NationStates Jolt Archive

I liked that thread by Soviestan, so I'm going to turn it around now. How much credit do you give the prophets of the Old Testament and Jesus? Jesus fulfilled every single one of the prophecies of the Old Testament about the Messiah, except for the ones relating to eschatology, so there was some continuity there, since the NT was the promised fulfillment of the OT, but Mohammed fulfilled no prophecies from either Testament. Mohammed repeatedly contradicted the words of Jesus and the OT prophets, but yet still holds them to be prophets of God. A prophet, as defined by Jews, Christians, and Muslims, is someone who receives a message from God and is given the task of proclaiming that message. Why then, if the messages were from the same God, do the messages differ? The OT prophets and Jesus gave credibility to each other, but why then does Mohammed, who fulfilled no prophecy except for the one in Matthew 24:24, deny some of the doctrines given by these sources, but yet claim that the same God gave his message to each of them? That would be explained by the Islamic doctrine of Abrogation, which is not to be confused with the Biblical doctrine of Consumation. Consumation is a change in message because of the fulfillment of an ordained event. The coming of Jesus was the consumation of the Old Testament Law, so the law was discarded by the Christians as it had fulfilled its original purpose as a forerunner to the Messiah. Islamic Abrogation on the other hand, is basically Allah changing his mind simply because he is sovereign. Mohammed expected the Muslims to follow the most recent revelations from Allah if they happened to contradict any previous revelations, even though this change was not given credibility by the previous revelations. Why do Muslims think that Allah changed his message, even when this change fulfilled no previously stated planned purpose? Also, Mohammed claimed that Jesus' claims were corrupted by his followers, but Jesus' message was preached as it is today by the disciples after his death. Mohammed calls Jesus the 2nd greatest prophet, but if his message was able to be changed right after his death by his closest followers, why then is he considered such a great prophet?

Also, Mohammed claimed that Jesus' claims were corrupted by his followers, but Jesus' message was preached as it is today by the disciples after his death. Mohammed calls Jesus the 2nd greatest prophet, but if his message was able to be changed right after his death by his closest followers, why then is he considered such a great prophet?

Do you have any proof of the bolded part, proof that doesn't just stem from religious belief?

Mohammed claimed that Jesus' message was corrupted in the 600 odd years after he went to heaven, he claimed this corruption was caused by translation as well as editing.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/falsechrist.html

Something interesting about Jesus and whether or not he fufilled the prophices relating to the end times

My gosh, evil begets evil...

Do you have any proof of the bolded part, proof that doesn't just stem from religious belief?

Mohammed claimed that Jesus' message was corrupted in the 600 odd years after he went to heaven, he claimed this corruption was caused by translation as well as editing.

Right after Jesus' death the Gospel was spread throughout the world, mainly by the 12 apostles. Cities all over the world had the Gospel Scriptures. If someone were to edit Jesus' message, they would have to somehow simultaneously change the texts of all the Scripture that had already been disseminated around the world, which would be impossible. Of course, one could argue that Jesus' disciples who had spread his message were th ones who changed it, but most of them were martyred for their faith, so would they die for a lie? Also, as for the issue of translation, that arguement might be credible if there weren't original texts still in existence today that be referenced for accuracy. Why don't you learn ancient Greek and Hebrew, study the texts, and tell us what errors you found.

Right after Jesus' death the Gospel was spread throughout the world, mainly by the 12 apostles. Cities all over the world had the Gospel Scriptures. If someone were to edit Jesus' message, they would have to somehow simultaneously change the texts of all the Scripture that had already been disseminated around the world, which would be impossible. Of course, one could argue that Jesus' disciples who had spread his message were th ones who changed it, but most of them were martyred for their faith, so would they die for a lie? Also, as for the issue of translation, that arguement might be credible if there weren't original texts still in existence today that be referenced for accuracy. Why don't you learn ancient Greek and Hebrew, study the texts, and tell us what errors you found.
Dear Kami-sama! You know less of Christian history than you do of evolution!

Here, go read how this was put together: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible#Bible_versions_and_translations

There was a lot that was picked and chose to form the four gospels of today's Bible.

Right after Jesus' death the Gospel was spread throughout the world, mainly by the 12 apostles. Cities all over the world had the Gospel Scriptures. Yup, and then a few hundred years later, they picked some of them and called them the Bible. Others were not included.

Why don't you learn ancient Greek and Hebrew, study the texts, and tell us what errors you found.
Better yet, why don't you explain how events that weren't recorded until decades after they occurred could possibly be 100% accurate.
You expect us to believe that these writings, done by someone who wouldn't have had even 2nd-hand knowledge of the events were perfect and error-free?
I guess that's why there's no discrepancy between the Gospels, huh?


btw, if you're going to attack another religion, best not contradict yourself in your OP:
Mohammed fulfilled no prophecies from either Testament
...
Mohammed, who fulfilled no prophecy except for the one in Matthew 24:24

I liked that thread by Soviestan, so I'm going to turn it around now. How much credit do you give the prophets of the Old Testament and Jesus?

As Muslims we believe and respect all prophets including Jesus and that all prophets had certain Miracles God gave to help them spread the word of God.

Jesus fulfilled every single one of the prophecies of the Old Testament about the Messiah, except for the ones relating to eschatology, so there was some continuity there, since the NT was the promised fulfillment of the OT
No he did not.

but Mohammed fulfilled no prophecies from either Testament. Mohammed repeatedly contradicted the words of Jesus and the OT prophets, but yet still holds them to be prophets of God. A prophet, as defined by Jews, Christians, and Muslims, is someone who receives a message from God and is given the task of proclaiming that message. Why then, if the messages were from the same God, do the messages differ?
The messages don't differ, the way the message is preserved does. The bible has been corrupted throughout the years though different translations and its original language not around today. The Qur'an however is the miracle of Mohammed(pbuh) which has been preserved throughout the years in Arabic. It is beautifully written and couldn't have come from an illiterate man such as the prophet.

Mohammed calls Jesus the 2nd greatest prophet, but if his message was able to be changed right after his death by his closest followers, why then is he considered such a great prophet?

Because he was a great prophet with a great message. He can not be accountable for what his followers did in corrupting his message after his death.

Better yet, why don't you explain how events that weren't recorded until decades after they occurred could possibly be 100% accurate.
You expect us to believe that these writings, done by someone who wouldn't have had even 2nd-hand knowledge of the events were perfect and error-free?
I guess that's why there's no discrepancy between the Gospels, huh?


btw, if you're going to attack another religion, best not contradict yourself in your OP:

I did not contradict myself. Matthew 24:24 is a warning against false teachers. Mohammed technically was not the fulfillment of that, since anyone can be a false teacher. Also the Gospels were written by Jesus' disciples, so they had 1st hand knowledge of Jesus' message.

My religion teacher has a phd in greek and hebrew, and she's pretty staunch on the fact that all the english translations are pretty pathetic. As a matter of fact, she was invited to be on a translation panel, and when she said yes, they sent her a questionnairre asking what her particular beliefs were. So, even though the act of translation has no particular beliefs, hers were singled out in order to make sure the translation was the one they wanted. So... I don't really know where I'm going with this, just trying to inform.:gundge:

Did anyone else look at the amount of words in the first post and decide "Fuck it, I'm not reading all of this"? :D

Did anyone else look at the amount of words in the first post and decide "Fuck it, I'm not reading all of this"? :D

no, because unlike you I enjoy reading. In fact I have read so much recently my eyes hurt.:D that and OP brought up some good points and questions.

As Muslims we believe and respect all prophets including Jesus and that all prophets had certain Miracles God gave to help them spread the word of God.

No he did not.


The messages don't differ, the way the message is preserved does. The bible has been corrupted throughout the years though different translations and its original language not around today. The Qur'an however is the miracle of Mohammed(pbuh) which has been preserved throughout the years in Arabic. It is beautifully written and couldn't have come from an illiterate man such as the prophet.


Because he was a great prophet with a great message. He can not be accountable for what his followers did in corrupting his message after his death.

Okay, I'm calling bullshit. I'm starting to think you're not really Muslim.

Dear Kami-sama! You know less of Christian history than you do of evolution!

Here, go read how this was put together: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible#Bible_versions_and_translations

There was a lot that was picked and chose to form the four gospels of today's Bible.

The Council of Rome did indeed assemble the various Scriptures and compiled them into the Bible. No text was changed because, as I had stated earlier, that would have been impossible. The Catholic Bible has books that the Protestant Bible does not. The Eastern Orthodox church has their own version as well, so nothing was suppressed. Now, can you point out any doctrinal differences that would have occurred because of this. The Church in Rome standardized what they would be using, but this council did not impose their decision on the Byzantine churches. Not every book written by any random dude could be canonized. Show me what doctrines were changed. I am well aware of Christian history. The original texts were not changed at all, but not every book was relevant enough to be canonized, like the book of Jashar that was mentioned in the Bible, which was essentially a military record of the Israelites.

Okay, I'm calling bullshit. I'm starting to think you're not really Muslim.

Care to elaborate on what you think is bullshit?

no, because unlike you I enjoy reading. In fact I have read so much recently my eyes hurt.:D that and OP brought up some good points and questions.

ROFL, judging people based on their jokes sure is fun, isn't it, Soviestan?
:rolleyes:

Okay, I'm calling bullshit. I'm starting to think you're not really Muslim.

Bullshit on what exactly?

My gosh, evil begets evil...

There is nothing evil about my post. I am sincerely interested in this matter.

My gosh, evil begets evil...

Leave it to the fundies to resort to that eye-for-an-eye bullcrap.

Leave it to the fundies to resort to that eye-for-an-eye bullcrap.

eye-for-an-eye? No, this is more of a curious inquiry. If Muslims believe in the same God as the Christians and Jews, I think it would be wise for that issue to be explored in detail.

I think

....that there are no black people in China.

I think

....that there are no black people in China.

Hmm... You may be right.

I'm not Muslim, but there are a few problems here:

Jesus fulfilled every single one of the prophecies of the Old Testament about the Messiah, except for the ones relating to eschatology,

That all depends on interpretation. Most Jews quite obviously don't think he met those prophesies. I agree with you here, but be careful about making absolute statements when you are actually basing it in interpretation.

Mohammed repeatedly contradicted the words of Jesus and the OT prophets, but yet still holds them to be prophets of God. A prophet, as defined by Jews, Christians, and Muslims, is someone who receives a message from God and is given the task of proclaiming that message. Why then, if the messages were from the same God, do the messages differ?

Because prophets are not gifted with infallibility? Because they are fallible human beings just like the rest of us? Because our understanding of what they are saying is also fallible?

The OT prophets and Jesus gave credibility to each other,

In some ways, yes. In others, Jesus' message contradicted the OT. At least one of the OT prophets stated that Israel was being punished because they did not commit genocide. Jesus' message is pretty inconsistent with genocide, don't you think?

Also, Mohammed claimed that Jesus' claims were corrupted by his followers, but Jesus' message was preached as it is today by the disciples after his death.

This is utterly and completely incorrect. Even a cursory study of the history of the Christian church would show this to be absolutely wrong. The disciples themselves weren't even in complete agreement on Jesus' message or the relationship of human beings to Jesus and to God. Various churches taught very different messages until later councils tried to unify them and declare any who did not agree as heretics.

Mohammed calls Jesus the 2nd greatest prophet, but if his message was able to be changed right after his death by his closest followers, why then is he considered such a great prophet?

Wouldn't a prophet be judged by his own message and how close to God's it was? Any message can be changed immediately, especially if it is not fully understood. Ever played telephone?

Right after Jesus' death the Gospel was spread throughout the world, mainly by the 12 apostles. Cities all over the world had the Gospel Scriptures. If someone were to edit Jesus' message, they would have to somehow simultaneously change the texts of all the Scripture that had already been disseminated around the world, which would be impossible. Of course, one could argue that Jesus' disciples who had spread his message were th ones who changed it, but most of them were martyred for their faith, so would they die for a lie? Also, as for the issue of translation, that arguement might be credible if there weren't original texts still in existence today that be referenced for accuracy. Why don't you learn ancient Greek and Hebrew, study the texts, and tell us what errors you found.

Wow, your knowledge of the history of the church is severely lacking. First of all, the gospels were not written by the apostles themselves, but by their followers, as far as scholars can tell - generally at least a generation after the fact.

Second of all, there were many gospels, often contradictory to one another. It wasn't until the church had gained political power in the Roman Empire and began to hold official councils that they decided, basically by vote and political process, which gospels would be included.

And no, there are no original texts still in existence, as far as we know. There are old texts still in existence, but we have no reason to believe that they are original. In fact, most of the original texts were likely destroyed when members of the the early church were still being hunted. The burning of religious texts to try and destroy the religion was quite common, and many priests were stripped of their titles (at least for a time) when they, rather than be martyred, gave over their texts.

Allah had abrogated the quran not because he just felt like it. He did it in stages. For instance, the forbidding of wine and alcohol. The arabs before the time of the Prophet Mohammad used to drink wine like we drink water, nowadays. If Allah were to instantly forbid wine, people would not accept Islam. How Allah forbid wine was in a few steps:
1- He said that it has some bad and good stuff, good stuff meaning trade/profit
2-then he said that a drunk person cannot pray
3-the final step was to finally forbid wine/alcohol

all of these steps took a while to be accomplished, giving the arabs enough time to adjust

hope that clears something up!

I did not contradict myself. Matthew 24:24 is a warning against false teachers. Mohammed technically was not the fulfillment of that, since anyone can be a false teacher. Also the Gospels were written by Jesus' disciples, so they had 1st hand knowledge of Jesus' message.

It is incredibly unlikely that the Gosples were actually written by the disciples. It is more likely that they were written by followers of the disciples, considering the fact that they didn't seem to show up until at least a generation after the disciples. Most scholars agree that Paul's letters were written and in general use in many churches long before any written version of the Gospels were.

Even then, there were many Gospels written down that were never included in the canon.

The Council of Rome did indeed assemble the various Scriptures and compiled them into the Bible. No text was changed because, as I had stated earlier, that would have been impossible.

How would it have been impossible? Different churches had different versions of many of the texts. The council chose the ones they agreed with the most.

The Catholic Bible has books that the Protestant Bible does not. The Eastern Orthodox church has their own version as well, so nothing was suppressed.

You do realize that the canon was put together before the East/West split and way, way, way before the protestants, right?

Have you ever read the Gospel of Thomas or the Gospel of Mary? These are not in any official canon.

Now, can you point out any doctrinal differences that would have occurred because of this. The Church in Rome standardized what they would be using, but this council did not impose their decision on the Byzantine churches.

Once again, your knowledge of history is severely lacking. The councils which finalized the canon (as well as the Nicene creed and many other doctrinal decisions) came before the East/West split. They were imposed on all churches with the reach of the Roman Empire, which included the areas generally no thought of as Eastern Orthodox.

Not every book written by any random dude could be canonized. Show me what doctrines were changed. I am well aware of Christian history. The original texts were not changed at all, but not every book was relevant enough to be canonized, like the book of Jashar that was mentioned in the Bible, which was essentially a military record of the Israelites.

All sorts of things were changed when certain beliefs were declared heretical. Some churches taught that Christ was human, but ascended to godhood. Some taught that Christ was God in human skin, as it were. Some taught that he became the Son of God when he died sinless. Some even claimed that Christ was the true God, while the God of the OT was actually an evil underling of the true God. There were all sorts of alternate Christian doctrines. Each church had its own favorite scriptures, many of which went out of use after the offical canon was devised.

Wow, your knowledge of the history of the church is severely lacking. First of all, the gospels were not written by the apostles themselves, but by their followers, as far as scholars can tell - generally at least a generation after the fact.

Second of all, there were many gospels, often contradictory to one another. It wasn't until the church had gained political power in the Roman Empire and began to hold official councils that they decided, basically by vote and political process, which gospels would be included.

And no, there are no original texts still in existence, as far as we know. There are old texts still in existence, but we have no reason to believe that they are original. In fact, most of the original texts were likely destroyed when members of the the early church were still being hunted. The burning of religious texts to try and destroy the religion was quite common, and many priests were stripped of their titles (at least for a time) when they, rather than be martyred, gave over their texts.

Amazing then how the Gospels are referred to in the Bible as "The Gospel according to St. John" etc. There is no credible reason to doubt that the gospels were written by the disciples or their scribes.

Amazing then how the Gospels are referred to in the Bible as "The Gospel according to St. John" etc. There is no credible reason to doubt that the gospels were written by the disciples or their scribes.

The fact that they don't show up in any history or historical account of the churches until the apostles would have been dead is a good reason to think that.

And it isn't surprising they were called that. First of all, if you told me about your life, and I called it, "My life according to Kohlstein," that wouldn't be all that odd. Second of all, it was commonplace - even expected - at the time for a writer to attribute his own works to his teacher. A follower of John would have been expected to credit John, his teacher, when he wrote down the Gospel.

first off, have you read the qu'ran and studied islaam? no one has a right to judge others before knowing the full story. don't get me wrong, i'm not by any means muslim, and in fact i HATE shariah law, but i'm just saying, you should know about it first before making assumptions. if you have read the qu'ran and studied islaam, disreguard this first paragraph lol.

secondly, you are right, mohammad contradicted most of the Old and New Testaments.

thirdly, i have to rebutt your first post for this topic.. jesus did NOT fufill all the messiah prophesies. did he build the third temple? nope. was he a decendent of king david? nope. his father may have been, but even then, he was born to the VIRGIN mary.. so yeah. and did he change the laws of the Torah? yup. this is why i am converting to judaism [reform.] but i'm jsut saying, jesus did NOT fufill all the prophsies. buy yourself a tanakh and read it.. you might be enlightened. lol

anyways but yeah, islaam does not go with judaism and christianity. christianity is an "addon" to judaism. although i don't believe it's right, that's what it is. to tanakh never predicted 2 prophets.. it predicted one.

There is nothing evil about my post. I am sincerely interested in this matter.Soviestan's trolling thread begets this trolling thread. Yeah, maybe diet-evil, but evil nontheless.

first off, have you read the qu'ran and studied islaam? no one has a right to judge others before knowing the full story. don't get me wrong, i'm not by any means muslim, and in fact i HATE shariah law, but i'm just saying, you should know about it first before making assumptions. if you have read the qu'ran and studied islaam, disreguard this first paragraph lol.

secondly, you are right, mohammad contradicted most of the Old and New Testaments.

thirdly, i have to rebutt your first post for this topic.. jesus did NOT fufill all the messiah prophesies. did he build the third temple? nope. was he a decendent of king david? nope. his father may have been, but even then, he was born to the VIRGIN mary.. so yeah. and did he change the laws of the Torah? yup. this is why i am converting to judaism [reform.] but i'm jsut saying, jesus did NOT fufill all the prophsies. buy yourself a tanakh and read it.. you might be enlightened. lol

anyways but yeah, islaam does not go with judaism and christianity. christianity is an "addon" to judaism. although i don't believe it's right, that's what it is. to tanakh never predicted 2 prophets.. it predicted one.

Soviestan's trolling thread begets this trolling thread. Yeah, maybe diet-evil, but evil nontheless.

How is this trolling? How was Soviestan's post trolling?

Okay, I'm calling bullshit. I'm starting to think you're not really Muslim.

Not speaking for him, but what he said is pretty much standard muslim belief. Isa (Jesus) is a respected prophet - not God and Bible is considered a corrupted message - a message from God nonetheless but corrupted by men. Hence the Ahlul kitab status accorded to Christians (people of the book) - a step above the rest of us vile kufrs :p

Amazing then how the Gospels are referred to in the Bible as "The Gospel according to St. John" etc. There is no credible reason to doubt that the gospels were written by the disciples or their scribes.
Oh please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew#Authorship

That's just Matthew, NONE of the gospels were probably written by the person's whose name their bear. Quite likely they were written ages after their deaths.

Also the Gospels were written by Jesus' disciples, so they had 1st hand knowledge of Jesus' message.
They must have had amazingly long lifes, then, considering the earliest Gospel wasn't written until at least 40 years after Christs death.
The rest weren't written until nearly 100 years after.

Oh please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew#Authorship

That's just Matthew, NONE of the gospels were probably written by the person's whose name their bear. Quite likely they were written ages after their deaths.

I'm always amazed how many people are bothered by this. It just seems to make sense to me. The early Christians were being persecuted, and these apsotles were trying to spread their message as much as possible. Sitting down to write the gospels wouldn't have been a quick task (they didn't exactly have word processors back then), and it's highly unlikely that the men of humble professions that Jesus called upon as disciples were all literate anyways.

Of course, even if every disciple had decided to sit down and write an official Gospel, Christ's message still would have been filtered through them. As often as Christ seemed to get exasperated by their questions, the idea that they got everything right and in context seems, well, silly.

As often as Christ seemed to get exasperated by their questions, the idea that they got everything right and in context seems, well, silly.
Don't look at me, I've always felt it was the message that was important, not who wrote the bloody thing (Well, in terms of my faith, in terms of a history otaku it's important).

first off, have you read the qu'ran and studied islaam? no one has a right to judge others before knowing the full story. don't get me wrong, i'm not by any means muslim, and in fact i HATE shariah law, but i'm just saying, you should know about it first before making assumptions. if you have read the qu'ran and studied islaam, disreguard this first paragraph lol.

secondly, you are right, mohammad contradicted most of the Old and New Testaments.

thirdly, i have to rebutt your first post for this topic.. jesus did NOT fufill all the messiah prophesies. did he build the third temple? nope. was he a decendent of king david? nope. his father may have been, but even then, he was born to the VIRGIN mary.. so yeah. and did he change the laws of the Torah? yup. this is why i am converting to judaism [reform.] but i'm jsut saying, jesus did NOT fufill all the prophsies. buy yourself a tanakh and read it.. you might be enlightened. lol

anyways but yeah, islaam does not go with judaism and christianity. christianity is an "addon" to judaism. although i don't believe it's right, that's what it is. to tanakh never predicted 2 prophets.. it predicted one.

You obviously missed that part where I wrote that he fulfille all the propheices except for the ones dealing with his second coming. How do you know Mary wasn't in David's line? No prophecy ever said that his father would be in David's line, since he didn't have a father.

I'm always amazed how many people are bothered by this. It just seems to make sense to me. The early Christians were being persecuted, and these apsotles were trying to spread their message as much as possible. Sitting down to write the gospels wouldn't have been a quick task (they didn't exactly have word processors back then), and it's highly unlikely that the men of humble professions that Jesus called upon as disciples were all literate anyways.

Of course, even if every disciple had decided to sit down and write an official Gospel, Christ's message still would have been filtered through them. As often as Christ seemed to get exasperated by their questions, the idea that they got everything right and in context seems, well, silly.

Humble professions? Matthew was a tax collector and Luke was a doctor. Besides, how can the people who say the gospels were written years later prove that claim? Even if the gospels were written then, wouldn't it still be possible for them to be written by the disciples when they were older and had nothing else to do? Also, even if they were illiterate, they could have still dictated the gospels like Mohammed did.

Humble professions? Matthew was a tax collector and Luke was a doctor.

And most of them men were fisherman and similar professions. Meanwhile, you've really only got "tax collector" there. He probably would have needed to be at least nominally literate. A physician of that time wouldn't have needed to be literate. He was most likely taught as an apprentice.

Besides, how can the people who say the gospels were written years later prove that claim?

The same way they figure out when anything was written.

Even if the gospels were written then, wouldn't it still be possible for them to be written by the disciples when they were older and had nothing else to do? Also, even if they were illiterate, they could have still dictated the gospels like Mohammed did.

Even if the disciples were all young teenagers at the time of Christ's death, they would have had to have lived well over twice the normal lifespan to have possibly written the Gospels as we know them - at least at the points in time at which they seem to have been written. You're looking at them being in their 80's or 90's or even older. I highly doubt that they lived that long.

There is little chance that the gospels were recorded by the disiples, however Muhammad's teachings have similar problems of potential corruption when they were recorded. Determining the extent of these alterations can now never be accurately done.

There is little chance that the gospels were recorded by the disiples, however Muhammad's teachings have similar problems of potential corruption when they were recorded. Determining the extent of these alterations can now never be accurately done.

No, if the Qur'an was corrupted Allah would have sent his message to man again but he didn't since the Qur'an was and is perfect.

Oh please: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew#Authorship

That's just Matthew, NONE of the gospels were probably written by the person's whose name their bear. Quite likely they were written ages after their deaths.

I read your article. It never said that these scholars KNEW when and by whom the books were written. It just mentioned THEORIES. Also, did you notice that these ideas did not become about until about the 18th century. The Roman Catholic Church's monopoly on scripture had ended after the Protestant Reformation. They could no longer deceive the people who now had Bibles that they could read for themselves. By the 18th century, the Catholic Church saw its power slipping away. The Catholic Church had always claimed things like the infallibility of the Pope and that only the Catholic priests could interpret the Bible correctly. I see these theories as a way of spreading doubt into the people concerning their own judgment in Biblical matters. That would make them more dependent on the Catholic Church.

No, if the Qur'an was corrupted Allah would have sent his message to man again but he didn't since the Qur'an was and is perfect.

How can you be sure that any other prophet or religion that has been completely or largely ignored since then was not carrying Allah's message (or all of them, come to it)?

No, if the Qur'an was corrupted Allah would have sent his message to man again but he didn't since the Qur'an was and is perfect.

I have a question for Soviestan concerning the Rushdie Affair. Do you think the historical account of the Satanic Verses is reliable, and if so, do you think that some kind of demonic influence was to blame?

I read your article. It never said that these scholars KNEW when and by whom the books were written.

We don't generally speak of historical matters as if they are fully KNOWN. Much like with science, the study of history involves interpreting the evidence as best we can.

The Catholic Church had always claimed things like the infallibility of the Pope and that only the Catholic priests could interpret the Bible correctly.

This is patently untrue. In fact, from a historical viewpoint, there was no such thing as the Pope until well into church history - offically not until after the East/West split.

Now, the church as a whole had held to Apostolic succession for most of its history - the idea that any ordained priest must have a line of ordination that traced back to one of the apostles. But the claim, at least in the early church, was not that only Catholic priests could interepret the Bible correctly.

I see these theories as a way of spreading doubt into the people concerning their own judgment in Biblical matters. That would make them more dependent on the Catholic Church.

What does personal judgement have to do with the discussion?

We don't generally speak of historical matters as if they are fully KNOWN. Much like with science, the study of history involves interpreting the evidence as best we can.



This is patently untrue. In fact, from a historical viewpoint, there was no such thing as the Pope until well into church history - offically not until after the East/West split.

Now, the church as a whole had held to Apostolic succession for most of its history - the idea that any ordained priest must have a line of ordination that traced back to one of the apostles. But the claim, at least in the early church, was not that only Catholic priests could interepret the Bible correctly.



What does personal judgement have to do with the discussion?

I know that there was no Catholic Church until after the Split. I wrote about things in the 18th century, which was well into church history.

How can you be sure that any other prophet or religion that has been completely or largely ignored since then was not carrying Allah's message (or all of them, come to it)?

Because Allah has said Mohammed(pbuh) is the last of the prophets. Any others after him are false.

I know that there was no Catholic Church until after the Split. I wrote about things in the 18th century, which was well into church history.

Of course there was a Catholic Church before the split. The Catholic Church split into what are generally known as the Roman Catholic and Eastern (or Greek) Orthodox churches.

But you wrote about things which you said had always gone on, which simply isn't true.

Because Allah has said Mohammed(pbuh) is the last of the prophets. Any others after him are false.

Very convinient for Mohammed.
Who did Allah say this to, and when?
Can they be trusted to be impartial?

Even if the gospels were written then, wouldn't it still be possible for them to be written by the disciples when they were older and had nothing else to do? Also, even if they were illiterate, they could have still dictated the gospels like Mohammed did.No, son, Mohammad didn't dictate anything. God dictated to him. It's just christianity having these weird "I was there and this is what happened, I swear!" books. Jewish have the commandments, Muslims have the Qur'an, as dictated to Mohammed... Christians have the writings of some politicians from the ancient Levant.

EDIT: well, if you believe any of that shit.

Because Allah has said Mohammed(pbuh) is the last of the prophets. Any others after him are false.

While you may be right, you do realize that this sort of thing is exactly why many Christians reject Muhammed as a prophet, right? They believe revelation ended after Christ and Christ's apostles, so that no person claiming divine revelation after that could possibly be telling the truth....

Because Allah has said Mohammed(pbuh) is the last of the prophets. Any others after him are false.

And God said that any further "prophets" would be false in the Bible.

Prove which is right.

I have a question for Soviestan concerning the Rushdie Affair. Do you think the historical account of the Satanic Verses is reliable, and if so, do you think that some kind of demonic influence was to blame?

I haven't seen anything that would lead me to believe such nonsense would be reliable.

Prove which is right.

Thats the beauty of religion, nothing can ever be proved or disproved, so it just keeps on existing, but not progressing very quickly.

You obviously missed that part where I wrote that he fulfille all the propheices except for the ones dealing with his second coming. How do you know Mary wasn't in David's line? No prophecy ever said that his father would be in David's line, since he didn't have a father.

Well first off, nowhere in the Torah or Old Testament is there any mention of a second coming of the Messiah. Though if you like please feel free to provide a quote of where it says there will be a return or second coming where he will fulfill the rest of the prophecy of the Messiah. Secondly the tribal relations which would determine coming from David's line only come through the paternal side, not the maternal. Your 'jewishness' is based on your mother and her bloodline while tribe was down through that of the father, and could not be passed on to an adopted son.

In reference to the validity of authorship:

No one seems to have pointed out that the Jews had a long and celebrted oral tradition. They as a people kept the torah as oral history for a thousand years!

the whole rabinic system was based on memorizing imense quantities of inmformation acuratly. The deciples like every child would have gone through this rigorous schooling. Because they wern't rabbis we can assume that they weren't the best of the best but. they were moderatly litterate and had good memores.

If you question the validity of christian beliefs you must question that of Jews and also that of muslims.

I also would like to reiterate the point: If it all is a lie why would people be willing to suffer torture and death? That atleast is recorded in roman text.

Some one care to discuss Joesephus? He has some interesting points to make...

Well first off, nowhere in the Torah or Old Testament is there any mention of a second coming of the Messiah. Though if you like please feel free to provide a quote of where it says there will be a return or second coming where he will fulfill the rest of the prophecy of the Messiah. Secondly the tribal relations which would determine coming from David's line only come through the paternal side, not the maternal. Your 'jewishness' is based on your mother and her bloodline while tribe was down through that of the father, and could not be passed on to an adopted son.

That's why I used the word "except" in my previous post.

And God said that any further "prophets" would be false in the Bible.

Prove which is right.

you can't "prove" which is right. I suppose at the end of day its a matter of faith. I could debate with a Christian about which of our respective Holy book's is more accurate but before long we are likely just to go in circles. They will continue to believe in their faith, and me mine.

I choose Islam because of the Qur'an and the miracles I see in it, the way it has been preserved directly from the prophet(unlike the bible) and the fact Jesus never claimed to be God and both the bible and the Qur'an tells us there can only be one God, so the idea of Jesus being God is flawed as is the Bible.

you can't "prove" which is right. I suppose at the end of day its a matter of faith. I could debate with a Christian about which of our respective Holy book's is more accurate but before long we are likely just to go in circles. They will continue to believe in their faith, and me mine.

I choose Islam because of the Qur'an and the miracles I see in it, the way it has been preserved directly from the prophet(unlike the bible) and the fact Jesus never claimed to be God and both the bible and the Qur'an tells us there can only be one God, so the idea of Jesus being God is flawed as is the Bible.

Speaking of miracles in the Koran, I'm curious to learn about the significance of the number 19. It is mentioned in the Koran as an important number, and many Muslims claim that it holds some mathematical significance. The only think I can think of would be 19x6=114 suras.

Speaking of miracles in the Koran, I'm curious to learn about the significance of the number 19. It is mentioned in the Koran as an important number, and many Muslims claim that it holds some mathematical significance. The only think I can think of would be 19x6=114 suras.

Its not a greatly significant number actually. Here's some links if you care to read up on it. Salam

http://www.ourdialogue.com/n4.htm

http://www.islamicvoice.com/july.98/dialogue.htm

Its not a greatly significant number actually. Here's some links if you care to read up on it. Salam

http://www.ourdialogue.com/n4.htm

http://www.islamicvoice.com/july.98/dialogue.htm

Thanks. Numerology does make an interesting subject, but I never gave it much credit. Some Jehovah's Witness guys came to my house once and said that the attacks on 9-11 had something to do with the numbers. If it had happenned on 9-12 or 9-10, I'm sure people would have their theories about that. 19 seemed like looking into since prime numbers appear to be important in our universe's design.

Do you have any proof of the bolded part, proof that doesn't just stem from religious belief?

Mohammed claimed that Jesus' message was corrupted in the 600 odd years after he went to heaven, he claimed this corruption was caused by translation as well as editing.

2 things amaze me about Mohammed's claim.
1) If it was corrupt, then why did he encourage his followers to read it? If it wasn't corrupt does that mean his revelation, the Qur'an was unneccessary?

2)Isn't the Qur'an also corrupted, like by the Caliphates that came after him? So would that mean that God is a failure if he can't get it right a third time? :p

2 things amaze me about Mohammed's claim.
1) If it was corrupt, then why did he encourage his followers to read it?
IIRC, he never did.

If it wasn't corrupt does that mean his revelation, the Qur'an was unneccessary?
Yup.
2)Isn't the Qur'an also corrupted, like by the Caliphates that came after him?
Thats up for debate, Mohammeds followers memorized the entire Qur'an, from what he said. After Mohammed died, his recitations were compiled into a book through a stringent system, IIRC you had to have two people who personally knew Mohammed and distinctly remember him saying the thing you were presenting for compilation. The Qur'an was compiled and all was good, until the Caliph Uthman discovered the existence of Qur'ans that were different. Uthman freaked out and destroyed all the errant copies, and the one he endorsed is the one we have today.

So would that mean that God is a failure if he can't get it right a third time? :p
Nah, humans are just really shitty secretaries.

IIRC, he never did.

Yup.

Thats up for debate, Mohammeds followers memorized the entire Qur'an, from what he said. After Mohammed died, his recitations were compiled into a book through a stringent system, IIRC you had to have two people who personally knew Mohammed and distinctly remember him saying the thing you were presenting for compilation. The Qur'an was compiled and all was good, until the Caliph Uthman discovered the existence of Qur'ans that were different. Uthman freaked out and destroyed all the errant copies, and the one he endorsed is the one we have today.


Nah, humans are just really shitty secretaries.

You are quite correct:)

IIRC, he never did.



Surah 2:136 -
2:136 Say ye: "We believe in God, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus and that given to (all) Prophets from their Lord, we make no difference between one and another of them, and we bow to God (in Islam)."

and as far as corrupution, evidently the Jews kept if from being corrupted, and there is no place in the Qur'an where the bible is seen as corrupted, so wouldn't the whole basis ofo Islam be proven wrong with that?

5:47 It was We who revealed the law (to Moses); therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the Prophet who bowed (as in Islam) to God's will, by the Rabbis and the doctors of Law: for to them was entrusted the protection of God's Book, and they were witnesses thereto: therefore fear not men, but fear Me, and sell not My Signs for a miserable price. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what God hath revealed, they are (no better than) unbelievers.

furthermore, I have seven questions for muslims, about the Injeel, which i posted once, and no one answered.

1) Who changed it?
2) Why?
3)Where was it changed?
4)When?
5) Was it before or after muhammed?(goes with #4)
6)Which parts where changed?
7) Where is the original text?

No one will answer?

Surah 2:136 -
Muslims believe that when Jesus and the OT prophets wrote the New and Old Testament it was identical to the Qur'an, and that Abraham, Isiah, Jesus, etc. were Muslims, but then their revelations were corrupted into what we have today.


and as far as corrupution, evidently the Jews kept if from being corrupted, and there is no place in the Qur'an where the bible is seen as corrupted, so wouldn't the whole basis ofo Islam be proven wrong with that?

I believe there is, but I can't remember exactly what Surat.

Muslims believe that when Jesus and the OT prophets wrote the New and Old Testament it was identical to the Qur'an, and that Abraham, Isiah, Jesus, etc. were Muslims, but then their revelations were corrupted into what we have today.



Wouldn't that mean that Allah/God then, was in fact, no strong enough to keep people from corrupting his revelations to man?

Wouldn't that mean that Allah/God then, was in fact, no strong enough to keep people from corrupting his revelations to man?

Guess so.

Guess so.

Hmm. Thats what I was thinking. And really Im not trying to discredit Islam, I just want to know for myself.

Jesus fulfilled every single one of the prophecies of the Old Testament about the Messiah, except for the ones relating to eschatology, so there was some continuity there, since the NT was the promised fulfillment of the OT, but Mohammed fulfilled no prophecies from either Testament. The OT prophets and Jesus gave credibility to each other, but why then does Mohammed, who fulfilled no prophecy except for the one in Matthew 24:24, deny some of the doctrines given by these sources, but yet claim that the same God gave his message to each of them?
I was once told by a friend of mine that the Quran has referred to Jesus with all sorts of names including 'Messiah'.

I was once told by a friend of mine that the Quran has referred to Jesus with all sorts of names including 'Messiah'.

Besides Mohammed, he was considered the holiest prophet. Um, also he will be the leader of God's army on the day of judgement, according to the Quran. He is mentioned a lot and is even claimed to be sinless by the quran at one point.

Uthman freaked out and destroyed all the errant copies, and the one he endorsed is the one we have today.


So said Uthman. :D

Surah 2:136 -

All that says is that all prophets were great, not to read the bible.


and as far as corrupution, evidently the Jews kept if from being corrupted, and there is no place in the Qur'an where the bible is seen as corrupted, so wouldn't the whole basis ofo Islam be proven wrong with that?

There actually isn't a place in the Qur'an that says the bible is corrupted. However, if it wasn't Allah wouldn't have sent Mohammed(pbuh), and to add to that even a simple glance at the bible and you'll noticed tons of inaccuracies and contradictions. So clearly one can tell it has been corrupted throughout the years and translations.

As for your questions about the injeel, I'll get to that tommorrow. Im extremely tired at the moment and its hard for me to think.

I am well aware of Christian history.

I could concede that you're well aware of what you've been told. The problem is that what you've been told is fiction purported as fact, and then you swallowed it like mother's milk. While that is natural, you're still ignorant and misinformed. Oh well.

Out of curiosity, though, what else do you believe? The Bush Doctrine, perhaps?

I could concede that you're well aware of what you've been told. The problem is that what you've been told is fiction purported as fact, and then you swallowed it like mother's milk. While that is natural, you're still ignorant and misinformed. Oh well.

Out of curiosity, though, what else do you believe? The Bush Doctrine, perhaps?

What is the truth about christian history then?

Basicly put Islam states that from the first man-prophet Adam to the last, Muhammed the religion is one. It is the same religion that has been revealed and reminded to mankind whenever they lost their way. Of course each time the past experiences of previous prophets are gathered together and told. It is also told that mankind has a tendecy to forget or corrupt whatever prophets said when there is a space to do so. Yet God leaves mankind the choice, repeating the process by sending his word again by archangel Cebrail (Gabriel) to new Prophets.
Also its said that islam is the last religion to come and thats because the end times are near. When it hits to bottom this time no prophet will come and it will be Armageddon. Everyone will die and be ressurrected etc. then its afterlife.
About the corruption of Christianity, the peace and understanding messages of Jesus are of course true. The problem is mostly in Trinity: Islam says anyway to call God more than one is blasphemous because it is not some stronger than human creature that mankind believes in. Its the absolute creator of everything without an end or beginning. Father, son and Holy spirit therefore implies that God is more like a mortal giving birth to a demigod and therefore unacceptable. The train of thought to follow the idea of father and son will end in wrong places and turn a person into a lesser deity worshipping pagan. Thats why its claimed it is corrupted by Roman Empire, to combine Pagan understanding with christianity and making it acceptable to pagans. A similar corruption for Islam would be making statues of the god and combining icon worshipping in ancient Arabia. Prophets destroyed all of them preventing it and the true interpretion of ban on painting human face is ''Not Creating Icon of Prophet or others to Worship'' . It is not a ban on art.

Jesus was not killed. God used a miracle, showing the betrayer like Jesus to Heretics and taking Jesus to Heavens alive. In Kuran or any other Abrahamic religion there is no single prophet killed by heretics, God simply does not allow it. The entire death and sacrifice of Jesus is taken from Mithra religion.

It is also clear that no man can pay for another's sin.God says he likes to forgive and may forgive most of the sins that has been to him. Yet he says the right of humans are for humans and God can't forgive a sin done to another human by human because its that humans right, not God's to forgive so they have to go to hell, to be purified then perhaps allowed to heaven. Maybe, because too corrupted a person that means destroying him to completely purify so is doomed to eternal hell.
Christianity changed the Pagan Gods to Christian Saints, people worship to those saints. Christianity also gave Jesus so much divinity he is half God and Worshipped. The love of prophets by heart is different than worshipping a human as a deity. The name of Jesus is stronger than God's in Christianity and its heresy. Worshipping to God through Jesus because your heartfelt love carries you BEYOND Jesus is another thing but forgetting that you actually worship God, not another human is another thing. Being miraculous or extraordinary doesn't change a thing. Religion encourages love for prophets to a degree, not past that. Today it is Jesus Cult more than Christianity.

So simply: God is One, its all one religion that wasedited and rephrased as mankind continiously took the wrong meanings. Jesus lives in heavens.Today's christianity is more Mithra/Pagan religion than its Christ's words and it is almost like people worship Jesus himself more than God.


Edit: I also want to add that a religious class of people is actually not accepted by islam. Any able bodied person who knows how to pray can lead a public prayer by becoming Imam. I deny any human other than Prophets any religious right or control on others and all Prophets are gone, no replacement is expected. I deny khalifateship, pope or any big head claming to be guardian of some faith. They are the root of corruption.