Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Does islam support terrorism?

The problem lies then as the same problem as ALL ambiguous texts....it's a simple matter of defining everyone else's culture itself as transgression against god or islam or whatever, and you instant justification for murder and terrorism.

This is why MANY muslims do not see the attacks of 911 as murder, but that the victims deserved it because our lifestyle is offensive.

Much like western women being molested for wearing shorts.

at 1st it seems ambiguous, but there is a methodology to interpret it , since evry verse came at specific historic events , but some deviated ppl as Bushladen, zawahri...etc use it as their selfs want but still we fight them with proofs , there is some ppl criminaly evely minded who use islam since it sounds more noble when u kill robb in teh name of god as if u would do it in the name of a gang.

and teh 1st victims of those in majority are Muslims, had cousins beheaded , mom as she is uni professor threatend ..etc.

nah u worng about the muslim view on 911 !, moste of them are against it and condemn it , innocent ppl sacrifed by the NWO tahst how it is, i dont even wann start with the 15 of so called hijackers are alive...etc .

the only muslim that u saw on tv happy is the one who suffred and still sufefrs as palestenians, teh one that get killed by us weapons and thought of it as revenge . but it is A SIN and wrong.
 
Every religion has its evils i guess. I am talking to a lady, who's ex was a good guy. Then he became Islam, started changing, eventually beat her pretty bad. Do I think it was because he was islamic? Not really. The guys who got him into it may have changed him.

But since the violence occurred after his conversion, inevitably now it could be looked at as the source was islam. And she will no longer go near a man who is not Christian.

Simple things like that. I try not to look at it that way, but I also have had a few muslims and other people who are of islam in some way or another talk ot me about it at my old job, because I would witness to them about Christ. Most of them had the wrong reasons for switching, and I would say 60% admitted something about the man being superior to the women influenced it.

I dont know which part of the quran they are talking about, or even if its being read right by them. But this is what your people are passing on.
 
The Noble Quran #:#?? its not divided into books?

no the Quran is one unique version in arabic ? didnt change since 1400yrs, as teh gospel was or teh torah , jesus " peace be upon him" came with one only unique Gospel one version in Aramaic the gospel about God and not about john , or mathiew ; paul!.
 
nah u worng about the muslim view on 911 !, moste of them are against it and condemn it , innocent ppl sacrifed by the NWO tahst how it is, i dont even wann start with the 15 of so called hijackers are alive...etc .
I did hear something like this, that they are alive. Some interesting things happened that day
 
Every religion has its evils i guess. I am talking to a lady, who's ex was a good guy. Then he became Islam, started changing, eventually beat her pretty bad. Do I think it was because he was islamic? Not really. The guys who got him into it may have changed him.

But since the violence occurred after his conversion, inevitably now it could be looked at as the source was islam. And she will no longer go near a man who is not Christian.

Simple things like that. I try not to look at it that way, but I also have had a few muslims and other people who are of islam in some way or another talk ot me about it at my old job, because I would witness to them about Christ. Most of them had the wrong reasons for switching, and I would say 60% admitted something about the man being superior to the women influenced it.

I dont know which part of the quran they are talking about, or even if its being read right by them. But this is what your people are passing on.

Thats said, most of the muslims nowdays are ignorant about their religion theygot brainwashed i bet they cnat even read arabic wich is a key to understand , what that guy did to teh lady is bad and sin it s juss coward way especially if he did hurt her bad takin advantage of her physical inferiority sick!, if he is a new convert he might be weak and being manipulited by some ignorants.

there no such that the men is superior or any race oover other , they twist a verse in the Quran wich talk about some men behavior in comparison to woman it s psychological i dont have the exact englsih word for it but it that men are less emotional sumthin like that !, men and women complete each other.

i knwo that muslims many of tehm givin bad views, i had many verbal fighst with them especially muslims in teh west .
 
Thats said, most of the muslims nowdays are ignorant about their religion theygot brainwashed i bet they cnat even read arabic wich is a key to understand , what that guy did to teh lady is bad and sin it s juss coward way especially if he did hurt her bad takin advantage of her physical inferiority sick!, if he is a new convert he might be weak and being manipulited by some ignorants.

there no such that the men is superior or any race oover other , they twist a verse in the Quran wich talk about some men behavior in comparison to woman it s psychological i dont have the exact englsih word for it but it that men are less emotional sumthin like that !, men and women complete each other.

i knwo that muslims many of tehm givin bad views, i had many verbal fighst with them especially muslims in teh west .

Yeah its half and half. I have had 2 muslim friends from Africa. Great guys, supportive friends, both of them went back. Most of the ones I meet talk about it being peace, but then turn around and act all crazy. In all reality, and I apologize because this is stereotyping. Around here though(central Ohio) if you want drugs, find your local store owned my some one of that faith.
 
Yeah its half and half. I have had 2 muslim friends from Africa. Great guys, supportive friends, both of them went back. Most of the ones I meet talk about it being peace, but then turn around and act all crazy. In all reality, and I apologize because this is stereotyping. Around here though(central Ohio) if you want drugs, find your local store owned my some one of that faith.


well to be muslim doesnt mean that u dont sin , teher sinners everywhere , i know muslims who fornicate , drugs , lie, rob ..0etc , i know christiansto who do that, but i dont mix stuff as when some us soldiers tourure in Guantanamo, draw cross on prisoneers sclap..etc, i know it has nuthing to do with jesus " peace be upon him", but thats how it is life is test we have to do ower best to act good and pleas the lord, at teh end evryone ll be judged on his own acts.

ps: no need to apologize , i would maybe think like you if i was in your place
 
I did hear something like this, that they are alive. Some interesting things happened that day

the game is all corrupted, false flag terror, problem reaction,solution thats their strategy . here is link abiout most of teh hijackers still alive Invalid Link Removed
 
Its just one big hella messed up world, I think we can all agree on that one :nervous:

Yep n teh cause is teh human being worshiping material wishes, got trapped by teh devil , few pp who got control over the world , workin hard for the comin of the NWO aka ANTI CHRIST WORLD ORDER! , they try hard to turn us into satan worshipers , c even the horn symbol aka " pledge allegiance to satan " is kool nowdays!

at teh end we know that Jesus " peace be upon him " ll return fight them, kill the antichrist and the truth gonna shine!
 
I just watched this long-ass documentary on al-Qaeda in Europe and there were two or three seperate Muslim extremist leaders they interviewed that said the equivalent of "The Qur'an says Muslims must fight those who go against Allah".

So apparently it's a certain interpretation of the text that some Muslims believe means they should fight the "enemy" in whatever way the can -- but not the majority of them.

I don't think the religion itself supports terrorism -- just the extremists who interpret the writings in such a way.
 
I just watched this long-ass documentary on al-Qaeda in Europe and there were two or three seperate Muslim extremist leaders they interviewed that said the equivalent of "The Qur'an says Muslims must fight those who go against Allah".

So apparently it's a certain interpretation of the text that some Muslims believe means they should fight the "enemy" in whatever way the can -- but not the majority of them.

I don't think the religion itself supports terrorism -- just the extremists who interpret the writings in such a way.

those are juss puppets , of teh cia mi5 , mi6, french dst , mossad tehre no such concept as religious leader in islam that u have to obey too , uk is fool of them i had some verbal fight with such ppl , but they juss lie to them selfs i always ask them what hell u doin in non muslim countries! deviated ppl , blinded , brainwashed taht should be fought with proofs from Quraan , also the sword when it needed !
those are sects called khawarij , takfirs and some are part of teh muslim brotehrhood , they follow teaching of sayid qutb and hasan el bana wich happend that they were freemasons!

ps: check my above posts about when war is alowed in islam
 
Yep n teh cause is teh human being worshiping material wishes, got trapped by teh devil , few pp who got control over the world , workin hard for the comin of the NWO aka ANTI CHRIST WORLD ORDER! , they try hard to turn us into satan worshipers , c even the horn symbol aka " pledge allegiance to satan " is kool nowdays!

at teh end we know that Jesus " peace be upon him " ll return fight them, kill the antichrist and the truth gonna shine!

I was told this my maleke, my friend from Africa. You guys also believe Jesus will return. Kinda weird. Difference we see him as the Christ, and your religion sees him as a prophet.
 
I was told this my maleke, my friend from Africa. You guys also believe Jesus will return. Kinda weird. Difference we see him as the Christ, and your religion sees him as a prophet.

Well it s long topic here u ll have to open a thread, i ll try to enlight you a bit!, if you really wanna understand jesus " peace be upon him" , u have to get familiar with teh semitic way of thinkin.
ex: father in semitic way could be called lord ! like the lord of teh house which is the father familly chief, or religion in semitic way translated in debt that has to be pay to god wich is followin his law.jesus spoke aramaic and hebrew too , but mostly aramaic god in aramaic is translated in ALLAH or allaha , thats y jesus said allah , arab christian says allah it s same god that jesus , david , muhamed ...etc worshipped

jesus christ was born from he virgin marry though the holy spirit, he did accomplish miracles , gave life to death , cure blindness ..etc, but through god power , we believe in him as in other prophets abraham , david, solomon , moses..etc .

but as i told you jesus came with the torah and the gospel with one unique versions, not gospel about john , paul ..etc but about God , but teh pharasees got over that and corrupted teh scriptures .

if u ask Jesus what his relgion N he wouldnt say he is christian but he would say his religion is to submit to the unique wich translated in arabic islam.

the backbone messages of all teh prophets is the oness of God , there is no deity that has the right to be worshiped but god.

God is not divisible , it cant be divided in 3 entity as teh trinity wich is a pagan egyptian concept .
 
Well it s long topic here u ll have to open a thread, i ll try to enlight you a bit!, if you really wanna understand jesus " peace be upon him" , u have to get familiar with teh semitic way of thinkin.
ex: father in semitic way could be called lord ! like the lord of teh house which is the father familly chief, or religion in semitic way translated in debt that has to be pay to god wich is followin his law.jesus spoke aramaic and hebrew too , but mostly aramaic god in aramaic is translated in ALLAH or allaha , thats y jesus said allah , arab christian says allah it s same god that jesus , david , muhamed ...etc worshipped

jesus christ was born from he virgin marry though the holy spirit, he did accomplish miracles , gave life to death , cure blindness ..etc, but through god power , we believe in him as in other prophets abraham , david, solomon , moses..etc .

but as i told you jesus came with the torah and the gospel with one unique versions, not gospel about john , paul ..etc but about God , but teh pharasees got over that and corrupted teh scriptures .

if u ask Jesus what his relgion N he wouldnt say he is christian but he would say his religion is to submit to the unique wich translated in arabic islam.

the backbone messages of all teh prophets is the oness of God , there is no deity that has the right to be worshiped but god.

God is not divisible , it cant be divided in 3 entity as teh trinity wich is a pagan egyptian concept .


Just watch how your present that my friend, because to me my way is right, your way is wrong lol. Plenty to point out on yours as well. Lets close the subject before it gets nasty.
 
Naseem, thank you for bringing your perspective into this conversation.

If I may: you have used the word "pagan" a few times, and I'm curious what this word means to you. In some segments of our society, to declare some one or group "pagan" is equivalent to marking them for death, so I hope you will indulge my curiosity.
 
wow, this threat has really taken off. I have nearly completed my paper on this subject. I have to do revision. My stance is that Islam does support terrorism.

I base my claims on certain facts. the basics of Islam are good with the tenets. BUT Islam claims 2 houses. House of Peace and House of War. Islam is considered the House of Peace while everything outside of Islam is a house of War because outside of islam there is no peace, in the view of Islam.

Islam's goal is to rule the world so to speak. Meaning, the world must be in submission to Allah. That is what Islam means 'submission. Muslim is one who Submits.

Within the first 100 years Islam grew to take over northern African up into Spain and eastward into Northern India before they were driven back.

Islam does not forget its past unlike the west. They are governed by the Koran, Hadith and Sharia. You hear that the Koran is the main book but the Hadith and Sharia explain the Koran so it isn't the Koran by itself.

Many Muslims do not understand that concept because of the cultural divides of where Islam is. Most Muslims follow the 5 basic tenets which is very commendable!! BUT Islam is deeper than that.

Fundamentalists want to restore Islam to its fullest and that includes Sharia law to be imposed as it was when Islam advanced itself throughout the world. Those who don't submit are infidels and are worthy of death.

More of the fundamentalists have attack the west because in their view we have disgraced their land by standing on it. They want us out so they commit violence against the infidels to push it out. We view it as terorism. they view it as Jihad with the sword. Jihad means 4 different things and the Sword is just one of the views.

This is a reason why you have the situation with Israel and the Palestinians. Hamas has practiced the basics tenets of the faith to get the trust of the common people while using the agenda of Jihad and the infidel against Israel since at one time that was Muslim land.

Plus, there are charities that have been give money to overseas terrorist organizations.

final thought, many don't believe in organized religion because of they think it is a political force type of thing. Control. Islam, does not have a centralized office that tells all Muslims what to do. The messages of Islam are practically determined by the local cleric and Imam. This means the interpretation may vary depending upon where they are in the world.
Does it pay to have unorganized religion?
 
Just watch how your present that my friend, because to me my way is right, your way is wrong lol. Plenty to point out on yours as well. Lets close the subject before it gets nasty.

i am sorry if i did offend you , i do apologize it wasnt my mean i do respect you but i am tryin be sincer i have in my familly chritians german , polish catholics .

also it snot about whos wrong or right but the truth , our purpose should be always teh truth wehave to clean our heart from those fake feelings as pride.
juss know sumthing i do believ firmly in Jesus and i really love him as i love moses , jacob , abraham , noah Muhammed " peace be upon him" , so do belive in jesus nad in the gospel the original version as in teh torah wich nowdays doesnt exist in their original form but i dont belive in paul or king james, scofield, the roman empire or the council of nicea.

ps: if u feel u wanan to express u r view about whats wrong in my beliefs go aheag, it doesnt need to get nasty juss keep it clean polite .
 
wow, this threat has really taken off. I have nearly completed my paper on this subject. I have to do revision. My stance is that Islam does support terrorism.

I base my claims on certain facts. the basics of Islam are good with the tenets. BUT Islam claims 2 houses. House of Peace and House of War. Islam is considered the House of Peace while everything outside of Islam is a house of War because outside of islam there is no peace, in the view of Islam.

Islam's goal is to rule the world so to speak. Meaning, the world must be in submission to Allah. That is what Islam means 'submission. Muslim is one who Submits.

Within the first 100 years Islam grew to take over northern African up into Spain and eastward into Northern India before they were driven back.

Islam does not forget its past unlike the west. They are governed by the Koran, Hadith and Sharia. You hear that the Koran is the main book but the Hadith and Sharia explain the Koran so it isn't the Koran by itself.

Many Muslims do not understand that concept because of the cultural divides of where Islam is. Most Muslims follow the 5 basic tenets which is very commendable!! BUT Islam is deeper than that.

Fundamentalists want to restore Islam to its fullest and that includes Sharia law to be imposed as it was when Islam advanced itself throughout the world. Those who don't submit are infidels and are worthy of death.

More of the fundamentalists have attack the west because in their view we have disgraced their land by standing on it. They want us out so they commit violence against the infidels to push it out. We view it as terorism. they view it as Jihad with the sword. Jihad means 4 different things and the Sword is just one of the views.

This is a reason why you have the situation with Israel and the Palestinians. Hamas has practiced the basics tenets of the faith to get the trust of the common people while using the agenda of Jihad and the infidel against Israel since at one time that was Muslim land.

Plus, there are charities that have been give money to overseas terrorist organizations.

final thought, many don't believe in organized religion because of they think it is a political force type of thing. Control. Islam, does not have a centralized office that tells all Muslims what to do. The messages of Islam are practically determined by the local cleric and Imam. This means the interpretation may vary depending upon where they are in the world.
Does it pay to have unorganized religion?

u r wrong buddy , islam doesnt wanan rule the world we believ thats allah who converts and not ppl , also allah "god" said" there is no compulsion in religion".

also god comend to not insult ppl who worship other deities .

the concept of house of islam and house of war, isnt islam man, u brinigin here deviated setcs views look for takfirs view.

hamas is member of teh islamic brotehrhood wich is founded by freemason look for hasan el bana , seyed qutb.

tehre is no local cleric or imam that u obey too, maybe tghinkin shia and ayatollah wich is deviated pagan too. since they think there ayatollah know teh future and have abslolution power and lot of other crap!

islam is submit u r self in peace to the unique one true God.

if its true what u saying , why the oldest chirch are found in islamic countries syria ; lebanon , palestine why they didnt destruct it?

why u can hardly find any mosque in spain or sicilia?


the cocept of infidel isnt islamic tehre is no such word " i do speak arabic" , it is catholic concept used by teh pope .

the word kaffir is what u mean it means teh one who reused teh truth after he knew it. even if u not muslim u can reach heaven juged upon u r acts and u r heart , Allah said " we wont punish people until we send them a messenger".so if u didnt get the message as it should be deliverd teh prophet s donst mean u r infidel as you say.

to get the real message of islam we have to follow Quran and only authentic unnah under the understanding of teh prophets companion since they got their relegion pure!

if what u saud is right, believ i wounldnt be muslim anymore , and i dealt with those terrorists we clal them dogs from hell, as i said before they kill more muslims tehn any, belive had bombs explodes near to me, buriied many ppl , dad was injured by bomb attack at teh airport ..etc
 
Naseem

I take it you are a Muslim? I understand that Muslims belive in Moses and Abrham and Jesus BUT the Jesus Muslims beleive in isn't the same identity as the one in the New Testament.

Something that caught my attention for my research paper is where Islam and Judaism split. The scenerio of Isaac and Ishmael.
Islam teaches God is on God as well as Jewish teaching. Christianity teaches the same but that God had a Son but that God is ONE.

How does Islam explain the incident where Abraham was to sacrifice his only son and at the last minute God brought a ram to be the sacrifice?

Christianity shows it as an example of what Jehovah God would do in the future by sending Jesus to the cross for the sin of mankind. Throughout the OT there are shadows or what salvation was to become.

In my view, there is a hole in Islam to answer the purpose of the incident.

Plus, in Islam, Jesus is just a Prophet but if we take His Words as they are then Jesus would be considered a liar or Islam has to make something up in order to discount them. I am referring to His Deity.

I would like to hear your words on the issue.

Thanks
DEADn
 
Naseem, thank you for bringing your perspective into this conversation.

If I may: you have used the word "pagan" a few times, and I'm curious what this word means to you. In some segments of our society, to declare some one or group "pagan" is equivalent to marking them for death, so I hope you will indulge my curiosity.

U R WELCOME , its nuthin juss try to give a view and share my lil experience as muslim from muslim country , i am glad that u show interest .

Actually when i use pagan i mean associators when you associate other deities to god nor share one exclusive God's propriety with sumone or sumthin else , as destiny , or creation , the time of j day any of god powers , as salvation , forgivness . pagab as babylonians and molech or egybtien as horus, isis , osiris u know what i mean! and this is the major sin monotheism is that there is no deity that has the right to be worshiped but God . the oness of God nuthink can happen but by his will and only his will.
 
Naseem

I take it you are a Muslim? I understand that Muslims belive in Moses and Abrham and Jesus BUT the Jesus Muslims beleive in isn't the same identity as the one in the New Testament.

Something that caught my attention for my research paper is where Islam and Judaism split. The scenerio of Isaac and Ishmael.
Islam teaches God is on God as well as Jewish teaching. Christianity teaches the same but that God had a Son but that God is ONE.

How does Islam explain the incident where Abraham was to sacrifice his only son and at the last minute God brought a ram to be the sacrifice?

Christianity shows it as an example of what Jehovah God would do in the future by sending Jesus to the cross for the sin of mankind. Throughout the OT there are shadows or what salvation was to become.

In my view, there is a hole in Islam to answer the purpose of the incident.

Plus, in Islam, Jesus is just a Prophet but if we take His Words as they are then Jesus would be considered a liar or Islam has to make something up in order to discount them. I am referring to His Deity.

I would like to hear your words on the issue.

Thanks
DEADn

Well we have to fix some issues before we can start that , as the reliabilty of teh bible, gospels since jesus "peace be upon him" as said came with only one unique version of gospel in aramaic wasnt even named jsusus but yeshwa no " j " letetr in his language , the description of jesus u talkin bout wasnt by hime but about sumone esle paul " greek a jew who faught 1st chritians" or john ...etc , teh 1st bible apeard sumwhat 80 years after his dath if i rember well , i dont wanna go deep into that since sum ppl could take it as i am offending them.

the scenario of ishac and ismahel , is the split between teh arbs and jews " muslim aint a race "
in teh Quran god spoke through a dream to Abraham to scarifice his son , so Abraham didnt force his son and told him about his dream, his son said if it s what god wants i do submit to his will , but that was the test and at teh last minute God sent teh ram in place. it s all about test and sho the example to ppl how we should trust God in any situation even when its hard for us to accept.

Jesus isnt liar nevr lied and ll never lie , taht the pharasis who altered his words and teh word of god. find teh orginal gospel that Jesus came with and i l follow it with no problem! btw in teh bible Jesus never said he is God or son of God .

you should question your self about the real authors of Gospels and bibles , when u ll meet Jesus his gonan say i never told you to follow paul or kingjames or the council of nicea , or eat pork , use pagan symbol as the cross! he nver used that ! do u belive ppl that came after him knew better than him

"How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8).

no hate in here juss love fo the truth , i am sorry if i did offend any in here, also i apologize for my english its not my 1st language so i might dont measure teh power of some words. Thanks!
 
as the reliabilty of teh bible, gospels since jesus "peace be upon him" as said came with only one unique version of gospel in aramaic wasnt even named jsusus but yeshwa no " j " letetr in his language , the description of jesus u talkin bout wasnt by hime but about sumone esle paul " greek a jew who faught 1st chritians" or john ...etc

Jesus isnt liar nevr lied and ll never lie , taht the pharasis who altered his words and teh word of god



Naseem
How much knowledge do you have about these statements? Jehovahs witness will say the same thing in order to discredit the bible so that someone who uses the bible for their source supposedly can't

The Pharisees didn't change the OT. They changed the way they did things and used it for their own power.

Do you suggest that the only way to know anything about Jesus is through the Koran? If this is the case how do you know the Koran isn't corrupted?

One last thing, Islam means submission to God. This word is equilivent to slave. It does not mean communion whereas in the beliefe of Christianity one has communion with God in the heart. You do His Will but communion brings the Peace of God within you.

How does this work in Islam?
 
as the reliabilty of teh bible, gospels since jesus "peace be upon him" as said came with only one unique version of gospel in aramaic wasnt even named jsusus but yeshwa no " j " letetr in his language , the description of jesus u talkin bout wasnt by hime but about sumone esle paul " greek a jew who faught 1st chritians" or john ...etc

Jesus isnt liar nevr lied and ll never lie , taht the pharasis who altered his words and teh word of god



Naseem
How much knowledge do you have about these statements? Jehovahs witness will say the same thing in order to discredit the bible so that someone who uses the bible for their source supposedly can't

The Pharisees didn't change the OT. They changed the way they did things and used it for their own power.

Do you suggest that the only way to know anything about Jesus is through the Koran? If this is the case how do you know the Koran isn't corrupted?

One last thing, Islam means submission to God. This word is equilivent to slave. It does not mean communion whereas in the beliefe of Christianity one has communion with God in the heart. You do His Will but communion brings the Peace of God within you.

How does this work in Islam?


Well i am not shcolar , but many christian scholar admit that the bible and gospels isnt the word of god anymore, it has been altered through the time since it didnt get recorded jesus time, thats why so many versions ,revised versions , and you have gospels about john , paul , ..etc , in some versions whole chapters get cleared or books compare with the chatolic bilble . there is many proofs ! , maybe i sound like jeohovas for you but they dont offer the answers ,the true one ,they are a deviated sect.

i telle you why i believe that teh Quraan is the word of god non altered, tehre so many proofs but the the fact that is one unique version since 1400yrs in perfect arabic only for taht its a miracle and Muhammed " peace be upon him" was illiterate .

Islam means submission in peace ,so it s more servant to god than slave in genral slave is forced submission to teh master , the arabic word of islam hase it roots from salam wich is peace , islam submit ur self in peace to god other word in love .
 
Well i am not shcolar , but many christian scholar admit that the bible and gospels isnt the word of god anymore, it has been altered through the time since it didnt get recorded jesus time, thats why so many versions ,revised versions , and you have gospels about john , paul , ..etc , in some versions whole chapters get cleared or books compare with the chatolic bilble . there is many proofs ! , maybe i sound like jeohovas for you but they dont offer the answers ,the true one ,they are a deviated sect.

i telle you why i believe that teh Quraan is the word of god non altered, tehre so many proofs but the the fact that is one unique version since 1400yrs in perfect arabic only for taht its a miracle and Muhammed " peace be upon him" was illiterate .

Islam means submission in peace ,so it s more servant to god than slave in genral slave is forced submission to teh master , the arabic word of islam hase it roots from salam wich is peace , islam submit ur self in peace to god other word in love .

er....access denied. No Christian scholar would claim that, because it is not true. There really is no new version, as in updated. All a different version is it written in a new language for those people to read. Like the Fire Bible, was originally the Chinese version that came out a few years ago. King James is old school English. New king James is for people who enjoyed King James but need something with a more American structure. NIV, is a standardized current English. All they are are translations, few in America speak and read old greek, latin, or arabic.

As for Paul and the apostles, they are very much true and part of Gods word. And Jesus was a JEW, which is also not your faith. That is history. Muhammad is to me as Paul is to you my friend. Not real.

Tell me my friend, is it your belief, I am unsure of this. That an angel came to mohammad in a dream to give him a book? If so what was the angels name?
 
On Christian Scholars, some believe Jibreel, the angel that spoke to muhammad was in fact satan, and satan used him to detract many into an endless cycle of nothing. Part of our teachings we had last summer about cults, the occult, and other religions.
 
According to Islamic tradition it is the angel Gabriel.

Additionally, there are many, many versions of the New Testament. If you go back to the 4th century CE, that is when the more "completed" version is decided upon, thank you Constantine and the Council of Nicea and Hippo. There are many other texts that were tossed out as they did not set the tone that the Nicean council wanted which was that Jesus was part god and part man, only books that did that were accepted.

In fact, there are many European churches that still have more original versions of the NT with the excluded apocryphal texts.
 
On Christian Scholars, some believe Jibreel, the angel that spoke to muhammad was in fact satan, and satan used him to detract many into an endless cycle of nothing. Part of our teachings we had last summer about cults, the occult, and other religions.

it is the same gabriel that makes the annunciation to mary as well :)

Could that be Satan too? :rofl:
 
it is the same gabriel that makes the annunciation to mary as well :)

Could that be Satan too? :rofl:

Actually it goes that Satan Posed as Gabriel, being the kind of lies, when he went to mohammad. And the actual name is Jibreel, but they say he was Gabriel. Where as the Angel that spoke to Mary and Joseph fortold them of the light they would bring to the world. A light that revived the dead, cured the sick, overthrew the wicked. And a light who sacrificed himself for our eternal salvation....kinda tops out a normal prophet. Though I am unsure of mohammads workings. So i cant speak for him.
 
Actually it goes that Satan Posed as Gabriel, being the kind of lies, when he went to mohammad. And the actual name is Jibreel, but they say he was Gabriel. Where as the Angel that spoke to Mary and Joseph fortold them of the light they would bring to the world. A light that revived the dead, cured the sick, overthrew the wicked. And a light who sacrificed himself for our eternal salvation....kinda tops out a normal prophet. Though I am unsure of mohammads workings. So i cant speak for him.

Mohammad was the final prophet in the line of prophets from Adam, Moses, Jesus etc.. He was considered the final piece to the puzzle.

In terms of Satan posing as Gabriel, I think that is kind of humorous. No disrespect intended, but with certain delineations of christianity I am not surprised they see it that way.

Also, I am curious to your thoughts about my post prior to the one you responded to regarding the "versions" of the NT
 
Mohammad was the final prophet in the line of prophets from Adam, Moses, Jesus etc.. He was considered the final piece to the puzzle.

In terms of Satan posing as Gabriel, I think that is kind of humorous. No disrespect intended, but with certain delineations of christianity I am not surprised they see it that way.

Also, I am curious to your thoughts about my post prior to the one you responded to regarding the "versions" of the NT

mohammad came along after a man who said he was the messiah. Kinda downgrading to have the Son of God labeled as a mere prophet. Why did Jesus not mention muhammad? But vice versa....And islam even has pictures of them riding together.... I mean, did Jesus forget him or something?

Islam could possibly be built off of the original Christian views, Christian views could not be built off of islam.

As for versions of the NT, show me those papers you speak of, and we will talk. Just as the atheists on here yell "show me", i want to see......
 
mohammad came along after a man who said he was the messiah. Kinda downgrading to have the Son of God labeled as a mere prophet. Why did Jesus not mention muhammad? But vice versa....And islam even has pictures of them riding together.... I mean, did Jesus forget him or something?
I think you need to understand Islam better. There are to be no images of Muhammad or god for that matter. The images of Islam are more script than visuals of people, specifically of holy ones.

In terms of downgrading, one must look at whether or not Yeshua was in fact a Messiah, and if he actually said that. It all depends on which versions of the NT you believe.
Islam could possibly be built off of the original Christian views, Christian views could not be built off of islam.
Islam is more similar to Jewish tradition that Christian tradition IMO. I never made the assertion that Christianity was based off of Islam, in fact, Christianity is very much based off of Jewish tradition of the time, which makes sense, considering Jesus was Jewish and most likely an OT scholar. In fact, no where in the NT does it say that Jesus wanted a new religion of any kind, it was more that he was looking for chages to the Jewish temple power heirarchy.
As for versions of the NT, show me those papers you speak of, and we will talk. Just as the atheists on here yell "show me", i want to see......

I hate to use wiki, but for time issues here you go. Enjoy

Invalid Link Removed
 
I think you need to understand Islam better. There are to be no images of Muhammad or god for that matter. The images of Islam are more script than visuals of people, specifically of holy ones.

In terms of downgrading, one must look at whether or not Yeshua was in fact a Messiah, and if he actually said that. It all depends on which versions of the NT you believe.

Islam is more similar to Jewish tradition that Christian tradition IMO. I never made the assertion that Christianity was based off of Islam, in fact, Christianity is very much based off of Jewish tradition of the time, which makes sense, considering Jesus was Jewish and most likely an OT scholar. In fact, no where in the NT does it say that Jesus wanted a new religion of any kind, it was more that he was looking for chages to the Jewish temple power heirarchy.


I hate to use wiki, but for time issues here you go. Enjoy

Invalid Link Removed


I know I dont know too much about islam, i already said that.

But Jesus was a scholar, considering it was also all in his heart being he was directly connected to God.... and no he did not want a new religion. In reality he was there to save the Jews first, and the rest of the world, under Gods redeeming love. But since the Jews rejected him, Chrisitanity is labeled as a new religion, when really it is only the Jewish religion, but with the prophecies fulfilled. And Catholics are close to Jewish principle when it comes to keeping things old school tradition wise.

I have islamic friends, I have no beef with em. But I always stump em when I ask how many healings they have seen in their life and they look at me weird. If you believe in God, why limit him?

As for your wiki page. The NT had to be safe guarded. I mean Catholics have 7 extra books. With many witnesses to Jesus, I am sure many would have wrote about the Son of God. Problem being, not all of it could really be smashed into the Bible with a ramjet you know? They took the books of those who were around him, and spent time with his disciples and made sure the purest forms were kept as the main lineage. Really explaining why some made it and others didnt is not my forte.

But what I have seen in my faith, and on missions trips, and whats going on across the world in Africa, in China, Mexico, Haiti, does not lie. Dont need no more proof, than Gods miracles.

Wiki or not, considering that the 4 gospels are pretty much repeating themselves, why add 5 more that say the same thing?

Dont forget either that the Jews would also love to have disestablished and worked lies into the NT if they could have.
 
They don't say the same thing, that is the point I was making. They are quite different. The infancy gospel of jesus paints an odd picture of a devious jesus, and the gospels of thomas and mary are quite intriguing.

In terms of jews working lies into the nt, I think that is laughable. You have placed blame on 2 other faiths so far. Anything to say about Zoroastrianism or perhaps Buddhism? Lol
 
They don't say the same thing, that is the point I was making. They are quite different. The infancy gospel of jesus paints an odd picture of a devious jesus, and the gospels of thomas and mary are quite intriguing.

In terms of jews working lies into the nt, I think that is laughable. You have placed blame on 2 other faiths so far. Anything to say about Zoroastrianism or perhaps Buddhism? Lol

If I was fresh on my readings I would have alot to say about em, but it being almost a year from that study, its old and rusty like a elephant musket.

Well the Roman empire has record of Jesus. The Jews would lose all power if he was right, so they tried many things to prevent that. And looked what happened. The Christian nations became the powerhouses of the world. Until now, considering I believe we are rolling towards the end times.

I have no beef with people of islamic faith. I am actually impressed with some of their dedications to prayer, at least the ones who are true to it. And they suffer spin offs just like we Christians do such as Jehovas witness, mormans, and others. And especially considering that people wear Christianity as a label anymore, and not a profession of love and faith.

If I see people of Islam faith in heaven, awesome. It would only be a good thing. But my teachings have made me who I am. My beliefs are concrete. And trust me, much more laxed and less radical than they used to be in some of my older posts last year.

History is the mother of mystery my friend. You make us time machine, we will go back and see which of the NT bits are realistic.

What are your beliefs?
 
If I was fresh on my readings I would have alot to say about em, but it being almost a year from that study, its old and rusty like a elephant musket.

Well the Roman empire has record of Jesus. The Jews would lose all power if he was right, so they tried many things to prevent that. And looked what happened. The Christian nations became the powerhouses of the world. Until now, considering I believe we are rolling towards the end times.

I have no beef with people of islamic faith. I am actually impressed with some of their dedications to prayer, at least the ones who are true to it. And they suffer spin offs just like we Christians do such as Jehovas witness, mormans, and others. And especially considering that people wear Christianity as a label anymore, and not a profession of love and faith.

If I see people of Islam faith in heaven, awesome. It would only be a good thing. But my teachings have made me who I am. My beliefs are concrete. And trust me, much more laxed and less radical than they used to be in some of my older posts last year.

History is the mother of mystery my friend. You make us time machine, we will go back and see which of the NT bits are realistic.

What are your beliefs?

The Romans do have a record of Jesus as well as early christians, whom they considered no more than a cult (check Pliny the younger I believe). In terms of the jews losing everything, I have no doubt many of the jews in power in the region at the time wanted him gone, but it was pilate who had the authority. You can see that by the method of execution. The jewish form of execution was stoning, which as we know did not happen.

In terms of branch offs, there are only a few distinct sects in Islam: Sunni, Shia and Wahabbi. While Christianity has a plethora of which mny have fought against each other, which I would imagine would not have made Jesus a happy man.

I would suggest as well, looking into the apocrypha texts, as well as reading into the Qu'ran, as the Islamic view of Jesus' crucifixion is quite interesting indeed.

In terms of my beliefs, I was raised Conservative Jewish, never really believed personally, however if you know a jewish mother, you understand why I went ot temple and had a bar mitzvah. :rofl:

However, I have done fairly extensive studies into eastern philosophies (as well as middle eastern ones as well) and religions and consider myself more suited towards Buddhist beliefs as it is nontheistic, and more focused on how you live your life, and not the fear of punishment in the next one.
 
The Romans do have a record of Jesus as well as early christians, whom they considered no more than a cult (check Pliny the younger I believe). In terms of the jews losing everything, I have no doubt many of the jews in power in the region at the time wanted him gone, but it was pilate who had the authority. You can see that by the method of execution. The jewish form of execution was stoning, which as we know did not happen.

In terms of branch offs, there are only a few distinct sects in Islam: Sunni, Shia and Wahabbi. While Christianity has a plethora of which mny have fought against each other, which I would imagine would not have made Jesus a happy man.

I would suggest as well, looking into the apocrypha texts, as well as reading into the Qu'ran, as the Islamic view of Jesus' crucifixion is quite interesting indeed.

In terms of my beliefs, I was raised Conservative Jewish, never really believed personally, however if you know a jewish mother, you understand why I went ot temple and had a bar mitzvah. :rofl:

However, I have done fairly extensive studies into eastern philosophies (as well as middle eastern ones as well) and religions and consider myself more suited towards Buddhist beliefs as it is nontheistic, and more focused on how you live your life, and not the fear of punishment in the next one.

Christianity is not meant to be lived by fear of hell. Its meant to be lived by love. Its just fire and brimstone had a big turn there for awhile. People saying, YOU GOIN TO HELL BOY! eh..... I live my life based on Christ. Though I do have a heart that desires a fight. So I had to find balance. I see Buddhism as a great way to find an inner spiritual balance. But like I said, chose the path of Christianity, which negates all other paths as wrong :usa1: I dont have issues with anyone, and even though sometimes I agree with some practices being good, I cant say they are right. It is a unique position of balance to find. I know many Christians do not touch yoga, or any of the spin offs of it due to spiritual reasons.

Sometimes I think it just gets carried too far with people worried about religious cooties or something. I am Christian. I listen to Disturbed. I will punch you in the face if you punch me in mine. If you abuse a woman in front of me, you will be getting abused by me. You hurt my family, and you will be praying for Jesus for the pain to stop. I do charities, i spend a couple hours wasting my life on video games sometime. I sin. I am Christian.

Technically some of my reactions could get me criticized. I believe though Jesus taught us to be better men, BUT to still be MEN. Not blind fools.

Your faith is how you weight your options. Your faith is how you perceive your judgment. Just as in this almost tempted me into a debate about who is better, I have learned enough at my age to accept things for what they are. I KNOW my faith is right, and I am sure Naseem KNOWs his is right. So knowing this. What point does anything else make?

What is your take AE
 
er....access denied. No Christian scholar would claim that, because it is not true. There really is no new version, as in updated. All a different version is it written in a new language for those people to read. Like the Fire Bible, was originally the Chinese version that came out a few years ago. King James is old school English. New king James is for people who enjoyed King James but need something with a more American structure. NIV, is a standardized current English. All they are are translations, few in America speak and read old greek, latin, or arabic.

As for Paul and the apostles, they are very much true and part of Gods word. And Jesus was a JEW, which is also not your faith. That is history. Muhammad is to me as Paul is to you my friend. Not real.

Tell me my friend, is it your belief, I am unsure of this. That an angel came to mohammad in a dream to give him a book? If so what was the angels name?

these are the admissions of the scholars of Christianity themselves, many of whom have themselves studied the mass of differring and conflicting manuscripts of the NT, that the NT was tampered and has been corrupted.

"Yet, as a matter of fact, every book of the New Testament with the exception of the four great Epistles of St. Paul is at present more or less the subject of controversy, and interpolations (inserted verses) are asserted even in these." [Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 12th Ed. Vol. 3, p. 643]

After listing many examples of contradictory statements in the Bible, Dr. Frederic Kenyon says:

"Besides the larger discrepancies, such as these, there is scarcely a verse in which there is not some variation of phrase in some copies [of the ancient manuscripts from which the Bible has been collected]. No one can say that these additions or omissions or alterations are matters of mere indifference" [Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, Dr. Frederic Kenyon, Eyre and Spottiswoode, p. 3]

The Text of the NT developed freely for quite some time depending upon the whims and fancies of Christians. Kurt and Barbara Aland say:

"Until the beginning of the fourth century the text of the New Testament developed freely. It was the "living text" in the Greek literary tradition, unlike the text of the Hebrew Old Testament, which was subject to strict controls because (in the oriental tradition) the consonantal text was holy. And the New Testament text continued to be a "living text" as long as it remained a manuscript tradition, even when the Byzantine church molded it to the procrustean bed of the standard and officially prescribed text. Even for later scribes, for example, the parallel passages of the Gospels were so familiar that they would adapt the text of one Gospel to that of another. They also felt themselves free to make corrections in the text, improving it by their own standard of correctness, whether grammatically, stylistically, or more substantively. This was all the more true of the early period, when the text had not been attained canonical status, especially in the earliest period when Christians considered themselves to be filled with the Spirit. As a consequence the text of the early period was many-faceted, and each manuscript had its own peculiar character." [Aland & Aland, The Text Of The New Testament, pp. 69.]

In the latter part of the second century, Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth says: "As the brethren desired me to write epistles(letters), I did so, and these the apostles of the devil have filled with tares (changes), exchanging some things and adding others, for whom there is a woe reserved. It is not therefore, a matter of wonder if some have also attempted to adulterate the sacred writings of the Lord, since they have attempted the same in other works that are not to be compared with these."

"It is impossible to deny that the Bendictine Monks of St. Maur, as far as Latin and Greek language went, were very learned and talented, as well as numerous body of men. In Cleland's 'Life of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury', is the following passage: 'Lanfranc, a Benedictine Monk, Archbishop of Canterbury, having found the Scriptures much corrupted by copyists, applied himself to correct them, as also the writings of the fathers, agreeably to the orthodox faith, secundum fidem orthodoxam." [History of Christianity in the light of Modern knowledge, Higgins p.318]

Sir Higgins goes on to say:

"The same Protestant divine has this remarkable passage: 'Impartiality exacts from me the confession, that the orthodox have in some places altered the Gospels."

James Bentley admits:-

"[the New Testament had] in many passages undergone such serious modification of meaning as to leave us in painful uncertainty as to what the Apostles had actually written" [Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, p. 117]

In the introduction of the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible by Oxford press we read the following admission of NT corruption:

"Occasionally it is evident that the text has suffered in the transmission and that none of the versions provides a satisfactory restoration. Here we can only follow the best judgment of competent scholars as to the most probable reconstruction of the original text."

"Of all the manuscripts now extant, above fourscore in number, some of which are more than 1200 years old, the orthodox copies of the Vatican, of the Complutensian editors, of Robert Stephens are becoming invisible; and the two manuscripts of Dublin and Berlin are unworthy to form an exception...In the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Bibles were corrected by LanFrank, Archbishop of Canterbury, and by Nicholas, a cardinal and librarian of the Roman church, secundum Ortodoxam fidem. Notwithstanding these corrections, the passage is still wanting in twenty-five Latin manuscripts, the oldest and fairest; two qualities seldom united, except in manuscripts....The three witnesses have been established in our Greek Testaments by the prudence of Erasmus; the honest bigotry of the Complutensian editors; the typographical fraud, or error, of Robert Stephens in the placing of a crotchet and the deliberate falsehood, or strange misapprehension, of Theodore Beza." ["Decline and fall of the Roman Empire," IV, Gibbon, p. 418.]

Jerome complained of the copyists who:

"write down not what they find but what they think is the meaning; and while they attempt to rectify the errors of others, they merely expose their own." [Bruce M Metzger, The Text Of The New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption & Restoration pp. 195 (See footnotes).]

Involuntary and Intentional corruption admitted:-

"It is well known that the primitive Christian Gospel was initially transmitted by word of mouth and that this oral tradition resulted in variant reporting of word and deed. It is equally true that when the Christian record was committed to writing it continued to be the subject of verbal variation. Involuntary and intentional, at the hands of scribes and editors." [Peake's Commentary on the Bible, p. 633]

Howard Clark Kee observes:-

"Justin Martyr (100-165 CE) relying on the testimony of Papias refers to the gospel of Mark as the "memoir" of Peter. . . . t must be acknowledged that the gospels [as we have them today] do not match the description that Justin Martyr offered for them in the middle of the second century A.D. The gospel of Mark is not a "memoir" of Peter, either in the sense that it recounts in a special way the associations of Peter with Jesus or in the sense that Mark reports first-hand recollections about Jesus. The material on which Mark drew passed through a long process of retelling and modification and interpretation, and it reflects less special interest in Peter than does Matthew's gospel." [Howard Clark Kee, Jesus in History, (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World Inc., 1970) p. 120. ]

Intentional and accidental changes of the NT admitted:-

"efore an ancient writing can speak for itself, can tell of its author's outlook on life, and the situation that confronted him, we must have that writing in the form in which it was originally written. . . . during the centuries that elapsed between the time of composition and the appearance of our earliest manuscripts the writings had been frequently copied. As a result numerous changes had been made, both intentional and accidental. But not alone minute changes such as alteration in spelling or word order, but more drastic alterations occur. . . . Hence the question of integrity is of great importance. By this is meant simply: Is the book as we possess it exactly the same as it was when it left the author's hand?" [Morton Scott Enslin, Christian Beginnings, (New York/London: Harper & Brothers, 1938), p. 208. ]

"With the exception of the Pauline letters the New Testament writings were relatively slow in appearing and a high proportion of them are anonymous." ["The Cambridge History of the Bible", Vol. I, "The New Testament: The New Testament in the Making", 1970 p. 233]

The celebrated NT scholar, Bruce Metzger, admits:-

"The necessity of applying textual criticism to the books of the New Testament arises from two circumstances: (a) none of the original documents is extant, and (b) the existing copies differ from one another. The textual critic seeks to ascertain from the divergent copies which form of the text should be regarded as most nearly conforming to the original." [Bruce M. Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration", 1964]

"Thus a study of the history of the text of the New Testament in the earliest and formative period shows a number of different factors at work. In the first place, the New Testament documents have been open to the normal hazards of manuscript transmission. This is evident in some lines of descent....It is still a matter of debate whether any places have been so affected in all lines of transmission: a plausible case for corruption might be made in John 3: 25, I Cor. 6: 5, Col. 2: 18, and Jas. 1: 17, to mention only some striking instances... Another debated factor is the influence of doctrine upon the text. It is understandable that many scholars, conscious of the sensibilities of fellow-churchmen, and often sharing those sensibilities themselves (whether from a consciously conservative standpoint or not), should have denied that any variant had arisen from alteration in the interest of some doctrinal issue. However, we have seen that there are instances where we run in the face of the evidence if we deny the presence of this factor in the development of the text. Many variants which can be traced to the second century bear the mark of the development of doctrine... Many variants of a different kind have sprung from the closely related factor of interpretation... Lastly, we perceive that change has come about as a result of the history of the Greek language, both conscious changes from locutions deemed barbaric to others considered cultured, and unconscious changes such as arose through the disappearance of the dative case or the attenuation of the perfect." [C. F. Evans, The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. I, "The New Testament: The New Testament in the Making", 1970, p. 375 - 376]

Toland observes:

"We know already to what degree imposture and credulity went hand in hand in the primitive times of the Christian Church, the last being as ready to receive as the first was to forge books, this evil grew afterwards not only greater when the Monks were the sole transcribers and the sole keepers of all books good or bad, but in process of time it became almost absolutely impossible to distinguish history from fable, or truth from error as to the beginning and original monuments of Christianity. How immediate successors of the Apostles could so grossly confound the genuine teaching of their masters with such as were falsely attributed to them? Or since they were in the dark about these matters so early how came such as followed them by a better light? And observing that such Apocryphal books were often put upon the same footing with the canonical books by the Fathers, and the first cited as Divine Scriptures no less than the last, or sometimes, when such as we reckon divine were disallowed by them. I propose these two other questions: Why all the books cited genuine by Clement of Alexander. Origen. Tertullian and the rest of such writers should not be accounted equally authentic? And what stress should he laid on the testimony of those Fathers who not only contradict one another but are also often inconsistent with themselves in their relations of the very same facts?" [The Nazarenes, John Toland, pp. 73 (From: Jesus Prophet of Islam).]

Bart Ehram, admits:-

"The New Testament manuscripts were not produced impersonally by machines capable of flawless reproduction. They were copied by hand, by living, breathing human beings who were deeply rooted in the conditions and controversies of their day. Did the scribes' polemical contexts influence the way they transcribed their sacred Scriptures? The burden of the present study is that they did, that theological disputes, specifically disputes over Christology, prompted Christian scribes to alter the words of Scripture in order to make them more serviceable for the polemical task. Scribes modified their manuscripts to make them more patently 'orthodox' and less susceptible to 'abuse' by the opponents of orthodoxy." [The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Bart Ehrman, pp. 3-4]

Bart Ehram also admits:

The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Bart Ehrman, pp. 27 "People today generally believe that there is only ONE Bible, and ONE version of any given verse of the Bible. As we have begun to see, this is far from true. All Bibles in our possession today (Such as the KJV, the NRSV, the NASV, NIV,...etc.) are the result of extensive cutting and pasting from these various manuscripts with no single one being the definitive reference. There are countless cases where a paragraph shows up in one "ancient manuscript" but is totally missing from many others. For instance, Mark 16:8-20 (twelve whole verses) is completely missing from the most ancient manuscripts available today but show up in more recent "ancient manuscripts." There are also many documented cases where even geographical locations are completely different from one ancient manuscript to the next. For instance, in the "Samaritan Pentateuch manuscript," Deuteronomy 27:4 speaks of "mount Gerizim,"while in the "Hebrew manuscript" the exact same verse speaks of "mount Ebal." From Deuteronomy 27:12-13 we can see that these are two distinctly different locations. Similarly, Luke 4:44 in some "ancient manuscripts" mentions "Synagogues of Judea," others mention "Synagogues of Galilee." This is only a sampling, a comprehensive listing would require a book of its own."

Bart Ehram continues:

"Nonetheless, there are some kinds of textual changes for which it is difficult to account apart from the deliberate activity of a transcriber. When a scribe appended an additional twelve verses to the end of the Gospel of Mark, this can scarcely be attributed to mere oversight" [The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Bart Ehrman, pp. 27-28]

NT is being reconstructed using imperfect copies:

"Since - like virtually all ancient literature - no autographs are extant for the NT, its most likely original text must be reconstructed from these imperfect, often widely divergent, later copies. [David Noel Freedman (Ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary On CD-ROM, (Under Textual Criticism, NT).]

Another confession of NT corruption and adultration:-

"Many thousands of the variants which are found in the MSS of the NT were put there deliberately. They are not merely the result of error or of careless handling of the text. Many were created for theological or dogmatic reasons (even though they may not affect the substance of Christian dogma). It is because the books of the NT are religious books, sacred books, canonical books, that they were changed to conform to what the copyist believed to be the true reading. His interest was not in the "original reading but in the "true reading."

This is precisely the attitude toward the NT which prevailed from the earliest times to the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the invention of printing. The thousands of Greek MSS, MSS of the versions, and quotations of the Church Fathers provide the source for our knowledge of the earliest or original text of the NT and of the history of the transmission of that text before the invention of printing." [George Arthur Buttrick (Ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible, Volume 4, 1962 (1996 Print), Abingdon Press, Nashville, pp. 594-595 (Under Text, NT).]

Another damaging confession of NT corruption:-

"THE PROBLEM. The NT is now known, whole or in part, in nearly five thousand Greek MSS alone. Every one of these handwritten copics differ from every other one. In addition to these Greek MSS, the NT has been preserved in more than ten thousand MSS of the early versions and in thousands of quotations of the Church Fathers. These MSS of the versions and quotations of the Church Fathers differ from one another just as widely as do the Greek MSS. Only a fraction of this great mass of material has been fully collated and carefully studied. Until this task is completed, the uncertainty regarding the text of the NT will remain.

It has been estimated that these MSS and quotations differ among themselves between 150,000 and 250,000 times. The actual figure is, perhaps, much higher. A study of 150 Greek MSS of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings. It is true, of course, that the addition of the readings from another 150 MSS of Luke would not add another 30,000 readings to the list. But each MS studied does add substantially to the list of variants. It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS tradition is wholly uniform.

Many thousands of these different readings are variants in orthography or grammar or style and however effect upon the meaning of the text. But there are many thousands which have a definite effect upon the meaning of the text. It is true that not one of these variant readings affects the substance of Christian dogma. It is equally true that many of them do have theological significance and were introduced into the text intentionally. It may not, e.g., affect the substance of Christian dogma to accept the reading "Jacob the father of Joseph, and Joseph (to whom the virgin Mary was betrothed) the father of Jesus who is called 'Christ'" (Matt. 1:16), as does the Sinaitic Syriac; but it gives rise to a theological problem.

It has been said that the great majority of the variant readings in the text of the NT arose before the books of the NT were canonized and that after those books were canonized, they were very carefully copied because they were scripture. This, however, is far from being the case. It is true, of course, that many variants arose in the very earliest period. There is no reason to suppose, e.g., that the first person who ever made a copy of the autograph of thc Gospel of Luke did not change his copy to conform to the particular tradition with which he was familiar. But he was under no compulsion to do so. Once the Gospel of Luke had become scripture, however, the picture was changed completely. Then the copyist was under compulsion to change his copy, to correct it. Because it was scripture, it had to be right." [George Arthur Buttrick (Ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible, Volume 4, 1962 (1996 Print), Abingdon Press, Nashville, pp. 594-595 (Under Text, NT).]
 
Another confession:

"The original copies of the NT books have, of course, long since disappeared. This fact should not cause surprise. In the first place, they were written on papyrus, a very fragile and persihable material. In the second place, and probably of even more importance, the original copies of the NT books were not looked upon as scripture by those of the early Christian communities." [George Arthur Buttrick (Ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible, Volume 1, pp. 599 (Under Text, NT).]

Dr. W. Graham Scroggie of the Moody Bible Institute is one of the most prestigious Christian Evangelical Mission in the world. It states:

"Yes the Bible is human, though some out of zeal which is not according to knowledge, have denied this. Those books have passed throught the minds of men, are written in the language of men, were penned by the hands of men, and bear in their style the characteristics of men." ["Is the Bible the word of God?" pg. 17]

Following quotes are taken from the lecture delievered by Bart Ehram at Duke Divinity School in 1997:"In many instances, we don't know what the authors of the NT actually wrote. It often proves difficult enough to establish what the words of the NT mean; the fact that in some instances we don't know what the words actually were does more than a little to exacerbate the problem. I say that many interpreters would like to ignore this reality; but perhaps that isn't strong enough. In point of fact, many interpreters, possibly most, do ignore it, pretending that the textual basis of the Christian scriptures is secure, when unhappily, it is not. ["Text and Tradition: The Role of New Testament Manuscripts in Early Christian Studies." The Kenneth W. Clark Lectures Duke Divinity School 1997 Lecture One: "Text and Interpretation: The Exegetical Significance of the "Original" Text" Delievered by Bart Ehram]

"...the early Christians evidently saw no need to preserve their original texts for antiquarian or other reasons. Had they been more fully cognizant of what happens to documents that are copied by hand, however, especially by hands that are not professionally trained for the job, they may have exercised greater caution in preserving the originals. As it is, for whatever historical reasons, the originals no longer survive. What do survive are copies of the originals, or, to be more precise, copies made from the copies of the copies of the originals, thousands of these subsequent copies, dating from the 2nd to the 16th centuries, some of them tiny fragments the size of a credit card, uncovered in garbage heaps buried in the sands of Egypt, others of them enormous and elegant tomes preserved in the great libraries and monasteries of Europe." ["Text and Tradition: The Role of New Testament Manuscripts in Early Christian Studies." The Kenneth W. Clark Lectures Duke Divinity School 1997 Lecture One: "Text and Interpretation: The Exegetical Significance of the "Original" Text" Delievered by Bart Ehram]

"In many instances of textual variation, possibly most, we are safe in saying that when the vast majority of manuscripts have one reading and only a couple have another, the majority are probably right. But this is not always the case. Sometimes a couple or a few manuscripts appear to be right even when all the others disagree. In part this is because the vast majority of our manuscripts were produced hundreds and hundreds of years after the originals, and they themselves were copied not from the originals but from other much later copies. Once a change made its way into the manuscript tradition, it could be perpetuated until it became more commonly transmitted than the original wording." ["Text and Tradition: The Role of New Testament Manuscripts in Early Christian Studies." The Kenneth W. Clark Lectures Duke Divinity School 1997 Lecture One: "Text and Interpretation: The Exegetical Significance of the "Original" Text" Delievered by Bart Ehram]
"Within the pages of the New Testament there are textual variations that have not yet been satisfactorily resolved and that have profound effects, not just on a word here or there, but on the entire meaning of entire books and their portrayals of Jesus, e.g., the angry Jesus of Mark, the imperturbable Jesus of Luke, and the forsaken Jesus of Hebrews. These textual problems cannot simply be swept under the table and ignored. Commentators, interpreters, preachers, and general readers of the Bible must recognize their existence and realize the stakes involved in solving them." ["Text and Tradition: The Role of New Testament Manuscripts in Early Christian Studies." The Kenneth W. Clark Lectures Duke Divinity School 1997 Lecture One: "Text and Interpretation: The Exegetical Significance of the "Original" Text" Delievered by Bart Ehram]
One comes accross Christian missionaries frequently using the material and allegations made against the Holy Quran by wannabe Muslim cultists, such as the "Submitters." Even though the Christians know very well these are not Muslims, nevertheless missionaries still quote from them to decieve their readers and give the false impression as if a Muslim is making allegations against the Quran etc. So to repay the missonaries, I have also decided to quote the Jehovah's wittnesses, whom our friends at answering-islam.org dub "non Christians." If its good enough for the missionaries to quote non Muslim cultists and their fellow fundamentalist missionaries, then its good enough for me to repay them in their own manner. Atleast I am not hiding the identity of the fellows whom I'm quoting and am letting the readers know who they are:

"In copying the inspired originals by hand the element of human frality entered in, and so none of the thousands of copies extant today in the original language are perfect duplicates. The result is that no two copies are exactly alike." [New World Translation pg. 5 foreword -- The forward of 27 pages was latter eliminated after the admission of NT corruption was made ny the Jehovas wittnesses.]

They further went on admitting the corruption of the NT in the same now expunged foreword:

"The evidence is, therefore, that the original text of the Christian greek scripture has been tampered with, the same as the text of the LXX." [ibid]

Lets quote again Bruce Metzger, a scholar even admired by the missionaries because he is the foremost authority on the transmission of the tampered NT Metzger’s words from p. 201 where he says:

“The number of deliberate alterations made in the interests of doctrine is difficult to assess.” [Bruce M. Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration", 1964]

Metzger goes on to conclude on page 246, the last page of the edition (1964). "By way of conclusion, let it be emphasized again that no single manuscript and no one group of manuscripts exists which the textual critic may follow mechanically. All known witnesses of the New Testament are to a greater or less extent mixed texts, and even the earliest manuscripts are not free from egregious errors. Although in very many cases the textual critic is able to ascertain without residual doubt which reading must have stood in the original, there are not a few other cases where he can come only to a tentative decision based on an equivocal balancing of probabilities. Occasionally none of the variant readings will commend itself as original, and he will be compelled either to choose the reading which he judges to be the least unsatisfactory or to indulge in conjectural emendation. In textual criticism, as in other areas of historical research, one must seek not only to learn what can be known, but also to become aware of what, because of conflicting witnesses, cannot be known."

Those are Metzger’s concluding words to the entire study of how the text of the New Testament was corrupted over the history of its transmission and how efforts are still ongoing to restore it. (above two quotes from Metzger taken from Shabbir Ally's article where he refutes the false and devious allegations made against him by Mr Sam Shamoun, the evangelical Christian missionary.)

Kenneth Cragg, Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem says on page 277 of his book, "The call of the Minerat":

"Not so the New Testament...There is condensation and editing; there is choice reproduction and wittness. The Gospels have come through the mind of the Church behind the authors. They represent experience and history."

Morton Scott Enslin admits intentional changes made in the NT:

"efore an ancient writing can speak for itself, can tell of its author's outlook on life, and the situation that confronted him, we must have that writing in the form in which it was originally written. . . . during the centuries that elapsed between the time of composition and the appearance of our earliest manuscripts the writings had been frequently copied. As a result numerous changes had been made, both intentional and accidental. But not alone minute changes such as alteration in spelling or word order, but more drastic alterations occur. . . . Hence the question of integrity is of great importance. By this is meant simply: Is the book as we possess it exactly the same as it was when it left the author's hand?" [Morton Scott Enslin, Christian Beginnings, (New York/London: Harper & Brothers, 1938), p. 208]

The above are all clear cut admission by those who study the NT, that it is not authentic and is infact edited, tampered at intentionally by those who wrote it down due to their own preconcieved notions. It, the NT, therefore cannot be God's inerrant word.
 
Christianity's true founder, Paul, admits fabrication
Muslims do not claim that Jesus' true disciples tampered with the Bible, but that others claiming to act in their names did so later on. This is attested to by the fact that the Trinitarian church felt it necessary to totally obliterate all Gospel manuscripts written before 325 AD when they officially introduced the "Trinity" to the world. This is why we find such serious contradictions in even the most basic of it's teachings. For example, we are told that Saul of Tarsus (St. Paul) is the author of the majority of the books of the New Testament. He is claimed to be the author of Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Phillippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Hebrews. We would expect such a pivotal character in the Bible and the author of the majority of the New Testament books to be able to keep his stories straight at least in such fundamental matters as how he became a Christian and was "saved." However, we can find in the Bible a sworn affidavit by Paul that he is guilty of fabrication. Sound incredible? Let us have a look:

If we read Acts 9:19-29 and Acts 26:19-21, we will find that Paul was busy persecuting the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem and dragging them from their homes to be tortured, killed or converted, when suddenly one day he decided to branch out and persecute them in Damascus. For this reason, he goes to the High Priest asking for letters sanctioning such actions in Damascus. Why he would do this since the High Priest of Jerusalem had no authority over Damascus remains a mystery to many, however, let us continue.

Shortly after setting out to continue his evil work in Damascus, Paul is supposed to have "seen the Lord in the way" and accepted Christianity after being a staunch enemy of Christians and having become famous for his severe persecution of them. Barnabas (one of the apostles of Jesus) then supposedly vouched for him with the other apostles and convinced them to accept him. Paul then went with all of the apostles on a preaching campaign in and out of Jerusalem and all of Judaea preaching boldly to it's people. Paul then appointed himself the twelfth apostle of Jesus (in place of Judas who had the devil in him) as seen in his own books Romans 1:1, 1 Corinthians 1:1 ..etc..


The verses mentioned are:

"And when he (Paul) had received meat, he was strengthened. Then was Saul (Paul) certain days with the disciples which were at Damascus. And straightway he preached Christ in the synagogues, that he is the Son of God. But all that heard him were amazed, and said; Is not this he that destroyed them which called on this name in Jerusalem, and came hither for that intent, that he might bring them bound unto the chief priests? But Saul increased the more in strength, and confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ. And after that many days were fulfilled, the Jews took counsel to kill him: But their laying await was known of Saul. And they watched the gates day and night to kill him. Then the disciples took him by night, and let him down by the wall in a basket. And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and declared unto them how he had seen the Lord in the way and that he had spoken to him, and how he had preached boldly at Damascus in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out at Jerusalem. And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him."
Acts 9:19-29
 
"Whereupon, O king Agrippa, I was not disobedient unto the heavenly vision: But shewed first unto them of Damascus, and at Jerusalem, and throughout all the coasts of Judaea, and then to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance. For these causes the Jews caught me in the temple, and went about to kill me."

Summary: If the apostles who lived, preached, ate, and drank with Jesus for so many years are all, according to Paul, lazy, misguided, hypocrites, who were not able to see the "truth" of Jesus' message as clearly as himself, and if Paul, who never met Jesus in the flesh but is the author of the majority of our New Testament, is more truly guided than all of the apostles combined because of his claimed "visions" even though he never quotes Jesus nor needs to learn from the apostles, but is, according to his own gospel, more truly guided than all of them despite all of this, then why did Jesus need to preach the law of Moses to mankind at all? Why did he himself observe it so strictly? According to Paul, Jesus' only use is as a body to be hung on the cross. Jesus (pbuh) felt it necessary to command his followers to strictly and uncompromisingly observe the law of Moses. He even felt it necessary to live his life in strict observance of this law as a supreme example for us. He never once explicitly mentioned an original sin, an atonement, a crucifixion, a redemption, or a nullification of the law of Moses. However, no sooner does Jesus depart this earth than Paul uses his claimed visions to completely nullify everything Jesus ever taught and practiced. He does not need to learn from the apostles, all he needs is his visions. That is indeed why he almost never quotes Jesus himself. He always resorts to his own philosophization rather than quoting Jesus. Why then did Jesus not simply come to earth right after Adam sinned, not say a single word, quickly anger some enemies of God, let them crucify him, and have it over with quickly? Even if Jesus decided to wait hundreds of thousands of years and only come 2000 years ago, then why preach a law that is going to be thrown out the window in only a couple of years? Why observe this law so devoutly himself? Why command everyone to strictly observe this law "till heaven and earth pass"? Why threaten them that anyone who would forsake a single commandment would be called "the least in the kingdom of heaven"? Is he not going to die for everyone's sins and then come back in exclusive visions to Paul and command him to nullify the law of Moses? Is he not going to come back in visions to Paul and command him to tell everyone that "a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."? Why not preach such a doctrine himself while he is still among his apostles instead of waiting to first mention it to Paul in a vision after his death?

These apostles that Paul looked down upon as lazy misguided hypocrites are the selfsame apostles who had accompanied Jesus (pbuh) during his lifetime, who taught all of mankind (including Paul himself) the teachings of Jesus (pbuh), and who endured the persecution of many (including Paul himself) to convey this message without compromise, as Jesus had directly taught it to them. The Pauline Church (the Roman Catholic church which later gave birth to other churches such as the Protestant church) was to later go on and officially adopt the doctrine of the Trinity a couple of centuries after the departure of Jesus, to severely condemn, persecute, and kill any Christians who did not convert to their own personal brand of Christianity, to have presided over the death of millions of Christians who did not adopt this belief. To have presided over the destruction of many hundreds of "unacceptable" gospels (some sources claim thousands) some of which were written by the apostles themselves, and to have issued death warrants for all those found concealing them... and on and on.

Even with all of this, the Gospel of Barnabas (see chapter seven) has managed to escape this campaign of destruction of the Gospels and is available today. It confirms all that we have said and what the Qur'an has been saying for centuries. It also presents Barnabas' response to Paul's claims and his account of what truly happened at the cross and how Jesus (pbuh) was not forsaken by God to the Jews, but was raised by God, and Judas the traitor was made to look like Jesus (pbuh) and was taken in his place. Barnabas, of course, accompanied Jesus (pbuh) and was an eye-witness to his mission. Paul was not.
 
Lotsa text, little sense.

Christianity is all about following the Holy Spirit. The gospels are true, and Paul never admitted anything of the such. If I had the time to dig, I could find things on your faith that mimic the things you post about mine. Every religion has this. And 99% of it is false. A Christian scholar who really isnt christian, or who wants to jump ship can easily make the choice to throw out something to spice things up.

4 or 5 guys compared to thousands doesnt really stand up does it?

But if you refer to my last post. I dont have the care to debate with you. Discuss yes, debate no.

How many people have you seen healed by your God is all I wish to ask. How man times has cancer dissapeared over night, ligaments regrown, etc. It is normal for me to see at church, being Pentecostal. The proof is in our lives.

As far as I can see, you bring up the same kind of references and arguments I used to bring up when I was over zealous. I can see now why it never got me anywhere.

Give me your sources in a bibliography format.
 
Getting back to our story... Paul had a falling out with the apostles and decided that "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God" 1 Corinthians 7:19. Even though circumcision was held in an even higher regard than the Sabbath itself in the law of Moses and the "commandments of God," still, Paul taught that it is possible to keep the commandments even if, contrary to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, this foremost commandment of circumcision was abandoned.
In the end, Paul decided that all the commandments of God through Moses (pbuh) which Jesus (pbuh) had kept faithfully till the crucifixion and which the apostles had also kept were all worthless decaying and ready to vanish away and faith was all that was required, thereby completely nullifying everything his "Lord" Jesus had taught and practiced during his lifetime.
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."
Romans 3:28
He decided that the laws of Moses (pbuh) (e.g. "thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill, ...etc.") which Jesus (pbuh) had taught the faithful during his lifetime were a "curse" upon them and no longer necessary,
"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law."
Galatians 3:13
He then went about explaining the "true" meanings of the teachings of Jesus and Paul's preachings are what are now known as "Christianity."
Paul himself readily admits that he was both willing and able to recruit new converts by any means at his disposal:
"And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law(Gentiles), as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law"
1 Corinthians 9:20
and "...I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some"
1 Corinthians 9:22
and "...all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any."

1 Corinthians 6:12
We have already seen how Paul also openly admits that his teachings were not obtained from the apostles of Jesus, but from a vision of Jesus denied the apostles: Galatians 1:12 "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." So, not only are the apostles of Jesus, according to Paul, lazy, misguided, hypocrites, but everything they ever learned from Jesus is in Paul's estimation unnecessary. What they have learned from Jesus from direct contact with him is only useful in as far as it conforms to his "visions." In other words, they have need to learn from him and not vice-versa.
The great apostle of Jesus (pbuh), Barnabas (the defender and benefactor of Paul), in the opening statements of his Gospel has the following to say about Paul among others:
"True Gospel of Jesus, called Messiah, a new prophet sent by God to the world according to the description of Barnabas his apostle. Barnabas, apostle of Jesus the Nazarene, called Messiah, to all them that dwell upon the earth desire peace and consolation. Truly beloved, the great and wonderful God has in these past days visited us by His apostle Jesus (the) Messiah in great mercy of teaching and miracles, by reason whereof many, being deceived by Satan, under pretense of piety, are preaching most impious doctrine, calling Jesus the Son of God, repudiating the circumcision ordained by God forever, and permitting every unclean meat: among whom also Paul has been deceived, whereof I speak not without grief: for which cause I am writing the truth which I have seen and heard, in the fellowship that I have had with Jesus, in order that you may be saved, and not be deceived by Satan and perish in judgment of God. Therefore, beware of everyone that preaches to you a new doctrine contrary to that which I write, that you may be saved eternally. The great God be with you and guard you from Satan and from every evil. Amen."
Paul himself admits that there were those who were preaching a different Gospel than his own and were gaining converts. He does not name his adversaries, but we can read about his most noble adversaries in two places wherein Paul uses what Prof. Brandon calls "very remarkable terms" to describe them. The first is
"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."
Galatians 1:6-9
The second is "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him. For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles. But though I be rude in speech, yet not in knowledge; but we have been thoroughly made manifest among you in all things."

2 Corinthians 11:3-6
These opponents of Paul were clearly preaching "another Gospel" and "another Jesus," they were also obviously operating among Paul's own target group and converting his converts. All of this even though their teachings did not exhibit the "simplicity" that Paul preached but required their followers to work for their salvation. However, Paul displays amazing restraint when referring to them by not lambasting them with the vehemence of speech which he is so capable nor questioning their authority. Rather, he gives a clue to their identity with the words: "...For I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles" and "we, or an angel from heaven," and "unto another gospel: Which is not another."
As we have seen in previous chapters, Christian scholars today agree that the very first Christians, including the apostles of Jesus (pbuh) were all Unitarians who followed the religion of Moses, and that the Trinity was not introduced until around the beginning of the second century. These Unitarians enjoyed a large following and spread throughout much of North Africa among other places. During this period, any Roman or Greek gentile who wanted to enter into Christianity pretty much was allowed to choose which "Christianity" he wanted. The one preached by Barnabas and the apostles which involved a strict and disciplined law of Moses (pbuh), or the much more simplistic "New covenant" of Paul which only required "faith in Jesus" and which was later made more appealing to them by the Pauline Church by incorporating a "Trinity" and other changes into it so that it would more closely resemble the Roman and Greek established beliefs of multiple Gods and father-Gods and son-Gods and Demi-Gods and Goddesses ...etc. Toland says in his book The Nazarenes: "...amongst the Gentiles, so inveterate was the hatred of the Jews that their observing of anything, however reasonable or necessary, was sufficient motive for a Gentile convert to reject it." (From: Jesus, Prophet of Islam) If Paul wanted to convert these people, he would need to compromise, he would need to make Christianity a little more appealing to them, which he, and his church, did.

One of these first Unitarian Christians was a man by the name of Irenaeus (130-200 AD). Mr. Muhammad Ata' Ur Rahim tells us in his book "Jesus, Prophet of Islam" that he was one of the first Christians to be killed because of their adherence to the unity of God. He is quoted as saying the following regarding the unending attempts to tamper with the Bible: "In order to amaze the simple and such as are ignorant of the Scriptures of Truth, they obtrude upon them an inexpressible multitude of apocryphal and spurious scriptures of their own devising" (the Gospels in our possession today).
When the Pauline Church gained power and influence in Rome these Unitarian Christians were officially condemned, persecuted and killed. An attempt was made to totally obliterate them and their books by forcing them to accept the Trinity or else to be killed as heretics and by burning their Gospels. Over a million of these Unitarian Christians were then put to death because of their refusal to compromise their belief. In spite of this, their beliefs have survived even to this day. When Islam came with the call to one God and the belief in Jesus (pbuh) and his miracles, these Unitarian Christians were among the first people to recognize the word of God and accept Islam.
So thorough has Paul and his church been in totally eradicating all of the teachings of Jesus (pbuh) and his first apostles that very little has survived. Not even Jesus' (pbuh) preferred method of greeting his followers. From ancient times, the prophets of God including Moses, Joseph, David, Jesus, the angels of God and many others including God himself have made it their custom to greet the believers with the words "Peace be with you." This can be seen in such verses as Genesis 43:23, Judges 6:23, 1 Samuel 25:6, Numbers 6:26, 1 Samuel 1:17, Luke 24:36, John 20:19, John 20:26, and especially Luke 10:5:

"And into whatsoever house ye enter, first say, Peace be to this house"
to name a few.

Can anyone guess what Muhammad (pbuh) taught his followers to say when greeting each other or departing from each other? You guessed it! "Assalam alaikum" or "Peace be unto you." Have you ever met a Christian who greets other Christians with the words of Jesus (pbuh): "Peace be unto you"?
So, what do the scholars have to say about Paul?:
Heinz Zahrnt calls Paul "the corrupter of the Gospel of Jesus." From "The Jesus Report," Johannes Lehman, p. 126.

Werde describes him as "The second founder of Christianity." He further says that due to Paul: "...the discontinuity between the historical Jesus and the Christ of the Church became so great that any unity between them is scarcely recognizable"
"The Jesus Report," Johannes Lehman, p. 127.
Schonfield wrote: "The Pauline heresy became the foundation of the Christian orthodoxy and the legitimate Church was disowned as heretical."

"The Jesus Report," Johannes Lehman, p. 128.

Mr. Michael H. Hart, in his book "The 100, a Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History," places Muhammad (pbuh) in first place, next comes Paul, and Jesus (pbuh) after Paul. Like most other western scholars besides himself, he recognizes Paul as being more deserving of credit for "Christianity" than "Christ" himself.

Grolier's encyclopedia has the following to say under the heading "Christianity": "After Jesus was crucified, his followers, strengthened by the conviction that he had risen from the dead and that they were filled with the power of the Holy Spirit, formed the first Christian community in Jerusalem. By the middle of the 1st century, missionaries were spreading the new religion among the peoples of Egypt, Syria, Anatolia, Greece, and Italy. Chief among these was Saint Paul, who laid the foundations of Christian theology and played a key role in the transformation of Christianity from a Jewish sect to a world religion. The original Christians, being Jews, observed the dietary and ritualistic laws of the Torah and required non-Jewish converts to do the same. Paul and others favored eliminating obligation, thus making Christianity more attractive to Gentiles."

Dr. Arnold Meyer says: "If by Christianity we understand faith in Christ as the heavenly Son of God, who did not belong to earthly humanity, but who lived in the divine likeness and glory, who came down from heaven to earth, who entered humanity and took upon himself a human form through a virgin, that he might make propitiation for men's sins by his own blood upon the cross, who was then awakened from death and raised to the right hand of God, as the Lord of his own people, who believe in him, who hears their prayers, guards and leads them, who will come again with the clouds of heaven to judge the world, who will cast down all the foes of God, and will bring his own people with him unto the home of heavenly light so that they may become like His glorified body - if this is Christianity, then such Christianity was founded by St. Paul and not by our Lord"

Dr. Arnold Meyer, Professor of Theology, Zurich University, Jesus or Paul, p. 122

As we can see, this information is not new. It has been well recognized and documented for centuries now. Even centuries ago, it was well known that most of what was claimed by the church could not be verified through the Bible. Thus, a shift was made from obtaining ones inspiration from the Bible to obtaining it from the "Bride of Jesus," the Church. Fra Fulgentio, for instance, was once reprimanded by the Pope in a letter saying "Preaching of the Scriptures is a suspicious thing. He who keeps close to the Scriptures will ruin the Catholic faith." In his next letter he was more explicit: "...which is a book if anyone keeps close to will quite destroy the Catholic faith." Tetradymus, John Toland (From: Jesus a Prophet of Islam)

As we have just seen, all of this started with one lone man, with Paul. It stands to reason that one would wish to study the life, beliefs, and teachings of this man in order to verify if the claims he made were indeed true. Paul claims that he was a prophet of God and/or Jesus. We find this for example in Galatians:

"For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ … But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called [me] by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen"

Galatians 1:12-16

Thus, if Paul tells us in the books of the Bible that he is a prophet, then he can be only one of two kinds of prophet; either a true prophet or a false prophet. Thus, we must take Paul to trial and have the court decide for us what sort of prophet he is.

Due to the magnitude of that which is at stake in this trial, it would be highly unjust to allow personal prejudices to cloud the outcome of the proceedings. For this reason, justice demands that the judge be one who's integrity and truthfulness can be readily and unhesitantly accepted by all. For this reason, our judge and jury in this matter shall consist of only two individuals: God Almighty and Jesus Christ. Further, only one single exhibit shall be brought into evidence, namely, the Bible. Let us then clear our minds and hearts of all prejudices and let only God and Jesus tell us what to accept and what to reject. Are we agreed? Then let us begin.

Let us start the proceedings with the words of God. He says:

"When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that [is] the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, [but] the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him."

Deuteronomy 18:22

Now let us move on and obtain the witness of Jesus (pbuh):

"For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if [it were] possible, they shall deceive the very elect."

Matthew 24:24

Jesus (pbuh) continues …

"Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."
Matthew 7:15-23
 
Yes getting back to your "story" for that is all it can be.

Anyhow When muhammed first met the angel he freaked out cause he was convinced it was a demon right?, but his wife talked him into going back and listening to what it had to say correct?
 
Now that the base criteria have been laid out by God and then His elect messenger Jesus Christ (pbuh), let us now bring into evidence the words of Paul in the Bible and allow them to speak for themselves. In order to do this we shall break up the criteria set forth by God and Jesus above into seven points. They are:

1. A false prophet's prophesies do not come true.
2. False Christs and false prophets can show great signs and wonders that can deceive the very elect.
3. False prophets bring forth evil fruits.
4. A false prophet would claim that it is enough to say to Jesus Lord to be righteous.
5. A false prophet would prophesy in Jesus' name.
6. A false prophet can cast out devils and do wonderful works.
7. A false prophet would be turned away and cursed by Jesus.

Regarding the first criteria, we bring into evidence the words of Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18 regarding his prophesy of the second coming of Jesus. Paul says:

"For the Lord (Jesus) himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words."

1 Thessalonians 4:15-16

Paul in this prophesy was in effect telling his followers that Jesus would be descending from heaven any second now. Paul and his followers would then be taken up into the air and meet Jesus in the clouds. He was telling them that this shall happen while they are still alive and breathing. Did this come to pass? No! It was a false prophesy. Two thousand years have passed since and not only has he and those he was speaking to turned to dust, but countless generations of their followers too have passed away and we still await his prophesy to come true.

Let us now study the second criteria. Now, we have to realize that it is Paul himself and his church after him who are telling us of his claimed miracles, however, we shall accept them at face value and take their word for it. In Acts 27, Paul is claimed to have been saved by an angel from a drowning ship. In Acts 28, Paul is claimed to have cured many of dysentery. Further acts of healing are claimed in Acts 19. Because of these claimed miracles, many people were claimed to have believed in him. As we have seen in the previous pages, it only took roughly three centuries for Paul's teachings to take firm hold of the very elect and divert them from the original message of Jesus, from his original teachings, from the observance of the Mosaic law, and from the continuation of the observance of this law in the synagogues and Temple of the Jews just as the very first apostles had done (Acts 2:46).

The third criteria draws our attention to Paul's words:

"To declare, [I say], at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."

Romans 3:26-28

So Paul succeeded in overthrowing the Mosaic law. He completely nullified the law which God, Moses, and Jesus all upheld and commanded their followers to observe till the end of time (see Duet. 6:17-18, Duet. 11:1, Matt. 15:1-15, Matt. 5:17-20, Matt. 19:16-21, etc.)

Indeed, Isaiah 42:21 presents a prophesy that requires the coming prophet to magnify the law of Moses, not destroy it.

In other words, God says:

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

Deuteronomy 4:2

And Jesus says:

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be Fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Matthew 5:18-19

But now Paul comes along and says:

"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law"

Galatians 3:13,

and "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."

Romans 3:28

Let us move on to the fourth criteria. Paul says:

"For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord (Jesus) shall be saved."

Romans 10:12-13

The fifth criteria requires that he prophesy in Jesus' name. And once again, Paul says:

"For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

Galatians 1:12

So according to Paul, everything he taught was by direct revelation from Jesus.

The sixth criteria requires that Paul cast out devils and do wonderful works. This he claims to have done in Acts 19:11-12.

The seventh criteria draws our attention to Paul's words

"I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee"

Acts 23:6

A fact which Paul very proudly repeats on more than one occasion. To which Jesus (pbuh) responds:

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves."

Matthew 23:15.

So Jesus (pbuh) labeled the Pharisees "children of Hell."

Further, as we already know, Jesus did indeed "never know" Paul. In fact, Paul new so little of Jesus that he only quoted Jesus directly once throughout his whole ministry (1 Corinthians 11:26). Only a few of Jesus' actual teachings are ever mentioned in Paul's Epistles, and even then they are not attributed to Jesus. They were most likely popular homilies which had been circulated in the community and thus indirectly found their way into his Epistles.

Indeed, Daniel 7:25 describes the very greatest of all false Christs as follows:

"And he shall speak [great] words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time."

Now, although Paul is not this final False Messiah, and although no Muslim shall ever attempt to make such a claim, still, it is interesting to note the great degree of similarity he exhibits with that most evil of all false prophets. For example, THE False Messiah shall change times and laws, and so too did Paul nullify the Law. THE False Messiah shall speak great words against God, and so too does Paul. For example, the Bible says:

"The law of the LORD [is] Perfect, converting the soul: …The statutes of the LORD [are] right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD [is] pure, enlightening the eyes."

Psalm 19:7-8

And "Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, always."

Deuteronomy 11:1

And "For verily I (Jesus) say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Matthew 5:18-19

However, Paul says in Romans 7:6 that the law is dead He further says in Galatians 3:13 that the law is a curse. In Galatians 3:10 he claims that those who labor under the law of God are under a curse. And he claims in Hebrews 8:13 that Gods covenant is old, decaying, and ready to vanish away.

As we can see from the above, both God and Jesus condemn Paul and his teachings in no uncertain terms. They themselves bear witness against him and his innovations which they totally reject and which shall be brought to witness against him on the Day of Judgment. Who better and more unbiased a judge shall we bring to witness against Paul and his innovations that Jesus Christ and God Himself?

Many Christian evangelists who follow the theology of Paul would dearly love to provide salvation for their neighbors. So much so that they can not understand how their neighbors can not see the clear and obvious love God holds for them such that He would actually sacrifice His only begotten son for them. In order to make this clear for their neighbors, they draw many analogies. For example, a Christian gentleman from Canada once sent our local Islamic center a six-page pamphlet titled "God our Heavenly Father," with the goal of demonstrating the love of God to us. His efforts were sincerely appreciated and his message was accepted in the spirit it was sent. However, far from proving his point, this pamphlet only served to thoroughly confuse the issue.

The pamphlet contained a short fictitious story about an Arab man named "Akbar" who was very moral and upright. One day, his son committed a serious crime that deserved capital punishment. The authorities found evidence linking this crime to this man's house. When the authorities came, the father falsely admitted to the crime in order to spare his son. The pamphlet concluded that just as the father's love for his son made him sacrifice himself, in a similar manner, God Almighty's love for mankind drove him to sacrifice Jesus(pbuh).

Now, maybe it is just us, however, at the end of the story we were expecting the parallel to be that God Almighty "the Father" would now sacrifice Himself in order that Jesus "the Son" would not have to die, just as the "Arab" father had sacrificed himself to save his son. Although we appreciated the consideration, still, we could not see the similarity between the two stories.

When a person is good and upright, that person may be willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good or for a loved one. For example, if a mother sees her son in danger of being run over by a car, she may very likely run in front of the car in order to save her baby. If she raised the neighbor's child with her own and grew very attached to that child, then she might also be willing to sacrifice herself for the neighbor's child too. She might throw herself in front of the car for the neighbor's child as well. However, have you ever heard of a mother who, when she saw a car about to hit the neighbor's child, threw HER SON in front of the car so that the impact of her son's infant body smashing into the car's windshield would cause it to swerve away from the neighbor's child?

As the Bible says "prove all things, hold fast that which is good." 1 Thessalonians 5:21. "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God ... with all thy mind ... : this is the first commandment." Mark 12:30

I would like nothing more than to present much more supporting evidence of these matters, however, by God's will this sampling shall be sufficient. For a much more detailed historical account of the above issues, collected from the writings of the church itself, I recommend the books:

1. "Jesus, Prophet of Islam" by Muhammad `Ata ur-Rahim, and
2. "Blood on the cross," by Ahmed Thomson.

If you can not find these books at your local library then you may obtain a copy at one of the addresses listed at the back of this book.

For a book that is claimed to have remained 100% the inspired word of God, the sheer number of contradicting narrations boggles the mind (see chapter two). These matters have been well known and documented by conservative Christian scholars for a long time now. It is the masses who don't know this. The information is out there for anyone who will simply look for it. The historical inconsistencies and scriptural contradictions are well recognized in this century and countless books have been written about them. However, their studies have always stopped short of the final step. People have generally believed that there is no way to retrieve the original teachings of Jesus (pbuh) after such extensive and continuous revision of the text of the Bible by the Church over so many centuries as well as the Pauline Church's massive campaign of destruction of all gospels not conforming to their personal beliefs. But where human intellect has failed, God has intervened. The Qur'an has been sent down by the same One who sent the original Gospel down upon Jesus (pbuh). It contains the original, unchanged teachings of God. I invite all readers to study the Qur'an just as we have studied the Bible, and to make up their minds if our claims bear merit.
 
Now that the base criteria have been laid out by God and then His elect messenger Jesus Christ (pbuh), let us now bring into evidence the words of Paul in the Bible and allow them to speak for themselves. In order to do this we shall break up the criteria set forth by God and Jesus above into seven points. They are:

1. A false prophet's prophesies do not come true.
2. False Christs and false prophets can show great signs and wonders that can deceive the very elect.
3. False prophets bring forth evil fruits.
4. A false prophet would claim that it is enough to say to Jesus Lord to be righteous.
5. A false prophet would prophesy in Jesus' name.
6. A false prophet can cast out devils and do wonderful works.
7. A false prophet would be turned away and cursed by Jesus.

Regarding the first criteria, we bring into evidence the words of Paul in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-18 regarding his prophesy of the second coming of Jesus. Paul says:

"For the Lord (Jesus) himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words."

1 Thessalonians 4:15-16

Paul in this prophesy was in effect telling his followers that Jesus would be descending from heaven any second now. Paul and his followers would then be taken up into the air and meet Jesus in the clouds. He was telling them that this shall happen while they are still alive and breathing. Did this come to pass? No! It was a false prophesy. Two thousand years have passed since and not only has he and those he was speaking to turned to dust, but countless generations of their followers too have passed away and we still await his prophesy to come true.

Let us now study the second criteria. Now, we have to realize that it is Paul himself and his church after him who are telling us of his claimed miracles, however, we shall accept them at face value and take their word for it. In Acts 27, Paul is claimed to have been saved by an angel from a drowning ship. In Acts 28, Paul is claimed to have cured many of dysentery. Further acts of healing are claimed in Acts 19. Because of these claimed miracles, many people were claimed to have believed in him. As we have seen in the previous pages, it only took roughly three centuries for Paul's teachings to take firm hold of the very elect and divert them from the original message of Jesus, from his original teachings, from the observance of the Mosaic law, and from the continuation of the observance of this law in the synagogues and Temple of the Jews just as the very first apostles had done (Acts 2:46).

The third criteria draws our attention to Paul's words:

"To declare, [I say], at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. Where [is] boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."

Romans 3:26-28

So Paul succeeded in overthrowing the Mosaic law. He completely nullified the law which God, Moses, and Jesus all upheld and commanded their followers to observe till the end of time (see Duet. 6:17-18, Duet. 11:1, Matt. 15:1-15, Matt. 5:17-20, Matt. 19:16-21, etc.)

Indeed, Isaiah 42:21 presents a prophesy that requires the coming prophet to magnify the law of Moses, not destroy it.

In other words, God says:

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."

Deuteronomy 4:2

And Jesus says:

"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be Fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Matthew 5:18-19

But now Paul comes along and says:

"Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law"

Galatians 3:13,

and "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law."

Romans 3:28

Let us move on to the fourth criteria. Paul says:

"For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord (Jesus) shall be saved."

Romans 10:12-13

The fifth criteria requires that he prophesy in Jesus' name. And once again, Paul says:

"For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught [it], but by the revelation of Jesus Christ."

Galatians 1:12

So according to Paul, everything he taught was by direct revelation from Jesus.

The sixth criteria requires that Paul cast out devils and do wonderful works. This he claims to have done in Acts 19:11-12.

The seventh criteria draws our attention to Paul's words

"I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee"

Acts 23:6

A fact which Paul very proudly repeats on more than one occasion. To which Jesus (pbuh) responds:

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves."

Matthew 23:15.

So Jesus (pbuh) labeled the Pharisees "children of Hell."

Further, as we already know, Jesus did indeed "never know" Paul. In fact, Paul new so little of Jesus that he only quoted Jesus directly once throughout his whole ministry (1 Corinthians 11:26). Only a few of Jesus' actual teachings are ever mentioned in Paul's Epistles, and even then they are not attributed to Jesus. They were most likely popular homilies which had been circulated in the community and thus indirectly found their way into his Epistles.

Indeed, Daniel 7:25 describes the very greatest of all false Christs as follows:

"And he shall speak [great] words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time."

Now, although Paul is not this final False Messiah, and although no Muslim shall ever attempt to make such a claim, still, it is interesting to note the great degree of similarity he exhibits with that most evil of all false prophets. For example, THE False Messiah shall change times and laws, and so too did Paul nullify the Law. THE False Messiah shall speak great words against God, and so too does Paul. For example, the Bible says:

"The law of the LORD [is] Perfect, converting the soul: …The statutes of the LORD [are] right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD [is] pure, enlightening the eyes."

Psalm 19:7-8

And "Therefore thou shalt love the LORD thy God, and keep his charge, and his statutes, and his judgments, and his commandments, always."

Deuteronomy 11:1

And "For verily I (Jesus) say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach [them], the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Matthew 5:18-19

However, Paul says in Romans 7:6 that the law is dead He further says in Galatians 3:13 that the law is a curse. In Galatians 3:10 he claims that those who labor under the law of God are under a curse. And he claims in Hebrews 8:13 that Gods covenant is old, decaying, and ready to vanish away.

As we can see from the above, both God and Jesus condemn Paul and his teachings in no uncertain terms. They themselves bear witness against him and his innovations which they totally reject and which shall be brought to witness against him on the Day of Judgment. Who better and more unbiased a judge shall we bring to witness against Paul and his innovations that Jesus Christ and God Himself?

Many Christian evangelists who follow the theology of Paul would dearly love to provide salvation for their neighbors. So much so that they can not understand how their neighbors can not see the clear and obvious love God holds for them such that He would actually sacrifice His only begotten son for them. In order to make this clear for their neighbors, they draw many analogies. For example, a Christian gentleman from Canada once sent our local Islamic center a six-page pamphlet titled "God our Heavenly Father," with the goal of demonstrating the love of God to us. His efforts were sincerely appreciated and his message was accepted in the spirit it was sent. However, far from proving his point, this pamphlet only served to thoroughly confuse the issue.

The pamphlet contained a short fictitious story about an Arab man named "Akbar" who was very moral and upright. One day, his son committed a serious crime that deserved capital punishment. The authorities found evidence linking this crime to this man's house. When the authorities came, the father falsely admitted to the crime in order to spare his son. The pamphlet concluded that just as the father's love for his son made him sacrifice himself, in a similar manner, God Almighty's love for mankind drove him to sacrifice Jesus(pbuh).

Now, maybe it is just us, however, at the end of the story we were expecting the parallel to be that God Almighty "the Father" would now sacrifice Himself in order that Jesus "the Son" would not have to die, just as the "Arab" father had sacrificed himself to save his son. Although we appreciated the consideration, still, we could not see the similarity between the two stories.

When a person is good and upright, that person may be willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good or for a loved one. For example, if a mother sees her son in danger of being run over by a car, she may very likely run in front of the car in order to save her baby. If she raised the neighbor's child with her own and grew very attached to that child, then she might also be willing to sacrifice herself for the neighbor's child too. She might throw herself in front of the car for the neighbor's child as well. However, have you ever heard of a mother who, when she saw a car about to hit the neighbor's child, threw HER SON in front of the car so that the impact of her son's infant body smashing into the car's windshield would cause it to swerve away from the neighbor's child?

As the Bible says "prove all things, hold fast that which is good." 1 Thessalonians 5:21. "And thou shalt love the Lord thy God ... with all thy mind ... : this is the first commandment." Mark 12:30

I would like nothing more than to present much more supporting evidence of these matters, however, by God's will this sampling shall be sufficient. For a much more detailed historical account of the above issues, collected from the writings of the church itself, I recommend the books:

1. "Jesus, Prophet of Islam" by Muhammad `Ata ur-Rahim, and
2. "Blood on the cross," by Ahmed Thomson.

If you can not find these books at your local library then you may obtain a copy at one of the addresses listed at the back of this book.

For a book that is claimed to have remained 100% the inspired word of God, the sheer number of contradicting narrations boggles the mind (see chapter two). These matters have been well known and documented by conservative Christian scholars for a long time now. It is the masses who don't know this. The information is out there for anyone who will simply look for it. The historical inconsistencies and scriptural contradictions are well recognized in this century and countless books have been written about them. However, their studies have always stopped short of the final step. People have generally believed that there is no way to retrieve the original teachings of Jesus (pbuh) after such extensive and continuous revision of the text of the Bible by the Church over so many centuries as well as the Pauline Church's massive campaign of destruction of all gospels not conforming to their personal beliefs. But where human intellect has failed, God has intervened. The Qur'an has been sent down by the same One who sent the original Gospel down upon Jesus (pbuh). It contains the original, unchanged teachings of God. I invite all readers to study the Qur'an just as we have studied the Bible, and to make up their minds if our claims bear merit.
 
1. A false prophet's prophesies do not come true.

All of Jesus have, or are starting too if they were based into the future.

2. False Christs and false prophets can show great signs and wonders that can deceive the very elect.

Would muhammad fall into this?

3. False prophets bring forth evil fruits.

Jesus Christ has brought forth a people who are the source of many peoples survival. I have islamic people who are thankful for Christians because we are the only ones to give aid in certain countries through missionary work. Food and Medicine and such. Evil fruit huh?

4. A false prophet would claim that it is enough to say to Jesus Lord to be righteous.

So a false prophet will claims Jesus is lord but not follow his teachings? Thats what we believe too...

5. A false prophet would prophesy in Jesus' name.

You mean the Anti-Christ?

6. A false prophet can cast out devils and do wonderful works.

obama with the economy?

7. A false prophet would be turned away and cursed by Jesus.

True!

LoL

This is easier on this side of it.

Anyhow about muhammed and his wife, and the angel?

To us muhammed would be the first false prophet. I mean, his followers did fall from what would be considered "favor" quite some time ago.

I am just going to cruise for awhile
 
Lotsa text, little sense.

Christianity is all about following the Holy Spirit. The gospels are true, and Paul never admitted anything of the such. If I had the time to dig, I could find things on your faith that mimic the things you post about mine. Every religion has this. And 99% of it is false. A Christian scholar who really isnt christian, or who wants to jump ship can easily make the choice to throw out something to spice things up.

4 or 5 guys compared to thousands doesnt really stand up does it?

But if you refer to my last post. I dont have the care to debate with you. Discuss yes, debate no.

How many people have you seen healed by your God is all I wish to ask. How man times has cancer dissapeared over night, ligaments regrown, etc. It is normal for me to see at church, being Pentecostal. The proof is in our lives.

As far as I can see, you bring up the same kind of references and arguments I used to bring up when I was over zealous. I can see now why it never got me anywhere.

Give me your sources in a bibliography format.

zero dont get me wrong ; it snot about me vs you or my faith against yours , i am not tryin to convice you , i am juss answering to those who asked why belive in the Quraan and not in the bibleS as i am convinced it has been altered as the old testament , my God as you say is the God of jesus , adam , abraham moses ...etc .

also know that the majority doesnt mean they right, but the majority is worng only a minority is right thats how it is , always more evil than good!

you cant denie that paul faught the 1st christian , killed them !
anyway yes knew , heard ppl heald over night from cancer even aids , some of them happend at the pligrimage to mecca others at home..etc

i wish you all the best and a happy life , no hate in here n i am sorry is i did offend you.

ps: i neve been to a religius school , also i am not a part of any group sect.
 
zero dont get me wrong ; it snot about me vs you or my faith against yours , i am not tryin to convice you , i am juss answering to those who asked why belive in the Quraan and not in the bibleS as i am convinced it has been altered as the old testament , my God as you say is the God of jesus , adam , abraham moses ...etc .

also know that the majority doesnt mean they right, but the majority is worng only a minority is right thats how it is , always more evil than good!

you cant denie that paul faught the 1st christian , killed them !
anyway yes knew , heard ppl heald over night from cancer even aids , some of them happend at the pligrimage to mecca others at home..etc

i wish you all the best and a happy life , no hate in here n i am sorry is i did offend you.

ps: i neve been to a religius school , also i am not a part of any group sect.

No offense taken really, but I dont like reading alot of text that is baseless.

Paul DID kill Christians, it is why he was one of the Greatest turnaround to show that anyone can be saved.

Its cool man I have no problems with ya. But it was really all bashing Christian NT, nothing about why you believe in your faith. So it doesny really support your argument you werent against anything or trying to prove something.

I have only been to the school of hardknocks.
 
Back
Top