Comments by "nunya" (@nunya54) on "Why Andrew Tate Went From Atheist | To Christian | To Muslim - (IN 4 YEARS)" video.
-
73
-
12
-
10
-
7
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@morticiag In Islam, there are laws against slandering anyone. Even speaking about a person something they do not like is not allowed. Apparently, for other religions or people, this is allowed like using someone's name incorrectly. This is from the superiority of Islam over all other religions and ways of life. It is against the law to call other people names or to say disparaging things against them. By the mention of your highly erroneous facts of Muhammad or any of the pre-Islamic Arabs as being Hindu, I would suggest you study history and expand your knowledge of Islam and the Muslim world (not all mosques have moons on them; this is a cultural symbol, not an Islamic one).
To be Muslim means to submit to God and praying in the direction of the Kabah is what God legislates for prayer and touching and kissing the stone is an action God says to do. The Torah we have today came 1000 years after Moses in a language he didn't speak through the hands of evil Israelites who the Bible says would bring shame on their faces, provoke God to anger, always go against what God told them to do, kill their prophets AND change scripture. The Torah they put forward is an assumption people have to be the revelation to Moses but is not; clearly it has fabrications of stories of sinful prophets which is not possible. God does not send majorly sinful prophets to relay His message He only picks the best of mankind for this.
Neither was Muhammad or anyone else after Islam required to follow the Torah. The Quran and Islam are the fiery (new) law prophesized from Mount Paran, Tema/Teiman, Muhammad the hamdah, from the vision of Isaiah's chariot of camels (chariot of asses was Jesus), the burden of Arabia who would fight the sons of Kedar with 10,000 saints, the prophet like unto Moses but from outside of Israel who God would put His words in his mouth; the unlettered prophet with a book that was previously sealed. No one is held to the Torah anymore and particularly not the Torah we have with us since it is not the uncorrupted original Torah that Moses received.
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
I think part of it is the story of Jesus confuses them and seems like a parody almost, so they mock it. It would make more sense to most people if he was as prophet, like his earliest followers believed but then when the gospel writers who never met him said he was God, people got confused. Even when Paul introduced the new idea Jesus was the son of God, and then the Godhead himself, this eventuated into the Trinity to try to make sense of it but it still didn't really work, though it did appeal to pagans who already had those ideas about their gods.
So it seems like a strange character to many that is supposed to be God but becomes a man, is supposed to be everlasting but dies, is powerful but is killed, is supposed to be one but three. It is hard for many people to reconcile this, so they reject it and mock it because it goes against what they find logical. That and perhaps plus how Christians act, like he said, it doesn't align. Most don't really seem to be convinced themselves.
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@ThePowergon Incarnation is a pagan belief; one of many that Paul borrowed from the pagan nations where he made his religious based, and borrowed ideas from to make Christianity palatable to the pagans to easily convert them. That's why he abolished the law and said all you have to do is "accept Jesus". Easy peasy but not based on anything Jesus ever taught nor any other prophet before Jesus. Even Jesus being called the lamb is from pagan beliefs. Most people don't know how far and closely related Christianity and paganism are but it's never been denied by the Church and is well-documented. Do your research. There's a reason they say paganism did not adopt Christianity but Christianity adopted paganism
Jesus being God is illogical and isn't based on any evidence. Everyone who said never met Jesus and wrote those words anonymously and scholars don't know who they were or how they heard Jesus say those things. Then when we look at the Bible, we find contradictions, a trait of a writing that has many human authors, particularly when they are making up their own stories. If Jesus clearly communicated he was God, then why didn't the Jews who he was sent to who beleived in him and were taught directly by him not know he was God or worship him? For three centuries they followed him as a prophet.
This is why scholars like John Toland ask how is it possible to be the first of all others (for they were made to be the first heretics), who should form wrong conceptions of the doctrines and designs of Jesus? And how did the Gentiles who only believed in Jesus after his death from the preaching and information of people that never knew Jesus, have truer notions of doctrine and Jesus or when could they have their information from the believing Jews. The Ebionites and Nazarenes believed he was a prophet and that is what they took from his early teachings. They were the Jews who believed in him, from amongst his own people, who lived and died and witnessed his actions. How did the Christians who came in the fourth century know more about Jesus than them?
We don't have to understand and we can't comprehend God is always the Christian cop out to why Christianity is so illogical. If you had proof Christianity was from God, we would not need any of these explanations. We would not need archaeological evidence, the testimony of "even atheists" say; we would not need personal experience of people experiencing Jesus. We have to be honest and admit, Christianity is baseless and the Bible is a flawed book and no way from God. Does it have some truth? Sure, it still retains some of what Jesus said and some of what God said but it has to many additions, deletions, untruths as well and that is all after asking, WHICH one?
We don't know who wrote Revelations anymore than we know who wrote the rest of the Bible but we do know there are a lot of problems in these writings and that Biblical and Jewish scholarship all agree, it's a corrupted book. Is God's religion going to be based on a corrupted book and be so unclear and confusing that Christians 2000 years later can't even agree on who Jesus is? Let's face reality. This is not the religion of Jesus or the religion of God.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@morticiag I figured that translation wasn't great; I figured that translation wasn't great; as some translations are bad like the use of begotten son by John in the Bible. After Jesus was taken into the Heavens, Christians incorrectly began to believe that since Jesus had no worldly human father, then God must be his literal father, and so the author of the Gospels of John who never met Jesus, stated almost a century after Christ: “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten son.” (1 John 4:9) The vast majority of Christian scholars do not believe that John or any of the Apostles wrote these words. So these are clearly not the words of God, nor the words of Christ. And this ultimately led to Jesus being worshipped by later Christians.
The best translation to date is the Noble Quran which says at 19:19 "He said, "I am only the messenger of your Lord to give you [news of] a pure boy." or "The angel) said: "I am only a Messenger from your Lord, (to announce) to you the gift of a righteous son." Verse 21:91 does not say divine father and Father, even in the Bible was never literal. The Jews called God Father because He used to take care of them, and in the Bible, there are lots of sons of God. Chapter 5 of the Gospel of Matthew, verse 9, it states: “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.” Verse 45 of Chapter 5 of : “So that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven.” Verse 4 Chapter 5: “You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.” Chapter 6 Matthew, verse 1: “Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.” Chapter 23, verse 9: “And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.” These verses show that use of the terms “father” and “son” to refer to the connection between the Lord and His servant was a practice established in the Bible for all people.
According to the Biblical term in the Old and New Testaments, every God- fearing righteous person is called ‘Son of God’. “Blessed are the peace-makers, for they shall be called the children of God.”
Jesus does not have a father which is what made his birth a miracle although not even the greatest birth there was.
2
-
@lovekids6835 No, because the people during that time did not believe Jesus died. The deceit was for those trying to kill Jesus. The followers of Jesus during that time believed the same thing, Basilides teaching it was Simon of Cyrene instead of Jesus. The people who followed Christ for three hundred years did so as a prophet of God. They did not worship Jesus. SO the question would be why would your God have the people closest to Jesus including those he taught directly, not know anything about Jesus being God or the son of God? Why did they follow him as a prophet for three hundred years? Why would the Bible be so confusing and contradictory? Why would Christians still not have proof 2000 years later for who Jesus is clearly, the son of God or God, which Christians still can't agree on?
And then, to your question, if Jesus is God, why would he created Muhammad and send him 600 years later and have him agree with the early Christians and his own teachings and not the teachings of the later Christians? Why would he plan so much confusion? How can you trust a god like that? It doesn't make sense. How can you trust a God that says He is Eternal but is born and dies? How can you trust a God that says he is All powerful and knowledgeable but then loses power and knowledge to become a human?
God did not deceive you. You were not there and you did not try to kill Jesus. You are making a choice to believe in a religion which was not founded by Jesus and has no authentic evidence as being from Jesus or from God. This is part of the test of us being created. Will you go against the logic God gave you to know He cannot become a man baby or do you know that God is One, Unique, the Creator and never can become part of His creation as He is bigger than everything and cannot be contained? Will you believe in the inauthentic words of the Bible or not? That is a choice you are making; not something you or anyone is forced to do. Do you know who said Jesus was God? It wasn't Jesus and it wasn't God. In order to believe that, you have to know who said it and have proof it is authentic which no Christian or Biblical scholar can prove.
Keep asking questions. Keep studying. Pick up some Biblical commentaries and ask God to guide you and you will not be deceived. God didn't make you or anyone else Christian. That is what our parents made us to be or a choice we made to be. We have free will, logic, intellect to make other choices though.
2
-
@KingKhan-ez3gg The Jews Jesus was sent to, the lost sheep of Israel, who followed him while he was alive, the Ebionites, the Nazarenes, they believed in Jesus just like Muslims believe in Jesus. They would be considered the Muslims of their time following Jesus as the way to God and not worshipping him like the later Christians did. Of course, they were not actually Christians, yet as Christianity was developed over 3-4 centuries into what it is today, based upon the ideas of Paul and not Jesus, adopted by Constantine and developed by the Church and Church leaders, etc.
No one in the time of Jesus thought he was the son of God or God. That idea came 45-50 years after Jesus by people who never met Jesus but who made claims, like Paul, of meeting Jesus but 95 percent of Christian scholars agree, those writings were anonymous. They don't know who these people are who wrote the gospels, they assigned them authorship and now, don't even think they wrote them based on the style of writing being so different. It was common knowledge for about three centuries after Jesus that he was not God or the son of God. Paul created that idea during a time where different schools of thought existed about Jesus. He was a prophet, from what he taught, he was the son of God, like Paul said and then he was the Godhead himself that Paul eventually said.
This is why Christians were fighting over who Jesus was and they needed to call church councils to decide who Jesus was. Something they still have not decided today, as they still disagree on whether he is the son of God or God. There's plenty of evidence to this that most Christians seem unaware of but these two books are pretty good to learn more by Muslim authors. There's plenty of Christian or non-Muslim evidence to this as well, that many Christians either don't seem to know or I guess, ignore.
You might like these books to get a good general overview. They're print books but also free online. Good information! https://darpdfs.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Jesus-in-Isl%C4%81m-Christianity-the-Jewish-Talmud.pdf and https://mpubs.org/files/AHBD_EB_20190414_the_origins_and_development_of_modern_christianity.pdf
I am Muslim but with Christian family, so I have other resources as well about Christianity, from Muslim and non-Muslim sources (proven how faulty it is); there are some good websites as well teaching about Muhammad in the Bible, for example if you'd like; I'll share.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
God has what he says He has as far as hands, face, eyes, etc but they are not like human hands. We don't ask how they are but just accept what God says about Himself.
When you say historically, Jesus had no book, that is based upon what evidence? The Bible is not an authentic book with which we would judge history, particularly because it has many parts that Biblical scholars call un-historic and because we do not know who wrote it though there are parts, that are written by Paul, for example, that cannot be taken as he was established to be an untrustworthy person refuted by the likes of James and Jude in their epistles and established by the Jews to have lied about rabbinical training. This makes most of what is stated in the Bible to be unfounded since it is neither from the revelation of God or Jesus relayed by anyone known or trustworthy. We'd have to use outside sources to verify what is true in or not.
There is evidence however that he did historically have a book and that is stated in the Quran to be the Injeel or Gospels revealed to Jesus. Now one might reject the Quran but they would be only doing so against evidence since it is a book whose authorship is known and was revealed to and written by individuals known for being trustworthy and honest, even by those who were their enemies. So it's simply a matter of accepting the Bible blindly and against evidence and rejecting the Quran blindly, against evidence. Seeing as how Islamic sources have more evidence than most of history, maybe even all of history, this would be a poor choice to do unless someone also rejects most of history including the Torah and New Testament. People only reject it because they want to without good reason.
With that being said, we cannot establish Islam to be false or Muhammad's claims to be false since there is no evidence of them being false. But interestingly, even if one were to choose to still use the Bible as a source, it still confirms Islam and Muhammad's claims to be true as there are prophecies that fit him that do not fit any other prophet or Jesus and he meets the criteria the Bible sets to know when a mean speaks from God.
Of course, the fundamentals of Christianity and Islam are different but the fundamental teachings of Jesus and Islam are not. Christianity was founded around the fourth century based on the ideologies or Christology of Paul and not the teachings of Jesus. In that way, yes, the fundamentals of the religions differ. While Christianity was a departure from the message of Jesus to worship God alone like him, the fundamental of Christianity were to worship Jesus instead of God. This was a departure from every prophet that came before Jesus, the message of Jesus and the message of the last prophet after Jesus. This is why Christians find the Jews who believed in Jesus and followed him while he was alive, learning directly from him to be the first heretics just like they consider Muslims to be heretics; they held the same beliefs about Jesus and God as Jesus and not like those who came later after Christianity developed after Jesus.
This is a common mistake or assumption that the Quran defines the Trinity as Jesus, Mary and God and I would urge you to read the Quran, perhaps again if you have already to find those verses that mention Mary do not mention the Trinity and the verses that mention the Trinity (three) do not mention Mary. As you said, "The Quran said people or Christians worship Mary" and this is correct as the Collyridians did and Catholics still do (praying to anyone other than God is considered worship in Islam).
2
-
@peace5272 I believe God has what He says he has and they are not like what we have. We have knowledge, God has knowledge. Our knowledge is not like God's. We can have wisdom, God has wisdom, our wisdom is not like His. God can get angry, deceive, etc. So can we but ours are blameworthy traits while God's are always praiseworthy. God is the Creator, not like His creation.
All of history is record by someone. That is where we get history from. The ideas that form the basis of modern Christianity, after the time of Jesus, was created and written by someone as well, Paul. That someone was considered untrustworthy and he developed his own ideas about Jesus. The other authors of the Bible are unknown. So they were someone's ideas but we do not know who. They were not revealed by God or said %100 by Jesus. Even what was said from him, scholars say was not exact but approximate or the gist of the story.
Now when it came to any other matter, and we found a book or a record of something and did not know who wrote it, one, this would not be enough for us to consider this book trustworthy or true. If we keep looking in the book and find information that is un-historic in it as is the case with the Bible, we would doubt it even more. If we found contradictions and unsubstantiated information, like some of the prophecies fulfilled by the gospel writers but not found originally to be prophesized, genealogies mixed up, characters mixed up. We should naturally have doubts about this book. We have the claims of anonymous people and then Paul who the Jews already established to be a liar, claiming rabbinical training but not actually receiving it; a man whose teachings were refuted by James and Jude in their epistles and created new ideas about Jesus no one knew in the time of Jesus or before Jesus spoken by any other prophet and we take that information? You wouldn't do that for any other source. Why would anyone for the Bible except that someone told you to believe and you decided to do so against all evidence.
"The Quran said: Jesus, son of Mary, did you say to people: "Take me and my mother for gods beside Allah?" This statement is in fact true because people do and did worship Mary. The Collyridians did and Catholics do, as praying to anyone other than God is considered worship. This is exactly what the pre-Islamic pagan Arabs did, pray to their idols as intermediaries to God, considered polytheism in Islam.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
That has led many people to sin and become loose in the practice of their religion, not having fear, which is what in part he is speaking about but he is new to Islam and does not know yet Islam fully which is understandable. Faith in Islam is NOT just based on fear but love, hope AND fear. Salvation in Islam is the same as taught by Jesus and all the prophets being a combination of faith, repentance, obedience and works, after God's grace and mercy. This lead to salvation, a recurring message in the Quran and found in the parables of Jesus. God promises forgiveness and paradise for those that believe, seek forgiveness and repent from their sins, obey His Prophet(s) and do the obligations and work righteous deeds.
Fear, yes is a an important part as humans respond to consequences and not having consequences or weak and inappropriate ones is what has led to much corruption and degeneracy in many Christian-majority countries (no that they are run by Christianity). Some people are motivated by or at times need hope, hope in God's reward and ease in the next life, some by fear, fear of God's punishment which keeps them in line.
2
-
2
-
Accepting Jesus Christ as Lord and savior was not a concept that Jesus taught. It was what Paul taught and what James and Jude refuted him on, the righteous followers of Jesus considering Paul an apostate of the law and a heretic.
Any violence in Islam is condoned by God since Islam was revealed by God, which is all that matters but many people misconstrue verses they read about violence that were specific for a time and place where violence was necessary and instructed by God as being actions encouraged for all times. This would be similar to reading verses in the Bible about burning daughters alive, killing disobedient children, marrying your rapist and killing women, children and even the animals in battle and thinking those verses applied to all times; by that measure, we would call the Bible and Christianity far more violent than Islam. Even their history, the actions of the Christians themselves, would be far more violent, not only against each other but around the world. The context and time period matter.
While there may be people who say they are Muslim who act violently claiming they do so for their religion, they would actually be going against their religion as there is no vigilante violence allowed in Islam and this is from the nature of humans and not from the legislation of Islam. There is no doubt capital punishment in Islam for crimes God deems it appropriate for, just as was in the law of Moses, the same law Jesus himself said he came to uphold and fulfill, but that is enacted by the government, the law and not individual Muslims.
2
-
Let's be serious. You don't know of any gay people being thrown off any buildings and also there is absolutely no evidence of the Quran being corrupted but lots of evidence the Bible is. This is undisputable.
Everyone has free will, lol, that is why there are LAWS and PUNISHMENTS. You are not compelled to do anything but yo might suffer the consequences of disobeying the law (and the law that Jesus followed and came to uphold did have apostasy laws as well). The same free will exists in Islam and for everyone in the world, it is a feature of being a human, not specific to any religion which is why Islamic legislation is full of regulations on how to treat people of other faiths.
Most people aren't Christian because they choose it, perhaps some Muslims as well. Most are Christian because they were raised to be so and taught those ideas. Muslims want people to worship God alone and to earn Paradise, so, yes, they want more people to do so and less people to be punished. They are not like some groups who do not call to monotheism, who abandoned it after there prophets or those who only try to come out and teach once they see another religion growing faster and larger than theirs which goes against the idea that they are only concerned with quality and not quantity. I can't tell you how many Christians throughout my life (and I come from a Christian family in a Christian society) who boasted their religion was correct simply because they were the majority (meanwhile not knowing much about the origins of their beliefs at all).
World domination of Islam would be a good thing, that most people would have some inkling of if they learned what Islam did for Western civilization, for the Jews, etc historically. They saved them once before, they can again.
Allah means God in Arabic. Jesus called God Alaha. You can worship Jesus instead of God, God gives you free will to do so, for a time but God does not go to hell. That's for His created beings.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ShmaAdonaiEhad The Bible didn't come to aid you either. God did. It is disrespectful to the one who created you, who Jacob said the heavens could not contain, that you say a man contained in the earth, that God created, contained in a uterus, that God sent, provided for you instead. What bad manners to have with your Lord. This is the worst sin one can commit God gave you everything you have. He gave you life. He aided you and you give you praise and thanks to his prophet instead. This is paganism and idolatry. This goes against the first commandment. God does not die. God is One. God is not in need like Jesus was in need. God is not a created being like Jesus. God has All Knowledge and knows everything, not Jesus who didn't know the Hour. God is Ever Living and dos not die for a second! God is Most Forgiving and does not need to commit suicide to pay a price He himself set! He is the Creator. He is the God of Jesus, as Jesus said, My God and your God.
You haven't read the Quran and doesn't seem you have studied the Bible either. That is clear or you have not learned about what Jesus really taught either if you think Islam is not the same message he brought and when you said it is a lie by Satan. You give Satan too much credit and place him above God if you think that. This is impossible for anyone who has read the book, anyone of intelligence who has learned about Islam, and anyone who knows any religious scripture, to say. You say that the devil is more powerful than God. For the Bible was corrupted and the Quran was not. The Bible has many false parts. The Quran has none. Amazing. May God guide you.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jesus never said he was the son of God, there is no proof he died and no one during his lifetime knew that about him or witnesses him dying. Those were stories written 45-50 years after Jesus that did not even become mainstream until the 4th century. That is why Christian scholars like John Toland asked, how is it possible to be the first of all others (for they were made to be the first heretics), who should form wrong conceptions of the doctrines and designs of Jesus? And how did the Gentiles who only believed in Jesus after his death from the preaching and information of people that never knew Jesus, have truer notions of doctrine and Jesus or when could they have their information from the believing Jews.
The Ebionites, Nazarenes, . . . most of Christendom are referred to as heretics and non-Christians. Them believing he was a prophet is what they took from his early teachings. They were the the Jews who believed in him, from amongst his own people, who lived and died and witnessed his actions. People have all these word that Jesus said but they have no idea who said them and if Jesus said he was the son of God or God why didn't anyone in his lifetime know this about him and why did Christians still continue to not know this until it was decided by the Church that he was. If he had said that and it was clear in scripture, there would have been no reason the Christians were fighting bloodily over who Jesus was that necessitated the church councils in the first place.
Once you know the history and you put it all together, you'll see. Those were stories they were writing and it wasn't true. Jesus never said he was God or the son of God and no one believed that (until Paul invented it and Constantine adopted it and imposed it on the people).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Sorry but no one that studies both Islam and Christianity will find that Christianity has answers. What causes many people to leave Christianity is the exact opposite: they could not find or were given no answers. When asking about some of the basic fundamentals of Christianity were told, "We're not meant to have the answers to everything." I know many, many Christians who say this or similar. Also, anyone who does serious study of Christianity, as well, will come to a point where they realize they have to accept Christianity off of literally blind faith, as the sources of Christianity are unfounded. The sources are confusing, contradictory, corrupted, as any Biblical scholar will say and there is no other way around this.
Studying the scripture is often what leads many people AWAY from Christianity. It is much easier to "just accept", the same concept taught by Paul to make Christianity easy for pagan converts to enter. This concept, which had Christianity adopt paganism rather than paganism adopt Islam, is really the only reason for mass acceptance of Christianity and going deeper into it, would only lead people more into confusion. Even the concept of salvation by grace was a concept taught by Paul for the same reason; this concept was NOT taught by Jesus as he taught salvation through the combined factors of faith, repentance, obedience and works, after God's grace and mercy. This lead to salvation. God promises forgiveness and paradise for those that believe, seek forgiveness and repent from their sins, obey His Prophet(s) and do the obligations and work righteous deeds. This can be found preserved in his parables quoted in the gospels while Paul's teaching of salvation, refuted by James and Jude in their epistles, does not quote Jesus but is from himself.
Christianity does not have the solutions for today's problems. As Andrew said, Islam is the last religion; it is the only one with those solutions. Islam rejects the gospels because no one knows who wrote the gospels and Muslims only take from authentic sources, especially about God and religion. While there is some truth in the gospels, still retained of what Jesus and God said, there is also too many other writings that are contradictory to what Jesus and God said, and those are the parts that Muslims reject. What Muslims believe about Jesus is also what the followers of Jesus who were there with him while Jesus was on earth, learning from him, witnesses him, etc believe. Their belief in Jesus is not unique. This belief continued about Jesus, not dying, not being the son of God, not being God for relatively three centuries before Paul's ideas of Jesus were adopted and imposed upon the subjects of the land.
The early Christians, from the Docetae, to Basilides teachings of Christ, saying it was Simon of Cyrene instead who was crucified through ignorance and error (Jay Stevenson, A New Eusebius) also agree with what Muslims believe. Even in Christendom there is skepticism in the scripture or story of Jesus dying as one, no one knows who wrote the stories, the people who wrote it were not at the event, there is no chain of narration back to who wrote it and who witnessed it and the details in the story are questionable. Origen of Alexandria said there must have been scriptural errors because of the inclusion of the name Jesus Barabbas and no bandit could have had that name.
Then there are other details like Jesus saying he was like Jonah in the whale; Jonah was not dead. Jesus asking God to save him. Jesus crying, "My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?" No one believes a believer in God would utter such words much less a prophet of God, the son of God or God himself. It doesn't make sense except perhaps it was someone else (or they made this up too). Then there are the parts against historical evidence like Jesus being buried in a tomb. Tombs were for noble people, why was Jesus buried like a noble person when he was arrested as a trouble maker, walked through the streets naked, nailed to a cross where they left them to be eaten by vultures and left to disintegrate. What of his body was left and buried and by who?
couldn't
It was common belief in the first century that Jesus did not die. So where did that idea come from 45-50 years later and from who? Look into the scholarship of this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Jesus is not the author of Christianity. Christianity developed over four centuries; for three of those the people followed Jesus as a prophet and there existed three different schools of thought on Jesus. After that they adopted the doctrines or Christology of Paul, which is not what Jesus taught, and Constantine, the Church and church leaders, etc authored Christianity that we know today. Christianity is the worship of Jesus and Jesus did not call to the worship of himself but only called to the worship of the Father, God alone (and not his literal father).
Salvation in Islam is the same that was taught by Jesus and all the prophets before. Salvation being through through the combined factors of faith, repentance, obedience and works, after God's grace and mercy. This lead to salvation, a recurring message in the Quran and found in the parables of Jesus. God promises forgiveness and paradise for those that believe, seek forgiveness and repent from their sins, obey His Prophet(s) and do the obligations and work righteous deeds. One of God's names is Most Merciful, which can be found throughout the Quran.
1
-
1
-
@Joshuability
Dr. W Graham Scroggie, Moody Bible institute, Chicago, one of the most prestigious Christian evangelical missions in the world: “It is human, yet divine”; “...Yes, the Bible is human, although some out of zeal which is not according to knowledge, have denied this. Those books have passed through the minds of men, are written in the language of men, were penned by the hands of men and bear in their style the characteristics of men....”
Kenneth Cragg, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem,. . . Not so the New testament . . . There is condensation and editing; there is choice reproduction and witness. The Gospels have come through the mind of the church behind the authors. They represent experience and history.....” (The Call of the Minaret”)
You think all scripture is inspired by God? That's claim they made
When Peake's Commentary calls the Book of Joshua a medley of mistakes and quite un-historic, you think God inspired that? Matthew and Luke give contradictory genealogies for Zerubbabel. Matthew makes him a descendant of Solomon, David's son. Luke makes him a descendant of Nathan, also a son of David. Since Solomon and Nathan were brothers (I Chronicles 3:5) they cannot both be paternal ancestors of Zerubbabel. Whose genealogy was inspired and whose wasn't? How could they both be? When Mark says 2:25-26: 'Have ye never read what David did... How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shrew bread but I Samuel 21:1 says it's Ahimelech, Peake's Commentary says this is a mistake." What happened to the inspiration there?
When Matthew said 'All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had said through the prophet: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel.' (Matthew 1:22-23). This prophecy is found in the Old Testament at Isaiah 7:14. Matthew sees in this a referral to Mary (the virgin) and Jesus (a son called Immanuel). Unfortunately, when Christians initially quoted these old prophecies, they used Greek translations which were untrue to the Hebrew originals. This passage is a prime example. There is no mention of a virgin in the original prophecy, the Hebrew word for which is bthulah. The word in the prophecy (which Matthew and other Christians render as virgin) is the Hebrew word almah which signifies a young woman, maiden or damsel of marriageable age. The error no doubt was made by a translator during the copying of Isaiah into Greek and Matthew, unaware of the original Hebrew, merely followed the translated wording. Peake's Commentary on the Bible correctly states: "The rendering 'virgin' is unjustifiable." How could he be inspired and have issues with languages? Does God not know the Hebrew or the Torah?
1
-
1
-
1
-
Killing anyone unjustly in Islam is wrong and there is no vigilante murder that Muslims can enact, on their own and especially living in an Islamic society. So any Muslims beheading or stoning anyone (that sounds like something done outside the law in Muslim countries or individuals acting on their own in non-Muslim countries) would be wrong. Capital punishment DOES exist in Islam but that is for the government and based on judgements and just laws. The apostasy laws, also don't work that way where someone decides to stop practicing Islam and they are killed and this is also the case with the punishments for adultery, fornication, stealing, etc. Based on the actual justice system of Islam, people are far less likely to be punished under the law in an Islamic country than in so-called "free" majority Christian countries like the US. It is a process and also involves thorough investigation and factors but ultimately end the end, what is most important is to stop evil, however that might be done and in some cases, with some evil people who continue to do evil crimes, they might have to be killed and Muslims do not apologize for following their God's revelation because they know God knows His creation best and His legislation is what keeps Islamic societies safer, more just, more stable and morally productive than non-Islamic ones.
Jesus Christ was not nailed to a cross; there is no evidence of that. The early Christians did not believe Jesus died. It was common knowledge in the first century that he didn't. The Docetae said it was an illusion. Basilides taught it was Simon of Cyrene instead.
Christians did behead and kill people and they should have been killing and stoning people according to the law Jesus said he came to uphold and fulfill but Christians abolished the law, following Paul and that is why they have no religion (as Christians say it's a relationship, not a religion) that can govern socities today which is the point, at least in part, that he was making. How can Christianity be the way when it cannot govern societies and when people don't face consequences for their evil actions? That is a recipe for chaos, which is what some countries, majority Christian, are living in today. Historically, Christians did not follow the path of being forgiving to people and loving their enemies and they don't now. It's just inaction. If Jesus Christ is God, then he was not loving in the Old Testament and he wrote laws that were very punitive and Paul called "a ministry of death".
The claim of being forgiven is one thing but forgiving of what? There is a difference between being forgiving, speaking up and being inactive and the later is what many think Christians are doing. One can be forgiving and also speak up and make clear what is right and what is wrong and be clear about what they believe in. There's a difference.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@heavymetalcreationz711
That was not "timie with Islam" ; that was time with sinful and based on your statements of Allah not knowing what they were doing, very ignorant and/or weak Muslims and of course, no, that does not make sense and it is not what is taught. They would probably be considered disbelievers if they think God is not aware of all things. By the very nature that you said these people were doing illegal activities in Islam means Islam does not force people to follow rules. Those Muslims obviously had free will to commit those sinful activities. What you probably mean is Islamic societies run by Islam law forces people? Then that exists in every country as all countries have laws and consequences for breaking those laws; in an Islamic country that would just be based on God's laws rather than the subjective ever-changing laws of the men who govern that country.
The idea that they are forcing without allowing understanding is all just a false assumption. Why wouldn't the understand? Muslims are constantly encouraged and have built into their religion opportunities to constantly learn their religion. Daily prayers, Friday sermons at prayer, reading the Quran, studying from scholars, etc. If one does not understand, then they have not done what they are supposed to do which seems in line with what someone who is drinking alcohol or going to strip clubs might do! Not learn. Perhaps they are Muslim in name only or culturally Muslims just like many Christians are. God guides whom He wills. Not everyone that is born as a Muslim will be a true Muslim.
Muslims are weak, as Muhammad prophesized, they would be large in number but weak which is evident today and a proof that Islam is from God since propaganda is so against Islam AND the Muslims are weak, so how does it keep growing? Those people not knowing the Quran does not make Islam false. For if that were the criteria, then that would make other religions false as well. Muslims are also following the way of the Jews and Christians and other nations, as Muhammad also prophesized in everything they do from becoming material, more secular, abandoning learning the Quran and its language for other subjects, etc. Muslims are not perfect, but Islam is and Islam is not in need of the people, the people are in need of Islam.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
You prove Jehovah's witness is not the best or last religion on earth when you say not anyone can join. This cannot be a religion of God or the last religion if so. Islam is for everyone and is not exclusive.
While Muslims do not go to individual people's houses to preach about God, they are very active in other public places where they don't annoy people but rather allow them to approach if they like and are successful in calling many people to Islam. They have places they set up and go to do so and the invite people to their communities to learn. That being said, we would not say that is what makes it correct but rather it being the only religion and only revelation we have from God is what makes it correct.
Islam definitely has sects, just as Christianity and Judaism have, as Muhammad predicted but he also said the true path of Islam would always be preserved, which is the path he and his companions were upon. The true teachings of Islam have been preserved and if we compare to Christianity, no Christian today practices as Jesus did. His message was lost pretty much after three centuries. Not only that, there is no uniform belief in Christianity of who God even is. Is Jesus the son of God or God? Christians disagree. It is very difficult to call to a religion whose fundamental teachings are not clear, are contradictory and confusing, no in its sects, but in its very source material.
No Christians have laws or consequences/punishments to govern societies. They all have a separation of religion and state which makes them incompatible as a complete way of life and impossible to be the last religion. There is no religion as complete as Islam in giving us guidance on how to live our lives on an individual level to the societal level.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Christians not only went around the world coercing, enslaving, colonizing and killing others, they also fought each other, bloodily, over who Jesus was, a question they still cannot unanimously answer. They kicked off the crusades killing thousands of Jews and raping even more, for Jesus?, almost killing the Jews out of existence, burning them alive in their synagogues and killed each other if they were the wrong denomination. After they went around the world inflicting violence on everyone else, then they calmed down and rebranded claiming to be a religion of loving enemies and peace.
1
-
@chukpas Let's be honest. There are plenty of violent Christians as well, today and historically and far more than Muslims or any violence found in Islamic history. Also, this concept of love does not apply to the Old Testament, which, if one believes Jesus is God, Jesus wrote which as Paul said was "a ministry of death". It certainly was not about love. A problem Christians have been trying to reconcile for a while. The Quran does not teach Muslims to kill. those verses were historical and about events that were happening during that time period. The Quran was revealed over a 23-year period, in real time, to events that were happening and those verses about killing non believers was when those non believers were trying to kill them.
Thinking that would be akin to reading Bible verse about burning daughters alive, killing disobedient children, marrying your rapist and thinking those were teachings for all time (not lovely at all). You have to read and understand the explanation or context behind those verses. Large amounts of rage being solely from Muslims is outrages and unfounded. If you are from or can even witnesses or watch the news about Western Christian nations, you will find they are far more outrageous and quite violent. Christian societies cannot compare to Muslim societies when it comes to rage, crime and violence.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
There are plenty of gay people, or those who seem to be, in Islamic countries. No one bothers them and no one snatches them up o kill them. In Islam, to have the inclination, just like you might want to fornicate as a heterosexual, or kill someone you hate or drive recklessly, you are disallowed from following those desires you might have because they are harmful to you individually and the society as a whole and we were created to worship God and placed on earth as a test to see what we will do. Part of that test is to fulfill our desires WITHIN the legislation that God sets. That includes not being able to do whatever we want to do, and from God's mercy and wisdom, that includes ALL things that are harmful. Anything is harmful is disallowed in Islam and that does include sodomy, for men or women, but that does not mean at the first indication someone is gay they are punished. No, they would have to be very indecent or inciting to indecency causing problems amongst the people to actually be punished (and usually punishments are not murder, but imprisonment or whatever it takes to STOP someone from committing evil, harmful acts).
Capital punishment does exist however in particular circumstances for those whose evil on others cannot be stopped as protecting individuals and society is of the greatest importance which is why Islamic countries have more peaceful, safe and secure societies than non-Muslim countries. People say they are less free, you can't do whatever you want but the trade off is they do feel more safe. They cannot do whatever they want nor is this life for them to do those things. This life is a mixture of good and evil but Paradise is a place of all good and evil. That means in this life, you will have constraints on what you can do and in Paradise you will have pleasure beyond what anyone can imagine and never suffer. Part of that reward might be some suffering one goes through in this life, again, from God's wisdom in restraining yourself from being able to do whatever you want.
So, no, gays are not just killed but if someone is being openly immorally sexual, and that includes heterosexuals as well, this is harmful to the society so has to be stopped. Murder is not evil when it is God's command (and those punishments for that person as a Muslim is seen as expiation so they will pay for that sin now vs paying later in the hellfire; so historically, there were Muslims who would come forward for their crimes for punishment, but like in the time of Muhammad, he would turn them away as the desire was NOT to punish people but to deter them from committing sin in the first place. People often think Shariah law is very harsh and people are getting stoned, getting arms cut off, being thrown from buildings, etc but the reality is the punishment, in itself, is a deterrent AND to be convicted of crimes requires a very high level of evidence as Islam is very careful to be just (unlike Western judicial systems which are trash in comparison)
1
-
1
-
1
-
@JeremiahLittle-c1q The Quran does not mention the Bible at all. The Quran mentions the original revelation to Moses, the Torah and the Gospels of Jesus; not Mark, Matthew, Luke and John who Biblical scholars do not know and do not believe even wrote those books. Biblical scholars and Rabbis say the book is corrupted and the authorship is not known and the Bible says this much about the scribes and generations it came through.
"The Bible" is not God speaking or Jesus but those anonymous men no one can establish as being truthful, reliable, righteous, honest but we have found many mistakes in their writings and as for the likes of Paul, Jewish academics found he liked about rabbinical training, he was refuted by James and Jude in their epistles and was considered a heretic and apostate of the law. Jesus being the son of God was an invention of his, borrowed from the Greek mystery religions of his day to attract pagan converts; something well-known about Christian history and its connection to pagan practices (and beliefs).
The followers of Jesus who lived during his time, who witnessed his actions and learned directly from him believed just as Muslims believe; that he was a prophet. The Ebionites and Nazarenes and the people for three centuries after them followed Jesus as a prophet. The idea that Jesus was the son of God first, then the Godhead himself walking on the earth came 45-50 years after Jesus and was not widely accepted until the fourth century when Constantine and the Church adopted that idea and imposed it upon the people, despite objections from those who knew Jesus best.
That is why Christian scholars like John Toland ask how is it possible to be the first of all others (for they were made to be the first heretics), who should form wrong conceptions of the doctrines and designs of Jesus? And how did the Gentiles who only believed in Jesus after his death from the preaching and information of people that never knew Jesus, have truer notions of doctrine and Jesus or when could they have their information from the believing Jews. The Ebionites, Nazarenes, . . . most of Christendom are referred to as heretics and non-Christians. Them believing he was a prophet is what they took from his early teachings. They were the Jews who believed in him, from amongst his own people, who lived and died and witnessed his actions. Christian history and the Bible don't add up showing more evidence that much of these writings, that have not been found false yet as many have been, are also false. That idea along with others like Jesus dying, resurrecting, etc are not founded to have any evidence to support it and the people during that time did not believe in it (the Docetae, Basilides, etc).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Depends on what you think freedom means. Muslims don't believe in absolute freedom but freedom within what God says is allowed or not which produces the best outcomes for this life and the next. That freedom in the Christian west has made those countries the most crime-ridden and degenerate countries. Humans are not mean to have so much freedom or it will lead to the destruction of the societies that we are seeing now including them NOT practicing their own religion of Christianity. That is not success and is a very short-sighted and worldly dangerous freedom. Short-term pleasure over long-term pain.
Those Western countries also do not allow Muslims and others to practice certain aspects of their religion though they claim freedom of religion, speech, etc but then limit what people are actually able to do, wear, and practice in their religion. They also impose certain ideas on everyone. That is changing but still, exists and the oppression in those countries has existed far longer than they have in Islamic ones. We also know Islamic countries experience more safety, security and peace than Western Christian ones, as all tight cultures do (over loose cultures). They are also hypocritical in many ways that even go against Christian scripture like not allowing women to marry men in polygamy but allowing men to marry men and women to marry women, allowing open fornication and adultery, allowing nudity, in some places in the open public, drug use, etc etc. None of those are Christian values.
It is also untrue that Islam oppresses anyone and many non-Muslims living in Islamic societies can attest to that and those who have true Christian values, often find they prefer those societies over the Christian west due to people having too many immoral freedoms. Islam is heretical to Christendom but so were the Jews Jesus was sent to who actually followed and believed in him while he was on earth and took from his teachings directly considered the first heretics by Christians. So for Muslims to believe in Jesus as HE taught, is a sign they truly follow Jesus.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Islam does not teach Muslims to kill Jews and Christians anymore than Christianity teaches people to burn their daughters alive, marrying their rapists and kill their disobedient children. Those verses about killing Jews and Christians were specific during times of battle. The Quran was revealed over 23-years in real time to events that were happening at the time like when Jews and Christians were trying to kill THEM. You have to learn the context of the verses.
Islam promises the same thing Jesus promised (not Christianity, created by Paul); salvation through Salvation through the combined factors of faith, repentance, obedience and works, after God's grace and mercy. This lead to salvation, a recurring message in the Quran. God promises forgiveness and paradise for those that believe, seek forgiveness and repent from their sins, obey His Prophet(s) and do the obligations and work righteous deeds. This is what Jesus and all the prophets taught; this is what Islam teaches
Islam being from Satan is illogical. Jesus said Satan cannot oppose himself and Islam opposes Satan often. Also, it would mean Satan has more power than God that he could preserve a book he revealed with nothing in it proven false while the Bible is corrupted and has much in it proven false. Also if you study history, you will find this idea of Muslims hate fighting anyone is untrue (and is actually more apt to Christianity).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jesusforever4729 Allah is God; it means God in Arabic. God is not in competition with anyone but we are all being tested to see which religion we follow based on sound logic, reasoning, proofs and evidences and anyone who follows the manmade religion of Christianity fails that test.
You think God inadvertently creates? Without intention and accidentally? I know the Bible says got has regrets which means he made mistakes but the Bible says the Torah came through the hands of evil and wicked Israelites who would, among other things kill their prophets AND change scripture. Those words cannot be taken seriously by anyone without them admitting they have some faulty ideas about God. Muslims do not believe such things about God and most people know the Bible's authorship isn't authentic. So, no, God does not have regret, does not fear humans, does not inadvertently create anything. He has All Knowledge. He knows the past, the future. He creates and plans as He wishes with justice, wisdom, mercy, etc.
This question does not makes sense. That is like asking you why did Jesus, who you believe is God create Islam?Why did Jesus send Muhammad after him? Why did Jesus give Muhammad a book that was better than the Bible? Why did Jesus allow the Bible to become corrupted but not the Quran? And why did Jesus put prophecies of Muhammad in the Bible but then not tell people clearly he was a false prophet IF he was indeed a false prophet? And why did he make Christianity so confusing if that's the right religion where Christians 2000 years later still don't know and can't prove if Jesus is the son of God, God or both? False prophets were always revealed in short time. Nothing Muhammad has been found to be false for 1400 years. Does it have to exist as long as Christianity for something to be found? Why would Jesus do this?
Were all the Jews deceived or just the ones who were trying to kill him? Because the followers of Jesus during that time did not believe Jesus died. It was common knowledge in the first century that he did not. The Docetae did not believe it; they said it was an illusion. Basilides taught it was Simon of Cyrene instead. If the people closest to that time period, who were actually there and for many years after did not believe Jesus died, what makes you think they were deceived? The ideas of Jesus being God, the son of God, savior, redeemer, dying for sins, resurrecting were not prevalent during the time of Jesus. Those ideas were written about 45-50 years after Jesus by no one knows who. They were also not mainstream ideas until the fourth century after Constantine adopted those ideas and imposed them upon the people despite argument against.
Paul claimed to have met Jesus but there is no proof of this claim. Jewish academics established that Paul was untrustworthy as he claimed rabbinical training but did not actually receive it but did so to exude an air of authority about himself to pass off his peculiar ideas about Jesuse adopted from pagan beliefs to attract pagan converts to Christianity.
Christians being the most persecuted seems to be a tagline Christians invented themselves during modern times I've heard many people say but not be able to prove. Where are Christians the most persecuted? I would definitely say the most oppressed, mostly by their own religion but persecuted how? And even if they are, that does not prove Christianity any more true nor does it erase the violent history of Christianity and how it was spread. Christianity was definitely spread by force and there are many examples of this. And of course, how else could it spread? Not naturally as the concepts in it are illogical and unfounded. People do not naturally accept that God became a baby and had to kill himself to save the world. Especially when there is absolutely no authentic evidence to prove this.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@MaximusAugustusOrthodox Perhaps based on some media and what they wrongfully portray but that is usually said by people who have never been to those places and who don'' even know anyone who has.
I've been to and know many Muslims and Christians who have lived in and visited those places. Westerners who went to work, study, visit and live in some of those countries and for many of them, they wish they could stay and enjoyed their lives there more than their home countries.
I know Westerners raised in those countries who say they were better than living in the West, even America (you can even find this on YT). Real people, in real life, would disagree. I do not even know any systematic discrimination except that Christians are not allowed to prostyletize but neither are the Muslims on their own, individually, lol. A lot of what Christians claim is oppression, those laws also apply to Muslims so that would not be systematic oppression anymore than the laws of the West that don't allow Muslims to practice certain aspects of their religion (and those societies are ACTUALLY oppressive, going against God's laws).
The only examples I hear people bring up are based on laws of the land and not based on religion and all countries have their own laws they uphold and have punishments against. The other things I hear people are not "free" to do are not even religious or are misunderstood like the claim of the jizyah being unfair when in reality, it is not since Muslims as part of their religion already pay, then the non-Muslims have to pay as well being part part of that society! All countries do that. So what OTHER examples do you have of them being systematically oppressed??
I know many Christians who love living in those places and prefer it to Christian countries because their values align and they like the safety and security of living in Muslim countries that have more peace than non-Muslim countries. I know degenerates who say Muslim countries are less "free" to follow their worldly desires (drugs, free sex, etc) but the trade off is living in peace and without fear. So I guess it depends on what you mean by oppression. Like what?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
According to Christians, Jesus is God. Why would God get married and have sex? Does God have lusts and desires like humans? Doesn't make sense to me but I guess if God become a man, lost knowledge and power, was weak, needed to eat and have food, was born and died, you might think he did need those things. It really doesn't make sense.
He also didn't teach his followers to NOT have multiple wives as he never disallowed it which is why Christians have always practiced polygamy. Christians, following Paul, who was prudish about sex even in marriage, lead Christians to monasticism which lead to perversion and sex with children. This is the danger in Christianity of following many of Paul's teachings instead of what Jesus taught. Polygamy was never disallowed by God in any scripture and prophets had multiple wives, an action God would not remain silent on if it were bad or harmful. It was men who said polygamy was not allowed; men who had no authority to determine such matters and in doing so, caused great harm to society.
colonizing
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dokholiday2524 I think you have Islam confused with Christianity. There was no pedophilia or rape ever allowed in Islam and no buying your way into heaven by killing. Islam teaches the same form of salvation that Jesus taught.
It was the Christians that kicked off the crusades killing thousands of Jews and raping even more "in the name of Jesus", who fought each other over the nature of Jesus, bloodily, killed each other over being the wrong denomination and who sadly, are known for actual pedophilia. If we were to judge the tree by the fruits, yes, we'd say it was not a peaceful, loving your enemies religion at all as that narrative only came about after they went around the world coercing, killing, colonizing, enslaving, etc in the name of Jesus, then to abandon their religion and claim the main idea of their religion was about love and peace. We actually do not find this to be true about Islam historically.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That is what makes Christianity incompatible with our time and the religion of only Jesus' time to who he was sent to, as he said, the lost sheep of Israel. Each prophet was sent to their people, for their time with laws suitable for it. Christianity (which isn't really the religion of Jesus) is not suitable for today for the reasons you said (and he said).
The false depiction of Jesus is mocked because it is innate in humas to know that God cannot be human, cannot die, cannot be walked through the streets naked, cannot be born, does not need to drink milk from a woman's breast, get his behind wiped, did not create us to worship Him and place us on earth to then pay the price he set and die for our sins. It is mocked because it is a manmade concept by people no one knows (except Paul and what is known about him isn't trustworthy). It is mocked because many Christians and Christian sources themselves are contradictory and hypocritical. Perhaps there are some true Christians who are doing things correctly, but they are so few and far between that Christianity as a whole isn't taken seriously.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@VCthaGOATdunker People are required to follow the prophets God sends them during their time. Them following him is to their benefit and required by God. Yes, he wanted to gain followers so that people would worship God correctly as God requires because, he like all prophets, wanted to established the worship of God alone and for the people to earn Paradise and not be punished eternally in hell for disbelieving or being disobedient to God. Whatever one thinks he gained, has not read about his life for he gained very little as far as worldly possessions were concerned and suffered much which is what surprises many people about his life, is what surprised other world leaders during the same time who were of course, actually, very much follow me, worship me, give me all the things, while he and the Muslim rulers after him were very detached from worldly possessions and pleasures. He was not considered the most influential man in history for being about himself; not by far.
I urge you to read the Quran and about his life as that would absolutely NOT be obvious to anyone who's ever done so from the revealed sources of Islam, the Quran or the hadith. No historian would agree with that assessment. Islam is very anti-worship ANY man and doing so goes against the very first fundamental belief of the religion. Just a cursory look at the Quran would prove that inaccurate. He wants people to worship him yet throughout the revelation he got from God it never mentions worshipping him? In fact it mentions Jesus MORE than him? lol. Come on.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@abford03 The followers of Jesus while he was on earth would also deny Jesus being the son of God. No one during his lifetime on earth believed or knew this idea. Even during the time of Tertullian, the first church father to use the word Trinity, the people thought of Jesus as a man, not the son of God or God. This idea came 45-50 years after Jesus by people who never met him nor took from his teachings.
The Ebionites, Nazarenes, them believing he was a prophet is what they took from his early teachings. They were the the Jews who believed in him, from amongst his own people, who lived and died and witnessed his actions. That is why Christian scholars like John Toland asked, how is it possible to be the first of all others (for they were made to be the first heretics), who should form wrong conceptions of the doctrines and designs of Jesus? And how did the Gentiles who only believed in Jesus after his death from the preaching and information of people that never knew Jesus, have truer notions of doctrine and Jesus or when could they have their information from the believing Jews.
The Quran was revealed over a 23-year period to specific events that were happening at the time and those verses were about people who were trying to kill them. You have to read the explanation of those verses. That would be like me reading verses in the Bible about burning daughters alive, marrying your rapist, killing disobedient children and saying that is polar opposite to loving your enemy.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eddyboutros4372 That's actually not true@ no witnesses as Gabriel visited him many times while he was with his companions. The first encounter, he was alone and those who knew Christian scripture confirmed this was the same Angel that brought revelation to the prophets they knew. He was considered trustworthy by everyone who knew him, even the ones who hated , his enemies, who wanted to kill him testified to this. The testimony of one truthful man is worth m ore than all the anonymous writers of the Bible yet people believe the Bible despite not knowing who wrote any of it and all the problems it contains, not knowing who quoted Jesus or even what exactly Jesus even said (as scholars say it is not exact, but an approximation). Most people have no problem taking the word of one man; a lot of people just pick and choose who even if the person has evidence (which is what makes up Christianity).
Daniel also had no witnesses yet Christians accept him as a prophet; neither did Paul and Paul was known to be untrustworthy, having been refuted by James and Jude in their epistles, being considered a heretic and apostate of the law by the righteous followers of Jesus and having been established to have lied about rabbinical training by his people. Yet, not only did people take from him, after three centuries, they made his doctrine mainstream after most of the followers of Christ followed him as a prophet. Most Christians reject Muhammad as a prophet against all evidence, even in the book they claim to believe in, and hypocritically for actions prophets they already claim they believe in did. It's simply an uneducated opinion against evidence. They choose to disbelieve in Muhammad against all evidence and believe in Christianity for the same reason.
Christians say all the time they'd rather take the testimony of eye witnesses to Jesus than a man that came 600 years later but this is a false claim because they do NOT take the word of the people who actually believed in Jesus and witnessed him while he was on earth. They call them heretics and non-Christians as you said. And as John Toland asks how is it possible to be the first of all others (for they were made to be the first heretics), who should form wrong conceptions of the doctrines and designs of Jesus? And how did the Gentiles who only believed in Jesus after his death from the preaching and information of people that never knew Jesus, have truer notions of doctrine and Jesus or when could they have their information from the believing Jews.
The Ebionites, Nazarenes, who Jesus said he was exclusively sent to, them believing in him as a prophet is what they took from his early teachings. They were the the Jews who believed in him, from amongst his own people, who lived and died and witnessed his actions. They take instead from people who never met Jesus and wrote ideas about him 45-50 years after his time, ideas that no one in his lifetime knew about nor did most people accept for 300 years. They are simply blindly following and believing in ideas they were told and the sad part is, they don't even know who!
1
-
1
-
1
-
@eddyboutros4372 Who doesn't take from anonymous sources??? Who has said who wrote any of the Torah or Gospels?
Raymond E. Brown, PhD, Catholic Biblical scholar: The view that the evangelists were not themselves eyewitnesses of the public ministry of Jesus would be held in about 95% of contemporary [biblical] scholarship. The designation that you find in your New Testament, such as "the Gospel According to Matthew" are the results of late-second-century scholarship attempting to identify the authors of words that had no identification. No evangelist indicated who he was.
Technically, Ehrman is right — the four Gospels are “anonymous”, in that the author’s name is not explicitly listed in the text, but that does not mean that they were initially presented as texts without authors! It does not mean that we can’t be confident who wrote them. Michael Horner
Most of the other books of the New Testament identify their authors (Paul, Peter, James, Jude, etc.). And most of the later Gospels have names attached to them (The Gospel of Peter; the Gospel of Thomas; the Gospel of Philip; the Gospel of Nicodemus; etc.) Bart Ehrman
Jonathan Morrow: . . . this Gospel is technically anonymous." However, when it comes to the four Gospels, there is no one specifically to defend (i.e., because it is technically anonymous).
Martin Hengel: According to Mark” were used much earlier than previously suspected (Studies in the Gospel of Mark [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1985], 64–84). These titles were added sometime before the end of the first century, prompted most likely by the presence of two or more gospels that needed to be distinguished.
Bill Mounce: It would have been nice if there were ancient publishers that had statements of authorship and dates of writing, but there weren't. Rather, we must rely on scant historical evidence, but in the case of the Gospels the evidence is not really that scant. We can comfortably believe that the traditional authorship of the four Gospels is accurate, and that means Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were in a place to know who Jesus was, what he did and what he taught.
David. M. Carr, Union Theological Seminary, Colleen M. Conway, Seton Hall Univeristy: All four of the canonical gospels were originally anonymous. It was only in the second century CE, when the four gospels were published a a collection that the superscriptions were added to the gospels, attributing authorship to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John respectively. This is also the time that traditions begin to appear about the authors, claiming that they were either original apostles of Jesus or close acquaintances of other well-known apostles. in spite of these attributions, most scholars do not think any of these men were the original gospel writers. None of the gospels is written in a style that suggests the authors was present at the events being narrated. Nor is it likely that the disciples of Jesus were able to write in Greek, the language in which the gospels were written. So we are left with the reality that the gospels were written by anonymous Christians decades after the events that they relate.
Dr. Dale Martin, Yale University: The four Gospels were published anonymously… they seem to have been written with no authors names attached. We don’t know how or when these names were attached to these Gospels’ that is lost to history.
Dr. David E. Aune, University of Notre Dame: The four Gospels were written anonymously between A.D. 70 and 100, and assembled into a collection about A.D. 125. The authors did not provide them with titles, others added them later.
Dr. Ben Witherington, Asbury Theological Seminary: Formally speaking, all four canonical Gospels are anonymous since their authors names are not mentioned anywhere within the context of the verses themselves… The superscript of each of the four Gospels is not an original part of the document.. it was likely later appended to the scroll for identification.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@jonathaneagle3554 Does a distinction need to be made? What church of Christian sect today practices based on the teachings of Jesus Christ?? Jesus did not teach he was the son of God or God. He did not teach salvation was through accepting him as a savior. The idea of Jesus being a savior, redeemer figure IS pagan. Paul recast Jesus into that figure to attract pagan converts easily to Christianity; a nominal faith with no observance of the law where you just have to "accept Jesus Christ as a savior without the works. He styled himself as an apostle among the gentiles making a faith they could believe in with a diefied savior with a bodily resurrection that resembled the dieties of the mystery cults such as Isis, Mithra and Attis.
In Roman (Constantine) Christianity, Jesus became the "Sun-God" and under the influence of Greek philosophy and their discussions of substance, soul, mind, spirit as well as influence from pagan myths, the Trinity received its complete formulation after considerable debate had taken place regarding Jesus and the nature of the divine over a couple of centuries. (Jesus in Islam, Christianity and the Jewish Talmud)
These ideas were never mentioned by Jesus or any ohter Israelite prophet before him and is unique only to Christianity of the Abrahamic faiths but very familiar to the pagan faiths. Paul turned Jesus into an "incarnate son" bearing the "unmistakable stamp of a savior figure" of the Greek mystery religions into whose form Jesus was cast. Trinity
Paul's interpretation of the Christ figure bears the unmistakable stamp of a savior figure of the Greek mystery religions into whose form Jesus was cast. The statements of Jesus Himself, however, do not support His exaltation to the Godhead. With the gradual demise of the Jewish wing of Christianity, Paul's Christology came to the forefront of the Christian understanding of Jesus. His glorification of Christ's divinity has played a major role in the deification of Jesus. (Jack Mclean, The Deification of Jesus)
Jan Jangeneel, the Dutch Reformist academic and missionary stated, "In the course of the first centuries of the Common Era, Christianity was shaped and reshaped by church leaders, theologians, martyrs, monks, missionaries, Bible translators, painters, and builders of churches and monasteries.
The blending of pagan mysticism and philosophy with revealed religion drastically transformed the latter until itw as palatable to and assimilated by the encapsulating pagan cultures. A series of events eventuated in the Christianisation of the barbarian pagans nations throughout Europe, who simply merged their traditional beliefs, customs, celebrations and rituals with those of Christianity, until the one was indiscernible from the other. Meaning that as pagandom was Christianised, Christianity was paganized.
"Towards the end of the 1st century and during the 2nd, many learned men came over both from Judaism and paganism to Christianity. these brought with them into the Christian schools of theology their Platanoc ideas and phraseology (Mclintick, J and Strong, J. The Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature)
The use of Greek philosophy in Christian theology had far-reaching consequences for the core of Christology: the ontological term ousia, physis, and prosopon were introduced to explain and safeguard the mystery of Jesus Christ. In the process the Christian faith was dejudaized and Hellnized." (Jongeneel, J. Jesus Christ in World History).
It is generally, although erreoneously, supposed that the doctrine of the Trinity is of Christian origin. Nearly every nation of antiquity posses a smilar doctrinee. St Jerome testifies unequivocally, 'All the ancient nations believed in the Trinity. (Old Truths in a New Light)
Who follows Jesus and worships God like the people did for the three centuries after him? Don't' all Christians now worship Jesus instead of God?
1
-
@jonathaneagle3554 Interesting you use the word begotten son when Christian scholars do not believe John or any other apostle said those words which is why some translations instead say one of kind or unique son. The Greek term for "begotten" is `gennao' as found in Mt.1:2, which John did not use. The original Greek term used by John. John 3:16 and John 1:18 each have the word `monogenes' in Greek. This word ordinarily means "of a single kind". As a result, "unique" is a good translation. The reason you sometimes find a translation that renders the word as "only begotten" has to do with an ancient heresy within the church. In response to the Arian claim that Jesus was made but not begotten, Jerome (4th century) translated the Greek term `monogenes' into Latin as `unigenitus' ("only begotten"). (Paul B. Duff, The George Washington University:)
I realize you don't seem to take from Christian scholarship. So where do you take your information from and what or who do you consider credible? Is Peake's Commentary on the Bible for example considered credible? Or any commentary? I can post some scholars who have said how the gospels were anonymous but does that matter to you? I know some people choose to believe despite evidence, so there is no point of posting evidence if you don't but at the same time, better not to assume something isn't true or is made up just because you don't know but rather, just ask instead. It is always good to ask for people's references though I know the Bible has none, so you may find that difficult to base any discussion on.
The scripture itself of Christianity does not support modern Christian belief and most of what is believed by Christians is not from Jesus but from outside sources. The Trinity, for example, is not found in scripture. The belief that Jesus is God or the son of God is not found anywhere authentically as those verses were written by anonymous sources that scholars say never met Jesus. They don't say the are direct quotes but approximations or the gist. So WHOSE scripture? Not God's revelation, not Jesus' direct words.
Why make assumptions that one does not have a credible source instead of asking? What would you like a source for?
What ARE the truths of the Bible? How do you know which parts are true or not true if you don't study the explanations?
The Old Testament and Jewish teachings, yes are to stay away from pagan teachings and so does Jesus but the New Testament was not written by Jesus and the basic of salvation, for example, in Christianity is not from his teachings either but rather, from Paul. This is a contradiction, one that James and Jude even refuted in their epistles (and yes, I can give you that information too). But you are showing that you have come to your own conclusions or are following what someone told you but it disagrees with the majority of Christain scholars. Not only are Christian sources not undeniable, they are all deniable as no one knows who wrote any of it with perhaps the exception being the writings and letters of Paul who was considered a heretic, an apostate of the law, who the Jews established lied about rabbinical training to exude an air of authority about himself to continue teaching his peculiar teachings of Jesus as though they were a continuation of Jewish teachings and he was refuted by the righteous followers of James and Jude in their epistles.
There is doubt in the crucifixion, even in Christendom. Origen of Alexandria said the story must have had scriptural errors, the story goes against historical evidence of what is done to crucified individuals. Basilides taught it was Simon of Cyrene who was crucified instead (Jay Stevenson, A New Eusebius) and a lot more details that don't add up. There were no eyewitnesses, no chain of narration back to who saw it or said they saw it. The people who wrote about it were not there and are not known. To be a witness you must be known. Who said they witnessed it? What are their names? What full name of any gospel writer is known? And even if they are known, which I don't believe anyone has discovered to this day, scholars don't believe they even wrote their gospels based on the different styles of writing.
because
fulfil
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Actually it does but within the confines of what God says is caring, compassion and progressive and allowed based on HIs wisdom, being the Creator, knowing HIs creation best. I can see how one would think that , subjectively, of course but that is often from the flaws of other religions, all being a deviation from that. People who believe in God and have a revelation from Him would not "progress" beyond His legislation; not if they consider God the the most wise and most knowledgeable, the Creator knowing His creation best and knowing He legislates only what is good and brings out good outcomes for society.
God created us with free will and desires and to worship Him and this life is a test to see what we will do. Complete freedom and liberation is dangerous for humans and he knows that which is why He sets boundaries. Whether people choose to stay within them or not, of course, is part of the test and also, will mean they will suffer great consequences or earn great rewards, in this life and the next.
That is also what makes other religions unsuitable for running society and we can see that today more clearly than ever. Islam saved Western civilization before, it can again. No, Islam doesn't not adopt new age ideas or progress in ways other than God allows. That's what makes it different from other religions and a sign it is the only religion from God, still uncorrupted, in tact.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Dalitso-qk2wn Of course I have. There are no religious books that don't have false parts, that can be verified as true except the Quran. There's only evidence that Islam is the true religion and no other religion. No other religion has scripture that can be proven to be from God and not men instead. No other religion is logical and has the tangible proofs of being true other than Islam.
Religions can't be true and have God as a man, with a particular ethnicity, all illogical. Religion can't be based on ethnicity and be for one race or ethnicity. God's religion can't have scripture, like the Bible, that has parts found to be false and invented. That's not wise, merciful or possible to be from God. No other religion of our time has the solutions to the world's problems that we can see; this has to be from God who is the only one that knows the future. How can a book or revelation from 1400 years ago be able to do that? Have prophecies in it, all of which have come true and nothing in it be found false? We can't say that about the Torah. We can't say that about the New Testament.
Anyone who researches and learns about all the religions without bias, with an open mind, using the intellect and sound reasoning God gave them, looking for the truth and following evidence. . . the natural conclusion is only Islam.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@LeopoldRalph-fw3ws They have adapted their religion and "progressed" to meet the times they live in and this has been the way of Christianity after the three centuries of following Jesus as a prophet when Constantine, the church, church leaders adopted the teachings of Paul who recast Jesus into the pagan form and they adopted pagan practices to attract Christian converts and we see this throughout time how the Church, men, decide how Christianity will move forward, not based on scripture and not based on the words of Jesus (though they do not have the authentic words of him anyway). Just like modern churches have the policies of "come as you are", however you want to look or dress, no matter the lifestyle you live and some churches have lqbtq flags hanging now.
Another example is the rulings of polygamy which God never disallowed in the Bible but (some) Christians themselves decided was wrong and based on the prudish teachings of their true religious founder, Paul, adopted monasticism which lead to terrible perversion and abuses amongst their clergy. They also, despite the law Jesus followed setting adulthood at 12 years and 1 day and Christians marrying at puberty before, changed over time to fit whatever age of the day the people agreed upon rather than what was allowed or followed by Jesus.
Christianity has a well-established history of being modelled after paganism so that people said pagans did not adopt Christianity, Christianity adopted paganism and all throughout time, they change to fit the times, appealing to the masses. You do see some resisting this, like for example, some who have stopped the pagan practices of decorating trees for Christmas or celebrating at all, it not being the actual birth day of Christ but many still continue and see no problem with adopting pagan liturgies, rites, etc because that is what the people want to do.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Gays have always existed everywhere and do in the Middle East and other countries as well and people will not bother you or throw you off a building as ignorant people claim. You can be gay just like you can have any other strong desires, as a human, with abnormal ways or perversions and be Muslim; what you can't do is fulfill those desires that are against what God allows. Just like if you want to murder someone, you can't or steal from someone you can't, or drink alcohol you can't, or sodomize anyone including your wife, you can't. Does that mean those things don't happen? Of course not because people have free will and desire but the rules and legislation are in place and enforced IF people are exposed or flamboyant in doing those things. THAT is what is not allowed. A married husband and wife can't go around being sexual with each other in public, wearing what they want or being topless (as people can be freely in some countries) and neither can gay people.
People have free will but are not allowed to act upon their desire that are harmful to them or the society at large and that is what Islam and Muslim countries following Islam's laws are keeping at bay. Evil and evil people will always exist everywhere but you can't be evil and degenerate in the street, in public and with children and that is the difference between Muslim countries and Western (Christian) countries. If two men want to sodomize each other on their own time, is that allowed, no but it's not out in the open, celebrated or taught in the school and society that it is okay either.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@dc_latername9064
The Torah, no doubt, has prophecies of Jesus but it also has prophecies of the second messiah that only fit Muhammad (which the Jews, the Tribe of Levi in particular, were well aware of which is why they left their lush homeland for the harsh deserts of Arabia).
While much of the Bible has been found to be false, not all of it is. There is still some truth retained in it from the revelation of God and the words of Jesus. That is where the predictions of events in the future come from (like the mention of Mount Paran where Muhammad received revelation, Tema/Teiman where those Jews went to find him, that he would fight the sons of Kedar with 10,000 companions, that he would arise with a fiery new law, from the vision of Isaiah, the chariot of camels, the burden of Arabia, etc). The same is true for the revelation in Islam and the prophecies in it. They come from the same source of truth, God. They are not "borrowed" but revealed from God and every prophet told of some similar things in the revelation they received from God.
Islam has no problem with these things and they accept the truths of the Bible that they can also confirm with the Quran. Why? Because it is from the direct speech of God, in both inspiration and actual words (unlike the Bible which is claimed to be inspired but is related by men). What Muslims take issue with, and really everyone should, is the parts of the Bible that are NOT from Jesus or God, but written by unknown men that no one can testify to being reliable, trustworthy, righteous, who write about events they did not witness and write things about Jesus and God that are not true.
Like you said, think about all the prophecies in the Quran, the scientific information, the history and details that no one could have know much less an illiterate prophet in the middle of Arabia in the Middle Ages could have known. It cannot be from anyone BUT God. There are no contradictions in the Quran and anyone who thinks they've found one can usually easily find the explanations to explain why they are not. In over 1400 years no one has been able to find any or prove anything in the Quran false while this cannot be said about the Bible. Not only have many parts been proven false but in 2000 years, Christians still do not agree on who Jesus is which, being a cornerstone of the religion, should be clear!
What about the contradictions in the Quran. Was a man made from congealed blood, nothing, dust, moulded from clay, or a single "drop" of sperm? It says all these things as you would expect if one of the mainstream religious was truly just manmade.
Muslims blowing themselves up for Allah is no different than Christians who have done the same, or worse throughout history. They do not operate within their religious legislation when they are doing those things, they are just being evil people and we will not find that there are more evil Muslims and evil actions from them than there are Christians, from a purely statistically standpoint and from Christians have a very violent history compared to Islam. Should we ignore that and consider that is from the religion? For the scriptures Christians believe in far more violent than the Quran and the actions of Christians in the past and future (though not associated or called "Christian" though there is Christian terrorism), should that be ignored or considered? What about when the Christians kicked off the Crusades killing thousands of Jews and raping even more "in the name of Jesus"? Or when they burned the Jews alive in their places of worship, not only killing Muslims and Jews but each other over being the wrong denomination. They almost coerced and killed the Jews out of existence had it not been for them being able to flee to Muslim lands (how ironic).
What about when they went around the world coercing, oppressing, enslaving, colonizing the world in the name of their religion, sometimes, of course, misinterpreting it (but the same would apply to Muslim terrorists as well) forcing Christianity upon people all around the world to then abandon their religion altogether to be Christian in name only (part of what he is talking about). Should we ignore all this and on top of that what we see of the ever-increasing numbers of children who have been harmed by what should be the the best of the Christians, their clergy? Should we ignore the Christian countries who have gone around the world blowing other people up? Let's be real. This is a feature of being human; not of being Muslim and is not unique to Muslims but the legislation of Islam has NO unjust killing in it , suicide is not allowed and harming children or ANYONE is not allowed. I am sure most Christians would not want us to judge Christianity by the people, which is what many people are doing and is why they are leaving it. Your or my anecdotal evidence of what we hear and see in people though is not a proof for or against a religion but the fundamentals and source material are and we have to be honest that no one else has an uncorrupted revealed book from God nor does any other religion have what it takes to deal with the problems our world faces today.
FYI. 72 virgins is not a reward everyone gets . . . but what's wrong with sex in heaven? God created sex, made it pleasurable and made it the way we procreate which he told us to do when he could have made us do it any other way. Heaven is a place of all pleasure. If we can have the best foods and best things we've ever seen, why not the best sex too? That's just logical. No harm there. This seems to come from the prudish teachings of Paul, who did not even like sex between married couples, which lead to monasticism which lead to perversion and abuse. Stick with God, He knows what is best for humans and He created Paradise how He wanted. We don't judge His decisions. We now he has the most wisdom and knows His creation best. Going with that is what leads to good and reward and going against that, like Paul did, is what leads to evil and harm. Stick with God. That's Islam.
1
-
1
-
@DC912rhdn They're definitely is. The Jews had prophecies of two messiahs and if you look at the prophecies you will find only some fit Jesus while the others do not.
The Jews had a test to see if Jesus was truthful. They had a prophecy that required Elias to come before Jesus. "Elias cometh first" (Mark 9:12). They had not seen Elias yet so they doubted Jesus' claim but Jesus responded to them that Elias had already come but that they did not recognize him. Matthew 17:12-13 "But I say unto you, that Elias is come already, and they knew him not. . . .Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist." John refuted this laim (resolved in the Gospel of Barnabas)
There are three distinct prophecies. Elias, Jesus, that prophet. John 1:19-21 "And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed, and denied not: but confessed, I am not the Christ. And they asked him, What then? Art though Elias? And he said, I am not. Art though that prophet? And he answered no. John 1:25 And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if thou be: not that Christ, nor Elis, neither that prophet?
The third question would be redundant in both verses if it were Jesus. That prophet can't apply to any prophet before the time of Jesus because at the time, the Jews were still waiting for all three. The Dead Sea Scrolls had two messiahs, the first of which would be announced by an eschatological prophet. If you find the verses on the fiery new law from Mount Paran (Mount Heera, where Muhammad received revelation), from Tema, Teiman, Madinah where the Jews, the Tribe of Levi in particular went to find this prophet. The one who would fight the sons of Kedar with 10,000 saints we can find in Islamic history. The vision of Isaih, the chariot of camels (the chariot of asses was Jesus), the burden of Arabia. The unlettered prophet with a book that was sealed like unto Moses but from outside of Israel.
The Bible has already been established to have untrue parts by Biblical scholars themselves, so we know which book is actually true. Sorry, can you reword your question. It is reading like If the Quran is true and makes a prediction that is true like the Bible that makes it false? That doesn't make sense to me because that doesn't prove the Quran false.
The answering of prayers and miracles can't be a proof of the Bible being true because everyone of every faith experiences that. The better question is why do you consider the Bible true when Biblical scholars say the book has no known authorship and have noted many false parts in it which means it can't be from God. Why do you still take it as true despite all the problems in it and not knowing who wrote it?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@AveChristusRex789 Those so-called violent verses describing specific battles they were fighting at that time? The Quran was revealed over 23 years in real time to events that were happening. There are no general verses to be violent all the time. Where? Which verses? This is a misunderstanding people have from not actually reading the verses or not seeking to read the meaning of the verses and this would be the same as me reading the Bible and finding Jews and Christians to be far more violent for having verses in their book about burning daughters alive, killing disobedient children, marrying your rapist, killing all the children, , babies and even animals when fighting wars. Is it for all times and do we take those at face value or do we need to know the context?
If by violent you mean capital punishment for crimes, then yes, that exists and is God's legislation which Muslims will follow yes, today and until the end of time. Who believes in God and thinks His knowledge is limited to a certain time period and He does not know what the future holds or how to legislate in it? This is from the view of Christians that their laws were old and now not to be used (and they're right as the Bible prophesized a fiery (new) law would emerge from Mount Paran, Tema/Teiman - and who got revelation there? Not Jesus). Muslims do not adapt away from the religion like Christians and change to appease the people or the times they live in. They believe God's legislation is objective truth while others prefer their own subjective opinions or the opinions of their church leaders, anonymous gospel writers like John, Mark, Matthew Luke or worse untrustworthy people like Paul.
Muslims only take from God and this is easy for Muslims since they have an uncorrupted book of God's direct words. They have no need, like other religions, to try to figure things out (or as many Christians say be critical and debate their religion). When you religion and legislation in it are clear, and you believe God is the Creator and knows the Creation best, no other way will do, no matter what time period it is. God does not like evil or for it to persist on the earth and harm individuals or the society at large. He does not love criminals and does not prescribe turning the other cheek or loving enemies. He wants us to love what He loves and hate what He hates. That is what he requires of us. As far as indiscriminate violence generally upon the people? NO, that does not exist nor is it founded in history to be the case (and is actually more apt to Christianity than Islam).
There are no direct commandments except Judaic Law has literal commandments and is far more punitive or violent than Shariah Law? Laws that Jesus said he came to uphold and fulfill and that HE did not abolish by Paul, the liar, heretic and apostate abolished calling it a ministry of death speaking about it with great animus? Christians are not bound by the the law of Moses because they do not follow Jesus who followed the law of Moses. They follow the law of Paul instead who James and Jude refuted in their epistles and the righteous followers of Jesus considered an apostate of the law and a heretic. You are upon the religion of Paul's teachings and you have no laws. What are the punishments in the "Law of Christ"? Who is upholding these laws today and governing by them? Jesus did not come to have a kingdom on earth so what are the laws he came with, different from Moses, that anyone can actually implement to rule societies with?
The Bible in inspired by a Holy Spirit . . .why does this spirit inspire so many mistakes in the Bible? Get characters mixed up, genealogies, dates, have contradictory teachings, translation problems, scriptural errors, whole books Biblical scholars call a medley of mistakes and un-historic? Who is this holy spirit and why is he inspiring a book with no authentic sources or authors known and styles of writing that Biblical scholars say must have been written by many different men, telling different stories, that paint different pictures of Jesus and don't always agree?
three centuries after "Christians" who followed and knew Jesus as a prophet, what they took from his actual teachings from people who actually knew Jesus (of which Paul and the other gospel writers did not). Your religion was developed over four centuries by Constantine, the church and church leaders based upon his writings and teachings in which he does NOT quote Jesus (like in his opposing doctrine of salvation) and was a departure from the message of Jesus to worship God alone.
1
-
1
-
@apablo09 There's no evidence of Jesus' miracles or of most miracles archaeologically but one does not need archaeological or other evidence when they have direct revelation from God saying what happened. Of course, that is for people who believe in God. The table that was was sent down to Jesus, for example, no one else saw it other than those Christians present, not the Jews, the Magus, the Brahmans, the atheists; not even their neighbors the Greeks. They all deny it but the Christians believe it and say it happened. That was because it was specific for him and the people near him just like the moon splitting was specific to those who were meant to see it. And how would we even know there is no evidence the moon was split?
Most, if not all the miracles have no proof. Most of what Christians believe has absolutely no proof but they believe it anyway. Islam actually has sound sources, Christians do not. So, yes, they believe in the miracles God said happened.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Judaism was actually developed from the 6th century and their sources are not considered authentic as they don't know who wrote them. The Rabbis differ over who wrote the Torah. The gospels were not written by people who saw Jesus Christ. I don't believe there are any Biblical scholars who say that as no one knows who wrote them and their writings came about 45-50 years after Jesus. The ideas about Jesus that later generations had were not the ideas that those who actually saw Jesus had which is why Christian scholars like John Toland ask, how is it possible to be the first of all others (for they were made to be the first heretics), who should form wrong conceptions of the doctrines and designs of Jesus? And how did the Gentiles who only believed in Jesus after his death from the preaching and information of people that never knew Jesus, have truer notions of doctrine and Jesus or when could they have their information from the believing Jews.
Those who followed Jesus while he was alive, from amongst his people he said he was sent to, the Ebionites, Nazarenes, them believing he was a prophet is what they took from his early teachings. They were the the Jews who believed in him, from amongst his own people, who lived and died and witnessed his actions. They had no concept of Jesus being the son of God or God, being a savior, redeemer, etc. That came later from the teachings of Paul. Paul was considered a heretic and apostate of the law, refuted by James and Jude in their epistles and was very critical of the law that Jesus said he came to uphold and fulfill. That would have earned him execution according to Mosaic Law.
If we look at the Quran, 600 years later, we find the that nothing in the Quran has been proven false while much in the Bible has been proven false. So what would be mindless would be to say the Bible was more accurate or the standard of truth when it comes to Jesus or the history of those individuals mentioned in both books.
Sorry, but anyone who studies the Bible and reads Biblical commentary on the Bible will find that much of the Bible is false. So can't be the true story of Jesus.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Caelo2000 Yes, it says that but no one knows WHO John was and Biblical scholars do not even think John wrote what in the gospel the Church anonymously found and added his name to after the fact as the most likely author, just like all the other gospels. None of the gospel writers met Jesus, there is no narration to say who said it or heard it from who. None of the full names are known and now based on the style of writing, they do not think John wrote John but rather many men instead, still, unknown.
We also have several sons mentioned in the Bible. We also know no one during the time of Jesus knew he was the son of God so when did he say it? The people Jesus taught directly, the Ebionites, the Nazarenes, the lost sheep of Israel he said he was sent to exclusively, they only knew him to be a prophet. For three centuries, this was the predominant belief. The idea that he was the son of God came about 45-50 years after Jesus by Paul (considered a heretic and apostate of the law, refuted by James and Jude in his epistles, established to be a liar by his people in his claim of rabbinical training) who first said he was the son, then the Godhead himself, an idea that was adopted after the third century by Constantine and the Church, and not found in any authentic scripture to be from Jesus.
This is why Christian scholars like John Toland ask how is it possible to be the first of all others (for they were made to be the first heretics), who should form wrong conceptions of the doctrines and designs of Jesus? And how did the Gentiles who only believed in Jesus after his death from the preaching and information of people that never knew Jesus, have truer notions of doctrine and Jesus or when could they have their information from the believing Jews. It doesn't make sense. It doesn't add up. They learned directly from Jesus, lived with him, witnesses his actions, where were they all these times Jesus said he was God? Why only 50 years later did anyone write it and why after three centuries was it accepted or rather imposed by the Church who squashed any opposition to it (and there was opposition from those who always knew he was a prophet).
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; 7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage. And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you. Deuteronomy 13:6-11
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@spirituallysafe No one knows who said those words about Jesus being God but they know no one during the time of Jesus knew anything about him being God because he never taught his followers that.
Raymond E. Brown, PhD, Catholic Biblical scholar The view that the evangelists were not themselves eyewitnesses of the public ministry of Jesus would be held in about 95% of contemporary [biblical] scholarship. The designation that you find in your New Testament, such as "the Gospel According to Matthew" are the results of late-second-century scholarship attempting to identify the authors of words that had no identification. No evangelist indicated who he was.
The people Jesus was sent to and who believed in him, the Ebionites, Nazarenes, believed he was a prophet taking that from his early teachings. They were the the Jews who believed in him, from amongst his own people, who lived and died and witnessed his actions. That is why Christian scholars like John Toland asked, how is it possible to be the first of all others (for they were made to be the first heretics), who should form wrong conceptions of the doctrines and designs of Jesus? And how did the Gentiles who only believed in Jesus after his death from the preaching and information of people that never knew Jesus, have truer notions of doctrine and Jesus or when could they have their information from the believing Jews.
If no one during the time of Jesus knew he was God or the son of God, then where did these quotes about him being so come from? It was common knowledge in the first three centuries that Jesus was a prophet or just a man. It was only 45-50 years that this idea came about and after the third century when one of the schools of though about Jesus being God, the other that he was a prophet or the son of God, that this was adopted by Constantine and the Church and imposed upon the people; having Jesus' true message lost after that. No one knows who wrote those gospels but they know they never met Jesus and there is no chain of narration to say who said or heard any of it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Infidels is a Christian word and killing them was a Christian thing, not an Islamic one. Verses you read about Muslims killing non-Muslims were when those people were trying to kill THEM. This would be akin to me reading about God saying to kill women, children and babies in the Bible and thinking that is for all times. There is no legislation in Islam that says to kill people indiscriminately and you should probably read the Quran so you can know what you're talking about.
Islam does not treat women in any harmful way but protects them and honors them to the highest degree. Islam was giving women rights when Christianity was discussing if they had souls or not. It's bay far, superior to any other religion how it treats everyone. Islam also does not "treat' gays anyway. They, as well as any other person, are not allowed under Islamic law to commit adultery, fornication or marry individuals of the same sex. You can be gay. You just can't act upon your desires if they are against what God commands and this is for any desires that are harmful to humans individually and collectively. Islam came to preserve five things: one being family which is why adultery, fornication, homosexuality are not allowed. All of those things are harmful to individuals and the society collectively.
If Jesus Christ is God, then his words and laws are in the Old Testament which were NOT based on love and those rulings were far more harsh on everyone, women included. If Jesus Christ is not God (and he's not), then he said he came to uphold and fulfil those laws which included burning women alive, killing disobedient children, marrying your rapist. Not sure why you'd have issues with Islam and call it a disgrace which are not nearly as harsh (though I would not call God's laws harsh but just and wise). Do you think God was unjust or a disgrace when he wrote those laws which, are similar to Islamic laws but far more harsh?
What is it you believe is harsh in Islam? I'm sure it's not but just something people say when they don't understand. There's a lot of people spreading misinformation about Islam. Make sure you learn from authentic sources and knowledgeable individuals.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
I am not sure why that's odd. That's well known. If any Christian worships Jesus as God or associates worship of God with Jesus, they do not worship the same God as Jews or Muslims. They do not believe Jesus is God. Do they HAVE the same God? Of course because there is only one God (whether He is called Allah, Alaha, Yahweh or any other word for God in any language). @fierto
But Jews and Muslims are monotheists who worship a Unique, Singular God. Eternal and not begotten and does not die. Of course, speaking for all Christians, that I can't do since in 2000 years they still cannot agree on who God even is. Perhaps If they say they worship the Father and the Father only, then we can say they worship the same God.
In order to say Allah can't be God, one would have to have a proof to show that. The Bible, being inauthentic ,with no way to prove it's authorship (not in 2000 years) is not a proof that can be used to say Allah is not God. There are many false parts in the Bible. We would never use a book with un-historic, false, fabricated, corrupted parts to judge the truth by. If a book can't prove itself true, how can it prove anything else true? The Bible needs outside evidence to prove its own parts. It is not a definitive revelation or book from God. It is a collection of the writings of men; fallible and flawed, like their writings. We have proof that these writers did not, in fact, know what they were talking about in many parts of the Bible. We do not have any evidence of that when it comes to Mohammed. Nothing he said has ever been proven false.
1
-
Why would the 10 commandments be in the Quran? Were the 10 commandments fundamental to all the prophets before Moses? Were they necessary then? The Bible say says a new law would arise from Mount Paran. Not that people would have to follow the old law and we know Jesus did not come with a new law but said he came to uphold and fulfil the laws of Moses @fierto
Christians originally built upon the tradition of Judaism but then departed from that. Christians are not unitarians or monotheists like the Jews were or the first Christians, the "Jewish Christians". THey way the first three centuries of Christians who actually followed Jesus and practiced is not like how Christians practiced and believed after that. Christianity, based upon the newly invented ideas of Paul, took a sharp turn away from the ideas of Judaism and what all the prophets taught before Jesus and including Jesus himself. This is why Paul lied about rabbinical training, as has been established by Jewish academics, to exude an air of authority about himself to try to continue to teach his strange ideas about Jesus as IF they were a continuation of Jewish teachings before. They were not.
What Jewish tradition or prophet before Jesus taught about begotten sons, incarnation, redeemer, savior figures, a blood sacrifice of Jesus or faith being based upon accepting he died for the sins of the world? These were foreign ideas not heard from even Jesus himself.
Unitarianism as a theological movement began much earlier in history; indeed it antedated Trinitarianism by many decades. Christianity derived from Judaism, and Judaism was strictly Unitarian. The road which led from Jerusalem to the Council of Nicaea was scarcely a straight one. Fourth-century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was on the contrary a deviation from this teaching.
Jan Jangeneel, the Dutch Reformist academic and missionary stated, “In the course of the first centuries of the Common Era, Christianity was shaped and reshaped by church leaders, theologians, martyrs, monks, missionaries, Bible translators, painters, and builders of churches and monasteries.” More specifically, in what follows, we identify how the syncretic blending of pagan mysticism and philosophy with revealed religion drastically transformed the latter until it was palatable to and assimilated by the encapsulating pagan cultures. A series of events eventuated in the Christianization of the barbarian pagan nations throughout Europe, who simply merged their traditional pagan beliefs, customs, celebrations and rituals with those of Christianity, until the one was indiscernible from the other.
The Quran does not "only has Mohammed" because the Quran was not written by Muhammad. There are no human authors of the Quran. It contains only God's words and the words of no one else. Muhammad was illiterate and wrote nothing. His words, actions and sayings are contained in another source of revelation (the Sunnah or Hadith). Muhammad did have witnesses but even if he didn't, why would that discount him. Daniel had no witnesses to his revelation. Do you believe in him or reject him too? Paul had no witnesses and modern Christianity are based more on his ideas than they are Jesus' teachings. Do you reject what he said as well? Or do you require witnesses for anything you accept? Then that would mean not accepting most, if not all of the Bible.
Nothing in the Quran is false or has been found to be false. Nothing disproves Muhammad or Isam which is something we can't say about the Bible and Christianity (or any other religion). In Islam, Muslims are required to love what God loves and hate what God hates. We know the Bible is full of violence and hate. Not sure why a double standard is being applied to the Quran and Islam. Good advice you gave but I hope you take it for yourself as well. Try to learn more about your faith and I hope you will be set free from it. There's only one truth and one way to God. Jesus was upon that path; that is Islam. He would hate Jews and Christians too; they departed from his path and the path of all the prophets and messengers and don't worship God as He requires.
You are tired, I will leave you to your studies. May God guide you to His path.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@crockrau3962 What persecution and subjugation does it call for exactly crock? This goes against history and the text. So perhaps you are misunderstanding a text. Which verse or hadith says that?
Firstly, she was betrothed at 6, a common practice of all religions before puberty and married, or consummated after puberty. This was allowed by Christian theologians as well. If you know the Bible, then you know the age of adulthood was any day after 12 which is when they, Jesus as well, came under the yoke of the law and is the age they believe Mary, being a practicing Jew and peasant of Nazareth, was impregnated with Jesus. This was the age Jews became adults and could get married though betrothal could happen earlier.
Christians as well, could get married as early as puberty without parental consent, which during that time (and still today) is between 9-12 years old, the normal age all girls got married during the Middle Ages all around the world. Christian theologians allowed betrothal at 7 or even earlier because it was not disallowed, not abnormal nor considered immoral by anyone's scripture nor were there restrictions on age gaps between couples and the age of consent was puberty and even many years after Jesus, 12 years old, all considered paedophilia today, which, of course, is what people try to assert when mentioning this marriage, was the age of consent. Tertullian, the first Church father to use the word Trinity, argued veiling should being at puberty and other Christian theologians have stated puberty was the earliest a girl could get married, putting the marriage of Aisha well within the same guidelines.
That being said those religious legislations do not justify this marriage of his, Islam's legislation does which is all that matters. In Islam, children become legally responsible at physical maturity, puberty and after that when they find themselves mentally mature as well, can marry when they decide. Women get to choose who they want to marry or not at that time, and as Aisha said clearly in the authentic hadith, as was the norm amongst her people, she reached adulthood at 9.
We know this was normal practice not considered immoral by anyone else as well since no one criticized this marriage, not even his enemies who tried to criticize him in other ways, and no mention of it was even made for 1300 years. She was also asked about for marriage before Muhammad by one of the pagan Arabs indicating her maturity. Also, had Muhammad been an immoral pedophile, this would have stopped Islam in its tracks. His enemies who far outnumbered him in his homeland already were attacking him and accusing him of false crimes (just as the Jews did Jesus) and this certainly would have been used if anyone had found it immoral or abnormal. It simply was the norm then and still acceptable now IF the requirements are still met which would be odd and not normal today as historians say, we infantilize children, they are not prepared or mentally mature at the same times they become physically mature anymore, adolescence now ending at 25 - in the Middle Ages, married at 25 would have been really late. Even 15 was late.
1
-
1
-
@brandonlucaci2205 That is an interesting phrase I hear often about it not being a religion but a relationship and that explains why he thinks Islam is the last religion that can deal with the problems we face today. It is more than an individual relationship but deals with all the problems in society. Where is that phrase originate from? That Christianity is not a religion but a relationship? That explains why there are not laws in Christianity that can be incorporated into governance? Jesus said he did not come to have a kingdom on earth after all, so it makes sense that he was sent for his time to who he was sent to specifically and not "the way" for our time.
Interesting as in Islam, Muslims have direct relationships with God but also have a religion or system that legislates all of life, God giving us legislations on how to take care of our own individual selves to taking care of all of society which is why it is more suitable for running society; it has all the solutions for the problems we are facing today. The main point of Islam, the religion of all the prophets before and what Jesus called to as well is to worship God alone. Muslims do not have intermediaries like in Christianity (which we btw do not believe was the religion of Jesus or the way his followers practiced for 300 years) and pagan faiths, praying to Mary, to Jesus, to saints, or in worshipping any men instead of God. Worship is Only to God, One God. Not divisible, not in two or three parts, just Him Alone, as one.
How did you find the rules in Islam different from the rules in Jesus wrote in the Old Testament? And I must ask because Christians don't agree, when you say God do you mean Jesus or do you mean God the Father? I'm wondering how you reconcile Jesus being the God of the Old Testament.
1
-
@brandonlucaci2205
The books of the Bible all perfectly corresponds to each other? The are so many Bibles. They don't all have the same books or verses. How can they perfectly correspond to each other and hold identical teachings and themes when they literally don't? The books vary on how they characterize Jesus even and some books have been found to be fabrications or a medley of mistakes and un-historic, like the Book of Joshua, which btw, isn't it still in most Bibles? Wouldn't this be a mistake or corruption?
Now, reading Biblical commentaries and noting many of the mistakes, I am not sure I know of any scholars that say the Bible is inspired by God for how, for example, could God inspire them to write details that contradict each other? When one gospel writer says one thing and another says something different, who was inspired and who wasn't? Why do their details sometimes different? Why do the write from Greek translations at times that are not true to the original Hebrew words if God inspired them? God has no problem with languages. Wouldn't those problems not exist if they were really inspired by God? Why do they have such a hard time connecting the material in the Torah? I do not know a Biblical scholar who does not say the Bible is not corrupted, who says it is not?
If it is in the Torah that God was coming as a child, why didn't anyone believe Jesus was God in his lifetime, not even those who followed him and believed in him? The Ebionites and Nazarenes did not know this about him. For three centuries after Jesus, the people still for the most part believed Jesus was sent by God and not his son or not God himself. Why?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Raw-Truth-Now Unfortunately, your anecdotal experience can't be used as a proof for I could say the same as a person who is lived in both places for more time than you. The anecdotal experience of many people and statistics don't back up those claims. I can comfortably say as well, as someone who also taught and studied social issues and social sciences, those comparisons are false. Perhaps you are confusing Muslim country with Islamic country; those can be two different things as being Muslim does not mean they follow Islamic law in how they run their government or political system. Also, as many people do, they conflate a few Muslim countries and what they THINK happens in them with all of the Muslim world (for example, most people I talk to always bring up three specific Muslim countries to make points that are also usually false and are places they really know nothing about outside of what the news and people who have never been there tell them).
Honor killings, for example, are not legalized in Islam because any time of killing by other than the government or law are NOT Islamic. No type of vigilante justice is allowed in Islam. Punishments and legal actions go through the court; not individuals. Honor killings are CULTURAL practices of specific tribes or people and is not from their religion. This is similar to FGM, arranged marriages, etc. People often conflate those things with Islam and ironically, some of them are actually practiced more in Christianity-majority countries than Muslim ones.
news, in television shows, etc. .
occurred
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
No, Islam does not say that and Islam is balanced and the middle course between the religions or legislations that came before it. For example, where the Jews had to punish all and the Christians had to let all go, in Islam it is dependent on the situation. In the law, the person who kills your wife has to pay, but depending on the circumstances, YOU can forgive the person. Does God forgive that person? That depends. He says HE can and will forgive all sins (except polytheism) for the one that is repentant (there is the famous story of the man who killed 99 people as a good explanation). There is justice that God legislates in Islam amongst human and there is His justice and the relationship He has to every individual person where each person will be judged based on what they do, the sin they commit, the good deeds they do, etc.
Of course, no man can do enough good deeds which is why salvation in Islam is the same as Jesus taught through the combined factors of faith, repentance, obedience and works, after God's grace and mercy. This lead to salvation, a recurring message in the Quran. God promises forgiveness and paradise for those that believe, seek forgiveness and repent from their sins, obey His Prophet(s) and do the obligations and work righteous deeds. This can be found in the parables of Jesus and the justice system in Islam, really the only religion with a suitable system for addressing the problems of the world, is unparalleled now and in history which is why Islamic rule was preferred to other rule, today even still as implementing God's justice as revealed in Islam, produces societies that are safer, more secure and more peaceful. Something attested to as well by Christians and others throughout history and still today in many Muslim-majority or Islamically run countries.
Everyone in Islam is held accountable and cannot JUST say sorry after causing trouble from prior actions. God holds everyone responsible in Islam. Just like the one who enters Islam, when he does, his past sins are forgiven but his transgressions against others, the person is still responsible for. So if he holds a debt, for example, he still has to pay that. When people lived under Islamic rule, like the Jews who went to Madinah (near Mount Paran, Tema in the Bible) to look for this prophet they had prophesized in their Torah, they were surprised at the justice system believing they would be treated unfairly because they did not accept Islam. And it was the Jews, who after the Christians tried to coerce and kill them out of existence, just about, that sought refuge in Muslim lands for safety due to this fair/justice system.
Yes, all humans are given free will to decide to do what God asks of them or not, in Islam or otherwise. You cannot be compelled to do any form of worship which is why God gives punishments for those who do not worship Him as he says too. Zakat is compulsory but that does not mean everyone gives it and some don't! Why? Because God gave us free will and desires and we have the choice to pay it or not. We have free will but that does not mean we will not be rewarded or suffer for the choices we make in obeying or disobeying God. Faith in Islam is based on love, fear and hope; a balance of all of them. We do actions out of our love of God, we should also fear Him and His punishments (otherwise, what is hell for?) and we should hope in His reward of Paradise. Combined, they work to have a complete effective faith.
Humans respond to rewards and consequences and the idea that there is no consequence, because someone else died for your sins, is what has led to many Christians and anyone else who holds those ideas, to become very sinful; something he is talking about. This is exactly what James and Jude in their epistles warned against in refuting Paul's idea that Jesus died for our sins, an idea that Jesus did not teach himself and we know, from the past, from the stories of those who came before us that sin and not fearing God lead to their fall and destruction and we can see the same now in societies. Whatever you do outwardly, as far as actions, prayer, zakat or any other forms of worship that God requires, it is as manifestation of inner belief that God knows as well! He knows whether we are doing actions out of love, fear or hope in Him and His reward or for showing off, just following our people or our ancestors or for whatever other reason.
We were created to worship God and this life is a test to see if we will and He gave us free will and desires to see what we would do. He knows we will sin, it is part of the nature He created us with. So, of course, He has made a clear way for us to know how to do that and given us what we need to know how to worship Him correctly. What choices we make after that, we will be held accountable for.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chukpas I will break up my posts to not be overwhelming . . .
The book and the gospel are perfect? Firstly, which version? This in itself proves the Bible is not perfect and if we look at the contents of the book after the first major flaw the renders the entire book unreliable is that we do not know who the authors or scribes are; who is speaking when saying any of this. So perfect from and according to who?
Raymond E. Brown, PhD, Catholic Biblical scholar" The view that the evangelists were not themselves eyewitnesses of the public ministry of Jesus would be held in about 95% of contemporary [biblical] scholarship. The designation that you find in your New Testament, such as "the Gospel According to Matthew" are the results of late-second-century scholarship attempting to identify the authors of words that had no identification. No evangelist indicated who he was.
Matthew refers to unknown prophecies no one can find. Where are they and how does that make the gospels perfect if he has Jesus fulfilling prophecies that are not found in the Torah. God gives one part but not the other? How can a prophecy BE fulfilled it if it was first not given? When the genealogy of Mathew contradicts that of Luke, which one is correct and how is that perfect? When he attributes the prophecy by Zechariah to Jeremiah, which one is correct? If the Torah is revealed by God and the gospels inspired by God, who got it wrong? Or how do you reconcile the contradictions to make them both correct and perfect?
Matthew makes Zerubbabel a descendant of Solomon, David's son. Luke makes him a descendant of Nathan, also a son of David. Since Solomon and Nathan were brothers (I Chronicles 3:5) they cannot both be paternal ancestors of Zerubbabel.
'Then was fulfilled what had been spoken by the prophet Jeremiah, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel...' This excerpt turned out to be one of Matthew's best known mistakes. The statement he ascribes to Jeremiah is not found anywhere in the Old Testament Book of Jeremiah. A passage similar to it, however, is found in Zechariah 11:13. Horne observed in his Bible commentary (Vol.2/pp.385-386): "Some scholars think that it is an error of Matthew's version and the copier wrote Jeremiah instead of Zechariah; or it may be a later addition."
Another of Matthew's famous errors is found in his Gospel at 2:23: 'And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called Nazarene.' This prophecy is not found in any of the books of the prophets in the Old Testament. Manfred, a Catholic scholar, wrote in his The Questions of the Question: "The books which contained this description have been destroyed, because in any of the present books of the Prophets we do not find the statement that Jesus would be called a 'Nazarene'."
Mark's Gospel highlights again the concern about the New Testament authors' insufficient knowledge of the Old Testament. He states in his Gospel 2:25-26: 'Have ye never read what David did... How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shrew bread.' This is incorrect because the high priest at the time of this incident was not Abiathar but rather Ahimelech, as can be seen in the Old Testament at I Samuel 21:1. Therefore, Peake's Commentary says (p.684): "The reference to Abiathar is a mistake."
'All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had said through the prophet: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel.' (Matthew 1:22-23) This prophecy is found in the Old Testament at Isaiah 7:14. Matthew sees in this a referral to Mary (the virgin) and Jesus (a son called Immanuel). Unfortunately, when they initially quoted these old prophecies, they used Greek translations which were not true to the Hebrew originals. This passage is a prime example. There is no mention of a virgin in the original prophecy, the Hebrew word for which is bthulah. The word in the prophecy (which Matthew and others render as virgin) is the Hebrew word almah which signifies a young woman, maiden or damsel of marriageable age. The error no doubt was made by a translator during the copying of Isaiah into Greek and Matthew, unaware of the original Hebrew, merely followed the translated wording. Peake's commentary on the Bible correctly states: "The rendering 'virgin' is unjustifiable."
Peake's Commentary on the Bible: The Book of Joshua According to investigation the book appears a medley of contradictory narratives, most of which are un-historic. II Chronicles 29-32 "The Chronicler in the long section writes, from his own point of view, much that is quite un-historical . . . it is probably that another source (or witness?) was utilized by the Chronicler but he himself is evidently responsible for many of the variations. Commenting on Judges chapter 17 and 18 it states (p.269): "In not a few places the text has evidently been tampered with by scribes, who took offence at practices which were from a later point of view irregular." Samuel 2:3: "These verses do not make sense; the present wording cannot be the original one, but must be due to mistakes in the copying. We cannot now discover the original form." I Samuel, verse 14:18,: "The introduction of the Ark in I Samuel 14:18, is due to a corruption of the text." II Samuel 23:4-7: "The text and translation of the last line, and of 5-7, are uncertain; there is no agreement amongst scholars as to how they are to be restored."
Commenting on Ezra 4, verses 6 and 7: "These are two stray verses which have been left in the text here by mistake. This offers a good example of the way in which fragments of sources are jumbled together in our book... Scholars have suggested a number of solutions, but they differ from each other considerably." In the introduction to the Book of Hosea: "As will be apparent from the notes, the text is in places very corrupt. We must often resort to conjectural emendation, and reach only a possible approximation to the original text." Zechariah 6:9-15, it says: "The text is considerably confused, partly through accident, partly it would seem by deliberate alteration" and this can keep going and going and going and this is after the biggest flaw of not knowing who is saying any of this.
1
-
@chukpas So after the main point of not knowing who said any of this, WHO said Jesus came down from being God? Before we can take from these writings, we have to establish who said it, who they heard it from and if these people were reliable and trustworthy in the first place. The original copies of the Bible have long since disappeared (Peak's Commentary of the Bible). 200-300 year gap between the original accounts of the event's and today's surviving manuscripts. Before this time no written witnesses are available to establish the authenticity
What remained? Tiny papyrus fragments from the Gospel of John (three verses) and (so its claimed) from the Gospel of Mark. Fragmentary papyrus of this nature have been unearthed dating from the second to eighth centuries, with more than half of them dating from the third and fourth centuries. No early papyrus contains any complete book of scripture. The NT papyrus were found in Egypt and were undoubtedly written there. No one type of NT text was dominant. Two early papyri, which overlap across seventy verses of John's Gospel, differ at no less than 70 places (after obvious scribal errors) An average of one variation each verse. If they were being changed to such a degree, even a gap of a century between and original and its first survival is long and potentially disastrous. We simply do not know what may have happened to the words at important places (Robin Lane Fox, The Unauthorized Version, 1992, 139-140)
Dr. Ben Witherington (Asbury Theological Seminary) “Formally speaking, all four canonical Gospels are anonymous since their authors names are not mentioned anywhere within the context of the verses themselves… The superscript of each of the four Gospels is not an original part of the document.. it was likely later appended to the scroll for identification.”
Dr. Dale Martin (Yale University) “The four Gospels were published anonymously… they seem to have been written with no authors names attached. We don’t know how or when these names were attached to these Gospels’ that is lost to history.”
David. M. Carr, Union Theological Seminary, Colleen M. Conway, Sten Hall Univeristy
“All four of the canonical gospels were originally anonymous. It was only in the second century CE, when the four gospels were published a a collection that the superscriptions were added to the gospels, attributing authorship to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John respectively. This is also the time that traditions begin to appear about the authors, claiming that they were either original apostles of Jesus or close acquaintances of other well-known apostles. in spite of these attributions, most scholars do not think any of these men were the original gospel writers. None of the gospels is written in a style that suggests the authors was present at the events being narrated. Nor is it likely that the disciples of Jesus were able to write in Greek, the language in which the gospels were written. So we are left with the reality that the gospels were written by anonymous Christians decades after the events that they relate.” (1)
Matthew quotes Jesus*differently than Mark who quotes differently than Luke and John’s version of Jesus speaks significantly differently than the Synoptic Jesus does. Just consider the key theme of Jesus’ ministry in the Synoptics: ‘the kingdom of God’ (or, in Matthew’s rendering, often ‘the kingdom of heaven’). Yet this phrase occurs only twice in John, being replaced usually by ‘eternal life.’ The ancient historians were far more concerned to get the gist of what a speaker said than they were to record his exact words. And if Jesus taught mostly, or even occasionally, in Aramaic, since the Gospels are in Greek the words by definition are not exact.”
Dr. W Graham Scroggie of the Moody Bible institute, Chicago, one of the most prestigious Christian evangelical missions in the world says on page 17 of his book “It is human, yet divine”; “...Yes, the Bible is human, although some out of zeal which is not according to knowledge, have denied this. Those books have passed through the minds of men, are written in the language of men, were penned by the hands of men and bear in their style the characteristics of men....”
Another erudite Christian scholar, Kenneth Cragg, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, says on page 277 of his book, “The call of the minaret”: “ . . . Not so the New testament . . . There is condensation and editing; there is choice reproduction and witness. The Gospels have come through the mind of the church behind the authors. They represent experience and history.....”
1
-
@chukpas Anyone who reads the Bible and studies the Bible will no doubt find these flaws and issues and I know no Biblical scholar who does not say or can say the Bible is not corrupt. Perhaps you should pick up some exegesis or commentaries on the Bible which make it very clear, the Bible is far from perfect. As far as a sound piece of evidence is concerned, it does not come close. Why would we attribute a book with so many mistakes form God and think God could leave us with such an unfounded book with no known authors, no one speaking from the time of Jesus, one saying exactly what he said if Jesus were the last prophet or the son of God or God himself? To be left on so much confusion that Christians themselves were fighting over who Jesus and still today, cannot unanimously decide who he is?
Then if we look at this logically. He stepped down from being to God to being Jesus. Why does God step down to be a human? This makes him ungodly. Jesus had a beginning being born, and an end, having died (and then a beginning again; a pagan concept of resurrection before the Day of Resurrection). When he "stepped down" who was running the universe? Who had all knowledge since his knowledge as a human was limited? Who had all power since his power as a human was limited? Got set the price for sin. Why does God need to pay a price he himself set instead of just forgiving the people he created? If you sin you die but if you don't sin you also die. All people die. That is the nature of people on earth. If God wanted, he could have made us live eternally on earth but He didn't.
God would never twist scriptures but the scriptures are not from God. They are from men. Men who the Bible says would change scripture. God sent human messengers to people and people wrote the books. You think God allowed His words and books to be lost forever corrupted by humans so that no one after the time of Jesus would know clearly what and who Jesus was and did? And before God or Jesus died for our sins, what about the people before Jesus came that died? They didn't have the price paid for them?
There is no proof that Jesus died and there is skepticism even in Christianity since no one during his life that was there thought he died, and it was common belief in the first century that he didn't die. The details absolutely do NOT add up. The Docetae said it was an illusion. Basilides taught it was Simon of Cyrene who was crucified instead through "ignorance and error". Origen of Alexandria had doubts in the story due to the name Jesus Barabbas being included. The details of the crucifixion and burial go against historical evidence. Jesus said he was like Jonah in the whale and Jonah was not dead. Jesus saying, "My God, my god, why has thou forsaken me" could not have come from any prophet, much less Jesus. Crucified individuals aren't buried in tombs. There are no names for any eyewitnesses and the story oddly ends abruptly which should be a momentous event which is a cornerstone of Christian faith. None of it adds up.
I don't listen to bits of any old bodies, but rather read and listen to scholars only and take from the commentaries of scholars and it seems most Christians on the internet telling other people the Bible is the word of God and has no mistakes have not themselves taken to reading their own scholarly works or history. No one delves more into Christianity and finds it MORE clear; the opposite. Please study your book more.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Who says they met Jesus? I know no scholar who says that @Lydiacode Who even knows who they are? I know no one who does. Do you even know when the manuscripts of John came?? Hundreds of years after Islam
Bishop Faustus: “It is certain that the New Testament was not written by Christ himself, nor by his apostles, but a long while after them, by some unknown persons, who, lest they should not be credited when they wrote of affairs they were little acquainted with, affixed to their works the names of the apostles, or of such as were supposed to have been their companions, asserting that what they had written themselves, was written according to these persons to whom they ascribed it .” (Faust, lib. 2. Quoted by Rev. R. Taylor: Diegesis, p. 114.)
Jonathan Morrow: . . . this Gospel is technically anonymous." However, when it comes to the four Gospels, there is no one specifically to defend (i.e., because it is technically anonymous).
Martin Hengel: According to Mark” were used much earlier than previously suspected (Studies in the Gospel of Mark [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1985], 64–84). These titles were added sometime before the end of the first century, prompted most likely by the presence of two or more gospels that needed to be distinguished.
Bill Mounce: It would have been nice if there were ancient publishers that had statements of authorship and dates of writing, but there weren't. Rather, we must rely on scant historical evidence, but in the case of the Gospels the evidence is not really that scant. We can comfortably believe that the traditional authorship of the four Gospels is accurate, and that means Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were in a place to know who Jesus was, what he did and what he taught.
David. M. Carr, Union Theological Seminary, Colleen M. Conway, Seton Hall University: All four of the canonical gospels were originally anonymous. It was only in the second century CE, when the four gospels were published a a collection that the superscriptions were added to the gospels, attributing authorship to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John respectively. This is also the time that traditions begin to appear about the authors, claiming that they were either original apostles of Jesus or close acquaintances of other well-known apostles. in spite of these attributions, most scholars do not think any of these men were the original gospel writers. None of the gospels is written in a style that suggests the authors was present at the events being narrated. Nor is it likely that the disciples of Jesus were able to write in Greek, the language in which the gospels were written. So we are left with the reality that the gospels were written by anonymous Christians decades after the events that they relate.
Dr. Dale Martin, Yale University: The four Gospels were published anonymously… they seem to have been written with no authors names attached. We don’t know how or when these names were attached to these Gospels’ that is lost to history.
Dr. David E. Aune, University of Notre Dame: The four Gospels were written anonymously between A.D. 70 and 100, and assembled into a collection about A.D. 125. The authors did not provide them with titles, others added them later.
Dr. Ben Witherington, Asbury Theological Seminary: Formally speaking, all four canonical Gospels are anonymous since their authors names are not mentioned anywhere within the context of the verses themselves… The superscript of each of the four Gospels is not an original part of the document.. it was likely later appended to the scroll for identification.
Raymond E. Brown, PhD, Catholic Biblical scholar: The view that the evangelists were not themselves eyewitnesses of the public ministry of Jesus would be held in about 95% of contemporary [biblical] scholarship. The designation that you find in your New Testament, such as "the Gospel According to Matthew" are the results of late-second-century scholarship attempting to identify the authors of words that had no identification. No evangelist indicated who he was.
The original copies of the New Testament books have long since disappeared. Even the true identity of their authors is to a large extent a matter of debate. The time gap between the original accounts of the events and today's surviving manuscripts is a period of over 200 to 300 years. Before this time no written witnesses are available to establish the authenticity of Christian claims. With the exception, that is, of tiny papyrus fragments from the Gospel of John (three verses) and (so its is claimed) from the Gospel of Mark. Because of their fragmentary nature, they are of no great value in establishing the texts of even these two Gospels, let alone the New Testament as a whole. (The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@bubbythebrow153 Have you ever read the Bible? Do you know Judaic Law? Most people consider it very violent and God who revealed it angry and punitive. Paul called the law "a ministry of death". Jesus said he came to uphold and fulfill the law. If he is God, as later Christians believed, that means he wrote or revealed these laws. That would make him violent. Judaic Law or Mosaic law, was very punitive. Burning daughters alive, killing disobedient children, stoning, apostasy laws, etc.
These are parts of the irreconcilable discrepancies that exist between the Old and New Testament. "The classic case of rejection of the Old Testament within Christian tradition is that of Marcion, a influential churchman of the second century who emphasised Paul's contrast between the OT law and NT gospel to an extreme degree, so much so that he rejected the whole of the Old Testament. He went so far as to claim the loving Father of the NT was in fact a different God from the angry God of the Old Testament! This may be a rather extreme response, but the problem is one that still worries many today. Again, the factor which led Marcion to reject the OT was, primarily, the problem of irreconcilable discrepancies between the two Testaments."
Christians have found it difficult to explain these differences, the cruel and primitive nature of large parts of the Torah or Old Testament and the feelings that it is irrelevant to the modern world and even contradicts scientific views of our age. The fact that this can be said about the New Testament as well is conveniently overlooked as well. Many Christians say Jesus was about loving enemies and turning the other cheek but if he is supposed to be God, he was certainly not about that before he entered into the world. Why is that?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ExposingFalseReligion-gt1hj Muhammad is dead just like all the other prophets and as Jesus will do after he returns. It was not written for Muhammad or Moses, Noah, Abraham, etc. That was written for Jesus specifically. Muslims also do not worship Muhammad or any of God's prophets like Christians do, taking Jesus for worship even though Jesus never said he was God, the son of God or to worship him and neither did Christians before the fourth century when Constantine and the Church adopted those false ideas from Paul's teachings and imposed them upon the people.
Calling Muhammad a pedophile is just an ignorant or evil excuse to try to insult him and Islam since there is really nothing anyone can refute Islam about. It is logical and has authentic evidence, which no one can say about the religion of Christianity. This has been the way of the enemies of God and His prophets since the beginning of time, just as the Jews called Jesus a womanizer and seducer. The ignorant or double standard or considering Muhammad a pedophile is it also calls Christians (and Jews) pedophiles and makes Jesus, either a pedophiel supporter and follower or if you consider him God, the legislator of pedophilia as the age Muhamamd married his wife was well withing Christian theology/practice/law at that time and similar age to what is legislated in Judaic Law, which Jesus said he came to uphold and fulfil (or he's God, that he wrote).
He is NOT the complete opposite of Jesus at all, as he came with the same message of worshipping God alone, the same form of salvation, etc. He was sent to a different, limited group of people, the lost sheep of Israel and "the way" to God during his time while Muhammad was sent to his people and all people until the end of time but just like all the other prophets, they all came with the same main message with some differences in their legislation. Muhammad is the prophet from the vision of Isaiah, the chariot of camels, the burden of Arabia who would fight the sons of Kedar with 10,000 saints; who would arise from Mount Paran with a new law which we know, Jesus never travelled to and that Jesus never brought a new law and did not come to have a kingdom on earth (like Moses and Muhammad, for example, who he prophesized as well would be like unto him but from the brethren of the Jews which we know ARE the Arabs).
Muhammad performed many miracles, just like all the other prophets before and he was prophesized in the Torah. Please check your resources and study history and you will find the Jews had prophecies of two messiahs; not just Jesus and that there are many prophecies of Muhamamd that do not fit Jesus or any other prophet and only fit Muhammad. He also fits the criteria in the Bible to know when a person speaks from God, in that nothing he has said has been proven false. SO a better question would be if Jesus is supposed to be God, why would he send Muhammad after him with a book better than the Bible and have him speak nothing that anyone can prove to be wrong while the Bible has much of it proven to be wrong? Then again, why would he sent Paul and the other gospel writers after him either (which really doesn't make sense). Good questions. Keep going. Ask God to guide you. You'll get there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1