Jesus was not the Messiah

[logical4u]

If Islam believes Yeshua was a prophet, why don't they follow his word?

The Bible as it currently exists is essentially unreliable, ... 393 AD by the Synod of Hippo. The Qur'an, on the other hand, was recited gradually and publicly by Muhammad, S.A.W., and was immediately preserved both in the minds of his followers and in the writings of scribes who recorded his revelations directly. The order of suwar (chapters) of the Qur'an was standardized by Uthman's orders in 651, 19 years after the death of the prophet, and remains the same today. Had it been inaccurate or flawed in any way, one of the numerous Muslims who had followed Muhammad and listened to his revelations would have stepped forward to correct it. This is what separates Islamic scripture from Jewish and Christian scriptures as far as accuracy is concerned.

I have read recently that anything Muhammad quoted that contradicted earlier quotes was considered the more accurate, and was the part that should be followed. Yeshua's teaching follow the teachings of the earlier prophets. I have not read about any prophet teaching to cut off the hand and opposite foot of a person to teach them 'the way', like it is in the quran. Yeshua warned against listening to a being that taught in secret (or a cave), exactly where Muhammed received his teachings by his own admission. I can see where you can claim the New Testament was not recorded accurately, but the Old Testament has books that have been discovered that are thousands and thousands of years old, old even when Yeshua walked the earth. Muhammed teachings contradict ALL those teachings. His is a religion of "legion", not of personal salvation.

Also, the prophets lived holy lives. They did not bear false witness against their political enemies as Muhammed did.

Muslims also seem to re-write history at their convenience; they took the Middle east and Northern Africa and outlying areas of Europe from the Christians (many Christians in the middle east were previous jews) after 600AD and yet they claim that the jews were not in the middle east until the 1800s even though there is historical proof from several cultures and archeological proof in the ground itself (that muslims systematically destroy and deny). If the faith is so pure, why all the lies and deceit? Why can't it stand on its own, without the threat of maiming or death if you don't follow it?

Thank you for giving the muslim version of history and please let me know about the other questions.

 

[Kalam]

I have read recently that anything Muhammad quoted that contradicted earlier quotes was considered the more accurate, and was the part that should be followed.

The doctrine of abrogation is a misconception that critics of Islam and some misguided Muslims cling to so that they can pretend as if the "peaceful" passages of the Qur'an have been replaced by more "belligerent" passages. In fact, the message of the Qur'an is consistent throughout the book and the abrogation described in the Qur'an refers exclusively to the replacement of previous scriptures with the Qur'an. See my post here for more information on the subject:

Kalam & the Maulana M. Ali on the false doctrine of abrogation

Yeshua's teaching follow the teachings of the earlier prophets.

According to Biblical scripture, which we've established as unreliable. If I were you, I wouldn't be particularly pleased if the message of the Messiah (AS) endorsed the mass slayings described in the Old Testament.

I have not read about any prophet teaching to cut off the hand and opposite foot of a person to teach them 'the way', like it is in the quran.

That punishment is actually reserved for those who "wage war" against Muslims, and mere imprisonment is suggested as an alternative. See 5:33.

Yeshua warned against listening to a being that taught in secret (or a cave), exactly where Muhammed received his teachings by his own admission.

Muhammad, according to tradition, received revelations in a number of places. I hardly see how locations matters; everyone is capable of reading the recitation and deciding for themselves whether or not they believe it's authentic and suitable for guidance.

I can see where you can claim the New Testament was not recorded accurately,

Why do you believe differently?

but the Old Testament has books that have been discovered that are thousands and thousands of years old, old even when Yeshua walked the earth.

This I haven't denied. However, I don't see how age necessarily implies accuracy, especially when the Bible's sources tend to be divergent:

Dead Sea scrolls - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Muhammed teachings contradict ALL those teachings.

Sometimes, yes.

His is a religion of "legion", not of personal salvation.

This is somewhat correct.

"Religion is merely some sort of subjective experience and is concerned only with the so-called private relationship between God and man. Deen is an objective reality and a system of collective life."

"Every follower of a Religion is satisfied that he has established a communion with the Almighty, and the objective of each individual is his own salvation. The aim of Deen on the other hand is the welfare and progress of all mankind, and the character and constitution of a society indicates whether or not it is founded upon the Divine Law."

Also, the prophets lived holy lives. They did not bear false witness against their political enemies as Muhammed did.

Muhammad (SAW) lived a life appropriate to the conditions he and his followers faced. Unfortunately, many sources of information on Muhammad's life are as inaccurate and discrepant as the accounts of the NT. This is why they aren't considered holy scripture in Islam...

Muslims also seem to re-write history at their convenience; they took the Middle east and Northern Africa and outlying areas of Europe from the Christians (many Christians in the middle east were previous jews) after 600AD and yet they claim that the jews were not in the middle east until the 1800s even though there is historical proof from several cultures and archeological proof in the ground itself (that muslims systematically destroy and deny).

All Muslims do this?

The Jews had a more or less continuous presence in Palestine, though their numbers at times dwindled to insignificance. I don't see how this is pertinent to our theological discussion.

If the faith is so pure, why all the lies and deceit?

Such as...?

Why can't it stand on its own, without the threat of maiming or death if you don't follow it?

It does, really. I've shown that "threat" only applies to those actively engaged in hostilities towards Muslims. For Qur'anic explanations of how disbelievers are to be treated under Islam, see my post here:

Qu'ranic directives regarding the treatment of disbelievers

If you're interested in attacking my religion, please try to do so more intelligently then some of your Christian brothers and sisters here. Of the two most vocal critics, one is capable only of cutting and pasting silly opinions from radical websites and acting as if they're holy scripture. The other is a paranoid conspiracy theorist who tends to ignore large portions of the Qur'an in his/her attempt to make it seem "evil."

Thank you for giving the muslim version of history and please let me know about the other questions.

There is only one version of history and I'm wholly committed to presenting it accurately when I use it in my arguments.

Peace be with you, and blessings of God.

 

[John Lemmon]

All muslims should be booted out of the USA, starting with fakers like kalam,or are you already in a sleeper cell, and your studying how to properly strap explosives under your pyjamas?

 

[logical4u]

I have read recently that anything Muhammad quoted that contradicted earlier quotes was considered the more accurate, and was the part that should be followed.

The doctrine of abrogation is a misconception that critics of Islam and some misguided Muslims cling to so that they can pretend as if the "peaceful" passages of the Qur'an have been replaced by more "belligerent" passages. In fact, the message of the Qur'an is consistent throughout the book and the abrogation described in the Qur'an refers exclusively to the replacement of previous scriptures with the Qur'an. See my post here for more information on the subject:

Kalam & the Maulana M. Ali on the false doctrine of abrogation

One of the problem westerners have with this religion is: some talk about "misguided muslims", but they will not stop them or condemn their actions publicly or in large numbers.
If someone claims they are doing something for the Christ, and most Christians disagree with it, they will vocally denounce them and if they are breaking laws, use legal means to stop them.

Because the muslim religion is tied with their government, it seems they MUST not stop people that claim they are doing crimminal acts for their religion.

Yeshua's teaching follow the teachings of the earlier prophets.

According to Biblical scripture, which we've established as unreliable. If I were you, I wouldn't be particularly pleased if the message of the Messiah (AS) endorsed the mass slayings described in the Old Testament.


That punishment is actually reserved for those who "wage war" against Muslims, and mere imprisonment is suggested as an alternative. See 5:33.

logical4u
We did not establish the NT is unreliable, it was used to show if that the NT is unreliable (a collection of books that were written by the followers of the Christ that were given powers to perform miracles through the HolySpirit, and approved by a younger generation of these followers that were also given gifts by the Holy Spirit), then surely the quran MUST be unreliable (because one man recited it over decades) for logic's sake.


The message of the Messiah did not "endorse" mass slayings. The Lord punished the people in the OT for sinning against Him. The Messiah, gave a way to salvation for even the cursed (the Canaanites from the book of Jubilees) and those of different races (Samarian & Roman officer).

Kalam
Muhammad, according to tradition, received revelations in a number of places. I hardly see how locations matters; everyone is capable of reading the recitation and deciding for themselves whether or not they believe it's authentic and suitable for guidance.

logical4u
If Yeshua, one, your faith claimed to be one of its own prophets (the story told six hundred years after He walked the earth, and using your logic, the truth is misrepresented after 300 years, then Muhammed's tale must be twice as misrepresented), said that his followers should not trust someone that tells you they have the truth, but will share it in secret or in the dark of a cave. His followers were warned against believing a message delivered in this way.

In the quran, it says that unbelievers should be killed, converted or treated as second class citizens. There is also allowance for not honoring contracts (your word) when dealing with unbelievers.


Kalam
This I haven't denied. However, I don't see how age necessarily implies accuracy, especially when the Bible's sources tend to be divergent:

Dead Sea scrolls - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Sometimes, yes.


This is somewhat correct.

"Religion is merely some sort of subjective experience and is concerned only with the so-called private relationship between God and man. Deen is an objective reality and a system of collective life."

logical4u
if it is a private relationship why does islam force its ways on others?

Kalam
"Every follower of a Religion is satisfied that he has established a communion with the Almighty, and the objective of each individual is his own salvation. The aim of Deen on the other hand is the welfare and progress of all mankind, and the character and constitution of a society indicates whether or not it is founded upon the Divine Law."

logical4u
Again, how can acts that limit others freedoms and keep them in absolute desperation, be of G*d?

Kalam
Muhammad (SAW) lived a life appropriate to the conditions he and his followers faced. Unfortunately, many sources of information on Muhammad's life are as inaccurate and discrepant as the accounts of the NT. This is why they aren't considered holy scripture in Islam...

logical4u
Does this mean if there are historical facts about the prophet (and what he did) that doesn't fit where islam wants him, it just isn't considered? How can muslims question everybody else, but blindly, accept what men told them, especially when there are conflicts about which leadership is presenting the "accurate" story of his life?


Kalam
All Muslims do this?

The Jews had a more or less continuous presence in Palestine, though their numbers at times dwindled to insignificance. I don't see how this is pertinent to our theological discussion.

logical4u
If muslims will not be honest on things they see as "insignificant", how can they be trusted to discuss matters of great weight? It is pertinent to have an open discussion of TRUTH.

Such as...?

Why can't it stand on its own, without the threat of maiming or death if you don't follow it?

It does, really. I've shown that "threat" only applies to those actively engaged in hostilities towards Muslims. For Qur'anic explanations of how disbelievers are to be treated under Islam, see my post here:

Qu'ranic directives regarding the treatment of disbelievers

If you're interested in attacking my religion, please try to do so more intelligently then some of your Christian brothers and sisters here. Of the two most vocal critics, one is capable only of cutting and pasting silly opinions from radical websites and acting as if they're holy scripture. The other is a paranoid conspiracy theorist who tends to ignore large portions of the Qur'an in his/her attempt to make it seem "evil."

logical4u

I don't feel that I am attacking your religion. I am questioning your reasons for picking and choosing the parts you want from the Jewish and Christian histories, while disregarding the basic message of the prophets: You are responsible for your own salvation based on your private relationship with G*d and your personal acts throughout your life. One offers everyone freedom, the other offers oppression to leaders (that claim religion).
You tell me that it is a religion of peace, but I have read in the quran that its followers must subjugate ALL that do not believe.
When I ask you about it, you basically tell me the quran doesn't necessarily say what it means (or visaversa).

Let me see if I understand your religion:
If I question its validity then I am attacking it
If I point out where your holy book encourages violence against non-believers
then I don't understand
If I say it doesn't match the book (that your faith is roughly based), Christians call holy, you say that book is wrong because it was put together long after Christ was crucified for our sins.
If I say your book has less evidence of being as accurate as the Bible, you say you have "people" that know the history (1400 years later).
If I say your faith tolerates people that subjugate, you tell me I just don't understand.

I admit it, I don't understand, and when I ask questions and I am answered with insults, I am not impressed. I was thrilled when I saw you responded, but disappointed in the logic of the answers. Maybe we can try again.

Thank you for giving the muslim version of history and please let me know about the other questions.

There is only one version of history and I'm wholly committed to presenting it accurately when I use it in my arguments.

Kalam
Peace be with you, and blessings of God.

Apologize for not getting the quote part right.

 

[John Lemmon]

John, What exactly do you want your obituary to read? Here lies what is left of John, whom, mocked, rather than tolerated, struck down by a lightening bolt up the ass, drowned in a half inch puddle, neatly folded and parted by a passing ACORN Bus in route to protest Girl Scout cookie sales. John tempted what he did not understand, he has all the time he needs now to contemplate.

It'll read: Here lies a realist who enjoyed this life to the fullest. Hope my next one is just as good.

 

[Kalam]

One of the problem westerners have with this religion is: some talk about "misguided muslims", but they will not stop them or condemn their actions publicly or in large numbers.

I think this is somewhat of a misconception on the West's part.

Muslims Condemn Terrorist Attacks

I agree that more could and should be done, though.

If someone claims they are doing something for the Christ, and most Christians disagree with it, they will vocally denounce them and if they are breaking laws, use legal means to stop them.

I don't doubt it. I only wish that the Serbs could have been stopped earlier in Bosnia.

Because the muslim religion is tied with their government, it seems they MUST not stop people that claim they are doing crimminal acts for their religion.

This isn't the case according to tradition. It was the case before the advent of Islam, when there was a saying that went thus: "Help thy brother whether he is the doer of wrong or wrong is done to him."

Muhammad supposedly repeated this saying as well, to the surprise of the Muslim community who (supposedly) asked, "O Messenger of Allah! We can help a man to whom wrong is done, but how could we help him when he was the doer of wrong?" Muhammad replied, "take hold of his hands from doing wrong." (B 46:4)

It would be hypocritical for me to rely solely on tradition, though, so I'll pull something similar from the Qur'an itself:

...And help one another in righteousness and piety, and help not one another in sin and aggression, and keep your duty to Allah. Surely Allah is severe in requiting. - 5:2​

We did not establish the NT is unreliable, it was used to show if that the NT is unreliable (a collection of books that were written by the followers of the Christ that were given powers to perform miracles through the HolySpirit, and approved by a younger generation of these followers that were also given gifts by the Holy Spirit),

You speak of logic after claiming that the integrity of your book was preserved by intervention on the part of the Holy Spirit! Your argument presupposes the existence of an interfering force that granted people the ability to perform miracles. How is this logical? Things like divine intervention and miracles should be interpreted figuratively, I think, or else we'll be delving into superstition. How does a non-Christian know that the New Testament is reliable?

then surely the quran MUST be unreliable (because one man recited it over decades) for logic's sake.

Not exactly. As I said, Muhammad's recitation was public. Because it was delivered over an extended period of time, Muhammad's followers memorized and recorded it without a great deal of difficulty as it was revealed. When the recitation was compiled and standardized soon after he died, there is not a shred of historical evidence that suggests the standardized version was inaccurate. Surely, if it was, common sense dictates that at least one of Muhammad's many followers would have come forward to correct whatever mistake was present in Uthman's Qur'an.

The message of the Messiah did not "endorse" mass slayings. The Lord punished the people in the OT for sinning against Him.

Well... he punished them through his followers, who committed mass murder and enslaved/raped/pillaged whatever remained. How is this morally upright and Godly?

The Messiah, gave a way to salvation for even the cursed (the Canaanites from the book of Jubilees) and those of different races (Samarian & Roman officer).

That's fine, but Christianity is still based on a book (the Torah) that is really quite racist if taken at face value. Islamic scripture is entirely egalitarian where race is concerned.

If Yeshua, one, your faith claimed to be one of its own prophets (the story told six hundred years after He walked the earth, and using your logic, the truth is misrepresented after 300 years, then Muhammed's tale must be twice as misrepresented),

The accounts of prophets in the Qur'an are parables, not history lessons. Their stories make up a small portion of the book and were likely included as prophets because of their commitment to monotheism. The Qur'anic account of Jesus (AS) was written seemingly to illustrate Islamic beliefs regarding the oneness of God.

said that his followers should not trust someone that tells you they have the truth, but will share it in secret or in the dark of a cave. His followers were warned against believing a message delivered in this way.

Again, the New Testament as it currently exists is not viewed as reliable in Islam. Moreover, Muhammad's message wasn't delivered secretly or in a cave; that's where it was received in the beginning. Muhammad taught publicly.

In the quran, it says that unbelievers should be killed, converted or treated as second class citizens.

Please see the post I linked you to earlier:
Qur'anic directives regarding the treatment of disbelievers

You're referring to 9:29, presumably.

Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor follow the Religion of Truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. - 9:29​

I can't find my in-depth discussion of this, so please see my very brief explanation here:

The jizya was to be paid by those who preferred to remain autonomous rather than recognizing the same laws and limitations as Muslims ("nor forbid that which has been forbidden...") while still being protected by the Islamic state.

The alternative was unity with the Islamic community - see the Madinah Compact

Compare this to 2 Chronicles 15:13 -

All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman.​

That's from my Bible, which uses the NIV translation. Do you prefer another?

There is also allowance for not honoring contracts (your word) when dealing with unbelievers.

...

Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up anyone against you; so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves those who keep their duty. - 9:4​

How can there be an agreement for the idolaters with Allah and with His Messenger, except those with whom you made an agreement at the Sacred Mosque? So as long as they are true to you, be true to them. Surely Allah loves those who keep their duty. - 9:7​

logical4u
if it is a private relationship why does islam force its ways on others?

The Deen al-Islam isn't a private relationship, but it also isn't coercive.

There is no compulsion in religion -- the right way is indeed clearly distinct from error. So whoever disbelieves in the devil and believes in Allah, he indeed lays hold on the firmest handle which shall never break. And Allah is Hearing, Knowing. - 2:256​

logical4u
Again, how can acts that limit others freedoms and keep them in absolute desperation, be of G*d?

As a Christian, that's a question you should be asking yourself. See Deut. 7:1-2 and 13:12-15, Joshua 11:12-15 and 11:20, etc.

Which passages in the Qur'an keep people in "absolute desperation"?

logical4u
Does this mean if there are historical facts about the prophet (and what he did) that doesn't fit where islam wants him, it just isn't considered?

No. This means that the only sources of information about Muhammad's life are based on collections of dubious oral traditions. The only things that can be known for sure about Muhammad and the early believers are found in the Qur'an.

How can muslims question everybody else, but blindly, accept what men told them, especially when there are conflicts about which leadership is presenting the "accurate" story of his life?

I'm not sure that I know what you're saying here. It should be assumed that everything about Islam is untrue unless it can be verified by the Qur'an.

logical4u
If muslims will not be honest on things they see as "insignificant", how can they be trusted to discuss matters of great weight? It is pertinent to have an open discussion of TRUTH.

I'm also not sure what you're saying here... please clarify.

I don't feel that I am attacking your religion. I am questioning your reasons for picking and choosing the parts you want from the Jewish and Christian histories, while disregarding the basic message of the prophets:

As I said, stories of Jewish figures were most likely included so that Islamic beliefs could be illustrated using familiar examples. This inclusion was not an endorsement of the Bible as it presently exists.

You tell me that it is a religion of peace,

I've said no such thing. Islam is a realistic religion. If a person or group attacks or oppresses Muslims, it is the duty of Muslims to fight back.

but I have read in the quran that its followers must subjugate ALL that do not believe.

Where? I've read in the Bible that its followers must slaughter all who do not believe, and I've shown you the verse that gave me this idea. Am I getting the wrong impression or missing something?

When I ask you about it, you basically tell me the quran doesn't necessarily say what it means (or visaversa).

Again, I've said nothing of the sort. If you're interested in having a particular passage explained, feel free to post it.

Let me see if I understand your religion:
If I question its validity then I am attacking it
If I point out where your holy book encourages violence against non-believers
then I don't understand

All of my religious arguments are corroborated with appropriate scripture. If you want to actually address them, fantastic, but I'm not really interested in listening to complaints.

If I say it doesn't match the book (that your faith is roughly based), Christians call holy, you say that book is wrong because it was put together long after Christ was crucified for our sins. If I say your book has less evidence of being as accurate as the Bible, you say you have "people" that know the history (1400 years later).

I've explained to you specifically why, in my opinion, the Bible is an unreliable account and why the Qur'an is not. If you have a problem with part of my explanation, please tell me which part of it is incorrect so that I can improve my argument.

If I say your faith tolerates people that subjugate, you tell me I just don't understand.

Once again, I've explained specifically why your argument was incorrect. Please do the same for me instead of falsely accusing me of doing nothing but telling you that you "don't understand."

I admit it, I don't understand, and when I ask questions and I am answered with insults, I am not impressed.

My purpose here isn't to impress you, I'm afraid. Where are the insults in my post...? I insulted others who are completely deserving of ridicule; not you.

I was thrilled when I saw you responded, but disappointed in the logic of the answers. Maybe we can try again.

Please show me where my logic is invalid and/or unsound.

Apologize for not getting the quote part right.

Don't worry about it.

 

[logical4u]

Quote:
Originally Posted by logical4u
We did not establish the NT is unreliable, it was used to show if that the NT is unreliable (a collection of books that were written by the followers of the Christ that were given powers to perform miracles through the HolySpirit, and approved by a younger generation of these followers that were also given gifts by the Holy Spirit),
You speak of logic after claiming that the integrity of your book was preserved by intervention on the part of the Holy Spirit! Your argument presupposes the existence of an interfering force that granted people the ability to perform miracles. How is this logical? Things like divine intervention and miracles should be interpreted figuratively, I think, or else we'll be delving into superstition. How does a non-Christian know that the New Testament is reliable?

Yes, I am claiming that the integrity of the Bible was preserved by the Holy Spirit. There are many even today that claim to “feel” that presence. There are many miracles that have been documented over the centuries, and should be taken literally. Are you saying the G*d of Abraham did not perform the miracles listed in the OT? Do you think the story of Hagar should be taken “figuratively”?
Your argument is similar: you claim the prophet was taken directly to heaven, deciding centuries later of that exact location (usurping another’s claim on a particular piece of real estate). Is that supposed to be taken “figuratively”, or the being that the prophet visited and was given the book muslims (verbally) use, should be thought of as illogical?

Quote:
Originally Posted by logical4u
Because the muslim religion is tied with their government, it seems they MUST not stop people that claim they are doing crimminal acts for their religion.
This isn't the case according to tradition. It was the case before the advent of Islam, when there was a saying that went thus: "Help thy brother whether he is the doer of wrong or wrong is done to him."

Muhammad supposedly repeated this saying as well, to the surprise of the Muslim community who (supposedly) asked, "O Messenger of Allah! We can help a man to whom wrong is done, but how could we help him when he was the doer of wrong?" Muhammad replied, "take hold of his hands from doing wrong." (B 46:4)

It would be hypocritical for me to rely solely on tradition, though, so I'll pull something similar from the Qur'an itself:
...And help one another in righteousness and piety, and help not one another in sin and aggression, and keep your duty to Allah. Surely Allah is severe in requiting. - 5:2

This section is referring to food and not being “lead” into “transgression”, and tells you not to feed rancor. (why are all those people demonstrating over interpreted transgressions then?) It does not mention gov’t.

Quote:
Originally Posted by logical4u
then surely the quran MUST be unreliable (because one man recited it over decades) for logic's sake.
Not exactly. As I said, Muhammad's recitation was public. Because it was delivered over an extended period of time, Muhammad's followers memorized and recorded it without a great deal of difficulty as it was revealed. When the recitation was compiled and standardized soon after he died, there is not a shred of historical evidence that suggests the standardized version was inaccurate. Surely, if it was, common sense dictates that at least one of Muhammad's many followers would have come forward to correct whatever mistake was present in Uthman's Qur'an.

Then why don’t the different sects of islam agree? Why is there so much violence between the different peoples of islam? The NT was also taught publicly, for centuries before it was brought together, “with great difficulty” in the book. Does that now, according to your statements make it more accurate?

Quote:
Originally Posted by logical4u
The message of the Messiah did not "endorse" mass slayings. The Lord punished the people in the OT for sinning against Him.
Well... he punished them through his followers, who committed mass murder and enslaved/raped/pillaged whatever remained. How is this morally upright and Godly?

I believe that was to show the enemies, that this small, insignificant number of people, could do great things with the help of their Lord. They were feared by the surrounding kingdoms for generations. It was all good until they displeased the Lord and ridiculed and punished His prophets (the pattern of prophets from that holy book does not show any prophets taking up the sword and going against “peaceful people&#8221. As for being morally upright and G*dly, you will have to ask Him on that one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by logical4u
The Messiah, gave a way to salvation for even the cursed (the Canaanites from the book of Jubilees) and those of different races (Samarian & Roman officer).
That's fine, but Christianity is still based on a book (the Torah) that is really quite racist if taken at face value. Islamic scripture is entirely egalitarian where race is concerned.

Do you think there is a purpose for that? The children of Jacob (Israel) were extremely favored by the Lord. Even when He sent His Son, Yeshua, it was declared to the Canaanite woman (the cursed descendent of Canaan), that He had come to save the Jews. When He saw her faith, He granted her wish and told her that it was because of her faith.
If the stories in the OT went off to all the other peoples, it would be a very, very long and fragmented, not on message book. By focusing on that lineage, it was used to teach spiritual growth from the spiritual infancy of Adam and Eve to the spiritual maturity of Yeshua.
If you read any book of battle (in this case spiritual), from any race, it will seem racist. Muslims (a term that does not include ALL or I would write it) have school books that teach that Jews and other races are the descendents of monkeys and other animals… today, who would you say is more racist?

Quote:
Originally Posted by logical4u
If Yeshua, one, your faith claimed to be one of its own prophets (the story told six hundred years after He walked the earth, and using your logic, the truth is misrepresented after 300 years, then Muhammed's tale must be twice as misrepresented),
The accounts of prophets in the Qur'an are parables, not history lessons. Their stories make up a small portion of the book and were likely included as prophets because of their commitment to monotheism. The Qur'anic account of Jesus (AS) was written seemingly to illustrate Islamic beliefs regarding the oneness of God.

Is the quran just a book of parables then? If that book includes the prophets, doesn’t your faith lead you to read their stories? Don’t you wonder why their teachings oppose Muhammed’s teachings?

Quote:
Originally Posted by logical4u
said that his followers should not trust someone that tells you they have the truth, but will share it in secret or in the dark of a cave. His followers were warned against believing a message delivered in this way.
Again, the New Testament as it currently exists is not viewed as reliable in Islam. Moreover, Muhammad's message wasn't delivered secretly or in a cave; that's where it was received in the beginning. Muhammad taught publicly.

And again, I ask, if your faith considers the NT as unreliable, how can it claim the Yeshua is one of “its” prophets? How can muslims believe a man (Muhammed), reciting in public (from what source?) had many people write down his words and present it as more accurate than different stories of the same man/God that show His actions to remain consistent , along with His message (it does not deviate)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by logical4u
In the quran, it says that unbelievers should be killed, converted or treated as second class citizens.
Please see the post I linked you to earlier:
Qur'anic directives regarding the treatment of disbelievers

You're referring to 9:29, presumably.
Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor follow the Religion of Truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. - 9:29
I can't find my in-depth discussion of this, so please see my very brief explanation here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kalam
The jizya was to be paid by those who preferred to remain autonomous rather than recognizing the same laws and limitations as Muslims ("nor forbid that which has been forbidden...") while still being protected by the Islamic state.

The alternative was unity with the Islamic community - see the Madinah Compact

Compare this to 2 Chronicles 15:13 -
All who would not seek the LORD, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman.
That's from my Bible, which uses the NIV translation. Do you prefer another?

This is taken out of context. This is the people going to the Lord and making a covenant with Him (to show their sincerity), put this task on themselves. The Lord did not ask them to do this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by logical4u
There is also allowance for not honoring contracts (your word) when dealing with unbelievers.
...
Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up anyone against you; so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term. Surely Allah loves those who keep their duty. - 9:4
How can there be an agreement for the idolaters with Allah and with His Messenger, except those with whom you made an agreement at the Sacred Mosque? So as long as they are true to you, be true to them. Surely Allah loves those who keep their duty. - 9:7

Then why, do muslims (I am sure this is just a tiny fraction) accuse “non-believers” unjustly, and that person does not have the right to defend themselves? It is only the “word” of believers that have lawful weight (and that is reduced if you are a woman). How can these people do this among “upright muslims” and not be taken to task?


Quote:
Originally Posted by logical4u
logical4u
if it is a private relationship why does islam force its ways on others?
The Deen al-Islam isn't a private relationship, but it also isn't coercive.
There is no compulsion in religion -- the right way is indeed clearly distinct from error. So whoever disbelieves in the devil and believes in Allah, he indeed lays hold on the firmest handle which shall never break. And Allah is Hearing, Knowing. - 2:256


Then why does islam seek to subjugate the entire world, if it isn’t “coercive”?

Quote:
Originally Posted by logical4u
logical4u
Again, how can acts that limit others freedoms and keep them in absolute desperation, be of G*d?
As a Christian, that's a question you should be asking yourself. See Deut. 7:1-2 and 13:12-15, Joshua 11:12-15 and 11:20, etc.

Deut. 7:1-2 It explains why, these people (there is a theory that these peoples are from the nephelim, and therefore against all men) will turn to sin and anger the Lord, and He will be forced to action. Also He explains: Deut. 7:10 And repayeth them that hate him to their face, to destroy them: he will not be slack to him that hateth him, he will repay him to his face. Joshua 11:12-15 and 11:20 goes into detail about this.
Deut. 13:12-15 This is written about one (that is one person) that will come to lead the Lord’s people away from Him and into sin. This is not about other races or strangers.

Which passages in the Qur'an keep people in "absolute desperation"?

This is not from the quran, but from the evidence of the conditions of the nations that follow islam. The Hebrews that followed the Lord were blessed to the point that every surrounding country envied them. When they disobeyed, they were severely punished.

Quote:
Originally Posted by logical4u
logical4u
Does this mean if there are historical facts about the prophet (and what he did) that doesn't fit where islam wants him, it just isn't considered?
No. This means that the only sources of information about Muhammad's life are based on collections of dubious oral traditions. The only things that can be known for sure about Muhammad and the early believers are found in the Qur'an.

Doesn’t this describe how the quran was written? How can it be accurate?

Quote:
Originally Posted by logical4u
How can muslims question everybody else, but blindly, accept what men told them, especially when there are conflicts about which leadership is presenting the "accurate" story of his life?
I'm not sure that I know what you're saying here. It should be assumed that everything about Islam is untrue unless it can be verified by the Qur'an.

You say the the quran was written after different people at different times listened to Muhammed recite in public, passages that were collected together “with difficulty” and put in a book. History has many books, and there was, written history at the time of Muhammed. How can islam ask other cultures to take them seriously, if they disregard ALL other written histories (in particular, written history of Muhammed’s conquering?

Quote:
Originally Posted by logical4u
logical4u
If muslims will not be honest on things they see as "insignificant", how can they be trusted to discuss matters of great weight? It is pertinent to have an open discussion of TRUTH.
I'm also not sure what you're saying here... please clarify.

If muslims (again, this is not ALL) tolerate the distortion of Hebrew history concerning Jerusalem, how can they be trusted not to “distort” truth, reality, rights, lives, etc, etc, etc?

Quote:
Originally Posted by logical4u
I don't feel that I am attacking your religion. I am questioning your reasons for picking and choosing the parts you want from the Jewish and Christian histories, while disregarding the basic message of the prophets:
As I said, stories of Jewish figures were most likely included so that Islamic beliefs could be illustrated using familiar examples. This inclusion was not an endorsement of the Bible as it presently exists.

You say “as it presently exists”, is there a version muslims use? Do you know of a more accurate version? If the examples are familiar, why wouldn't muslims believe them to be true? Why wouldn't they compare the stories and question the discrepancies?

Quote:
Originally Posted by logical4u
You tell me that it is a religion of peace,
I've said no such thing. Islam is a realistic religion. If a person or group attacks or oppresses Muslims, it is the duty of Muslims to fight back.

The Christians were not the first aggressors with Muhammed. He attacked the entire middle east and tried for more. Later, his followers tried to expand that territory for islam. Why does islam pretend it is the oppressed?

Quote:
Originally Posted by logical4u
but I have read in the quran that its followers must subjugate ALL that do not believe.
Where? I've read in the Bible that its followers must slaughter all who do not believe, and I've shown you the verse that gave me this idea. Am I getting the wrong impression or missing something?

Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which Allah and His Messenger have forbidden, nor follow the Religion of Truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection. - 9:29
That sounds like subjugation to me.

Thanks for the reply. You have me doing some homework.

 

[JBeukema]

Yes, I am claiming that the integrity of the Bible was preserved by the Holy Spirit.

PAUL SAID, "God is not the author of confusion," (I Corinthians 14:33), yet never has a book produced more confusion than the bible! There are hundreds of denominations and sects, all using the "inspired Scriptures" to prove their conflicting doctrines.
Why do trained theologians differ? Why do educated translators disagree over Greek and Hebrew meanings? Why all the confusion? Shouldn't a document that was "divinely inspired" by an omniscient and omnipotent deity be as clear as possible?
"If the trumpet give an uncertain sound," Paul wrote in I Corinthians 14:8, "who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air." Exactly! Paul should have practiced what he preached. For almost two millennia, the bible has been producing a most "uncertain sound."
The problem is not with human limitations, as some claim. The problem is the bible itself. People who are free of theological bias notice that the bible contains hundreds of discrepancies. Should it surprise us when such a literary and moral mish-mash, taken seriously, causes so much discord?

From Losing Faith In Faith: From Preacher To Atheist, by Dan Barker -- Chapter 23

There are many even today that claim to “feel” that presence.

Too, in other religions and in certain seizures.

emporal Lobe Epilepsy, Neurotheology and Paranormal Experience

The first researcher to note and catalog the abnormal experiences associated with TLE was neurologist Norman Geschwind, who noted a constellation of symptoms, including hypergraphia, hyperreligiosity, fainting spells, and pedantism, often collectively ascribed to a condition known as Geschwind syndrome.
Vilayanur S. Ramachandran explored the neural basis of the hyperreligiosity seen in TLE using galvanic skin response, which correlates with emotional arousal, to determine whether the hyperreligiosity seen in TLE was due to an overall enhanced emotional response, or if the enhancement was specific to religious stimuli (Ramachandran and Blakeslee, 1998). By presenting subjects with neutral, sexually arousing and religious words while measuring GSR, Ramachandran was able to show that patients with TLE showed enhanced emotional responses to the religious words, diminished responses to the sexually charged words, and normal responses to the neutral words. These results suggest that the medial temporal lobe is specifically involved in generating some of the emotional reactions associated with religious words, images and symbols.

Temporal lobe epilepsy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Neurology of religious experience - Google Books

Philosophy of Religion » Artificial Religious Experiences

There are many miracles that have been documented over the centuries, and should be taken literally.

You mean like Simon Magus and apollonius of tyria?

 

[foggedinn]

Fogged, you're an idiot. Leviticus is a book for JEWISH PRIESTS! It's the manual for the Levite priests specifically.

Now, how in the fuck can Leviticus be considered a "cliffs notes version" of the NT? Are you really that stupid?

Apparently so. Take your bullshit elsewhere idiot.[/QUOTE]

John and Jesus were both priests. John was a Levite whose father Zacharias was a temple priest. Jesus, Son of David, hereditary King of the Jews, was a Priest in the order of Melchizedek, anointed in the temple when he was twelve.

Perhaps you feel that the order of Melchizedec ended when Moses anointed Arron. That would just make you wrong.

I won't call you an idiot, but you are certainly ignorant; and obnoxious.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Yes, I am claiming that the integrity of the Bible was preserved by the Holy Spirit.

PAUL SAID, "God is not the author of confusion," (I Corinthians 14:33), yet never has a book produced more confusion than the bible! There are hundreds of denominations and sects, all using the "inspired Scriptures" to prove their conflicting doctrines.
Why do trained theologians differ? Why do educated translators disagree over Greek and Hebrew meanings? Why all the confusion? Shouldn't a document that was "divinely inspired" by an omniscient and omnipotent deity be as clear as possible?
"If the trumpet give an uncertain sound," Paul wrote in I Corinthians 14:8, "who shall prepare himself to the battle? So likewise ye, except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air." Exactly! Paul should have practiced what he preached. For almost two millennia, the bible has been producing a most "uncertain sound."
The problem is not with human limitations, as some claim. The problem is the bible itself. People who are free of theological bias notice that the bible contains hundreds of discrepancies. Should it surprise us when such a literary and moral mish-mash, taken seriously, causes so much discord?

From Losing Faith In Faith: From Preacher To Atheist, by Dan Barker -- Chapter 23

Too, in other religions and in certain seizures.

emporal Lobe Epilepsy, Neurotheology and Paranormal Experience

The first researcher to note and catalog the abnormal experiences associated with TLE was neurologist Norman Geschwind, who noted a constellation of symptoms, including hypergraphia, hyperreligiosity, fainting spells, and pedantism, often collectively ascribed to a condition known as Geschwind syndrome.
Vilayanur S. Ramachandran explored the neural basis of the hyperreligiosity seen in TLE using galvanic skin response, which correlates with emotional arousal, to determine whether the hyperreligiosity seen in TLE was due to an overall enhanced emotional response, or if the enhancement was specific to religious stimuli (Ramachandran and Blakeslee, 1998). By presenting subjects with neutral, sexually arousing and religious words while measuring GSR, Ramachandran was able to show that patients with TLE showed enhanced emotional responses to the religious words, diminished responses to the sexually charged words, and normal responses to the neutral words. These results suggest that the medial temporal lobe is specifically involved in generating some of the emotional reactions associated with religious words, images and symbols.

Temporal lobe epilepsy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Neurology of religious experience - Google Books

Philosophy of Religion » Artificial Religious Experiences

There are many miracles that have been documented over the centuries, and should be taken literally.

You mean like Simon Magus and apollonius of tyria?

You want to know why there is such a disagreement between scholars? Because they can't understand that the Torah was originally given to mankind in Hebrew. Not only is it an alphabet, but it's also a number code, which is why the Torah codes work.

The Greeks (i.e. Philistines) translated it into their language, but, just like all other languages, something gets lost in the translation. Then? It was translated from Greek into Latin, so therefore more was changed, and then into English.

As far as the NT? Remember the Niecine council? Not only was there many books that were restricted from the Bible, but certain other books were heavily edited. The book of Daniel for instance.

Nowdays? Everyone is telling everyone else that they've got the "one true meaning", when in reality, they're translating a copy of a copy of a copy.

 

[JBeukema]

You want to know why there is such a disagreement between scholars? Because they can't understand that the Torah was originally given to mankind in Hebrew. Not only is it an alphabet, but it's also a number code, which is why the Torah codes work.

When the Bible Code first became notorious, the claim was made that ‘no other book contains these codes." The bible was unique. However, as time as gone by, this claim of uniqueness has been completely disproved. Amazing codes have been found in War and Peace (in the Hebrew translation) and in Moby Dick (in the English translation) and even in the text on cereal boxes....

If this affair demonstrates anything, it is that when it comes to the fervently religious you really cannot believe what you hear because, when it comes to propaganda, anything goes. Anything goes, and all is fair in the struggle for conversions. The end justifies the means.

The Bible Code, War and Peace, and Moby Dick

Assassinations Foretold in Moby Dick

Care to try again?

 

[JW Frogen]

Jesus was the God dam Messiah and I will kill anyone who does not believe in his message of peace and love!!!!!!


Sorry, I really should go Islam on this one.

 

[JBeukema]

'Bible Code'
Status: DEBUNKED

As someone put it:

Lesson learned - NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER EVER trust any argument or position placed before you by religious zealots focused on conversion. You simply cannot trust them. Anything goes. Nothing is more important than 'the salvation of souls' and even truth itself can be thrown by the wayside. ...The contradictory and illogical nature of the Bible Code argument when considered in the light of the Bible itself was evidence from the start that something was fishy.

 

[JW Frogen]

Theology is cheap, a man shall sow what he reap, and shall pay for who he sleep.....with...ith.

Unto the generations of ungrateful children like locusts unto his bank account.

Thus spoke Zarayourfuckedstra.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Hey Jelly Butt Sniffer.........it's not the Bible code, it's the TORAH CODES.

Might wanna do some research before pulling shit outta your ass.

 

[JBeukema]

Hey Jelly Butt Sniffer.........it's not the Bible code, it's the TORAH CODES.

Might wanna do some research before pulling shit outta your ass.

[SIZE=+1]This is the main web site which examines the Bible Codes (also called Torah Codes) from the point of view of the mathematicians and other experts who have examined them critically.[/SIZE]

Torah Codes

The code is called the Bible Code or the Torah Code

Bible Code - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com

Care to try again?


Bitching that you prefer one name over the other doesn't change the fact that your claims have been debunked and that you even waste time crying over your preferred name instead of addressing that fact stands as evidence that you are fully aware that your claims are false.

 

[JBeukema]

Statistical Science publishes Bible Codes Refutation

[SIZE=+1] [/SIZE] [SIZE=+1]The only paper published in a refereed scientific journal that claims to find evidence for the reality of the Bible Codes is the paper Equidistant Letter Sequences in the Book of Genesis, by Doron Witztum, Eliyahu Rips, and Yoav Rosenberg (WRR), Statistical Science, Vol. 9 (1994) 429-438.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]We are now happy to announce that, after review by four senior statisticians chosen by the journal, Statistical Science has published a thorough rebuttal: Vol. 14 (1999) 150-173.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]The new paper is Solving the Bible Code Puzzle, by Brendan McKay, Dror Bar-Natan, Maya Bar-Hillel, and Gil Kalai. Here is the abstract:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+1][SIZE=+0]A paper of Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg in this journal in 1994 made the extraordinary claim that the Hebrew text of the Book of Genesis encodes events which did not occur until millennia after the text was written. In reply, we argue that Witztum, Rips and Rosenberg's case is fatally defective, indeed that their result merely reflects on the choices made in designing their experiment and collecting the data for it...
[/SIZE][/SIZE]​

Bible Codes debunked in Statistical Science

 

[ABikerSailor]

The Bible isn't the Torah ya freaking moron.

That's why they are called TORAH codes. But, I understand, as you tend to not investigate things much.

 

[JBeukema]

Continuing to foam does not change the fact that your assertions have been refuted and your claims debunked. Your blind rage and lack of rebuttal makes it painfully clear that you know this to be true.

 

[ABikerSailor]

No, the Torah is actually the first 5 books of the OT. The rest of the OT is a recorded history of the Hebrew people.

The NT is where things get screwed up. Ever heard of the Niecine council? How's about the fact that Rome turned Christianity into a pagan religion?

Investigate before spewing please.