[UncleWede]

Googled it, it was at his baptism.

[hks786]

Originally Posted by UncleWede

No, I beleive it was around the time of Jesus' birth when God boomed down "This is my only begotten son, in whom my favor rests"

And since when was 3:16 removed from the bible? Maybe I do need to get that DVD loaded . . .

Ah, I see. Well I'll need to find out about that verse. That's why I asked: How many more changes will we need to make to the Bible if we discover verses to be fabrications due to finding earlier manuscripts? I mean, the verse you're quoting could even be a fabrication but I guess we wont know because manuscripts were written on perishable material. Also, I wonder if that verse was in John or Matthew. Hmmm....

John 3:16 was removed in the RSV. Scholars praised the KJV but said it had "grave defects". That they are "so many and so serious as to call for a revision of the English translation". The same scholars, 32 of the highest eminence backed by 50 cooperating denominations threw John 3:16 out of the Bible...(other verses too).

[hks786]

The verse was actually:

And a voice from heaven said, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased."
Matthew (3:17)

That doesnt really prove anything since the Bible is very metaphoric. Even Adam (AS) is the son of God according to the Bible...

[hks786]

its ray den

Bro, I'd love to hear your response to post #188:

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showpos...&postcount=188

I appreciate that it is huge and will take time to reply to.

[Tarthuss]

Originally Posted by hks786

Ah, I see. Well I'll need to find out about that verse. That's why I asked: How many more changes will we need to make to the Bible if we discover verses to be fabrications due to finding earlier manuscripts? I mean, the verse you're quoting could even be a fabrication but I guess we wont know because manuscripts were written on perishable material. Also, I wonder if that verse was in John or Matthew. Hmmm....

John 3:16 was removed in the RSV. Scholars praised the KJV but said it had "grave defects". That they are "so many and so serious as to call for a revision of the English translation". The same scholars, 32 of the highest eminence backed by 50 cooperating denominations threw John 3:16 out of the Bible...(other verses too).

So I read MOST of this thread but not everything. Here's my take.

First of all, in order to be Islamic, you must be jewish and by that believe what is written in the Torah, and you also must believe in Jesus and his message (and his message is received only in the gospels) not as the Son of God, but as the prophet, the chosen one and the messiah. If you do not believe Jesus was a prophet of God and the Messiah then you ARE not Islamic.

The reason people get this confused is because they believe that by making him the messiah he is automaticallly the Son of God or God himself, which is not true for Islams and Jews. Islams and Jews believe that the messiah is a messenger, a chosen one sent by God for us. He is the one who was prophesized in the book of Isaiah.

If you DO NOT believe in Jesus as what was written in the Torah you are not Islamic.

Second of all, I find it interesting how Islams always refer to God as Allah, Allah is simply the word God in the Arabic language. So why not just say God? Would that mean that if I'm Hispanic and am talking to you in english about God I would say Dios instead of God everytime?

Third, and I mean this with no disrespect. How can you judge any validity of the Bible with respect to it being written by men when the Quran was written by a single man? The Gospels were written by several men who saw the same thing and apparently grasped the same message. Faith comes in believing that the writings were inspired by God.

Lastly, (for now), true Islams believe that the Quran is simply a sort of "update" from the teachings of Jesus. They see Jesus as christians do in EVERY SINGLE way EXCEPT for his divinity. That includes the message, the pardon for sins, etc..

Also, Justice means BALANCE.

And, only catholics confess to a priest, the majority of Christian denominations confess to God, by themselves, in their rooms, alone, just like Jesus said to do in Matthew.


The point is, as an Islam, the more you try to disprove the bible, the more you kinda hurt your own faith. These three religions are intertwined, Judaism yielded Christianity which ultimately yielded Islam.

Also, I don't know why you say that "Muslim" is the only religion that really....w/e when Muslim isn't even a religion, it's Islam, the proper term is Islam. Muslim is simply a word in Arabic that means "one who submits to God".

So if I spoke arabic, I too would say I'm a Muslim, in fact all Christians are, because we all submit to God. Jews too

[Tarthuss]

Oh and in response to your thing about the different translations.

KJV-Thou shall comest forth for thine pupils are of the color of the night.
NLT-Come forward because your pupils are black.

Different words? Yes, but always the same message

[Tarthuss]

Christians don't call God Jesus, they call Jesus Jesus and God God, or Father. And even if it were the case, it still wouldn't fall under the same category because you simply say the same word in a different language.

[hks786]

First of all, in order to be Islamic, you must be jewish and by that believe what is written in the Torah, and you also must believe in Jesus and his message (and his message is received only in the gospels) not as the Son of God, but as the prophet, the chosen one and the messiah. If you do not believe Jesus was a prophet of God and the Messiah then you ARE not Islamic.

Firstly, thanks for joining in the discussion However, I feel that you have made quite a big mistake in what you started with. The Quranic position about the previous scriptures is clarified in the following verse:

To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what God hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee. To each among you have we prescribed a law and an open way. If God had so willed, He would have made you a single people, but (His plan is) to test you in what He hath given you: so strive as in a race in all virtues. The goal of you all is to God; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;
Quran (5:48)

This verse means that the Qur’an confirms the truth that remains in the former scriptures. The Arabic word translated, “Watcher over” is Muhaymin, which clearly indicates that the Qur’an confirms only the truth in the previous books. That the keepers of the previous books had distorted them is made clear in another verse:

Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from God," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.
Quran (2:79)

And because of their breaking their covenant, We have cursed them and made hard their hearts. They change words from their places and have abandoned a good part of the message that was sent to them. And you will not cease to discover deceit in them, except a few of them. But forgive them and overlook(their misdeed). Verily! Allah loves the kindly.
Quran (5:13)

"Who can be more wicked than one who inventeth a lie against God, or saith, "I have received inspiration," when he hath received none, or (again) who saith, "I can reveal the like of what God hath revealed"? If thou couldst but see how the wicked (do fare) in the flood of confusion at death! - the angels stretch forth their hands, (saying),"Yield up your souls: this day shall ye receive your reward,- a penalty of shame, for that ye used to tell lies against God, and scornfully to reject of His signs!"
Quran (6:93)

Second of all, I find it interesting how Islams always refer to God as Allah, Allah is simply the word God in the Arabic language. So why not just say God? Would that mean that if I'm Hispanic and am talking to you in english about God I would say Dios instead of God everytime?

This is very simple to explain. You see, "Allah" literally translates as "The only thing to worship" not "God". You will discover this if you are into etymology. Also, the beauty of the word "Allah" is that it cannot be genderised or pluralised. The word "God" can be made plural into "Gods".

Look at the eloquence of the word "Allah", can you think of a more beautiful name? Moreover, we believe that Allah has 99 names which describe his attributes of being Loving, Forgiving, Thankful etc.

Third, and I mean this with no disrespect. How can you judge any validity of the Bible with respect to it being written by men when the Quran was written by a single man? The Gospels were written by several men who saw the same thing and apparently grasped the same message. Faith comes in believing that the writings were inspired by God.

No offence taken You see, we don’t believe that the Holy Prophet (SAW) wrote the Quran. He was illiterate and could not read or write. The Quran also covers every aspect of human endeavour whether it be marriage or which foods are halal (lawful) for us.

The Quran also speaks about things that have happened in the past that we are just discovering and it speaks about what will happen in the future. Moreover, the Quran even commands and criticises the Holy Prophet (SAW) and it does not fit a man's psychology to do this. Especially when noone will find out about what Allah had to criticise him about.

The Quran also speaks about science. For example, it tells us the shape of the Earth is like that of an ostrich’s egg. It also tells us that iron was sent down to Earth. It tells us how babies develop inside the womb. It tells us that the sun will eventually die out some day.

I could go on at length about why the Quran was not written by the Holy Prophet (SAW) but this is off topic. The topic is “Did Jesus (AS) die for the sins of the world?”. Moreover, I find it interesting that you say that the Gospel writers seen the same things and grasped the same message. The Bible itself actually has 2 messages. The first is that Jesus (AS) didn’t die for the sins of the world and the second is that he DID die for the sins of the world. There is great conflict in the message as I have demonstrated in many ways...

The point is, as an Islam, the more you try to disprove the bible, the more you kinda hurt your own faith. These three religions are intertwined, Judaism yielded Christianity which ultimately yielded Islam.
Also, I don't know why you say that "Muslim" is the only religion that really....w/e when Muslim isn't even a religion, it's Islam, the proper term is Islam. Muslim is simply a word in Arabic that means "one who submits to God".

I have outlined already that the Quran came as a revelation to confirm only the truth in the previous scriptures. Therefore we aren’t hurting out own faith. I also find it strange that you say we shouldn’t call ourselves “Muslims”. Let’s look at the word “Islam”:

The word “Islam” means “submission”. It comes from the word “Aslama” which means to surrender. The word also has Syriac roots from the word “Aslem” which means to make peace/surrender. This word is too derived from the word “Slem” which has semitic roots.

Therefore we can see that the word “Islam” and the word “Muslim” BOTH convey the same message of submitting to God.

And, only catholics confess to a priest, the majority of Christian denominations confess to God, by themselves, in their rooms, alone, just like Jesus said to do in Matthew.

That's good. In this respect, you are one step closer to the truth, which is that only Allah has the ability to forgive sins.

Oh and in response to your thing about the different translations.

KJV-Thou shall comest forth for thine pupils are of the color of the night.
NLT-Come forward because your pupils are black.

Different words? Yes, but always the same message

I'm not sure what this is in response to. I have no problem with differences in translations. Translations are just interpretations of the SAME original text. My arguement was that the many versions of the Bible argue about which manuscripts are the word of God. Therefore, you couldnt accept both the NIV and KJV as the word of God. I have shown which "original texts" they dispute over and clearly both of them cant be the word of God.

[its ray den]

My friend, I feel you are missing my point. Yes you believe the original text is the inerrant word of God, but even the ORIGINAL TEXT is at dispute. The versions of the Bible you gave, NIV, KJV etc. are at dispute about what the original text is. It clearly isnt an issue about translation.

It clearly is. I have not seen a single argument that you have presented as an issue with the original text. It’s a translational issue to me, where copyists have decided upon themselves to add words.

I'll make this simple. Let's take Mark (16:9-20) for example. The KJV bases its translations on manuscripts of this, whereas the NIV removes the verses telling us that they are fabrications not part of the "inerrant original text". What I'm really trying to say is that those versions are based on different "original texts", surely you have to acknowledge this scary fact.

Your conclusion is way off base and I don’t acknowledge this as fact. Just because one translation contains added words does not mean another translation, without those words, is based off another set of text. Again, the differences can be accounted to copyist errors, translational difficulties or simply, some dude just felt like adding it.

I find it shocking that you say "it doesnt mean our current translations and versions are unreliable". What can you possibly mean by that? I mean, those verses are either based on the "irrerant original text" or not...

2 things.

1. Copyist errors are small, having to do with repetition of words, or the order of words or something like that. These errors have no weight in showing that the copies have become unreliable because they would not have change what the original meaning of the text would’ve been. We can prove that the copies are reliable due to the fact that we have so many of them and the differences between them are small and inconsequential. Surely you can acknowledge this fact.

2. Translational difficulties mean that, because of the complexity of the greek language, the translation into other languages may not be able to hold the true, original meaning of the text. For example, in greek, there are 3 different words that can be translated into “love”, and all 3 are slightly different. One would mean brotherly love, another would mean intimate love (like between husband and wife) and the other would mean sacrifical love. These 3 greek words would’ve been translated into the English word “love”, therefore losing some meaning of the word. Could these errors cause the translations to be unreliable? It all depends on how it was interpreted. There are translations that focus on translating the words themselves, like the KJV and the NIV, while there are translations that focus on translating the idea of the text like the NLT.

Would fabrications cause a translation to be unreliable? Depends on what the fabrication was. If you say that instead of “Rabbi”, another translation said “Lord”, my response would be, “So what?” I don’t really care about such minor issues. If you had said entire passages in scripture or entire books were complete fabrications, then I’d have a problem. You certainly cannot say that small differences would mean I’d have to throw out the translation for being completely unreliable.

And regarding Christian doctrine, such as the trinity and the divinity of Jesus, I guarantee you this, Christian theologians who have constructed and refined doctrine do not rely on English versions of the bible. Learning Greek and Hebrew (which I’m sure neither of us know) is a requirement in seminary. So in all honesty, I trust them more than you.

I’m thinking of buying that book by Bruce Metzger to see what he has to say. Perhaps you should read it too since you like to quote him.

So I want to end this because this is really not leading anywhere for either of us. I can’t refute what you show me as discrepancies in the bible because I’m not a scholar nor do I have the time to research everything you’ve brought up. However your conclusions are off base and logic would not indicate that the original texts are in dispute. It would be the last conclusion after every other possible conclusion is refuted.

Also, I hope you do some more research on your own, especially on carm.org. I know you say you like dialogue, but it’s also good to educate yourself on your own. It would be un-scholarly to only read websites that are against Christianity and not read any for Christianity because you never really gave yourself a choice as to what you should believe to be more plausible than the other.

[hks786]

Originally Posted by its ray den

It clearly is. I have not seen a single argument that you have presented as an issue with the original text. It’s a translational issue to me, where copyists have decided upon themselves to add words.

I'm afraid, friend, that you contradicted yourself. How can the addition of words be a translational issue?

Originally Posted by its ray den

Your conclusion is way off base and I don’t acknowledge this as fact. Just because one translation contains added words does not mean another translation, without those words, is based off another set of text. Again, the differences can be accounted to copyist errors, translational difficulties or simply, some dude just felt like adding it.

The last part of that is what I'm talking about. It's interesting to see that you put it down as "some dude just felt like adding it". Doesnt that worry you? Maybe not since you are already a Christian. But we are supposed to take a neutral view.

Let's suppose there is someone who is reading the Bible for the first time. He/she might read many verses that further elevate Jesus (AS) into a Godly figure. That same person might see truth in those verses that isnt there. Then let's suppose that person becomes Christian. He/she will put their hands on Bibles containing these fabrications and swear that it is the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This is clearly not truth, this is falsehood. If a book contains fabrications, how can you trust it and preach that it contains the truth?

Let's look at some fabrications:

Mark (1:1): NIV Bible tells us in footnote that title “Son of God” was inserted later.
Acts: (8:37): NIV Bible removed the words again because “Son of God” was inserted later.
1 John (5:7,8): Only verse in whole of Bible that deals with the trinity. It has been removed because it is later insertion.
I Timothy (3:16): used to say “God” but we now know it is a forgery and has been corrected back to “he”
John (7:53-8:11): again, later additions.
Mark (16:9-20): The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have these verses.
John (3:16): RSV bible doesnt have this verse. 50 scholars of the highest eminence backed by 50 cooperating denominations have thrown it out of the Bible as an interpolation.

Maybe you can spot something. These verses are testifying that Jesus (AS) is the Son of God. They testify that there is a trinity. They also testify that Jesus (AS) is the begotten Son of God. This is very worrying indeed. All these fabrications are dealing with the very core of Christianity. Without these beliefs, Christianity wouldnt be what it is today.

I then went on to show that the Gospels progresively increase Jesus (AS)'s status. I'm not going to type it all up again because I have already explained it to UncleWede.

I then went on to show how John's Gospel which came many many years after all the other Gospels, has statements that NO other Gospel has. How strange. Let's look at them:

“I and the Father are one”, “Whoever has seen me has seen the father”, “For God so loved the world he gave the world his only begotten son.” “I am the way, the truth and the light, no man cometh unto the father but by me”. Etc…

These are also verses that people swear by, but modern scholars are seriously questioning if these are Jesus (AS)'s true words. One example is John 3:16. We dont have it in 3 earlier Gospels and now it has been thrown out as a interpolation.

Like I already said, these verses contain the heart of Christianity. Now, slowly they are being discovered as fabrications and interpolations. One must ask how many more changes are going to be made to the Bible before we can claim we have the complete error-free word of God? I dont think we'll ever have it. I already pointed out that manuscripts have been burnt and lost and even just wasted over time due to the perishable material they were written on.

Also, I gave references from Orgien, Celsus & Dionsius to show that the corruption of the Bible did actually go as far back as the 1st century. This is not just some recent discovery. Even if it was, it's regardless. I remember one Christian Bible scholar said we should seek truth wherever it may come from. I think we should also add "whenever ". In modern days we have dialogues and discussions like this one, where we exchange ideas respecfully and may learn MORE about what is truth and falsehood.

Originally Posted by its ray den

1. Copyist errors are small, having to do with repetition of words, or the order of words or something like that. These errors have no weight in showing that the copies have become unreliable because they would not have change what the original meaning of the text would’ve been. We can prove that the copies are reliable due to the fact that we have so many of them and the differences between them are small and inconsequential. Surely you can acknowledge this fact.

I think we should let other people decide if everything I said above comes down to small errors "having to do with repetition of words". Clearly that is not the case bro. Infact, I said nothing of repetition of words or the order of words.

Originally Posted by its ray den

2. Translational difficulties mean that, because of the complexity of the greek language, the translation into other languages may not be able to hold the true, original meaning of the text. For example, in greek, there are 3 different words that can be translated into “love”, and all 3 are slightly different. One would mean brotherly love, another would mean intimate love (like between husband and wife) and the other would mean sacrifical love. These 3 greek words would’ve been translated into the English word “love”, therefore losing some meaning of the word. Could these errors cause the translations to be unreliable? It all depends on how it was interpreted. There are translations that focus on translating the words themselves, like the KJV and the NIV, while there are translations that focus on translating the idea of the text like the NLT.

I understand what these difficulties are since people do the same to the Quran to make it look as if it isnt the Word of God. However, I mentioned nothing of the sort. I'm going back to the source which is the original text.

Originally Posted by its ray den

Would fabrications cause a translation to be unreliable? Depends on what the fabrication was. If you say that instead of “Rabbi”, another translation said “Lord”, my response would be, “So what?” I don’t really care about such minor issues.

Of course you wouldnt. You're already a Christian. Someone reading the Bible for the first time though, would actually get the impression that in those cases people called Jesus (AS) "Lord". I can assure you this has a huge impact on their understanding of Jesus (AS)'s lifetime.

Originally Posted by its ray den

If you had said entire passages in scripture or entire books were complete fabrications, then I’d have a problem.

I did. John (7:53-8:11). Even the most ignorant of people like Jay Smith will admit this. However, let's not get into Jay Smith because I would never judge another Christian by the type of person he is.

Also, do you think the amount changes anything? maybe you'll know Jimmy Swaggart. He is a famous Christian preacher and I remember he once said if one word is in the text and it shouldnt be there, the whole book should be thrown away...

Originally Posted by its ray den

And regarding Christian doctrine, such as the trinity and the divinity of Jesus, I guarantee you this, Christian theologians who have constructed and refined doctrine do not rely on English versions of the bible. Learning Greek and Hebrew (which I’m sure neither of us know) is a requirement in seminary. So in all honesty, I trust them more than you.

I really cant understand why you keep saying this. I'm not saying anything against the translations. I'm saying there are different versions of the Bible, not just different translations.

Originally Posted by its ray den

It would be un-scholarly to only read websites that are against Christianity and not read any for Christianity because you never really gave yourself a choice as to what you should believe to be more plausible than the other.

Actually, I dont just read websites. I watch many dvds, read books and listen to debates between Muslims and Christians so I can hear what Christians have to say. I agree, it's only fair...

[Tarthuss]

My friend, all I have to say is that I have the exact same amount of arguments you have to defend my point. You clearly have chosen what to believe in and so have we. This thread is for nothing more than to prove yourself your own knowledge because from the first post you've never really show intrigue for explanations, but rather retaliations to your versions of disproval.

TO YOU, who wrote the Quran? If not M then who? You say he was illiterate, so if he wrote it, that must've been a miracle. Right?

But what of the spread of christianity? Being bilingual in biblical times was very very very rare. The gift of tongues broke the language barrier by allowing the apostles to preach in their native tongue and have people that spoke other tongues understand their own.

As I've said before, there are SO many arguments we can go back and forth to. But when it comes down to it, it's what you already chose to believe.

You speak of love? You say God is LOVE? the opposite of love is hate, and evil is it not?

The heart of christianity which is God the Father and his Chosen messiah Jesus had one message overall. LOVE THY NEIGHBOR, LOVE LOVE LOVE. If someone hits you in your face, then turn the other cheek so that he may strike the other. Love those who hate you. If you strike them back, then you shall have done evil, and if you do evil to abolish evil then only evil will have emerged. The only way to stop it, is to stop.

and jihad....the only type of warfare allowed by Islamic law, if something is considered a Holy war, then we have the famous jihad. That's when we see suicide bombings, etc... because you use evil, to fight evil, creating a greater evil.

Not on purpose though, since you think you are doing it for God. and that by doing so you have a direct gateway to Heaven. But if God is love, then surely he is not the opposite.

The Quran intitially word of mouth until it was written down. So how do we know that wasn't changed until is was written?.

There is no point in this discussion, you have made your choice and enjoy trying to defend your points. If this is your hobby, then really enjoy it. But to me it's not about proving anything at all to anyone. There is a living breathing God who watches over us.

[JOSG328I]

[quote=Tarthuss;1488050]My friend, all I have to say is that I have the exact same amount of arguments you have to defend my point. You clearly have chosen what to believe in and so have we. This thread is for nothing more than to prove yourself your own knowledge because from the first post you've never really show intrigue for explanations, but rather retaliations to your versions of disproval.

QUOTE]


The best answer I have seen on this whole thread, I personally am a non believer and find it hard to find the truth in either book, each one gives there own representation of God, Allah etc. etc. etc. but in a view of realism there is no physical proof of the latter being the answer of life(of course I know I am going to get a long rebuttal on that statement).

I view religion as a great way for people to have a path in there life and a good basis for how to live a good life albeit not necessarily right for everyone. I find this thread to give credit to my issues with religion. If we are taught to love one another and be kind and we are all created equal why do we constantly argue on which ideal is correct. Why are there so many issues between Islam and Judaism, and Christianity etc.

Bottom line all we can do is to learn that we all have our own beliefs wether you find them to be true or completely false. Does religion not teach tolerance?

And hks786 I give you many props with your knowledge but it does seem that throughout this thread it is like you are waiting for someone to go "you know what you are right and it would be impossible for Jesus to die for all of mans sins"

I will say you guys are doing a good job of teaching an unreligous guy like me though and i thank you for it.

[UncleWede]

Now, now now, let's not forget the various and sundry crusades sponsored by the catholic church (member)

[its ray den]

love the sinner, but hate the sin.

just because our religion teaches us to love one another does not mean we have to accept what we see as wrong (yes i know this is subjective). BECAUSE we should LOVE our neighbors, we should show them the truth, the light and the way. if i didn't love, i wouldn't care if anyone else is going to heaven, just as long as i am.

an analogy would be this: if i discovered a really great restaurant, would i not tell my friends about it? or would i keep it my little secret so that only i could enjoy it?

so basically what i'm saying is LOVE is the reason why Christians evangelize. LOVE is the reason why people would uproot their families, give up their 90k salaries and comfortable homes, to go to a remote village in south east asia to evangelize to people who never had the chance to hear that Jesus died for their sins.

what other reason would people make this kind of sacrifice for strangers?

edit:

also there's more to evangelism than just making people agree with my views. if people are evangelizing with the right motive, it would be because they want others to enjoy the peace and joy that can only come from knowing Jesus.

[UncleWede]

I agree, loving people you love is easy, the real test comes in loving those you despise. I TRY it every day I come home and see graffiti on houses on my block. . . they have such talent if properly applied to a creative endeavor or ad agency, where they could get themselves out of da hood.

[hks786]

Originally Posted by Tarthuss

My friend, all I have to say is that I have the exact same amount of arguments you have to defend my point. You clearly have chosen what to believe in and so have we. This thread is for nothing more than to prove yourself your own knowledge because from the first post you've never really show intrigue for explanations, but rather retaliations to your versions of disproval.

Firstly, if you have valid points to make you should make them. Secondly, all I'm trying to do is get us to both re-examine the topic and go to the heart of it in an in-depth discussion. Why does it have to be about "you picked your beliefs and I picked mines"?

I always keep an open mind. I'm no expert in religion, not even Islam. That's why sometimes I dont post back right away. I always research both Islam AND Christianity. I research from Muslims and Christians perspectives. However, most of the time I'm just busy hence the late reply this time.

Also, I dont think I'm showing no intrigue. Infact, I think the opposite. I always try to take the discussion point by point. I try to focus on everything that my Christian brothers are saying, I find it helps progress the dialogue. In the very first post I said I would let my Christian brothers present their case first and I would reply. It was never about presenting my views and closing the topic.

Originally Posted by Tarthuss

TO YOU, who wrote the Quran? If not M then who? You say he was illiterate, so if he wrote it, that must've been a miracle. Right?

Indeed, even if he wrote it that would be a miracle. The real miracle is that he was revealed the Quran and since then it has remained 110% intact. Even non-muslims conclude that the oral and written transmission aid eachother and protect eachother.

Originally Posted by Tarthuss

and jihad....the only type of warfare allowed by Islamic law, if something is considered a Holy war, then we have the famous jihad. That's when we see suicide bombings, etc... because you use evil, to fight evil, creating a greater evil.

Firstly, you are way off topic. Why cant you stick to the topic friend? you say you have arguments to present but then dont present them. But now you are presenting arguments to something other than the thread

"That's why we see suicide bombings"? my friend, you have clearly demonstrated your intelligence by that statement alone. You are classing all muslims by what you see on biased media. How foolish.

I'm trying to examine faith, you're just examining what you see on CNN. Okay. Fine. By that logic, the next time I hear about a Christian rapist I'm gonna blame Christianity. Is that fair? Of course not. I've never judged Christians by the worst Christian rapists, murderers etc. Why do you insist on choosing to portray Islam through violent terrorists that claim to do their terrible acts in the name of Islam?

Also, you clearly havent seen Islam in it's true light. Here's some things to think about:

“Which act in Islam is the best?” He replied, “To feed (the poor and needy) and greet those who you know and those who you do not.”
- The Holy Prophet (SAW)

“Do not hate one another, and do not be jealous of one another; and do not desert (cut your relation with) each other, and O Allah’s worshippers! Be brothers. Lo! It is not permissible for any Muslim to desert (not talk to) his brother (Muslim) for more than three days.”
- The Holy Prophet (SAW)

“The strong is not the one who overcomes the people by his strength, but the strong is the one who controls himself while in anger.”
- The Holy Prophet (SAW)

“A true believer is one with whom others feel secure. One who returns love for hatred.”
- The Holy Prophet (SAW)

"If any Muslim ruler or exploiter acted contrary to the teachings of Islam, it was his personal fault which cannot be laid at the door of Islam and for which he will be answerable to Allah according to Islamic injunctions and restrictions. Against the militants, the Prophet (SAW) declared: "He who is not affectionate to Allah's creatures and to his own children would not receive the affection of God."
- Abu Huraira (RA)

"Defend yourself against your enemies, but attack them not first; Allah hateth the aggressors."
- Qur’an (2:190)

If you wish to further pursue this topic, please educate yourself in Islam first. Then post it in the appropriate thread. This topic is "Did Jesus (AS) die for the sins of the world?"

Originally Posted by Tarthuss

The Quran intitially word of mouth until it was written down. So how do we know that wasn't changed until is was written?.

It wasnt word of mouth. It was memorised by heart by more than one person. If you need proof of this I can find you two muslims from opposite ends of the world. I guarantee you 100% that they will both recite the text the same

Also, consider the miracles below. Clearly if even one verse was added to the Quran we would not have these miracles:




The number of times words mentioned in Arabic Quran:

* Dunia (one name for life) - 115
* Aakhirat (one name for the life after) - 115

* Malaikat (angels) - 88
* Shaytan (satan) - 88

* Life - 145
* Death - 145

* Benefit - 50
* Corrupt - 50

* People - 50
* Messengers - 50

* Eblees (king of devils) - 11
* Seek refuge from eblees - 11

* Museebah (calamity) - 75
* Thanks - 75

* Spending (sadaqah) - 73
* Satisfaction - 73

* People who are Mislead - 17
* Dead people - 17

* Muslimeen - 41
* Jihad - 41

* Gold - 8
* Easy life - 8

* Magic - 60
* Fitnah (dissuasion,misleading) - 60

* Zakat (taxes Muslims pay for the poor) - 32
* Barakah (increasing or blessings of a wealth) - 32

* Mind - 49
* Noor (light) - 49

* Tongue - 25
* Sermon - 25

* Desire - 8
* Fear - 8

* Speaking publicly - 18
* Publicising - 18

* Hardship - 114
* Patience - 114

* Muhammad - 4
* Sharee'ah (Muhammad's teachings) -4

* Man - 24
* Woman - 24

And amazingly enough have a look how many times the
following words
appear:-

* Solat (Prayer) - 5
* Month - 12
* Day - 365

* sea - 32
* Land - 13

Sea + land = 32 + 13 = 45
% sea = 32/45 x 100 = 71.11111111%
% land= 13/45 x 100 = 28.88888889%

Modern Science has only recently proven that the water covers 71.111 % of the earth, while the land covers 28.889 %. Is this a coincidence?

[hks786]

Originally Posted by JOSG328I

The best answer I have seen on this whole thread, I personally am a non believer and find it hard to find the truth in either book, each one gives there own representation of God, Allah etc. etc. etc. but in a view of realism there is no physical proof of the latter being the answer of life(of course I know I am going to get a long rebuttal on that statement).

Firstly, thanks for your input

I understand where you are coming from. In your eyes, you probably wonder why we argue about Abraham (AS), Moses (AS) & Jesus (AS). Well, I respect that. I understand it must look like we all just want a claim on them and we twist their lives to fit our beliefs. However, I dont think you need to limit your judgement on that. I think you should examine each faith carefully (if you are interested) and come to your own conclusions.

Originally Posted by JOSG328I

I view religion as a great way for people to have a path in there life and a good basis for how to live a good life albeit not necessarily right for everyone. I find this thread to give credit to my issues with religion. If we are taught to love one another and be kind and we are all created equal why do we constantly argue on which ideal is correct. Why are there so many issues between Islam and Judaism, and Christianity etc.

Good points raised. However, religion is not just about finding the ideal way of life. We arent arguing about which is the best way of life. Indeed Christianity has great beliefs, but to me it doesnt mean its the TRUTH. I only ever try to seek truth over falsehood. Nothing more.

Originally Posted by JOSG328I

Bottom line all we can do is to learn that we all have our own beliefs wether you find them to be true or completely false. Does religion not teach tolerance?

You will see from my last post that Islam does teach tolerance. Yes I think believers and unbelievers can learn to live side by side peacefully, but this thread is for those wanting to seek the truth about who Jesus (AS) was and answer the topic question by examining faith and scripture.

Originally Posted by JOSG328I

And hks786 I give you many props with your knowledge but it does seem that throughout this thread it is like you are waiting for someone to go "you know what you are right and it would be impossible for Jesus to die for all of mans sins"

I do apologise for that. I dont mean to appear that way AT ALL. However, I really want to get a point by point discussion. The reason I set up this thread is because I wanted to see what we could achieve if we do it point by point. That way at the end of it we can understand eachother's faith much better.

Originally Posted by JOSG328I

I will say you guys are doing a good job of teaching an unreligous guy like me though and i thank you for it.

I agree on that. Maybe it will help unreligous people see that Christianity isnt all about being paedophilic and Islam isnt about being a terrorist. Both faiths are much deeper than that.

[hks786]

Originally Posted by UncleWede

I agree, loving people you love is easy, the real test comes in loving those you despise. I TRY it every day I come home and see graffiti on houses on my block. . . they have such talent if properly applied to a creative endeavor or ad agency, where they could get themselves out of da hood.

“A true believer is one with whom others feel secure. One who returns love for hatred.”
- The Holy Prophet (SAW)

+1 on the graffiti. Some have real talent that could actually get them somewhere in life...

[Carolyn0944]

I am a child of God; I have been washed in the blood of Jesus (baptized) & raised to walk in new life; I pray to God, I confess to God; I do not pray to Mary or confess to a priest; when u become a Christian u do not intentionally go out and sin expecting God to forgive those sins u commit knowing they are sinful; He forgives any and all repented sin but that doesn't mean that there are not consequences for those sins which sometimes u hv to pay in the world i.e. a person going to prison...The Bible speaks of David as a man after God's own heart yet he committed adultery, had Bathsheba's husband killed etc. but ultimately he paid the price for these sins in the death of their son; if u hv an open mind and want to study Christianity in depth, you on the west coast should have easy accessibility to anything Dr. David Jeremiah writes and he is also on TV....I am studying Revelations through one of his programs right now and have done some of his other studies...A very good Bible teacher...

[hks786]

Very interesting to read. In many ways me and you are alike then. I also pray to God and confess sins to him. I dont pray to anyone else or confess sins to people hoping to be forgiven. You are also right that there are other consequences apart from forgiveness. For example, if you steal something and you ask for forgiveness you still need to give the thing back to it's rightful owner.

The only real difference between me and you is that you believe Prophet Jesus (AS) to be God and that he died for us. You also believe that his blood saves you...

But if I could just make a small point here. I hear a lot of Christians telling me they are born again in the blood of Jesus Christ and they live a new life. Can I ask what the significance of that is? The reason I ask is because all religions convey a message of being peaceful and righteous etc.

What I'm really trying to say is, what makes you 100% sure that Prophet Jesus (AS) is who you claim he is, what makes you 100% that his blood saves you?

[Neurorad]

Originally Posted by hks786

What I'm really trying to say is, what makes you 100% sure that Prophet Jesus (AS) is who you claim he is, what makes you 100% that his blood saves you?

It's called faith. Just as you have faith in your religious beliefs.

You can't proclaim to be a Muslim, Jew, or Christian without faith, as you must accept what is written as truth, without doubt.

[hks786]

Originally Posted by Neurorad

It's called faith. Just as you have faith in your religious beliefs.

You can't proclaim to be a Muslim, Jew, or Christian without faith, as you must accept what is written as truth, without doubt.

Not at all, and the Quran doesnt teach so. The Quran tells the Jew and Christian bring their proof if their claim is true. The Quran also encourages us to look at everything in the universe with a critical mind.