at 8:26pm

Originally posted by Ahmadi Muslim

... I say all this not to belittle the Holy Bible but just to clarify that the Bible was designed to be temporay, for Jews and Christians only and to be ultimately replaced wit a permanent book for all nations and for all times.

Both books were from God. Both are equally revered by Muslims. Both were desinged by God - one for temorary period, the other for all times. In my view both are HOLY, or may I say the Bible "was" and Quran "is" Holy because the original Bible - the word of God - is not available today. By God's design.

Interesting. So what of the hadith and the sunnah? Would you agree that those sources, which are surely more corrupt than even the Bible, were also designed only for a temporary period, and not for all nations and for all times?

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Whatever, Hasan, You base your...

Wed, 29 Aug 2012 17:22:37 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 29 August 2012 at 5:22pm

Whatever, Hasan, You base your faith on a book, I base my faith on God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. I will put the truths of the Holy Bible against the Qur'an any day. As I have said before, in Christianity and Judaism we did not have "burning" parties" to make sure that every Bible said the exact same thing.

The deliberate destruction of the original Qur'an, created two years after the death of Muhammad, Hafsah's Codex, which Uthman used to create "four perfect copies" and then returned the original Qur'an to Hafsah, is proof enough that there was a problem with the contents.

If you expect me to believe the same fairy tale that differences in "punctuation" and "pronunciation" were the reason for the destruction of this original Qur'an, you have the wrong person. "Perfect" works do not require "editing."

Larry

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Larry, you wrote: We Christians...

Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:40:28 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 29 August 2012 at 1:40pm

Larry,
you wrote:
We Christians don't depend on whether our Biblical texts correspond exactly as "proof" of our faith. The Bible had many writers over the millenia and Biblical scholarship is always an ongoing practice, especially when new source material is found, as in the case of the Dead Sea Scrolls. No written literature from the ancient world can ever be "perfect" in their authorship and translations.

That is exactly what we are trying to tell you, it is no more word of God. It is not revealed word of God anymore after what it went through what you described above in your own words.

Hasan

Edited by honeto - 29 August 2012 at 1:46pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : iec786, I find it interesting,...

Wed, 29 Aug 2012 00:06:28 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 29 August 2012 at 12:06am

iec786,

I find it interesting, and typical of you, that your claim that the Bible is "plagiarized" was "plagiarized" by you from another source that you do not credit.

Once again you prove your incomparable and utter hypocrisy.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 29 August 2012 at 12:35am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Muhammad, The problem I have...

Tue, 28 Aug 2012 23:55:42 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 28 August 2012 at 11:55pm

Muhammad,

   The problem I have with the "original" text of the Qur'an is that it was destroyed deliberately by early Muslim "authorities." Why would Arabs who speak Arabic destroy the very first written copy of the Qur'an if, as you say, the only problem was adding vowels so that non-Arabic speakers would not misread the text. So, if, as you say, "the original text did not change-not a word," why destroy Hafsah's Codex? People do not destroy their original holy books for no reason.

   Also, Ubay B. Ka'ab's version of the Qur'an contains two surahs not included in the "standardized" form of the Qur'an created under the Caliph Uthman. Did these "unauthorized" surahs just appear out of nowhere? Ibn Masud's version, the "Kufan Codex" is not identical to Uthman's text either. Since there is no "original" copy of the Qur'an, it is impossible to prove that Hafsah's Codex, maintained by Muhammad's own wife and used by Uthman to create the "official" Qur'an, was exactly as written today.

   To say that the Holy Bible is a "temporary" work is insulting to the extreme. The Book of Revelation in the New Testament foretells, in specific and graphic language, what the end of the world will be when Jesus Christ returns.

   You say the Bible "was" Holy and the Qur'an IS Holy. It is comments like this that color my view of Islam and the Qur'an. The Holy Bible predates the Qur'an by centuries, then along comes Islam with it's foreign pre-Islamic theology claiming that the Old Testament of the Jews and the New Testament of the Christians is supposedly "corrupted," by these very same Jews and Christians, because there are large discrepancies between the Bible and the Qur'an.

    The Old and New Testaments are very complimentary to each other, especially in terms of prophecies made in the Old Testament that are fulfilled in the New Testament. The only text that differs substantially from both the Old and New Testaments is the Qur'an.

   And I still find it odd that the final "prophet" and "seal of the prophets" made no specific prophecies at all which later were fulfilled exactly as prophesied, which is the Biblical standard for a true prophet of God. So why Muhammad is called a "prophet" I have no idea.

   I would find it interesting if you could list the Qur'ans, and where they are located today, that were VERIFIABLY written during the lifetime of Muhammad.

   Anyone can memorize anything if they work at it. The fact that people have memorized the Qur'an means nothing in terms of its authenticity as a holy text. And I'm not sure what worth it is in memorizing a literary work in a language that the memorizer does not know. Or are you saying that by memorizing the Qur'an gives the memorizer the ability to read or speak Arabic fluently? That would indeed be a "miracle."

   And I'm sorry but I do not consider Islam to be an "Abrahamic" faith. Abraham, originally Abram, who was never in Southern Arabia, let alone in Mecca, is the earliest of Jewish Patriarchs, even though the Qur'an claims that he was NOT A JEW, an absurd and ridiculous statement on it's face.

   It seems from the posts on this forum that the only people who are asked to "learn" from each other is for Jews and Christians to "learn" that Islam is the true faith of God, which I reject outright.

   I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this subject.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 29 August 2012 at 12:43am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE "Jesus...

Tue, 28 Aug 2012 22:35:33 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 28 August 2012 at 10:35pm

BEGOTTEN, NOT MADE
"Jesus is the only beggten son of God, begotten not made," is an adjunct of the orthodox
catechism, leaning for support on the following:
2. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only BEGOTTEN son, that
whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John
3:16 - AV)
No priest worth his cloth would fail to quote "the only BEGOTTEN of the Father!" when
preaching to a prospective convert. But this fabrication - "BEGOTTEN" - has now been
unceremoniously excised by the Bible Revisers, without a word of excuse. They are as silent
as church-mice and would not draw the readers attention to their furtive excision. This
blasphemous word "BEGOTTEN" was another of the many such interpolations in the "Holy
Bible." God Almighty condemned this blasphemy in the strongest terms soon after its
innovation. He did not wait for 2000 years for Bible scholars to reveal the fraud.

"CHRISTIAN MES-A-MATHICS"
3. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the FATHER, the WORD, and
the HOLY GHOST: and these three are one." (1st Epistle of John 5:7 - AV)
This verse is the closest approximation to what the Christians call their Holy Trinity in the
encyclopaedia called the BIBLE. This key-stone of the Christian faith has also been scrapped
from the RSV without even a semblance of explanation. It has been a pious fraud all along
and well-deservedly has it been expunged in the RSV for the English speaking people. But for
the 1499 remaining language groups of the world who read the Christian concoctions in their
mother tongues, the fraud remains. These people will never know the truth until the Day of
Judgement. However, we Muslims must again congratulate the galaxy of D.D.'s who have
been honest enough to eliminate another lie from the English (RSV) Bible, thus bringing their Holy Book yet another step closer to the
teachings of Islam.

THE ASCENSION
One of the most serious of those "grave defects" which the authors of the RSV had tried to
rectify concerned the Ascension of Christ. There have been only two references in the
Canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and of John to the most stupendous event in
Christianity - OF JESUS BEING TAKEN UP INTO HEAVEN. These two references were obtained
in every Bible in every language, prior to 1952, when the RSV first appeared. These were:
Now please turn to page 18 which is a photo copy where the quotation 4a above ought to
appear. You will be shocked to note that Mark 16 ends at verse 8, and after an embarrassing
expanse of blank space the missing verses appear in "small print" as a footnote at the bottom
of the page. If you can lay your hand on a RSV 1952, you will find the last six words of 4b
above, i.e. "AND WAS CARRIED UP INTO HEAVEN" replaced by a tiny "a" to tell you to
see the footnote if you please, where you will find these missing words. Every honest
Christian has to admit that he does not consider any footnote in any Bible as the Word of
God. Why should the paid servants of Christianity consign the mightiest miracle of their
religion to a mere footnote?
From the Chart - "The Origin and Growth of the English
Is the Bible God's Word? Page 17
4a. "So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was TAKEN UP
INTO HEAVEN, and sat down at the right hand of God." (Mark 16:19)
4b. "While he blessed them, he parted from them, and was CARRIED UP
INTO HEAVEN." (Luke 24:51)

THE DONKEY CIRCUS
The above facts are a staggering confession by Christendom that the "inspired" authors of the
Canonical Gospels did not record a single word about the ASCENSION of Jesus. Yet these
"inspired" authors were unanimous in recording that their Lord and Saviour rode a donkey
into Jerusalem as his mission drew to a close.
Could God Almighty have been the author of this incongrous situation - going out of His Way
to see that all the Gospel writers did not miss their footing recording His "son's" donkey-ride
into the Holy City - and yet "inspiring" them to black-out the news about His "son's" heavenly
flight on the wings of angels?
NOT FOR LONG!
The hot-gospellers and the Bible-thumpers were too slow in catching the joke. By the
time they realised that the corner-stone of their preaching - THE ASCENSION OF JESUS - had
been undermined as a result of Christian Biblical erudition, the publishers of the RSV had
already raked in a nett profit of 15 000 000 dollars! (Fifteen Million). The propagandists made
a big hue and cry, and with the backing of two denominational committees out of the fifty,
forced the Publishers to re-incorporate the interpolations into the "INSPIRED" Word of God. In every new publication of the RSV after 1952, the expunged portion was
"RESTORED TO THE TEXT."
It is an old, old game. The Jews and Christians have been editing their "Book of God" from its
very inception. The difference between them and the ancient forgerers is that the ancient
forgers did not know the art of writing "prefaces" and "footnotes", otherwise they too would
have told us as clearly as our modern heroes have about their tampering, and their glib
excuses for transmuting forged currency into glittering gold.
"MANY PROPOSALS FOR MODIFICATION WERE SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE BY
INDIVIDUALS AND BY TWO DENOMINATIONAL COMMITTEES. ALL OF THESE WERE GIVEN
CAREFUL ATTENTION BY THE COMMITTEE.
"TWO PASSAGES, THE LONGER ENDING OF MARK (16:9-20) ... AND LUKE 24:51 ARE
RESTORED TO THE TEXT." (Preface - Collins' pages vi and vii)
"Why 'restored'"? Because they had been previously expunged! Why had the references to
the Ascension expunged in the first place? The MOST Ancient manuscripts had no references
to the Ascension at all. They were interpolations similar to 1 John 5:7 about the Trinity.
(Refer page 16 example 3). Why eliminate one and re-instate the other? Do not be surprised!
By the time you lay your hands on a RSV, the "Committee" might also have decided to
expunge the whole of their invaluable Preface. The Jehovah's Witnesses have already
eliminated 27 revealing pages of their FOERWORD to their "New World Translation of the
CHRISTIAN GREEK SCRIPTURES," (this is their way of saying - New Testament).

MOSES WROTE HIS OWN OBITUARY?
Could Moses had been a contributor to his own obituary before his demise? Did the Jews
write their own obituaries? "So Moses ... DIED ... And he (God Almighty) BURIED HIM
(Moses) ... he was 120 years old when he DIED ... And there arose not a prophet
SINCE in Israel like unto Moses ..." (Deut. 34:5-10). We will analyze the rest of the Old
Testament presently from other angles.

WHOLESALE CRIBBING
But what about that "inspiration" business? The Anglican prebendary has hit the nail on the
head. He is, more than anyone else, entitled to do so. A paid servant of the Church, an
orthodox evangelical Christian, a Bible scholar of repute, having direct access to the "original"
Greek manuscripts, let HIM spell it out for us.(Notice how gently he lets the cat out of the
bag): "HE (Matthew) HAS USED MARK'S GOSPEL FREELY," which in the language of the
school-teacher - "has been copying WHOLESALE from Mark!" Yet the Christians call this
wholesale plagiarism the Word of God?
Does it not make you wonder that an eye-witness and an ear-witness to the ministry of
Jesus, which the disciple Matthew was supposed to be, instead of writing his own first hand
impressions of the ministry of "his Lord," would go and steal from the writings of a youth
(Mark), who was a ten year old lad when Jesus upbraided his nation? Why would an eyewitness and an ear-witness copy from a fellow who himself was writing from hearsay? The
disciple Matthew would not do any such silly thing. For an anonymous document has been
imposed on the fair name of Matthew.

PLAGIARISM OR LITERARY KIDNAPPING
Plagiarism means literary theft. Someone copies ad verbatim (word for word) from another's
writing and palms it off as his own, is known as plagiarism. This is a common trait amongst
the 40 or so anonymous authors of the books of the Bible. The Christians boast about a
supposedly common chord amongst the writers of the 66 Protestant booklets and the writers
of the 73 Roman Catholic booklets called the "Holy Bible." Some common chord there is, for
Matthew and Luke, or whoever they were, had plagiarised 85% word for word from Mark!
God Almighty did not dictate the same wordings to the synoptists (one-eyed). The Christians
themselves admit this, because they do not believe in a verbal inspiration, as the Muslims do
about the Holy Quŕ�n.
1
The 85% plagiarism of Matthew and Luke pales into insignificance compared to the literary
kidnapping of the authors of the Old Testament where a hundred percent stealing occurs in
the so-called Book of God. Christian scholars of the calibre of Bishop Kenneth Cragg
euphemistically calls this stealing, "reproduction"
2
and take pride in it.

Do you want more

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Wow Larry. Looks like you...

Tue, 28 Aug 2012 17:54:31 +0000

Author: Ahmadi Muslim
Subject: 19811
Posted: 28 August 2012 at 5:54pm

Wow Larry.

Looks like you are hell bent on denouncing the Quran. You write with such obvious bias that it is impossible to explain anything to you.

Let me try. One of the special characteristics of the Quran is that it does NOT have to be written down. God planned it such that it was to be memorised. That was God's firsr priority. The quranic verses were memorised as they were revealed by Muhaamd himself and those who were around him. It took 23 years to be revealed and therefore 23 years to be memorised in its totality. In the first few years there were very few verses revealed. During each Ramdhan the angel Gibrael would rehearse that part of the Quran with Muahammad as had been revealed upto that point. During the last Ramdhan the quran was rehearsed twice by angel Gibrael in its totality. Regardless of whether it was written or not it was safe in its original form as memorised by Muhammad and hundreds of Muhamamd's followers.

Written copies were also made during his life time.

Some individuals made personal copies in order of revelation. Others as directed by Muhammad and as rehearsed by Gabrael. The form of writting was by Arabs and for Arabs. As Islam spread and Arabic became a foreign language for many Muslims, Usman made copies of the original form by adding vowels so no word of the Quran could be misread by non Arabic speaking Muslims. The original text did not change - not a word.

This is what distinguishes the Quran from the Bible that it has been preserved by God and by God's design. The preservation did not depend on the written version only.

1500 years later, a non arab, totally unfamiliar with arabic can memorise the Quran, from A to Z in as little as one or two years, even by children less than 5 years of age. That is the miracle of Quran. I say all this not to belittle the Holy Bible but just to clarify that the Bible was designed to be temporay, for Jews and Christians only and to be ultimately replaced wit a permanent book for all nations and for all times.

Both books were from God. Both are equally revered by Muslims. Both were desinged by God - one for temorary period, the other for all times. In my view both are HOLY, or may I say the Bible "was" and Quran "is" Holy because the original Bible - the word of God - is not available today. By God's design.

For a discussion to be productive all participants must be willing to LEARN from each other. When one party is hell bent on "winning" the argument then it is a debate not a discussion.

May God be our Guide and help us control our egos.

Your brother in the Abrahimic faith - Muhammad Suleman

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, A translation is a translation....

Tue, 28 Aug 2012 14:17:33 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 28 August 2012 at 2:17pm

Hasan,

   A translation is a translation. There are translation errors in the Bible and there are translation problems in English copies of the Qur'an. If the English translation of the Qur'an here on this site is precisely translated into English as "pure son" why does it write it as "holy son?" No translation, even that of the Qur'an is exactly precise when using words from another language.

   A. Yusuf Ali's translation of the Qur'an was still done over two centuries after Elizabethan English was used. Nor was Elizabethan English spoken or written in that archaic form nearly a century ago when Ali made his translation. The only explanation seems to be that Ali's translation of the Qur'an used the form and language of the King James Bible to put it on a par with the Bible, therefore making it appear to be more of a match than it was in reality.

   The problem that I continue to have with some of the posters on here is that whenever a Biblical passage is used to "prove" the authenticity of the Qur'an, or to point out "errors" in Biblical language, the Biblical passages are used exactly word-for-word. But any passages in the Bible that disagree or contradict what the Qur'an says, are summarily dismissed as "corrupted" text.

   How does a Muslim know precisely WHICH Biblical writings are authentic and which Biblical writings are "corrupted?" It seems that many Muslims want to have it both ways. Either the Bible is "corrupted" text in it's entirety or it is not. To simply say that anything that supports the Qur'an in the Bible is "true" and that anything that contradicts the Qur'an is "false" is simply too "convenient" of a method and presupposes that the Qur'an itself is the true measure by which these "corruptions" are identified.

   Jews and Christians could say the same things about the Qur'an in relation to what the Old and New Testaments say. And, since the Qur'an was written down thousands of years after the Old Testament and hundreds of years after the New Testament, it would seem that any errors in the Qur'an are in the writings of the Qur'an itself and that is why there are discrepancied between both the Old and New Testaments and the Qur'an.

   I would be more impressed with Qur'anic scholarship if the "corrupt" and "incorrupt" parts of the Bible were labeled accordingly. Which Biblical chapters are corrupt, which Biblical verses are corrupt and which Biblical words are corrupt?

Larry

Edited by Larry - 28 August 2012 at 2:24pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : iec786, In Christianity we didn't...

Tue, 28 Aug 2012 13:51:21 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 28 August 2012 at 1:51pm

iec786,

   In Christianity we didn't have "book burning" parties, as did the "editors" of the Qur'an, to make sure that our scriptures were all exactly alike. Not only was the ORIGINAL Qur'an, Hafsah's Codex, written down within two years of Munhammad's death, deliberately destroyed by Muslim "authorities," but variant copies of the Qur'an still exist, those of Ubayy B. Ka'ab and Ibn Masud (the Kufan Codex), whose Qur'ans had extra surahs that are not included in the "official" Qur'an, or lacked surahs that are in the present Qur'an.

   We Christians don't depend on whether our Biblical texts correspond exactly as "proof" of our faith. The Bible had many writers over the millenia and Biblical scholarship is always an ongoing practice, especially when new source material is found, as in the case of the Dead Sea Scrolls. No written literature from the ancient world can ever be "perfect" in their authorship and translations.

   AND YOU STILL DID NOT EXPLAIN WHY THE QURAN WAS TRANSLATED INTO ARCHAIC 17th CENTURY ENGLISH. WHY WOULD A MODERN QUR'AN BE TRANSLATED INTO A NO LONGER USED VOCABULARY, ESPECIALLY WHEN MODERN COPIES OF THE BIBLE ARE DONE IN CONTEMPORARY ENGLISH?

   But you dislike answering difficult questions about your Qur'an and about the life story of your "prophet" Myuhammad, don't you?

   Oh, and who, exactly, was the "writer" of the Qur'an, since it was not "written" down by Muhammad himself (who was illiterate) or survives today in the "original" Qur'an, "Hafsah's Codex?" Was it Uthman, who "standardized" the written form of the Qur'an many years after the death of Muhammad?

   And why did early Muslim authorities deliberately destroy "Hafsah's Codex" years after it was used by Uthman to create his "standardized" Qur'an and then returned to Hafsah, undamaged by Uthman, as he promised her?

   There is only one reason why a "holy" original text would be destroyed years later by Muslim authorities, and that is because it contained differences with the "authorized" version, not that it contained merely errors of punctuation or other minor details that resulted in discrepancies in variant readings.

   But I guess that is an "acceptable" reason for the deliberate destruction of the very first and original written Qur'an, jealously protected by Muhammad's own wife, Hafsah, until her death.

   Do you have any other fairy tales to tell me?

Larry

Edited by Larry - 28 August 2012 at 2:43pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Larry, I just wanted to show...

Mon, 27 Aug 2012 14:05:27 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 27 August 2012 at 2:05pm

Larry,
I just wanted to show what I said I saw in the Bible, " an evil spirit from God" and I understand it is probably a translation error as a translation cannot be a true representation of the original. It is like some other issue I have with the Bible translation we have today, like, " God rested on the seventh day", or that " God was sorry that He has made man". All of those are errors in translations. If we had those verses word for word in their original tongue with us, we could have easily resolve the issues. Unfortunately we don't have that privilege in case of the Bible, so we guess word meanings behind them when at face value they don't make sense or do not agree.
As far as "pure son" or "holy son" غُلَامًا زَكِيًّا (19:19, it's not a problem. Gulaman (son, boy)and Zakkiah (pure). Allah has used the same term in 24:21....Had it not been for the grace of Allah and His mercy unto you, not one of you would ever have grown pure (يُزَكِّي). We believe what Allah tells us. Jesus (pbuh) was a "pure son" to Mary.
19:34 Such (was) Jesus the son of Mary: (it is) a statement of truth, about which they (vainly) dispute.
19:35 It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is.

As far as Quran translation using old English, which is mainly visible in A. Yusuf Ali's translation, it was due to the fact that it was done nearly a century ago during the height of British influence in the Sub-continent.
Hasan

Edited by honeto - 27 August 2012 at 2:08pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : New King James Old King James...

Mon, 27 Aug 2012 08:43:06 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 27 August 2012 at 8:43am

New King James Old King James lol same problems.You do not know the authors of 80% of your book.Most of your Bible New or old King James have anonymous writers.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : What part of "from"...

Sun, 26 Aug 2012 18:15:50 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 26 August 2012 at 6:15pm

   What part of "from" do you not understand? Also, you are using an earlier and less accurate translation of Samuel, as is the case with the original King James Bible, the New King James Version uses the more precise word "distressing" in place of "evil."

   The Qur'an is also imprecise in translation;

   Surah 19:19,

   19. "He said: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son."

   How many other people in the Qur'an are personally called "holy?"

   And I still have a problem understanding why a modern translation of the Qur'an, such as that here on Islamicity, is translated into the archaic Elizabethan English used in the original King James Bible of 1611 C.E.?

   Is that done to make the Qur'an seem more "equal" to, or to have the same prestige of, the original King James Version?

   I ask because the New King James Version translation of the Bible is written using modern English in place of the now unused and obsolete 17th Century English form.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 26 August 2012 at 6:20pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by honeto...

Sun, 26 Aug 2012 11:54:48 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 26 August 2012 at 11:54am

Originally posted by honeto

[QUOTE=Larry] Hasan,

I don't know where you get your "Biblical" ideas but I have yet to hear the Bible say that God is an "evil spirit," perhaps you can cite the Biblical verse that says that. As far as the power of God to do ANYTHING, I put no limits on Him, or expect Him to fulfill my ideas or beliefs about Him or about His powers. I would not dare to say what God will or will not do or what God can and cannot do, evidently you feel differently. Jesus said it clearly:

   "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

   As I said before; "Generally speaking, In Christianity, God is understood to act in accordance within reason, while in Islam, God's absolute transcendence means that God is not bound, even by His own word, and can act in ways contrary to reason, including self-contradiction.

   Sorry to hear about your laptop.

Larry

Dear Larry,
-1 Samuel 16:14 But the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him.

Yes Hasan,this fellow Paul was as you say this is another verse from the messed up Bible.

PAUL : On his own admittance being cunning, used deceit:
"But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I
CAUGHT YOU WITH GUILE." 2 CORINTHIANS 12:16

This fellow Paul was a sick person.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, You consistently misinterpret...

Sun, 26 Aug 2012 01:30:21 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 26 August 2012 at 1:30am

Hasan,

   You consistently misinterpret what I say in regard to this subject. You are the one who is asking if God can be like an elephant or monkey, etc.

   But you also say, and this is what I have been saying to you; my points in parentheses;

   "Personally, as a Muslim (Christian), I do not believe that God is evil, a monkey, bull, elephant or a white man. I am taught as a Muslim (Christian) that God is the Creator of All that Exists, including some of the creations some people take as gods like that elephant, a monkey, a bull or a white man. We glorify and praise God in Islam (Christianity) when we see His Creations, not worshipping them nor taking them as gods."

   I agree.

   The Bible never says that God is evil, nor does it say that God is an elephant, monkey or whatever. The Bible also does not say that God is a "white man."

   But, the Bible DOES say that God made mankind in His Image (so to say that God is not a "white man" is not addressed in Genesis).

   Genesis 1:26-27;

   26. "Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our Image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on earth."

   27. "So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."

   But to say that God CANNOT make Himself into an elephant, monkey or whatever, is saying that God's power has limits to it, which no Christian would ever agree to. The power of God is limitless and complete. However, there is no REASON for God to WANT to change Himself into an animal, etc., so it is an action that is simply not an issue and not addressed in scripture.

   However, we disagree on what the status of Jesus Christ is. You call Jesus Christ a "creation" of God, but Christians see him as an extension and integral part of God Himself, as is referenced by His name Emmanuel, or "God with Us." But Christians believe that Jesus had a dual nature, He was born and lived as a man on earth, but He was still divine in nature.

Larry



Edited by Larry - 26 August 2012 at 1:42am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, My New King James Version...

Sun, 26 Aug 2012 00:59:32 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 26 August 2012 at 12:59am

Hasan,

   My New King James Version states in:

   I Samuel 16:14,

   "But the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and a distressing spirit FROM the Lord troubled him."

   Judges 9:23,

   "God SENT a spirit of ill will between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech."

   So, from these verses you can see that these spirits were SENT from God, not WERE God.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 26 August 2012 at 1:43am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : @Ahmadi MuslimGenesis...

Sat, 25 Aug 2012 20:47:48 +0000

Author: Caringheart
Subject: 19811
Posted: 25 August 2012 at 8:47pm

@Ahmadi Muslim

Genesis 19 is about sodom and gomorrah... You meant to type Genesis 16:12.

"he will be like a wild donkey, fighting everyone, and everyone fighting him.� (contemporary english version)

¹²And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren. (King James version)

It actually says that he will be 'like' a wild donkey... not that he is a wild donkey. There is a difference.

Sadly I suspect that this change a sign of the times... going back to a literal translation. I consider it to be a reversion... a step backwards.

Personally I like that the King James translation chose to be more sensitive by not doing as the Hebrews tended to do in referring to people as animals. By choosing not to use scripture as an insult to others. They chose better words... respectful words which still conveyed the same meaning.

The main point was that Ishmael would be stubborn and combative.

Edited by Caringheart - 26 August 2012 at 8:14pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Dear Jack the Bible is still...

Fri, 24 Aug 2012 05:11:45 +0000

Author: Ahmadi Muslim
Subject: 19811
Posted: 24 August 2012 at 5:11am

Dear Jack the Bible is still evolving. It is still changing. There are about 32,000 different versions of the bible registered with the Library of the Congress. Each version is different.

Without getting into the sensitive areas of Jesus's divinity etc etc let me show you a simple example of how the Bible is still evolving. In the King James Version Ishamel is called a "wild man" Genesis 19:12. In the Contemporary English Version published by Thomas Nelson Publishers the words "wild man" has changed to "wild donkey".

There are many many other changes, even those admitted in the Bible itelf.

More when you respond.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by LarryHasan, ...

Thu, 12 Jul 2012 14:44:50 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 12 July 2012 at 2:44pm

Originally posted by Larry

Hasan,

I don't know where you get your "Biblical" ideas but I have yet to hear the Bible say that God is an "evil spirit," perhaps you can cite the Biblical verse that says that. As far as the power of God to do ANYTHING, I put no limits on Him, or expect Him to fulfill my ideas or beliefs about Him or about His powers. I would not dare to say what God will or will not do or what God can and cannot do, evidently you feel differently. Jesus said it clearly:

   "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

   As I said before; "Generally speaking, In Christianity, God is understood to act in accordance within reason, while in Islam, God's absolute transcendence means that God is not bound, even by His own word, and can act in ways contrary to reason, including self-contradiction.

   Sorry to hear about your laptop.

Larry

Dear Larry,
-1 Samuel 16:14 But the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him.

-Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man.

-Thanks, I hope whoever got my laptop at least benefit from it positively.
Hasan

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : CONTRADICTIONS : In the Bible...

Sat, 07 Jul 2012 23:31:22 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 07 July 2012 at 11:31pm

CONTRADICTIONS : In the Bible -
(a) The "Lord" tempted David . . . 2 SAMUEL 24:1
or "Satan" provoked David . . . 1 CHRONICLES 21:1
(b) 700 or 7000? "Horsemen" or "Footmen" . . .? 2 SAMUEL 10:18 vs 1
CHRONICLES 19:18
(c) Solomon had 2000 baths or 3000 baths? 1 KINGS 7:26 vs 2
CHRONICLES 4:5
(d) Solomon had 4000 stalls of horses or 40000? 2 CHRONICLES 9:25 vs
1 KINGS 4:26
(e) Did Saul enquire of the Lord or didn't he? 1 SAMUEL 28:6 vs 1
CHRONICLES 10:13-14
(f) Heaven, no man hath ascended JOHN 3:13
Contradicted by: 2 KINGS 2:11 Elijah ascended, and GENESIS 5:24
Enoch ascended.
(g) Jesus lost "None" of his disciples JOHN 18:9
Contradicted by: He lost only "One" JOHN 17:12

(h) "ALL" are sinners 2 CHRONICLES 6:36
Contradicted by: "Whosoever is born of God DOTH NOT
commit sin . . ." 1 JOHN 3:9

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, I don't know where...

Thu, 05 Jul 2012 00:48:11 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 05 July 2012 at 12:48am

Hasan,

I don't know where you get your "Biblical" ideas but I have yet to hear the Bible say that God is an "evil spirit," perhaps you can cite the Biblical verse that says that. As far as the power of God to do ANYTHING, I put no limits on Him, or expect Him to fulfill my ideas or beliefs about Him or about His powers. I would not dare to say what God will or will not do or what God can and cannot do, evidently you feel differently. Jesus said it clearly:

   "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

   As I said before; "Generally speaking, In Christianity, God is understood to act in accordance within reason, while in Islam, God's absolute transcendence means that God is not bound, even by His own word, and can act in ways contrary to reason, including self-contradiction.

   Sorry to hear about your laptop.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 05 July 2012 at 1:05am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by LarryCaringheart, You...

Wed, 04 Jul 2012 22:52:58 +0000

Author: Caringheart
Subject: 19811
Posted: 04 July 2012 at 10:52pm

Originally posted by Larry

Caringheart,

You feel that I was "unnecessarily rude" in my response to "Islamispeace." Perhaps you should attend to your concerns and not judge me or my responses to anyone on this site, as if I am a child to be corrected. If "Islamispeace" has a problem with my replies he can tell me himself.

Larry

I thought the perspective of another might help since the purpose of this forum is to promote understanding and communication.

Too bad you took offense. I only just the other day read something along the lines of, 'If you can't listen to a criticism there is little chance of learning or growth.' I try to remain open to criticism or correction.

Peace.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by LarryHasan, Did...

Wed, 04 Jul 2012 15:26:09 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 04 July 2012 at 3:26pm

Originally posted by Larry

Hasan,

   Did I stutter? Jesus said, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

   I believe that there are no limits to the power of God Almighty. As I said before, God is beyond all human understanding and His powers are limitless and complete.

   Apparently you believe differently.

   You can play word-games with the sanctity and power of God all you want, but a God that has ANY limits is no true God at all.

   That is the difference between your faith and mine.

Larry

Larry, why are you scared to make sense of things. So, you are saying God can be all He wants, like an elephant or a monkey? And by the way its not me who say that, there are people like you who believe God can come as a monkey or an elephant because for them like for you if God cannot come as a monkey, its not God. So according to your logic, a Hindu is correct and you should not have a problem with that?
Also, according to the Bible God is an evil sprit, do you think that to be the case?
Personally, as a Muslim I do not believe that God is evil, a monkey, bull, elephant or a white man. I am taught as a Muslim that God is the Creator of All that exists, including some of the creations some people take as gods like that elephant, a monkey, a bull or a white man. We glorify and praise God in Islam when we see His Creations, not worshiping them nor taking them as gods.

Sorry, it took me a while to answer your post. I was away for a while as my laptop was stolen.
Hasan

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : You: Supposedly the Quran is the...

Wed, 04 Jul 2012 03:55:57 +0000

Author: Usmani
Subject: 19811
Posted: 04 July 2012 at 3:55am

You: Supposedly the Quran is the "logical" extension of the Jewish "Taurat" and the Christian "Gospels". So why would they be "obsolete" and not relevant anymore?   "Because of the corruption made in them. Change the God to a great extends and also because they were designed for that time period and Quran is designed for until end of the world.

   Me: "Because of the corruption in them."

   You: That's a convenient excuse for why the Quran does not fit well with EITHER the Old or New Testaments, which complement each other and form a coherent, and logical progression, unlike the Quran. The Bible contains the Book of Revelation, documenting the end of the world, is this Book "designed" for the past or future?

Me: contradictions in Bible are the evident of human interferences in it. Two wrongs thing�s compliments to each other does not make them right. You got to investigate where the truth lies. Having news of end of the world does not make it book for future. A flaw less, logical, book contains the complete message could be the book of present and as long it have all these qualities, it will be the book of future as well. Quran is the only book in today�s context which passes this test.

   You: "So much of the Quran is based on the Jewish Old Testament and the Christian New Testament that it is hard to understand why you consider them to be "obsolete" and not simply the earlier "revelations" of Allah to His "Prophets" that were followed by the final revelation of the Quran and to Muhammad's being the "Seal of the Prophets."

   Me: Quran is the message of God as were old and new Testaments and both are not there now as they were revealed. So we cannot say Quran is based on them. If we may have the both revelations in original form, no one can object on Quran.

   You: You say the Old and New Testaments are "not as they were revealed." Really?

Me: How many Christians today have the Bible in the original language it was revealed? This one thing itself enough to tell the all story.

You: - And who specifically was responsible for this supposed "corruption" of the "actual revelations?" You also say, "So we cannot say Quran is based on them." So what is the Quran based on if not the earlier "prophets" of the Old and New Testaments?

Me:What I mean was since the old and new Testaments are corrupted and Quran is not so you cannot find the clear link there as you said.

You: As I have said, there are many contradictions in the Quran, especially in how the "People of the Book" (Jews, Christians and (oddly) the "Sabeans") are to be viewed and how they are to be treated by Muslims. In some places they are portrayed as among the true believers and in others are referred to as "perverted transgressors."

Me: The highlighted one is not the correct interpretation, get the verse telling that, I will try clear misunderstanding. What I can say now who ever followed their religion truly in the pre-Islamic era those people were among the true believers as well.

Me: use the hadith as our resource; this is guided in Quran to do so. Just words are not enough to know the complete way of life; you need the teacher to show you how to do it."

You: So, what you are saying is that the very message of God is not enough in itself; it needs the words or sayings of the "Prophet" to clarify God's own words? We Christians do not need a "hadith" to understand the words of God and Jesus Christ, they are enough in themselves.

Me :)? Hadith are words of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon Him) is the same as you have words of Jesus (peace be upon Him) in Bible.Only thing they are separately kept and are not part of Quran.

You: The Old and New Testaments fit together very well, the only "Book" that does not fit well with the Bible is the Quran. So, I would think that shows that the Quran is the book that is corrupt and not the actual message of God. For example, EVERY part of the Hajj ceremony is pre-Islamic, circumambulating the Kaaba, the "seamless" garments, running between the hills, stoning the Devil and sacrifice of an animal, etc. Why do Muslims continue the practices and ceremonies of the pagans of ancient Arabia, including the veneration of the "Black Stone" which was one of the 360 idols inside the Kaaba? Even the name "Allah" is pre-Islamic, both Muhammad's father and uncle had "Allah" as part of their names.

Me.Prophet Ibrahim (peace and blessing of God upon Him) is the one who built Kaba.Ismaeal (peace and blessing of God upon Him) son of Ibrahim (peace and blessing of God upon Him) and after there is a long gap then Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing of God upon Him) revive it all again and may be with some different way.Pagan araba were following the entirely different way having 360 idols inside the Kaba.Allah is the Name of Allah now and pre Islamic as well. Where its shows the corruption took place there?.I wish to know from where the word �God �came from? is this word there in the original bible.

      You: "I have actually read the ENTIRE Quran here on Islamicity and I found it seemingly disjointed in it's structure with little or no linear quality. It does not follow a timeline from beginning to end, and it seemed to me to be a long series of individual statements, historical events and warnings to "unbelievers" that are repeated, over and over. The basic message seemed to be that "believers" needed to believe that Muhammad was the true "Messenger" or "Prophet" of Allah and believe that Allah is the true and only God, and anyone who does not believe this will burn in hellfire forever."

   Me: Whats wrong with that, Quran is the book for the guidance of human, as long the message is clear, is enough.

  You: But now you are saying that "Quran is the book for guidance of human, as long as the message is clear, is enough." So which is it, you said, "Just words are not enough..." and now you say, "as long as the message is clear, is enough?"

Me: If this clear message says that �obey Prophet� Does it comply that it become unclear by saying that? Logic I already given why just words are not enough.

You: You didn't answer the question, why does the Sunni and Shiite sects of Islam have different sets of hadith? Which sect has the "true" hadith of Muhammad?

Me: This is because of the differences among early Muslims secondly I am not here to defend Sunni Muslims, seeker of truth will find out, I don�t have tell.

Me: "Is the Bible is like that, contains the words of God only. Very few verses are only there which could be the direct words of God, some places we can see that Jesus speaking and most of the Bible contain third person is speaking there. Unlike in the Quran where 100% words are directly from God Himself, there is no single word belong to any other person even from Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing of God upon him)

You: So, you believe that since the Bible contains more than just the words of God that makes it not true? There are many writers and personages in the Bible, including Abraham, Joseph and Jacob, and many Prophets like Jesus, Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the Psalms of David and the Song of Solomon, etc., If Islam only accepted the ACTUAL words of God, it would not have included references to these very same persons.

Me: I am not saying that, If you can have other�s people words incorporated in Bible with the God words is acceptable for you and if we have them separately the words of God and words Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing of God upon Him) then you have problem why?Schalars of bible keep changing the Bible by taking out some material from it(if I am not wrong in Kings James version) and this change took place not very long ago then how can someone trust in the authenticity of Bible is not there anymore what if the earlier scholars may have done the similar thing.

   Me: "As I had tell earlier that to understand the message correctly, practical demonstration is essential and the prophetic explanations of Quran are very important as well, otherwise every individual could have their own interpretations which would be different from each other and resulting deviation from the original message will occur and differences amongst peoples will be visible. As in the case of Sunni and Shia Muslims having now."

   You: So, in order to "understand" the message (of God Himself), "prophetic explanations" are "very important?" Also, if the Quran is truly "flaw less" and the absolute "true message of God" and perfect in every way, then why does the Quran say, in Quran 2:106;"None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar; Knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?"

   So, God Himself can give a "better or similar" revelation to the "Prophet" after He has already made His original "revelation" to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel? Why would God's "true message" require this proviso in case of any problems or discrepancies with the "original" revelations?

   Me: "This is not because of the problems with the original message, this is the Divine Wisdom much better knows the need of it. Oneness of God was always there in the message of every Prophet but there could be differences in various others laws like the laws of daily life and, ways of prayers food which is allowed etc."

   You: You say, (concerning Surah 2:106), "This is not because of the problems with the original message, this is the Divine Wisdom much better knows the need for it. Oneness of God was always there in the message of every Prophet but there could be differences..."

   So, "Divine Wisdom" knows the "need" to correct itself from earlier revelations? That's odd, in the Bible God never "corrects" His earlier revelations nor does He even have a process or "revelation" to do it.

   You: Generally speaking, in Christianity, God is understood to act in accordance with reason, while in Islam, God's absolute transcendence means that "God is not bound even by His own word, and can act in ways contrary to reason, including SELF-CONTRADICTION."

So, in your book, God Himself needs to "correct" Himself from time to time from His earlier "Divine revelations?"

Me: Why then there was a need of New Testaments? why not just follow the old Testaments Why Jew did not believe in Trinity, Because it is not there in Taurat.A doctor sometimes may give the one type of medicine looking at the current condition of the person and knowing that after few days, another Madison will be more effective and he change the old medicine with new medicine .Doctor know how therapy will work. God is not correcting anything here.

Me: "Rest what you have said is just show the little knowledge you have about Islam and the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing of God upon Him).I only want to say that our Prophet Married to Aisha (RA) when He was more than 50 years old and if I am not wrong this was his first marriage as Prophet. Secondly God love His prophets, if there are some revelations for his personnel life so there is nothing wrong with that. Thirdly the money He used to get from various means, most of its He used to spend on other poor people. He and his family very seldom used to have the food of two times a day.

You: So, because Muhammad was 50 years old and this was his "first" marriage as "Prophet," it was fine with God that Muhammad married Aisha at age the age of 6 and "consummated" his marriage to Aisha when she was only 9 years old? But you find "nothing wrong" that God Himself busied Himself with revelations to Muhammad concerning his earthly and sexual affairs? Or even that God decreed the "protection" of the Quryash tribe?

Me: Sorry my earlier reply was not clear.Sex desire is more when the person is young. When He was young 25 years old, He married to a forty years old woman who has married before as well. I tell you what, now satan will put in your mind that because of the money he married to her then I will answer that then some more thing will come up. I will advise you to study the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing of God upon Him) and other prophets as well. Most importantly if you are really interested to know Islam correctly, you pray to Allah with sincerity that you wish to know the truth, please help me to find it.

You: If you are seriously trying to say that Muhammad was so poor that he only could eat once or, rarely twice, a day, that is laughable. Muhammad received a large share of the "Jizya" taken from conquered peoples and even God Himself says, in the Quran, that Muhammad and his closest relations were to be given a large percentage of any funds derived from Muhammad's "revelations." Muhammad even enriched Himself from raids on caravans to Mecca, for example, which were robbed of their wealth and goods.

Me: Please study the history and life of Prophet if you think I am giving wrong information to you. Not just food His cloths his house, the way He sleep on the floor at ordinary cotton sheets. He live a life of so simple so none of his follower can say that Prophet had a better life than me.

Narrated 'Aisha : The Prophet died when we had satisfied our hunger with the two black things, i.e. dates and water. (Bukhari)

Me: "You did not give yours response to what I have said you friends are insulting God by saying that God in form of human."

You: In Christianity, it is not considered "insulting" to God to believe His own message through Himself, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. You may consider Jesus Christ "insulting" to God, but how does God "insult" Himself? You haven't got the slightest idea of the true nature of the Holy Trinity, and statements like this of yours shows that very clearly.

Me:You made Him God He never said in whole bible that I am God or worship me. Secondly if this Holy Trinity is so complex that common people can�t understand it. So surly this could never be from God. By the way so many Christians could also not able to understand this theory and turning to atheist and some into Islam as well.

You: And my final question to you, "If Muhammad was actually a TRUE PROPHET and the "Seal of the Prophets," can you tell me of ANY of his "prophecies" which were made and later fulfilled exactly as prophesied? Can you name even three direct "prophecies" of Muhammad that later came true (which is the Biblical standard for a true Prophet)?

Me: When a slave gives birth to her master - And when you see the Bedoin Arabs competing with each other to build taller buildings in the desert"

The tallest building of the world in Dubai and there is a more taller one is coming up in Saudi Arabia

Regards,

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Caringheart, You feel that I...

Tue, 03 Jul 2012 04:24:26 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 03 July 2012 at 4:24am

Caringheart,

You feel that I was "unnecessarily rude" in my response to "Islamispeace." Perhaps you should attend to your concerns and not judge me or my responses to anyone on this site, as if I am a child to be corrected. If "Islamispeace" has a problem with my replies he can tell me himself.

Larry

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by Ron WebbI...

Sat, 30 Jun 2012 18:26:39 +0000

Author: Caringheart
Subject: 19811
Posted: 30 June 2012 at 6:26pm

Originally posted by Ron Webb

I quoted Scripture as evidence (Mark 1:1, Luke 3:23, Matthew 13:55). In response you admitted that "at some point during the ministry of Jesus or shortly thereafter, it became known to the Jerusalem community of Christians that Jesus' conception was miraculous." My question, which you never answered, is: how is this different from the Gospel evolving over time?

To answer this question...
to evolve implies change and No, from the time the Gospels were written down they have not changed.
Oral tradition carried the message and eventually all that oral tradition was collected and recorded in one place... no evolution. The Truth has always been there.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by Larryislamispeace, I...

Sat, 30 Jun 2012 18:05:48 +0000

Author: Caringheart
Subject: 19811
Posted: 30 June 2012 at 6:05pm

Originally posted by Larry

islamispeace,

I assume you can read. I'll say it again; "I started a new topic "Were there more than one version of the Qur'an?" That is the title of the new thread. Don't blame me if you don't know how to use the topics index.

Larry

Hi Larry,
Are you sure your new thread got posted? I've had more than one of my posts not appear after I posted them.

In either case I feel it was unnecessarily rude to respond to Islamispeace in the way you did. it does not promote communication. Hoping you'll accept my voicing of my opinion. :-)

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Me: Your absurd "comparisons"...

Thu, 28 Jun 2012 01:09:50 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 28 June 2012 at 1:09am

   Me: Your absurd "comparisons" between the Bible and the Quran on the basis of your "vocation" as an engineer are simply that, absurd.

   You say, "I have given that example to show that while constructing a building, we human are very much serious and careful to come up with best thing to ensure that we never use old drawings because we know that if we are going to use old awings there will some problems when the�building will be ready. So to avoid this, we use the latest version of drawings. When comes to following the religion, human don�t care that much. What is more important building or following�of a true religion from God?. One more thing whatever is relevant in old version is already there in the new one so there is no need to keep old version with you. I also want to show�that when comes to wordily affairs, we human have all the intelligence and we do every effort to produce the best thing but when comes to hereafters matters, finding the true message of God and evaluating them, all the intelligence become zero and very few do that much effort."

   Me: Supposedly the Quran is the "logical" extension of the Jewish "Taurat" and the Christian "Gospels". So why would they be "obsolete" and not relevant anymore?   "Because of the corruption made in them.change the God to a great extend and also because they were designed for that time period and Quran is designed for until end of the world.

   You: "Because of the corruption in them."

   Me: That's a convenient excuse for why the Quran does not fit well with EITHER the Old or New Testaments, which compliment each other and form a coherent, and logical progression, unlike the Quran. The Bible contains the Book of Revelation, documenting the end of the world, is this Book "designed" for the past or future?

   Me: "So much of the Quran is based on the Jewish Old Testament and the Christian New Testament that it is hard to understand why you consider them to be "obsolete" and not simply the earlier "revelations" of Allah to His "Prophets" that were followed by the final revelation of the Quran and to Muhammad's being the "Seal of the Prophets."

   You: Quran is the message of God as were old and new Testaments and both are not there now as they were revealed. So we cannot say Quran is based on them. If we may have the both revelations in original form, no one can object on Quran.

   Me: You say the Old and New Testaments are "not as they were revealed." Really? And who specifically was responsible for this supposed "corruption" of the "actual revelations?" You also say, "So we cannot say Quran is based on them." So what is the Quran based on if not the earlier "prophets" of the Old and New Testaments?

   You: "No one can object on Quran."

   Really? I have many objections to the style and content of the Quran. This is especially true of the Quran's representation of Jesus Christ's status as a true "prophet" and in the company of those nearest to Allah, but when Jesus Christ makes any statements or affirms in the Gospels in regard to His divine nature as the Messiah and Son of God, these declarations or prophecies are not only deemed "corrupt", they are dismissed totally and completely.

   You: "Oh my dear brother thinks calmly and wisely, we are not blindly acknowledging Quran as true message of God, we have done all the hard to come to this conclusion. So anything from Bible contradicted to Quran, we know that this part is not the actual message. This is quite logical there must be one true, logical and flawless and complete message from God and that is Quran. You might say that why then we use hadith {Sunnah of Prophet (pbuh)} as our resourse,this is guided in Quran to do so. Just words are not enough to know the complete way of life, you need the teacher to show you how to do it.

   Me: You say, "we are not blindly acknowledging Quran as true message of God, we have done all the hard(?) to come to this conclusion." Oh, I see, you have done all the hard work and study to show that the Quran is really the "true message of God? Well, how could anyone argue with that "logic?" LOL! You continue,

   You: "So anything contradicted to Quran, we know that this part is not the actual message." This is quite logical (to you) there must be one true logical, and flawless and complete message from God and that is Quran."

   Me: As I have said, there are many contradictions in the Quran, especially in how the "People of the Book" (Jews, Christians and (oddly) the "Sabeans") are to be viewed and how they are to be treated by Muslims. In some places they are portrayed as among the true believers and in others are referred to as "perverted transgressors."

   Me: You say that you "use the hadith as our resource, this is guided in Quran to do so. Just words are not enough to know the complete way of life, you need the teacher to show you how to do it."

   Me: So, what you are saying is that the very message of God is not enough in itself, it needs the words or sayings of the "Prophet" to clarify God's own words? We Christians do not need a "hadith" to understand the words of God and Jesus Christ, they are enough in themselves.

   Me: The Old and New Testaments fit together very well, the only "Book" that does not fit well with the Bible is the Quran. So, I would think that shows that the Quran is the book that is corrupt and not the actual message of God. For example, EVERY part of the Hajj ceremony is pre-Islamic, circumnambulating the Kaaba, the "seamless" garments, running between the hills, stoning the Devil and sacrifice of an animal, etc. Why do Muslims continue the practices and ceremonies of the pagans of ancient Arabia, including the veneration of the "Black Stone" which was one of the 360 idols inside the Kaaba? Even the name "Allah" is pre-Islamic, both Muhammad's father and uncle had "Allah" as part of their names.

   Me: You also say; "If someone with an open heart and mind will "try" to understand the Quran and teaching of Islam, no way he will have any problem in understanding them as true message of God." Why would anyone have to "try" to understand the Quran and Islam if it was so self-apparent that it is indeed the "true message of God?" You say that; "They are logical, understandable even for a common person and flaw less."


   You: "Because Nafs (self desire) and Satan they both mislead us from God message. See there are many people who break the laws of the state even though they are for the benefits of people. Human is like that, he wish to fulfill his self desire.Satan is there to mislead him as well."

   Me: "I have actually read the ENTIRE Quran here on Islamicity and I found it seemingly disjointed in it's structure with little or no linear quality. It does not follow a timeline from beginning to end, and it seemed to me to be a long series of individual statements, historical events and warnings to "unbelievers" that are repeated, over and over. The basic message seemed to be that "believers" needed to believe that Muhammad was the true "Messenger" or "Prophet" of Allah and believe that Allah is the true and only God, and anyone who does not believe this will burn in hellfire forever."

   You: Whats wrong with that,Quran is the book for the guidance of human, as long the messege is clear , is enough.

   But now you are saying that "Quran is the book for guidance of human, as long as the message is clear, is enough." So which is it, You said, "just words are not enough..." and now you say, "as long as the message is clear, is enough?"

   Me: If the Quran were truly "flaw less" it wouldn't need the "Hadith" (or sayings or acts of tacit approval or disapproval ascribed to Muhammad himself) to fully understand this "true message of God." Many Muslims consider the hadith to be essential supplements and clarifications of the Quran. The Quran should stand alone, perfect and shining as one piece with no need for "additional" information or explanation as is the case with the "hadith." Also, the two major denominations of Islam, Shi'ism and Sunnism, have different sets of hadith collections, why?

   You didn't answer the question, why does the Sunni and Shiite sects of Islam have different sets of hadith? Which sect has the "true" hadith of Muhammad?

   You: "Is the Bible is like that, contains the words of God only. Very few verses are only there which could be the direct words of God, some places we can see that Jesus speaking and most of the Bible contain third person is speaking there. Unlike in the Quran where 100% words are directly from God Himself, there is no single word belong to any other person even from Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing of God upon him)

   Me: So, you believe that since the Bible contains more than just the words of God that makes it not true? There are many writers and personages in the Bible, including Abraham, Joseph and Jacob, and many Prophets like Jesus, Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the Psalms of David and the Song of Solomon, etc., If Islam only accepted the ACTUAL words of God, it would not have included references to these very same persons.

   You: "As I had tell earlier that to understand the message correctly, practical demonstration is essential and the prophetic explanations of Quran are very important as well, otherwise every individual could have their own interpretations which would be different from each other and resulting deviation from the original message will occur and differences amongst peoples will be visible. As in the case of Sunni and shia muslims having now."

   Me: So, in order to "understand" the message (of God Himself), "prophetic explanations" are "very important?" Also, if the Quran is truly "flaw less" and the absolute "true message of God" and perfect in every way, then why does the Quran say, in Quran 2:106;"None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar; Knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?"

   So, God Himself can give a "better or similar" revelation to the "Prophet" after He has already made His original "revelation" to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel? Why would God's "true message" require this proviso in case of any problems or discrepancies with the "original" revelations?

   You: "This is not because of the problems with the original message, This is the Divine Wisdom much better knows the need of it.Oneness of God was always there in the message of every Prophet but there could be differences in various others laws like the laws of daily life and ,ways of prayers food which is allowed etc."

   Me: You say, (concerning Surah 2:106), "This is not because of the problems with the original message, This is the Divine Wisdom much better knows the need for it. Oneness of God was always there in the message of every Prophet but there could be differences..."

   So, "Divine Wisdom" knows the "need" to correct Itself from earlier revelations? That's odd, in the Bible God never "corrects" His earlier revelations nor does He even have a process or "revelation" to do it.

   Me: Generally speaking, in Christianity, God is understood to act in accordance with reason, while in Islam, God's absolute transcendence means that "God is not bound even by His own word, and can act in ways contrary to reason, including SELF-CONTRADICTION."

   So, in your book, God Himself needs to "correct" Himself from time to time from His earlier "Divine revelations?"

   You: "Rest what you have said is just show the little knowledge you have about Islam and the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing of God upon Him).I only want to say that our Prophet Married to Aisha (RA) when He was more than 50 years old and if I am not wrong this was his first marriage as Prophet. Secondly God love His prophets, if there are some revelations for his personnel life so there is nothing wrong with that. Thirdly the money He used to get from various means, most of its He used to spend on other poor people. He and his family very seldom used to have the food of two times a day.

   Me: So, because Muhammad was 50 years old and this was his "first" marriage as "Prophet," it was fine with God that Muhammad married Aisha at age the age of 6 and "consummated" his marriage to Aisha when she was only 9 years old? But you find "nothing wrong" that God Himself busied Himself with revelations to Muhammad concerning his earthly and sexual affairs? Or even that God decreed the "protection" of the Quryash tribe?

   Me: If you are seriously trying to say that Muhammad was so poor that he only could eat once or, rarely twice, a day, that is laughable. Muhammad received a large share of the "Jizya" taken from conquered peoples and even God Himself says, in the Quran, that Muhammad and his closest relations were to be given a large percentage of any funds derived from Muhammad's "revelations." Muhammad even enriched Himself from raids on caravans to Mecca, for example, which were robbed of their wealth and goods.

   You: "You did not give yours response to what I have said you friends are insulting God by saying that God in form of human."

   In Christianity, it is not considered "insulting" to God to believe His own message through Himself, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. You may consider Jesus Christ "insulting" to God, but how does God "insult" Himself? You haven't got the slightest idea of the true nature of the Holy Trinity, and statements like this of yours shows that very clearly.

   You have shown absolutely nothing to make me believe that the Quran is the "true message of God." If the Quran is the "true" message, I find it ridiculous to even suggest that God Himself should EVER have to "correct" Himself, or modify one of His previous "Divine revelations."

   In my opinion, the only reason for Surah 2:106 was for the changes in life and the "Prophethood" of Muhammad over the 23 years that he received these "revelations" from God through the angel Gabriel. Muhammad's "prophecies and revelations" changed in form and style over time from his earlier "revelations" in Mecca to those later ones when he was in, and ruling, the town of Medina (Yathrib), etc.

   God, especially my God, never needs to correct Himself because He is perfect and all-knowing, the creator and sustainer of the entire Universe. The only person who needs "self-correction" is a fallible and imperfect human, a human such as Muhammad.

   And my final question to you, "If Muhammad was actually a TRUE PROPHET and the "Seal of the Prophets," can you tell me of ANY of his "prophecies" which were made and later fulfilled exactly as prophesied? Can you name even three direct "prophecies" of Muhammad that later came true (which is the Biblical standard for a true Prophet)?

   I can name many Prophecies made and fulfilled by the Old Testament Prophets and those made and fulfilled by Jesus Christ Himself during His life and ministry.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 28 June 2012 at 2:39am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : There is no statement in the Bible...

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 13:25:31 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 25 June 2012 at 1:25pm

There is no statement in the Bible that allows for "changing" the Word of God or to "substitute something better or similar" to previous "divine revelations" from God Himself.

CONTRADICTIONS : In the Bible -
(a) The "Lord" tempted David . . . 2 SAMUEL 24:1
or "Satan" provoked David . . . 1 CHRONICLES 21:1
(b) 700 or 7000? "Horsemen" or "Footmen" . . .? 2 SAMUEL 10:18 vs 1
CHRONICLES 19:18
(c) Solomon had 2000 baths or 3000 baths? 1 KINGS 7:26 vs 2
CHRONICLES 4:5
(d) Solomon had 4000 stalls of horses or 40000? 2 CHRONICLES 9:25 vs
1 KINGS 4:26
(e) Did Saul enquire of the Lord or didn't he? 1 SAMUEL 28:6 vs 1
CHRONICLES 10:13-14
(f) Heaven, no man hath ascended JOHN 3:13
Contradicted by: 2 KINGS 2:11 Elijah ascended, and GENESIS 5:24
Enoch ascended.
(g) Jesus lost "None" of his disciples JOHN 18:9
Contradicted by: He lost only "One" JOHN 17:12

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Quote:-Your absurd "comparisons"...

Mon, 25 Jun 2012 11:51:18 +0000

Author: Usmani
Subject: 19811
Posted: 25 June 2012 at 11:51am

Quote:-Your absurd "comparisons" between the Bible and the Quran on the basis of your "vocation" as an engineer are simply that, absurd. You say;

Reply:-I have given that example to show that while constructing a building, we human are very much serious and careful to come up with best thing to ensure that we never use old drawings because we know that if we are going to use old awings there will some problems when the building will be ready. So to avoid this, we use the latest version of drawings. When comes to following the religion, human don�t care that much. What is more important building or following of a true religion from God?. One more thing whatever is relevant in old version is already there in the new one so there is no need to keep old version with you.I also want to show that when comes to wordily affairs, we human have all the intelligence and we do every effort to produce the best thing but when comes to hereafters matters, finding the true message of God and evaluating them, all the intelligence become zero and very few do that much effort which actually needed for that.

Quote:Supposedly the Quran is the "logical" extension of the Jewish "Taurat" and the Christian "Gospels". So why would they be "obsolete" and not relevant anymore?

Reply:-Because of the corruption made in them.change the God to a great extend and also because they were designed for that time period and Quran is designed for until end of the world.

Quote: So much of the Quran is based on the Jewish Old Testament and the Christian New Testament that it is hard to understand why you consider them to be "obsolete" and not simply the earlier "revelations" of Allah to His "Prophets" that were followed by the final revelation of the Quran and to Muhammad's being the "Seal of the Prophets.".

Reply:-Quran is the message of God as were old and new Testaments and both are not there now as they were revealed. So we cannot say Quran is based on them. If we may have the both revelations in original form, no one can object on Quran.

Quote:-This is especially true of the Quran's representation of Jesus Christ's status as a true "prophet" and in the company of those nearest to Allah, but when Jesus Christ makes any statements or affirms in the Gospels in regard to His divine nature as the Messiah and Son of God, these declarations or prophecies are not only deemed "corrupt", they are dismissed totally and completely.

Reply:-Oh my dear brother thinks calmly and wisely, we are not blindly acknowledging Quran as true message of God, we have done all the hard to come to this conclusion. So anything from Bible contradicted to Quran, we know that this part is not the actual message. This is quite logical there must be one true, logical and flawless and complete message from God and that is Quran. You might say that why then we use hadith {Sunnah of Prophet (pbuh)} as our resourse,this is guided in Quran to do so. Just words are not enough to know the complete way of life, you need the teacher to show you how to do it.

Quote:-You also say; "If someone with an open heart and mind will "try" to understand the Quran and teaching of Islam, no way he will have any problem in understanding them as true message of God."

Why would anyone have to "try" to understand the Quran and Islam if it was so self-apparent that it is indeed the "true message of God?" You say that; "They are logical, understandable even for a common person and flaw less."

Reply;-Because Nafs (self desire) and Satan they both mislead us from God message. See there are many people who break the laws of the state even though they are for the benefits of people. Human is like that, he wish to fulfill his self desire.Satan is there to mislead him as well.

Quote:-I have actually read the ENTIRE Quran here on Islamicity and I found it seemingly disjointed in it's structure with little or no linear quality. It does not follow a timeline from beginning to end, and it seemed to me to be a long series of individual statements, historical events and warnings to "unbelievers" that are repeated, over and over. The basic message seemed to be that "believers" needed to believe that Muhammad was the true "Messenger" or "Prophet" of Allah and believe that Allah is the true and only God, and anyone who does not believe this will burn in hellfire forever.

Reply:-Whats wrong with that,Quran is the book for the guidance of human, as long the messege is clear , is enough.

Quote:-If the Quran were truly "flaw less" it wouldn't need the "Hadith" (or sayings or acts of tacit approval or disapproval ascribed to Muhammad himself) to fully understand this "true message of God." Many Muslims consider the hadith to be essential supplements and clarifications of the Quran. The Quran should stand alone, perfect and shining as one piece with no need for "additional" information or explanation as is the case with the "hadith." Also, the two major denominations of Islam, Shi'ism and Sunnism, have different sets of hadith collections, why?

Reply:-Is the Bible is like that, contains the words of God only. Very few verses are only there which could be the direct words of God, some places we can see that Jesus speaking and most of the Bible contain third person is speaking there. Unlike in the Quran where 100% words are directly from God Himself, there is no single word belong to any other person even from Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing of God upon him)

As I had tell earlier that to understand the message correctly, practical demonstration is essential and the prophetic explanations of Quran are very important as well, otherwise every individual could have their own interpretations which would be different from each other and resulting deviation from the original message will occur and differences amongst peoples will be visible. As in the case of Sunni and shia muslims having now.

Quote:-Also, if the Quran is truly "flaw less" and the absolute "true message of God" and perfect in every way, then why does the Quran say, in Quran 2:106;

"None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar; Knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?"

So, God Himself can give a "better or similar" revelation to the "Prophet" after He has already made His original "revelation" to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel? Why would God's "true message" require this proviso in case of any problems with the "original" revelations?

Reply:-This is not because of the problems with the original message, This is the Divine Wisdom much better knows the need of it.Oneness of God was always there in the message of every Prophet but there could be differences in various others laws like the laws of daily life and ,ways of prayers food which is allowed etc.

Rest what you have said is just show the little knowledge you have about Islam and the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing of God upon Him).I only want to say that our Prophet Married to Aisha (RA) when He was more than 50 years old and if I am not wrong this was his first marriage as Prophet. Secondly God love His prophets, if there are some revelations for his personnel life so there is nothing wrong with that. Thirdly the money He used to get from various means, most of its He used to spend on other poor people. He and his family very seldom used to have the food of two times a day.

You did not give yours response to what I have said you friends are insulting God by saying that God in form of human.

Regards,

Edited by Usmani - 25 June 2012 at 12:13pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Your absurd "comparisons"...

Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:59:01 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 22 June 2012 at 4:59pm

   Your absurd "comparisons" between the Bible and the Quran on the basis of your "vocation" as an engineer are simply that, absurd. You say;

   "Sometimes design people made some changes and produce the new version of drawings, so we start using the latest version available for construction. What we do for the previous versions to make sure no one use the previous version stemmed them as "obsolete." You friends still using the old version "Bible" and not the latest version "Quran". You have grown up with these things and resulting your understanding aboput God, about purpose of life and so on have many flaws in them.
   If some one with open heart and mind will try to understand the Quran and teaching of Islam, no way he will have any problem in understanding them as true message of God. They are logical, understandable even for a common person and flaw less."

   Supposedly the Quran is the "logical" extension of the Jewish "Taurat" and the Christian "Gospels". So why would they be "obsolete" and not relevant anymore? So much of the Quran is based on the Jewish Old Testament and the Christian New Testament that it is hard to understand why you consider them to be "obsolete" and not simply the earlier "revelations" of Allah to His "Prophets" that were followed by the final revelation of the Quran and to Muhammad's being the "Seal of the Prophets.".

   I know that the usual Muslim response to this subject is that the Jewish Old Testament and the Christian New Testament are "flawed" or "corrupted" texts. It always strikes me as "convenient" to Muslims that whenever the Bible agrees or coincides with statements made in the Quran, they are wholly accepted and presented as "proof" of the divine nature of the Quran. But, also "conveniently" it seems, whenever the Bible disagrees with statements in the Quran, these Biblical passages are simply labelled as "flawed" or "corrupt" and discarded completely.

   This is especially true of the Quran's representation of Jesus Christ's status as a true "prophet" and in the company of those nearest to Allah, but when Jesus Christ makes any statements or affirms in the Gospels in regard to His divine nature as the Messiah and Son of God, these declarations or prophecies are not only deemed "corrupt", they are dismissed totally and competely.

   You also say; "If some one with an open heart and mind will "try" to understand the Quran and teaching of Islam, no way he will have any problem in understanding them as true message of God."

   Why would anyone have to "try" to understand the Quran and Islam if it was so self-apparent that it is indeed the "true message of God?" You say that; "They are logical, understandable even for a common person and flaw less."

   I have actually read the ENTIRE Quran here on Islamicity and I found it seemingly disjointed in it's structure with little or no linear quality. It does not follow a timeline from beginning to end, and it seemed to me to be a long series of individual statements, historical events and warnings to "unbelievers" that are repeated, over and over. The basic message seemed to be that "believers" needed to believe that Muhammad was the true "Messenger" or "Prophet" of Allah and believe that Allah is the true and only God, and anyone who does not believe this will burn in hellfire forever.

   If the Quran were truly "flaw less" it wouldn't need the "Hadith" (or sayings or acts of tacit approval or disapproval ascribed to Muhammad himself) to fully understand this "true message of God." Many Muslims consider the hadith to be essential supplements and clarifications of the Quran. The Quran should stand alone, perfect and shining as one piece with no need for "additional" information or explanation as is the case with the "hadith." Also, the two major denominations of Islam, Shi'ism and Sunnism, have different sets of hadith collections, why?

   Also, if the Quran is truly "flaw less" and the absolute "true message of God" and perfect in every way, then why does the Quran say, in Quran 2:106;

   "None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar; Knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?"

   So, God Himself can give a "better or similar" revelation to the "Prophet" after He has already made His original "revelation" to Muhammad through the angel Gabriel? Why would God's "true message" require this proviso in case of any problems with the "original" revelations?

   The reason for this is that Muhammad needed to make corrections or offer "additional" explanations to "clarify" or "modify" previous revelations in response to changing circumstances in his life and in the intervening 23 years that the Quran was "revealed" to him. This is also demonstrated by the changing of the "Qibla" for Muslims from the original Qibla, Jerusalem, to the "new" Qibla, Mecca. Though Muhammad preemptively explains this change as some kind of "test" for Muslims and anyone who questions this major change in "revelation" is a "fool."

   There is no statement in the Bible that allows for "changing" the Word of God or to "substitute something better or similar" to previous "divine revelations" from God Himself.

   So much for the Quran being "flaw less."

   Muhammad even had "revelations" from God in regard to his tribe, the Quryash, for their "protection" and also supposedly the Quran gives Muhammad the "right" to wed anyone he wanted and to have sex with them, as in the case of Aisha, the daughter of his "companion" Abu Bakr, when she was 9 years old. According to Sunni belief, after Khadijah's death prior to the "hegira", Aisha is described as Muhammad's most beloved wife, and it was in her company that he reportedly "received" the most revelations.

   Supposedly the Quran even details how much of the money (or "Jizya"), that was extorted from "unbelievers" for their "protection" by the Messenger or robbed from commercial caravans, etc., should go to the "Messenger" himself and his family members. Why would God send divine revelations that personally concerned the earthly actions or needs of His "Messenger" or his tribe, the Quryash or his near relatives?

    Also, in Surah 111 Al-Masadd; "The Palm Fibre, The Flame." Muhammad has a "revelation" that concerns "Abu Lahab" (meaning Father of Flame: an uncle of the Prophet, Abd-al-Uzza, due to his hostility toward Muhammad and his new religion. He was called "Abu Lahab" supposedly because of the constant redness, or inflammation, of his cheeks).

   "Perish the hands of the Father of Flame! Perish he! No profit to him from all his wealth, and all his gains! Burnt soon will he be in a Fire of Blazing Flame! His wife shall carry the (crackling) wood-As fuel! A twisted rope of palm-leaf fibre round her (own) neck!

   If these things are your idea of "perfection" and the "true message of God" then that is up to you. Also, the Old and New Testaments were not "standardized" into a single form, by any earthly authority, as in the case of the Quran, with any variant texts destroyed by burning, that differed from Uthman's "official" version of the Quran. This resulted in the declaration by Muslims that the Quran is "perfect and unchanged" from it's original form, even though the "original" Quran held by Muhammad's wife Hafsah, was deliberately destroyed decades later by early Muslim "authorities."

   As far as I am concerned, it is these troubling facts, and many others, that preclude me from believing that Islam is the "true" religion of God Himself. I am quite content to be a Christian who believes that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was born, lived, ministered and was later put on trial, condemned and crucified and was buried and three days later was ressurrected from the dead. It was this sacrifice by Jesus Christ that allowed for the Salvation of all mankind through faith in Him.

   You may disagree with my beliefs, as I disbelieve in yours, but we all have our own deeply held faith and believe that we follow the true religion of God. I suppose in the end we will find out who had the true religion and who were deceived by false prophets.

Edited by Larry - 22 June 2012 at 7:07pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Quote:-Was that meant to be a...

Tue, 19 Jun 2012 03:18:21 +0000

Author: Usmani
Subject: 19811
Posted: 19 June 2012 at 3:18am

Quote:-Was that meant to be a serious reply to my question? Because I don't understand how your answer has anything to do with "forging exrtavagant things for Allah"

Brother yours understanding of God is very strange to me. See what you have said bellow.

Quote:-Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

There is no such thing exist what you have said about God. We Muslim will never say from our mouth such thing even our intension is not that as yours seems to be. I have red similar things in Bible as well.You won�t find such things in Quran and hadith.

Quote: - no one has said anything about God having a wife

May be in current scenario yes no one says that but there were people in past, Google it you will find something about it.

Regards,

Edited by Usmani - 19 June 2012 at 3:35am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Quote:-You again try to equate...

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 23:49:11 +0000

Author: Usmani
Subject: 19811
Posted: 18 June 2012 at 11:49pm

Quote:-You again try to equate that God's intentions or actions can be discerned by comparing them to the intentions or actions of a "wise human." Do you have so little respect or humility in your estimation of God's own mind that you continue to compare His thoughts or actions with those of a "wise" human being?

What is good and bad is engraved in human by God Him Self. What good for us is also good for God as well. So there is no matter of little respect. But who ever says that God has a son and goes further and says that this son was God incarnate (He was God Himself) actually disrespecting God. The dirty water which is the basis of creation of human, if you will find it in your hand, you will go clean your hand with soap. If all the skin of the face of human will come out no one will like to talk to him or sit with him for few minutes.

Why you friends are doing this has many reasons of it.I am an engineer, I remember when I was working in the construction doing projects using drawings for caring out our work. Sometimes design people made some changes and produce the new version of drawings, so we start using the latest version available for constrction.What we do for the previous versions to make sure no one use the previous version stemmed them as �obsolete�. You friends still using the old version �Bible� and not the latest version �Quran�. You have grown up with these things and resulting your understanding about God, about purpose of life and so on are have many flaws in them.

If some one with open heart and mind will try to understand the Quran and teaching of Islam, no way he will have any problem in understanding them as true message of God. They are logical, understandable even for a common person and flaw less.

Regards,

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by UsmaniQoute:I...

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 17:57:05 +0000

Author: Caringheart
Subject: 19811
Posted: 18 June 2012 at 5:57pm

Originally posted by Usmani

Qoute:I understand the first part but can you explain what this part means to you?

Its means to me that having understanding that God has a wife or son is foolishness and nothing else.He is the one only.Contex tell us the same thing.

Was that meant to be a serious reply to my question? Because I don't understand how your answer has anything to do with "forging exrtavagant things for Allah"

and no one has said anything about God having a wife...

Edited by Caringheart - 18 June 2012 at 6:06pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Again, you state, "WHY YOU...

Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:13:53 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 18 June 2012 at 12:13pm

   Again, you state, "WHY YOU ARE INSISTING THAT GOD CAN DO ST**ID THINGS. GOD IS THE WISEST. WHEN A WISE HUMAN TRIES TO AVOID DOING ST**ID THINGS, HOW CAN YOU SAY TO GOD WILL DO. It is shocking to me too mush."

   You again try to equate that God's intentions or actions can be discerned by comparing them to the intentions or actions of a "wise human." Do you have so little respect or humility in your estimation of God's own mind that you continue to compare His thoughts or actions with those of a "wise" human being?

Job 42:1-3,

"Then Job answered the Lord and said:
I know that You can do everything,
And that no purpose of Yours
can be witheld from You.
You asked, 'Who is this who
hides counsel without knowledge?'
Therefore I have uttered what
I did not understand,
Things too wonderful for me,
which I did not know."

   Perhaps you should have more respect in regard to the mind of God Himself, which, regardless of "common sense," NO human can understand or comprehend.

   I have seen other Muslims on this site make comparisons and offer "explanations" of God's intentions or actions on the basis of "common sense" or reasoning. As a Christian I would never dare to even think that I could know the mind of God, much less explain them by means of my own flawed, human "common sense."

   Evidently you believe that God is nothing more than a glorified human being, who can be fully and completely understood through "common sense."

Edited by Larry - 18 June 2012 at 12:56pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Qoute;- The last time I checked,...

Sun, 17 Jun 2012 22:53:20 +0000

Author: Usmani
Subject: 19811
Posted: 17 June 2012 at 10:53pm

Qoute;- The last time I checked, the President of the USA was not God. To compare God's thoughts and actions to the thoughts or actions of a human being shows that you believe that God's actions can be compared or predicted by comparing His actions or thoughts to those of a human being. And that you feel that by using your own "common sense" you can understand the mind, actions or intentions of God Himself?
As Caringheart said, "For what man knows God's counsel, or who can conceive what our LORD intends?"

My brother why you are insisting that God can do st**id things. God is the wisest. When a wise human tries to avoid doing st**id things, how can you say to God will do. It is shocking to me too mush. Brother life is given to us once only. Human could be on error. Think wisely and get the right things for you. We have very limited time here.

Regards,

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Qoute:I understand the first part...

Sun, 17 Jun 2012 22:32:43 +0000

Author: Usmani
Subject: 19811
Posted: 17 June 2012 at 10:32pm

Qoute:I understand the first part but can you explain what this part means to you?

Its means to me that having understanding that God has a wife or son is foolishness and nothing else.He is the one only.Contex tell us the same thing.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : You say, "Come to this conclusion,...

Sun, 17 Jun 2012 17:24:34 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 17 June 2012 at 5:24pm

   You say, "Come to this conclusion, do I must know what is in the mind of the President? Or require just common sence (sense)?"
   The last time I checked, the President of the USA was not God. To compare God's thoughts and actions to the thoughts or actions of a human being shows that you believe that God's actions can be compared or predicted by comparing His actions or thoughts to those of a human being. And that you feel that by using your own "common sense" you can understand the mind, actions or intentions of God Himself?
   As Caringheart said, "For what man knows God's counsel, or who can conceive what our LORD intends?"

Edited by Larry - 17 June 2012 at 5:54pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by Usmani If...

Sun, 17 Jun 2012 16:50:17 +0000

Author: Caringheart
Subject: 19811
Posted: 17 June 2012 at 4:50pm

Originally posted by Usmani

If I say that President of USA do not wash the streets of Newyark,because he got better things to do and he is not st**id.It never means that he can�t wash the streets of Newyark.Come to this conclusion,do I must know what is in the mind of the President? or require just common sence

Regards,

I think there is a big difference between the president(or any man), who is a human, and God the Creator of all. Common sense? God says; �I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." (Isaiah)

"hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?"

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by UsmaniAnd...

Sun, 17 Jun 2012 16:34:23 +0000

Author: Caringheart
Subject: 19811
Posted: 17 June 2012 at 4:34pm

Originally posted by Usmani

And that the foolish amongst us used to forge extravagant things against Allah:(Quran 72-3,4)

I understand the first part but can you explain what this part means to you?

To me it would seem to be speaking against forging idols to God. Idols made of gold and wood, as when the people of Israel forged the golden calf.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Quote:-Because the foolishness...

Sun, 17 Jun 2012 10:35:07 +0000

Author: Usmani
Subject: 19811
Posted: 17 June 2012 at 10:35am

Quote:-Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

And that He-- exalted be the majesty of our Lord-- has not taken a consort, nor a son:And that the foolish amongst us used to forge extravagant things against Allah:(Quran 72-3,4)

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Quote:You say that God "don't...

Sun, 17 Jun 2012 08:54:12 +0000

Author: Usmani
Subject: 19811
Posted: 17 June 2012 at 8:54am

Quote:You say that God "don't do st**id things." Are you speaking for God? You seem to be saying that you know what God thinks and does, or does not do. Or what He will or will not do. I do not dare to presume to speak for God, evidently you feel that you can. Where do you get this personal insight into the mind of God Himself? Is there anything else that you can tell me about what goes on in the mind of God since you seem to have such great personal knowledge about Him?

Regards,

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Outstanding response, Caringheart,...

Sun, 17 Jun 2012 01:08:12 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 17 June 2012 at 1:08am

Outstanding response, Caringheart, impressive documentation of this important conversation and a lesson to those who would presume to speak for God.

Edited by Larry - 17 June 2012 at 1:08am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by UsmaniQuote:You...

Sat, 16 Jun 2012 17:42:07 +0000

Author: Caringheart
Subject: 19811
Posted: 16 June 2012 at 5:42pm

Originally posted by Usmani

Quote:You can play word-games with the sanctity and power of God all you want, but a God that has ANY limits is no true God at all.

It is not that God Can't turn Himself into a human,rather He don't do st**id things.Why He need to become human when he can select Prophets within humen and can performed His desire task through them.

Regards,

Who has the mind of God to say what He can, or should, and should not do? Who has the mind of God to know why He does what He does?
Is it for us to question?

"For what man knows God's counsel, or who can conceive what our LORD intends?"

God speaking with Job 38-42:
"Who is this that obscures divine plans with words of ignorance?
Gird up your loins now like a man; for I will question you, and you tell me the answers.
Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.

Will we have arguing with the Almighty by the critic?
    Let him who would correct God give answer!
Then Job answered the Lord:
�Behold, I am of little account; what can I answer you?
    I put my hand over my mouth."

Then Job answered the Lord and said:
�I know that you can do all things,
    and that no purpose of yours can be hindered.
I have dealt with great things that I do not understand;
    things too wonderful for me, which I can not know.
I had heard of you by word of mouth,
    but now my eye has seen you.
Therefore I disown what I have said,
    and repent in dust and ashes.�

"Now the natural person does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God, for to him it is foolishness, and he can not understand it, because it is spiritually discerned."

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
�I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
    the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." (Isaiah)

Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
For after that, in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty"

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : You say that God "don't...

Fri, 15 Jun 2012 22:34:38 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 15 June 2012 at 10:34pm

You say that God "don't do st**id things." Are you speaking for God? You seem to be saying that you know what God thinks and does, or does not do. Or what He will or will not do. I do not dare to presume to speak for God, evidently you feel that you can. Where do you get this personal insight into the mind of God Himself? Is there anything else that you can tell me about what goes on in the mind of God since you seem to have such great personal knowledge about Him?

Edited by Larry - 15 June 2012 at 10:52pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Quote:You can play word-games...

Fri, 15 Jun 2012 01:17:43 +0000

Author: Usmani
Subject: 19811
Posted: 15 June 2012 at 1:17am

Quote:You can play word-games with the sanctity and power of God all you want, but a God that has ANY limits is no true God at all.

Regards,

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, Did I stutter? Jesus said,...

Wed, 13 Jun 2012 22:36:13 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 13 June 2012 at 10:36pm

Hasan,

   Did I stutter? Jesus said, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

   I believe that there are no limits to the power of God Almighty. As I said before, God is beyond all human understanding and His powers are limitless and complete.

   Apparently you believe differently.

   You can play word-games with the sanctity and power of God all you want, but a God that has ANY limits is no true God at all.

   That is the difference between your faith and mine.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 13 June 2012 at 10:45pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by LarryHasan,...

Wed, 13 Jun 2012 16:22:16 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 13 June 2012 at 4:22pm

Originally posted by Larry

Hasan,

   You made the comment, "I believe God is All Capable, but that does not mean He can turn Himself into a human like you believe..."

   So, that clearly says that you believe that God is not "All Capable" in all things. We Christians believe what Matthew reports in Matthew 19:25-26.

   25. "When His (Jesus) disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?"

   26. "But Jesus looked at them and said to them, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

   You also say that the "Holy Spirit, we learn is an Angel, who God sends down when he decides."

   The "Holy Spirit" is never referred to as an angel in the Bible. Angels all have names and roles, but the Holy Spirit comes from within God Himself, because He is the Holy Spirit. See Matthew 28:19 below.

   You also said that you don't believe God lives inside of every human being. Just because God lives in us all doesn't mean that people will always do good, evil people do not follow after God, but follow after Satan. God gave us free will to do good or to do evil, it is how we make those choices that we will all be held accountable for at the End of the World.

   But we Christians believe that God lives in us all and is always with us, in good times and bad.

   Jesus says this in Matthew 28:18-20

   18. "Then Jesus came and spoke with them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth."

   19. "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

   20. "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

   You seem to believe that God is restricted to being only one thing at a time, like a human being, but God is beyond all human understanding and His powers are limitless and complete. As long as you believe that God can only be one thing at a time, like a human being, one of His creations, you will never understand the true nature of the Holy Trinity.

   But let's face it, you will never believe in the Holy Trinity and us Christians will never believe in Allah or in his "Prophet." No one is going to change their mind here, the best we can do is to try and understand the beliefs of others and try to get along, but our belief in each of our religions is complete and dearly held by each of us.

Larry

Larry,

so you are saying that God can be an elephant or a monkey?

Can God be evil? according to you yes, right because that's what you believe "All Capable" means.

Hasan

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by Larryiec786, You...

Wed, 13 Jun 2012 09:41:13 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 13 June 2012 at 9:41am

Originally posted by Larry

iec786,

You may not be st**id but it is obvious that you cannot read or understand what is happening in the story of the "Two Harlot Sisters."
If you want to continue this obsession of yours with "whores" and "genitals" you will need to do it with someone else, I am tired of your endless, pointless babbling about them.

Larry

Lol Larry,ok here is a confession.I will not read this verse to my wife,children or my mother.The story is over.Would you ?

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : iec786, You may not be st**id...

Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:46:49 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 12 June 2012 at 11:46pm

iec786,

You may not be st**id but it is obvious that you cannot read or understand what is happening in the story of the "Two Harlot Sisters."
If you want to continue this obsession of yours with "whores" and "genitals" you will need to do it with someone else, I am tired of your endless, pointless babbling about them.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 12 June 2012 at 11:58pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : to Hasan,I was led to add this...

Tue, 12 Jun 2012 20:35:33 +0000

Author: Caringheart
Subject: 19811
Posted: 12 June 2012 at 8:35pm

to Hasan,
I was led to add this one thing more.
In my previous post I wrote
"Salvation comes through the blood of Jesus ... It is devotion of love, through knowing the great sacrifice of our Lord, that brings us to obedience and salvation."

This is true for the Christian. Perhaps for the Christian salvation comes through Jesus because we needed to see this great sacrifice of God in order to come to Him... in order to be transformed in our lives and in our thinking.

I have thought that God comes to each group of people as He needs to come to them. I have considered that God knew that, for the wayward Jews and the gentiles, Jesus(the great sacrifice) was necessary to bring them into belief and obedience. It was Roman times and look at how the Romans lived.... look at what got the attention of the people.

I have considered that perhaps the Arab people had a different need... the life and story of Jesus was not something they could accept... not something they witnessed... perhaps they only needed to know the Word of God from a man from whom they could receive the message... so perhaps they do not need Jesus in order to be led into obedience and salvation.
Only God himself knows all Truth.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Caringheart,1-God in a Trinity2-Jesus...

Tue, 12 Jun 2012 20:16:34 +0000

Author: Caringheart
Subject: 19811
Posted: 12 June 2012 at 8:16pm

Caringheart,
1-God in a Trinity

2-Jesus being God

3-Salvation through Blood sacrifice of Jesus

Hasan

Ah, hello again, Hasan,
Herein is the source of confusion for so many...
When the old testament was written... when God first appeared to Man... His Son did not exist.
God created Himself in the form of a human Son in order to make a new attempt and approach to saving mankind.
"See I am doing a new thing"
The message of fear of God had not worked so God sends a new message... the message of Love, through His Son.
It was a new thing that God was doing.

Why can God not put His Spirit into any creature He so chooses to do? Why is this not plausible to you? God can do anything He chooses to do. Do not demons possess humans and other creatures? Jesus cast demons out of two demon-possessed men and into a herd of swine which then threw themselves off a cliff.

God did not live in Hitler no, because Hitler belonged to the evil one.
We belong to one or the other.
He says, I know my sheep and they are mine. God knows those who belong to Him.
"May be goodness and badness live in people depending what they choose. God guides us to goodness, and Satan guide us to badness, It is up to to us what we decide for us, each with a consequence." Yes!

"what is subject to God is not God."
My arm is subject to what I tell it to do, yet my arm is still me and not something other than me.

I do know that I will give account one day.
David though he committed many sins was 'a man after God's own heart' and acceptable to God... David had a heart for God. I have a heart for God and seek always to be informed by the Holy Spirit and do not speak otherwise.

The things you say about salvation... I struggle with these things too. I have difficulty reconciling from the beginning... the old testament... the need for sacrifice and letting of blood, yet it is written that that is what God has required from the beginning. Abraham was going to sacrifice his own son at the command of God. I can not say that I understand this, and often the sacrifice of Jesus I have questioned because it seems more a thing that the devil would do to his son than a thing that a loving God would do.
There have been times when I have questioned following God because of the sacrifices which we have believed that He requires... the sacrifices that have been going on since the beginning. I ask myself, is this truly what the Creator requires, what He wants? Why? Why would He? Why does God require the letting of blood, I ask.
but 'do I have the mind of God' to say what He requires is right or wrong? Do I tell the Creator how it is to be? Do I know the answers to all things? Do I have wisdom to understand, greater than the One who created it all?
I do not. I await the day when I will understand.
What I do know is that there is One greater than myself... that there is One who created all this for His own purposes and who I am subject to. At the snap of His fingers He could erase me... He could erase it all if He chose. I know that I am His servant, at His mercy, and at His will.

It is these questions that have led me to deeper study of God and His Word, and into deeper communion.

but I do not understand why you say that "Salvation, the Bible contradict on how it is achieved"
I do not find any contradiction to how salvation is achieved. I believe I addressed that in my last post.

Jesus being God - This is supported in the fact that Jesus knew beforehand what He would fulfill on this earth.

Wishing you a blessed day,
Caringheart

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : iec786, I am really starting...

Mon, 11 Jun 2012 23:17:19 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 11 June 2012 at 11:17pm

[QUOTE=Larry] iec786,

I am really starting to question your mental state. I have no idea of what Ezekiel 23:5-20 has to do with a discussion about the "Holy Gospel." The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel is part of the Old Testament.

I still have NO IDEA of what you are trying to say or ask, what relevance does this quote about "whores" have to do with me, or with anything?

Red I maybe mental but not st**id.The question was so simple.Would you read this passage to your wife,children or your grand children would you.

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, You made the comment,...

Mon, 11 Jun 2012 22:34:21 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 11 June 2012 at 10:34pm

Hasan,

   You made the comment, "I believe God is All Capable, but that does not mean He can turn Himself into a human like you believe..."

   So, that clearly says that you believe that God is not "All Capable" in all things. We Christians believe what Matthew reports in Matthew 19:25-26.

   25. "When His (Jesus) disciples heard it, they were greatly astonished, saying, "Who then can be saved?"

   26. "But Jesus looked at them and said to them, "With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible."

   You also say that the "Holy Spirit, we learn is an Angel, who God sends down when he decides."

   The "Holy Spirit" is never referred to as an angel in the Bible. Angels all have names and roles, but the Holy Spirit comes from within God Himself, because He is the Holy Spirit. See Matthew 28:19 below.

   You also said that you don't believe God lives inside of every human being. Just because God lives in us all doesn't mean that people will always do good, evil people do not follow after God, but follow after Satan. God gave us free will to do good or to do evil, it is how we make those choices that we will all be held accountable for at the End of the World.

   But we Christians believe that God lives in us all and is always with us, in good times and bad.

   Jesus says this in Matthew 28:18-20

   18. "Then Jesus came and spoke with them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth."

   19. "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

   20. "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Amen.

   You seem to believe that God is restricted to being only one thing at a time, like a human being, but God is beyond all human understanding and His powers are limitless and complete. As long as you believe that God can only be one thing at a time, like a human being, one of His creations, you will never understand the true nature of the Holy Trinity.

   But let's face it, you will never believe in the Holy Trinity and us Christians will never believe in Allah or in his "Prophet." No one is going to change their mind here, the best we can do is to try and understand the beliefs of others and try to get along, but our belief in each of our religions is complete and dearly held by each of us.

Larry



Edited by Larry - 11 June 2012 at 11:00pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by Caringheart Originally...

Mon, 11 Jun 2012 13:08:36 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 11 June 2012 at 1:08pm

Originally posted by Caringheart

Originally posted by honeto

Caringheart,
three major issues:
God, Jesus, and Salvation.
love,
Hasan

Ok. I need you to lay out clearly what you think these contradictions are which you refer to.
To say that God, Jesus, and Salvation contradict in the Bible, this means nothing to me.

Edit: I went back and read the original post of yours that I had responded to and now offer the following:

I realize that other religions struggle with the idea of a 'Trinity'. To me it is very easy to understand. God is one, and just as I am one but have two arms, so God is one but has these two extensions of Himself. Just as it is the whole of the body, the brain, that informs the arm, so it is the Father that informs the Son and Holy Spirit, branches of Himself. So the Father is greater than the Son, but still one with Him... and the Holy Spirit is the part of Him that lives in us.

God is all powerful, created everything... therefore He can also recreate Himself in human flesh in the form of a Son if He so chooses... still part of Himself. God is a great mystery capable of things humans will not understand. God is capable of anything.

Regarding the Holy Spirit... we are told that God is everywhere, and that God lives in us... this is the Holy Spirit, God living in us if we call upon Him. It is simple. God can do anything, and all things. His wisdom is beyond anything man can understand.

"For what man knows God's counsel, or who can conceive what our LORD intends?"

God speaking with Job 38-42:
"Who is this that obscures divine plans with words of ignorance?
Gird up your loins now like a man; for I will question you, and you tell me the answers.
Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.

Will we have arguing with the Almighty by the critic?
    Let him who would correct God give answer!
Then Job answered the Lord:
�Behold, I am of little account; what can I answer you?
    I put my hand over my mouth."

Then Job answered the Lord and said:
�I know that you can do all things,
    and that no purpose of yours can be hindered.
I have dealt with great things that I do not understand;
    things too wonderful for me, which I can not know.
I had heard of you by word of mouth,
    but now my eye has seen you.
Therefore I disown what I have said,
    and repent in dust and ashes.�

Aren't we all given a part of God at creation, a knowing of Him, when He breathes life into us? Isn't it innately within us to know that there is God? These things are easy for me to understand because I know God and I feel Him within me. He speaks to me when I listen. He speaks to all of us if we only listen. This is the Holy Spirit of God living within us, when we invite Him in.

These things are easy for me to understand.

"Now the natural person does not accept what pertains to the Spirit of God, for to him it is foolishness, and he can not understand it, because it is spiritually discerned."

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
�I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
    the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." (Isaiah)

Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
For after that, in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty"

Regarding salvation;
Salvation comes through the blood of Jesus only if we accept Jesus and are transformed in our lives through the acceptance of Him. If we are not transformed then we do not truly have Christ. It is devotion of love, through knowing the great sacrifice of our Lord, that brings us to obedience and salvation. This is why the rich may be denied. If they have not been transformed, then Jesus will not know him when he comes face to face.

Does this better address the confusion that you see as contradictions?

Sincerely,
Caringheart

Caringheart,

Trinity, never existed before and that is my point. It contradicts the idea of One God presented in the OT. And that is my point. If Trinity was true, it would have been mentioned from the begining. Moses, David, and all of God's porphets would have testified to it. It was a new idea, for that it does not go with the original, with the truth of God as One of One.

I believe God is All Capable, but that does not mean He can turn himself into a human like you beleive or an elephant or a monkey as Hindus believe. That is product of human mind and why your idea has more merit than a Hindu's?

No, God does not live in each one of us, did God live in Hitler? or Bush? you think? May be goodness and badness live in people depending what they choose. God guides us to goodness, and Satan guide us to badness, that is the proper belief. It is up to to us what we decide for us, each with a consequence. Holy Spirit according to the Bible under God's command and control and God send it to whom He pleases. In the Quran we learn that actually "holy Spirit" is under God's command and rightly so, as everyone and everything is under God's command. Holy Spirit, we learn is an Angel, who God sends down when He decides. So my dear, what God controls and sends down according to His will is not God as you say rather subject to God and what is subject to God is not God.

You need to make sense of things before repeating and passing them on my friend. Remember you will give account of them one day.

Salvation, the Bible contradict on how it is achieved, that was my point. I do not believe, God be to not able to forgive without the act of killing and shedding the blood. That is against the basic principles of love and Justice. And since God is One without parents or ofsprings, loving and Just, God does not have mother, father, son or a daughter, God will not kill himself or His son or someone innocent for someone else's sins as you believe.

Dear friend, if you write me a short quote from your Bible that support:

1-God in a Trinity

2-Jesus being God

3-Salvation through Blood sacrifice of Jesus

I will point out the Bible quotes that will negate your quotes, and that's what I mean. The Bible contradicts on all those three major issues.

Hasan

Edited by honeto - 11 June 2012 at 1:29pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : iec786, I am really starting...

Mon, 11 Jun 2012 00:55:09 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 11 June 2012 at 12:55am

iec786,

   I am really starting to question your mental state. I have no idea of what Ezekiel 23:5-20 has to do with a discussion about the "Holy Gospel." The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel is part of the Old Testament.

   I still have NO IDEA of what you are trying to say or ask, what relevance does this quote about "whores" have to do with me, or with anything?

   As far as the Old Testament, the story of the Two Harlot Sisters is followed by God's judgment against them. The answer to your references to the "Sisters" is provided by Ezekiel's prophecy in Chapter 23:4 and 23:22-35

   The "harlots" (or "whores" of your translation) are not two people, as is explained in Verse 4. The "Lord God" is speaking these statements according to the prophecy of Ezekiel.

   4. "Their names: O-ho-la the elder and O-hol-i-bah her sister; They were Mine, And they bore sons and daughters. As for their names, Samaria is O-ho-lah, And Jerusalem is O-hol-i-bah."

   So, your quote about the "whores" was a prophecy that the Lord God gave to the Prophet Ezekiel concerning the sins of Samaria and Jerusalem in following idols and committing these sins and lewdnesses with other nations and peoples in the region.

   22. "Therefore, O-hol-i-bah, thus says the Lord God:"

   "Behold, I will stir up your lovers against you, From whom you have alienated yourself, and I will bring them against you from every side:"

   23. "The Babylonians, All the Chal-de-ans, Pe'kod, Sho'a, Ko'a, All the Assyrians with them, All of them desirable men, Governors and rulers, Captains and men of renown, All of them riding horses."

   24. "And they shall come against you, With chariots, wagons, and war-horses, With a horde of people. They shall array against you Buckler, shield, and helmet all around. I will delegate judgment to them, And they shall judge you according to their judgments."

   25. "I will set My jealousy against you, And they shall deal furiously with you; They shall remove your nose and your ears, And your remnant will fall by the sword; They shall take your sons and your daughters, And your remnant shall be devoured by fire."

   26. "They shall also strip you of your clothes And take away your beautiful jewelry."

   27. Thus I will make you cease your lewdness and your harlotry, Brought from the land of Egypt, So that you will not lift your eyes to them, Nor remember Egypt anymore."

   28. "For thus says the Lord God: Surely I will deliver you into the hand of those you hate, into the hand of those from whom you alienated yourself."

   29. "They will deal hatefully with you, take away all you have worked for, and leave you naked and bare. The nakedness of your harlotry shall be uncovered, both your lewdness and your harlotry."

   30. "I will do these things to you because you have gone as a harlot after the Gentiles, because you have become defiled by their idols."

   31. "You have walked in the way of your sister; therefore I will put her cup in your hand."

   32. "Thus says the Lord God:"

   "You shall drink of your sister's cup, The deep and wide one; You shall be laughed to scorn And held in derision; It contains much."

   33. "You will be filled with drunkeness and sorrow, The cup of horror and desolation, The cup of your sister Samaria."

   34. "You shall drink and drain it, You shall break its shards, And tear at your own breasts; For I have spoken, Says the Lord God."

   35. "Therefore thus says the Lord God: Because you have forgotten Me and cast Me behind your back, Therefore you shall bear the penalty Of your lewdness and your harlotry."

   So, I hope that answers and explains your "quotes" from the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. As I said before, these are prophecies made by the Lord God of Israel against Samaria and Jerusalem for following after idols and lewd practices from Egypt.

   If you had some other reason for your "quotes" I would appreciate it if you would explain WHY you made these "quotes" in the first place, and what did you mean by doing so?

Larry

P.S. "Jerusalem" is mentioned 667 times in the Bible, it is never mentioned even once in the Quran, which is strange because Jerusalem is supposed to be the "third holiest city" in Islam. It has been the "holiest city" of the Jews for over 3,000 years.

Edited by Larry - 11 June 2012 at 1:25am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by honetoCaringheart, three...

Sat, 09 Jun 2012 22:23:10 +0000

Author: Caringheart
Subject: 19811
Posted: 09 June 2012 at 10:23pm

Originally posted by honeto

Caringheart,
three major issues:
God, Jesus, and Salvation.
love,
Hasan

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Caringheart, here is the bottom...

Sat, 09 Jun 2012 17:39:59 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 09 June 2012 at 5:39pm

Caringheart,
here is the bottom line. In order to compare apples to apples we can take three major issues:
God, Jesus, and Salvation.
The Bible contradicts on all three. That is a very big sign of its transformation from completely being from God to becoming corrupt and in contradiction within itself.
This is my challenge to you and to anyone who wants to take it. Now if you take the same three issues with the Quran, you will find it consistent, a sign of its purity and a sign of its divine seal only because you insist to include it under this thread to show you that there is nothing in the Quran to be ducking for.
Once we aer up with those three major issues we can take others,
love,
Hasan

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by Larryiec786, Read...

Fri, 08 Jun 2012 23:26:05 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 08 June 2012 at 11:26pm

Originally posted by Larry

iec786,

   Read WHAT? I have no idea of what you are talking about. What is the relevance of a quote from somewhere regarding "whores?" Is it supposed to mean something in regard to the discussion here? If you are going to quote things you should list the source, the Bible, the Torah, the Quran, your imagination?
   You do not answer specific questions asked of you and simply use "cut-and-paste" endless and tedious articles from Islamic "sources" and never personally answer the questions. Then you declare that you are the winner in the argument and the other person is the loser. But you don't make any sense.
   If you want to stand in front of mirrors and "read loudly" about "whores" to your entire family, then that is your choice, but don't expect others to act in the same mentally unbalanced way that you do.
   Talking or asking questions to you is pointless because you either can't, or won't, personally answer questions about your own religion, which you seem not to really understand. But this is a habit of yours and I don't think it will change anytime soon.
   Grow up and stop acting like a spoiled child who always needs to get their way in any situation or discussion. And again, if you are going to quote anything, have the intellectual ability to at least let everyone know where you get your "quotes" and what specific questions you want answered.
   I still do not understand what your point is about "whores," maybe you could let me in on what you mean or are referring to, because it just sounds weird and disconnected to me and I still have not the slightest idea of what you are trying to say.

Larry

You do not want to read Ezekiel 23 which is in the Bible you hold in your hand to your family,why?????and to make it easy for you i will post it here so you do not have to look it up.

20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.Ezekiel 23 (New International Version)

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by honetoCaringheart,I...

Thu, 07 Jun 2012 16:12:59 +0000

Author: Caringheart
Subject: 19811
Posted: 07 June 2012 at 4:12pm

Originally posted by honeto

Caringheart,

I think you did not realize we are discussing the topic; " The Holy Gospel did not evolve". By these contradictions we are only seeing that it did.

If you have issues with Quran or any other book that can simply be discussed in an appropriate thread.

Thanks,

Hasan

Hasan,

If I recall, I was only responding to what you brought up.
But this is a good way of ducking the valid points I have raised.

To answer your assertion that by these contradictions we see that the Holy Gospel evolved I have to completely disagree with your assertion.

I am aware of the contradictions in the scriptures to which I adhere. The scriptures to which I adhere were written by many men over a great span of years. As such it would be unrealistic to expect them to match in every letter, but the renderings recorded are essentially the same, irregardless of minor differences. This only adds to their authenticity. They have much more similarity than difference. The adherents to Christianity have never felt the need to shy away from, or hide, the fact that there are places at which the scriptures differ with one another.

While they may contradict somewhat with one another, no one writer contradicts his own self.

The Islamic scriptures on the other hand, are heralded as the word of one, and that one contradicts his own self.

Going with your topic heading I would have to say that it is the Islamic tradition which has evolved, as evidenced by abrogation of its own surah's even during the lifetime of Muhammad.

Respectfully yours,
Caringheart

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by CaringheartAgain,...

Thu, 07 Jun 2012 12:56:44 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 07 June 2012 at 12:56pm

Originally posted by Caringheart

Again, Hassan, I have to ask... Did you read what I wrote?

I am not comparing Christianity, Judaism, or Islam one to the other. What I have said that if there are contradictions in one religion so are there in the other. Islam and the Quran has many contradictions to itself. Two examples;
"There is no compulsion in religion" vs. 'subdue and convert the infidels, or charge them jizrah'
"One perfect, all knowing God" vs. 'earlier surah's may be abrogated as God changes what He reveals'

These are not direct quotes as I do not have the time to look them up and quote them precisely but they do convey what I am referring to when I speak of the contradictions in the Quran and in Islam.

Are you able to take an open minded look at your religion and recognize that it also has contradictions. This is the fallibility of man.

Caringheart,

I think you did not realize we are discussing the topic; " The Holy Gospel did not evolve". By these contradictions we are only seeing that it did.

If you have issues with Quran or any other book that can simply be discussed in an appropriate thread.

Thanks,

Hasan

Edited by honeto - 07 June 2012 at 12:57pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : iec786, Read WHAT? I have no...

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 23:53:55 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 06 June 2012 at 11:53pm

iec786,

   Read WHAT? I have no idea of what you are talking about. What is the relevance of a quote from somewhere regarding "whores?" Is it supposed to mean something in regard to the discussion here? If you are going to quote things you should list the source, the Bible, the Torah, the Quran, your imagination?
   You do not answer specific questions asked of you and simply use "cut-and-paste" endless and tedious articles from Islamic "sources" and never personally answer the questions. Then you declare that you are the winner in the argument and the other person is the loser. But you don't make any sense.
   If you want to stand in front of mirrors and "read loudly" about "whores" to your entire family, then that is your choice, but don't expect others to act in the same mentally unbalanced way that you do.
   Talking or asking questions to you is pointless because you either can't, or won't, personally answer questions about your own religion, which you seem not to really understand. But this is a habit of yours and I don't think it will change anytime soon.
   Grow up and stop acting like a spoiled child who always needs to get their way in any situation or discussion. And again, if you are going to quote anything, have the intellectual ability to at least let everyone know where you get your "quotes" and what specific questions you want answered.
   I still do not understand what your point is about "whores," maybe you could let me in on what you mean or are referring to, because it just sounds weird and disconnected to me and I still have not the slightest idea of what you are trying to say.

Larry


Edited by Larry - 07 June 2012 at 12:10am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Again, Hassan, I have to ask......

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 20:37:21 +0000

Author: Caringheart
Subject: 19811
Posted: 06 June 2012 at 8:37pm

Again, Hassan, I have to ask... Did you read what I wrote?

I am not comparing Christianity, Judaism, or Islam one to the other. What I have said that if there are contradictions in one religion so are there in the other. Islam and the Quran has many contradictions to itself. Two examples;
"There is no compulsion in religion" vs. 'subdue and convert the infidels, or charge them jizrah'
"One perfect, all knowing God" vs. 'earlier surah's may be abrogated as God changes what He reveals'

These are not direct quotes as I do not have the time to look them up and quote them precisely but they do convey what I am referring to when I speak of the contradictions in the Quran and in Islam.

Are you able to take an open minded look at your religion and recognize that it also has contradictions. This is the fallibility of man.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Dear Caringheart,I am...

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 13:03:04 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 06 June 2012 at 1:03pm

Dear Caringheart,

I am sorry you were unable to understand my response to what you wrote.

Let me try again:

In response to your comment "You complain of contradictions in the written Word of God in the old[Torah] and new testaments.", my response was that it is not my complain that the Bible has contradiction rather it was a fact that I discovered through my own studies of the Bible contents.

Your assumption that Prophet Mohmmed (pbuh) somehow invented Islam by combining his knowledge of Christianity and Judaism if had any truth to it would contain contradictions of both. For example, Chrsitians say God is a Trinity, Jews don't believe in a Trinity. Christians believe Jesus died and paid for their sins, and if one beleive in that he/she will achieve salvation. Jews don't believe that neither. Christians believe Jesus to be the Messiah, Jews don't believe that neither.

Those are some huge differences, had prophet Mohammed (pbuh) had made Islam up with those two contradictions, he would have ended up with more contradictions. The amazing thing is that his teaching do not show any contradictions when it comes to those three major issues. God, Jesus, and Salvation. He got those perfectly right, with no contradiction at all. Not only that what he taught made sense. One All Capable God. Jesus son of Mary, a servant ot God. Salvation comes through obedience to God, who is Merciful and Forgiving.

peace and love,

Hasan

Edited by honeto - 06 June 2012 at 1:08pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : So you would not read it,i am...

Wed, 06 Jun 2012 08:44:06 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 06 June 2012 at 8:44am

So you would not read it,i am not surprised some one with high moral standards like you.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : iec786, Your "reply"...

Sun, 03 Jun 2012 19:28:20 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 03 June 2012 at 7:28pm

iec786,

Your "reply" is even weirder than usual. Is there something in that quote about the "whore" that is supposed to mean something, or are you just fascinated with whores? As far as reading it out loud to my "whole family" while standing in front of a mirror, that is just beyond bizarre and makes me question your mental state.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 03 June 2012 at 7:40pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hello Hasan,I don't understand...

Sun, 03 Jun 2012 18:14:58 +0000

Author: Caringheart
Subject: 19811
Posted: 03 June 2012 at 6:14pm

Hello Hasan,
I don't understand your response. I do hope you took the time to read and think about what I wrote.
Sincerely,
Caringheart

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by Caringheart Originally...

Sun, 03 Jun 2012 10:28:49 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 03 June 2012 at 10:28am

Originally posted by Caringheart

Originally posted by honeto

Fot example, God is displayed both as All Capable to not so all Capable.

If I can answer this too.

You complain of contradictions in the written Word of God in the old[Torah] and new testaments.

I see contradictions also in the written word of the quran. This would be no surprise since Muhammad simply taught according to what he knew of the teachings of Judaism and Christianity, putting his own spin on it to make it acceptable to his people and to give themsomething to unite under, putting an end to all the tribal wars.

The biggest contradiction being that while Muhammad supposedly had the Word of God revealed to Him, and God is all-knowing, and unchanging... yet Muhammad put forth abbrogatation of the very things he said God had revealed to Him. Why would an unchanging, all-knowing God have need of changing His Word?

Contradictions would also come as no surprise since, while the Bible contains the revealed Word of God, it was written down by man from oral tradition, teaching, and retelling, as was the quran.

The proof of the Bible is in the thousands of years in which in has stood the test of time, and in the fact that things revealed through the old testament prophets were events which came to pass. Regarding the Gospels... the Words that Jesus spoke were words that also foretold of precisely what would transpire for Himself. He had foreknowledge.

As far as reciting the Bible. It is where the faith got its beginnings... in the recitation of the Pslams. This was a common daily practice long ago during the time of oral tradition in the Jewish community. It is from hearing these Psalms that I believe Muhammad got his surahs. There is great similarity in the words, in the beauty and poetic nature, and in the concept of reciting God's Word.

As far as the Bible being in the hands of its followers. How many Muslims know what they are reciting and how many simply recite by rote? How many have read their quran? I would wager about the same percentage as so-called Christians have read their Bible. So both are guilty of simply following practices, rites, and teachings of their respective church or mosque, without being truly informed.

Caringheart,

I welcome you agian at the forum and amd glad that you are participating at various threads.

Bible contradictions are not my complain rather it is a fact that I confirmed for myself after getting to know the compilations knows as "the Bible".

As far as you comparing it to Quran, there is no comparison if you compare apples to apples. I have clearly wrote down the most important items: God, Trinity, Jesus, and Salvation. Those are the four main topics I am refering to even though there are many more in which we find "the Bible" contradicting and not the Quran. If you know your Bible you would know exactly which ones I am talking about. They have been shown here on this forum before, but I will be glad to go over them again.

I want to make sure its not ones word's against the other rather getting to the truth through facts.

Hasan

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Larry,You have just had the wind...

Sat, 02 Jun 2012 10:25:10 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 02 June 2012 at 10:25am

Larry,You have just had the wind hit out of your belly.You are talking in many tongues grumbling about the website and how many Christians there are in the world and at the same time clutching at straws.

Larry i want you to read this passage in front of a mirror loudly so that the whole family can here it,and tell me what you think.

5 And Aholah played the harlot when she was mine; and she doted on her lovers, on the Assyrians her neighbours,

6 Which were clothed with blue, captains and rulers, all of them desirable young men, horsemen riding upon horses.

7 Thus she committed her whoredoms with them, with all them that were the chosen men of Assyria, and with all on whom she doted: with all their idols she defiled herself.

8 Neither left she her whoredoms brought from Egypt: for in her youth they lay with her, and they bruised the breasts of her virginity, and poured their whoredom upon her.

9 Wherefore I have delivered her into the hand of her lovers, into the hand of the Assyrians, upon whom she doted.

10 These discovered her nakedness: they took her sons and her daughters, and slew her with the sword: and she became famous among women; for they had executed judgment upon her.

11 And when her sister Aholibah saw this, she was more corrupt in her inordinate love than she, and in her whoredoms more than her sister in her whoredoms.

12 She doted upon the Assyrians her neighbours, captains and rulers clothed most gorgeously, horsemen riding upon horses, all of them desirable young men.

13 Then I saw that she was defiled, that they took both one way,

14 And that she increased her whoredoms: for when she saw men pourtrayed upon the wall, the images of the Chaldeans pourtrayed with vermilion,

15 Girded with girdles upon their loins, exceeding in dyed attire upon their heads, all of them princes to look to, after the manner of the Babylonians of Chaldea, the land of their nativity:

16 And as soon as she saw them with her eyes, she doted upon them, and sent messengers unto them into Chaldea.

17 And the Babylonians came to her into the bed of love, and they defiled her with their whoredom, and she was polluted with them, and her mind was alienated from them.

18 So she discovered her whoredoms, and discovered her nakedness: then my mind was alienated from her, like as my mind was alienated from her sister.

19 Yet she multiplied her whoredoms, in calling to remembrance the days of her youth, wherein she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt.

20 For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : iec786, A boring cut-and-paste...

Fri, 01 Jun 2012 00:45:23 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 01 June 2012 at 12:45am

iec786,

   A boring cut-and-paste from a well-known Muslim "awareness" group. Self-serving nonsense, with many "opinions" parading as factual information and based, in part, on the opinions of so-called "experts" and comments about the influence of "Christian missionaries." What do "Christian Missionaries" have to do with the scientific study of the Quran and its dating, structure, etymologies and written forms?

   A more serious intellectual study, by noted Quranic authorities in both East and West, would do a much better and more accurate study. But the problem with that is that more "serious intellectual studies" tend to dispute many of the "opinions, suppositions and just plain personal "beliefs" described in this lengthy and, frankly, tedious, so-called "study" of the origins of the Quran and of the many statements commenting on the supposed "problems" with early Christian Biblical writings and their backgrounds.

   Biblical scholarship predates Islam by centuries in some cases (New Testament studies) and in thousands of years by others (Old Testament studies). The Bible is the single most studied book in history, with a rich and documented history, even presaging modern discoveries, such as the finding of city of Ebla, named in the Old Testament, but not actually known or discovered until the 20th century.

   Biblical scholarship does not require a "perfect" original copy of the Books of the Bible in order to express the beliefs and teachings of the various writers. As I said before, there were no early "burning parties," in Judaism or Christianity, as in the case of Islam, to destroy any texts that differed in any way with a single "official" work compiled and "authorized" by "religious" authorities. There were many writers of the Old and New Testaments and it is incredible that, despite being written in vastly different times and places, that the Bible presents it's core ideas and teachings in such a remarkably homogeneous and inter-related manner. There is no religious text, including the Bible and Quran, being written by man (even under Divine inspiration) that is "perfect" in all its parts.

   I won't be converting to Islam in the forseeable (make that ever) future. To me personally, there are too many problems with the content of the Quran, it's core messages and teachings, its moral "truths" and discrepancies in the matter of how the "People of the Book" (and also people of other religions and beliefs, in spite of the Quran's statement that there "is no compulsion in religion" because "truth stands out clear from error") are to be viewed and treated by Muslims.
   The disturbing and well-documented life of Muhammad, including raids on caravans, extorting "protection money" (Jizya) from "non-believers (to be able to practice their own religions), massacres of Jews in Medina and elsewhere, executing political ansd personal rivals, and the circumstances of his marriage to Aisha when she was 6 years old (but he waited til she was a grown-up 9 year old before consummating the "marriage).

   If you compare the lives, ministrys, teachings, personal relationships, religious beliefs and acts, performance of authentic miracles and statements about how people should treat each other, between Jesus Christ and Muhammad, you will see why Christianity has such a broad appeal worldwide with over 2.3 billion followers.

   These are some of the reasons that Islam will never appeal to the Western world, we value our freedom, most of all and don't let religious "authorities" (representing differing religious and sectarian beliefs) govern us, substituting the Bible, Quran, Torah or any other religious "book" for the Constitution of the United States.

   We have a good system here, the religious authorities do not make public policy and in return, they are guaranteed Freedom of Religion and exempt from many taxes. The "separation of church and state" is one of the reasons that the Constitution of the United States represents each and every American, regardless of race, religion, political beliefs, etc. It is one of the things that has caused the United States of America to be the dynamic and vibrant democracy that it is today.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 01 June 2012 at 12:37pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Larry, All that you want hope...

Thu, 31 May 2012 11:23:54 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 31 May 2012 at 11:23am

Larry,
All that you want hope you enjoy it.some pictures for you as well of the original Quraan manuscripts.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/quran/textual.htm
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/kufic.html
... the Kufic Script which, according to Qur'an scholars Martin Lings and Yasin Hamid Safadi, did not appear until the late eighth century.

In other words, according to the missionaries, Lings and Safadi say that the Kufic script did not appear until the late eighth century. Therefore, the conclusions drawn by the Christian missionaries suggest that

... both the Samarkand and Topkapi Codices could not have been written earlier than 150 years after the 'Uthmanic Recension was [supposedly] compiled - at the earliest during the late 700's or early 800's since both are written in the Kufic script (Gilchrist 1989:144-147).

It appears that the origin of this claim goes back to John Gilchrist, a Christian missionary from South Africa, who claimed about the Qur'anic manuscripts that:

Virtually all the relevant texts surviving were written in a developed form of Kufic script or in one of the other scripts known to have developed some time after the early codification of the Qur'an text. None of them can be reliably dated earlier than the second half of the second century of the Islamic era. We shall proceed to analyse some of these scripts.

This assertion that the Kufic script originated very late, not earlier than 150 years after hijra, has been repeated in almost every Christian missionary writing against Islam on the internet. See for example the writings of Joseph Smith and the 'Sermon Series' on The Fairy Tails of the Qur'an. That a Christian missionary quotes yet another missionary without proper verification is not too surprising. Bruce McDowell and Anees Zaka quoting Joseph Smith say that the Kufic script:

... did not appear until the 790s of later.[1]

Similarly, using the services of Joseph Smith, N. A. Newman claims that the Kufic script:

... thought to date from about 790 AD.[2]

Similar claims concerning the origins of the Kufic script have been made by Robert Morey[3] and Brett Marlowe Stortroen.[4] In this paper we would examine the claim the origins of the Kufic script in the light of the early Kufic Qur'anic manuscripts as well as Islamic inscriptions.

2. The Origins Of The Kufic Script

We begin with the quote of a Muslim, al-Qalqashandi who maintains that Kufic is said to have been the earliest script from which the others developed, he writes:

The Arabic script [khatt] is the one which is now known as Kufic. From it evolved all the present pens.[5]

This is a very profound statement as its findings differ greatly from missionaries' assertions! Though Nabia Abbott's conclusions perhaps may not go so far as to agree ad totum with this conclusion we find that she does say:

...the Muslim tradition that the original Arabic script was Kufic (that is, Hiran or Anbaran) is one of those statements which, though known to be half wrong, may yet be half right.[6]

The terms that came to be applied to these scripts by early Arabs themselves could not have the chronological significance that some later Arabs and most Western writers have put to them. For is it the case that the name of a thing (e.g., Kufic) necessarily indicates its ultimate origin? The fact is that the script which later came to be known as Kufic has its origin far earlier than the founding of the town of Kufah.

Imamuddin writes:

The origin of Kufic or the angular style of Arabic script is traced back to about one hundred years before the foundation of Kufah (17H / 638CE) to which town it owes its name because of its development there.[7]

Similarly Moritz writing in the Encyclopaedia Of Islam says:

Although the script [i.e., Kufic] itself,.... was known in Mesopotamia at least 100 years before the foundation of Kufa, we may conjecture that it received its name from the town in which it was first put to official use...[8]

That is to say, the town was founded in AH 17, and the Kufic style originated 100 years before that time! This conclusion is agreed upon by other writers too.[9] Khatibi and Sijelmassi inform us that:

The Arabs usually distinguish four types of pre-Islamic script: al-Hiri (from Hira), al-Anbari (from Anbar), al-Maqqi (from Mecca) and al-Madani (from Medina). The famous author of Fihrist, Ibn Nadim (died c. 390/999) was the first to use the word 'kufic', deriving it from the hiri script. However, Kufic script cannot have originated in Kufa, since that city was founded in 17/638, and the Kufic script is known to have existed before that date, but this great intellectual centre did enable calligraphy to be developed and perfected aesthetically from the pre-Islamic scripts.[10]

What is of note here is that it is the Hiran script which later came to be classified as the Kufic. Abbott writes:

... Kufah and Basrah did not start their careers as Muslim cities until the second decade of Islam. But these cities were located closer to Anbar and Hirah in Irak, Kufah being but a few miles south of Hirah. We have already seen the major role the two earlier cities played in the evolution of Arabic writing, and it is but natural to expect them to have developed a characteristic script to which the newer cities of Kufah and Basrah fell heir, so that for Kufic and Basran script one is tempted to substitute Anbaran and Hiran ... our study so far shows that the script of Hirah must have been the leading script in the 6th century and as such must have influenced all later scripts, including the Makkan - Madinan.[11]

The city of Kufah, therefore, inherited and took on the script which was already prevailing in Hirah. The script, as we have mentioned, became later to be called as Kufic.

3. Martin Lings & Yasin Safadi On The Kufic Script

The missionaries have argued that it is the view of both Martin Lings and Yasin Safadi that the Kufic script

did not appear until the late eighth century.

The claim of Lings and Safadi allegedly saying that the Kufic script did not appear until late eight century has even entered the Christian missionary publications such as the one by Steven Masood. He says concerning the script in the Samaqand codex (note the same argument!):

It is written in a particular type of Kufic script which, according to modern experts in Arabic calligraphy, did not exist until late in the eighth century CE and was not used at all in Makkah and Madinah in the seventh century.[12]

It is difficult to see how this view can be ascribed to Safadi, because he himself, in his work Islamic Calligraphy, details the milestone from the period of the Caliph �Abd al-Malik (685-705 CE) which he describes as being in the Kufic script![13]

Concerning the the Kufic script, Yasin Safadi says:

The Kufic script, which reached perfection in the second half of the the eighth century, attained a pre-eminence which endured for more than three hundred years ....[14]

In the chapter "Kufic Calligraphy" Martin Lings says:

The first calligraphic perfection of Islam is to be found in the monumental script which may be said to have reached its fullness in the last half of the second century AH which ended in 815 AD.[15]

Can we then assume from this, taking into account the previous evidence, that Safadi held the belief that the script first originated at this time? No, rather he is clearly stating that it is here when it reached its 'perfection'. Lings and Safadi again arrived at a similar conclusion for their book in honour of the 1976 Qur'an exhibition at the British Museum:

Kufic may be said to have reached its perfection, for Qur'anic manuscripts, in the second half of the second Islamic century which ended in A.D. 814.[16]

One wonders how did the missionaries conclude the appearance of the Kufic script in the late eight century when both Lings and Safadi say that the script reached its perfection in the second half of second Islamic century! Concerning the style of script of the Samarqand codex, there are many examples of it from the first century of hijra in the form of dated Kufic inscriptions.

The Christian missionaries are found to be not only incorrect in their dating of the origins of the Kufic script, but also erroneous in their opinion that Kufic is not a script that we would expect to have been employed in the Hijaz during the Caliphate of �Uthman. In respect to Lings and Safadi, the missionaries have simply misread their statements.

To conclude, Abbott thinks that the �Uthmanic Qur'anic manuscripts were probably written in Makkan-Madinan scripts.[17] The manuscript attributed to �Uthman, located at al-Hussein mosque in Cairo, is indeed written in Madinan script.

4. Kufic Qur'anic Manuscripts From First & Second Centuries Of Hijra

The best way to refute the claim of Christian missionaries about the appearance of Kufic script (and hence the Kufic Qur'ans!) around late eighth century CE (or mid-to-late second century of hijra) is to show the existence of Kufic Qur'anic manuscripts from first and early second century of hijra. The following museums have Kufic Qur'anic manuscripts from 1st and early 2nd century of hijra.

Austrian National Library, Vienna, Austria: Kufic manuscripts A. Perg 203, A Perg. 201 and A Perg. 193 + 196 + 208 are dated from the beginning of second century hijra. Manuscripts A. Perg. 186 and A. Perg. 197 are dated to middle second century of hijra.[18]

Beit al-Qur'an, Manama, Bahrain: Manuscript 1611-mkh235 is from late 1st century of hijra. Manuscript 1620-mkh233 is from 1st / 2nd century of hijra.

Maktabat al-Jami� al-Kabir (Maktabat al-Awqaf), The Great Mosque, San�a', Yemen: Examples of first century Kufic manuscripts are available in Memory Of The World: San�a' Manuscripts, CD-ROM Presentation, UNESCO.

5. Kufic Inscriptions From 1st Century Of Hijra

The Christian missionaries' arbitrary dating of the origins of Kufic script also contradicts early inscriptions which have been commented upon by both Western and Muslim writers.

The Earliest Dated Kufic Inscription From Qā� al-Mu�tadil, Near Al-Hijr (Saudi Arabia), 24 AH. This inscription, it appears, is destined to be the most famous of all the Arabic inscriptions as the UNESCO has added it to the Memory of the World Register of Documentary Collections.
Tombstone Of �Abd al-Rahmān Ibn Khair al-Hajri Dated 31 AH. This was first published by H. M. El-Hawary who said that it is inscribed in:
... carelessly written Cufic script.[19]

Nabia Abbott reasserts:

The earliest Muslim inscription, the tombstone of �Abd al-Rahman Ibn Khair al-Hajari, dated 31/652... It is certainly not Makkan and can safely be considered as poor Kufic.[20]

An Islamic Inscription On The Darb Zubayda Dated 40 AH. This Kufic inscription was found on the Darb Zubayda caravan route at Wadi 'l-Shamiya during an archaeological survey in 1970s.
An Islamic Inscription From Wadi Sabil Dated 46 AH. This inscription was found in Wadi Sabil during the Philby-Ryckmans-Lippens expedition.
These Kufic inscriptions date before the collection of the Qur'an by �Uthman.

6. Dated Manuscripts & Dating Of The Manuscripts: The Difference

A clear distinction needs to be made between dated (or datable) manuscripts and dating of the manuscripts for proper orientation. A steadily increasing number of manuscripts of both the Qur'an and the New Testament with confident allocation of dates by various palaeographers can obscure the fact that we do not have absolute secure dates for majority of the New Testament and Qur'anic manuscripts.

In the case of Greek documentary papyri such as private letters or receipts, the dates are often present. Most of the New Testament manuscripts are written in a literary rather than a documentary hand. Therefore, it always needs a careful investigation of the evidence and involves comparing it with datable parallels to arrive at a reasonable dating. In the case of Qur'anic manuscripts the dating is carried out by studying the nature of the script, papyrus, ornamentation and illumination. The palaeographers then date the manuscript to a particular century during which such characteristics were seen, a process similar to the one used in the dating of New Testament manuscripts.

The Qur'anic manuscript becomes datable when there is a note on it either from the scribe or the waqf showing the date of its accession in a library or the production of the manuscript itself.

Keeping this in mind let us move over to the statement of the Christian missionaries. They say:

Aside from some of the manuscripts discovered in the loft of the Great Mosque in Sanaa in 1972, no manuscript fragment of the Qur'an can be dated earlier than first quarter of the 8th century A.D. - nearly 100 years after Muhammad. (Calligraphy and Islamic Culture, Annemarie Schimmel, 1984, p.4)

The statement of the missionaries give an impression that Muslims do not have a datable Qur'anic manuscripts before the first quarter of the eighth century. The quote from Schimmel's book when read in the context says:

The terminus ante quem for a fragment or a copy of the Koran can be established only when the piece has a waqf note, showing the date of its accession in a certain library. The earliest datable fragments go back to the first quarter of the eighth century...[21]

Schimmel is saying that to firmly date a manuscript, we need something like a waqf note. She then mentions about the earliest datable manuscript that goes back to the first quarter of the eighth century. This manuscript is a very famous one and is located at the Egyptian National Library (was formerly at �Amr Mosque), dated 107 AH / 725 CE . Moritz has reproduced a large number of pages from this codex.[22] Arnold and Grohmann assigns this specific date.[23] The dating of this manuscript has been recently corroborated by Marilyn Jenkins of Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York) by studying the ornamentation.[24] A folio of the manuscript is reproduced below.

Folios contains Surahs Ya-Sin, 72-83 and Al-Saffat, 1-14. It is written in mashq script, on vellum. No aya markers and no surah headings.

It is not true that the earliest datable manuscript goes back to the first quarter of the eighth century. The famous palaeographer Adolf Grohmann informs us that

one dated copy exists from the first century of Higra and two exists from the second, seven only from the third century of Higra.[25]

The first century manuscript is dated 94 AH / 712-13 CE and is from Iran. The two second century hijra copies, dating 102 AH / 720 CE and 107 AH / 725 CE are in Egyptian National Library, Cairo; the latter we have already discussed above.[26]

A word of caution needs to be added. Whenever there is a waqf marking on the manuscripts, it is the burden of the paleographer to estimate the time between the writing of a manuscript and its being deposited in a mosque or any other religious institution. In other words, the wakf marking is not the true representative of the exact age of the manuscript. It only overestimates the date of writing of the manuscript.

No discussion about the dated manuscripts is finished without the mention of the status of New Testament manuscripts. We have no dated manuscripts of the New Testament until the Uspenski gospels of 835 CE.[27] This is not very unusual, as literary documents were not generally dated in antiquity. The first literary manuscript (Vindob. Med. Gr. 1) dated by the scribe is a text of Dioscorides from 512 CE now in Vienna.[28]

7. Conclusions

In conclusion, we have seen that the script which came to know as Kufic existed before the founding of city of Kufah. It was this script which reached its fullness or perfection in the second half of the eighth century CE. This is a clear refutation of the claims of John Gilchrist and other missionaries who have asserted that the Kufic script originated very late; not earlier than 150 years after hijra.

And Allah knows best!

References & Notes

[1] B. A. McDowell & A. Zaka, Muslims And Christians At The Table: Promoting Biblical Understanding Among North American Muslims, 1999, P & R Publishing: Phillipsburg (NJ), p. 76. Also see ref. 9 on p. 287.

[2] N. A. Newman, Muhammad, The Qur'an & Islam, 1996, Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute: Hatfield (PA), p. 314. Joseph Smith's work is cited on p. 320.

[3] R. A. Morey, Winning The War Against Radical Islam, 2002, Christian Scholars Press: Las Vegas (NV), p. 70.

[4] B. M. Stortroen (Ed. G. J. Buitrago), Mecca And Muhammad: A Judaic Christian Documentation Of The Islamic Faith, 2000, Church Of Philadelphia Of The Majority Text (Magna), Inc.: Queen Creek (AZ), p. 143.

[5] Abi al-�Abbas Ahmad al-Qalqashandi, Kitab Subh al-A�sha, 1914, Volume III, Dar al-Kutub al-Khadiwiyyah: Al-Qahirah, p. 15.

[6] N. Abbott, The Rise Of The North Arabic Script And Its Kur'anic Development, 1939, University of Chicago Press, p. 17.

[7] S. M. Imamuddin, Arabic Writing And Arab Libraries, 1983, Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd.: London, p. 12.

[8] B. Moritz, "Arabic Writing", Encyclopaedia Of Islam (Old Edition), 1913, E. J. Brill Publishers, Leyden & Luzac & Co.: London, p. 387.

[9] A. Siddiqui, The Story Of Islamic Calligraphy, 1990, Sarita Books: Delhi, p. 9.

[10] A. Khatibi & M. Sijelmassi, The Splendor Of Islamic Calligraphy, 1994, Thames and Hudson, pp. 96-97.

[11] N. Abbott, The Rise Of The North Arabic Script And Its Kur'anic Development, 1939, op. cit., p. 17.

[12] S. Masood, The Bible And The Qur'an: A Question Of Integrity, 2001, OM Publication: Carlisle, UK, p. 19.

[13] Y. H. Safadi, Islamic Calligraphy, 1979, Shambhala Publications, Inc.: Boulder (Colorado), p. 11.

[14] ibid., p. 10. See also a similar assertion on p. 42.

[15] M. Lings, The Quranic Art Of Calligraphy And Illumination, 1976, World of Islam Festival Trust, p. 16.

[16] M. Lings & Y. H. Safadi, The Qur'an: Catalogue Of An Exhibition Of Quranic Manuscripts At The British Library, 1976, World of Islam Festival Publishing Company Ltd.: London, p. 12.

[17] N. Abbott, The Rise Of The North Arabic Script And Its Kur'anic Development, 1939, op. cit., p. 21.

[18] H. Loebenstein, Koranfragmente Auf Pergament Aus Der Papyrussammlung Der �sterreichischen Nationalbibliothek, Textband, 1982, �sterreichische Nationalbibliothek: Wein, pp. 23-43. This contains the description of the manuscripts, see pp. 36-; H. Loebenstein, Koranfragmente Auf Pergament Aus Der Papyrussammlung Der �sterreichischen Nationalbibliothek, Tafelband, 1982, �sterreichische Nationalbibliothek: Wein, See Tafel 11-19. This contains the pictures of the manuscripts.

[19] H. M. El-Hawary, "The Most Ancient Islamic Monument Known Dated AH 31 (AD 652) From The Time Of The Third Calif �Uthman", Journal Of The Royal Asiatic Society, 1930, p. 327.

[20] N. Abbott, The Rise Of The North Arabic Script And Its Kur'anic Development, 1939, op. cit., pp. 18-19.

[21] A. Schimmel, Calligraphy And Islamic Culture, 1984, New York University Press: New York & London, p. 4.

[22] B. Moritz (Ed.), Arabic Palaeography: A Collection Of Arabic Texts From The First Century Of The Hidjra Till The Year 1000, 1905, Publications of the Khedivial Library, No. 16, Cairo, See Pl. 1-12.

[23] T. W. Arnold & A. Grohmann, The Islamic Book: A Contribution To Its Art And History From The VII-XVIII Century, 1929, The Pegasus Press, p. 22.

[24] M. Jenkins, "A Vocabulary Of Ummayad Ornament", Masahif San�a', 1985, Dar al-Athar al-Islamiyyah, pp. 23.

[25] A. Grohmann, "The Problem Of Dating Early Qur'ans", 1958, Der Islam, p. 216.

[26] ibid.

[27] B. M. Metzger, Manuscripts Of The Greek Bible: An Introduction To Greek Palaeography, 1981, Oxford University Press, p. 102, No. 26,

[28] R. Devreesse, Introduction � L'�tude Des Manuscrits Grecs, 1954, Librairie C. Klincksieck: Paris, p. 288.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : iec786, According to you; "There...

Wed, 30 May 2012 14:43:29 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 30 May 2012 at 2:43pm

iec786,

   According to you; "There exists today one original copy of the noble (Quran) in Saudi Arabia today."

   When you say one "original" Quran do you mean one of the four copies ordered to be written by Uthman? I was wondering because the original Quran (Hafsah's Codex), composed just two years after the death of Muhammad, was deliberately destroyed. Which "copy" are you referring to?

   Please provide a link to the information concerning this "original" Quran in Saudi Arabia. Please list documentation as to this apparently "unique" copy of the Quran.

   You said, "Muhammad received the "Noble Quran" in a 10-years span."

   Actually, it was revealed over a 23 year "span", from the first "revelation" in 610 C.E. to Muhammad's death in 632 C.E. I would have assumed that you would know this since it goes to the very heart of the Quran.

   You write; "So it is "beyond the shadow of a doubt" that the numbering and the order of the "Noble Chapters and Verses" was already determined by our "Prophet (You say this at least four times in your "reply)."

   If, as you assert, the order and numbering of the Quran was determined while Muhammad was alive, how is it possible that two of his closest companions, Abdullah Ibn Masub and Ubayy B. Ka'ab, would personally produce versions that were at odds with this "fact?"

   You state; "Muhammad had "everything" documented on paper and saved with his "close disciples" and immediate family. He also had the entire "Noble Quran" memorized along with many of his followers."

   Could you provide a link to this precious "paper document" that came straight from the Prophet himself?" Where is this "paper" kept?

   Two of his "closest" companions, Abdullah Ibn Masud and Ubayy B. Ka'ab, seem to not have known these facts when writing their own versions.

   Abdullah Ibn Masud's version does not contain Surahs 1, 113 and 114. The "order and numbering" in Masud's version were also different from the "official" Quran of Uthman.

   Ubayy B. Ka'ab's version contains two Surahs, Surah al-Khal and Surah al-Afd, not found in Uthman's "official" version. The oder and numbering of the surahs was also different in Ka'ab's version of the Quran.

   I noticed that in your lengthy "reply" to my questions, you never mention the "Hafsah Codex" nor do you say anything about the versions of Masud and Ka'ab. Is there a reason you have for not addressing these three "versions" that I ASKED you in my previous reply?

   Citing Islamic "sources" and the "hadiths" for confirmation of your assertions is hardly proof for the objective truths of your claims. It would be like me quoting the Bible to you and expecting you to believe everything that I attest to.

   The rest of your "claims" are just more examples of your so-called "facts" concerning the "perfection" of the Quran and it's eternal and "unchangable" nature. Save your "fairy tales" for someone who is gullible enough to believe you and your supposed "proofs" of Quranic "infallibility."

   As I stated before, Quran 2-106 says; "None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We Substitute something better or similar; Knowest thou not that Allah hath power over all things?"

   Why would "revelations" direct from God Himself through the angel Gabriel need to be "substituted" by "something better or similar" at a later date?

   And one last point:

   Why does the language of the translation of the "Noble Quran" in many places and also right here on Islamicity, be written in the style of the original King James Bible of 1611? Why would a modern translation of the Quran use a form of language that has not been used by the English-speaking world for 300 years?

   I have a theory on that. The use of the language of the original King James Bible of 1611 will give the feeling and impression that the Quran and the King James Bible share the same degree of "sanctity" and religious and historic relevance.

   Why not just translate it into modern English so that there are no linguistic misunderstandings among modern English readers?

   Just as the Quran was translated into the Quryash dialect because it was the most authoritative and widely used dialect of the "original" seven dialects, that the Quran was revealed, to the "Prophet" Muhammad.

   But we have a proverb here the United States that applies well to this issue; "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."

Larry


Edited by Larry - 30 May 2012 at 3:25pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by honeto Fot...

Tue, 29 May 2012 15:18:09 +0000

Author: Caringheart
Subject: 19811
Posted: 29 May 2012 at 3:18pm

Originally posted by honeto

Fot example, God is displayed both as All Capable to not so all Capable.

If I can answer this too.

You complain of contradictions in the written Word of God in the old[Torah] and new testaments.

Contradictions would also come as no surprise since, while the Bible contains the revealed Word of God, it was written down by man from oral tradition, teaching, and retelling, as was the quran.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by semar...if...

Tue, 29 May 2012 14:41:43 +0000

Author: Caringheart
Subject: 19811
Posted: 29 May 2012 at 2:41pm

Originally posted by semar... if you are a reporter you will rush this story and put in the front page, with big-big heading, no reporter will delay this huge-huge story, huge-huge event. You can ask any jurnalist, no one will not delay this story even in a day or two, of course not 70 years.[/QUOTE

I would like to reply to this.

In those days news was spread by word of mouth, and the word of mouth about Jesus, yes, was that He was the Son of God. It is the reason He was crucified. It is the reason after His death and resurrection the disiples went forth to spread the word at the cost of their own lives. It was not kept silent.

It just wasn't until many years later that someone took the time to make a written record.

Much the same as a written record of the quran was not made until after the death of Muhammad.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by LarryHasan, You...

Tue, 29 May 2012 13:34:20 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 29 May 2012 at 1:34pm

Originally posted by Larry

Hasan,

   You consistently accuse me of "dancing" around issues when you do the exact same thing.

   You say the Bible contents have been "altered," what do you mean by that? Are you talking about translations in different languages? You say you have "studied" VARIOUS parts of the Bible "and they confirm for me that there is discrepancy in it pointing to it's alteration, period."

   The Bible has been the most studied, commented on, researched and translated text than any other book in history, including the Quran. The Old and New Testaments were being studied and translated extensively when people of the Arabian desert were still worshipping the moon and stars and revering the "black stone" one of the original idols in the Kaaba during the Jahaliyya period. "Allah" was the name of their chief god, the god of the Quryash, and "Allahu Akbar" doesn't mean "God is great" but "God is the GREATEST" of all. Both Muhammad's father and Uncle had "Allah" as part of their names, so that shows that Allah was known long before Muhammad got his first "revelation" from Gabriel.

   You have "studied" the Bible? Did you "study" it in it's original languages of Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek? You make your own "facts" up and then present them as reasoned arguments, when thwey are anything but reasoned. If you want to talk about "discrepancy" then simply look at all the verses in the Quran that have to do with the "Peoples of the Book" and how they are to be treated and viewed by Muslims. I have read the ENTIRE Quran here on Islamicity and was surprised at the various ways the POTB were seen by the Quran.

   You ask, "By the way really is there a copy of the Bible from 50 years after Jesus, that is exactly the same as you and I have today anywhere in the world?"

   In what languages are you asking this question to be answered? Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek? Does an English translation of the Quran have EXACTLY the same meaning and words as an Arabic language copy of the Quran?

   You can say that there is a version of the Quran that is the same as one made fifty (though I believe it was somewhat later than 50 years) years after Muhammad and the Quran of today. But, since any EARLIER copy of the Quran was deliberately destroyed by Muslim authorities there is no way to prove the point because the evidence has been wiped out.

   Jewish and Christian Bibles have never been subject to "burning parties" such as Uthman's, to make sure that all versions are EXACTLY the same.

   I use the New King James version of the Bible that is probably the most accurate and detailed translation of the Books of the Bible today. You should take copies of trhe Quran written in 2o differwent languages and then have a translator of each of those versions and see if the result is a "perfect" match with the present Quran in Arabic.

   I don't base my beliefs in God in a Book that is written by men, such as all holy books are, because as far as I know no holy text has fallen out of the sky in one, perfect copy. I base my beliefs on God, Jesus Christ the Son of God and the Holy Spirit, the Holy Trinity, three facets of the same God.

   Whether you believe in Christianity, Judaism or Islam means nothing to me. You are free to believe anything you want. I don't believe in Allah (who, is NOT the same God as He of the Jews and Christians, in my opinion), I don't believe that Muhammad is the "Prophet" of God or "Seal of the Prophets" because I am not aware of ANY prophecies AT ALL that he made. And I find the life story of Muhammad to be abhorrent (mainly due to his actions when he was alive, very different from the actions of Jesus Christ when He was here), and I don't believe that the Quran is sacred or true in any way.

   Nothing is going to change your belief and nothing is going to change mine. And we have been OVER and OVER this same subject too long and it has become boring and repetitive, so let's just end this particular subject matter on that note.

   I have no problem with you as a person and I hope that you have a good and fulfilling life. If you want to address a different subject we can open a new thread.

Larry

Larry,

actually I don't know to dance, I see you are pretty good at it LOL :)

Yes I have studied most of the Bible, and I find it amazing that anyone of sound mind would take it serious. Some parts are good, some are bad. Some show the original message through a screen while other places show strange things that don't reflect anything serious.

Fot example, God is displayed both as All Capable to not so all Capable.

God is said to be One wihtout any Trinity to all of a sudden a Trinity.

Jesus is claimed to be God in one place (not clear though, only people like you say so) to Jesus himself claiming to have God just like you and me. Jesus is portrayed by its writing by some as to be equal to God, but in the same book according to Jesus himself, God is greater than him.

It says, children will pay for the sins of their father, yet it says the opposite in the same book by putting the sin of Adam to all humanity, and by saying in anther place that God punishes so many generations.

It says that salvation comes through Jesus' blood sacrifice, yet it also says that the rich will not enter the kingdom fo God, or that your actions and words you speak will determine if you are condemned or justified.

Those are some of the major areas of your belief through the Bible, and the Bible unfortunately does not give you a non conflicting clear answer thus no guidance, truthfully.

And I don't get this info from someone else's work on any website but my own first hand knowledge through people around me and studying the Bible. And by the way until I had not touched or read the Bible, I could never think it would contradict teachings it is associated with.

Even though, the thing that somehow Bible is the most read book has no proof. And I don't see any of its followers reciting its verses five times a day like we Muslim read the Quran, nor it was in the hands of its followers except for past few centuries before it was read to ordinary followers only by the clergy. So I don't know if I want to buy that claim at all, plus it makes no difference, as the old saying goes, " by loading books on a donkey it does not become a scholar".

I don't buy your story of word Allah neither. Jesus cried to Allah according to the Bible where it is quoted in how he might has said it in original language: "Eloi, Eloi".

Of course Word "Allah" is older than Mohammed (pbuh), look at how Jesus cried to Allah I just mentioend above. Word Allah refers to One God, God of Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus and Mohammed (pbut). And by God we mean the Creator of All that Exists, if that is too much for you to grasp, just think of it as One who made us all and everything including Jesus (pbuh).

For deniers of truth there is nothing left but themselves to blame one day.

When I asked you for a copy of the Bible 50 years after Jesus, you seem to be kidding when asking me in what language do I want that?

The Quran was revealed in Arabic, rest are only traslations. So do you know in which language was the original scriptures, and if there is one still alive, where is it?

I am still waitng on your response to Biblical prophecies you made claim to on a different thread.

You said: "I don't base my beliefs in God in a Book that is written by men, such as all holy books are, because as far as I know no holy text has fallen out of the sky in one, perfect copy. I base my beliefs on God, Jesus Christ the Son of God and the Holy Spirit, the Holy Trinity, three facets of the same God."

I dont' know if I should laugh or ask you to tell me, from where do you get to the conclusion about what you called Holy Trinity, in particular where else if not Bible taught you that God has a son? you mind sharing that, or its jsut fake?

Hasan

Edited by honeto - 29 May 2012 at 1:41pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : iec786, You say, "I AM WAITING." Looks...

Tue, 29 May 2012 09:20:21 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 29 May 2012 at 9:20am

[QUOTE=Larry] iec786,

   You say, "I AM WAITING."

   Looks like you'll have to wait a long time to hear me support the "challenge" made in the Quran to "produce" a verse like it. What does that mean, who is going to judge if someone's alternate verse is superior in form and content? A Christian, a Jew, a Muslim? I could say the same about the Bible because the "challenge" is worthless and the "answer" simply cannot be realistically or verifiably judged because the question is invalid, vague and unanswerable from the start.

   You ask me to provide you with the "names of "all" the variant Qurans. I can provide two right off the bat.

1. Abdullah ibn Masud's "Kufan Codex" which does not contain Surahs 1, 113 and 114.

2. The Quran as written by Ubayy B. Ka'ab, with it's additional two Surahs that are not in todays Quran.

3. ETC., ETC., ETC.

Larry[/QUOTE

Thank you for not answering.I will not wait any longer because you do not have an answer.Thanks for at least trying.

1. Abdullah ibn Masud's "Kufan Codex" which does not contain Surahs 1, 113 and 114.

I would like to put this to rest so here goes.

Why did Uthman, Prophet Muhammad's third disciple burn the "other books"?

The sections of this article are:

- Why did Uthman burn the "other books"?
- The preservation of the Noble Quran during Muhammad's time.
- After the death of our Prophet peace be upon him.
- Discussion with one of the Christian "Answering Islam" team members.
- Conclusion.

Note: Please visit the following two sites for more information and references. I highly recommend them, because they are rich in contents and they contain references from authentic Islamic resources to all of their claims and points.

Response from the BISMIKA ALLAHUMMA site. Shows evidence of the collection of Noble Quran, and how it all happened.   They respond directly to Answering Islam's questions and claims.

Response from the Islamic Awareness site. Elaborates on the Noble Quran during Uthman, and how the Muslims got rid of the "other" books. They also respond directly to Answering Islam's questions and claims.

The Noble Quran was revealed in one language and that is Arabic. It has only one original Arabic copy. Arabic 1400 years ago had 7 dialects. There exists today one original copy of the Noble in Saudi Arabia today. A copy of this original copy also exists in Turkey today as well.

When the Noble Quran was revealed to Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, it was revealed in Arabic, and in the Quraishi dialect. The Quraishi dialect is the most proper Arabic dialect that properly uses the Arabic words without altering their sound.

The Quraishi dialect was the most popular dialect in the Middle East at that time, and is today the dialect used among Arabs who speak Proper Arabic. The dialect that books teach at schools is also a Quraishi dialect today.

Back in the Middle East 1400 years ago, the Quraishi dialect was not the only one used among Arabs. There existed 6 other dialects along with it, but as I said, it was the most popular.

It is very important in the Islamic faith that when we recite the Noble Quran, we recite it in the Quraishi dialect or what we call today in the proper Arabic. We can't pronounce for instance "th" as "sa" or "za". We can't pronounce "la" as "laman". We can't pronounce "ja" and "ga", etc...

There are no variances or missing parts in the Noble Quran. These are all false and baseless assumptions by some anti-Islamics. The Arabic dialects had problems with each others, and that's why standardizing the Noble Quran with its original Quraishi dialect was essential to keeping it as a perfect Holy Book: For instance, take the letter "j". Did you know that some Arabs don't pronounce the "j"? They always pronounce it as "g" or "ga".

Take "the" as another example. Some Arabs also don't pronounce "the". They pronounce it as "za".

Another example, and this is an important one in my opinion, is that some Arabs used to have a dialect which originated from Yemen, where they would add "an" at the end of a noun. Take for instance the popular word of today "Taliban", as in the Taliban in Afghanistan. "Taliban" is the same as the Arabic word "Talib" which means "Student".

The Afghans today used the old Arabic dialect from Yemen which dates even older than 1400 years ago when the Noble Quran was revealed. Back then in Yemen, as I said, they used to add the word "an" for nouns. So if they for instance wanted to refer to a stone "sakhr (in Arabic)", then they would refer to it as "sakhran", even though it would be written in Arabic as "sakhr".

In Islam, properly reciting the Words of Allah Almighty is the way it must be practiced. Otherwise, it would be considered a sin and disrespect toward Allah Almighty and the individual would be disobeying Allah Almighty and would gain bad deeds that will count against him in the Day of Judgment if he did it intentionally.

The preservation of the Noble Quran during Muhammad's time:

When Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him received the Noble Quran's Revelations in a 10-years span, he had everything documented on paper and saved with his close disciples and immediate family. He also had the entire Noble Quran memorized along with many of his followers. The Noble Quran during the times of our beloved Prophet peace be upon him was carefully preserved and protected from man's corruption. It was documented on paper and it was entirely memorized by many.

When Uthman, the third Caliph in Islam, compiled the Noble Quran, he did not determine the numerical order of the Noble Chapters and the Noble Verses. The entire Noble Quran as I said was already documented and memorized. Chapters from the Noble Quran were recited by our Prophet peace be upon him at least 5 times a day during the Muslims' five-daily prayers. Also, the Noble Quran was all recited during the month of Ramadan, as it is still done today. There are other daily and weekly religious occasions, festivals and holidays where the Noble Quran back then and still today was recited either partially or wholly. The Muslims who perfected the memorization of the Noble Quran back then continuously refreshed their memories through teaching others: Muslims and non-Muslims about Islam.

So, it is beyond the shadow of the doubt that the numbering and the order of the Noble Chapters and Verses was already determined by our Prophet peace be upon him through the inspiration and guidance of Allah Almighty, and not by anyone else.

Historically, almost every Muslim scholar had the entire Noble Quran memorized by heart. If you live among Muslims or know well how the Muslims deal with the Noble Quran, then you would know that tampering with the Noble Quran is impossible among the Muslims. If someone recites the Noble Quran to the public (in the Mosque for instance) and makes a mistake, then he would find many who would correct him because they would have the entire Noble Quran memorized by heart.

The memorization of the entire Noble Quran is something sacred in Islam. It helped the Noble Quran remain error-free from man's false documentation. Today in the Middle East they have programs and rewards for those who have the entire Noble Quran memorized. I once saw on TV a biography about a 4-years old little boy in Iran who had the entire Noble Quran memorized! He received a big reward and was enlisted in the "gifted kids" program.

We must know that according to Islam Allah Almighty Himself is protecting the Noble Quran until the Day of Judgment from man's corruption: "We [Allah] have, without doubt, sent down the Message [The Noble Quran]; and We will assuredly Guard it (from corruption). (The Noble Quran, 15:9)"

Please visit: The preservation of the Noble Quran.

After the death of our beloved Prophet peace be upon him:

When Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him died, Islam was still small geographically.   The Muslims mostly existed in the two cities of Mecca and Madina. Comparing those two cities' size to the Middle East region's size, they would not even be 0.0001% in comparison.

After the death of our beloved Prophet, Islam started to expand in the Middle East region. Not only the People of the entire region didn't have the same dialect, but also they had different languages. The languages that were spoken in the region at that time were Arabic (with its 7 dialects), Persian, Assyrian, Hebrew and some Greek. All of these languages are quite different from each others. You would need a translator to translate almost 100% of the conversation if you were to pick two languages and have two people converse with them, each person with one language.

As the Muslims expanded through the entire region, which is thousands of squared miles in area, the Noble Quran was documented at different places with sometimes different languages and Arabic dialects as well.

Islam mostly spread throughout the region during the first two Caliphs (our Prophet's disciples); may Allah Almighty be pleased with them, Abu-Baker Al-Siddeeq, and Omar bin Al-Khattab. They were mostly concerned with spreading Islam to the people of the entire region and never had the time, nor the rulership (since Islam wasn't quite spread throughout the entire region until toward the end of the second disciple's time) to unify the Noble Quran or the teaching of the Noble Quran with one dialect in recitation and spelling.

When Uthman bin Aaffan (the third disciple) came, Islam was pretty stable in the region, and he had rulership to implement the Quraishi dialect among all the Arabic speaking people in the entire region, and to teach them the Noble Quran through that dialect only.

Important Note: If the Noble Quran is recited in a different dialect than the Quraishi one, and if one tries to write down what he is reciting, he could and would end up with different words in spelling and in some cases in meaning as well than the original copy of the Noble Quran.

When Uthman got hold of all of the Qurans that were written in different dialects, and in some cases were altered to sound exactly like the other dialects, he ordered for them to get burnt because they did not use the proper Arabic that was revealed unto our beloved Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him, and in some cases their words were different because of this dialect difference. He then compiled all of the Noble Surahs (Chapters) of the Noble Quran that were already written during the time of Prophet Muhammad in the city of Madina and formed what we call today the one true copy of the "Noble Quran".

Important Note: As I mentioned above, when Uthman, the third Caliph in Islam, compiled the Noble Quran, he did not determine the numerical order of the Noble Chapters and the Noble Verses. The entire Noble Quran as I said was already documented and memorized. Chapters from the Noble Quran were recited by our Prophet peace be upon him at least 5 times a day during the Muslims' five-daily prayers. Also, the Noble Quran was all recited during the month of Ramadan, as it is still done today. There are other daily and weekly religious occasions, festivals and holidays where the Noble Quran back then and still today was recited either partially or wholly. The Muslims who perfected the memorization of the Noble Quran back then continuously refreshed their memories through teaching others: Muslims and non-Muslims about Islam.

So, it is beyond the shadow of the doubt that the numbering and the order of the Noble Chapters and Verses was already determined by our Prophet peace be upon him through the inspiration and guidance of Allah Almighty, and not by anyone else.

Ever since then and till today, the Arabic Noble Quran is taught with one Arabic dialect, and that is the Quraishi dialect. Also, the proper Arabic language as I mentioned above that is taught in schools and books today is also in the Quraishi dialect.

Discussion with one of the Christian "Answering Islam" team members:

Quennel Gale wrote:

No it doesn't and I present evidence to you from a source more credible than any scholar, the Hadith:

Narrated Umar bin Al-Khattab:
I heard Hisham bin Hakim reciting Surat Al-Furqan during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle and I listen to his recitation and noticed that he recited in several different ways which Allah's Apostle had not taught me. I was about to jump over him during his prayer, but I controlled my temper and when he had completed his prayer, I put his upper garment around his neck and seized him by it and said, "Who taught you this Surat which I heard you reciting ?" He replied, "Allah's Apostle taught it to me". I said, "You have told a lie, for Allah's Apostle taught it to me in a different way from yours". So I dragged him to Allah's Apostle and said, "I heard this person reciting Surat Al-Furqan in a way which you haven't taught me!". On that Allah's Apostle said, "Release him (Umar) recite, O Hisham!" Then he recited in the same way I heard him reciting. Then Allah's Apostle said, "It was revealed in this way", and added, "Recite, O Umar", I recited it as he had taught me. Allah's Apostle then said, "It was revealed in this way. This Qur'an has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite of it whichever is easier for you."

Bukhuri: vol. 4, hadith 682, book 56
Narrated Ibn Mas'ud:
I heard a person reciting a (Quranic) Verse in a certain way, and I had heard the Prophet reciting the same Verse in a different way. So I took him to the Prophet and informed him of that but I noticed the sign of disapproval on his face, and then he said, "BOTH OF YOU ARE CORRECT, so don't differ, for the nations before you differed, so they were destroyed."

The above hadiths clearly shows that Muhammad allowed some variation regarding the reciting of the Qur'an.

Bukhari: vol. 6, hadith 509, p. 477; book 61
Narrated Zaid-bin-Thabit:
Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yama-ma had been killed (i.e. a number of the prophets companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said to me, "Umar has come to me and said: `Casualties were heavy among the Qurra of the Qur'an (ie those who knew the Qur'an by heart) on the day of the battle of Yama-ma, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra on other battle fields, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost. Therefore I suggest that you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur'an be collected'. I said to Umar, `How can you do something Allah's Apostle did not do?' Umar said, `By Allah, that is a good project'. Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest (persuaded me) for it and I began to realise the good idea which Umar had realised.

This hadith from Bukhari clearly shows that Muhammad never made a final collection of the Qur'an, for when Abu Bakr was asked to collect the Qur'an into one volume he said, "How can you do something Allah's Apostle did not do?" Since there was no authorised Qur'an there was some confusion amongst the early Muslims as to what was the right way to recite the Qur'an.

"Many (of the passages) of the Qur'an that were sent down were known by those who died on the day of Yamama ... but they were not known (by those who) survived them, nor were they written down, nor had Abu Bakr, Umar or Uthman (by that time) collected the Qur'an, nor were they found with even one (person) after them." (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p. 23).

According this source, portions of the Quran that had been memorized by those slain in the battle vanished, never to be found again.

The Myth Of Memorization As A Means Of Preservation

Furthermore, the hadith provides evidence for the faulty memories of both Muhammad and his companions:

Narrated 'Aisha: Allah's Apostle heard a man reciting the Qur'an at night, and said, "May Allah bestow His Mercy on him, as he has reminded me of such-and-such Verses of such-and-such Suras, which I was caused to forget." (Bukhari, Volume 6, Book LXI, Number 558)

Narrated Abdullah ibn Mas'ud: The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) offered prayer. The version of the narrator Ibrahim goes: I do not know whether he increased or decreased (the rak'ahs of prayer).

When he gave the salutation, he was asked: Has something new happened in the prayer, Apostle of Allah? He said: What is it? They said: You prayed so many and so many (rak'ahs). He then relented his foot and faced the Qiblah and made two prostrations. He then gave the salutation. When he turned away (finished the prayer), he turned his face to us and said: Had anything new happened in prayer, I would have informed you. I am only a human being and I forget just as you do; so when I forget, remind me, and when any of you is in doubt about his prayer he should aim at what is correct, and complete his prayer in that respect, then give the salutation and afterwards made two prostrations. (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 3, Number 1015)

Narrated Abdullah:
I recited before the Prophet 'Fahal-min-Mudhdhakir'. The Prophet said, "It is Fahal-min Muddakir." (Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 397)

Abu Harb b. Abu al-Aswad reported on the authority of his father that Abu Musa al-Ash'ari sent for the reciters of Basra. They came to him and they were three hundred in number. They recited the Qur'an and he said: You are the best among the inhabitants of Basra, for you are the reciters among them. So continue to recite it. (But bear in mind) that your reciting for a long time may not harden your hearts as were hardened the hearts of those before you. We used to recite a surah which resembled in length and severity to (Surah) Bar'at. I have forgotten it with the exception of this which I remember out of it: "If there were two valleys full of riches, for the son of Adam, he would long for a third valley, and nothing would fill the stomach of the son of Adam but dust." And we used so recite a surah which resembled one of the surahs of Musabbihat, and I have forgotten it, but remember (this much) out of it: "O people who believe, why do you say that which you do not practise: (lxi 2.) and "that is recorded in your necks as a witness (against you) and you would be asked about it on the Day of Resurrection" (xvii. 13) (Sahih Muslim, Book V, Number 2286)

Bukhari: vol. 6, hadith 510, pp. 478-479; book 61
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. 'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur'anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. Said bin Thabit added, "A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari. (That Verse was): 'Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.' (33.23)

Here we see how the problem of having different versions of the Qur'an was fixed. It was fixed by Uthman standardising one version of the Qur'an and ordering that all others be burnt. Thus even the "seven" variations that Muhammad allowed were removed. It should be noted that the Bible has never had a wholesale burning to standardise its text in the way that the Qur'an has.

My Response to his claims and misunderstandings:

Note: Please visit the following two sites for more information and references. I highly recommend them, because they are rich in contents and they contain references from authentic Islamic resources to all of their claims and points.

Response from the BISMIKA ALLAHUMMA site. Shows evidence of the collection of Noble Quran, and how it all happened.   They respond directly to Answering Islam's questions and claims.

Response from the Islamic Awareness site. Elaborates on the Noble Quran during Uthman, and how the Muslims got rid of the "other" books. They also respond directly to Answering Islam's questions and claims.

In the Hadiths (Sayings of Prophet Muhammad) that you presented, notice that our beloved Prophet was present. So this means that he had the opportunity to fix any problem or error with recitation or memorization of the Noble Quran by his followers that would've occurred.

There are no variances or missing parts in the Noble Quran. These are all false and baseless assumptions from some anti-Islamics. The situation in the Hadiths above was not a corruption as it might appear to you. It is a problem with dialects. For instance, take the letter "j". Did you know that some Arabs don't pronounce the "j"? They always pronounce it as "g" or "ga".

Take "the" as another example. Some Arabs also don't pronounce "the". They pronounce it as "za".

Another example, and this is an important one in my opinion, is that some Arabs used to have a dialect which originated from Yemen, where they would add "an" at the end of a noun. Take for instance the popular word of today "Taliban", as in the Taliban in Afghanistan. "Taliban" is the same as the Arabic word "Talib" which means "Student".

The Afghans today used the old Arabic dialect from Yemen which dates even older than 1400 years ago when the Noble Quran was revealed. Back then in Yemen, as I said, they used to add the word "an" for nouns. So if they for instance wanted to refer to a stone "sakhr (in Arabic)", then they would refer to it as "sakhran", even though it would be written in Arabic as "sakhr".

The point is that there were 7 different dialects. The Noble Quran was originally recited with the "Quraishi" dialect, which is the dialect that our beloved Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him spoke.

The other dialects were later prohibited by our Prophet's disciple Uthman to keep the recitation of the Noble Quran consistent. The words were the SAME. But the pronunciation and the reading of them was different for the reasons I explained above and several others, such as the punctuations in Arabic.

When Uthman, the third Caliph in Islam, compiled the Noble Quran, he did not determine the numerical order of the Noble Chapters and the Noble Verses. The entire Noble Quran as I said was already documented and memorized. Chapters from the Noble Quran were recited by our Prophet peace be upon him at least 5 times a day during the Muslims' five-daily prayers. Also, the Noble Quran was all recited during the month of Ramadan, as it is still done today. There are other daily and weekly religious occasions, festivals and holidays where the Noble Quran back then and still today was recited either partially or wholly. The Muslims who perfected the memorization of the Noble Quran back then continuously refreshed their memories through teaching others: Muslims and non-Muslims about Islam.

So, it is beyond the shadow of the doubt that the numbering and the order of the Noble Chapters and Verses was already determined by our Prophet peace be upon him through the inspiration and guidance of Allah Almighty, and not by anyone else.

Conclusion:

The Noble Quran today is One True Perfect Divine Holy Book. It survived man's alterations and corruptions. The Noble Quran was all documented on the spot during Prophet Muhammad's times. The Noble Quran's numerical ordering of the Noble Verses and Chapters were also determined Prophet Muhammad through the inspirations of Allah Almighty. The Noble Quran was memorized and recited over and over again through the Muslims' five-daily prayers, the Holy Month of Ramadan, and other events and occasions where Muslims who perfected the memorization of the Noble Quran continuously refreshed their memories through teaching others.

So, it is beyond the shadow of the doubt that the numbering and the order of the Noble Chapters and Verses was already determined by our Prophet peace be upon him through the inspiration and guidance of Allah Almighty, and not by anyone else.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, You consistently accuse...

Mon, 28 May 2012 15:20:05 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 28 May 2012 at 3:20pm

Hasan,

   You consistently accuse me of "dancing" around issues when you do the exact same thing.

   You say the Bible contents have been "altered," what do you mean by that? Are you talking about translations in different languages? You say you have "studied" VARIOUS parts of the Bible "and they confirm for me that there is discrepancy in it pointing to it's alteration, period."

   The Bible has been the most studied, commented on, researched and translated text than any other book in history, including the Quran. The Old and New Testaments were being studied and translated extensively when people of the Arabian desert were still worshipping the moon and stars and revering the "black stone" one of the original idols in the Kaaba during the Jahaliyya period. "Allah" was the name of their chief god, the god of the Quryash, and "Allahu Akbar" doesn't mean "God is great" but "God is the GREATEST" of all. Both Muhammad's father and Uncle had "Allah" as part of their names, so that shows that Allah was known long before Muhammad got his first "revelation" from Gabriel.

   You have "studied" the Bible? Did you "study" it in it's original languages of Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek? You make your own "facts" up and then present them as reasoned arguments, when thwey are anything but reasoned. If you want to talk about "discrepancy" then simply look at all the verses in the Quran that have to do with the "Peoples of the Book" and how they are to be treated and viewed by Muslims. I have read the ENTIRE Quran here on Islamicity and was surprised at the various ways the POTB were seen by the Quran.

   You ask, "By the way really is there a copy of the Bible from 50 years after Jesus, that is exactly the same as you and I have today anywhere in the world?"

   In what languages are you asking this question to be answered? Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek? Does an English translation of the Quran have EXACTLY the same meaning and words as an Arabic language copy of the Quran?

   You can say that there is a version of the Quran that is the same as one made fifty (though I believe it was somewhat later than 50 years) years after Muhammad and the Quran of today. But, since any EARLIER copy of the Quran was deliberately destroyed by Muslim authorities there is no way to prove the point because the evidence has been wiped out.

   Jewish and Christian Bibles have never been subject to "burning parties" such as Uthman's, to make sure that all versions are EXACTLY the same.

   I use the New King James version of the Bible that is probably the most accurate and detailed translation of the Books of the Bible today. You should take copies of trhe Quran written in 2o differwent languages and then have a translator of each of those versions and see if the result is a "perfect" match with the present Quran in Arabic.

   I don't base my beliefs in God in a Book that is written by men, such as all holy books are, because as far as I know no holy text has fallen out of the sky in one, perfect copy. I base my beliefs on God, Jesus Christ the Son of God and the Holy Spirit, the Holy Trinity, three facets of the same God.

   Whether you believe in Christianity, Judaism or Islam means nothing to me. You are free to believe anything you want. I don't believe in Allah (who, is NOT the same God as He of the Jews and Christians, in my opinion), I don't believe that Muhammad is the "Prophet" of God or "Seal of the Prophets" because I am not aware of ANY prophecies AT ALL that he made. And I find the life story of Muhammad to be abhorrent (mainly due to his actions when he was alive, very different from the actions of Jesus Christ when He was here), and I don't believe that the Quran is sacred or true in any way.

   Nothing is going to change your belief and nothing is going to change mine. And we have been OVER and OVER this same subject too long and it has become boring and repetitive, so let's just end this particular subject matter on that note.

   I have no problem with you as a person and I hope that you have a good and fulfilling life. If you want to address a different subject we can open a new thread.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 28 May 2012 at 3:33pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : iec786, You say, "I AM WAITING." Looks...

Mon, 28 May 2012 14:41:47 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 28 May 2012 at 2:41pm

iec786,

   You say, "I AM WAITING."

   Looks like you'll have to wait a long time to hear me support the "challenge" made in the Quran to "produce" a verse like it. What does that mean, who is going to judge if someone's alternate verse is superior in form and content? A Christian, a Jew, a Muslim? I could say the same about the Bible because the "challenge" is worthless and the "answer" simply cannot be realistically or verifiably judged because the question is invalid, vague and unanswerable from the start.

   You ask me to provide you with the "names of "all" the variant Qurans. I can provide two right off the bat.

1. Abdullah ibn Masud's "Kufan Codex" which does not contain Surahs 1, 113 and 114.

2. The Quran as written by Ubayy B. Ka'ab, with it's additional two Surahs that are not in todays Quran.

3. ETC., ETC., ETC.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 28 May 2012 at 2:43pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : iec 786, You are good at using...

Mon, 28 May 2012 14:25:32 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 28 May 2012 at 2:25pm

iec 786,

   You are good at using Jesus' own words when trying to make your point or to discredit the other side of the argument. It's just too bad that you don't use any statement of Jesus regarding His status as the Son of God. As I have said before, Some Muslims quote the New Testament liberally when it seems to support the Quran, but simply dismiss as "corrupted" text when it differs, and it does that many times, with the Quran's version of events.

   And the fact that you have to depend on questionable sources, such as the "Scofield Bible" to make your arguments, shows that you don't have a whole lot of other sources to make your points from.

   And, as I have asked many times before, could you please name for me some of the "corrupted" verses in the New Testament and some of the others that are not corrupted? You seem to never have a problem finding verses that you put out there to make your arguments.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 28 May 2012 at 2:25pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : I agree that the question of whether...

Mon, 28 May 2012 14:15:01 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 28 May 2012 at 2:15pm

   I agree that the question of whether the Quran has been altered or not is no big thing to me. The only thing that I have said has been in response to people who claim that the "proof" of Islam is based on the idea that the Quran is pure and unchanged from it's beginning. And the facts such as Ibn Masud's version which does not contain Surahs 1, 113 and 114, and that Ubay B Ka'ab's version contains two Surahs that are not included into the present day Quran, show that there are differences even among texts written by Muhammad's closest companions, people that he said were reliable sources for the Quran.

   When people of any religion deliberately destroy their "original" holy document, in this case the Quran, and also destroy all other manuscripts that were not the same as Uthman's mushaf, it simply shows that there is a process, religious or political, that seeks to prove that it is unaltered from the very beginning, and that's cannot be proved.

   Uthman USED Hafsah's Codex when he "standardized" the Quran, ordered four "perfect" copies made, and then he returned it Hafsah undamaged and intact. Why would Uthman order the destruction of all manuscripts of the Quran that were not identical to his "official" Quran but leave Hafsah's Codex untouched?. Muslim authorities destroyed Hafsah's Codex after Hafsah died.

   The original Quran was not destroyed until 30 some years later after the death of Hafsah. The idea that these authorities destroyed the original Quran, compiled just two years after the death of Muhammad, because of "punctuation or missing "diacritical" marks is simply absurd because if it were different from Uthman's authorized version it would have been destroyed on Uthman's order when the other variant readings were ordered destroyed. Not used as the model for the "official" Quran and then thrown out and destroyed.

   And since Hafsah's Codex, and many other Quranic manuscripts were deliberately destroyed, there is nothing to check against Uthman's mushaf because all the evidence, pro or con, no longer exists.

Simple as that.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 28 May 2012 at 2:17pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Larry,what I mean is simple.It...

Sun, 27 May 2012 19:37:02 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 27 May 2012 at 7:37pm

Larry,

what I mean is simple. It is you and people like you who turn a discussion into a dance when they canot face the reality and the truth.

Neither I made it an issue nor am I silly and childish. I showed you and those like you some facts in various threads over this forum regarding the subject of if Bible is the same as when it was revealed, has it transfromed?

Regardless of which angle you look at it, whether you determine its accuracy by examining its contents or by reading its history, the answer has been simple: The Bible contents have been altered. I have studied various parts of the Bible and they confirm for me that there is descripency in it pointing to its alteration, period. You are fre to deny it, I cannot because I fear accountability by whom, who knows what is in my heart and yours.

By the way really is there a copy of the Bible from 50 years after Jesus (pbuh), that is exactly the same as you and I have today anywhere in the world? Please answer the question.

By the way I have various verions of the Bible (from different denominations) that differ from one another, how is that? and what do you call that?

love you,

Hasan

Edited by honeto - 27 May 2012 at 7:42pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by Larryiec786, If...

Sun, 27 May 2012 14:08:18 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 27 May 2012 at 2:08pm

Originally posted by Larry

iec786,

If you want to believe in naive fairy tales concerning the "perfection" of the Quran, knock yourself out. There is simply too much documentary evidence that the Quran has had a number of variations and alternate versions that were later destroyed by Muslim authorities because of textual and political reasons.

Larry

I call this speech of yours American verbal diarrhoea.With all your documentary and fantastic English you have not met the challenge of the quran produce one verse like it and for 1600 years not one so called Christian could meet the challenge.

There is simply too much documentary evidence that the Quran has had a number of variations and alternate versions

Could you please give us all these versions,because as a born Muslim i have not seen any other version in my lifetime.please i would like to see it before i die.If The Prophet Muhammed received many versions then it is a must for all Muslims to see it.

PLEASE I MUST KNOW THE NAMES AND WHERE CAN THEY BE FOUND. OR BETTER WHY NOT POST THEM HERE.I AM WAITING.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by Larryiec786, Now...

Sun, 27 May 2012 13:59:03 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 27 May 2012 at 1:59pm

Originally posted by Larry

iec786,

Now the "source" for your proof that "Allah" is written in the Bible is the "KJV Store?"

LOL!

Larry

You try and make a joke out of Scofields Bible but the joke is on you.The problem is you are born with tunnel vision it is no wonder that Jesus called you,you vipers ,ye snakes ,you evil and adulterous nation.Jesus knew that when the truth comes to you you will make all attempts to deny the truth.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Pretend I'm new here. Both...

Sun, 27 May 2012 07:58:58 +0000

Author: schmikbob
Subject: 19811
Posted: 27 May 2012 at 7:58am

Pretend I'm new here. Both sides. What does it matter if the Quran is unaltered or not from the 7th century? Is this proof of anything, one way or the other? Lots, and I mean lots, of texts have survived unaltered from LONG before then.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : iec786, If you want to believe...

Sat, 26 May 2012 01:02:47 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 26 May 2012 at 1:02am

iec786,

If you want to believe in naive fairy tales concerning the "perfection" of the Quran, knock yourself out. There is simply too much documentary evidence that the Quran has had a number of variations and alternate versions that were later destroyed by Muslim authorities because of textual and political reasons.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 26 May 2012 at 1:08am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : iec786, Now the "source"...

Fri, 25 May 2012 23:42:39 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 25 May 2012 at 11:42pm

iec786,

Now the "source" for your proof that "Allah" is written in the Bible is the "KJV Store?"

LOL!

Larry

Edited by Larry - 25 May 2012 at 11:55pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : There are also two Qurans that...

Thu, 24 May 2012 23:04:16 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 24 May 2012 at 11:04pm

There are also two Qurans that differ from the "official" Quran that were written less than 50 years after Muhammad's death.

Lol this is false information.To begin with we have the solid fact before us that despite considerable diversity and divisions among Muslims we find the same text of the Qur`an from country to country and century to century, Those who insinuate alterations must explain when and how did this text come into existence. If we ignore certain very late traditions about Hajjaj bin Yusuf discussed further below, the most cynical statement that can be made on the basis of the existing evidence is that the text was finalized by �Uthman, the third Muslim leader succeeding the Holy Prophet, and that some changes were made by �Uthman or people before him. But a little reflection shows this to be next to impossible. Let us recall some established historical facts: The Prophet had dozens of followers who were with him for about 20 years, hundreds of followers who were with him for about 10 years, thousands who were with him for about one year, and tens of thousands who saw and heard him at least once. After him four of those who were with him for about twenty years successively became leaders of the Muslim world, which during their leadership, lasting for about thirty lunar years, expanded to include at least Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Iran. The most important basis for governing this vast region was the Qur'an and the Sunnah (normative practice of the Prophet). The companions of the Prophet taught people the Qur'an, if only for the daily prayers; some of these people then taught others and so on. Finally it is uncontested that written texts of the Qur'an existed before �Uthman during the time of the Prophet and the first two of his successors and that there existed people, as they still do, who memorized the Qur'an in part or in whole.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by Larryiec786, The...

Thu, 24 May 2012 22:53:48 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 24 May 2012 at 10:53pm

Originally posted by Larry

iec786,

   The "Scofield Bible?" LOL! That "Bible" is widely discredited by almost every Christian theologian today. In looking it up I found this; the English Bible "revised" by Reverend Scofield, he gives the spelling of the Aramaic "Eli" as "Ela" and alternatively, either as "El" or "Elah" or "Alah." That you base your belief that Scofield says it is perhaps "alternatively" spelled "Alah" is without any merit.

   And your "proof" page from the "Scofield Bible" actually says; "In the latest SCOFIELD VERSION the word "ALLAH" is now omitted...(removed). Now why would they do that if it were true???

   The New King James Version spells Christ's words as; "Eli, Eli, lama sa-bach-tha-ni." If "Alah" was the correct spelling in English than more than a single source, such as Scofield, would spell it that way, but they don't. Just because a word "sounds kind of like" what you are trying to claim, is simply not a valid comparison. The fact that the "Arabic" translation says "Allah" is not surprising since "Allah" in Arabic means "God." What else would it say?

   Just as a short note about the "credentials" of "Reverend" Scofield. After the Civil War, Scofield met up with John J. Ingalls, an aging Jewish lawyer. Ingalls assisted Scofield in gaining admission to the Bar (as a lawyer) and procured Scofield's appointment as Federal Attorney for Kansas. Ingalls and Scofield became partners in a railroad scam which led to Scofield being convicted and imprisoned for criminal forgery.

    After a series of confidence games, Scofield left the state (and his wife and two children behind) and took refuge in Canada. Scofield's wife and children were dependent on his wife's mother for their financial support, as Scofield refused to support them. Scofield later turned up in St. Louis, where he committed a series of forgeries and was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to six months in jail. Shortly after Scofield left Kansas, leaving his family behind, Scofield wrote his wife that she could "invest" $1,300.00 of her mother's money, all the money that she had, in a manner that would return a large sum of money to her in interest. Scofield sent his wife a mortgage, signed and executed by Chas. Best, purporting to convey to her valuable property in St. Louis. After his wife sent him the money it was found that the mortgage was a forgery, no such person as "Chas. Best" existed and the property conveyance in St. Louis was fictitious. So he scammed his own wife and children for all they had.

   You should pick more credible, reputable and honest people to use as your proof that the "Bible" (of Scofield) says "Allah" in the English translation, which it does not.

   And your statement that the "furthest mosque" is the mosque of Bayt al-Maqdis in Jerusalem, is simply wrong because when the revelation was made to Muhammad there was no mosque of any kind in Jerusalem, it was built at a later date. And, like I said, if Jerusalem really is the third holiest city for Muslims, you would think that the Quran would mention Jerusalem at least once, but it does not. In the Bible, like I said, Jerusalem is mentioned 667 times. Many people have stated that the "furthest mosque" actually meant the mosque in Medina, which really was the furthest ACTUAL mosque from Mecca at that time.

   Jerusalem has been holy to the Jews for over 3,000 years. The Temple Mount has always been the Qibla for the Jews to pray toward, just as it is to this very day. It was only the Qibla for Muslims for a few years until Muhammad had another revelation and changed it to Mecca, with the explanation that the change of direction of the Qibla from Jerusalem to Mecca was merely a "test" for Muslims, which does not make much sense as to why a "test" in the first place?

Larry

You wanted an answer and i gave it to you,now you discredit the Bible.Let us see what your scholars say.

The KJV Store is a proud supplier of the Scofield Bible, one of the most beloved Bibles in the world today. The Scofield Bible combines a highly regarded study system with the world's most popular Bible Translation, the KJV. The Scofield BIble does not change or alter the text of the KJV in anyway, it simply provides additional information to provide better understanding of the Scriptures for personal application.

Dr. C.I. Scofield was a U.S. minister around the turn of the century. He researched much of his Reference Bible during a sabbatical in Switzerland. He also wrote another book, Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth, as well as the Scofield Correspondence Course which became the Moody Bible Institute study course. Scofield spent decades creating his Reference Bible. He wanted it to meet the needs of a reader who was just beginning to study the Bible, and he wanted to be careful not to add to the Bible's inspired words.

When you got you back against the wall all you Christians have the same story I do not believe in that Bible.http://www.thekjvstore.com/articles/scofield-bible

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, What is this childish...

Wed, 23 May 2012 23:49:56 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 23 May 2012 at 11:49pm

Hasan,

   What is this childish game you are playing? "THE QURAN WINS OVER THE BIBLE" because supposedly a copy of the Qur'an was compiled (way less than) 50 years after the Prophet Muhammad." Why do you say "way less than" (50 years) why don't you say how many years you are actually talking about, or don't you know?

   "50 years?"

   The "Hafsah Codex" was written only TWO YEARS after the death of Muhammad but was deliberately destroyed by early Muslim authorities. So, if the idea that the Quran is true and authentic because it was written "way less than" 50 years after the death of Muhammad (while supposedly, the Gospels were written longer than that after the death of Jesus Christ), that argument is shown to be just your opinion and does not "prove" anything about the "authenticity" of the Quran.

   And, there were no "burning parties" on the part of the Biblical writers and authorities to make sure that only one reading of each book of the Bible was "authorized."

   There are also two Qurans that differ from the "official" Quran that were written less than 50 years after Muhammad's death.

   The "Kufan Codex" of Abdullah Ibn Masud, a companion of Muhammads and one of the four sources that the Prophet said were reliable, which does not contain Surahs 1, 113 and 114.

   Ubayy B Ka'ab, (also designated by the prophet as one of the "four" reliable sources) secretary to the Prophet himself, compiled a version that contains two additional Surahs, Surah Al-Khal and Surah Al-Afd, not found in the "official" Quran. Did this companion of the Prophet just make these Surahs up?

   Surah al-Khal:

   "O Allah, You (alone) we ask for help and forgiveness.
   We speak appreciatingly of Your goodness.
   Never do we disbelieve You.
   We repudiate and disbelieve anyone who follows
   immorality."

   Surah al-Afd:

   "You (alone) we worship, and to You (alone) we pray
    and lie prostrate,
   and to You (alone) we proceed and have descendants.
   We fear Your torture and hope for Your mercy.
   Truly Your torture will overtake the infidels."

   The source for the above says; "The above Surahs are like prayers and in this respect are not like most of the Quranic verses. But do remember that Surah al-Fatiha, the first Surah, is a prayer also."


   You can believe whatever you want concerning the heavenly "perfection" of the Quran, but historical sources do not back up your beliefs.

   The claim that the Quran has no "discrepancies" is simply dismissed when one reads the various statements in the Quran concerning the "People of the Book" and how they are to be viewed and treated. I have read the entire Quran here and know this to be true. The statements concerning the "POTB" vary widely and significantly in this regard.

   But like I said, you can believe whatever you want, that is your right, and has no impact or effect on me.

   And making silly and ridiculous statements like "the Quran still wins over the Bible" are childish and immature. You might read the Bible some day and make up your mind as to what it contains, but I know you will never do that. You would rather take the words of others as your "proof" about what the Bible says and does not say.

   If your words above are your "proof," then I am not impressed.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 24 May 2012 at 1:02am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : iec786, The "Scofield Bible?"...

Wed, 23 May 2012 23:28:59 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 23 May 2012 at 11:28pm

iec786,

   The "Scofield Bible?" LOL! That "Bible" is widely discredited by almost every Christian theologian today. In looking it up I found this; the English Bible "revised" by Reverend Scofield, he gives the spelling of the Aramaic "Eli" as "Ela" and alternatively, either as "El" or "Elah" or "Alah." That you base your belief that Scofield says it is perhaps "alternatively" spelled "Alah" is without any merit.

   And your "proof" page from the "Scofield Bible" actually says; "In the latest SCOFIELD VERSION the word "ALLAH" is now omitted...(removed). Now why would they do that if it were true???

   The New King James Version spells Christ's words as; "Eli, Eli, lama sa-bach-tha-ni." If "Alah" was the correct spelling in English than more than a single source, such as Scofield, would spell it that way, but they don't. Just because a word "sounds kind of like" what you are trying to claim, is simply not a valid comparison. The fact that the "Arabic" translation says "Allah" is not surprising since "Allah" in Arabic means "God." What else would it say?

   Just as a short note about the "credentials" of "Reverend" Scofield. After the Civil War, Scofield met up with John J. Ingalls, an aging Jewish lawyer. Ingalls assisted Scofield in gaining admission to the Bar (as a lawyer) and procured Scofield's appointment as Federal Attorney for Kansas. Ingalls and Scofield became partners in a railroad scam which led to Scofield being convicted and imprisoned for criminal forgery.

    After a series of confidence games, Scofield left the state (and his wife and two children behind) and took refuge in Canada. Scofield's wife and children were dependent on his wife's mother for their financial support, as Scofield refused to support them. Scofield later turned up in St. Louis, where he committed a series of forgeries and was tried, found guilty, and sentenced to six months in jail. Shortly after Scofield left Kansas, leaving his family behind, Scofield wrote his wife that she could "invest" $1,300.00 of her mother's money, all the money that she had, in a manner that would return a large sum of money to her in interest. Scofield sent his wife a mortgage, signed and executed by Chas. Best, purporting to convey to her valuable property in St. Louis. After his wife sent him the money it was found that the mortgage was a forgery, no such person as "Chas. Best" existed and the property conveyance in St. Louis was fictitious. So he scammed his own wife and children for all they had.

   You should pick more credible, reputable and honest people to use as your proof that the "Bible" (of Scofield) says "Allah" in the English translation, which it does not.

   And your statement that the "furthest mosque" is the mosque of Bayt al-Maqdis in Jerusalem, is simply wrong because when the revelation was made to Muhammad there was no mosque of any kind in Jerusalem, it was built at a later date. And, like I said, if Jerusalem really is the third holiest city for Muslims, you would think that the Quran would mention Jerusalem at least once, but it does not. In the Bible, like I said, Jerusalem is mentioned 667 times. Many people have stated that the "furthest mosque" actually meant the mosque in Medina, which really was the furthest ACTUAL mosque from Mecca at that time.

   Jerusalem has been holy to the Jews for over 3,000 years. The Temple Mount has always been the Qibla for the Jews to pray toward, just as it is to this very day. It was only the Qibla for Muslims for a few years until Muhammad had another revelation and changed it to Mecca, with the explanation that the change of direction of the Qibla from Jerusalem to Mecca was merely a "test" for Muslims, which does not make much sense as to why a "test" in the first place?

Larry

Edited by Larry - 24 May 2012 at 2:53am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Larry,even after all your...

Wed, 23 May 2012 14:16:08 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 23 May 2012 at 2:16pm

Larry,

even after all your hypotheses, Quran still wins over the Bible. Do you have a copy of the Bible (if there was such a thing) let us say 50 years after Jesus? Because, we do have a copy of the Quran compiled (way less than) 50 years after the Prophet Mohammed(pbuh).

Hasan

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by LarryHasan, And...

Wed, 23 May 2012 13:50:25 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 23 May 2012 at 1:50pm

Originally posted by Larry

Hasan,

And I will remind you that no "original" copy of the Quran exists either. "Hafsah's Codex," the earliest version of the Quran, compiled in 634 C.E., only two years after the death of Muhammad, and kept by his wife, Hafsah, was deliberately destroyed thirty three years later, by early Muslim authorities in 667 C.E., as were many other early Quranic versions. Abdullah Ibn Masud's version, called the "Kufan Codex" does not contain Surahs 1, 113 and 114 of the "official" Qur'an. Muhammad's secretary, Ubayy B. Ka'ab's version of the Quran contained two additional Surahs, "Surah Al-Khal" and "Surah Al-Afd," that are not contained in the "official" Quran either. The Quran was not "standardized" until Uthman's mushaf was compiled and declared to be the final, official and "true" Quran.

As far as people "controlling themselves," "losing tempers" and "hatreds" against each other, the situations in many Muslim countries today, especially between the Sunni and Shiite sects, do not seem to bear out your "merciful and kind" assessments of the actions of people based on the teachings and "guidance" in the Quran.

Larry

Larry,

there is no proof to your story. And since you and I live 1400 years after what you describe, the only prove we have is in my hand and yours. The Holy Quran itself, the facts are in there. If this was the fabricated version, sure we would find in it descripencies like we do in the case of what we now know as the Bible. So go ahead, examine its teachings and come back to me. If it says God is One of One, who was not born of someone nor does He has off spring; can you find anything in it that contradicts that?

It says Jesus is not son of God, rather a man, a prophet, who was born of a miracle and who God raised to Himself and saved him from humiliation in the hands of the unbelievers. Can you find anything in it that negate that teaching? There are many more, but just two are enough to prove my point.

As far as fighting "over there". You got to be kididng me, or it may be just a reflection of how much you know of what is going on. Let me just say this and it will suffice my point, its the devil that raise man against man. If you are really serious to know who really is behind those wars and killings, I can help you as it seems from your writings that you don't know. Just have to take one at a time. So choose a country and I will teach you what is going on there and who is causing that termoil, with proofs.

love you,

Hasan

Edited by honeto - 23 May 2012 at 1:57pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by Larryiec786, I,...

Wed, 23 May 2012 11:08:24 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 23 May 2012 at 11:08am

Originally posted by Larry

iec786,

   I, as well as all other English speaking people, use the English translation of the Bible, which does not contain the name "Allah" or "Muhammad" (or Ahmad).

   Jerusalem, the ancient capital of the Jewish people for 3,000 years, and the supposed "third holiest city in Islam" is mentioned 667 times in the Bible, but oddly, is never mentioned even once in the Quran. "Palestine" is not mentioned in the Quran either.

   Your "jewish prophet" is Jesus Christ, which I had always heard was a true "prophet" in Islam as well. At least you admit that Jesus Christ was a Jew, as were all the other Old Testament prophets and Patriarchs, who were "absorbed" much later in the Quran.

   It always seemed strange to me that any verse in the Bible, that supported the writings of the later Islamic Quran, supposedly "verify" the Quran, while any verses, of which there are a great number, that do not support the Quran, are dismissed as "corrupted" text.

   The Old Testament, was written over a 1,600 years before the Quran, and the New Testament, was written more than 500 years before the Quran. The only text, among the Old Testament, New Testament and the Quran, that differs substantially from the other two is the Quran. Declaring various Bible texts as "corrupted" is the only way that the vast differences between the Bible and the Quran can be "explained."

   South Africa, or "Azania", the "best country in the world"? LOL!

Larry

� Glory be to Him Who carried His
servant by night from the Sacred
Mosque to the Farthest Mosque
Whose surroundings We have
blessed, that We might show him
some of Our signs, for He the
Hearer, the Seer.� (Al-�Isra� 17,
verse 1)

Al-Nasa�i (d. 303 H, 915 CE): he cites a number of
Ωad�ths in his commentary on this verse, numbered
by him 302, 303, 304, and 305 and all of them
describing Bayt al-Maqdis in �the Farthest Mosque.�
 Tabari (d. 310 H, 923 CE): �From the Sacred Mosque
to the mosque in Bayt al-Maqdis.�
 Ibn Kathir (d. 774 H, 1372 CE): �The Farthest
Mosque� is Bayt al-Maqdis that is in �Ilia�, which is the
source of prophets from the lineage of Ibrahim.�

al-Suyuti (d. 911 H, 1445): �The Farthest Mosque� is
the one in Bayt al-Maqdis.�
 al-Zamakshari (d. 538 H, 1143 CE): �The Farthest
Mosque� is Bayt al-Maqdis because at that time there
was no other masjid beyond it.�
 al-Wahidi (d. 468 H, 1076 CE): �The Farthest
Mosque,� it is Bayt al-Maqdis, and it was called
Farthest because of the great distance between it
and the al-Masjid al-Haram [in Mecca]

al-Nawawi (d. 676 H, 1277 CE): To �the Farthest
Mosque�: meaning the farthest from the earth and
the closest to heaven and it is the mosque in Bayt alMaqdis. It was named �farthest� because it is the
farthest of mosques that is visited from the Sacred
Mosque [in Mecca] with reward granted for its
[visitation]. (Tafsir al-Imam al-Nawawi)
 al-Qasimi (d. 1322 H, 1914 CE): �The Farthest
Mosque� is the mosque of Bayt al-Maqdis and it was
known as the Monument of Sulaiman, because he
was the one who built it. �The Farthest� because of
its distance from Mecca.

Al-Andalusi (d. 745 H, 1344 CE)
 Al-Nasafi (d. 710 H, 1310 CE)
 Al-Kalbi (d. 740 H, 1340 CE)
 Al-Baydawi (d. 791 H, 1386)
 Al-Balansi (d. 782 H, 1380 CE)
 Al-Ansari
 Al-Tha�alibi (d. 873 H, 1468 CE)
 Al-Shirazi (d. 1383 H, 1960 CE)
 Al-Tabarsi (d. 548 H, 1153 CE)

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : iec786, I, as well as all other...

Wed, 23 May 2012 00:30:53 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 23 May 2012 at 12:30am

iec786,

   I, as well as all other English speaking people, use the English translation of the Bible, which does not contain the name "Allah" or "Muhammad" (or Ahmad).

   Jerusalem, the ancient capital of the Jewish people for 3,000 years, and the supposed "third holiest city in Islam" is mentioned 667 times in the Bible, but oddly, is never mentioned even once in the Quran. "Palestine" is not mentioned in the Quran either.

   Your "jewish prophet" is Jesus Christ, which I had always heard was a true "prophet" in Islam as well. At least you admit that Jesus Christ was a Jew, as were all the other Old Testament prophets and Patriarchs, who were "absorbed" much later in the Quran.

   It always seemed strange to me that any verse in the Bible, that supported the writings of the later Islamic Quran, supposedly "verify" the Quran, while any verses, of which there are a great number, that do not support the Quran, are dismissed as "corrupted" text.

   The Old Testament, was written over a 1,600 years before the Quran, and the New Testament, was written more than 500 years before the Quran. The only text, among the Old Testament, New Testament and the Quran, that differs substantially from the other two is the Quran. Declaring various Bible texts as "corrupted" is the only way that the vast differences between the Bible and the Quran can be "explained."

   South Africa, or "Azania", the "best country in the world"? LOL!

Larry

Edited by Larry - 23 May 2012 at 12:50am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, And I will remind you...

Tue, 22 May 2012 23:41:42 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 22 May 2012 at 11:41pm

Hasan,

And I will remind you that no "original" copy of the Quran exists either. "Hafsah's Codex," the earliest version of the Quran, compiled in 634 C.E., only two years after the death of Muhammad, and kept by his wife, Hafsah, was deliberately destroyed thirty three years later, by early Muslim authorities in 667 C.E., as were many other early Quranic versions. Abdullah Ibn Masud's version, called the "Kufan Codex" does not contain Surahs 1, 113 and 114 of the "official" Qur'an. Muhammad's secretary, Ubayy B. Ka'ab's version of the Quran contained two additional Surahs, "Surah Al-Khal" and "Surah Al-Afd," that are not contained in the "official" Quran either. The Quran was not "standardized" until Uthman's mushaf was compiled and declared to be the final, official and "true" Quran.

As far as people "controlling themselves," "losing tempers" and "hatreds" against each other, the situations in many Muslim countries today, especially between the Sunni and Shiite sects, do not seem to bear out your "merciful and kind" assessments of the actions of people based on the teachings and "guidance" in the Quran.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 23 May 2012 at 12:48am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by LarryHasan, Your...

Tue, 22 May 2012 20:36:42 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 22 May 2012 at 8:36pm

Originally posted by Larry

Hasan,

Your literalism when speaking about Christianity is repetitive and naive. You should not comment on things that you do not understand. Jesus was not talking about LITERALLY being slapped in the face, He was expressing one of His teachings about not giving in to hatred and revenge, but to the power of love, reconciliation and forgiveness.

Literalism is defined as, "adherence to the exact letter or the literal sense, as in translation or interpretation."

Larry

If that's the case Larry, then you or any Christian should not talk about it in any other term as they often do. And those words of the Bible are in fact only translations and interpretations, no original of the NT nor the OT exist today.

In the Quran, we are taught to control ourselves in any situation. Loosing one's temper and hate of the other is forbidden. Forgiveness is superior then revenge, showing mercy and kindness toward all is a form of prayer. Enemies, as captives of war are to be dealt kindly, provided with their needs, and not torturing or starving them, rather showing mercy and kindness to them as God does not love those who are unjust or unkind. And God explains and clearly states these teachings and rules in the Quran for our guidance.

Hasan

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Let's just get this straight,...

Tue, 22 May 2012 08:56:58 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 22 May 2012 at 8:56am

Let's just get this straight, I do NOT consider you a friend.

I do not have a problem with that.

Since your message was approved, I guess that means that I can make similar comments about your religion.

No problem with that either.As long as you can back it up with proof.

1. You hold a pagan book in your hands, Allah was a
      pre-Islamic deity.

What evidence do you have for that statement?Allah is mentioned in the Bible you hold in your hand.

2. Your salvation lies in that pagan book.

No my salvation lies in the mercy and grace of Allah.

3. Your god is Allah, the ancient Arabic moon god, or
      al-ilah (the deity), whose symbol is the crescent
      moon. This can be confirmed by the knowledge that
      the "Hajj" is pre-Islamic and every ritual, from
      the "seamless" white clothes worn, running between
      the two hills, circling the Kaaba seven times,
      stoning the devil and kissing or touching the
      "black stone", etc. are ALL pre-Islamic practices
      of the pagan Arabs of Arabia. Islam also uses
      the "Lunar" calendar, just as the pagans did,
      rather than the "Solar" calendar used by most
      countries in the world.
      most other countries do, especially in the West.

My God and is Allah,and if you open the Arabic translation of your Bible it says your God is Allah as well.All the rest if what you say is true and all the hajj was a pagan ritual the what about it?I still believe in one God and not a Jewish prophet.

4. Your country isn't named, are you ashamed of it?

Never i am so proud of my country we have an impeccable standing in the world.We have no nuclear weapons,we do not invade other country's we never started a war.Best country in the world.

5. Come now iec786 admit it.

I do admit it yes South Africa that is the white Christians who gave it that name.Our other name is Azania.Beat that.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, Your literalism when speaking...

Mon, 21 May 2012 02:43:40 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 21 May 2012 at 2:43am

Hasan,

Your literalism when speaking about Christianity is repetitive and naive. You should not comment on things that you do not understand. Jesus was not talking about LITERALLY being slapped in the face, He was expressing one of His teachings about not giving in to hatred and revenge, but to the power of love, reconciliation and forgiveness.

Literalism is defined as, "adherence to the exact letter or the literal sense, as in translation or interpretation."

Larry

Edited by Larry - 21 May 2012 at 2:55am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by LarryHasan, You...

Sat, 19 May 2012 15:11:34 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 19 May 2012 at 3:11pm

Originally posted by Larry

Hasan,

   You say;

   "I have not found a sane Christian offering the other cheek yet."

   I don't know who makes the more rude and repugnant statements about me and my religion, you or iec786.

Larry

Dear Larry,

I was just speaking the truth, I have not seen a single Christian yet who has offered his/her other cheek to the enemy. Do you know of any?

Please, know that I am only asking you to prove a claim you made. So please don't blame me.

Hasan

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : iev786, Let's just get this...

Sat, 19 May 2012 00:40:05 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 19 May 2012 at 12:40am

iev786,

   Let's just get this straight, I do NOT consider you a friend.

   Since your message was approved, I guess that means that I can make similar comments about your religion.

   1. You hold a pagan book in your hands, Allah was a
      pre-Islamic deity.
   2. Your salvation lies in that pagan book.
   3. Your god is Allah, the ancient Arabic moon god, or
      al-ilah (the deity), whose symbol is the crescent
      moon. This can be confirmed by the knowledge that
      the "Hajj" is pre-Islamic and every ritual, from
      the "seamless" white clothes worn, running between
      the two hills, circling the Kaaba seven times,
      stoning the devil and kissing or touching the
      "black stone", etc. are ALL pre-Islamic practices
      of the pagan Arabs of Arabia. Islam also uses
      the "Lunar" calendar, just as the pagans did,
      rather than the "Solar" calendar used by most
      countries in the world.
      most other countries do, especially in the West.
   4. Your country isn't named, are you ashamed of it?
   5. Come now iec786 admit it.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 19 May 2012 at 12:45am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by Larryiec786; You...

Fri, 18 May 2012 10:57:59 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 18 May 2012 at 10:57am

Originally posted by Larry

iec786;

   You made some statements about me and my religion.

1. "You hold a Jewish book in your hands."
2. "Your salvation lies in that Jewish book."
3. "Your God is a Jew."
4. "Your country is America belongs to the Jews."
5. "Come now Larry admit it."

   "My God is a Jew?" "My country, America belongs to the Jews?" Your hatred for the Jews is obvious. I won't even try to dignify your bigotted statements with a response other than this.

   I'm disappointed that the moderators approved such a hateful and bigotted statement to be made against me.

   And, by the way, I thought that Islam teaches that my God and the God of the Muslims is the same God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Evidently that's not true.

Hi my friend Larry,
No you got the wrong end of the stick.I cannot hate the Jews they are my cousins.

You are the one that mentioned " As I said I am neither a Jew nor a Muslim" so i posted the following.

1. "You hold a Jewish book in your hands."
Is the Old Testament not JEWISH BOOK?????Which you are holding in your hand.What is wrong with that.

2. "Your salvation lies in that Jewish book." does it???or not.Do you believe in that book??? What is wrong with that.

3. "Your God is a Jew." You believe that Jesus is God.
(b) "But he (Jesus) answered and said I am NOT SENT but unto
the lost sheep of the HOUSE OF ISRAEL (the Jews only).
Jesus was a Jew and a tribal Jew.What is wrong with that.

4. "Your country is America belongs to the Jews.Is that a lie????Let us take your media.CNN,FOX,MSNBC,and the rest belong to?????? do some research.The U.S. BANKERS are????
let me help you. http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ARTICLE2/doodoo.php

Larry as much as you try and put the Moderators against me it will not help you,because they understand what i say.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, You say; "I have...

Thu, 17 May 2012 22:22:12 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 17 May 2012 at 10:22pm

Hasan,

   You say;

   "I have not found a sane Christian offering the other cheek yet."

   I don't know who makes the more rude and repugnant statements about me and my religion, you or iec786.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 17 May 2012 at 10:29pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : iec786; You made some statements...

Thu, 17 May 2012 21:50:39 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 17 May 2012 at 9:50pm

iec786;

   You made some statements about me and my religion.

1. "You hold a Jewish book in your hands."
2. "Your salvation lies in that Jewish book."
3. "Your God is a Jew."
4. "Your country is America belongs to the Jews."
5. "Come now Larry admit it."

   "My God is a Jew?" "My country, America belongs to the Jews?" Your hatred for the Jews is obvious. I won't even try to dignify your bigotted statements with a response other than this.

   I'm disappointed that the moderators approved such a hateful and bigotted statement to be made against me.

   And, by the way, I thought that Islam teaches that my God and the God of the Muslims is the same God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Evidently that's not true.



Edited by Larry - 17 May 2012 at 10:27pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : iec786, So, are you saying that...

Thu, 17 May 2012 21:40:00 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 17 May 2012 at 9:40pm

iec786,

So, are you saying that Hafsah's codex was NOT destroyed by early Muslim authorities?

Edited by Larry - 17 May 2012 at 9:57pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Larry,I don't call...

Thu, 17 May 2012 15:16:42 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 17 May 2012 at 3:16pm

Larry,

I don't call people names, I just say what they act like. And that's all I did. If you go back read yours and mine posts, with attention, you will realize that to be the case. I am sorry that if it offends you. Hey, but you are the one that is suppose to open your other cheek buddy. That's what you say you believe, or it is just words?

Told ya, it cannot be practiced. I have not found a sane Christian offering other cheek yet!

Hey, I am an American too, and a Muslim: one who submits to the Will of God. Does that has anything to do with this topic, I don't think so. You are no better than one who lives in the Brazilian jungle, even if you are white. God does not look at your color, race, wealth or gender. What makes difference, in the sight of God is your piety or your ignorance, those two will determine your fate.

You say you drink, good for you, but I know of Christians who do not drink and consider it bad.

It is true that here in the US, we have more freedom than in other places, but that has nothing to do with this subject, also that can be true in some cases and not in others. Again, remember it depends who is saying that. A Muslim is not as free as you (a white Christian) are in this country to practice their way of life to the fullest without the worry of being discriminated or attacked.

As far as eating pork, it is unclean according to the Bible as well. I showed the quotes to you and that's all I wanted to say. There are several palces in the Bible where it is said to be unclean. Even one place mentions as far as not to even touch it.

Deuteronomy 14:8
The pig is also unclean; although it has a divided hoof, it does not chew the cud. You are not to eat their meat or touch their carcasses.

Now, where are some of those prophecies that you say were fulfilled in the Bible?

Hasan

Edited by honeto - 17 May 2012 at 3:39pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by Larry"by...

Wed, 16 May 2012 23:01:12 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 16 May 2012 at 11:01pm

Originally posted by Larry

    "by mentioning the Quran which you know nothing about."

   I have read the entire Quran here on Islamicity, have you read the entire Bible?

   And Hafsah's Codex, the original Quran WAS DELIBERATELY DESTROYED BY EARLY MUSLIM AUTHORITIES.

   Or am I mistaken about that point?

The Lost Books of the Bible and The Forgotten Books of Eden
A book with 56 of the the lost books and letters.Do you remember these???????

Constantine Wrote Matthew 28:19 Into Your Bible!http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1461121/posts

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : As I said I am neither a Jew nor...

Wed, 16 May 2012 22:51:26 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 16 May 2012 at 10:51pm

As I said I am neither a Jew nor a Muslim,

You hold A Jewish book in your hand.Your salvation lies in that Jewish book.Your God is a Jew.Your country is America belongs to the Jews.Come now Larry admit it.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : If I was a Jew or a Muslim I would...

Tue, 15 May 2012 23:45:32 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 15 May 2012 at 11:45pm

   If I was a Jew or a Muslim I would need to follow these dietary LAWS in the Old Testament and Qur'an, but since I am a Christian I do not need to because Jesus Christ, as the Messiah, rendered the ancient dietary LAWS as no longer relevant. Whether you follow these LAWS is up to you, it does not concern me or relate to me. As I said I am neither a Jew nor a Muslim, I am a Christian, and through my faith in Jesus Christ, am not bound by the LAWS that apply to Jews and Muslims.

Galatians 2:16

   "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the LAW but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the LAW; for by the works of the LAW no flesh shall be justified."

   You do not seem to understand what happened in the story you provided concerning Jesus and the man who was possessed by demons. The man had the unclean spirits in him and he was wild and uncontrolled. When the man saw Jesus, he ran to Him to worship Him.

   Mark 5:7-9

   7. "And the man cried out with a loud voice and said, "What have I to do with You, JESUS, SON OF THE MOST HIGH GOD? I implore You by God that you do not torment me."
   8. "For He (Jesus) said to him, "Come out of the man, unclean spirit!"
   9. "The He (Jesus) asked him, "What is your name?" And the spirit answered, saying, "My name is Legion; for we are many."

   The unclean spirits begged Jesus to let them leave the man and enter into the bodies of a herd of pigs that were eating nearby.

   There was nothing wrong with the pigs until Jesus gave the unclean spirits permission to enter the bodies of the pigs, and to leave the body of the man who was possessed by them. The herd of pigs then ran violently down to the water and drowned in the sea. And this destroyed the unclean spirits that had possessed the man.

   You may notice that the unclean spirits called Jesus "SON OF THE MOST HIGH GOD." The unclean spirits recognized and understood who Jesus was and addressed Him as such.

   None of the pork that I eat is possessed by "unclean spirits" as far as I know.



Edited by Larry - 16 May 2012 at 12:22pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : SWINE : The flesh of the swine...

Tue, 15 May 2012 08:37:06 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 15 May 2012 at 8:37am

SWINE : The flesh of the swine forbidden -
(a) "Of their flesh (of the swine) shall ye NOT EAT, and their
carcase ye shall NOT TOUCH; they are unclean to you."
LEVITICUS 11:8
Jesus (pbuh) destroyed 2000 pigs to heal one man -
(b) "And forthwith Jesus gave them leave (permission). And the
unclean spirits (the devils) went out, and entered into the
swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the
sea, (they were about two thousand); and were choked in the
sea." MARK 5:13

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, I gave you no reason to...

Mon, 14 May 2012 07:48:35 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 14 May 2012 at 7:48am

Hasan,

   I gave you no reason to say negative things about me. I took offense at your undeserved nasty insult that I am "playing dumb" and that I "don't show any signs of sincerity when you make believe others that you are here to share truth." Whose "truth" are you referring to, yours or mine?

   I answered your question about Nostradamus already, if you would take the time to read my replies to you before asking the same question again.

   And yes, I do eat pork, but I don't eat "rats", I don't know anyone who does, it must be a Middle Eastern thing. The dietary laws of the Old Testament do not apply to Christians. I love pork, it's delicious as ham, bacon (and eggs), or "BLT's" (bacon, lettuce and tomato sandwiches), barbequed pork, pork chops, pork ribs, pork and beans, ham salad, etc. We usually have a big honey-cured and smoked ham for dinner every Easter, it's a traditional Easter meal for Christians in the United States. We usually have big roasted turkey for Christmas, which is also traditional here in America.

   I don't eat "unclean" things, I eat things that taste good. It is your religious beliefs as a Muslim not to eat pork, not mine. I also drink beer and Jack Daniel's Whiskey and swear a lot since I was in the Navy.

   We Americans are proud of our freedoms to do as we wish and believe as we wish without having some religious Gestapo tell us what to believe or what to eat or not to eat, or what to drink or not drink or whether some religious "authority" says we are going to hell. There are 700 million more Christians than Muslims, and they eat pork too, so I guess the majority disagrees with your "unclean" foods list. Americans also love their dogs and make them a part of their families, even if Muslims consider them "unclean" animals also.

   Save any more insults for someone else, I am done with trying to reason with you and don't like being treated like a jerk by a self-righteous person who feels that he has the right to force his religious beliefs and practices on me.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 16 May 2012 at 12:36pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Larry, I promise I will...

Sat, 12 May 2012 19:51:39 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 12 May 2012 at 7:51pm

Larry, I promise I will do some study of prophecies you are talking about. Once I gain some knowledge on that I will be back to talk with you on that subject. In fact I will start a new thread "Bible prophecies".

Meanwhile, I will go through some of the Bible books, and post interesting things and will ask you to comment.

Here is an intersting one:

Isaiah66:¹⁷ �Those who consecrate and purify themselves to go intothe gardens, following one who is among those who eat the flesh of pigs, ratsand other unclean things�they will meet their end together with the one theyfollow,� declares the LORD.

Larry, do you eat rat or pig meat of similar unclean things?

Hasan

Edited by honeto - 12 May 2012 at 7:58pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Larry,you need to calm...

Sat, 12 May 2012 19:26:51 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 12 May 2012 at 7:26pm

Larry,

you need to calm down my friend. I never used prophecies as a standard of finding out if one is a true prophet of not. If I ever did that, show me where?

You are completely confused or you are playing d-mb. It is you who is saying that prophecies and their fulfillment is a proof of a true prophet And I don't completely disagree with that. Only I asked you if you thought Nastrodammas did a lot of predictions that according to many people turn out to be accurate and true. Would you take him as a prophet according to your criteria?

As far as I am concerned, I have said that I do not base my entire belief on prophecies alone.

Upon your request, I gave you a clear prophecy that God told to the prophet in the Qruan. Instead of saying "thanks Hasan for pointing that propphecy to me" you are coming up with a bunch of nonsense.

It is your kind of prople about whom God has said in the Quran:

"6:109 (Y. Ali) they swear their strongest oaths by Allah, that if a (special) sign came to them, by it they would believe. Say: "Certainly (all) signs are in the power of Allah. but what will make you (Muslims) realise that (even) if (special) signs came, they will not believe."?

And you don't show any signs of sincerety when you make believe others that you are here to share truth.

Hasan

Edited by honeto - 12 May 2012 at 7:30pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : You are absolutely right Larry,...

Fri, 11 May 2012 05:01:11 +0000

Author: Kish
Subject: 19811
Posted: 11 May 2012 at 5:01am

You are absolutely right Larry, they deliberately destroyed it! What were they trying to hide?

Can you imagine Jesus Apostles or Prophets of God deliberately destroying the Bible? If God said he is going to preserve his word he is going to preserve his word, God does not lie only man.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : "by mentioning the Quran...

Fri, 11 May 2012 00:07:05 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 11 May 2012 at 12:07am

   "by mentioning the Quran which you know nothing about."

   I have read the entire Quran here on Islamicity, have you read the entire Bible?

   And Hafsah's Codex, the original Quran WAS DELIBERATELY DESTROYED BY EARLY MUSLIM AUTHORITIES.

   Or am I mistaken about that point?

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, You say, "As far...

Thu, 10 May 2012 22:54:44 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 10 May 2012 at 10:54pm

Hasan,

   You say, "As far as prophecies, its not my field, I replied with what I know. The quote of Quran that I gave is pretty clear, and what I said is pretty clear. The Persians were defeated. I would suggest you do some research on the web. It is not my area of interest."

   Not your "area of interest?"

   You were the one that used "that area of interest" as your answer to my question of where any fulfilled prophecies are in the Quran. But you can't tell me? You used the time frame "9 years" but you don't support your own answer. Why should I have to try and look up to see if there are authentic, fulfilled prophecies by the "Seal of the Prophets?" It's YOUR Quran, if you can't back up a claim, then you should not be making the claim at all.

   The Bible has many Prophets and many actually fulfilled prophecies, which, as I said before, is the Biblical standard for a true prophet. From a Biblical viewpoint Muhammad never made ANY prophecies that later came true. I am talking about SPECIFIC prophecies, not generic "something is going to happen somewhere sometime in the future."

   It is exactly this point that Christians cannot believe that Muhammad was the "Seal of the Prophets" much less a prophet period. That is what prophecy is about and I would expect Muhammad to have made many prophecies as he is constantly referred to in the Quran as "Prophet."

   No, I do not consider Nostradamus a prophet. His "prophecies" are like those of Muhammad, generic and unspecific "prophecies." Nostradamus' "prophecies" were written in a way, a series of quatrains, that they can be applied to many historical events depending on what the reader of the prophecies is looking for. You can make them say whatever you want, but it is NOT prophecy.

   I agree that I don't agree with Islamic belief, because I have seen nothing in reading the Quran that would cause me to change my religious viewpoints and beliefs. The Quran is put together in a haphazard way with no real sense of order. It repeats itself many, many times and tells the same stories, such as the exodus of the Jews from Egypt, a number of different times. It is only written of once in the Bible.

   The Bible contains extensive geneaologies, works of poetry and song such as the Psalms of King David and the Song of Solomon, extensive and excellent historical information and facts, a natural progression through time from the Book of Genesis all the way to The Revelation of Jesus Christ. There are extensive prophecies made and fulfilled, and many of these stories and specific peoples are even attested to in the Quran, such as the miracles and teachings of Jesus Christ.

   The idea that Allah would give, through Gabriel, revelations that concerned Muhammad as a specific person and include his immediate family and the Quryash tribe in some of these revelations, is difficult to believe. Muhammad used his staus as the Prophet of Allah to personally enrich himself, attack the Jews of Medina, among other Jews, who would not give up their ancient faith for Islam, and other non-Muslims, demand payment of Jizya in order for non-Muslims simply to keep their own faiths, attack trading caravans and taking their goods, etc. And the Quran even gives Muhammad the specific justifications that allowed him to do these things. There were even revelations concerning his personal relations with his many wives.

   Jesus taught his followers to be peaceful and, instead of hating their enemies, that they should love them as they love themselves, a hard, if not impossible thing to accomplish as a human. That if someone strikes you in the face, do not return violence for violence, but turn to them the other cheek also. Jesus taught that those who live by the sword shall die by it. But that was Jesus' message to all people, to not judge others and to work for peace. Because he said that with whatever measure a person used to judge others, that it would be measured back to them in the same way.

   Jesus performed many miracles that were witnessed by many others and even raised Lazarus from the dead after he had been dead for four days, by having the stone removed from the tomb and calling out in a loud voice, "Lazarus, come forth!" Some of these miracles are even revealed in the Quran. But it seems to Muslims that these miracles were not enough to offset the status of Muhammad as the "greatest and Seal of the Prophets." And, like I said, I have seen no evidence in the Quran that clearly shows a specific and fulfilled prophecy by Muhammad at all. But Jesus made many during his life on earth and they were all fulfilled.

   As far as the Holy Trinity, I have explained it so many times but you continue to ask me the same questions and demand answers that you will agree with, and that is up to you what you believe and don't believe. Whether you personally believe in the Trinity or not is not my affair, that is between you and God. And you still don't understand that Christians, as well as the Jews, believe in only one God. It is simply a concept that you do not understand. But I don't understand many of the things I have read in the Quran either, so I guess that makes us even.

   I am happy and content with my faith in God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. But it is one God, not a "godhead" such as Hindus and others believe in. The Prophets of the Old Testament didn't know that Jesus, as a person by name, was coming. They only knew that the promised Messiah of the Jews would come, and He did, in Jesus Christ. Remember His name E-man-u-el" which translates as "God with Us." The name of Jesus was given by Gabriel, at the annunciation, to Mary before Jesus was conceived, by the Holy Spirit, in her womb.

   John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life."

   I think this subject is done as it merely continues over and over, with both sides saying the same things. You have your faith and I have mine. I personally do not believe that Muhammad was the Seal of the Prophets, I don't consider him a prophet at all. I don't believe that the Quran is from God. This is as specific as I can be about my beliefs. I'm sure that you consider me damned already for rejecting Muhammad and Islam, but those are my beliefs.

   I'm not going to say that you are damned for your beliefs because Jesus taught us not to judge others, that is for God to deal with, not me. We all have our sincere beliefs, we just believe in different things. I am a Christian, as are 2.3 billion other people are (compared to 1.6 billion Muslims) Christian and the Bible is the single most printed and read religious book on earth. That doesn't "prove" that it is the true religion, but it gives an idea of how many people consider it to be.

   Christianity is a religion about love, acceptance and forgiveness. It teaches us that mankind, on it's own merits, does not deserve salvation based on our fallible human works. It is the reason that Jesus Christ was born, taught, suffered, died and rose from the dead, so that people could achieve perfect union and salvation with God through faith.

   John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

   I hope that you get the same comfort and happiness through your faith as I get through mine.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 10 May 2012 at 11:49pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Larry, so in other words you...

Thu, 10 May 2012 15:41:13 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 10 May 2012 at 3:41pm

Larry,

so in other words you are admitting to the fact that Trinity was not known by any of God's prophets of the old. You say that beause those prophets came before Jesus so they did not know him. I agree with that and that's all I am try to tell you. Many Chritians and probably you too say and believe that Jesus always existed. If so, these prophets of the old would have been told of him. Because it would have been such an important thing to be revealed to all of God's prophets had it been true they have known it and God as a Trinity.

Since there is no record or evidence that any of God's prophets of the old (OT) believed God to be part of a Trinity nor they themselves believed in such nor praticed or prached, to conclude that Trinity indeed was a new idea. While God as One (without any Trinity) was known to Noah, Abraham, Moses, David and so many other of God's prophets of the old.

Only Jesus' teachings are taken (in my belief wrongly) to have taught God as a Trinity as the Final Prophet (pbuh) has restored the teachings that God is one of one like the prophets of the old taught.

So, according to you, in the line of all the prophets and their teachings there is only one who have preached this idea of Trinity.

I guess for a man of reason and truth, that tells a lot.

As far as prophecies, its not my field, I replied of what I know. The quote of Quran that I gave is pretty clear, and what I said is pretty clear. The Persians were defeated. I would sugggest you do some search of the web. It is not my area of interest.

Do you take Nastrodammas as a prophet? I hear a lot of his prophecies have been coming true.

As a Musllim I believe all knowledge is from God, He gransts it to whom He pleases. It is how this knowledge is used that each one of us will beheld accountable for.

You said you do not agree with Islamic belief. And all it teaches is that God is One God (one of one) like all the prophets of the old taught, the only one to be worshiped.

Hasan

Edited by honeto - 10 May 2012 at 3:52pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : David, Moses, Abraham and Noah...

Wed, 09 May 2012 22:48:25 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 09 May 2012 at 10:48pm

David, Moses, Abraham and Noah never mentioned the Trinity because the Messiah, the Promised Savior, did not appear in Israel until millenia after these four people died. The Holy Trinity consists of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and the Son, Jesus Christ, came into the earth during the time that Emperor Tiberias ruled Rome and Rome's other provinces.

1John 5:7-8

The trinity was thrown out as a fabrication by 32 scholars of the highest eminence backed by 52 cooperating
denominations as a lie,a fabrication an interpolation.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, I appreciate your sentiments...

Wed, 09 May 2012 17:29:20 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 09 May 2012 at 5:29pm

Hasan,

   I appreciate your sentiments and heartfelt beliefs and respect you for your defense of Islam.

   David, Moses, Abraham and Noah never mentioned the Trinity because the Messiah, the Promised Savior, did not appear in Israel until millenia after these four people died. The Holy Trinity consists of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and the Son, Jesus Christ, came into the earth during the time that Emperor Tiberias ruled Rome and Rome's other provinces.

   But the Prophets of the Old Testament, such as Isaiah, predicted with extreme accuracy the coming of, and the life of, the Messiah, 700 years later. That is true prophecy. The Prophets of the Old Testament were judged by the results of their prophecies, which is the Biblical standard for a true Prophet.

   There were many Old Testament Prophets who foretold the future, in detail. Joseph accurately told Pharaoh what his dream about cows and ears of corn meant, and how to solve the problem that the future famine in Egypt would bring. He also predicted accurately what the dreams of his fellow prisoners, Pharaoh's baker and Pharaoh's Wine steward, and what was to happen to them in prison. One, the wine steward, was restored to his former position and the other, the baker, was to be executed.

   The Prophet Isaiah correctly foretold the coming of the Messiah and the fact that the Messiah would be rejected by men and be despised by the majority of the Jews. This was because the Jews were looking for a mighty Messiah who would deliver them from the domination of Rome, not a poor carpenter's son (who Jesus was believed to be by almost everyone at that time). But there are two prophecies concerning the coming of the Messiah. Isaiah also predicted accurately many of the details of Jesus' life, death and resurrection.

   The Old Testament contains many Prophets whose prophecies of future events were fulfilled in both the Old and New Testaments and Gospels. Prophets such as Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Zechariah, Malachi, etc.

   Your sample prophecy:

   Quran 30:3, "(Y. Ali) In a land close by; but they, (even) after (this) defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious-"

   Quran 30:4. "(Y. Ali) Within a few years. With Allah is the Decision, in the past and in the Future:"

   The problem here is that the prophecy is so generic, with no specificity to whom it referred, to which land "close by," was, and could be applied to literally hundreds of events at that time in history.

   When did the Persians defeat the Romans ("after (this) defeat of theirs..) and when did the Romans later defeat the Persians, was this all within nine years? Warfare was almost a constant state in the ancient world, especially during the time of Muhammad, and this prophecy could be applied to a large number of battles or wars in the Near East.

   Hasan, I don't know howe I could "prove" to you that the Trinity is real. I have made reference to many Biblical verses, especially those concerning the baptism of Jesus Christ by John the Baptist when "the Holy Spirit descended like a dove" upon Jesus. John declares Jesus to be "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world." The Gospels and New Testament are full of references to Jesus as the literal "Son of God" and His role in the salvation of all mankind.

   The word "Trinity" is not used in the New Testament, but the nature of God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are the heart and soul of the message of the New Testament. It was later that the word "Trinity" was first used by Christian Biblical authorities to explain the Christian concept of the true nature of God. There are no "hidden prophecies and messages" here, simply read the New Testament and you will gain an understanding of what Christians believe to be the true nature of God.

   New King James Version; 1 John 5:7.

   "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word (Gr. "Logos" meaning Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."

   The rest is a matter of faith. For me, as a Christian, the word "Trinity" describes perfectly my understanding of the nature of God. I know you do not agree with the doctrines beliefs of Christianity just as I do not agree with the doctrines and beliefs of Islam.

   But there is much that Christianity and Islam share and it is those bonds that provide the basis for understanding and goodwill between the two faiths.

   To quote your citation; Quran 109:6, "(Y. Ali) To you be your Way, and to me mine."

I wish you peace, Hasan.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 09 May 2012 at 5:37pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Larry,at this moment I...

Wed, 09 May 2012 13:24:34 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 09 May 2012 at 1:24pm

Larry,

at this moment I will quote Quran:

109:6 (Y. Ali) To you be your Way, and to me mine.

Even though I would like to have your answers to my questions. I am honestly asking Christians to tell me if any of the prophets (David, Moses, Abraham and Noah) ever mentioned Trinity as Christians do today, if yes where, if not why?

AS far as your question, for me personally that is of a very low interest, I am more interested in serving and worshipping to whom it rightly belongs. Only a true messenger or prophet will guide people to serve and worship God, and Prophet Mohammed just did that.

I am not like one of those Christians and Muslims who seek hidden prophecies and messages in each verse of their book. However, just so you don't make it a confirmation for your disbelief, I will mention this one prophecy from the Quran that came true: Sura Rum (The Romans)

30:2 (Y. Ali) The Roman Empire has been defeated-

30:3 (Y. Ali) In a land close by; but they, (even) after (this) defeat of theirs, will soon be victorious-

30:4 (Y. Ali) Within a few years. With Allah is the Decision, in the past and in the Future:

I am not sure, but I think in 9 years after this revelation from God to the Prophet Mohammed (pbuh), the Romans defeated Persians.

Larry, remember, only reason I say anything is in response claims you and others make, like that of a Trinity. I need proof of that claim, I am not asking you to change your belief, I am asking you to back it up with evidence. Is that too much to ask?

Hasan

Edited by honeto - 09 May 2012 at 1:43pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, I appreciate your concern...

Sat, 05 May 2012 00:47:21 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 05 May 2012 at 12:47am

Hasan,

   I appreciate your concern for me by saying, "If we intentionally deny truth and go against logic and reasoning, we will have ourselves to blame at the end when it will be too late to correct."

   Your truth and mine seem to be different, but I am content with my truth as expressed through my faith as a Christian.

   Your inability to understand the nature of the Trinity is understandable when looking at it from a Muslim point-of-view. My thoughts about Islam come from my Christian point-of-view, how could it be otherwise?

   MY "claims" are simple statements from the New Testament and if an "outsider" or "truth seeker" have a problem with it then that is their problem. I'm not here to force my beliefs on others, they can use their own minds to decide what to believe and what not to believe.

   Your comments about "deviations" from One God to a Triune God that needed to be corrected by God Almighty through the last prophet," is stating your idea of what God is or isn't. I cannot change your belief any more than you can change mine, it is that simple.

   The problem I have with the "last Prophet" is that he didn't make any "prophecies" that I am aware of. I would appreciate it if you could illustrate a few of the specific prophecies of Muhammad that later came to pass. This is the Biblical standard for a "true" prophet.

   As always, I respect your beliefs as I hope you respect mine as well.

Larry

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Larry, thanks for your reply....

Fri, 04 May 2012 17:10:56 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 04 May 2012 at 5:10pm

Larry,

thanks for your reply. And that brings us back a full circle to the points:

1- If Trinity is One God as you said above than why call it a Trinity?

2- According to you Jesus and Holy spirit are part of that Trinity, that contradict your first statement that God is one, like for a Muslim or a Jew.

3- All of what you quoted in support of your argument that Jesus and Holy spirit are God contradict several verses of the same Bible. Verses that state that Jesus acknowledge to have God. Or where Holy Spirit is under the direction and order of God, who you refer to as God the Father.

Those are some real and legitimate facts that leave your claim very very weak for an outsider or a truth seeker to accept.

And what about hundereds of OT prophets that came and went with God's word and message, none preaching that Jesus and Holy Spirit are God in a Trinity. In fact there is none of them mention Trinity, nor they knew Jesus as God. Have you really ever thought how could they miss to mention Jesus as God if that was the case? It just does not fit with reality of One God. The evidence in Quran, and the Bible proves that Jesus and Holy Spirit were both under God's command and mercy. Have you time to think what that means and how it goes against what you are repeating and claiming.

So, in my belief, people have many times before turned away from worship of One God, but God kept bringing back the guidance for those who reflect. The deviation from One God to a Triune God needed to be corrected for mankind by God Almighty through the last Prophet. It was love of God for mankind that we got a chance to benefit from His guidance, if we respond to His call and acknowledge His Oness and worship and serve Him and none else, we have served our purpose for which He has promised a great reward, an eternal joy far better than the best of this world.

If we intentionally deny truth and go against logic and reasoning, we will have ourselves to blame at the end when it will be too late to correct.

Hasan

Edited by honeto - 04 May 2012 at 5:23pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hi Mr Larry. Nice to here from...

Thu, 03 May 2012 11:20:01 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 03 May 2012 at 11:20am

Hi Mr Larry.

Nice to here from you.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, I appreciated your message,...

Tue, 01 May 2012 22:08:42 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 01 May 2012 at 10:08pm

Hasan,

   I appreciated your message, good to hear from you.

   I have to respectfully disagree with your characterization of belief in the Holy Trinity.

   You say; "...there is nothing that can prove it to be true. Only way one believes it is only because idea is transferred through their trusted sources, like parents or church but without and understanding or proof of it."

   The Holy Bible is the "trusted source" for my personal belief and understanding of the nature the Holy Trinity.

   I too believe in only one God, just as every Christian, Jew and Muslim does. Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all of the same substance, they are all God, not "parts" of God. I agree that the concept of the Holy Trinity is a "mystery" of faith. I don't believe that God is limited to human understanding of His true nature, as if humans could understand the mind of God in the first place.

   But the Bible is clear about the role of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, which was best expressed when Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. John the Baptist stated that,

   Mark 1:7-8; "And he (John) preached, saying, "There comes One after me who is mightier than I, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to stoop down and loose. I indeed baptized you with the water, but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

   In John 1:29-34,
   29. "the next day John saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold! The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world!"
   30. This is He of whom I said, 'After me comes a Man who is preferred before me, for He was before me."
   31. "I did not know Him; but that He should be revealed to Israel, therefore I came baptizing with water."
   32. And John bore witness, saying, "I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him (Jesus)."

   (You will notice that John refers to the Spirit as "He" (a person) rather than as "it" (a thing.)

   33. I did not know Him, but He (God) who sent me to baptize with water said to me, "Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit."
   34. "And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God."

   Mark 1:9-11 states,
   9. "It came to pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John (the Baptist) in the Jordan."
   1o. "And immediately, coming up from the water, He (Jesus) saw the heavens parting and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove."
   11. "Then a voice came from heaven, "You are My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

   These are just a couple of examples from the New Testament that clearly speaks of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

   Concerning the birth of Jesus,

   Matthew 1:20-23,
   20. "...an angel of the Lord) appeared to Joseph, the husband of Mary, in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the HOLY SPIRIT." (emphasis mine)
   21. "And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."
   22. "So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the LORD through the prophet, saying; "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Im-man-u-el," which is translated, "GOD WITH US." (Emphasis mine)

   Luke 1:37, "For with God nothing will be impossible."

   For these, and many other examples in the New Testament, as well as in many prophecies made in the Old Testament concerning the Messiah, is why I believe in the Holy Trinity; God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. All of the same substance. There is only one God.

   Deuteronomy 6:4,
   "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one!" "Shema, Yisroel, Adonai Elehenu, Adonai Echod!"

Larry

Edited by Larry - 01 May 2012 at 10:46pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by LarryHasan, "The...

Tue, 01 May 2012 13:20:36 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 01 May 2012 at 1:20pm

Originally posted by Larry

Hasan,

   "The father of chemistry"?

   I will repeat my previous statement that it seems that some Muslims, when trying to make their case, use the Bible WORD FOR WORD when it suits their purpose, but claim "corruption" for any verse that contradicts the Qur'an.
   The Gospels are very clear and precise as to who was the Father of Jesus Christ. The centerpiece of the Christian faith is that Jesus, as the Son of God, was crucified, buried in a tomb and then resurrected to life after three days. That is why Jesus said that He could tear down the entire Temple and rebuild it in 3 days. He became the new "Temple" and promised salvation to anyone who believed in Him and His Father, who, with the Holy Spirit, completed the Holy Trinity.
   Since you do not understand the nature of the Holy Trinity, which you see as three different Gods or a "Godhead" you will accept no answer that is based on that belief. And no amount of argument, etc., is going to change anyone's mind, least of all mine.
   I think this subject has been pretty well covered again and again by both sides and no one's mind has changed. To paraphrase the Qur'an, "To you your religion and to me mine. To you your qibla and to me mine."
   I enjoy discussing topics with you but it will have to be another topic than this because this topic is simply worn out. I hope that you are well.

Larry

Larry,

I understand we all have different understanding and belief of who God is, and we do not have to agree with each other. I also believe, how we believe about God affects us in this life and in the life after this.

I see that we disagree on the issue of Trinity, something that is refered to as a mystry even in the Church's teachings. I have my reasons, clearly shown to you why it is not not true as there is nothing that can prove it to be true. Only way one believes in it is only because idea is transfered through their trusted sources, like parents or church but without any understanding or proof of it. Even in the present day Bible it did not seem to have existed before those who claim to be Christ"s followers. It contradicts the belief that God is One. And that God is unique, One and only. Anyone that has a son or daughter, mother or father is simply not God. Also, from the Bible I have quoted some very clear verses where Jesus (who you say is God) is claiming to have God when he says: "..my God and your God". I can say the same "my God and your God" to the same Jesus was talking about. We know God does not have God.

So we have looked it from All Sides, still we can choose what we want, but I believe it comes with a just accountability at the end.

And please without showing evidence to your claim without contradiction don't claim anything.

May God guide us all,

Hasan

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : iec, You talk a lot but produce...

Mon, 30 Apr 2012 23:00:18 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 30 April 2012 at 11:00pm

iec,

You talk a lot but produce very little evidence or proof of your statements.

   You speak of "almost all Christian scholars" believing the Trinity to be a "fabrication."

   I might add that the Qur'an has been dismissed by "almost all" Jewish and Christian theologians as derivative from Old and New Testament sources and combined with additional materials derivative of ancient Arabian folk tales and myths, such as the case of the Jinns, etc. Does using your analogy (of almost all Christian scholars) prove my point?

   The Qur'an says a number of things about the "People of the Book,"

   Qur'an 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."

   But, then it says,

   Qur'an 3-110, "Ye are the best of peoples, evolved from mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors."

   The issue of the Qibla needs to be discussed. The original Qibla for Muslims was Jerusalem, but later this was changed to Mecca.

   Qur'an 2-145, "Even if thou wert to bring to the People of the Book all the signs (together), they would not follow Thy Qibla; nor art thou going to follow their Qibla..."

   The Qur'an, commenting about the first Qibla being changed explains that policy by saying;

   Qur'an 2-142, "The fools among the people will say: "What hath turned them from the Qibla to which they were used? Say: To Allah belong both the East and West: He guideth whom He will to a Way that is straight."

   This change was further explained,

   Qur'an 2-143, "...and We appointed the Qibla to which thou was used, only to test those who followed the Messenger from those who would turn their heels (From the Faith)...

   Well, that seems to be a convenient excuse, it was just a "test" of faith.

   I might add that the Jews have followed their same original Qibla in Jerusalem for over three thousand years, even to this very day.

   On the subject of "change" the Qur'an allows for it in;

   Qur'an 2-106, "None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar; Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?"

   Even the power to change his "revelations" made through the angel Gabriel to Muhammad? In the Old and New Testaments there is NO provision made for God to "change" any of His revelations.

   Qur'an 3-67 says in part that, "Abraham was not a Jew..."

   Really? I'm sure the Jews would be surprised that, about 1,600+ years after their Jewish Old Testament was written, that someone would come along and declare that their ancestor Abraham was not a Jew. I'm sure they would disagree with that statement.

   Qur'an 20-22, says (concerning Moses' instructions from God before he goes to Pharaoh);

   "Now draw thy hand close to thy side: it shall come forth white (and shining) without harm (or stain)-as another sign."

   But the Old Testament says that, contrary to Moses' hand being "without harm (or stain)", that Moses' hand was white with leprosy, a serious disease.

   I could go on but you get the point of my post.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 01 May 2012 at 10:51pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : I'm done with this. I think...

Sun, 29 Apr 2012 06:40:55 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 29 April 2012 at 6:40am

I'm done with this.

I think you have had the wind knocked out of you lol.

I'll trust my eternal soul to the keeping of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Well if an interpolation is your idea of salvation good for you.Before i leave you,i must remind you one more time that the verse 1john 5:7-8 has been thrown out as a fabrication by almost all of the Christian scholars.Thanks for not answering to most of my posts.
Good luck.
iec.

Edited by iec786 - 29 April 2012 at 6:42am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Yeah, yeah, yeah. The Gospels...

Sat, 28 Apr 2012 00:06:57 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 28 April 2012 at 12:06am

Yeah, yeah, yeah. The Gospels have been "edited" and "forged" over a few centuries.

I have heard this nonsense so many times.

The FACT is that the Jewish Torah was written THOUSANDS OF YEARS BEFORE ISLAM OR THE QUR'AN EVEN EXISTED.

The FACT is that the Christian New Testament was written CENTURIES BEFORE ISLAM OR THE QUR'AN EVEN EXISTED.

The Old and New Testaments support each other, prophecies made in the Old Testament are fulfilled in the New Testament.

The only "book" that has MAJOR DIFFERENCES with both the Old and New Testaments is the Qur'an. So in order to overcome this burden of proof, Islam simply accepts whatever supports it in the Bible and rejects anything that does NOT support the Qur'an.

Even if the Qur'an supposedly "pre-dated" the Jewish Torah and Christian New Testament (and I have YET to see any proof of that argument).

This whole conversation has become boring and repititious and I am tired of having to defend my faith and Bible against Islam and the Qur'an. As I told the "other" poster, you are free to believe anything you want and also free to feel that your religion is "superior" to the much older religions of Judaism and Christianity. Even though the Qur'an borrows HEAVILY from both of the earlier holy texts.

How convenient to be able to say that the same books that Muhammad made extensive, and many times erroneous, use of the Torah and New Testament in his "new" faith, that now SUPERSEDES the very texts that he used and simply calls them "corrupted."

Yeah, right!

I often wonder why Islam seems so self-conscious about itself to go out of it's way to try and prove that it is the "true" holy text.

It's easy to take from others and make a "new" religion. And another problem that I have with Islam is why the "Prophet" Muhammad actually made NO PROPHECIES AT ALL? The Jewish Torah is full of prophecies by prophets such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, etc. that was fulfilled later on. That is the Biblical "standard" for the "true' prophets.

Isaiah prophesied the coming, life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ 700 years before Christ was born. Other true prophets made similar prophecies centuries earlier than their fulfillment in the New Testament.

Why didn't Muhammad make ANY prophecies that came true later on? Which is surprising since he is supposedly the "Seal of the Prophets." By Biblical standards Muhammad would not be considered a prophet IN ANY SENSE OF THE WORD.

You can tell the quality of a tree by the fruit that it bears. I am satisfied with the "fruit" that comes from the trees of the Old and New Testaments. I can't see any fruit at all from the Qur'an, and I have read the entire text on this website. It is full of repititions, contradictions and errors when talking about some of the beliefs, people and events in the Bible. And there are a hundred different and contradictory descriptions of how the "People of the Book" are to be seen and treated. I would expect a holy text to be a little more specific and consistent than the Qur'an seems to be.

I'll trust my eternal soul to the keeping of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. You are free to place yours with Muhammad and the Qur'an.

I'm done with this.

Edited by Larry - 28 April 2012 at 12:12am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by Larry I...

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:41:09 +0000

Author: BMZ
Subject: 19811
Posted: 27 April 2012 at 7:41am

Originally posted by Larry

I have asked this of other Muslims before but now I am asking you, since you have used the Gospels to try and "prove" your ideas, which of the Gospels or parts of the Gospels are true and correct and what Gospels or parts of the Gospels are "corrupted" text?

As I stated earlier, my belief is that whenever a Biblical or Gospel text supports the Islamic view, expressed in the Qur'an, it is accepted as "proof" that the Qur'an is true. But when a Biblical or Gospel text profoundly disagrees (which it does in many instances)with what is written in the Qur'an, the Biblical or Gospel text is simply declared to be "corrupted" text.

Larry

Hello, Larry

The verses, which I discussed above, have nothing to do with the Qur'aan and yet I have shown the different translations.

It is obvious that Christianity only brings up translations, which try to show divinity of Jesus, while there are other translations, which show zero divinity.

The gospels have been heavily edited and forged over a few centuries.

If you really study all the versions, you will find footnotes, which are absolutely shocking.

Take for example the story of the adulterous woman in John 8 and you will be shocked to know that this story was not present in the original and the ancient manuscripts at all. Some scribe made it up and added in.

This is one but an extreme example of forgeries. I can give you many more.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by Larry You...

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:30:30 +0000

Author: BMZ
Subject: 19811
Posted: 27 April 2012 at 7:30am

Originally posted by Larry

   You say, "One cannot find Jesus telling the Jews publicly that He was the Messiah. He never declared openly that He was the Messiah."

   Luke 22:66-71 disagrees with your position.

   66. "As soon as it was the day, the elders of the people, both chief priests and scribes, came together and led Him (Jesus) into their council, saying,"
   67. "If You are the Christ, tell us. But He said to them, "If I tell you, you will by no means believe."
   68. ""And if I also ask you, you will by no means answer Me or let Me go."
   69. "Hereafter the Son of Man will sit on the right hand of the power of God."
   70. "Then they all said, "Are You then the Son of God? So He said to them, "You rightly say that I am."
   71. "And they said, "What further testimony do we need? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth."

   Mark 14:53,60-64,

   53. "And they led Jesus away to the high priest; and with him were assembled all the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes."

   60. "And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, saying, "Do You answer nothing (of the charges against Him)? What is it these men testify against You?"
   61. "But He (Jesus) kept silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"
   62. "Jesus said, "I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."
   63. "Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "What further need do we have of witnesses?"
   64. "You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?" "And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death."

   Matthew 26:62-65,

   62. "And the high priest arose and said to Him (Jesus), "Do you answer nothing? What is it these men testify against you?"
   63. "But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, "I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God?"
   64. "Jesus said to him, "It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."
   65. "Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, "He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy!"

   So your statement, "One cannot find Jesus telling the Jews publicly thyat He was the Messiah. He never declared openly that He was the Messiah." is incorrect.

And your statement that, "Even Luke and Mark did not use the term, "the Son of the living God." is technically correct because it was not Mark and Luke who used the term "Son of the living God." But you are factually wrong because Luke and Mark reported the words of the high priest. It was the high priest from the Jerusalem Temple who asked Jesus if He was the Son of God.

   You state, "This shows that it was added into Matthew long after John appeared," is simply your own opinion and has no foundation in fact because you do not know where and when the Gospels were written.

   And these are not the only statements made by Jesus Christ, concerning His divine nature, during the course of His ministry.

   Your comments on John 1:40-42 are simply uninformed.

   And your statement concerning the woman at the well, who told Jesus she was waiting for the Messiah, and Jesus answered her and said "I am He," is just another instance where Jesus reveals Himself as the Messiah.

Larry

First, please note that the Jews never expected the Messiah to be the Son of God. That IS a lie. There is even no promise of any Messiah in the Torah at all and the word Messiah does not exist in the Torah.

They were foretold of a prophet only.

Coming to part of Matthew 26:64 "Jesus said to him, "It is as you said.", please read this denial from Jesus, according to other versions:

"Matthew 26:64
21st Century King James Version (KJ21)

64Jesus said unto him, "Thou hast said"

In other words, NOT ME!

" Matthew 26:64
Common English Bible (CEB)

64 �You said it,� Jesus replied."

" Matthew 26:64
Contemporary English Version (CEV)

64 �That is what you say!� Jesus answered.

" Matthew 26:64
Darby Translation (DARBY)

"64Jesus says to him, *Thou* hast said."

" Matthew 26:64
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

64Jesus saith to him: Thou hast said it."

"Matthew 26:64
English Standard Version (ESV)

64 Jesus said to him, �You have said so. "

"Matthew 26:64
New Century Version (NCV)

64 Jesus answered, "Those are your words."

Thus that Jesus said, "Yes I am" or "You are right", is a lie.

Done!

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by LarryHello,...

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:11:46 +0000

Author: BMZ
Subject: 19811
Posted: 27 April 2012 at 7:11am

Originally posted by Larry

Hello, BMZ,

   Your "analysis" of Biblical text leaves much to be desired.

    Your statement that, "I and My Father are one," simply means "I and the Father are on the same side," is "simply" your own personal interpretation of the text and is not supported by any Biblical verification.

   I also think it is interesting that whenever a Muslim wants to use the Bible to prove their points, they use "word-for-word" passages from the Bible to do so. Evidently there is no question of "corruption" of these particular passages in the Bible. However, many Muslims claim that the text of the New Testament is highly corrupted whenever that text contradicts any part of the text of the Qur'an. Either the Gospels are corrupt in their entirety or they are not, you can't have it both ways.

   You say, "One cannot find Jesus telling the Jews publicly that He was the Messiah. He never declared openly that He was the Messiah."

   Luke 22:66-71 disagrees with your position.

   66. "As soon as it was the day, the elders of the people, both chief priests and scribes, came together and led Him (Jesus) into their council, saying,"
   67. "If You are the Christ, tell us. But He said to them, "If I tell you, you will by no means believe."
   68. ""And if I also ask you, you will by no means answer Me or let Me go."
   69. "Hereafter the Son of Man will sit on the right hand of the power of God."
   70. "Then they all said, "Are You then the Son of God? So He said to them, "You rightly say that I am."
   71. "And they said, "What further testimony do we need? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth."

   Mark 14:53,60-64,

   53. "And they led Jesus away to the high priest; and with him were assembled all the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes."

   60. "And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, saying, "Do You answer nothing (of the charges against Him)? What is it these men testify against You?"
   61. "But He (Jesus) kept silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"
   62. "Jesus said, "I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."
   63. "Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "What further need do we have of witnesses?"
   64. "You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?" "And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death."

   Matthew 26:62-65,

   62. "And the high priest arose and said to Him (Jesus), "Do you answer nothing? What is it these men testify against you?"
   63. "But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, "I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God?"
   64. "Jesus said to him, "It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."
   65. "Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, "He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy!"

   So your statement, "One cannot find Jesus telling the Jews publicly thyat He was the Messiah. He never declared openly that He was the Messiah." is incorrect.

And your statement that, "Even Luke and Mark did not use the term, "the Son of the living God." is technically correct because it was not Mark and Luke who used the term "Son of the living God." But you are factually wrong because Luke and Mark reported the words of the high priest. It was the high priest from the Jerusalem Temple who asked Jesus if He was the Son of God.

   You state, "This shows that it was added into Matthew long after John appeared," is simply your own opinion and has no foundation in fact because you do not know where and when the Gospels were written.

   And these are not the only statements made by Jesus Christ, concerning His divine nature, during the course of His ministry.

   Your comments on John 1:40-42 are simply uninformed.

   And your statement concerning the woman at the well, who told Jesus she was waiting for the Messiah, and Jesus answered her and said "I am He," is just another instance where Jesus reveals Himself as the Messiah.

   I have asked this of other Muslims before but now I am asking you, since you have used the Gospels to try and "prove" your ideas, which of the Gospels or parts of the Gospels are true and correct and what Gospels or parts of the Gospels are "corrupted" text?

   As I stated earlier, my belief is that whenever a Biblical or Gospel text supports the Islamic view, expressed in the Qur'an, it is accepted as "proof" that the Qur'an is true. But when a Biblical or Gospel text profoundly disagrees (which it does in many instances)with what is written in the Qur'an, the Biblical or Gospel text is simply declared to be "corrupted" text.

Larry

I will do your post in parts.

Let us do "I and my Father are one" first. I and the Father are one WHAT?

John 10:30
Wycliffe Bible (WYC)

"I and the Father be one."

John 10:30
The Message (MSG)

"I and the Father are one heart and mind."

And the following translation blows away others:

John 10:30
Contemporary English Version (CEV)

" I am one with the Father."

This agrees with my assessment, which means "I am on the Father's side"

Jesus did not say, "I and the Father are the same person".

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by LarryYou...

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 23:11:10 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 26 April 2012 at 11:11pm

Originally posted by Larry

    You can demand "UNEQIVOCAL" statements from me all you want, but I have no intention of giving you one.

I do understand that you will not give us an "UNEQIVOCAL" statement,because it does not exist in the Bible that you hold in your hand.

I have given you many examples, including the ones in my last message, in the Gospels concerning Jesus as the Son of God.

SONS OF GOD : The Bible ascribes sons by the tons to
God.
(a) "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which
was the son of Adam, which was the SON OF GOD." LUKE 3:38
(b) "That the SONS OF GOD saw the daughters of men that they
were fair; and they took wives of all which they chose.
   ". . . when the SONS OF GOD came in unto the daughters of
men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty
men which were of old, men of renown." GENESIS 6:2 and 4
(c) ". . . Thus saith the Lord, Israel is MY SON even my
FIRSTBORN." EXODUS 4:22
(d) ". . . and Ephraim is my FIRSTBORN." JEREMIAH 31:9
(e) ". . . Thou (O David) ART MY SON; this day have I (God)
BEGOTTEN thee." PSALMS 2:7

It's not my problem if you do not understand the Biblical passages I have presented for you after you asked me to do so.

   To repeat: John 10:30, where Jesus says,
   "I and My father are one."

does this verse say i am God ??????????
I am disappointed in you Larry,i think you can do much better then that.

This verse starts in Solomon's porch,

27My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

28And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.

The people that are with me my followers listen to me and they follow Jesus.What ever Jesus tells them to do they obey him,and no one will be able to convince them to go against the teachings of Jesus, because if you listen to Jesus and you follow him he promises his followers Heaven.

29My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.

In this verse Jesus says That all what was promised in the above verse was given as a command by God and no one can take it away from God and that God is greater than all human and non human and that includes Jesus.

"I and My father are one."
In this story that i posted GOD and Jesus are one in purpose,that i Jesus see to it that people remain in faith and God also sees to it that people do not go astray and in this you will see that Jesus is not talking of one as in omnipotence it one in purpose.not one in a sausage.

Matthew 16:15-17
   "He (Jesus) said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
   "Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.""
   "Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."

SONS OF GOD : The Bible ascribes sons by the tons to
God.

   I didn't see any references to "sausages" in any of the quotes. If these passages do not answer your questions satisfactorily then I suppose nothing will.

   These statements are my UNEQIVOCAL answers to your questions. I cannot help it if you do not understand statements by Jesus Christ written in simple, clear English.

I understand what Jesus says my problem is i cannot understand the way you think or is it the way you want us to think according to your understanding yet the reality is something else.The devil has its way of doing things.

   As to your "32 SCHOLARS of the HIGHEST EMINENCE backed by 52 CO-OPERATING DENOMINATIONS who supposedly EXPUNGED threw it (the doctrine of the Holy Trinity) out as a FABRICATION and an INTERPOLATION."
   I have no idea of what you are talking about.

Well now i am giving you an idea.

http://forum.bible.org/blog/blogs/rick/lost_translation_3a_why_arent_these_verses_my_bible_1_john_57_8

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/1john57-exegesis.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum

My answers to you are based on the New King James Version of the Holy Bible, which is the most accurate and researched modern Bible in existence, based on existing Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic manuscripts and translations. I stress the point that the NKJV is based on EXISTING manuscripts and translations, none of the ORIGINAL, handwritten books of the Bible survive.

I know that they are not in the original and hence the interpolations.

Just as there is no ORIGINAL copy of the Qur'an as it (Hafsah's Codex) was deliberately destroyed by early Muslim authorities.

Have you ever had an honest discussion on this or are you trying to justify the damaged Bible?????by mentioning the Quraan,which you know nothing about.

   As a MUSLIM, you are FREE to believe WHATEVER you want concerning the TRUE NATURE of JESUS CHRIST. Your beliefs have NO BEARING or RELEVANCE to ME or to my FAITH as a CHRISTIAN.

   That's as "UNEQUIVOCAL" as I can be, and it will be my FINAL answer to you concerning this particular subject.

John 3:16-17
   16. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
   17. "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved."

Mr Larry, do not run away so fast.The verse you posted says BEGOTTEN.

begotten
To father; sire.

Is that what you are saying that God sired a Son????

   To be perfectly clear as to my beliefs, I will repeat the "Apostles' Creed" used by my church and many others (in sometimes slightly different wording). This is a STATEMENT OF FAITH, not a translation of text from the Bible.

I BELIEVE IN GOD, THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, MAKER OF HEAVEN AND EARTH.
AND IN JESUS CHRIST, HIS ONLY SON

This is not the gospel truth.
SONS OF GOD : The Bible ascribes sons by the tons to
God.
(a) "Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which
was the son of Adam, which was the SON OF GOD." LUKE 3:38
(b) "That the SONS OF GOD saw the daughters of men that they
were fair; and they took wives of all which they chose.
   ". . . when the SONS OF GOD came in unto the daughters of
men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty
men which were of old, men of renown." GENESIS 6:2 and 4
(c) ". . . Thus saith the Lord, Israel is MY SON even my
FIRSTBORN." EXODUS 4:22
(d) ". . . and Ephraim is my FIRSTBORN." JEREMIAH 31:9
(e) ". . . Thou (O David) ART MY SON; this day have I (God)
BEGOTTEN thee." PSALMS 2:7

, OUR LORD.
WHO WAS CONCEIVED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT,
BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY,
SUFFERED UNDER PONTIUS PILATE,
WAS CRUCIFIED

are you positive??????read my book
http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=22951

, DIED AND WAS BURIED,
ON THE THIRD DAY HE ROSE FROM THE DEAD;
HE ASCENDED INTO HEAVEN

the ascension was not in the RSV. Mark chap 16:16 and Mark 16:19 were again thrown out as fabrication by 32 christian bible scholars of highest eminence backed by 50 corporating denominations.
RSV ends on verse 8 (verses 9-20 were missing).
But in newer RSV verses 9-20 were restored in 1971.

,
AND SITS AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, THE FATHER ALMIGHTY;
HE WILL COME TO JUDGE THE LIVING AND THE DEAD.
I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY SPIRIT,
THE HOLY CATHOLIC (which means "universal," not referring to the Roman Catholic) CHURCH,
THE COMMUNION OF SAINTS,
THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS,
THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY,
AND THE LIFE EVERLASTING.
AMEN

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hello, BMZ, Your "analysis"...

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:06:29 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 26 April 2012 at 3:06pm

Hello, BMZ,

   Your "analysis" of Biblical text leaves much to be desired.

    Your statement that, "I and My Father are one," simply means "I and the Father are on the same side," is "simply" your own personal interpretation of the text and is not supported by any Biblical verification.

   I also think it is interesting that whenever a Muslim wants to use the Bible to prove their points, they use "word-for-word" passages from the Bible to do so. Evidently there is no question of "corruption" of these particular passages in the Bible. However, many Muslims claim that the text of the New Testament is highly corrupted whenever that text contradicts any part of the text of the Qur'an. Either the Gospels are corrupt in their entirety or they are not, you can't have it both ways.

   You say, "One cannot find Jesus telling the Jews publicly that He was the Messiah. He never declared openly that He was the Messiah."

   Luke 22:66-71 disagrees with your position.

   66. "As soon as it was the day, the elders of the people, both chief priests and scribes, came together and led Him (Jesus) into their council, saying,"
   67. "If You are the Christ, tell us. But He said to them, "If I tell you, you will by no means believe."
   68. ""And if I also ask you, you will by no means answer Me or let Me go."
   69. "Hereafter the Son of Man will sit on the right hand of the power of God."
   70. "Then they all said, "Are You then the Son of God? So He said to them, "You rightly say that I am."
   71. "And they said, "What further testimony do we need? For we have heard it ourselves from His own mouth."

   Mark 14:53,60-64,

   53. "And they led Jesus away to the high priest; and with him were assembled all the chief priests, the elders, and the scribes."

   60. "And the high priest stood up in the midst and asked Jesus, saying, "Do You answer nothing (of the charges against Him)? What is it these men testify against You?"
   61. "But He (Jesus) kept silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked Him, saying to Him, "Are You the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"
   62. "Jesus said, "I am. And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven."
   63. "Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "What further need do we have of witnesses?"
   64. "You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?" "And they all condemned Him to be deserving of death."

   Matthew 26:62-65,

   62. "And the high priest arose and said to Him (Jesus), "Do you answer nothing? What is it these men testify against you?"
   63. "But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, "I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God?"
   64. "Jesus said to him, "It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."
   65. "Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, "He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy!"

   So your statement, "One cannot find Jesus telling the Jews publicly thyat He was the Messiah. He never declared openly that He was the Messiah." is incorrect.

And your statement that, "Even Luke and Mark did not use the term, "the Son of the living God." is technically correct because it was not Mark and Luke who used the term "Son of the living God." But you are factually wrong because Luke and Mark reported the words of the high priest. It was the high priest from the Jerusalem Temple who asked Jesus if He was the Son of God.

   You state, "This shows that it was added into Matthew long after John appeared," is simply your own opinion and has no foundation in fact because you do not know where and when the Gospels were written.

   And these are not the only statements made by Jesus Christ, concerning His divine nature, during the course of His ministry.

   Your comments on John 1:40-42 are simply uninformed.

   And your statement concerning the woman at the well, who told Jesus she was waiting for the Messiah, and Jesus answered her and said "I am He," is just another instance where Jesus reveals Himself as the Messiah.

   I have asked this of other Muslims before but now I am asking you, since you have used the Gospels to try and "prove" your ideas, which of the Gospels or parts of the Gospels are true and correct and what Gospels or parts of the Gospels are "corrupted" text?

   As I stated earlier, my belief is that whenever a Biblical or Gospel text supports the Islamic view, expressed in the Qur'an, it is accepted as "proof" that the Qur'an is true. But when a Biblical or Gospel text profoundly disagrees (which it does in many instances)with what is written in the Qur'an, the Biblical or Gospel text is simply declared to be "corrupted" text.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 26 April 2012 at 3:07pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by Larry1...

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 08:06:33 +0000

Author: BMZ
Subject: 19811
Posted: 26 April 2012 at 8:06am

Originally posted by Larry

1 John 5:7 (New King James Version)

   "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word (Gr. "Logos" referring to Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."

John 10:23-30:

   23. And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon's porch.
   24. Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, "How long do you keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly."
   25. Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of Me.
   26. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.
   27. "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.
   28. "And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.
   29. "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand.
   30. "I and My Father are one."

Matthew 16:13-17
   13. When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Phillippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?"
   14. So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
   15. He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
   16. Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
   17. Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."

Hello, Larry

A few points:

One cannot find Jesus telling the Jews publicly that he was the Messiah. He never declared openly that he was the Messiah.

Only to the woman at the well, who told him that she was waiting for the Messiah, he said, "I am he".

If he had already told them who he was, they would not have said to him, "How long do you keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly."

Next: "I and My Father are one."

Just before that verse, every verse clearly shows that neither he was the Father nor the Father was he.

"I and My Father are one.", simply means "I and the Father are on the same side".

Jesus did not say, "The Father and I are the same person." and he is also not on record for saying publicly, "I am the Father".

Next:

Matthew 16:13-17 gets contradicted and blown away by John 1:40-42

"Andrew, Simon Peter�s brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus.

The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, �We have found the Messiah� (that is, the Christ). 42 And he brought him to Jesus."

Mark this: "We have found the Messiah" and note that there is no mention of 'the Son of the living God' at all.

Even Luke and Mark did not use the term, 'the Son of the living God'.

This shows that it was added into Matthew long after John appeared.

So, according to John, it was Andrew, the flesh and blood of Peter, who had revealed that Jesus was the Messiah, not the Father.

It is three against one!

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : You can demand "UNEQIVOCAL"...

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 23:22:56 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 25 April 2012 at 11:22pm

   You can demand "UNEQIVOCAL" statements from me all you want, but I have no intention of giving you one. I have given you many examples, including the ones in my last message, in the Gospels concerning Jesus as the Son of God. It's not my problem if you do not understand the Biblical passages I have presented for you after you asked me to do so.

   To repeat: John 10:30, where Jesus says,
   "I and My father are one."

   Matthew 16:15-17
   "He (Jesus) said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
   "Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.""
   "Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."

   I didn't see any references to "sausages" in any of the quotes. If these passages do not answer your questions satisfactorily then I suppose nothing will.

   These statements are my UNEQIVOCAL answers to your questions. I cannot help it if you do not understand statements by Jesus Christ written in simple, clear English.

   As to your "32 SCHOLARS of the HIGHEST EMINENCE backed by 52 CO-OPERATING DENOMINATIONS who supposedly EXPUNGED threw it (the doctrine of the Holy Trinity) out as a FABRICATION and an INTERPOLATION."
   I have no idea of what you are talking about. My answers to you are based on the New King James Version of the Holy Bible, which is the most accurate and researched modern Bible in existence, based on existing Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic manuscripts and translations. I stress the point that the NKJV is based on EXISTING manuscripts and translations, none of the ORIGINAL, handwritten books of the Bible survive. Just as there is no ORIGINAL copy of the Qur'an as it (Hafsah's Codex) was deliberately destroyed by early Muslim authorities.

   As a MUSLIM, you are FREE to believe WHATEVER you want concerning the TRUE NATURE of JESUS CHRIST. Your beliefs have NO BEARING or RELEVANCE to ME or to my FAITH as a CHRISTIAN.

   That's as "UNEQUIVOCAL" as I can be, and it will be my FINAL answer to you concerning this particular subject.

John 3:16-17
   16. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
   17. "For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved."

   To be perfectly clear as to my beliefs, I will repeat the "Apostles' Creed" used by my church and many others (in sometimes slightly different wording). This is a STATEMENT OF FAITH, not a translation of text from the Bible.

I BELIEVE IN GOD, THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, MAKER OF HEAVEN AND EARTH.
AND IN JESUS CHRIST, HIS ONLY SON, OUR LORD.
WHO WAS CONCEIVED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT,
BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY,
SUFFERED UNDER PONTIUS PILATE,
WAS CRUCIFIED, DIED AND WAS BURIED,
ON THE THIRD DAY HE ROSE FROM THE DEAD;
HE ASCENDED INTO HEAVEN,
AND SITS AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, THE FATHER ALMIGHTY;
HE WILL COME TO JUDGE THE LIVING AND THE DEAD.
I BELIEVE IN THE HOLY SPIRIT,
THE HOLY CATHOLIC (which means "universal," not referring to the Roman Catholic) CHURCH,
THE COMMUNION OF SAINTS,
THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS,
THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY,
AND THE LIFE EVERLASTING.
AMEN




Edited by Larry - 26 April 2012 at 12:15am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by Larry1...

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:21:53 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 25 April 2012 at 12:21pm

Originally posted by Larry

1 John 5:7 (New King James Version)

   "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word (Gr. "Logos" referring to Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."

This verse does not exist according to your 32 scholars of the Highest eminence backed by 52 co-operating denominations.They expunged threw it out as a fabrication and an interpolation.please refer to my earlier post.

John 10:23-30:

   23. And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon's porch.
   24. Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, "How long do you keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly."
   25. Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of Me.
   26. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.
   27. "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.
   28. "And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.
   29. "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand.
   30. "I and My Father are one."

What do you want an explanation of the verse from me from me???or are you trying to say that God and Jesus are one as in a sausage??? I do not understand what you looking for please clarify.

Matthew 16:13-17
   13. When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Phillippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?"
   14. So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
   15. He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
   16. Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
   17. Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."

Same story here please clarify,or would you like an explanation.

Now here is my Question to you.

Please give us one UNEQUIVOCAL statement where Jesus says ,I am God or where Jesus says worship me.

The key word here is not what John said or what Mark said or what anyone said.

I want an UNEQUIVOCAL STATEMENT.Ihope you understand English.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : 1 John 5:7 (New King James Version) "For...

Mon, 23 Apr 2012 01:18:07 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 23 April 2012 at 1:18am

1 John 5:7 (New King James Version)

   "For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word (Gr. "Logos" referring to Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."

John 10:23-30:

   23. And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon's porch.
   24. Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, "How long do you keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly."
   25. Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of Me.
   26. But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.
   27. "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.
   28. "And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.
   29. "My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand.
   30. "I and My Father are one."

Matthew 16:13-17
   13. When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Phillippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?"
   14. So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
   15. He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
   16. Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
   17. Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : The fabrication of Trinity The...

Sun, 22 Apr 2012 04:50:03 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 22 April 2012 at 4:50am

The fabrication of Trinity

The only verse indicating trinity (the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are one) has been removed from the bible by 32 scholars of the bible in the Revised Standard Version among many other verses as fabrication after they realized that these verses do not exist in the most ancient manuscript and as such there is not a single verse indicating Trinity anymore in the complete bible.

John A-V {5:7} For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (This verse does not exist anymore in the RSV)

32 scholars of the Highest Eminence backed by 52 co-operating denominations expunged the verse of the false Trinity.You laugh loud but you only fool yourself.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : "The Trinity was expunged...

Sat, 21 Apr 2012 00:30:34 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 21 April 2012 at 12:30am

"The Trinity was expunged as a fabrication. A figment of someone's imagination."

"expunged" by who? You?

LMAO!!!

Edited by Larry - 21 April 2012 at 12:33am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by LarryHasan, "The...

Fri, 20 Apr 2012 09:46:29 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 20 April 2012 at 9:46am

Originally posted by Larry

Hasan,

   "The father of chemistry"?

   I will repeat my previous statement that it seems that some Muslims, when trying to make their case, use the Bible WORD FOR WORD when it suits their purpose

Larry,which other book do you accept?The Quraan or the Bible?

, but claim "corruption" for any verse that contradicts the Qur'an.

Larry let us then leave the Quraan one side for the moment and let us see what the Bible says,and if it can hold it,s own.

   The Gospels are very clear and precise as to who was the Father of Jesus Christ.

Fine dhow it to us from your Bible and i will use the same Bible to explain.As per your argument.

The centerpiece of the Christian faith is that Jesus, as the Son of God,

Please substantiate with verses from your Bible and not just claim.

was crucified, buried in a tomb and then resurrected to life after three days.

Was Jesus crucified? or cruciplayed?

That is why Jesus said that He could tear down the entire Temple and rebuild it in 3 days. He became the new "Temple" and promised salvation to anyone who believed in Him and His Father, who, with the Holy Spirit, completed the Holy Trinity.

The Trinity was expunged as a fabrication.A figment of someone's imagination.

   Since you do not understand the nature of the Holy Trinity,

The Trinity that you hold so dear to your heart has been expunged from the Holy Bible.
1 John 5:7 has been deleted from Bibles

DID YOU KNOW, THE MAIN TRINITY VERSE: 1 JOHN 5:7 WAS EXPUNGED FROM BIBLES. *The part expunged is all too clear..please notice the verse in ALL these new bibles, says NOTHING about- Father, son and Holy Ghost being one, �.in contrast to king James which still keeps it

*The part expunged is all too clear..please notice the verse in ALL these new bibles, says NOTHING about- Father, son and Holy Ghost being one, AS THE THREAD TOPIC READS�.in contrast to king James which still keeps it. You can correct yourself or me. And this 1John 5:7 is the verse identified with the trinity. I am Not bringing a faith down, for I nor any others than christians expunged the �Father=son=HGhost� from their bibles themselves.

The New American Standard Bible

Book of 1 John
Chapter 5 : 7
For there are three that testify:

Holy Bible, The New Living Translation
Book of 1 John
Chapter 5 � :7
So we have these three witnesses

Book of 1 John
Chapter 5 � 7
There are three witnesses:

The Revised Standard Version
Book of 1 John
Chapter 5 � 7
And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

Holy Bible: Easy-to-Read Version
Book of 1 John
Chapter 5 :7
So there are three witnesses that tell us {about Jesus}:

International Standard Version
Book of 1 john 5:7
For there are three witnesses

The Darby Translation
Book of 1 John
Chapter 5 � 7
For they that bear witness are three:

Weymouth�s New Testament
Book of 1 John
Chapter 5 � 7
For there are three that give testimony� the Spirit, the water, and the blood

Now compare these with the initial/king James verse 7 unchanged-

The King James Version (Authorized)
Book of 1 John
Chapter 5 � 7
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Well that�s the verse that taught the world about �the Trinity��and IT IS NOW TOTALLY CHANGED/EXPUNGED from new Bibles by christians�.please conform with reality.
Why did Church elders drop this extremely fundamental doctrinal verse???>>>>>>>

Why dont most christians even know it has been dropped???

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, "The father of chemistry"? I...

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 00:20:02 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 18 April 2012 at 12:20am

Hasan,

   "The father of chemistry"?

   I will repeat my previous statement that it seems that some Muslims, when trying to make their case, use the Bible WORD FOR WORD when it suits their purpose, but claim "corruption" for any verse that contradicts the Qur'an.
   The Gospels are very clear and precise as to who was the Father of Jesus Christ. The centerpiece of the Christian faith is that Jesus, as the Son of God, was crucified, buried in a tomb and then resurrected to life after three days. That is why Jesus said that He could tear down the entire Temple and rebuild it in 3 days. He became the new "Temple" and promised salvation to anyone who believed in Him and His Father, who, with the Holy Spirit, completed the Holy Trinity.
   Since you do not understand the nature of the Holy Trinity, which you see as three different Gods or a "Godhead" you will accept no answer that is based on that belief. And no amount of argument, etc., is going to change anyone's mind, least of all mine.
   I think this subject has been pretty well covered again and again by both sides and no one's mind has changed. To paraphrase the Qur'an, "To you your religion and to me mine. To you your qibla and to me mine."
   I enjoy discussing topics with you but it will have to be another topic than this because this topic is simply worn out. I hope that you are well.

Larry



Edited by Larry - 18 April 2012 at 12:23am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by KishSoooo,...

Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:47:19 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 17 April 2012 at 3:47pm

Originally posted by Kish

Soooo, Hasan admitted that Jesus has a father!!! Even though it hated him to do so, which means Jesus can rightly call himself God's son!!!

Originally posted by honto

I have shown you where he said: " I am going to my Father and your Father

It was like pulling teeth but he finally admitted it!!!

Hasan, yes Jesus does have a father as I've been saying all along and Jesus is his SON which Muslims hate to directly admit, but it is what it is.

Jesus is the son of God!!! Jehovah God is his father!!!

Kish and Larry,

First, may God Almighty forgive me for showing my emotions, that I am suppose to control.

Second, I will ask you all to look and read the quote from your Bible again: " I am going to my Father and your Father".

Now, unless you are pretending or are really nieve, that statement is very clear.

Reminder, as y'all forget that any Bible reference we use here is to show you that your claim even does not agree with your source, and because you believe in this source (the Bible) to be trustful.

Now, my English is not that good, but there is no rocket science here: " my father and your father" So Jesus (pbuh) is quoted to have said this that to who he called his father, is also your mine and everyone's fahter according to this quote. So, you cannot say that God is father of Jesus only. Y'all and everyone is also can claim same! So Jesus don't have father exclusively his father. At least that's what the quote suggest. Who was father of chemistry? according to wiki answers: Razi Zakariyah and Abu Musa Jābir ibn Hayyān al azdi

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_is_the_father_of_chemistry#ixzz1sL9nqZwk

Does that mean these people were real fathers of chemistry, and chemistry their son or daughter?

Now same way if we look at what is also taken by you as words of Jesus:" to my God and your God".

According to this quote what is mine and your God, is also Jesus' God.

For someone with fair senses and mind, its not difficult to figure things out, no coaching needed. For deniers of truth, nothing can save them for their rightful recompense.

Hasan

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Another false and incorrect statement,...

Thu, 05 Apr 2012 22:37:59 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 05 April 2012 at 10:37pm

Another false and incorrect statement, simply put if you were to take out all the accounts of the Bible that are plagiarized in the Quran, Muhammad�s book, starting with Adam and ending with Jesus, the Quran would be just a novel with no spiritual foundation, 95% of the Quran would be lost.

Kish have you read the Quraan????? and 95% is would be lost?????That is a very bold and stupi* statement to make when you do not even understand your bible.

Without the Bible Muslims would be lost not knowing any of the prophets like Moses and Abraham, Muslim�s wouldn�t even know that Ishmael had 12 sons.

Maybe ,but without the Jewish man such as Paul you would not even know your own God.Not that we believe it but you do.

Most importantly, you would not have known that Jesus was and is more than JUST a Prophet which even your Quran has to admit to. Let me a follower of Christ remind you, it is my duty . . .

He was born of God�s spirit, without a human father.�Al-Anbiyā� [21]:91.

Who said that???????the false MUHAMMED????????Hmmmmm

God caused Christ to die (on a Stake)

So now he was stakified not crucified??????

He was born of God�s spirit, without a human father.�Al-Anbiyā� [21]:91

Now compare the two and tell me which do you accept?

"God" Was Created From The Seed of David: "Concerning his Son
Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the SEED of David
according to the flesh." (Romans, 1:3)

"God" Was The Fruit of the Loins of David. "Therefore being a prophet,
and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the
fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ
to sit on his throne." (Acts, 2:30

The Ancestors of "God": "The generations of Jesus Christ, the son of
David, the son of Abraham." (Matthew, 1:1

"God" Was the Son of Joseph: "Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith
unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the
prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, THE SON OF
JOSEPH," (John, 1:45

He was born holy (�faultless,� MMP).�Maryam [19]:19.

The Quraan says this.What a remarkable book.

Was Muhammad born holy, we all know the answer to that, he was a sinner; however Jesus was so special to God his father.

What was the sin???????

So, let me correct you, this is the only book we all should accept that is why Muhammad accepted it. Why else would he include it in his book, although many of the Bible stories in the Quran are very much inaccurate, starting with his account of Adam and Eve, way off.

The book that you hold in your hand is a false book i have proofed it without a shadow of doubt.Non of the Prophets from Adam to Muhammad has seen or read this book.Not even Jesus.That is a challenge.

It was said of him that he was the Word (John 1:1) of God and his Spirit

Jesus never seen this verse nor read it.

It is really sad how Muslims say they fully submit to Allah but they fail to show it.

We Muslims the good and the bad show it five times a day.

You cannot beat us in piety,charity are the most charitable people on this earth,we Muslims have the lowest Alcohol in the world and we are the most humble of people.So dot be sad we are unmatched.

And it is even sadder that Muhammad has tried to steal the glory that belongs ONLY to Jesus by saying Jesus was never crucified and resurrected by his God.

I know it is hard for you to accept the truth but we understand,drowning woman clutching at straws so are you.

No wonder the Bible is still the #1 Worlds Best Seller. No other book has even come close to it in circulation and translation.

That makes you happy??

The Quraan is the only book on the face of this earth that is memorised unchanged and in it's pure and pristine as the day it was revealed.Children as young as 5 years old have memorised this Quraan and this is how Allah preserves his words and book.Oh has any Christian memorised your Bible.
?????

The Bible is one of the oldest of the books that have survived till our time

False statement. corrupted text remain.

Its earliest part was written in ancient Hebrew some 3,500 years ago (which corresponds to the Shang dynasty in China) by an Israelite named Moses

corrupted book refer to my post is the Bible Gods word.

What other book can come close to God's written word?

That is what we are trying to tell you that you have a corrupted book in your hand.

Truly indeed a marvelous piece of literature!!

So is lost in the dark Robert Malenfant

Join me Kish,
There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the true prophet of Allah.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan has not answered ANY of...

Thu, 05 Apr 2012 21:13:28 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 05 April 2012 at 9:13pm

Hasan has not answered ANY of my questions in the last post. So I don't know where you get the idea that it is Kish or me who are the ones dodging answers.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : iec, You're the one talking...

Thu, 05 Apr 2012 21:07:21 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 05 April 2012 at 9:07pm

iec,

   You're the one talking about sperm, incest, gutter language and God knows what else. you're the one with the dirty mind, don't blame it on Kish or me. I can't help it if you cannot read or understand, that's your problem.

   By the way, since Muhammad is the last and "seal" of the prophets, can you tell me any prophecies that Muhammad made in the Qur'an that later turned out to be true? Or any prophecies he made at all?

   This should be easy for you.

   But maybe not as you and Hasan have dodged every question I have asked of you and him. You make nasty comments to cover your lack of answering difficult questions.

   Do you have an answer to the question?

Larry

Edited by Larry - 05 April 2012 at 9:11pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by iec786That...

Thu, 05 Apr 2012 07:01:49 +0000

Author: Kish
Subject: 19811
Posted: 05 April 2012 at 7:01am

Originally posted by iec786

That is because that is the only book that you accept.

Another false and incorrect statement, simply put if you were to take out all the accounts of the Bible that are plagiarized in the Quran, Muhammad�s book, starting with Adam and ending with Jesus, the Quran would be just a novel with no spiritual foundation, 95% of the Quran would be lost.

Without the Bible Muslims would be lost not knowing any of the prophets like Moses and Abraham, Muslim�s wouldn�t even know that Ishmael had 12 sons.

Most importantly, you would not have known that Jesus was and is more than JUST a Prophet which even your Quran has to admit to. Let me a follower of Christ remind you, it is my duty . . .

He was born of God�s spirit, without a human father.�Al-Anbiyā� [21]:91.

He was born holy (�faultless,� MMP).�Maryam [19]:19.
Was Muhammad born holy, we all know the answer to that, he was a sinner; however Jesus was so special to God his father.

What does the Quran say about Jesus specialness?

God caused Christ to die (on a Stake), raised him to life (resurrection), and then lifted him up to Him (heaven).�Āl �Imrān [3]:55, NJD; Maryam [19]:33, NJD

So, let me correct you, this is the only book we all should accept that is why Muhammad accepted it. Why else would he include it in his book, although many of the Bible stories in the Quran are very much inaccurate, starting with his account of Adam and Eve, way off.

Perhaps that was due to him being illiterate, but I very much doubt it. All Muhammad teachings go against what Jesus himself taught his Apostles.

It was said of him that he was the Word (John 1:1) of God and his Spirit.�Compare Āl �Imrān [3]:45; Al-Nisā� [4]:171

It is really sad how Muslims say they fully submit to Allah but they fail to show it. And it is even sadder that Muhammad has tried to steal the glory that belongs ONLY to Jesus by saying Jesus was never crucified and resurrected by his God.

God rendered him to be in honor in this world and forever after and in the company of those nearest to God.�Āl �Imrān [3]:45

All these quotes from the quran were already in the Bible way before any one person even named Muhammad was ever born. In other words Muhammad only repeated what was already written in the Bible (Holy Scriptures)

No wonder the Bible is still the #1 Worlds Best Seller. No other book has even come close to it in circulation and translation.

The Bible is one of the oldest of the books that have survived till our time, especially among religious texts. Its earliest part was written in ancient Hebrew some 3,500 years ago (which corresponds to the Shang dynasty in China) by an Israelite named Moses. What other book can come close to God's written word?

Truly indeed a marvelous piece of literature!!!

Now Is The Time For True Submission!!!

Edited by Kish - 05 April 2012 at 7:16am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : 3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ...

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 09:09:36 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 04 April 2012 at 9:09am

3Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;Romans 1
King James Version (KJV)

Explain.???????
The seed of David means the sperm of David.
David had se% with Mary deposited his seed into her and your God Lord was born?Is that what you are insinuating???

30Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

Larry what are you saying????do words have any meaning in your language???

and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins according to the flesh ( the sperm of God's private part sic)Look at the language?????
Totally perverted gutter language.God does not speak in that language and filth.I do not want to go into this dirt any longer.

genealogy

Pharez and Zahra were the great grand fathers of Jesus.Look where they came from children of incest.This book is messed up man.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Larry, Hasan only spoke the truth.After...

Wed, 04 Apr 2012 08:54:40 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 04 April 2012 at 8:54am

Larry,

Hasan only spoke the truth.After giving an answer some posters duck and dive.Then you believe then you want proof,and when it is given then you change the topic.
Don't blame Hasan for talking the truth.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Verses quoted above: 27 Mar. Romans...

Tue, 03 Apr 2012 23:24:49 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 03 April 2012 at 11:24pm

   Verses quoted above: 27 Mar.

   Romans 1:3, Acts 2:30, Matthew 1:1 and John 1:45.

   It is amazing to me that the four Biblical citations made by this poster are quoted word-for-word from the New Testament. I guess these particular verses aren't part of the ones that are "corrupt."

   As I said before, some Muslims are eager to quote Biblical verses that they feel advance their arguments, but dismiss any verse that contradicts the Qur'an as corrupted text.

   Question; Is there a list of which verses of the Bible are corrupt and which verses are not corrupt? There seems to be some confusion about this question.

   And, by the way, I might mention that the quote from Matthew 1:1 did not continue through the geneaology of Jesus Christ.

   Using the New King James Version.

   Matthew 1:1-2:

   Matthew 1:1; "The book of the geneaology of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham:"

   Matthew 1:2; "Abraham begot Isaac, Isaac begot Jacob, and Jacob begot Judah and his brothers."

   Continuing the geneaology in Matthew; (I left out Matthew 1:3 to 1:15 which consists of a continuation of the list of ancestors.)

   Matthew 1:16-17,

1:16; "And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ."

1:17; "So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations."

   Matthew 1:18-23,

   1:18; "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit."

   1:19; "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, he was minded to put her away secretly."

   1:20; "But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit."

   1:21; "And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins."

   1:22; "So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying:"

   1:23; "Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Im-man-u-el," which is translated, "God with us."

Edited by Larry - 04 April 2012 at 12:27am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, "And they are reminded...

Tue, 03 Apr 2012 23:19:09 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 03 April 2012 at 11:19pm

Hasan,

   "And they are reminded of that many times but I guess they can't remember when they reincarnate."

   That was an unnecessarily negative comment that you made concerning Christians in general.

   I also notice that you did not address my last post, but you seem to avoid things that you may find uncomfortable to answer or comment on. Maybe you could follow the thread and continue the topic instead of making nasty comments about another member of this particular forum.

Larry

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Kish. I'm glad to hear on...

Tue, 03 Apr 2012 09:10:06 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 03 April 2012 at 9:10am

Kish.

I'm glad to hear on this thread at least Christians and Muslims believe that Jesus has a father

No the Muslims and many modern day Christians do not believe that Jesus had a father.Only the die hards do.

Unforgivably though Muslims deny God has a son, do you realize that defies logic gentlemen and the position you have put yourselves in?

According to your Bible the Father of Jesus is ????????

Do you know of anyone that is a father that does not have any offspring?

????????????????????
What language are you talking???????

Now is the time for True submission!!!

There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the true prophet of Allah.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Thank you brother, Jazakallah.And...

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 15:03:30 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 02 April 2012 at 3:03pm

Thank you brother, Jazakallah.

And they are reminded of that many times but I guess they can't remember when they reincarnate!

Hasan

Edited by honeto - 02 April 2012 at 3:04pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : I'm glad to hear on this...

Mon, 02 Apr 2012 10:30:39 +0000

Author: Kish
Subject: 19811
Posted: 02 April 2012 at 10:30am

I'm glad to hear on this thread at least Christians and Muslims believe that Jesus has a father, a true fact that Christians been saying all along.

Unforgivably though Muslims deny God has a son, do you realize that defies logic gentlemen and the position you have put yourselves in?

Do you know of anyone that is a father that does not have any offspring? If so give us a reference that you truly believe in yourselves and put me to the test!!!

Now is the time for True submission!!!

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Some Muslims are proficient at...

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 08:52:19 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 30 March 2012 at 8:52am

Some Muslims are proficient at quoting Biblical scripture, word for word, to prove their position.

That is because that is the only book that you accept.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, There is no 'case...

Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:47:55 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 29 March 2012 at 9:47pm

Hasan,

   There is no 'case closed" except in your own religious opinions. Some Muslims are proficient at quoting Biblical scripture, word for word, to prove their position. The problem is that when any Biblical source disagrees with the Qur'an, as it does in many instances, it is simply dismissed as "corrupted" text.
   The entire New Testament exists for one reason and that is the often stated belief and teaching that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who was born of a virgin, preached a ministry of love, tolerance and forgiveness, even with one's enemies, and one in which he claims to be the Messiah and Son of God, and was crucified, buried and was resurrected three days later in order to provide salvation to a world that does not qualify for salvation on it's own merits.
   The Prophet Isaiah, along with many other Old Testament prophets such as Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, etc., prophesied correctly concerning the nature and role of the promised Jewish Messiah. Isaiah prophesied the life and fate of the Messiah 700 years before the fact. There is no disagreement between prophecies made in the Old Testament and their fulfillment in Jesus Christ in the New Testament, or "New Covenant" between God and mankind.
   But there are major and substantial discrepancies between the Bible it's prophecies and the Qur'an, which basically has no prophecies at all, especially any from it's declared "final" prophet Muhammad. The Qur'an seeks to explain these major discrepancies by claiming that the Bible is a "corrupted" text, unless that is, when the Bible texts are used to prove and show the truth of the Qur'an and Islam.
   And it is an undisputed fact that both the Old Testament and New Testament predate Islam by centuries in the case of the New Testament and millenia in the case of the Old Testament, or Torah. A great number of the people, stories, teachings and prophecies come to Islam, by way of the Qur'an, directly from the earlier Old and New Testaments texts of the Bible.
   The claim that the Qur'an somehow "predates" these scriptures is a very weak argument with no proof offered but simply presented as authentic by Islam and the Qur'an. The claims of corruption of the Biblical texts are required to explain the major discrepancies between the Bible and the Qur'an.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 29 March 2012 at 10:04pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Kish,I have all kind of...

Thu, 29 Mar 2012 15:32:52 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 29 March 2012 at 3:32pm

Kish,

I have all kind of names that fit your type, but I am told not to do so. One thing I will say however is that if you really have the ability to comprehend what you read or write you will understand what we have talked about so far, your resposes suggest otherwise.

Its always helpful to ask an adult to explain things, and let me just do that for you.

Read this carefully and loudly, go slow...." to my father and your father" Now let me help you what it means: Jesus is quoted to have said, "to my father" and "to your father". Now even though these words are translated words from original sayings of Jesus, but notice that he is saying "your father" as well, which simply means that he is not saying my father only. In fact if he has a father, you have the same as father according to this saying. So you are wrong when you assume that it only meant his father, because "and your father" is also there, and needs to be read and understood as it is.

Now don't forget the other half where Jesus is saying that he has a God unlike your claim without any proof that he does not: "to my God and your God.

Case closed, God of Jesus is your and my God, in fact the only God that there is. Don't deny Him, don't offend Him, and know that He will bring you to Justice, and hold you responsible for each word you speak, so speak intelligently, or if you don't know, ask. I hope this helps, but I am here if you have any other question.

Love you,

Hasan

Edited by honeto - 29 March 2012 at 3:36pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Quran - He was born of God’s spirit,...

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:47:59 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 27 March 2012 at 9:47pm

Quran - He was born of God�s spirit, without a (human) father.�Al-Anbiyā� [21]:91.

"God" Was Created From The Seed of David: "Concerning his Son
Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the SEED of David
according to the flesh." (Romans, 1:3)

"God" Was The Fruit of the Loins of David. "Therefore being a prophet,
and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the
fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ
to sit on his throne." (Acts, 2:30

The Ancestors of "God": "The generations of Jesus Christ, the son of
David, the son of Abraham." (Matthew, 1:1

"God" Was the Son of Joseph: "Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith
unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the
prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, THE SON OF
JOSEPH," (John, 1:45

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Quran - He was born of God’s spirit,...

Tue, 27 Mar 2012 20:49:06 +0000

Author: Kish
Subject: 19811
Posted: 27 March 2012 at 8:49pm

Quran - He was born of God�s spirit, without a (human) father.�Al-Anbiyā� [21]:91.

GOD brought Jesus into the world by giving him life, he was his father, just not his earthly father. This is really not that hard to understand, Jesus was born from his heavenly father's spirit. Ahhhh! That is why God said Jesus is his son. It was God who put the spirit of Jesus inside Mary by transferring his life from heaven down to the earth. God was responsible for that, unless you know of someone else who could do that.

Muhammad and his god Allah went against the God of the Jews and Jesus' heavenly father Jehovah!

Guys, seriously do you know of a person who bore a son without the help of a father?

Defy reality!!! I guess next you will be saying humans can fly if you gave them wings.

Edited by Kish - 27 March 2012 at 8:57pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by KishSoooo,...

Mon, 05 Mar 2012 15:37:30 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 05 March 2012 at 3:37pm

Originally posted by Kish

Soooo, Hasan admitted that Jesus has a father!!! Even though it hated him to do so, which means Jesus can rightly call himself God's son!!!

Originally posted by honto

I have shown you where he said: " I am going to my Father and your Father

I guess you are a teenager ?(no offense to teenagers), you know how I guessed that? At your excitement over partly understanding something. And that's a good thing, you are like a teenager.

Now read loudly: " to my God and your God." Does it make sense, I think that's where you failed like a .......(no offense to .......)

According to the present day Bible there are many sons mentioned of God. So sorry my dear Kish your excitement did not go too far. In fact anything that is not from God, does not take us too far before falling down.

Hasan

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Kish, When Jesus taught a prayer,he...

Mon, 05 Mar 2012 08:31:49 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 05 March 2012 at 8:31am

Kish,

When Jesus taught a prayer,he said our farther in heaven.

our meaning everyone,s farther not exclusive to him.

Then Jesus said "One came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing
shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
"And Jesus said unto him, WHY CALLEST THOU ME
GOOD? there is NONE GOOD BUT ONE, THAT IS GOD . .
." MATTHEW 19:16-I7 He did not say himself .

(JESUS') POWER NOT HIS OWN:
"And Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, All power is
GIVEN unto me in heaven and in earth." MATTHEW 28:1

all power given to Jesus not hi own.

I can of mine own self DO NOTHING: as I hear, I judge . . ."
JOHN 5:3

I by the FINGER OF GOD cast out devils . . ." LUKE 11:2
not his own.

LISTEN NOW TO PETER'S TESTIMONY:
(e) "Ye men of Israel (O Jews!) hear these words; Jesus of
Nazareth, A MAN approved of God (meaning a prophet)
among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which GOD
DID BY HIM in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also
know." ACTS 2:2

Mark 14:36 - �And he went on to say: �Abba, Father, all things are possible to you; remove this cup from me. Yet not what I want, but what you want.

Jesus here was addressing his father in the heaven which obviously means he is the son!!!

You are correct he was addressing someone that means he was not God.

What does the word Abba mean to you Muslims???

The word Abba was misused in the Bible and that is why in the Quraan you do not have the word abba at all.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by iec786In...

Fri, 02 Mar 2012 22:52:04 +0000

Author: Kish
Subject: 19811
Posted: 02 March 2012 at 10:52pm

Originally posted by iec786

In english he meant our farther not Biological farther.Geez.

What does father mean in Hebrew and Aramaic, something different? Of course not!!! This Aramaic word appears three times in the Holy Scriptures and in each case it is used with reference to the heavenly father. Like in the case here when Jesus was praying to his FATHER

Mark 14:36 - �And he went on to say: �Abba, Father, all things are possible to you; remove this cup from me. Yet not what I want, but what you want.

Jesus here was addressing his father in the heaven which obviously means he is the son!!!

Romans 8:15 - � by which spirit we cry out: �Abba, Father!�

The word abba in Aramaic means �father� and corresponds to the Hebrew ab (father)

What does the word Abba mean to you Muslims???

Edited by Kish - 02 March 2012 at 10:55pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Oh my God .OH MY GOD, Kish i...

Fri, 02 Mar 2012 08:46:57 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 02 March 2012 at 8:46am

Oh my God .OH MY GOD,

Kish i cannot believe you said that.

I have shown you where he said: " I am going to my Father and your Father

Who is Jesus refering to here??????
i am going to my father (Jesus farther )and to your farther (meaning that the farther of Jesus and the farther of the Jews were one and the same.)In english he meant our farther not Biological farther.Geez.

What language do you speak???????

You do not understand your own scripture.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Soooo, Hasan admitted that Jesus...

Wed, 29 Feb 2012 20:01:10 +0000

Author: Kish
Subject: 19811
Posted: 29 February 2012 at 8:01pm

Soooo, Hasan admitted that Jesus has a father!!! Even though it hated him to do so, which means Jesus can rightly call himself God's son!!!

Originally posted by honto

I have shown you where he said: " I am going to my Father and your Father

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by Kish Originally...

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:33:03 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 27 February 2012 at 3:33pm

Originally posted by Kish

Originally posted by honeto

Kish,
that is when Allah sent Jesus and gave him the Gospel. . . So let us go back to the question from where y'all took off dancing and distracting not to mention dodging. Show me one place where Jesus claimed, "I am God, worhip me".

Hasan, what happened to you? The bomb was dropped on you about the Gospel, Christians prevailing and now you are regurgitating the same question you posted on several other posts? This thread has been mainly on the Gospel, need I remind you.
Topic: The Holy Gospel did not evolve!
This non-Christian reference proved its point regarding the Gospel - Those who follow Jesus shall be made dominant over his rejectors till the day of Judgment. (The truth of this fourth prophecy is witnessed TO THIS DAY in the dominance of the Christians over the Jews.) (Ali, Holy Quran [Ahmadiyyah Anjuman Isha'at Islam Lahore Inc. USA, 1995], pp. 147-148, fn. 439;) ALL THIS WAS PROPHESIED IN THE GOSPEL!!
What did you come back with . . .

Originally posted by honeto

I have shown you where he said: " I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God" Let us read that loud: " to my FATHER AND YOUR FATHER, TO MY GOD AND YOUR GOD" I don't think we need any explanations here, its clear, and its powerfull.

Hasan, you cannot quote and believe in half a scripture to support your belief. Either you acknowledge the whole verse or none of it. In quoting this verse are you confirming that Jesus has a father?

I�ll wait for your answer since you want to change topics so bad when cornered.

Kish,

you follow Jesus as God, which he was not, Muslim follow Jesus (pbuh) as a prophet, what he was, thus we the Muslims are true in following Jesus for what he really was, we are his true followers, not you. And for your blasphemy against God by making Jesus, a man and a servant of God a God you will pay big time one day, truthfully speaking. I don't like to be diplomatic about this, God has made it clear in the scripture.

To asnwer your 2nd comment, no I don't follow half of the scripture nor reject the other half. That is only to use as a reference against those like you who say they believe it to be pure word of God. For me, it was word of God before it was corrupted by man, then God sent the Quran, pure word again for our guidance.

I just show you how your book does not hold to your claims, a sign and a proof of its corruption. "I am going to my God and your God" words of Jesus according to it is to open your eye and mind, to pay attention to what you claim teaches you that a man and servant of God is God. It canot be, either you are a servant of God, or you are God. Jesus, according to your Bible was a servant of God, who claimed he has a God.

Hasan

Edited by honeto - 27 February 2012 at 3:38pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Maryam 19:19, "He said...

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 08:29:06 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 21 February 2012 at 8:29am

Maryam 19:19,

   "He said "Nay", I am only a messenger from thy Lord (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son."

   "I am a messenger from your Lord, only to announce to you, the gift of a righteous son."

   Can you tell me which of these translated versions is the true one?

Translations and versions are totally different things.

You see in The Quraan you have different translations Muhamaduk Pikthall, Daryabadi,etc and they use different words the choice of words depend on the different translators.The Bible on the other hand have different versions.

Example,the Rheims or Douay version or the King James version.

The one has 66 books and the other has 72 books????

6 whole books were thrown out as a fabrication. Apocryphal books.You need to look into your own mess.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, You use the Bible word-for-word...

Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:15:20 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 20 February 2012 at 9:15pm

Hasan,

   You use the Bible word-for-word to point out what you feel are differences and discrepancies. But as I have said before, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. You can't use examples from the New Testament to prove your points when those points agree with your beliefs and dismiss the ones that do not correspond to your beliefs as "corrupted" text.

   Your arguments about the Bible are based on your perception that a Holy Scripture must be exact, word for word, exactly the same as all other Scriptures. But what version of these Scriptures are you using? Do you read the Bible in ancient Greek or Aramaic? English? Arabic? A translation is a translation and that means that the true essence of a writing cannot be translated into another language without difficulties and slight changes in content.

   This phenomenon is the same when the Qur'an is translated into a language other than Arabic, as into English, the same problems emerge. I cite the Qur'an simply as an example of how words can change or take on slightly different nuances when translated from one language to another. I have read differing translations of the Qur'an even on this website.

Maryam 19:19,

   "He said "Nay", I am only a messenger from thy Lord (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son."

   "I am a messenger from your Lord, only to announce to you, the gift of a righteous son."

   Can you tell me which of these translated versions is the true one?

   You use the arguments that since Jesus refers to God as His Father or His God, etc., it shows that Jesus says contradictory things, such as the belief among many Muslims on this site that Jesus cannot be God but only a servant of God since He was created by God.

   But Christianity is based on the concept of the Holy Trinity, which believes that Jesus Christ has a dual nature, as a man born into the world from a virgin mother and as part of the same substance as God Himself hence the name "Emmanuel" which translates as "God With Us." If you don't believe this then you can never understand the Christian's dogma concerning the true nature of Jesus Christ.

   Christians and Muslims are never going to agree with each other on every point simply because they are two different religions. They both have common characteristics, such as believing in one God (though, as I stated earlier, Christians and Muslims have widely differing ideas on what the true nature of God Himself is), revering the same people and prophets such as Jesus, Moses, Isaac, Ishmael, etc. But each religion has a slightly different take on people and events portrayed in the Qur'an or the Bible. And each faith has major differences with the basic theology of each other's religion.

   The best we can do is treat each other with tolerance and respectm for our similarities as well as our differences. We are all Children of God in the end.

Larry






Edited by Larry - 20 February 2012 at 10:06pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by hasanI...

Sat, 18 Feb 2012 19:08:04 +0000

Author: Kish
Subject: 19811
Posted: 18 February 2012 at 7:08pm

Originally posted by hasan

I have shown you where he said: " I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God" Let us read that loud: " to my FATHER AND YOUR FATHER, TO MY GOD AND YOUR GOD" I don't think we need any explanations here, its clear, and its powerfull.

Originally posted by kish

Hasan, you cannot quote and believe in half a scripture to support your belief. Either you acknowledge the whole verse or none of it. In quoting this verse are you confirming that Jesus has a father?

I�ll wait for your answer since you want to change topics so bad when cornered.

. . . My 3rd post and still no comment from Honeto/Hasan

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by LarryHasan, If...

Sat, 18 Feb 2012 14:51:49 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 18 February 2012 at 2:51pm

Originally posted by Larry

Hasan,

   If anyone is "dancing" it is you! If you can't answer questions then simply admit it rather than trying to bluff your way out of answering the questions asked of you or, your usual tactic, by simply asking your questions again. It's funny in a way, you accusing others of "dancing" and "dodging" when you are the master of these tactics. The mark of a true hypocrite!
   Your ignorance of even the most basic tenets of the Christian religion are painfully evident in any of your so-called "answers." Don't ask others to give answers to ill-informed and juvenile questions based on YOUR lack of understanding.
   The questions you are asking have been answered a number of times by myself and others. We can't help it if you do not have the capacity to understand those answers.

Larry

Larry,

let me simplify for you what I mean, current Bible contents are in disagreement within itself and that is a proven fact. Now you are left with one of the two options to accept! Either it is not from God, since God's word does not contradict itsef as you will agree, or it (the Bible) inconsistencies are due to human interference in it, in its evolution.

Hasan

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : KISH, Those who follow Jesus...

Sat, 18 Feb 2012 11:55:13 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 18 February 2012 at 11:55am

KISH,

Those who follow Jesus shall be made dominant over his rejectors till the day of Judgment.

(JESUS) NOT GOD! Jesus would not allow anyone even to call him
"good", let alone call him god, even with a small "g" .

"One came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing
shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
"And Jesus said unto him, WHY CALLEST THOU ME
GOOD? there is NONE GOOD BUT ONE, THAT IS GOD . .
." MATTHEW 19:16-I7
(JESUS') POWER NOT HIS OWN:
(a) "And Jesus came and spoke unto them, saying, All power is
GIVEN unto me in heaven and in earth." MATTHEW 28:18
(b) I can of mine own self DO NOTHING: as I hear, I judge . . ."
JOHN 5:30
(c) ". . . I by the FINGER OF GOD cast out devils . . ." LUKE 11:20
(d) "And Jesus lifted up his eyes (towards heaven), and said,
Father, I thank thee that THOU HAST HEARD ME.
   "And I know that THOU HEAREST ME ALWAYS: but
because of the people which stand by l said (my supplication
aloud), that THEY MAY BELIEVE that thou hast sent me.
   "And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice,
Lazarus, come forth.
"And he that was dead came forth . . ." JOHN 11:41-43
Who then gave life back to Lazarus? The answer is "GOD!" For God
heard the prayer of Jesus, as "always!"

WAS LUKE INSPIRED BY GOD TO SAY THAT JESUS (PBUH) WAS
THE SON OF JOSEPH?
   "And Jesus himself began to be ABOUT ("about" the Holy
Ghost did not know for sure) thirty years of age, being (AS WAS
SUPPOSED) the son of Joseph . . ." LUKE 3:23
The words "(as was supposed)" appearing in brackets are not in the
original Greek manuscript of Luke! These words are a gloss of the
translators.
In the different vernacular languages of the world, like Arabic,
Afrikaans, Zulu, etc. the words "as was supposed" are retained in the
translations but the brackets are removed. Thus by removing the
brackets the words become the declaration of Luke, and if Luke was
inspired then the words are transmuted into an utterance of God. This
is how easily the word of man is transformed into the word of God in Christianity

Edited by iec786 - 18 February 2012 at 12:01pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : You stated; ,"Saul, why...

Fri, 17 Feb 2012 20:11:16 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 17 February 2012 at 8:11pm

You stated;

   ,"Saul, why do you persecute me?"
   You quoted half the verse. Here is the full verse you can explain or you can keep quite (quiet?).
My Bible sayes Saul why kickest thou me against the PRIKS."

Acts; 9:4

   "Then he (Saul) fell to the ground, and heard a voice saying to him. "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?"

   That is the FULL VERSE. I paraphrased the statement in my answer as "...why do you persecute Me?" The actual words in the verse are "...why are you persecuting Me?"

   The actual verse you are referring to is verse 5. Maybe you should get a new Bible.

   My answer was to your statement, "We then have the writer of the NT Mr Paul who was Saul who was a Jew and wanted to kill Jesus."

   I pointed out that Saul persecuted early Christians, he did not want to "kill Jesus." (Which makes sense because Jesus was already dead and resurrected before Saul became "Paul")

   This is my final reply to any further questions or statements from you.



Edited by Larry - 17 February 2012 at 9:03pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : "But be it so, I did not...

Fri, 17 Feb 2012 08:48:34 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 17 February 2012 at 8:48am

"But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I CAUGHT YOU WITH GUILE" (What source did you use for this quote?) 2 Corinthians 12:16

, "Saul, why do you persecute me?"
You quoted half the verse.Here is the full verse you can explain or you can keep quite.
My Bible sayes Saul why kickest thou me against the PRIKS.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : iec786, Please read my earlier...

Wed, 15 Feb 2012 17:42:38 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 15 February 2012 at 5:42pm

iec786,

Please read my earlier reply to you on 30 January 2012. Nothing has changed. Find someone else to play word games with.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 17 February 2012 at 8:34pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : "But be it so, I did not...

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 23:06:06 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 13 February 2012 at 11:06pm

"But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I CAUGHT YOU WITH GUILE" (What source did you use for this quote?)

Sorry wrong verse.2 Corinthians 12:16.sticky key board.King James version.

You again did not read my post.
I said the Bible has several authors for us to decipher is virtually impossible. If you as a Christian with all your several different Bibles and denominations cannot decipher the Bible do not ask me to do it for you.

"Saul, why do you persecute me?"

My Bible sayes Saul why kickest thou me against the PRIKS.The words are rotten but this is what my Bible sayes.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : iec786, You ask "Why is...

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 14:20:52 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 13 February 2012 at 2:20pm

iec786,

   You ask "Why is it absurd (To believe that the Holy Gospel is only true and correct in specific instances when it supports your beliefs and opinions)?"

   Then you quote 2 Corinthians 12:1 to support your views. (I guess that is another one of the Holy Gospel's statements that are not "corrupt")

   "But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I CAUGHT YOU WITH GUILE" (What source did you use for this quote?)

   My New King James Bible says;

   2 Corinthians 12:1,

   "It is doubtless (NU: necessary, though not profitable, to boast) not profitable for me to boast. I will come to visions and revelations of the Lord."

   The "NU" is the most prominent modern Critical Text of the Greek New Testament, published in the twenty-sixth edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament and the third edition of the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament."

   In Christianity it is not necessary, and, in fact, since it is a translation of Greek and Aramaic, impossible, for the New Testament and Gospels to be perfect word for word.

   Just as it is impossible for an English language version of the Qur'an to be word-for-word perfect match with an Arabic language translation.

   And I repeat, it is simplistic and absurd to believe that any statement in the New Testament is word-for-word truth when it comes to validating a person's own personal beliefs concerning the the perfection of the Qur'an, while any statement in the New Testament that does not agree with the Qur'an is simply passed off as a corrupt version of the text.

   And you are correct that the Apostle Paul was once a Jew named Saul, who persecuted and killed Christians as apostates (not, as you state, to "kill Jesus"). He was on the Road to Damascus, to persecute the Christians there, when he fell from his horse and was struck blind and heard Jesus Christ address him and ask, "Saul, why do you persecute me?" From then on he was one of the foremost Christian believers and Apostles.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 13 February 2012 at 2:35pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : To believe that the Holy Gospel...

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 12:16:19 +0000

Author: iec786
Subject: 19811
Posted: 13 February 2012 at 12:16pm

To believe that the Holy Gospel is only true and correct in specific instances when it supports your beliefs and opinions is simplistic and absurd.

Why is it absurd?
You and Kish most certainly know for a fact that the Bible that you hold in your hand is not the veritable
word of God.In your Bible you have the word of God,the words of a prophet and the word of many copyists.All put together we call it mince meat.You cannot distinguish the wheat from the chaff.
The problem that we Muslims have is you cannot for certain verify the word of man the word of god and the words of the prophets.

We then have the writer of the NT Mr Paul who was Saul who was a Jew and wanted to kill Jesus.
PAUL : On his own admittance being cunning, used deceit:
"But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, being crafty, I
CAUGHT YOU WITH GUILE." 2 CORINTHIANS 12:1

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, I am in agreement with...

Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:00:54 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 12 February 2012 at 6:00pm

Hasan,

I am in agreement with Kish's statement. The problem with your arguments is that anything in the New Testament that you feel supports your opinions is presented as a word-for-word fact. Anything that contradicts what the Qur'an says you classify as a "corrupted" text. You can't have it both ways. Either the New Testament is corrupt in it's entirety or it is not. To believe that the Holy Gospel is only true and correct in specific instances when it supports your beliefs and opinions is simplistic and absurd.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 12 February 2012 at 6:02pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by honetoKish, that...

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 21:08:33 +0000

Author: Kish
Subject: 19811
Posted: 31 January 2012 at 9:08pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, If anyone is "dancing"...

Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:57:17 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 30 January 2012 at 12:57pm

Hasan,

   If anyone is "dancing" it is you! If you can't answer questions then simply admit it rather than trying to bluff your way out of answering the questions asked of you or, your usual tactic, by simply asking your questions again. It's funny in a way, you accusing others of "dancing" and "dodging" when you are the master of these tactics. The mark of a true hypocrite!
   Your ignorance of even the most basic tenets of the Christian religion are painfully evident in any of your so-called "answers." Don't ask others to give answers to ill-informed and juvenile questions based on YOUR lack of understanding.
   The questions you are asking have been answered a number of times by myself and others. We can't help it if you do not have the capacity to understand those answers.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 30 January 2012 at 1:02pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Larry and Kish,you guysare...

Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:48:09 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 30 January 2012 at 10:48am

Larry and Kish,

you guys are good at dancing, and I am not, I must admit.

So let us go back to the question from where y'all took off dancing and distracting not to mention dodging.

Show me one place where Jesus claimed, "I am God, worhip me".

I have shown you where he said: " I am going to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God"

Let us read that loud: " to my FATHER AND YOUR FATHER, TO MY GOD AND YOUR GOD"

I don't think we need any explanations here, its clear, and its powerfull.

For other issues, post them in appropriate threads please, and ASK, and their answers will be GIVEN.

Hasan

Edited by honeto - 30 January 2012 at 10:53am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by larryThere...

Sat, 21 Jan 2012 14:04:35 +0000

Author: Kish
Subject: 19811
Posted: 21 January 2012 at 2:04pm

Originally posted by larry

There is NO statement of Jesus or anyone else in the Bible and Gospels that foretell the coming of Muhammad (or even ahmad). ALL prophets in the Bible, Old or New Testaments, are called by NAME. Why wouldn't they use Muhammad's name if he was an authentic prophet? Surely God would have announced this new and final prophet, but He does not anywhere in the Bible.

Exactly Larry! Also, why didn�t Ishmael as well as the Ishmaelite through the twelve chieftains mention Muhammad? Ishmael had twelve sons and not ONE of them mentions ahmad, Muhammad or any prophet at that! Why is that Hasan? This kind of circular reasoning is ineffective to convince or persuade anyone to accept or believe this teaching of Muhammad.

Originally posted by honto

Also they made Jesus a servant of God in to son of God

What would this have to do with Muhammad being mentioned in the Bible or him being a prophet any way? Many Jews and ALL Christians believe Jesus to be the �son of God.� Jesus close disciples, Jews and non-Jews believed Jesus to be God son that is an issue only with Islam. The question Muslims have to face and be concerned with is this; did those in the Gospel prevail over their enemies as the Quran said they would? Yes or no Hasan?

. . . then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: But We gave power to those who believed (Christians) against their enemies, AND THEY BECAME THE ONES THAT PREVAILED. S. 61:14

Here is a non-Christian reference - Those who follow Jesus shall be made dominant over his rejectors till the day of Judgment. (The truth of this fourth prophecy is witnessed TO THIS DAY in the dominance of the Christians over the Jews.) (Ali, Holy Quran [Ahmadiyyah Anjuman Isha'at Islam Lahore Inc. USA, 1995], pp. 147-148, fn. 439;)

Christianity has indeed prevailed over Judaism and Islam.

Whether Muslims agree with or accept Christianities theology or not is not relevant, what is relevant is that Christianity would prevail according to the Gospel, and the Quran oddly enough agrees!

Edited by Kish - 21 January 2012 at 2:05pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, Quoting the Qur'an...

Thu, 19 Jan 2012 05:03:07 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 19 January 2012 at 5:03am

Hasan,

   Quoting the Qur'an to prove your points about the Qur'an or the Gospels is not exactly proof of the Qur'an's authenticity or the "blasphemy" of the followers of Jesus Christ, who wrote the Gospels in the first place.
   There is NO statement of Jesus or anyone else in the Bible and Gospels that foretell the coming of Muhammad (or even ahmad). ALL prophets in the Bible, Old or New Testaments, are called by NAME. Why wouldn't they use Muhammad's name if he was an authentic prophet? Surely God would have announced this new and final prophet, but He does not anywhere in the Bible.
   Muhammad is not called by name until the writing of the Qur'an centuries later. And if he was an authentic prophet why are there no SPECIFIC prophecies from him that later were proved to be accurate? This is the criteria of the Bible and Gospels concerning the truth and authenticity of a prophet.
   You say that Allah sent Jesus and gave him the Gospels, but the Qur'an omits ANY statement in the Gospels concerning the divine nature of Jesus Christ as the Son of God, which is the MAIN point and CENTRAL core belief and teaching of ALL the Gospels. Either the Gospels are completely and utterly corrupted, making them useless for all intents and purposes, or the Qur'an has it wrong.
   The Old and New Testaments fit together seamlessly in regard to prophecies made and fulfilled. The Qur'an does not match up well with either the Old or New Testaments, and covers this lapse by claiming that the Bible, and the Gospels within, are corrupt. This would be necessary to explain the wide differences between the Gospels and Qur'an.
   It seems that, as the saying goes, you want your cake and eat it too, in that anything in the Gospels that disagrees or contradicts any statements in the Qur'an is simply dismissed as corrupt, while using the remainder of the Gospels to support the authenticity and truth of the Qur'an.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 19 January 2012 at 5:32am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Kish,that is when Allah sent...

Wed, 18 Jan 2012 14:36:17 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 18 January 2012 at 2:36pm

Kish,

that is when Allah sent Jesus and gave him the Gospel. For his time, of course Allah is the Almighty and He does what he says.

Allah have also said in the same Quran you quoted that Jesus (pbuh) has told people of the coming of Prophet Mohammed (pbuh). And let me complete the story with the part of the Quran you avoided to mention, but for how long will you close your eyes, it is up to you.

61:6 (Y. Ali) And remember, Jesus, the son of Mary, said: "O Children of Israel! I am the apostle of Allah (sent) to you, confirming the Law (which came) before me, and giving Glad Tidings of an Messenger to come after me, whose name shall be ahmad." But when he came to them with Clear Signs, they said, "this is evident sorcery!"

There is evidence of the same in the Bible which has been posted on this forum many times before.

Jesus (pbuh) has never told people that he was God nor did he ever asked them to worship him, but many of his followers transformed of what he taught and evolved it into something completely opposite to what it was. Also they made Jesus a servant of God in to son of God and even God, may God almighty guide them to the right from this blasphemy of theirs.

5:116 (Y. Ali) And behold! Allah will say: "O jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah.?" He will say: "Glory to Thee! never could I say what I had no right (to say). Had I said such a thing, thou wouldst indeed have known it. Thou knowest what is in my heart, Thou I know not what is in Thine. For Thou knowest in full all that is hidden.

Hasan

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : The Quran testifies that the Gospel...

Sat, 07 Jan 2012 15:02:09 +0000

Author: Kish
Subject: 19811
Posted: 07 January 2012 at 3:02pm

The Quran testifies that the Gospel would prevail over ALL!

Behold! Allah said: "O Jesus! I will take thee and raise thee to Myself and clear thee (of the falsehoods) of those who blaspheme; I will make those who follow thee (Christians) SUPERIOR to those who reject faith (Israel), TO THE DAY OF RESURRECTION: Then shall ye all return unto Me, and I will judge between you of the matters wherein ye dispute." S. 3:55

Be ye helpers of Allah: as said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the Disciples, "We are Allah's helpers!" then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: But We gave power to those who believed (Christians) against their enemies, AND THEY BECAME THE ONES THAT PREVAILED. S. 61:14

Has the Gospel and Paul�s message prevailed against the unbelievers? A resounding YES!

Those who follow Jesus shall be made dominant over his rejectors till the day of Judgment. (The truth of this fourth prophecy is witnessed TO THIS DAY in the dominance of the Christians over the Jews.) (Ali, Holy Quran [Ahmadiyyah Anjuman Isha'at Islam Lahore Inc. USA, 1995], pp. 147-148, fn. 439;)

The teachings that dominated were those passed on by Christ followers (Christians) such as the Apostle Paul and Peter. How do we know it was not Islam at that time? No holy book to follow or a temple to worship in. Even now, Islam�s teachings are different from Christ� teachings, they contradict and are diametrically opposed !

Renowned commentary, Al-Qurtubi, says of Surah 61:14:
Ibn Ishaq stated that of the apostles and disciples that Jesus sent (to preach) there were Peter and PAUL who went to Rome; Andrew and Matthew who went to the land of the cannibals; Thomas who went to Babel in the eastern lands; Philip who went to Africa; John went to Dac-sos(?) which is the tribe to whom the sleepers of the cave belonged; Jacob went to Jerusalem; Bartholomew went to the lands of Arabia, specifically Al-Hijaz; Simon who went to the Barbarians; Judas and Barthas(?) who went to Alexandria and its surrounding regions.
Allah supported them (the apostles) with evidence so that they prevailed (thahirin) meaning they became the party with the upper hand. Just as it is said, "An object appeared on the wall" meaning it is clearly visible (alu-wat) on the wall.

Yes, al-Qurtubi admits that Paul was a legitimate follower of Christ!

That is why the Muslims in the past such as Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Kathir, al-Tabari, al-Qurtubi, and al-Thalabi all believed the Gospel of Jesus and the Ministry of Paul to be true!

No evolving here as the Quran affirms it was already established!

Kish

Edited by Kish - 07 January 2012 at 3:11pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, Since you can obviously...

Fri, 23 Dec 2011 00:25:12 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 23 December 2011 at 12:25am

Hasan,

Since you can obviously not read or understand me, I will try to make it easier for you. December 13 comes after December 12 and before December 14. If you still cannot understand my December 13 post, there is nothing further I can do to make it any clearer to you.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 23 December 2011 at 12:31am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Larry,in your December 11...

Thu, 22 Dec 2011 12:06:51 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 22 December 2011 at 12:06pm

Larry,

in your December 11 post you wrote: "It's not my fault that you can't understand the dual nature of Christ, even though I have given extensive remarks on this subject."

I am simply saying that it is not me who do not understand the dual nature you claim Jesus had. It is you who is unable to provide a proof to your claim.

I have provided you with verses that shows Jesus' human nature, you just have to provide a single verse where Jesus claims that he was God, a simple statement by him where he said: "I am God, worship me"

And please don't take offend by this simple question, nor treat is like I cannot understand your point.

Hasan

(on vacation in Mexico)

Edited by honeto - 22 December 2011 at 12:10pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, You just don't get...

Tue, 20 Dec 2011 21:17:10 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 20 December 2011 at 9:17pm

Hasan,

You just don't get it, do you? I am not "dragging" you into anything. Please see the last statement of mine to you above, posted on Dec. 13.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 20 December 2011 at 9:20pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Larry,I do not disrepect...

Tue, 20 Dec 2011 18:26:45 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 20 December 2011 at 6:26pm

Larry,

I do not disrepect people it is you who drag me into it.

You came up with a claim, which came down to "Jesus is God and also a human, a dual nature, according to you. I simply ask you show me one place in the Bible where he has said: " I am God" can you just do that?

On the other hand I have said that Jesus has a God, and he is not God nor equal to God. I have given you a 100% proof of that claim from your own Bible. Now if you cannot prove your claim, its not me who need to leave the conversation but the one who does not have a prove of his claim and does not accept the claim that has a 100% proof.

And please don't drag me into disrespecting again, its not my way.

Hasan

Edited by honeto - 20 December 2011 at 6:29pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, Evidently you cannot read,...

Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:26:05 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 13 December 2011 at 2:26pm

Hasan,

   Evidently you cannot read, as my last message was very specific as to how I viewed further comments on this subject. Your rudeness and disrespect simply continue as if you have read nothing of my posts, especially the last one.

   I said to you (again); "We can agree to disagree in a civil and respectful manner."

   But you have shown that you are neither a civil person nor a respectful one. Your continuous and childish badgering shows clearly your lack of manners and respect for the feelings and beliefs of others.

   Grow up and learn some civilized manners, Hasan

Larry

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by LarryHasan, It's...

Tue, 13 Dec 2011 13:56:40 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 13 December 2011 at 1:56pm

Originally posted by Larry

Hasan,

   It's not my fault that you can't understand the dual nature of Christ, even though I have given extensive remarks on this subject. I thought your questions were rude, repetitive and unneccessarily demeaning to me.

   "Please don't feel bad if you are unable to, I have great respect for bravery than hypocracy (hypocrisy).

   I do not have respect for someone who simply cannot go on with other things and insist over and over that my answers do not please them, or accord with their own religious beliefs or they do not understand. I am tired of being disrespected by you and your inability to know when to politely let go of something when it is obvious that the other person feels that he has given an adequate explanation and has CLEARLY expressed the fact that he does not wish to comment further.

   I said to you; "We can agree to disagree in a civil and respectful manner."

   Evidently you do not agree with my statement.

Larry

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Larry,

I do not disrespect people for what they believe. I do question them only when they come to me with a claim that is questionable and needs their explaining.

Thanks for clarifying with your statement that Jesus had dual nature, God and human at the same time, I guess that's what you mean, right?

If that's the case I will ask you to quote for me where Jesus reveals his nature as God. Remember I have shown you the quotes where Jesus (pbuh) has said, " for my Father is Greater than I" or " I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God". These verses clearly showed that Jesus (pbuh) has a God, who is greater than him. Now in order to prove your point, all I am asking you is to quote only a single verse where Jesus has claimed " I am your God, whorship me".

Hasan

Edited by honeto - 13 December 2011 at 2:05pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, It's not my fault...

Sun, 11 Dec 2011 23:32:25 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 11 December 2011 at 11:32pm

Hasan,

   It's not my fault that you can't understand the dual nature of Christ, even though I have given extensive remarks on this subject. I thought your questions were rude, repetitive and unneccessarily demeaning to me.

   "Please don't feel bad if you are unable to, I have great respect for bravery than hypocracy (hypocrisy).

   I do not have respect for someone who simply cannot go on with other things and insist over and over that my answers do not please them, or accord with their own religious beliefs or they do not understand. I am tired of being disrespected by you and your inability to know when to politely let go of something when it is obvious that the other person feels that he has given an adequate explanation and has CLEARLY expressed the fact that he does not wish to comment further.

   I said to you; "We can agree to disagree in a civil and respectful manner."

   Evidently you do not agree with my statement.

Larry

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."

Edited by Larry - 11 December 2011 at 11:48pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Larry, as a matter of respect...

Sun, 11 Dec 2011 20:56:19 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 11 December 2011 at 8:56pm

Larry,

as a matter of respect to your request I did check all of your posts that you mentioned and there is no answer to John 14:28.

Remember my simple answer to your statement that "Jesus and God the Father are equal and same" was that his (Jesus') statement according to John 14:28 "...for my Father is Greater than I". Those are not my words, nor of the Quran rather words of the same book that you claim are source of your statement that they are equal.

So all I am asking from you is how you live with that contradition, can you explain that without going in circles or writing other verses, rather asnwering John 14:28 and other similar verses where Jesus (pbuh) has shown to have depended upon God the Father, or have said to even have a God: " I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God".

But as of right now, I will not put all the burdon on you just address John 14:28. Please don't feel bad if you are unable to, I have great respect for bravery than hypocracy.

Hasan

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, I have answered your questions...

Tue, 06 Dec 2011 22:15:31 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 06 December 2011 at 10:15pm

Hasan,

I have answered your questions in my posts of November 17 and 23, and of December 3 and 4 in my previous posts listed above. If my answers do not suit you, you are free to dismiss them.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 06 December 2011 at 10:25pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Dear Everyone on this string, I...

Tue, 06 Dec 2011 14:44:28 +0000

Author: Jack Catholic
Subject: 19811
Posted: 06 December 2011 at 2:44pm

Dear Everyone on this string,

I notice that John 14:28 is back again. I have already dealt with this. So, I want to know if the Muslim used of this verse is a canned effort to get Christians to doubt their own faith, or what.

Jesus is one and the same Allah as Allah is. He said so himself. He also said the Father was greater than himself. The question is, how can Jesus be one and the same as Allah, yet Allah as the Father be greater than Allah the Son, who is Jesus. If you imagin that the second statement cancels out the first... is somehow a conflict, then you are not using the intelligence that God gave you. We must take two statements of fact and figure out how it is that they could both be true. In the discovery, we come to understand Allah a little better than if we just make ourselves into gods and begin declaring some truth to be null and void simply because it doesn't make sense together to our intellect at first glance.

We must start at the beginning with St. John, who was one of the youngest Apostles of Jesus and went everywhere with Jesus, hanging on every word that came out of Jesus' mouth and taking in everything that Jesus ever did. St. John says that Jesus is the Word of Allah. If we reflect on this, we come to understand how it can be that Jesus is one and the same Allah as Allah the Father, while Allah the Father is greater than Allah the Son, who is Jesus. I'll stop right here with this, so as to respect all of your maturity and intellects, and we'll just see where the discussion goes with this data. If you've read my explanations before, than you'll already know how I manage to put all of this truth together in an understandable way. But you must do this for yourself. So live the question till the answer becomes crystal clear. Will you accept this challange?

We shall see,

Blessings,

Jack Catholic

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Larry, I am not asking to change...

Tue, 06 Dec 2011 14:24:27 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 06 December 2011 at 2:24pm

Larry,

I am not asking to change your set belief, I am just asking you to adddress: "for my father is greater than I" John 14:28 and that is from the Bible, not the Quran. Do you believe that or not? That Father is greater than Jesus?

Hasan

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : BMZ, I appreciate your message...

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 03:22:45 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 04 December 2011 at 3:22am

BMZ,

   I appreciate your message but as I said to Hasan, my answers are spelled out clearly above.

   Since you do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God then, of course, you can't accept Jesus's words at face value.

   I don't know how else you could read the statement Jesus made to Philip.

   Philip asked, "Lord, show us the Father and it is sufficient for us."

   Jesus replies, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'show us the Father?'"

   It seems clear to me. But you are welcome to interpret it any way that you please.

   As to what Surah 3:39 refers to? I am not a Muslim, and I have no idea what the Qur'an is referring to.

   One thing that I have noticed is that when you, as well as Hasan, et al., refers to any statements in the Bible, every individual word is analyzed and you expect specific answers to the questions based on these specific words. But when I asked why the Qur'an refers to Jesus as a "holy" son, you replied that the "Arabic word is Zakiy-ya" which, with some translators, can mean "pure," "holy," "chaste," "noble," etc. So I guess you can read it any way that you want. You don't seem to require the same specificity of words that the Qur'an uses as you require of the Bible.

   Just an observation.

Peace,

Larry

Edited by Larry - 04 December 2011 at 3:46am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by LarryHasan, I...

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 01:46:12 +0000

Author: BMZ
Subject: 19811
Posted: 04 December 2011 at 1:46am

Originally posted by Larry

Hasan,

I didn't say that the Qur'an said that Jesus, son of Mary, was God. I said that in the Qur'an the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary to "announce to thee the gift of a holy son."

That is in Surah 19:19 and this is what the angel said to Mary:

He said, "I am only the messenger of your Lord to give you the good news of a righteous boy."

The Arabic word is Zakiy-ya, which means pure, holy, chaste, noble. Some translators use the word holy but that does not mean holy son of God.

Originally posted by Larry

I simply asked you to tell me if there are any other prophets in the Qur'an that are referred to as "holy?" And if not, why refer to Jesus that way?

If you look at what was said about John, who was also a word of God, in Surah 3:39, it may come to you as a shock:

"So the angels called him while he was standing in prayer in the chamber, "Indeed, Allah gives you good tidings of John, confirming a word from Allah and [who will be] honorable, abstaining [from women], and a prophet from among the righteous.""

Does this mean that Jesus did not stay away from women?

You need to read other Surahs, where it mentioned that all prophets were righteous and that word is supreme.

Qur'aan does not call Jesus exclusively holy. What it says it that Jesus was strenghtened by giving him a noble or a pure spirit, not contaminated by man at all (Ruhul quds in 5:110).

Originally posted by Larry

I asked why the Qur'an refers to Jesus as "Jesus Christ?" I said, "Christ", the Greek Khristos, meant "Anointed." In Hebrew it is Masiach or Messiah, the Promised One of God and Savior of mankind, that was prophesied in the Old Testament.

I simply wanted to know why the Qur'an refers to Jesus as "Christ," "the Anointed One" or "Messiah," since "Christ" is not part of Jesus' name, it is a title.

Messiah also means anointed in Hebrew and Aramaic. Qur'aan does not call him Christ. It calls him Maseeh.

Some translators use the word Christ.

Maseeh in Arabic is the same as Masiach, the anointed one. We have no Messiahs and are not waiting for any Messiah.

Hope this helped.

Edited by BMZ - 04 December 2011 at 1:46am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by LarryHasan, The...

Sun, 04 Dec 2011 00:41:09 +0000

Author: BMZ
Subject: 19811
Posted: 04 December 2011 at 12:41am

Originally posted by Larry

Hasan,

   The problem that you have is that you do not understand the nature of the Holy Trinity.

   In John Chapter 10, verses 27-30 Jesus says;

   27. "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.
   28. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.
   29. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand.
   30. I and My Father are one."

Hello, Larry

I was passing by, so some comments.

Jesus did not say, " My Father and I are the same person'.

Originally posted by Larry

   In John Chapter 14, verses 5-11 says;

   5. "Thomas said to Him (Jesus), "Lord, we do not know where You are going, and how can we know the way?
   6. Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, No one comes to the Father except through Me.
   7. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him."
   8. Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us."
   9. Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'show us the Father'?"
   10. "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works."
   11. "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves."
   12. "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father."
   13. And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son."

Jesus did not say, "Philip, I am the Father!"

Originally posted by Larry

In Matthew Chapter 28, verses 18-20;

   18. "And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth."
   19. "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
   20. "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. Amen."

Peter baptized people in the name of Jesus only. Please refer to Acts. Right? Why did he do that, if he had been told?

Matthew's verse is disputed and scholars doubt the integrity of that verse. It is considered a scribal addition.

Originally posted by Larry

You say, "The post I am referring to is about verses of the Bible that prove that Jesus was not God instead he has a God. That he was not equal to God, and that the Holy Ghost served God, and the one who serve God is not God. Do you dispute anyone of those?"

I think the above verses, and many other ones saying the same thing throughout the New Testament, should tell you what the nature of God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit really is. And it should also show what Jesus means when He refers to God as His "Father."

That is not correct. Jesus never referred to the Father in Heaven as "My father.

This is what, he told Mary: "Go instead to my brothers and tell them, �I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.��"

The Father was not his father! The Father was everybody's Father.

Salaams
BMZ

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, Whatever, Bud. My position...

Sat, 03 Dec 2011 20:59:45 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 03 December 2011 at 8:59pm

Hasan,

Whatever, Bud. My position is clearly stated in my replies above and remain the same. I know you do not accept the dual nature of Jesus Christ, His role as the Messiah, the Son of God, the Holy Spirit and the nature of the Holy Trinity, so there is little point in bickering back and forth about beliefs that neither of us has any intention of changing.
I respect your religious beliefs and expect you to respect mine also. We can agree to disagree in a civil and repectful manner. There will be other topics of discussion in the future and I expect to take part in some of them and look forward to an honest exchange of views with all the participants.

Larry

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Larry, now you are really lost....

Sat, 03 Dec 2011 15:43:56 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 03 December 2011 at 3:43pm

Larry,
now you are really lost. My quotes that you are unable to answer is not from anywhere else but your trusted book, the Bible.
You have been unsuccessfully dodging the truth, and you are unable to answer it and obviously too scared to accept it as a fact?
John 14:28, "the Father is greater than I" It was in objection to the claim by people like you who have set their minds without verifying the truth on the notion that Jesus and God (Father) are equal.
Hasan

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, Wikipedia? I have been...

Thu, 01 Dec 2011 00:21:32 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 01 December 2011 at 12:21am

Hasan,

Wikipedia? I have been criticized for using Wikipedia as a source material. I guess it's only OK if it advances the other person's agenda.
The article by Moiz Amjad? What a bunch of nonsense! Moiz uses almost two pages to supposedly answer a simple question, and his rambling, incoherent answers leave much to be desired. You should choose your sources more carefully.

Larry

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Ron, Either you do not understand...

Wed, 30 Nov 2011 23:42:28 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 30 November 2011 at 11:42pm

Ron,

Either you do not understand my replies above or you are just being obtuse. Either way, I have explained it enough times and if you still do not get it there is little that I can do to change your perceptions.

Larry

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by LarryYou...

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 22:02:06 +0000

Author: Ron Webb
Subject: 19811
Posted: 25 November 2011 at 10:02pm

Originally posted by Larry

You ask, "How do you explain John 14:28, "the Father is greater than I?"
By simply pointing (again) to John 14:8-13 ... And in John 10:27-30

But these passages do not explain John 14:28. If anything, they contradict it. John 14:28 clearly says that God is greater than Jesus. The other passages seem to say that they are equal or identical.

Moreover, Matthew 26:39 shows that Jesus' will can be different than God's. How can that be if they are the same Being?

How do you explain these contradictions?

Edited by Ron Webb - 25 November 2011 at 10:03pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by LarryHasan, I...

Fri, 25 Nov 2011 10:05:17 +0000

Author: Mansoor_ali
Subject: 19811
Posted: 25 November 2011 at 10:05am

Originally posted by Larry

Hasan,

I asked why the Qur'an refers to Jesus as "Jesus Christ?" I said, "Christ", the Greek Khristos, meant "Anointed." In Hebrew it is Masiach or Messiah, the Promised One of God and Savior of mankind, that was prophesied in the Old Testament.

I simply wanted to know why the Qur'an refers to Jesus as "Christ," "the Anointed One" or "Messiah," since "Christ" is not part of Jesus' name, it is a title.

You should read my questions a little more carefully before you throw them back in my face as you did.

Larry

To Larry

I am quoting "Jesus in Islam" taken from wikipedia.com

Another title frequently mentioned is al-Masīḥ, which translates to "the Messiah". This does not correspond to the Christian concept of Messiah, as Islam regards all prophets, including Jesus, to be mortal and without any share in divinity.

Muslim exegetes explain the use of the word masīh in the Qur'an as referring to Jesus' status as the one anointed by means of blessings and honors; or as the one who helped cure the sick, by anointing the eyes of the blind, for example.

Visit:Why does the Quran Call Jesus "Al-Messiah" By Moiz Amjad

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, I didn't say that...

Thu, 24 Nov 2011 00:11:13 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 24 November 2011 at 12:11am

Hasan,

   I didn't say that the Qur'an said that Jesus, son of Mary, was God. I said that in the Qur'an the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary to "announce to thee the gift of a holy son."

   I simply asked you to tell me if there are any other prophets in the Qur'an that are referred to as "holy?" And if not, why refer to Jesus that way?

   I asked why the Qur'an refers to Jesus as "Jesus Christ?" I said, "Christ", the Greek Khristos, meant "Anointed." In Hebrew it is Masiach or Messiah, the Promised One of God and Savior of mankind, that was prophesied in the Old Testament.

   I simply wanted to know why the Qur'an refers to Jesus as "Christ," "the Anointed One" or "Messiah," since "Christ" is not part of Jesus' name, it is a title.

   You should read my questions a little more carefully before you throw them back in my face as you did.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 24 November 2011 at 2:47am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Ron I agree with you that my...

Wed, 23 Nov 2011 19:10:01 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 23 November 2011 at 7:10pm

Ron

   I agree with you that my last post was inappropriate so I voluntarily removed it. I apologize to anyone who was offended by it.

   Ron, You could rightly call me a Jew because my religion is the fulfillment of Judaism, the result of the fulfillment of prophecies made by the Jewish prophets in the Old Testament. I, as with the Jews, also worship the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One!"
   Jesus, as well as Joseph and Mary, John the Baptist, and the Apostles, etc. were all Jews. The Apostle Paul was originally a Jew named Saul and he actually persecuted Christians as heretics against Judaism until he was struck blind on the road to Damascus (to persecute the Christians there) and heard the voice of Jesus asking, "Saul, why do you persecute Me?"

   You ask, "How do you explain John 14:28, "the Father is greater than I?"
   By simply pointing (again) to John 14:8-13.

   8. Philip said to him (Jesus), "Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us."
   9. Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'show us the Father'?"
   10. "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works."
   11. "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves."
   12. "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father."
   13. "And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son."

   And in John 10:27-30

   27. "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me."
   28. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand."
   29. My Father, who has given them to Me, IS GREATER THAN ALL; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand."
   30. "I AND MY FATHER ARE ONE" (emphasis mine)

   The reason that people are confused about Jesus as the servant of, and, at the same time, Jesus as the Son of God, is the dual nature of Jesus Christ. He was conceived by the Holy Spirit, but He was born and lived as a human being.
   Jesus's humanity is evident in what He said while in the Garden of Gethsemane just prior to His arrest.

   In Matthew 26:39,

   39. He (Jesus) went a little further and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, "Oh My Father, if it is possible, let this cup (His persecution and violent death) pass from Me, nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will."

   In Matthew 26:51-56, as He was being arrested;

   51. "And suddenly, one of those who were with Jesus stretched out his hand and drew his sword, struck the servant of the high priest, and cut off his ear."
   52. But Jesus said to him, "Put your sword in it's place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword."
   53. "Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide me with more than twelve legions of angels?"
   54. "How then could the Scriptures be fulfilled, that it must happen thus?"
   55. In that hour Jesus said to the multitudes, "Have you come out, as against a robber, with swords and clubs to take Me? I sat daily with you, teaching in the temple, and you did not seize me."
   56. "But all this was done that the Scriptures of the prophets might be fulfilled." Then all the disciples forsook Him and fled."

   In John 18:37

   37. "Pilate therefore said to Him, "Are you a king then?" Jesus answered, "You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice."

   In Matthew 26:63-68, as Jesus was being interrogated by the high priest, Caiaphas,

   63. But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, I put You under oath by the living God; Tell us if You are THE CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD!" (emphasis mine)
   64. "Jesus said to him, "It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."
   65. "Then the high priest tore his clothes, saying, "He has spoken blasphemy! What further need do we have of witnesses? Look, now you have heard His blasphemy!"
   66. "What do you think?" "They answered and said, "He is deserving of death."
   67. Then they spat in His face and beat Him; and others struck Him with the palms of their hands,"
   68. "saying, "Prophesy to us, Christ! Who is the one who struck You?"

   So it is obvious, from these and other citations, that Jesus was human and feared His coming violent and painful death, as any human would, and suffered the persecution and death that had been prophesied of Him.

   These things needed to happen in order to fulfill the prophecies made about the Messiah, the long prophesied Son of God.

   Matthew Chapter 27:26-31

   26. "Then he (Pilate) released Barabbas to them; and when he had scourged (beaten with a whip) Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified."
   27. "Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the Praetorium and gathered the whole garrison around Him."
   28. And they stripped Him and put a scarlet robe on Him."
   29. "When they had twisted a crown of thorns, they put it on His head, and a reed in His right hand. And they bowed the knee before Him and mocked Him, saying, "Hail, King of the Jews!"" (Ave, Rex Judorum!)
   30. Then they spat on Him, and took the reed and struck Him on the head."
   31. "And when they had mocked Him, they took the robe off Him, put His own clothes on Him, and led Him away to be crucified."

   700 years before these things happened, the Prophet Isaiah said in Chapter 53:3-6

   3. "He is despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and aquainted 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 (lit: "blows that cut in") 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."

Larry



Edited by Larry - 24 November 2011 at 3:07am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Larry, don't be surprised...

Wed, 23 Nov 2011 16:52:24 +0000

Author: Ron Webb
Subject: 19811
Posted: 23 November 2011 at 4:52pm

Larry, don't be surprised if the above post gets you banned. It's one thing to point out the shared symbols and traditions that Islam might have with earlier pagan religions, but calling it a "moon god cult" is gratuitously insulting and totally unjustified. (And this after having just complained that others were insulting you!) It's also illogical. Shall I call you a Jew because your religion has even more obvious historical roots in Judaism?

But before you're gone, I hope you will at least have a chance to give a straight answer to Hasan's excellent question. How do you explain John 14:28, "the Father is greater than I"? This is just basic math -- if the Father is greater then Jesus, then He cannot be equal to Jesus, can He?

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Message removed by Larry Edited...

Tue, 22 Nov 2011 04:13:20 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 22 November 2011 at 4:13am

Message removed by Larry

Edited by Larry - 23 November 2011 at 6:01pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Larry, are you kidding me to tell...

Mon, 21 Nov 2011 12:26:11 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 21 November 2011 at 12:26pm

Larry,
are you kidding me to tell you that somehow "anointed" means God? Of course it does not.
Are you kidding me to tell you that Quran says that Jesus, son of Mary (pbut) was God? Of course it doesnot.
Are you kidding me to tell you that because Jesus was born without a human father so we make God his father? Absolutely NO! You know you give an impression that you just entered the KG of religious understanding so you seem unaware of Oneness of God and its meanings. You forget that Adam and Eve did not have human father neither. As a matter of fact they did not have even a human mother. That is even a grander of a miracle. And that's what it is called, "a miracle" if you did not know. And whatever seems a miracle to us, not difficult at all for God. God created many other living and nonliving things Mr. Larry, including Satan, thus according to your innocent perception should we make God (may God forgive)their father? No, truly innocent.
So, please keep asking these questions, so you can get their answers that will bring benefit to you only if you don't deny the truth when it is made manifest to you.
Hasan

Edited by honeto - 21 November 2011 at 1:14pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, You frequently want others...

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 23:52:16 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 19 November 2011 at 11:52pm

Hasan,

   You frequently want others to answer your questions, but you have not even tried to answer ONE of the questions that I asked in my last post. Either you can answer them or you can't, at least be honest about it and not simply refuse to answer or act as though you never read them. I answered your questions with chapter and verse to back them up, which is your demand of others.
   There are only five simple questions, what are your answers? Thank you.

Larry


Edited by Larry - 20 November 2011 at 12:03am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Jack and Larry, I understand we...

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 14:37:24 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 19 November 2011 at 2:37pm

Jack and Larry,
I understand we cannot know all because we are humans, and this is not even what I am talking about. It is simply about you making a statement but unable to prove it without contradiction. And that's what it is all about when it comes to you, Larry and anyone who makes similar claims. If your claims are not in complete agreement with the source you base them in then that is pure contradiction and such claim is a false claim, or simply a claim but cannot be confirmed as truth. But when a claim is backed by a source that does agree with it a 100% only then you have an audience that can seriously look into it, and possibly benefit from it.
You and others like you who claim Jesus to be God or equal to God has failed to make it of any value since your source from where you base such a claim the Bible negate it at various places as I outlined in my so many posts. Remember, even if some place show him equal to God or as God only increase the evidence against your own claim, since there are just too many places that show Jesus only as a servant of God, not equal to God, and having a God.
So to recap, your claim that Jesus is God or that Jesus and God (the Father) are equal in power with whatever supporting verse you might have come into contradiction when looked elsewhere into your own source, the Bible. You can call whatever you want to call it, find comfort of faith after those facts are manifest, but for me it shows only one thing obviously clear, that there is something wrong, either with that claim of yours or its source, or both.
Just a reminder, God wants us to follow only truth and what we find out in a truthful honest way. covering up the truth or closing your eyes from fact only lead us into unknown path and possibly to our own loss, forever.

Hasan

Edited by honeto - 19 November 2011 at 3:33pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Dear Hasan, I do know of what...

Sat, 19 Nov 2011 07:50:57 +0000

Author: Jack Catholic
Subject: 19811
Posted: 19 November 2011 at 7:50am

Dear Hasan,

I do know of what quotes you are posting, but I have to agree with Larry on this: ""Basic commonsense rules" do not apply to God Himself, or do you think that God operates by, or is limited, by "basic commonsense rules"?

As a Christian, I do not believe that we can completely understand the thinking of Allah any more than a man might fully understand the mind of a woman, or a woman understand that of a man. But I do believe that we can use common sense and logic to attempt the understanding. It is very clear throughout the OT and NT of the Holy Bible that Allah is not just intellectual, but is clearly motivated by matters of the heart. The heart does not always follow logic or common sense, especially when love is as lavish as that of Allah for his believers.

Something to think about...

Allah's blessing, Hasan,

Jack Catholic

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, The problem that you have...

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 22:40:28 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 17 November 2011 at 10:40pm

Hasan,

   The problem that you have is that you do not understand the nature of the Holy Trinity.

   In John Chapter 10, verses 27-30 Jesus says;

   27. "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.
   28. And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand.
   29. My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father's hand.
   30. I and My Father are one."

   In John Chapter 14, verses 5-11 says;

   5. "Thomas said to Him (Jesus), "Lord, we do not know where You are going, and how can we know the way?
   6. Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, No one comes to the Father except through Me.
   7. If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; and from now on you know Him and have seen Him."
   8. Philip said to Him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is sufficient for us."
   9. Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and yet you have not known Me, Philip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say, 'show us the Father'?"
   10. "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works."
   11. "Believe Me that I am in the Father and the Father in Me, or else believe Me for the sake of the works themselves."
   12. "Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me, the works that I do he will do also; and greater works than these he will do, because I go to My Father."
   13. And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son."

   In Matthew Chapter 28, verses 18-20;

   18. "And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth."
   19. "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
   20. "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. Amen."

   You say, "The post I am referring to is about verses of the Bible that prove that Jesus was not God instead he has a God. That he was not equal to God, and that the Holy Ghost served God, and the one who serve God is not God. Do you dispute anyone of those?"

   I think the above verses, and many other ones saying the same thing throughout the New Testament, should tell you what the nature of God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit really is. And it should also show what Jesus means when He refers to God as His "Father."

   Even the Qur'an refers to Jesus as the "Christ", which comes from the Greek word, "Khristos," which means "the Anointed One." In Hebrew the word is Masiach, or Messiah, the promised One of God.

   Why would the Qur'an refer to Jesus as the "Anointed One", the Messiah promised by God, and prophesied by many Prophets in the Old Testament?

   In the Qur'an, the angel Gabriel said he came to Mary to "announce to thee the gift of a holy Son" from God. Since Jesus did not have a human father, who do you believe the father of Jesus is?

   And how many other prophets in the Qur'an are referred to as "holy?"

   In your view, do you believe the miraculous birth of Jesus Christ, follows "basic commonsense rules?"

   As I asked in my post to you, "Basic commonsense rules" do not apply to God Himself, or do you think that God operates by, or is limited by "basic commonsense rules?"

   I would appreciate your answers to these questions, as I answered the questions you asked me.

   Thank you, Hasan.

Larry


Edited by Larry - 17 November 2011 at 11:11pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Jack, thanks for making your reply...

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 15:24:01 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 17 November 2011 at 3:24pm

Jack,
thanks for making your reply readable.
Your first point that God the father, Jesus the son of God and Holy ghost are all same God is not correct according to the OT, NT, and the Final Testament. All three negate your claim. But since you are only sticking to OT and NT, I will respect that, and use references from them only as I am confident I will still be able to show you enough evidence that neither Jesus and Father are equal, nor Holy ghost and Father. The three are not equal, thus make sense to not think of Jesus and holy ghost as God or equal to God. Only what is referred to as God the Father is what is God.
When Jesus says, according to the Bible, "for my father is greater than I" that throws your claim out of the window that they are somehow equal.
When Jesus says, according to the Bible: " I am going to my God and your God" it throws your claim deeper into the sea that "Jesus is God".
Holy ghost, you claim is God and is equal to God. That claim goes out of the window as well when we see numerous quotes in the Bible suggesting that it (the holy ghost) is under God's command, because it is sent to whomever God (Father) sends, "Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name" explains that one is subject to the other so one can send the other. In this case "holy Ghost" being sent by God making it clear that God (Father) is the boss, show me one place in the Bible where Holy Ghost or Jesus sends God (father) for an errand, otherwise you have lost this argument of yours that God the father, God the son (Jesus) and God the holy ghost are all equal, and are all God.
Can your 99% prove any of your claim?, please don't write stories, I only accept proves, verse. Like my post each verse proves my point. Can you do that, simply or!
Hasan

Edited by honeto - 17 November 2011 at 3:35pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Larry, I don't know what...

Thu, 17 Nov 2011 14:49:04 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 17 November 2011 at 2:49pm

Larry,
I don't know what you are talking about. The post I am referring to is about verses of the Bible that prove that Jesus was not God instead he has a God. That he was not equal to God, and that Holy Ghost served God, and the ohe who serve God is not God. Do you dispute anyone of those?

Please go back to my post again to read and respond, Thanks,
Hasan

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hasan, I think you are on somewhat...

Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:25:24 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 16 November 2011 at 1:25pm

Hasan,

I think you are on somewhat dangerous theological ground when you declare what God can and cannot do. God caused Mary to bear a holy Son, Jesus, without an earthly father. This idea, taken at face value, would also seem not to be logical either, or follow "basic commonsense rules," but it is the truth. Do you personally know the mind of God? "Basic commonsense rules" do not apply to God Himself, or do you think that God operates by, or is limited, by "basic commonsense rules"?

Larry

Edited by Larry - 16 November 2011 at 1:33pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Dear Hasan, I will print all...

Wed, 16 Nov 2011 06:35:17 +0000

Author: Jack Catholic
Subject: 19811
Posted: 16 November 2011 at 6:35am

Dear Hasan,

I will print all that you have posted, and I�ll respond in green (my favorite color). It seems in this post of yours that you are exasperated with me for not admitting that you are right and I have been wrong. But the reason that I do not admit that you are right is because I cannot admit what is not right. Let us continue and you shall see.

You had posted, �as far as the topic at hand, only the contents of the book will prove it as they did in previous pages.
I remember in a previous post you said: "In fact, the only evidence you have shown that Jesus and the Holy Spirit serve God as separate beings obeying the one God is your own opinion and misinterpretation."

That turns out to be just your empty opinion as I always back up what I say with solid proofs, verses from your own source. According to you All three of the Trinity are equal in power, equal in godhead. I quoted you verses that prove you wrong. The verses that show clearly that Jesus was in fact a servant of Allah. Now if you have lost sense what a servant means, or the one who serves someone else if not God. One who depends on someone else is not God. One who has a God is not God. One who is sent by someone else is not God. Remember God is not sent by someone. It is only God who no one can send, do you comprehend that?
Do you comprehend what Jesus says, someone is greater than him means they are not equal. If you have problem with these basic common sense rules please drop off from this conversation.

Yes, Hasan. It is fact that Allah the father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all different persons of one and the same Allah. The first century Catholic Church explained Jesus as the Word of God become man, and the Holy Spirit is the Presence and Power of Allah (which Isla has shown by his excellent investigation into Jewish teaching is the belief of the Jews as well regarding the Holy Spirit.) I think I have gone over all this before, even to the point of sighting my first century Catholic extrabiblicle source for this data to show that what I am saying is not my personal belief, nor is it recent modern Catholic thought that has evolved over time. No, this belief is from the very community that Jesus started during that first 100 years, and as I will again show you, the verse you are quoting does not negate this perspective unless you are misinterpreting it.

All of these quotes that I have given you before, and will give you again clearly negate your claim that God is a Trinity where Jesus and Holy Ghost are also equal with God (the Father).
John 5:30
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA) (Excelent choice, my friend. This is a solid Catholic and extremely reliable English translation of the Holy Bible.)
30 I cannot of myself do any thing. As I hear, so I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not my own will, but the will of him that sent me.

Dear Hasan, Jesus showed us by example how to serve Allah so that we, too, would in imitation of Jesus also be servants to Allah. But Jesus is so much more than a servant. He is the very son of Allah and has said as much. You know this and where it says this, so it is not necessary for me to show any verses to prove the fact that he has said so. Allow me to repeat how it is that Jesus cannot of himself do anything in regards to his own will. We will compare Jesus again to a thumb. He is, in fact the Word of Allah, but I think for you this explanation is confusing. So let us just substitute �thumb� in comparison for �word.� The thumb is indeed the same as the man to whom the thumb belongs. The thumb cannot be separate, for if it were, it would simply die and cease to be a thumb. But the thumb does not have a will of its own. Thus it cannot do its own will. If left to its own will, it could do nothing because it cannot have its own will. But the person can tell the thumb to press a key into a lock or press a button to make a blender work. But even though the thumb must do what the person says (the person�s will), yet the thumb is still a part of the person. The thumb is equal in that it is part of the person (if the thumb presses a button, a man doesn�t say, �My thumb pressed the button,� but rather says, �I pressed the button�), while at the same time being lesser in that it is a thumb and cannot have its own will, as Jesus cannot have. It is in this perspective that Jesus seeks not His own will, but the will of the Father. Again, Jesus does this because he does not have a separate will of his own. Jesus never claims to be a servant of Allah, but rather does point out that we must serve Allah he does. When I tell my thumb to push or grab something, it does my will, though it is a part of me. My will is my thumbs will, as my thumb is me. When Allah tells his words to accomplish something, such as creating the earth, his words do so, though they are a part of Allah. When Allah tells Jesus to do something, Jesus does it, though Jesus is one and the same God as Allah. Can you understand what I am trying to say, Hasan? It is abstract, I know. But it is the truth. I cannot drop off this conversation because what I say is the truth. I should not be quiet just because what I know of the truth does not match what you believe. Rather, if I know something of the truth which you do not know, I should stand on the roof top and shout it out loud and clear so that you may hear and understand.

You say that �one who depends on someone else is not God.� So if my thumb depends upon me, does that mean it is not me? If it is not me, can I get rid of it? What about my foot which depends upon me? Can I get rid of that, too? Can I get rid of my hands, arms, legs, and skin? They depend upon me, so they must not be me, according to you assertion. How about my eyes, ears, nose and tongue? They depend upon me, and so are not really me, right? And my heart? Now that is an interesting part of me. I depend upon it. Does that mean that I am not really me because I depend upon my heart? Can I get rid of me and leave only my heart? What would happen then? Have I made my point, Hasan? Your assertion is made from a limited vision of the big picture. I am trying to explain to you the big picture. Jesus is Allah, as is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is one with Allah in that the Holy Spirit is defined by both Judaism and Christianity as the Presence and Power of Allah. If we are speaking of the Presence of Allah, who is present? Allah, of course. But this is not what you are talking about, is it? I hope you can comprehend the truth that I am trying to explain regarding the verse you have produce from the Holy Bible...

Jesus is clearly admitting that of himself he cannot do anything. (Remember, Jesus said �of himself�. Without Allah, Jesus is as useless as a thumb that has been cut off. I hope you can comprehend this.) And we know God can do anything, if he was really God, he would not say that. Then he went on to say that I do not follow my own will, but the will of God because my will may not be just, (no, Hasan, he did not say that his own will may not be just. Read the verse again. He said, �and my judgment is just; because I seek not my own will, but the will of him that sent me.� He does not comment on his own will. Be careful not to read into the verse what is not there. The context of the part about his will is that he cannot of himself do anything, suggestion that without Allah, he has no will and so cannot do anything. If he had a will of his own, then he could do things of himself, couldn�t he?) at least that's what he is suggesting and how true, a mortal's will may not be just, so he follows the will of the one who knows all when judging. And "who sent me" only God is the one no one can send, Jesus sent by God, yes I believe that, thus the one who is sent by God cannot be, and is not God.
All of that according to your own book. What a pity that it even negate what you associate with it and believe in. Hasan, it doesn�t negate what I said.

There is too many things Mr. Jack that your 1% claim lost in transformation will have to absorb. (I never said that 1% was lost in transformation. Perhaps you should go back and reread what I wrote. I wrote that 1% of the Holy Bible cannot be verified by current sources. Again, please do not read what I didn�t say into what I have said.) I have many more to list. But because of my habit of taking one thing at a time so not cause distraction, I will wait for your response before I post next verse. You still have not proven anything. I look forward to whatever else you might have.

Allah�s blessings to you, my friend,

Jack Catholic

P.S. The orriginal Latin Vulgate of St. Jerome is in the Latin Vulgate. It�s text is also now online.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Jack, I think that would be a...

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:32:46 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 15 November 2011 at 3:32pm

Jack,

I think that would be a very good and interesting topic for discussion. As I am a little bit at a loss how to start a new discussion board in the right way, perhaps you could start it off? Thanks, Bud.

Larry

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Jack, its Ok to some times be...

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 14:36:19 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 15 November 2011 at 2:36pm

Jack,

its Ok to some times be lost or distracted, but care to address my two posts (above) my dear friend!

Hasan

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Dear Hasan, I will print all...

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 12:11:32 +0000

Author: Jack Catholic
Subject: 19811
Posted: 15 November 2011 at 12:11pm

Dear Hasan,

Allah�s blessings to you, my friend,

Jack Catholic

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Dear Larry, It would be quite...

Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:46:13 +0000

Author: Jack Catholic
Subject: 19811
Posted: 14 November 2011 at 11:46am

Dear Larry,

It would be quite an interesting string to discuss the prophesies of the Holy Bible (OT and NT), and Holy Qur'an to show prophesies that were made and their fullfillment. This would be quite telling. I don't know if you are still on the forums. If not, maybe someone else would like to create such a string.

Blessings,

Jack Catholic

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Jack, as far as the topic at hand,...

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 11:10:34 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 08 November 2011 at 11:10am

Jack,
as far as the topic at hand, only the contents of the book will prove it as they did in previous pages.
I remember in a previous post you said:
"In fact, the only evidence you have shown that Jesus and the Holy Spirit serve God as separate beings obeying the one God is your own opinion and misinterpretation."
That turns out to be just your empty opinion as I always back up what I say with solid proofs, verses from your own source. According to you All three of the Trinity are equal in power, equal in godhead. I quoted you verses that prove you wrong. The verses that show clearly that Jesus was in fact a servant of Allah. Now if you have lost sense what a servant means, or the one who serves someone else if not God. One who depends on someone else is not God. One who has a God is not God. One who is sent by someone else is not God. Remember God is not sent by someone. It is only God who no one can send, do you comprehend that?
Do you comprehend what Jesus says, someone is greater than him means they are not equal. If you have problem with these basic common sense rules please drop off from this conversation.
All of these quotes that I have given you before, and will give you again clearly negate your claim that God is a Trinity where Jesus and Holy Ghost are also equal with God (the Father).
John 5:30
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
30I cannot of myself do any thing. As I hear, so I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not my own will, but the will of him that sent me.

Jesus is clearly admitting that of himself he cannot do anything. And we know God can do anything, if he was really God, he would not say that. Then he went on to say that I do not follow my own will, but the will of God because my will may not be just, at least that's what he is suggesting and how true, a mortal's will may not be just, so he follows the will of the one who knows all when judging. And "who sent me" only God is the one no one can send, Jesus sent by God, yes I believe that, thus the one who is sent by God cannot be, and is not God.
All of that according to your own book. What a pity that it even negate what you associate with it and believe in.

There is too many things Mr. Jack that your 1% claim lost in transformation will have to absorb. I have many more to list. But because of my habit of taking one thing at a time so not cause distraction, I will wait for your response before I post next verse.
Hasan

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Jack, can you name a source where...

Tue, 08 Nov 2011 09:41:12 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 08 November 2011 at 9:41am

Jack,
can you name a source where there is an original copy is, one that is printed 1400 years ago?
Hasan

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Dear Hasan, There are 8000...

Fri, 04 Nov 2011 05:57:52 +0000

Author: Jack Catholic
Subject: 19811
Posted: 04 November 2011 at 5:57am

Dear Hasan,

There are 8000 copies of the Latin Vulgate in existance today. They all are the official Catholic version of the Holy Bible even today. And yes, they are accurate to the modern English translations of today. You can access the text of the Latin Vulgate on the internet if you are interested.

Allah's blessings,

Jack Catholic

Edited by Jack Catholic - 04 November 2011 at 6:03am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Is there one in existence today...

Mon, 31 Oct 2011 14:33:52 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 31 October 2011 at 2:33pm

Is there one in existence today that old, where, and it is same as what you and I have today as the NT?

Hasan

Edited by honeto - 31 October 2011 at 2:59pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Dear Hasan, Simple answer:...

Thu, 27 Oct 2011 22:22:25 +0000

Author: Jack Catholic
Subject: 19811
Posted: 27 October 2011 at 10:22pm

Dear Hasan,

Simple answer: Latin Vulgate (older than1400 years).

God bless you, bud,

Jack Catholic

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Jazakallah brother, how some people...

Wed, 26 Oct 2011 15:04:37 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 26 October 2011 at 3:04pm

Jazakallah brother,
how some people can deny facts and still look you straight in the face, I wonder what goes through their mind when they try to cover up the truth.
Hasan

Edited by honeto - 26 October 2011 at 3:05pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by honetoJack, I...

Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:19:42 +0000

Author: islamispeace
Subject: 19811
Posted: 24 October 2011 at 5:19pm

Originally posted by honeto

Jack,
I just asked you if there is? you have not provided an answer that says, yes there is. Buts if ifs are not what I am looking for. So I guess your answer is no. I do not need a history of what happened and who did what. All I asked if there was an identical Bible somewhere on this planet 1400 years old that is identical to the one you and I have?
Let me even give you a bit easier task, if you believe that for 2000 years your Bible did not change. Let me give you 400 years discount, that is a huge discount, tell me if there in any Museum or place there exists a thousand year old copy of the Bible identical to the one you and I have.
Please no lengthy explanation, just a short precise answer.
Thanks,
Hasan

Brother, he can't give a straight answer because there is no copy of the Bible which is identical to the modern Bible. He knows it but instead of saying it, he resorts to the same mental gymnastics he has been taught by the Church. It gets boring after a while.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Jack, I just asked you if there...

Mon, 24 Oct 2011 15:41:41 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 24 October 2011 at 3:41pm

Jack,
I just asked you if there is? you have not provided an answer that says, yes there is. Buts if ifs are not what I am looking for. So I guess your answer is no. I do not need a history of what happened and who did what. All I asked if there was an identical Bible somewhere on this planet 1400 years old that is identical to the one you and I have?
Let me even give you a bit easier task, if you believe that for 2000 years your Bible did not change. Let me give you 400 years discount, that is a huge discount, tell me if there in any Museum or place there exists a thousand year old copy of the Bible identical to the one you and I have.
Please no lengthy explanation, just a short precise answer.
Thanks,
Hasan

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Dear Hasan, Perhaps you should...

Tue, 18 Oct 2011 16:14:20 +0000

Author: Jack Catholic
Subject: 19811
Posted: 18 October 2011 at 4:14pm

Dear Hasan,

Perhaps you should read my post again. I said that I don't have a 1400 year old Holy Bible in my posetion which I have personally read. But in fact, there are, if you read the link I gave you, many translations, the Latin Vulgate being one of them, in their entirety which are much older than 1400 years and which verify what we have today. So I don't think you quite made the point which you have asserted. Also, in another string on this forum, the case has been made that the Holy Qur'an is not an orriginal, but a compilation of other Qur'anic versions which were destroyed soon after the current Holy Qur'an was compiled and rewritten. I don't think you can compare the two without opening a huge can of worms, as the Holy Bible was not a single compiled work and the orriginal 4 Gospels then destroyed to prevent confusion. For if you tried to make this kind of a comparison, then the rebuttle would simply be that the Holy Bible in this respect is more orriginal than the Holy Qur'an, as it can be traced back to the exact wording of its many authors, and the Holy Qur'an cannot.

Allah's blessing on you, my friend,

Jack Catholic

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : What we Christians do have is...

Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:28:43 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 17 October 2011 at 7:28pm

   What we Christians do have is a religion that is almost 700 years older than the founding of Islam. This religion comes out of Judaism which is more than 1,500 years older than Islam. Islam takes much of it's content directly from the Old and New Testaments, it's Patriarchs, Prophets, Personages, Historical events, etc.
   Islam hijacks these things, creates them by combining them with pre-Islamic pagan Arabic practices and beliefs (such as the Hajj and Jinn) and then claims that Judaism and Christianity have "corrupted" their own religions!
   Muslims seem to be very insecure in their beliefs as some constantly need to use any argument to "prove" their religion is the only true one. One of these supposed "proofs" is that the Qur'an is the same after 1,400 years. Well, 1,400 years AFTER Uthman "standardized" the text and ordered the burning of any variant versions.
   Islam developed it's "book" after seeing that Judaism and Christianity both had their own "books."
   In Judaism and Christianity we don't measure the truths of our religions on whether our "books" are identical in all respects, it isn't possible in works that date back at least 3,000 years in the case of the Torah and 2,000 years in the case of Christianity.
   Judaism and Christianity come out of the same sources and prophecies in the Old Testament are fulfilled in the New Testament. The Bible says that the proof of a prophet is in the accuracy of their prophecies. This is seen time and again in the Old and New Testaments but it is not seen in the Qur'an.
   Muhammad made no specific "prophecies" as a prophet that later were proven to be true, but this was not the case with many prophecies in the Old Testament by a large number of Old Testament prophets. There is NO mention in either the Old or New Testament that regard the person of Muhammad or any of his supposed prophecies. But ALL the other prophets are mentioned BY NAME.
   People can believe whatever they want to believe but a comparison of the Old Testament, New Testament and the Qur'an shows that the first two are directly connected by mutual beliefs and fulfilled prophecies while the Qur'an is significantly different in almost every respect.
   Prophets are supposed to make specific prophecies that can later be seen to be fulfilled EXACTLY as they were prophecied. There are no such revealed and fulfilled "prophecies" in the Qur'an.
   If numbers are your "proof" of a religion then it will show that Christianity has 2.4 Billion followers versus 1.6 Billion followers of Islam. That is 800 million more Christians than Muslims.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Jack, the answer is because you(Christians)don't...

Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:38:57 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 17 October 2011 at 3:38pm

Jack,

the answer is because you (Christians) don't have a 1400 year old copy of your book to confirm that what you have in your hands today is same as then, we Muslims do. Our book the Quran is word for word same as it was 1400 years ago, as there are copies of Quran in existance today from that time.

That challenge to you was with a 600 year discount, you could not even meet that!

May Allah guide.

Hasan

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Dear Hasan, I really do not...

Fri, 14 Oct 2011 07:23:41 +0000

Author: Jack Catholic
Subject: 19811
Posted: 14 October 2011 at 7:23am

Dear Hasan,

I really do not have enough back ground to answer your question. I certainly don't have a 1400 year old copy of the Holy Bible in my posession. I know there are many translations into various languages since the first century and they are listed and discussed at this website:

http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/bib-qur/bibmanu.htm

but I have never read them and so don't know their content. Say, didn't I ask you earlier in this discussion to show a 1400 year old Holy Bible that differed extensively from the modern bibles we have now? I don't think you ever answered the question...

God Bless,

Jack Catholic

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Well, we Christians didn't...

Fri, 14 Oct 2011 03:51:54 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 14 October 2011 at 3:51am

Well, we Christians didn't have a "book burning" party like Uthmans so I guess we will never know if ANYONE'S "book" is identical 1,400 years later.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Jack, please read my question...

Thu, 13 Oct 2011 15:06:35 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 13 October 2011 at 3:06pm

Jack,
please read my question again, here I write it again for you:
"Now can you point to me if anywhere in the world there is a copy of the Bible 1400 years old, that is identical to the one you and I hold in our hands, and I will give you 1% margin of error benefit.
It is a simple question, can you tell me answer as straight as the question is.

Hasan

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Dear Hasan, Might I suggest...

Mon, 10 Oct 2011 17:02:09 +0000

Author: Jack Catholic
Subject: 19811
Posted: 10 October 2011 at 5:02pm

Dear Hasan,

Might I suggest the following websight. In just one page it sights all of the scriptureal manuscripts discovered by archeologists and what they contain, as well as their dates of authorship. It also discusses many nonscriptural material discovered which quotes from the Holy Bible during the first 100 years of the Christian church and discusses how from them can be reconstructed nearly all of the Holy Bible, and with all of this evidence compared one to another, the Holy Bible checks out to 99% accuracy, which means that only 1% of the Holy Bible cannot be verified accurate due to lack of sufficient evidence.

Do you want to argue with these sources? Many scientists, archeologist, and other scholars have poured many hours and resources into finding, cross referencing and verifying the accuracy of the Holy bible to its orriginal manuscripts. How does your opinion hold up against this. If you are interested in truth, check out this website, or do your own reseach: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html

Allah Bless you, Hasan,

Jack Catholic

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Jack, I knew you could not mean...

Mon, 10 Oct 2011 15:27:56 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 10 October 2011 at 3:27pm

Jack,

I knew you could not mean what you say you do, now you are adding to your answer "1%".

Now can you point to me if anywhere in the world there is a copy of the

Bible 1400 years old, that is identical to the one you and I hold in our hands, and I will give you 1% margin of error benefit.

Hasan

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Dear Hasan, You're welcome....

Wed, 05 Oct 2011 14:19:40 +0000

Author: Jack Catholic
Subject: 19811
Posted: 05 October 2011 at 2:19pm

Dear Hasan,

You're welcome. Remember, I said 1%, and that's it. As time and archeology continue to uncover more stuff and evidence, this 1% may become verifiable. Don't start gloating, as the message and teaching of the NT have not altered since the beginning with Jesus himself, and they check out with the Torah, as I have repeatedly and consistantly shown. So you have failed to prove that the NT has evolved. Unless you doggedly hold on to the evidence that I have consistantly shown to be in error, or be inaccurate, but hey, that is your perrogative. Any more challanges? Lay them out, dear friend, and we'll go to it.

God bless,

Jack Catholic

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Jack, thanks for your answers...

Wed, 05 Oct 2011 12:47:56 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 05 October 2011 at 12:47pm

Jack,

thanks for your answers to my questions and clearing for me that you do believe the NT and OT to be altered and not pure word of God.

Thank you agian,

Hasan

Here is a copy of what your wrote in response to my questions:

Your first question: "You believe OT and NT to be word of God, right?"

My answer, "Yes, I do."

Second question, "You also believe that they are still pure and not altered, right?"

My answer, "No, I do not. I believe what the Catholic Church teaches."

Edited by honeto - 05 October 2011 at 12:51pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Dear Hasan, You wrote, "the...

Tue, 04 Oct 2011 12:49:46 +0000

Author: Jack Catholic
Subject: 19811
Posted: 04 October 2011 at 12:49pm

Dear Hasan,

You wrote, "the Quran is not the subject of discussion here, so please I will advice to keep focus on the matter at hand..."

Let me remind you of the words of your post previous to this one: "We are corrected and brought back to that basic fundamental truth throgh the Final Testament from God, the Quran.

God has clearly stated in the Quran, as He did in the previous scriptures as well that if you take another object as God, truly you will be lost, and this sin will not be forgiven, unless you correct your path now that you are alive, and ask His forgiveness, and you will find God forgiving and Mercyful."

If you do not want the Qur'an to be challanged, then you must stop bringing it up. I have a right in a discussion to chalange any source of evidence introduced that does not agree with the facts of the issue. Enough said.

You present two points in question form. It seems you have been assuming both of these about me since the beginning of our discussion back on page 8 or thereabouts. Though I have not answered them directly, I have at variouse points answered them in effect. I'll do so directly now:

Your first question: "You believe OT and NT to be word of God, right?"

My answer, "Yes, I do."

Second question, "You also believe that they are still pure and not altered, right?"

My answer, "No, I do not. I believe what the Catholic Church teaches."

So, what does the Catholic Church teach? It is this, that the wording of the Holy Bible has been combed through meticulously throughout the last century, and compared to all first century references to it in the letters that have been preserved in museums and the Vatican Libraries, and compared to ancients manuscripts that have been discovered archeologically which date as far back as the second century B.C. All wording of the official Vatican Latin translation has been shown accurate to 99% of all words. The remaining 1% of wording that can't be traced back does not change the meanings of the text or the doctrine that the Church teaches at all.

You ask another question: "You claim that NT teaches that God is made up of a Trinity: God, the Father God, the Son and God, the Holy Ghost . You claim that all three are equal in power, right?"

My answer, "They are not equal in power because they are not seperate. They are one and the same God with one and the same power. In this respect one could say they are equal."

You said, "All I am asking is to show me where in the OT God is a Trinity. Where in OT God teaches about Himself to be a Trinity.

Remember, Oneness of God or status of God, as who is He is very important for us to know, it is the first basic knowledge we aught to have about God. So show me where the OT agrees with you on Trinity."

My answer: "Neither the OT nor the NT uses the term "Holy Trinity" to describe Allah, and that is why you do not see it in either. You are looking for the wrong thing. The word Holy Trinity was used by the early Church to refer to what the Holy Bible does say about Allah. You know, Hasan, I really do thank you. Until discussing the Holy Trinity with you, I just accepted it, knowing the first century Church taught it, and Jesus taught the leaders of the first century Church. But you have challenged me to look deeply into the issue for the first time. Now I think my understanding of the Holy Trinity is so solid that I will never doubt it. I thank Allah for this and for using you to help me learn so solidly the truth about Him. So here is the truth.

The modern Church says that the Holy Trinity is the Father (Allah in heaven), the Son (Allah�s word become man), and the Holy Spirit (Allah present in us). The First century Church described the same thing with different words: the Father (Allah in heaven), the Son (the Word of Allah in flesh), and the Holy Spirit (the Power of Allah). So with this definition in its two forms, let us look for evidence of the presence of the three persons of the Holy Trinity in both the NT and the OT. If the three persons are present, then we have found what the term Holy Trinity was created to describe:

About Allah as Father, the term Father is used to refer to one who is in charge over others, is charged with the duty to provide for those under his charge, and who creates in the lives of those whom are in his charge. These qualities are not unlike the Islamic concept of Allah. The issue seems to be with Jesus as Son (the Word of God) and the Holy Spirit (the power of God present in us). So let us look first of all at the Jesus present in the OT.

Let us begin with the first verses of John�s Gospel, remembering that the NT refers to Jesus as the Light of the World. John 1:1-5 says, �The Word Became Flesh ¹ In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ² He was with God in the beginning. ³ Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. ⁴ In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. ⁵ The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome^[a] it.� Notice the reference to the words of Allah referred to as a �him,� and the connection of �him� to being a light to all mankind (which means over all the earth for all time). Let us look at the words of Allah in the book of Genesis, the very beginning (I have removed the verses that do not pertain to our discussion here). Notice about the Words of Allah. All that Allah needed do was speak, and the meaning of those words resulted in action:

¹ In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. ² Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

³ And God said, �Let there be light,� and there was light.

⁶ And God said, �Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.� ⁷ So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so.

⁹ And God said, �Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.� And it was so.

¹¹ Then God said, �Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.� And it was so.

¹⁴ And God said, �Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, ¹⁵ and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.� And it was so.

²⁰ And God said, �Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.� ²¹ So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.

²⁴ And God said, �Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.� And it was so.

²⁶ Then God said, �Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,^[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.�

²⁷ So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

²⁸ God blessed them and said to them, �Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.�
²⁹ Then God said, �I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. ³⁰ And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground�everything that has the breath of life in it�I give every green plant for food.� And it was so.

So, now, if you were to read the whole of the OT and make a list of all the Words quoted from the mouth of Allah, you would find that the instructions contained therein actually are the very things that Jesus accomplished with the actions of His life. The exercise of reading the whole OT, listing the quoted words of Allah, and comparing them to the accomplishments in detail of Jesus life and teachings in the NT would be quite an exercise for this string of posts. But if you are interested, you may do so (remembering as Christians believe that Jesus is not man made God, but rather, as Christians believe, is God made man) and I�m sure that your eyes will see things in a whole new way. I believe you will see, as I have seen, that indeed Jesus is Allah�s words in action, no more, no less.

About the Holy Spirit, Christians recognize the Holy Spirit as the power of Allah present in each of us, including in you, dear Hasan. All I have to do to show the Holy Spirit as real and as present in the OT to prove my case. Below is some commentary (followed by the verses quoted) that show the Power of Allah at work amongst His people, the Isrealites:

OT spirit of God (from Carelinks Ministries on the internet)

David asked God to continue to uphold him with his spirit, i.e. to preserve his life (Ps. 51:12).

We have �the breath of the spirit of life� within us (Gen. 7:22 A.V. mg.) given to us by God at birth (Ps. 104:30; Gen. 2:7). This makes Him �the God of the spirits of all flesh� (Num. 27:16 cf. Heb. 12:9). Because God is the life force which sustains all creation, His spirit is present everywhere. David recognised that through His spirit God was constantly present with him wherever he went, and through that spirit/power He was able to know every corner of David�s mind and thinking. Thus God�s spirit is the means by which He is present everywhere, although He personally is located in heaven.

An understanding of the true God and His very real presence all around us by His spirit can totally change our concept of life. We are surrounded by the spirit, constantly witnessing its actions, which reveal God to us. David found the encouragement of all this absolutely mind-blowing: �Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it� (Ps. 139:6).

So, here we have it. The Holy Trinity, named by the Catholic Church in the second century, is clearly described in the New Testament, and now I have shown that the elements of the Holy Trinity are clearly in the Old Testament. Thus, if you know what you are looking for, it is not difficult to see plainly that the Holy Trinity is, throughout the history of Allah�s revelation to mankind, consistant. There is nothing invented by creative scribes or any other human tampering in regards to the Holy Trinity. Indeed, only revelations from Allah that do not agree with the truth are those contained in the Holy Qur�an, but perhaps this is just that Muhammad did not really know Allah as well as Christians and Jews did...

If you have any other questions about the truth known by Christianity, just ask, my friend Hasan.

I pray that Allah will bless you always, drawing you closer to His Love and glory all the time,

Jack Catholic

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Jack, the Quran is not the subject...

Sat, 01 Oct 2011 17:20:52 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 01 October 2011 at 5:20pm

Jack,

the Quran is not the subject of discussion here, so please I will advice to keep focus on the matter at hand, if you are intersted in going some direction or you seem to be playing "ring around the rosie" and I am not intersted in that play.

You believe OT and NT to be word of God, right?

You also believe that they are still pure and not altered, right?

If you have answered yes to these two questions, you will have to explain a few big things that are different between them. To prove my point, I will take only One.

You claim that NT teaches that God is made up of a Trinity: God, the Father God, the Son and God, the Holy Ghost . You claim that all three are equal in power, right?

All I am asking is to show me where in the OT God is a Trinity. Where in OT God teaches about Himself to be a Trinity.

Hasan

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Dear Hasan, You say the OT...

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 13:53:56 +0000

Author: Jack Catholic
Subject: 19811
Posted: 30 September 2011 at 1:53pm

Dear Hasan,

You say the OT does not contain the Holy Trinity and that this is a sign that they OT and the NT are different and therefore the NT is in contradiction and cannot be taken a the legitimate word of God. In other words, if there is a difference between the two, it must be a (what is your standard of evaluation again?) contradiction, which is proof that the NT is false.

So now, I am going to discredit your angle of evidence by showing that you really do not agree with your own reasoning. If I am successful, then you again have failed to prove your assertion. All I have o do is find something important that is different between the OT and the Holy Qur�an which does not lead you to believe that the Holy Qur�an is false, and I have done my job of ruining your evidence, for if a difference is not proof to you, why should it be a proof to any Jew or Christian?

I�ve searched my limited knowledge of Islam to find an important difference between the Holy Qur�an and the OT, or Torah, and I have found one. The Ka�ba is a sight which Muhammad requires a good Muslim to make a pilgrimage to at least once in his lifetime. It is so important that if a Muslim cannot go, he must send someone in his place before he dies. The pilgrimage requires a number of ritualistic walking trips around a large black rock and also includes a kissing of the rock. This action is not in the Torah. What is more, the Torah forbids any worshipping of any object other than Allah. Yet the reverence shown to this large black rock is very similar to the reverence that Catholics show to, say, a saint, who Muslims and some Christians claim that Catholics worship as gods. It also is similar to the reverence that Isrealites gave to the Ark of the Covenant.

Now, let�s see what the connection is between the Ark of the Covenant, a saint, and the Ka�ba in relation to Allah. I am not getting off topic here, as this question is quite important in proving a difference between the Qur�an and the Torah, and in so doing, proving that differences are not important to you, and therefore your claim of difference between the Holy Bible and the Torah is not reason to be of importance to any Christian, which it is not, I assure you.

The connection: The Ark of the Covenant was commanded to be built according to the design of Allah by Moses. By Allah�s command, it contained the objects through which Allah freed the Israelites from slavery to a people and their sinful religion in Egypt. The saints contain the Holy Spirit by which they were compelled to obey Allah�s will, such that they become an instrument of Allah and an inspiration to Catholics for all time. Both the Ark of the Covenant and the saints are formed by Allah to connect Allah�s people to Him. The Ka�ba is a large black rock that fell from space and has been in the desert since prehistoric times. It was worshipped by people also since prehistoric times. The rock was not designed by Allah for a relgious purpose, but rather was borrowed from pagan religions for some unknown reason. Yet the Qur�an tells us that Muhammad commanded it to be an important object in Islam. This Ka�ba is not described nor spelled out in the Torah, yet this fact does not cause you to question Islam At the same time you think that because the Holy Trinity is not spelled out clearly in the Torah, Christians need to seriously question the New Testament. I have already done an intensive study of the Torah, first century Christian beliefs of the Apostles and their followers, and modern Christianity to prove my conclusion about the Holy Trinity, which was to say that though the Holy Trinity was not spelled out or named in the Torah, yet the foundation for it was layed out (I showed where and quoted it for you). Jesus simply explained the nature of Allah so that the rest of our understanding of Allah would be clear. My conclusion then, as it still is now, is that there is no contradiction between the Holy Trinity, the New Testament, or the OT or Torah.

About the term Messiah, just because the Jews wanted a political leader to free them from Greek and Roman domination doesn�t mean that a political leader was all that Allah had in mind for them. Do you believe that mankind always fully comprehends all that Allah has in store for us?

And for you to assume that Jesus, a man, was made into God by the writers of the Holy Bible is to assume that Christians believe that man can become God. This is very far from the truth. Christians believe, and the Apostles taught that God became man, not the other way around. This fact shows how out of touch you are with Christian belief and with the Holy Bible. As you keep referring to the Holy Qur�an to explain your position, it also shows further how Muhammad, though he claimed to be led by Allah who knows all, didn�t get it right either. If indeed his message was from Allah, he also would not have said that the Holy Trinity was made up of Allah (the Father), Jesus, and Mary, but he did and the error is permanently in the Holy Qur�an (Jesus referred to the Holy Trinity is Allah the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit). This begs the question, why would anyone want to give his life to the teachings of a holy book such as the Holy Qur�an that is full of error? The Holy Bible is not in contradiction with the Old Testament, as I have shown repeatedly, nor is it full of glaring errors, as are your assumptions and sources of data.

You claimed that it was an evolution when those, �who claimed to preach God, transformed God from one that was described as One and only to the one that has a son, and a holy spirit that are equal in power with God, and taken as God. The evidence, as shown throughout this discussion shows that the Holy Spirit and Jesus both were serving God (often refered as Father) and under God's command. This simple fact is enough to conclude that what is under God's command, and serves God is not God. God is the One whom they and everyone else serves.�

In fact, the only evidence you have shown that Jesus and the Holy Spirit serve God as separate beings obeying the one God is your own opinion and misinterpretation. For if you go back over my posts carefully, which you admitted you did not do by saying you could not understand them and that they were too long, you will see that though they do the will of the father, they do so not because they obey Allah, but rather that they emanate from Allah and in this way they do only what the Father commands. They must, because they do not have their own will, as they are not separate. Jesus is described as the Word of God. God shapes his own words and tells them what to be and do. Genesis shows us that Allah forms his words, and that they result instantly in action, not action of their own will, but rather of His Will. The Holy Spirit is described as the Power of Allah. Allah tells his Power what to do and it is done. Allah�s power does not have a will of its own, so it may only do the Will of Allah who commands it. Why is this so hard for you to understand, Hasan. Jesus explained it to the Apostles, and that is why they wrote about it so plainly in the Holy Bible. Have you carefully studies the Holy Bible as it is written? If so, I�m surprised you haven�t seen this material. It is not hard to understand, and it is the truth.

You said, �We are corrected and brought back to that basic fundamental truth throgh the Final Testament from God, the Quran.�

The Qur�an is revelations quoted from the mouth of Muhammad. About a year and 2 months ago, we had a string of posts about whether Muhammad�s revelations really were from Allah, or some other being appearing as an angel from Allah. It was never clearly proven that the angel was from God. In fact, strong evidence was laid out proving that the angel could not have been who he said he was. This being said, we must seriously wonder if the Holy Qur�an really is the any Revelation from Allah at all.

You say, �God has clearly stated in the Quran, as He did in the previous scriptures as well that if you take another object as God, truly you will be lost, and this sin will not be forgiven, unless you correct your path now that you are alive, and ask His forgiveness, and you will find God forgiving and Mercyful.�

So, then, this being the case, explain the religious requirements and kiss required by the Holy Qur�an for a black stone from outer space that pagans from as far back as prehistoric times worshiped as a god. Again, if you can�t justify this practice as not being idolatry, then you cannot call Christians idolatrous regarding the Holy Trinity, and you cannot use the Holy Qur�an as a valid authority in proving the that the Holy Bible evolved.

Dear Hasan, again you have failed to make a case using the Holy Trinity that the NT has evolved due to human tampering so as to be invalid as the Word of God, I�m sorry to say. But hey, try again...

Till then, may Allah continue to bless you.

Jack Catholic

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Jack, here is a much simpler...

Thu, 22 Sep 2011 19:28:04 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 22 September 2011 at 7:28pm

Jack,

here is a much simpler fact, not example.

You say, God is three in One. God the Father, God the son, God teh Holy Ghost. You say God is made up of a Trinity, three persons making up God. You get this idea in your claim from NT which you claim to be pure word of God. You also believe that OT is God's pure word. Your idea of Trinity does not exist in the OT.

That leaves us with a few choices, and take your pick!

1- OT is changed

2- NT is changed

3- Trinity does not exist

4- God changed from being One of One as in the OT to three persons in One by the time of NT.

5- write you own line. (please, a line or two.)

Remember, Jesus, the Messiah (pbuh) who the Jews were waiting for was just that, the Messiah. Show me where it meant God?

By turning Jesus into God through scripture restructuring centuries after him was in fact the evolution of Gospel. Not just that, it was also an evolution of how those who claimed to preach God, transformed God from one that was described as One and only to the one that has a son, and a holy spirit that are equal in power with God, and taken as God. The evidence, as shown throughout this discussion shows that the Holy Spirit and Jesus both were serving God (often refered as Father) and under God's command. This simple fact is enough to conclude that what is under God's command, and serves God is not God. God is the One whom they and everyone else serves.

We are corrected and brought back to that basic fundamental truth throgh the Final Testament from God, the Quran.

Hasan

Edited by honeto - 22 September 2011 at 7:46pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Dear Hasan, Remembering that...

Mon, 19 Sep 2011 12:05:14 +0000

Author: Jack Catholic
Subject: 19811
Posted: 19 September 2011 at 12:05pm

Dear Hasan,

Remembering that the heart of your assertion that the Holy Bible did evolve is based on the premiss that the NT contains contradictions, let's review what you have just asserted:

"You cannot prove me worng that all NT versions are not same, the Catholic NT is different than say KJ version for example. They are not exactly the same."

My response: Of course they are not word for word the same, as they are translated by different persons. But their content is the same. Let us look at an example. I might say, "My house is white." or I might say, "I own a white house." You see, the two sentences are not identical in wording, but the message content is precisely the same. Therefore, just saying that because the Catholic Bible and the King James Version do not contain the same wording does not equate to evidence that the two versions are contradictory. If you can't show contradiction, than you have failed to proove your case. And, well, on this point, you have failed to proove your case.

You then said, "Gospels according to Mark, Matthew, John, and Luke are not exatly same and different than each other, and who knows how different they are from Gospel according to Jesus, that does not exist no more."

My response: We have already discussed this issue at length throughout this thread, and though I do not disagree with this piece of evidence, I certainly do disagree with your conclusion. For though indeed some events may be present in some Gospels, absent in others, or some may reveal certain details of an event which others omitt, yet any policeman will tell you that this is normal. Two persons may witness the same bank robbery, yet each may have noticed different details, or may relate the events of the robbery using different words, and yet both will be telling the truth. It is by interviewing both and taking both ceriously that a police officer is able to piece together the full truth. Why is it that you have a problem with treating all four Gospels in the same way that a policement treats the accounts of multiple witnesses? The Catholic Church, and indeed all of Christianity, has no problem doing this, nor has it had difficulty for over 2000 years. Yet you do? Why is that?

You wrote, "You also cannot prove me wrong that God that Jesus and His ancestors, (those we call Jews) preached as One and only God was not a God described as in a Trinity by people like yourself, the Catholics and the Christians."

My response: I don't have to prove this. Nor do I have to proove you wrong. Remember that your arguments live or die on the need to show contradiction, for if there is no contradiction, then you don't have proof of evolution due to human tampering or human error. We have already dealt with the Holy Trinity, and I showed using OT and NT that the Holy Trinity of Christianity does not in any way contradict what the OT teaches. Rather, it simply reveals a greater understanding of the truths the Jews of the Torah have always believed. So you don't have a case prooven on this point either.

You wrote: "You also cannot prove me wrong that the Messiah who you believe to be God was not what the Jews were waiting for. They were not waiting for God, Messiah did not mean God, you claim Messiah to be God through Gospels."

This totally, Hasan, has nothing to do with our discussion here. In Genesis, Allah promissed a "fruit of the woman" who would crush the head of the serpent (Satan). The Jews at the time of Jesus were waiting for a political leader who would remove the Roman's from Palestine and restore it to the rightful ownership of the Jews, putting them under the jurisdiction of their own government and bringing them peace. Jesus came as Allah prommised in Genesis, overcomming Satan and restoring peace for those in Palestine who would follow him, and he taught the Jews how to live peacefully with the Romans being the political power at the time. He accomplished what Allah had in mind, though not in the way that the people wanted him to accomplish that peace. You should know yourself that humans do not always wish for or want what Allah wills, and that we must learn to bend our wills to match that of Allah. But all of this has nothing to do with the kind of contradiction that proves your point, that the Holy Bible evolved due to human tampering and human error. So, I'm sorry to say, you have failed even in this post to show that the Holy Bible has evolved.

But hey, Allah bless you, my friend Hasan,

Jack Catholic

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by Jack CatholicDear...

Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:58:41 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 19 September 2011 at 8:58am

Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Dear Honeto,

Welcome back! I thought you had dropped off the face of the earth. Yes I thought this discussion was over too, but Ron just doesn't accept being corrected with the truth very easily. I see that you don't either.

All the things you said that were evidence of the inaccuracy of the Holy Bible are simply this, variations in wording due to translation though the meaning is the same, and incorrect interpretations of one verse in isolation from the context of the whole Holy Bible such that the verse begins to look like it is in contradiction with other parts of the Holy Bible. Haven't we been going over all this for 20 of the last 28 pages of this string of posts? Everythin you have posted has been shown to be nothing more than poor interpretation on your part of the Holy Bible. Not once has any of your evidence held up to careful scrutiny... unless you have some new evidence, maybe?

Just the same, welcome back, Hasan, and may Allah bless you always,

Jack Catholic

P.S. Honeto, you thought this string of posts was over. I believe it should have ended a few pages ago, and with that in mind, I have started a new post entitled: What does God truly say about how we should treat strangers and aliens? I posted it a little over three weeks ago, and for the moment it is still listed as "hidden," though 21 people have viewed it in hiding. I hope it passes scrutiny and makes it to the public forrum board so we can discuss the three quotes it contains, one from the OT, one from the NT, and one from the Holy Qur'an. There is no interpretation provided, only the request that the posters on this forum read the parallel quotes and interpret them so that we get a clear understanding of what Alla really wants from us. Maybe you have some influence over the managers of this forum and can get them to pass the post on through after, what, nearly 4 weeks... Let me know, my friend, if you can do something...

Hi Jack,

I was around and never left as you thought, may be not at this thread but I am here. When my time comes? only Allah knows, but I try to straighten my direction and convey that to others.

You cannot prove me worng that all NT versions are not same, the Catholic NT is different than say KJ version for example. They are not exactly the same. Gospels according to Mark, Matthew, John, and Luke are not exatly same and different than each other, and who knows how different they are from Gospel according to Jesus, that does not exist no more.

You also cannot prove me wrong that God that Jesus and His ancestors, (those we call Jews) preached as One and only God was not a God described as in a Trinity by people like yourself, the Catholics and the Christians.

You also cannot prove me wrong that the Messiah who you believe to be God was not what the Jews were waiting for. They were not waiting for God, Messiah did not mean God, you claim Messiah to be God through Gospels.

All of this is a material proof that the Gospel according to Jesus has evolved so did its teachings in is different present forms.

Hasan

Edited by honeto - 19 September 2011 at 9:02am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by peacemaker Originally...

Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:18:45 +0000

Author: islamispeace
Subject: 19811
Posted: 16 September 2011 at 2:18pm

Originally posted by peacemaker

Originally posted by Larry

There is no original copy of the Qur'an either.

Greetings,

Please discuss this in the relevant thread:

Larry: "Were there more than one version of Quran"

Well that's not going to happen! I tried already!

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Dear Peacemaker, May Alla bless...

Fri, 16 Sep 2011 07:47:02 +0000

Author: Jack Catholic
Subject: 19811
Posted: 16 September 2011 at 7:47am

Dear Peacemaker,

May Alla bless you, and thank you for entering our discussion. If I might put my two cents worth in, the forum is about comparing religions to promote understanding, isn't it? As the Qur'an has been brought into the discussion by some Muslim members as a source of information regarding the creditability of the Holy Bible, I believe we are entitled to question its credibility as a source of evidence. Do you agree? Or am I mistaken in believeing that this particular forum is about more than just Christianity and its faults?

Just asking...

As with all members of this forum, may Allah bless you now and always,

Jack Catholic

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Assalamu Alaikum/Greetings, It...

Fri, 16 Sep 2011 01:02:06 +0000

Author: peacemaker
Subject: 19811
Posted: 16 September 2011 at 1:02am

Assalamu Alaikum/Greetings,

It is imperative that we stick to the topic and comply with the guidelines.

Peace

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by LarryThere...

Fri, 16 Sep 2011 01:01:07 +0000

Author: peacemaker
Subject: 19811
Posted: 16 September 2011 at 1:01am

Originally posted by Larry

There is no original copy of the Qur'an either.

Greetings,

Please discuss this in the relevant thread:

Larry: "Were there more than one version of Quran"

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Dear Honeto, Welcome back!...

Thu, 15 Sep 2011 13:52:56 +0000

Author: Jack Catholic
Subject: 19811
Posted: 15 September 2011 at 1:52pm

Dear Honeto,

Just the same, welcome back, Hasan, and may Allah bless you always,

Jack Catholic

Edited by Jack Catholic - 15 September 2011 at 2:36pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : There is no original copy of the...

Thu, 15 Sep 2011 12:41:02 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 15 September 2011 at 12:41pm

There is no original copy of the Qur'an either.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Jack andLarry, I thouhgt we...

Thu, 15 Sep 2011 10:19:17 +0000

Author: honeto
Subject: 19811
Posted: 15 September 2011 at 10:19am

Jack and Larry,

I thouhgt we were over with this subject:

Gospel's evolution from being Gospel according to Jesus into Gospel according to Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, not to mention those that were excluded from compilations. The differences between Catholic and other Gospel versions. All Gospels existing only as traslations and versions of the Gospel while there is no original copy in existent. And all of the inconsistencies within the Gospels plus its contrasty belief to that of the Old Testament are all very Bold proofs of just that, the Gospel Evolution, in addition to what other evidence has been provided so far by all.

There is no question about Mercy and Love of God for all those who seek, but that is not what we are talking about Jack.

Hasan

Edited by honeto - 15 September 2011 at 10:23am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Dear Ron, Larry posted the...

Wed, 14 Sep 2011 21:55:35 +0000

Author: Jack Catholic
Subject: 19811
Posted: 14 September 2011 at 9:55pm

Dear Ron,

Larry posted the following: "Both Christianity and Islam disagree with you. Both religions state that the angel Gabriel came to Mary to tell her that God was going to have born of her a holy son. The Christian and Muslim view may be slightly different as to WHY God did this, neither religion believe that Jesus was "conceived in sin."

He concluded with, using the exact same wording that I have used with you, "Your personal views on the subject are just that, personal views. "

If you really are interested in the truth, as the truth leads to a more stable life of freedom and successful living, perhaps you should recognize that what you currently believe just might not be the real truth, that you might consider carefully and thoughtfully what Christians and Muslims are saying about Jesus' birth rather than simply make your own surmizings, and see if perhaps there isn't truth in what we are saying.

Just the same, surmising does not serve as evidence that the Holy Bible evolved due to human alterations and error,

Jack Catholic

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Ron, I said; "These endless...

Wed, 14 Sep 2011 15:46:51 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 14 September 2011 at 3:46pm

Ron,

   I said; "These endless suppositions on your part are simply that, suppositions."

   You reply; "That's true, just as your suppositions to the contrary are just that. The question is, whose suppositions are more likely? Is it easier to believe in a virgin birth, or in an effort by leaders of a nascent religion to cover the fact that their alleged Messiah was conceived in sin?"

   The answer depends on who you are speaking of. Both Christianity and Islam disagree with you. Both religions state that the angel Gabriel came to Mary to tell her that God was going to have born of her a holy son. The Christian and Muslim view may be slightly different as to WHY God did this, neither religion believe that Jesus was "conceived in sin."

   Your personal views on the subject are just that, personal views.

Larry

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by LarryWhat...

Wed, 14 Sep 2011 14:12:45 +0000

Author: Ron Webb
Subject: 19811
Posted: 14 September 2011 at 2:12pm

Originally posted by Larry

What makes you think that the virgin birth of Jesus Christ wasn't part of the oral tradition prior to the writing of the four Gospels?

Luke 3:23 and Matthew 13:55, among other things. Plus of course the fact that the earliest Gospel (Mark) doesn't mention it.

Do you think that among early Christians they had no idea of the virgin birth? There had to be an oral tradition that later was written down by the writers of the Gospels. Or did the Gospel writers just pull these ideas and beliefs out of thin air and only then did Christians believe in the virgin birth, etc? The belief that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and Son of God is the very bedrock of Christianity and the root of Christian belief from the beginning.

But in the beginning, certainly in the Old Testament, "son of God" was intended metaphorically and applied to all sorts of people. It wasn't until the later Gospels that it began to take on its present literal meaning. So yeah, I think they pulled it pretty much out of thin air. At any rate, by its very nature there would have been no way to prove it.

But Mark and John already knew that the virgin birth of Jesus Christ was widely known among all early Christians. It is part and parcel of Christian belief. Do you really believe that it wasn't until Matthew and Luke wrote their Gospels that Christians heard of the virgin birth?

I'm sorry, but it wasn't widely known. In fact, it was widely assumed (Luke 3:23, Matthew 13:55) that Joseph was the father. And even if it was widely known, that would not be a reason to leave it out. All four Gospels mention the crucifixion, and I think it's safe to assume that that was widely known.

Using your standards why shouldn't the virgin birth be mentioned by all the New Testament writers since it is so much of a crucial part of Christianity?

Only the synoptic Gospels, whose purpose is to tell the story of Jesus.

These endless suppositions on your part are simply that, suppositions.

That's true, just as your suppositions to the contrary are just that. The question is, whose suppositions are more likely? Is it easier to believe in a virgin birth, or in an effort by leaders of a nascent religion to cover the fact that their alleged Messiah was conceived in sin?

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Dear Ron, I feel like we are...

Tue, 13 Sep 2011 14:57:19 +0000

Author: Jack Catholic
Subject: 19811
Posted: 13 September 2011 at 2:57pm

Dear Ron,

I feel like we are going around in circles. I have already said this, though maybe not in the same post...

Larry was right when he said the other narratives began with the ministry of Jesus. At the time, Jesus'ministry, its message, and its accomplishments in love were the message that people were interested in: "Is there somebody, anybody out there who loves me? Does God love me, or is He some being out there who simply entertains himself at my expense and really couldn't care less about me personally? (many religions set God up as a god who does not love us personally and really couldn't care less, even though we long with all our being to be loved.)" It is the quality of God's loving us so much that is what makes Jesus minisitry and its message so important to the world throughout the past, now, and for all time.

The only reason that Luke included the details surrounding Jesus' birth is that he was a physician with a personal interest in medical events, including the birth of children, and he well knows that the birth of children is important to everybody. As he spent three years with Mom (Mary) and St. John (the Apostle who pushed the love message so hard and so elloquantly), he was able to gather the detail on Jesus Birth. And as he spent so many years with St. Paul passing the good news of Jesus Christ on to the gentiles, he also saw a clear lack of background knowledge on Jewish faith and on many aspects of Jesus life which Jewish people already knew by virtue of the fact that they are so well connected with each other and had been with Jesus all Jesus' life. Luke wished to educated about the man (Jesus) as well as the ministry.

You see, Ron, an authors' story is influenced by the author's interests, audience, and personal motives/purpose. The differences between Luke's Gospel and the others, or even between each of the Gospel writers has very little to do with evolution and more to do with other factors. Either way, these differences are not evidence of evolution. Larry in his own way and approach to this issue verrifies that these differences have nothing to do with evolution.

Think about what we are saying. Even pray about it, if you dare. Perhaps you might come to recognize the love of Yahwey, the God of Love, even recognize it present and active in your life if you pray about it, and might even come to realize the blessings He is even now ready to pour out upon you and your life.

As the Book of Jeremiah quotes Yahwey as saying, "I have a plan for you (your life), a future full of hope!" Who could ask for anything better?

May Yahweh bless you always, even when you are not paying attention,

Jack Catholic

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Ron, You say "First, why...

Tue, 13 Sep 2011 14:35:40 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 13 September 2011 at 2:35pm

Ron,

   You say "First, why wasn't the virgin birth part of the oral tradition from the beginning?"

   What makes you think that the virgin birth of Jesus Christ wasn't part of the oral tradition prior to the writing of the four Gospels? Do you think that among early Christians they had no idea of the virgin birth? There had to be an oral tradition that later was written down by the writers of the Gospels. Or did the Gospel writers just pull these ideas and beliefs out of thin air and only then did Christians believe in the virgin birth, etc? The belief that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and Son of God is the very bedrock of Christianity and the root of Christian belief from the beginning.

   You ask, AGAIN, "why did Mark begin his Gospel at the time that John baptized Jesus? The virgin birth is a crucial (no pun intended) part of the story, is it not? Why did he leave it out?"

   Probably for the same reason that John left it out. Your are looking at it like the four Gospels need to start with the birth of Jesus and record in detail all the circumstances of Jesus' childhood, teen years, etc. until the beginning of His ministry at age 30. As if the Gospel writers were puppets on a string that had to follow a certain linear course. But it is only the first two chapters of Matthew and Luke that they talk about it, and from their third chapter on they start at the same place that Mark and John do.

But Mark and John already knew that the virgin birth of Jesus Christ was widely known among all early Christians. It is part and parcel of Christian belief. Do you really believe that it wasn't until Matthew and Luke wrote their Gospels that Christians heard of the virgin birth?

   The rest of the New Testament, apart from the Gospels, are The Acts of the Apostles, Paul's letters to the seven churches such as Corinth (Corinthians), Epheses (Ephesians), Thessalonika (Thessalonians), etc. And Paul's letters to Timothy, Titus, Philemon, etc. The Epistles of James and Peter, etc, and The Revelation of Jesus Christ by John of Patmos.

   Using your standards why shouldn't the virgin birth be mentioned by all the New Testament writers since it is so much of a crucial part of Christianity?

   The fact that the four Gospels were written at different, or overlapping, times and places shows that their HAD to be an oral tradition that the Gospel writers used to write their Gospels.

   As to specifically why Mark and John start at the beginning of Jesus's beginning and not His birth is your guess as well as mine. I don't know and you don't know, so you can't just make an assumption of why and then challenge someone to prove you wrong.

   These endless suppositions on your part are simply that, suppositions. When you come up something concrete to support your ideas, be sure and let me know. I am not going to go through this with you ad nauseum because it's pointless and frankly boring. You know my positions and I know yours and nothing is going to change between us, no matter how many times you ask the same questions.

Larry





Edited by Larry - 13 September 2011 at 2:53pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Dear Larry, You are absolutely...

Tue, 13 Sep 2011 14:33:18 +0000

Author: Jack Catholic
Subject: 19811
Posted: 13 September 2011 at 2:33pm

Dear Larry,

You are absolutely right on here. This is what I was taught in highschool religion class. If what you are saying is so commonly and standardly taught, I wonder why so many people don't know this data, or why they make major life changing decision regarding faith in the absence of this knowledge (it is so clear and available)? I just don't get it...

Great explanation!!!

God bless you, Larry,

Jack Catholic

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by LarryYou...

Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:01:36 +0000

Author: Ron Webb
Subject: 19811
Posted: 13 September 2011 at 12:01pm

Originally posted by Larry

You say, "I don't understand. It sounds like a non sequitur to me. The virgin birth is not mentioned because the Gospels were written after his death? Why would that be a reason not to mention such an important aspect of Christian doctrine?"
Where, Ron, do you suppose that the virgin birth should have been mentioned prior to the writing of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? In the newspaper? On Facebook? In what forum, at that time, would you expect to find it?

I was asking two related questions. First, why wasn't the virgin birth part of the oral tradition from the beginning? Why would Mary have allowed it to be assumed that the Son of God was conceived in sin? Shouldn't such a slander have been challenged?

The second question is, why did Mark begin his Gospel at the time that John baptized Jesus? The virgin birth is a crucial (no pun intended) part of the story, is it not? Why did he leave it out? Simply stating (in block capitals or otherwise) that he began the story at that point does not answer the question of why he began it at that point.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Dear Ron, To that first Christian...

Sat, 10 Sep 2011 17:04:53 +0000

Author: Jack Catholic
Subject: 19811
Posted: 10 September 2011 at 5:04pm

Dear Ron,

To that first Christian community in Jerusalem, many of whom witnessed Jesus death, the only thing that really mattered to them was the death of someone they loved. Immagine when the towers in NY collapsed on September 11, 2001. Did people ask about how they fireman who raced into the buildings were born? Did you ask this question? The object on everyones mind was how these brave heros died, not how they were born. So it is safe to say that after Jesus died, those who knew him talked about his death, not his birth. I hope that answeres it for you.

may God bless you all,

Jack Catholic

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Ron, For the nth time I will...

Sat, 10 Sep 2011 16:49:40 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 10 September 2011 at 4:49pm

Ron,

   For the nth time I will try and write this in a way that you will finally understand what I have been saying to you about the reason why Mark does not mention the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

   The Book of Mark and the Book of John do not mention the virgin birth of Jesus Christ because both Mark and John BEGAN THEIR GOSPELS AT THE TIME THAT JESUS, AS AN ADULT, BEGAN HIS MINISTRY AT THE TIME THAT JOHN THE BAPTIST RECOGNIZES JESUS AS THE MESSIAH AND BAPTIZES HIM IN THE RIVER JORDAN.

   Matthew started his Gospel with the virgin birth, the arrival of the Magi, the Flight to Egypt to escape King Herod's attempt to kill the new Messiah and the return to Israel of the Holy family to live in Nazareth after the death of Herod. These writings are only covered in the first two chapters of Matthew. The third chapter begins where Mark and John did at the starting of the ministry of Jesus Christ as an adult and His baptism by John the Baptist.

   Luke begins his Gospel, as I said before, with Zachariah and Elizabeth being blessed by the miraculous birth of their son John, even though they were advanced in years. The angel Gabriel had announced the birth of John (later called the Baptist) to Zachariah and Elizabeth. Gabriel, six months later, appears to Mary and announces to her that she will give birth to a son, which happens in Bethlehem where the family had gone to be registered under a decree from Tiberius Caesar.

   After the birth of Jesus Luke records that, "the Child grew and became strong in spirit, filled with wisdom; and the grace of God was upon Him." He is then recorded by Luke at the age of 12 when the family went to Jerusalem for the Feast of Passover. When the family was returning to Nazareth, His mother, thinking he was among their company, realized that He was not with them and with Joseph they returned to Jerusalem to find Him. After three days they found him in the Temple "...sitting in the midst of the teachers." "And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers."
   When Mary told Him how anxiously they had sought Him, "He said to them, "Why did you seek me? Did you not know that I must be about my Father's business?"

   All these events are covered in the first two chapters of Luke, who then, like Matthew, began his Gospel when Jesus was an adult and meets with John the Baptist.

   There is very little said about Jesus after His birth and appearance in Jerusalem at 12 years and the beginning of His ministry as an adult in both Matthew and Luke.

   The writers of the Gospels were focused on the ministry, life, crucifixion, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and His teachings as they are the sum total and message of the entire New Testament.
   I hope this helps answer your questions.

Larry

Larry

Edited by Larry - 10 September 2011 at 4:52pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Ron, I don't know if you...

Sat, 10 Sep 2011 16:06:29 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 10 September 2011 at 4:06pm

Ron,

   I don't know if you are being purposefully inane or you just have no understanding of what you are talking about.
   You say, "I don't understand. It sounds like a non sequitur to me. The virgin birth is not mentioned because the Gospels were written after his death? Why would that be a reason not to mention such an important aspect of Christian doctrine?"
   Where, Ron, do you suppose that the virgin birth should have been mentioned prior to the writing of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? In the newspaper? On Facebook? In what forum, at that time, would you expect to find it?
   The records of the birth, life, ministry and death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is told in the Gospels for the first time. There was no mass media in the First Century A.D.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 10 September 2011 at 4:52pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by Jack...

Sat, 10 Sep 2011 09:45:59 +0000

Author: Ron Webb
Subject: 19811
Posted: 10 September 2011 at 9:45am

Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Dear Ron,

There is no conflict in what I've said in the different posts. It seems that you are trying to make my posts appear to conflict with one another. That's silly. What I've said even fits with what Larry wrote at the top of page 28 of our string of posts. He addressed it all to you, so perhaps you might read it. I agree with everything he said. And I agree with everything that you quoted that I said. I did not change any of what I've asserted. Chew on all of this data a little bit, get used to it, and give your mind a chance to process it all.

May Allah bless you, Ron,

Jack Catholic

I'd still like to know why you think Mark didn't mention the virgin birth. Is it because it was unimportant to his audience, because it was well-known (whereas the crucifixion was not), or because Mary had not yet revealed it?

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by LarryThe...

Sat, 10 Sep 2011 09:41:53 +0000

Author: Ron Webb
Subject: 19811
Posted: 10 September 2011 at 9:41am

Originally posted by Larry

The reason that the Virgin Birth is not mentioned during the time of Jesus' ministry is that the Gospels were written after His death and Resurrection, although His being the Son of God is referred to during His lifetime and recorded in the Gospels.

I don't understand. It sounds like a non sequitur to me. The virgin birth is not mentioned because the Gospels were written after his death? Why would that be a reason not to mention such an important aspect of Christian doctrine?

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Dear Ron, There is no conflict...

Fri, 09 Sep 2011 20:36:16 +0000

Author: Jack Catholic
Subject: 19811
Posted: 09 September 2011 at 8:36pm

Dear Ron,

May Allah bless you, Ron,

Jack Catholic

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : It's quite possible I...

Fri, 09 Sep 2011 18:23:31 +0000

Author: Ron Webb
Subject: 19811
Posted: 09 September 2011 at 6:23pm

It's quite possible I misunderstood you on this point, because you have changed your explanation several times in the course of this discussion.

Your first explanation was that the virgin birth simply wasn't viewed as important by some Gospel writers or for some audiences:

So why does Luke contain in his nerative things the other Gospels don't? Just do your research and you will answer your own question. Each gospel writer focused on the things he felt were the most important based on what he felt his audience most needed. Each one wrote for a different audience. Go figure.
http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19811&PID=154240#154240

When I asked you how such a major miracle and article of Catholic faith could possibly be unimportant to any writer and any audience, you moved on to the hypothesis that it was omitted because it was already well-known to the Jewish community that Mark and John were addressing:

About Mary's Virgin Birth, I'm saying that Mark and John were writing to communities that already knew about it. It was so well known in their communities that there was probably not any thought at all in their mind that maybe they should include it.
http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19811&PID=154370#154370

(I just noticed that in the same post you also floated the idea that "that the Gospels are about Jesus, not Mary, and the emphasis has been placed on Him more than on Mary." I missed that one at the time, or I would have asked how his being the literal (not just metaphorical) Son of God is not an important fact about Jesus.)

Lest anyone should think that the "communities" you referred to were after Jesus' death, you made it pretty clear that they were indeed his contemporaries:

You finally wrote, "So in Jerusalem at the time, the virgin birth was not a necessary part of the message?" Here you are right on, for the following reason. As I said in the first post, the Jews already knew Mary and knew of her virgin birth. My comparison to prove this assertion was mention Jesus' quote while hanging on the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me (first line of Psalm 22)." The Jewish custom here was to say the first line of whatever biblical passage was being referenced.

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19811&PID=154778#154778

But far from being well-known, I pointed out that the Bible itself, in a couple of places, makes it clear that the Jewish community was not aware of Jesus' parentage. So then you amended the claim, agreeing that it wasn't known by Jesus' contemporaries but it became known later:

However, at some point during the ministry of Jesus or shortly thereafter, it became known to the Jerusalem community of Christians that Jesus' conception was miraculous.
http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=19811&PID=155361#155361

I took that to mean that it wasn't known to the earliest Gospel writers (i.e. Mark), but became known to later writers. Otherwise, the fact that it "became known" is not an explanation of anything as far as I can see. But I must have missed the sentence that followed:

This conception was well known enough that there was no need to write it down in a book designed to record the ministry (and its message) of Jesus Christ for the Jerusalem community of Christian believers.

So maybe I can summarize your position this way? -- During Jesus' lifetime the virgin birth was not well-known, and neither Mary nor anyone else (God, for instance?) thought it important enough to be reported. Some time after, it "became known", and therefore it was unnecessary to report it, because everyone knew it. Then after that, as it became less known, then it became important to report it; but at first they only wrote down stuff like the crucifixion, not the virgin birth. Was that because the virgin birth was still well-known, while people were beginning to forget about the crucifixion? Or what?

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Dear Ron, Show me where I admitted...

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 19:04:59 +0000

Author: Jack Catholic
Subject: 19811
Posted: 08 September 2011 at 7:04pm

Dear Ron,

Show me where I admitted this (the quote is your words about what I said): "Your original reason was that it was already too well-known to bother mentioning. Since you subsequently admitted that the Bible itself (in Matthew and Luke) says otherwise, I wonder if you can think of another reason."

Please site the page of this string of posts where that "admission" was made by me, and the date of the post so that I can reference it to see if you understood what I wrote or perhaps you simply only caught part of it and filled in the data you missed with your own ideas. Or perhaps you are right about what I said... Just the same, quote me word for word and sight its location.

Thanks, and God bless you,

Jack Catholic

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by Jack...

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 15:11:19 +0000

Author: islamispeace
Subject: 19811
Posted: 08 September 2011 at 3:11pm

Originally posted by Jack Catholic

To any and all who are interested,

in the Canaanite woman story, a comment in Mark regarding a prophecy from Isaiah, questions as to why some events are related in some Gospel books and not in others, or why they are related with some details in some Gospel books and with other details in other Gospel books, each and every one of these issues I and others have dealt with showing precisely how they do not indicate evolution of the Holy Bible. Repeating the issues and material do not suddenly make them into evidence suggesting that the Holy Bible evolved due to human tampering. So give it up. These issues have been dealt with...end of story. Without new evidence, this post is basically concluded.

May Yahweh bless you all,

Jack Catholic

Those who have actually had the patience to read all the posts in this thread would see that Jack has spent most of his time making excuses and patting himself on the back. This latest post is a case in point.

Someone should remind Jack that in debates, each side discusses the issues and offers their perspective. One side cannot just declare themselves the winner and then ignore all subsequent arguments from the other side by claiming that "I and others have dealt with showing precisely how they do not indicate evolution of the Holy Bible." Moreover, there has been no repetition on this thread, at least not by me. What I have done is give an example of evolution and then move on. If someone is able to respond as to why they feel the example given does not constitute evolution, I have always offered a rebuttal. In the most recent example, I provided the example of the story of the Canaanite woman and why I feel this is good evidence of Gospel evolution. Jack offered a weak response, to which I offered a rebuttal. Jack's response was one of patronizing arrogance without an actual counter-rebuttal and finally with this latest rant about how he has "dealt with [it] showing precisely how they do not indicate evolution of the Holy Bible". Obviously, his claim that he has proven everyone wrong is simply ridiculous and is simply a case of self-promotion. I urge everyone still interested in this topic to come to their own conclusions. Look at the facts and cast aside the bias.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Ron, Just to set the record straight,...

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 05:09:21 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 08 September 2011 at 5:09am

Ron,

   Just to set the record straight, neither the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of John says anything about the Virgin Birth of Jesus. The main reason for this "oversight" is that both Mark and John begin their Gospels with the beginning of Jesus' ministry as an adult and His baptism by John the Baptist.
   The reason that the Virgin Birth is not mentioned during the time of Jesus' ministry is that the Gospels were written after His death and Resurrection, although His being the Son of God is referred to during His lifetime and recorded in the Gospels.
   The Gospel of Matthew begins with the genealogy of Jesus Christ and Matthew is explicit in his writings concerning the Virgin Birth of Christ
   The Gospel of Luke begins with the story of Zacharias and his barren wife Elizabeth (though the Qur'an incorrectly states that her name was Mary). The angel of the Lord appeared to Zacharias and told him that Elizabeth would bear a son and his name would be John.
   Then in the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy, the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and said, "Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you, blessed are you among women!" Gabriel further said, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One (Jesus) who is to be born will be called the Son of God."
   The Qur'an also agrees with this statement when it speaks of Gabriel announcing to Mary the "gift of a holy son." I don't know of any other "prophet" being referred to as specifically as "holy" in either the Torah, New Testament or the Qur'an because Holiness belongs to God and that is why Jesus was "holy," being the Son of God.
   It seems strange to me that the Qur'an speaks of Jesus' holiness but denies stridently that Jesus was anything other than a prophet, and not the greatest prophet at that.
   It is clear that the Qur'an relied heavily on the Jewish Torah and the Christian New Testament for the bulk of it's information concerning God and the Biblical Patriarchs, Matriarchs and Prophets and stories. The Muslim claim that the Qur'an was pre-existing before the Jewish and Christian Bibles is simply not supportable by any direct evidence.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 09 September 2011 at 11:13pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by Jack...

Thu, 08 Sep 2011 04:24:48 +0000

Author: Ron Webb
Subject: 19811
Posted: 08 September 2011 at 4:24am

Originally posted by Jack Catholic

The story never changed. It was always true that Jesus was the son of Joseph (foster relationship) and was the actual Son of God.

On the contrary, you have already agreed that it was not part of the story until after his death. (Whether it was "true" or not is another matter.)

I already know why Mark didn't include the Virgin birth.

Your original reason was that it was already too well-known to bother mentioning. Since you subsequently admitted that the Bible itself (in Matthew and Luke) says otherwise, I wonder if you can think of another reason.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : To any and all who are interested, in...

Tue, 06 Sep 2011 20:26:09 +0000

Author: Jack Catholic
Subject: 19811
Posted: 06 September 2011 at 8:26pm

To any and all who are interested,

May Yahweh bless you all,

Jack Catholic

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by Jack...

Tue, 06 Sep 2011 15:22:50 +0000

Author: islamispeace
Subject: 19811
Posted: 06 September 2011 at 3:22pm

Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Dear IslamisPeace,

I applaud your fantastic post. You stayed on topic, you spoke elloquantly, and you sounded awesome. If all your posts were written in this manner, I'd love discussing and debating with you and would relish the opportunity.

Some of what you have observed is correct. Though I don't agree with all of your reasoning as to why the differences exist, nor with all of your assertations about the significance of the differences and their implications. Yet above all, that was an excelent post in regards to manners. Your excellent manners allowed the intelligence I know you have to shine through. Well done!!!

I notice you never furthered the assertion in your post that the Holy Bible evolved. Have come to agree with what so many of us on Islamicity Forums know to be true, that the Holy Bible did not evolve? has not been tampered with by human hands over the centuries?

May Allah bless you, IslamisPeace!

Jack Catholic

Jack, your patronizing attitude aside, you have not responded to any of my points. Not only that, but you completely ignored the central point...which is that the Gospels have evolved! If you will carefully read all of my posts on this thread, including the recent ones concerning the story of the Canaanite woman, you will see that the central thesis of all of them was that the Gospels have evolved. In the case of the story of the Canaanite woman, the evolution that occurred was in the Gospel writers changing the story (Matthew) or complete eliminating it (Luke) based on their attempts to reach their target audiences. This particular form of evolution is different from the other examples I have given, such as the mistake in Mark 1:2 regarding the prophecy from Isaiah (when it was actually a mix of verses from Isaiah and Malachi) and the subsequent attempts to hide the error. I have given various example of evolution, so I have no idea where you got the idea that I do not believe the Bible has evolved. It seems to me that you are so desperate to declare victory that you will misconstrue someone else' claims. No where did I say that the Bible has not evolved. Rather, I have always posited the exact opposite. I also have no idea where you got the idea that other people on this forum have come to the conclusion that the Bible has not evolved. You need to stop putting words in people's mouths and wasting time with patronizing comments and actually try to respond to the evidence presented. The types of comments you make project your obnoxious and arrogant attitude. Therefore, you should not be surprised when someone like me responds with what you refer to as "rude" posts. As such, I reject your patronizing comments about my "fantastic post". Of course, I did stay on topic (I always have ), whereas you completely ignored the topic and wasted time with a useless post which did not deal with the facts. That is very annoying and disappointing! Regardless, I feel that I have conclusively proven that the Gospels have evolved. I will leave it to the individual reader to decide for themselves.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Dear Ron, The story never changed....

Tue, 06 Sep 2011 12:12:23 +0000

Author: Jack Catholic
Subject: 19811
Posted: 06 September 2011 at 12:12pm

Dear Ron,

The story never changed. It was always true that Jesus was the son of Joseph (foster relationship) and was the actual Son of God. This was never questioned. All 4 Gospels referr to Jesus frequently as the Son of God. Your case is simply a dead horse. Give it up already! My Gosh!

I already know why Mark didn't include the Virgin birth. I also know, contrary to your assertion, that we don't agree on the reason. Give it up, man, just give it up. You are not winning this argument, sorry to say.

Jack Catholic

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : So you don't like the...

Tue, 06 Sep 2011 04:34:37 +0000

Author: Ron Webb
Subject: 19811
Posted: 06 September 2011 at 4:34am

So you don't like the word "evolved", but you do agree that the story changed significantly, right? I mean, the addition of a major miracle and a change in Jesus' parentage would count, wouldn't it?

By the way, have you figured out yet why Mark omitted the virgin birth yet? We've agreed that your original explanation, that it was already too well-known (!) to bother mentioning, is simply not true. So do you suppose he hadn't yet heard Mary's latest "revelation"?

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Dear Ron, So here we stand...

Mon, 05 Sep 2011 12:29:17 +0000

Author: Jack Catholic
Subject: 19811
Posted: 05 September 2011 at 12:29pm

Dear Ron,

So here we stand in dissagreement. The weight of history is on my side, and only modern surmising is on yours. But just the same, here we stand, both making claims, neither with evidence.

So be it. Either way, the assertion cannot be used to make the claim that the Gospels of the Holy Bible evolved. Just can't...

Jack Catholic

Edited by Jack Catholic - 05 September 2011 at 12:32pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by Jack CatholicSo,...

Sun, 04 Sep 2011 08:05:58 +0000

Author: Ron Webb
Subject: 19811
Posted: 04 September 2011 at 8:05am

Originally posted by Jack Catholic

So, the fact is, though you claimed that we practically agree, yet in truth, you know are asserting that we do not. You say that I have no evidence to support what I am saying. But in fact, you do not have any evidence to support it. You have explained your surmisings in detail so as to make them appear possible, and I grant you that much. But in literature, that which is possible yet not actual is called realistic fiction. So it is that this is exactly what you are asserting.

We agree that the story of the virgin birth was not originally part of the Gospel, but emerged some time after Jesus died. Our disagreement is on the source of that later addition, and on the appropriate word to describe it.

You believe that Mary is the source (via Luke), but that she kept this important information a secret throughout Jesus' life and allowed everyone to believe that Joseph was the natural father. You have no evidence to support this theory. (Simply asserting the same claim with more detail does not count as evidence.)

I believe that the story was an embellishment added by the later Gospel writers. I have no evidence for this either, but I find it hard to imagine that Mary would have allowed a falsehood about Jesus to be perpetuated for more than thirty years without saying a word. (I also find it hard to believe that Mark knew about it but failed to mention it. I'm not sure if that is still your claim.)

Either way, regardless of how or why it changed, or who initiated the change, the story did change significantly. It simply comes down to a question of whether we would use the term "evolve" to apply to such a change. I would, and you wouldn't. But then, as far as I can see, you would never use that word regardless of the facts. You can always retreat into "divine inspiration" or "progressive revelation" to dismiss any evidence that could be offered.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Dear IslamisPeace, I applaud...

Sat, 03 Sep 2011 10:52:36 +0000

Author: Jack Catholic
Subject: 19811
Posted: 03 September 2011 at 10:52am

Dear IslamisPeace,

May Allah bless you, IslamisPeace!

Jack Catholic

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by Jack...

Fri, 02 Sep 2011 12:19:33 +0000

Author: islamispeace
Subject: 19811
Posted: 02 September 2011 at 12:19pm

Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Re: Mat. and Mark's relating of the story of the demon possessed daughter, the mother, and Jesus as being evidence of evolution of scripture due to human tampering.

We'll look, as always, at the author and his purpose of writing his gospel. Matthew's was written to a Jewish audience, and his purpose was to confront the racist attitudes of the Jews and so lead them to be more global minded in their thinking. The Jews were, per the OT, chosen to be the light of God to the world. Matthew wanted to show that the faith of a non-Jew could be stronger in many respects that the faith of the Jews. He did just that./ Mark, however, wanted to hold up an undying unstoppable faith before the gentiles to immitate, and so to also show that Jesus responds beyond what is expected if we have such a faith. This simple fact, difference in motivation for writing their gospels, explains the differences between them. Far from popular assertion, there is no evidence in these differences being anything but supporting of the purposes of the authors. And the differences of each are compatible with the other. So the differences do not equate to contradiction.

Simple explanation using obvious evidence, huh?

God Bless you , all of you .

Besides not providing any evidence to back up your explanation, you fail to realize that your response completely ignores the Gospel of Luke's omission of the story. Why did Luke's gospel omit the story? Because as its target audience were the Gentiles, Luke probably felt the story would be too hard to swallow. He also omitted it as it contradicted his message, which was that salvation through Jesus was open to Gentiles as well as Jews.

Regarding your claim that Matthew's purpose of including the story "was to confront the racist attitudes of the Jews and so lead them to be more global minded in their thinking", it fails to explain why Matthew used the same racist term the Jews used to refer to Gentiles. If his purpose was to combat the racism of some Jews, he did not do a good job as he only perpetuated the same racist stereotypes. It would be like if a white person wrote an essay condemning racism towards black people, but to do so used the N-word. Using such a word would obviously take much of the passion out of an otherwise noble intention.

Notice also that in both Mark and Matthew's accounts, Jesus only heals the woman's daughter after she accepted her position as being secondary to Jews. That was her so-called "faith". It is no surprise then that Luke completely eliminated the story. To suggest that Gentiles have a stake in salvation, but only after the Jews have had their fill, would not be accepted very easily by Gentile Christians. Therefore, the changing accounts from Mark to Matthew and eventually the complete omission of the story from Luke serves as evidence of evolution.

Originally posted by Jack

Simple explanation using obvious evidence, huh?

Indeed!

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Re: Mat. and Mark'srelating...

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 23:01:26 +0000

Author: Jack Catholic
Subject: 19811
Posted: 31 August 2011 at 11:01pm

Re: Mat. and Mark's relating of the story of the demon possessed daughter, the mother, and Jesus as being evidence of evolution of scripture due to human tampering.

Simple explanation using obvious evidence, huh?

God Bless you , all of you .

Edited by Jack Catholic - 01 September 2011 at 9:41pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Dear Ron, So, the fact is,...

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 22:33:06 +0000

Author: Jack Catholic
Subject: 19811
Posted: 31 August 2011 at 10:33pm

Dear Ron,

So, the fact is, though you claimed that we practically agree, yet in truth, you know are asserting that we do not. You say that I have no evidence to support what I am saying. But in fact, you do not have any evidence to support it. You have explained your surmisings in detail so as to make them appear possible, and I grant you that much. But in literature, that which is possible yet not actual is called realistic fiction. So it is that this is exactly what you are asserting.

Contrary to your suggestion that I have no evidence to support what I am saying, I certainly do. Here it is. The one Gospel writer who goes into the virgin conception and birth of Jesus, as well as the death of Jesus on the cross, in great detail is the one author who left active ministry to go and live with St. John the Apostle and Mary herself in Ephesius for three years before writing his gospel. That author is St. Luke, a physician. It is well spoken of by the early church that during that time he got detail directly from Mary while sitting at her feet. That is why he wrote about these things as he did when the others did not. His data was not invented as time went on after the death of Jesus, but was revealed by Mary herself and by John, both, by the way, who were present at the death of Jesus and could relate it in detail as no one else could. This is not evolution, but revelation, as I have been asserting with you all along. You see, I do have evidence on my side: the first century teaching about St. Luke and why he wrote what he did, and the evidence of his writing. Do you have such powerful evidence to support your contrary assertions? Haven't seen it yet. Think about it, Ron. The only real peace in life comes from admitting the truth, and then experiencing the aftermath (usually positive and growth filled).

God bless, Ron,

Jack Catholic

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by Jack CatholicPerhaps...

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 20:42:47 +0000

Author: Ron Webb
Subject: 19811
Posted: 31 August 2011 at 8:42pm

Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Perhaps you are right in that we do agree, mostly. However the point that some are trying to make here is that the Holy Bible evolved due to human tampering. In their mind, evolution of scripture means that the books of the Holy Bible were written by the author first, then altered by others as time passed, either changed or added to, such that the eventual books, as we have them today no longer resemble the simple coherent books that the authors orriginally intended.

The first Gospel author whose work has survived was Mark. He made no mention of the virgin birth. We already agreed that this was not a mere oversight (how could he forget a major miracle?). It was omitted because, as confirmed in Luke 3:23 and Matthew 13:55, it was not part of the story at that time.

Later, Matthew wrote his own Gospel, based in part on Mark's story, but he added the story of the virgin birth. We agree on this, right? We can disagree over where Matthew got this extra information, but there is no doubt that the story grew in the telling.

Do we also agree that the phrase "the Son of God" was added to Mark 1:1 by a copyist at some point? The earliest authentic versions of Mark do not include it. I guess you can make what you want of that, but it seems clear evidence to me of an attempt to make Mark's account more compatible with the divine parentage of Jesus.

If this is the kind of evolution you are arguing for, then you are wrong, no doubt about it. But if you are simple saying that the truth about Jesus' birth was only partially known during his lifetime on earth, with the remainder of the truth being revealed by Mary only later, that is after his death, and recorded thusly, then yes, you are right. But in no way was the story of Jesus' birth invented by later Christians and slipped into Gospel books already written. There is simply no evidence to proove this other than immagination.

On the other hand, you have no evidence to support your theory that this miracle was revealed by Mary after his death.

But let's go with it. Let's suppose that throughout Jesus's entire life, everyone assumed that Joseph was the father, and Mary never said a word to the contrary. And then some time after Jesus' death, she opens up with something like, "Oh, by the way: Joseph wasn't the father. In fact, we never even had sex. Ever. You see, there was this miracle that happened a long time ago, that I don't think I ever told anyone about. Sorry about that. It might have helped to explain things, I guess. But we just felt that it would be easier for the Son of God to have a normal childhood, without all this weirdness about His conception. Better to just let Him believe He was born out of wedlock. And then, later on, it just never seemed like the right time to bring it up. Kind of an awkward subject, y'know?"

Aside from being totally implausible, is it even honest?

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Now since Larry has deprived...

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 12:18:31 +0000

Author: islamispeace
Subject: 19811
Posted: 31 August 2011 at 12:18pm

Now since Larry has deprived me of his company (), I am free to present some more evidence of the evolution of the Gospels. This concerns the story of the Gentile woman who approached Jesus (pbuh) and pleaded with him to exorcise the demon which had possessed her daughter. The story is related by Mark and Matthew, but not Luke or John:

Mark -
"²⁴ Jesus left that place and went to the vicinity of Tyre.[g] He entered a house and did not want anyone to know it; yet he could not keep his presence secret. ²⁵ In fact, as soon as she heard about him, a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an impure spirit came and fell at his feet. ²⁶ The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.

²⁷ �First let the children eat all they want,� he told her, �for it is not right to take the children�s bread and toss it to the dogs.�

²⁸ �Lord,� she replied, �even the dogs under the table eat the children�s crumbs.�

²⁹ Then he told her, �For such a reply, you may go; the demon has left your daughter.�

³⁰ She went home and found her child lying on the bed, and the demon gone." (Mark 7:24-30)

Matthew -
"²¹ Leaving that place, Jesus withdrew to the region of Tyre and Sidon. ²² A Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, �Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly.�

²³ Jesus did not answer a word. So his disciples came to him and urged him, �Send her away, for she keeps crying out after us.�

²⁴ He answered, �I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.�

²⁵ The woman came and knelt before him. �Lord, help me!� she said.

²⁶ He replied, �It is not right to take the children�s bread and toss it to the dogs.�

²⁷ �Yes it is, Lord,� she said. �Even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their master�s table.�

²⁸ Then Jesus said to her, �Woman, you have great faith! Your request is granted.� And her daughter was healed at that moment." (Matthew 15:21-28)

We know from Jewish sources from the time period that the terms "dogs" and "swine" were commonly used to refer to the Gentiles. However, Geza Vermes points out that the term was also used for wayward Jews as well:

"Exceptionally they [dogs] are associated with bad Jews whose countenance in the eschatological age is expected to resemble 'the face of a dog' (mSotah 9:15)." ("The Authentic Gospel of Jesus, p. 109)

The apparent racist tone of these passages from the Gospels of Mark and Mattew aside (as the issue is whether the Gospels have evolved), how is evidence of evolution? First, the differences between the Gospels of Mark and Matthew need to be considered. As Vermes points out:

"Against his usual trend, Matthew makes Jesus appear even more severe than in Mark's account. He first ignores the woman and when his disciples suggest that he should rid them of this nuisance, he take no action: this Gentile person is not his problem. The idea of a universal saving mission to every nation is not part of this picture. Jesus' intervention...was strictly an exception justified by the out-of-the-ordinary faith of the mother." (p. 278)

The presence of the passage in both Gospels suggests that Jesus' mission was to the Jews only. However, there is a difference between the two accounts as to how Jesus deals with the woman, with Matthew showing Jesus being more stubborn. Matthew's Gospel, as claimed by Church tradition, was primarily written for a Jewish audience. This could perhaps explain why Matthew tries very hard to make Jesus into a prophet whose main concern is with the Jews.

But why is the passage not present in the Gospel of Luke? It is accepted by Church tradition that the author of the gospel was a Gentile physician (Luke). He was not a Jew. As David Malick of bible.org puts it:

"The tone of Luke and Acts is similar: worldwide outlook, interest in Gentiles, interest in woman, apologetic tendency [...]

Many subjects in Acts would have been prominent before A.D. 70: Gentile admission to church fellowship, coexistence of Jews and Gentiles in the church, food requirements of the apostolic decree [...]

Luke has a universal emphasis for the Gospel: 1. Samaritans 2. Gentiles 3. Sinners 4. Poor 5. Outcasts 6. Women 7. Children [...]

Therefore, Luke writes Luke-Acts to argue that the Christian Gospel is not anti-semitic, but is rooted in the Hebrew Scriptures' promise of salvation to both the Jews and the Gentiles. "The Way" shares in the initiation of the spiritual promises to Israel. They are the stewards of the promises to Israel. The reason it is primarily Gentile in nature is because the Jews rejected the message of Jesus as Messiah, and pushed the church out. Nevertheless, the Jews as a people are not rejected by God or his servant Paul. The promises will yet be consummated for the nation through the resurrected Jesus--the hope of Israel." ("An Introduction to the Gospel of Luke")

When we consider that Luke wrote his gospel primarily for a Gentile audience and wanted to include Gentiles in the plan of salvation, it is not at all surprising that he would omit the story of the Canaanite woman seeking Jesus' help. There are two reasons for this:

1. To keep the story would contradict Luke's primary message, that salvation through Jesus is open to Jew and Gentile alike, and

2. To keep the story would probably hurt the acceptance of the gospel among the Gentiles. Let's face it. Jesus' reference to Gentiles as being like "house dogs" would not fare well among Gentiles the Church wanted to convert. Being a Gentile himself, Luke probably did not like the story as well.

Hence, the story was omitted and the gospels evolved from being concerned with salvation for the Jews to salvation for all mankind.

Edited by islamispeace - 31 August 2011 at 12:28pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by Larryislamispeace, To...

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 11:48:13 +0000

Author: islamispeace
Subject: 19811
Posted: 31 August 2011 at 11:48am

Originally posted by Larry

islamispeace,

   To quote you: "As I have said multiple times already, we will not discuss this topic on this thread which is titled "The Holy Gospel did not evolve!"..."I know what you are trying to do. You want to hijack this thread and divert attention away to an unrelated topic so as to avoid the overwhelming evidence of the Gospels' evolution. Other Christians have tried this tactic before. I have taken the liberty of opening the new topic so that we can discuss it there. So, why don't you stop being a child and let us start the discussion?" Continued stubbornness only makes you look more foolish and cowardly."

   You go off on me about talking about a new subject on this thread and then blatantly do the exact thing that you are accusing me of. I posted a message on this topic page to let you know about the new topic that I had started a new thread on, how else was I to tell you about the new topic I started? Your excuses and accusations about what "other Christians" have done in the past show that you continue your attacks and insinuations about Christians (and their vast conspiricies against you) posing as reasoned and intellectual debate.

   Your patronizing and superior attitude becomes more tedious and repetitious as you continue your rants and conspiracy theories. I have no intentions of further continuing discussion of anything with you and thereby give you an opportunity to showcase your ill-concealed bigotry and religious intolerance of others who do not share your silly and childish views.

   Good luck on "your" new topic showcasing your vast intellect. I'm sure you can find someone who is dumb enough to be drawn into your absurd, narcissistic, self-congratulatory and "acute" universe. LOL! All I know for sure is that I am not that person.

Larry

And yet another attempted conversation with Larry ends in a whiny rant and refusal to discuss further. What is that now, the fourth time? I have lost count!

It has become obvious by now that you are an insecure, silly person. You are like a stubborn five-year old who is prone to hissy fits. Oh well. The new topic is still there. Perhaps someone who is a little more secure about themselves will be willing to discuss it. Of course, I have discussed that topic before with others, so it was not anything new.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Hey, IslamiPeace, Your time...

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 05:30:54 +0000

Author: Jack Catholic
Subject: 19811
Posted: 31 August 2011 at 5:30am

Hey, IslamiPeace,

Your time is about up. Change your ways, man! Get some manners, our your intelligence and charm (I have seen it) will be wasted on Islamicity Forums. Soon no one will pay any attention to you or even respond to you. You will be a shadow on this forum. If you truly want to make a difference, get some manners, guy. Just a suggestion...

May Allah bless you with them,

Jack Catholic

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Dear Larry, You are so right....

Wed, 31 Aug 2011 05:24:48 +0000

Author: Jack Catholic
Subject: 19811
Posted: 31 August 2011 at 5:24am

Dear Larry,

You are so right. This is why I generally disregard this posters posts and and ignore them. He seems at times to be very capable of intelligent and substantantive posting, but then most of the time he is playing obnoxoius games that really serve no purpose but to ruin the thread.

I'm glad you are considering the same response to him. Your life will be more peacefull... Excelent choice...

God Bless you, but hopefully not with IslamisPeace,

Jack Catholic

Edited by Jack Catholic - 31 August 2011 at 5:27am

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : islamispeace, To quote you: "As...

Mon, 29 Aug 2011 14:16:26 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 29 August 2011 at 2:16pm

islamispeace,

   To quote you: "As I have said multiple times already, we will not discuss this topic on this thread which is titled "The Holy Gospel did not evolve!"..."I know what you are trying to do. You want to hijack this thread and divert attention away to an unrelated topic so as to avoid the overwhelming evidence of the Gospels' evolution. Other Christians have tried this tactic before. I have taken the liberty of opening the new topic so that we can discuss it there. So, why don't you stop being a child and let us start the discussion?" Continued stubbornness only makes you look more foolish and cowardly."

   You go off on me about talking about a new subject on this thread and then blatantly do the exact thing that you are accusing me of. I posted a message on this topic page to let you know about the new topic that I had started a new thread on, how else was I to tell you about the new topic I started? Your excuses and accusations about what "other Christians" have done in the past show that you continue your attacks and insinuations about Christians (and their vast conspiricies against you) posing as reasoned and intellectual debate.

   Your patronizing and superior attitude becomes more tedious and repetitious as you continue your rants and conspiracy theories. I have no intentions of further continuing discussion of anything with you and thereby give you an opportunity to showcase your ill-concealed bigotry and religious intolerance of others who do not share your silly and childish views.

   Good luck on "your" new topic showcasing your vast intellect. I'm sure you can find someone who is dumb enough to be drawn into your absurd, narcissistic, self-congratulatory and "acute" universe. LOL! All I know for sure is that I am not that person.

Larry

Edited by Larry - 29 August 2011 at 2:29pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by Larryislamispeace, "I...

Mon, 29 Aug 2011 11:35:23 +0000

Author: islamispeace
Subject: 19811
Posted: 29 August 2011 at 11:35am

Originally posted by Larry

islamispeace,

   "I assume you can read. I'll say it AGAIN; "I started a new TOPIC "Were there more than one version of the Qur'an?" That is the TITLE of the new THREAD. Don't blame me if you don't know how to use the topics index."

   I didn't need you to open a new thread as I already started it by asking the question that would start the new THREAD. That is evident by the statement "Originally posted by Larry."

   Are you really that obtuse or do you not know how to read English?

Larry

Oh, I am "obtuse" am I? Are you sure I am not being "acute"?

I still cannot believe how difficult it is to start a new topic with you. Not only are you a shameless hypocrite whose only central argument in any topic is "you are ignorant" but you are also as stubborn as a mule. Unfortunately, your childish stubbornness reflects your own character. It does nothing to me.

As I have said multiple times already, we will not discuss this topic on this thread which is titled "The Holy Gospel did not evolve!". The forum moderator has already intervened once on this thread, urging everyone to stay on topic when the posters deviated from the topic.

I know what you are trying to do. You want to hijack this thread and divert attention away to an unrelated topic so as to avoid the overwhelming evidence of the Gospels' evolution. Other Christians on this forum have tried this tactic before.

I have taken the liberty of opening the new topic so we can discuss it there. So, why don't you stop being a child and let us start the discussion? Here is the link again:

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21622

Continued stubbornness only makes you look more foolish and cowardly.

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Dear Ron, Perhaps you are right...

Fri, 26 Aug 2011 07:12:36 +0000

Author: Jack Catholic
Subject: 19811
Posted: 26 August 2011 at 7:12am

Dear Ron,

Perhaps you are right in that we do agree, mostly. However the point that some are trying to make here is that the Holy Bible evolved due to human tampering. In their mind, evolution of scripture means that the books of the Holy Bible were written by the author first, then altered by others as time passed, either changed or added to, such that the eventual books, as we have them today no longer resemble the simple coherent books that the authors orriginally intended.

God Bless, Ron,

Jack Catholic

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : islamispeace, "I assume...

Thu, 25 Aug 2011 23:52:37 +0000

Author: Larry
Subject: 19811
Posted: 25 August 2011 at 11:52pm

islamispeace,

   "I assume you can read. I'll say it AGAIN; "I started a new TOPIC "Were there more than one version of the Qur'an?" That is the TITLE of the new THREAD. Don't blame me if you don't know how to use the topics index."

   I didn't need you to open a new thread as I already started it by asking the question that would start the new THREAD. That is evident by the statement "Originally posted by Larry."

   Are you really that obtuse or do you not know how to read English?

Larry

Edited by Larry - 25 August 2011 at 11:55pm

The Holy Gospel did not evolve! : Originally posted by Jack...

Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:18:16 +0000

Author: Ron Webb
Subject: 19811
Posted: 25 August 2011 at 5:18pm

Originally posted by Jack Catholic

O.K. I'll say this again for your benefit. Most people who heard St. Peter speak on the Day of Pentecost were not told how Jesus was conceived or born. You can read about this in the beginning of the Book of Acts. The author of Acts never tells us about this subject in Acts. But what he tells us of the address of Peter does not include any mention of Jesus' birth. So it is that the Christian community in Jerusalem did not begin with knowledge of Jesus' birth or conception. Yet they knew about it at some point. Did this knowledge evolve? Of course not. But it was revealed at some point and then became general knowledge. The learned about it from Mary herself, just as the author of the Book of Acts (that would be St. Luke the physician of the Gospel of Luke fame) learned about it.

Again, this is not evolution, as you claim. It is revelation. The knowledge did not develope but always existed, as did the contents of the New Testament. You simply are wrong in your assertion, just as the verses of the Holy Bible you have presented do not reveal any proof at all that the Holy Bible evolved. It is clear, however, Ron, that you do not believe me.

On the contrary, I do believe you. We are in complete agreement about the facts. During Jesus' lifetime, the Gospel ("good news") about Jesus did not include any mention of his miraculous birth. Whatever the source of that claim, it was only added to the story many decades after his death.

Our disagreement is strictly a matter of semantics. The above is exactly what I mean when I say that a story evolved: "to come forth gradually into being; develop; undergo evolution: The whole idea evolved from a casual remark." So if that isn't what you mean by the word, exactly what do you mean?

Edited by Ron Webb - 25 August 2011 at 5:23pm