ksazma posted:

Question bro Keith. If Jesus didn't think that the man can get to heaven by keeping the commands, why would he waste his time telling the man to keep the commands? You stated that you don't have idle time to address my statements. Does that mean that Jesus had more idle time than you since he wasted his time telling the man the wrong thing?

My REPLY: First, you choose to ignore my called to provide proof of Paul's detestation and corrupt teach of Jesus. Not surprise! I can understand the ignorance due to your failure to comprehend the Bible. Have you ever pick up the Bible and read it from Genesis to Revelation, I think not otherwise I am sure we would not be discussing your claptrap.

If you didn't know the Bible instructs us all to "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."...Do you understand that statement?

Now in reference to your question. Without an understanding of the context, this can certainly sound as if Jesus is saying that the man could have been saved by keeping the commandments. How many times have I echo for you to look at the surrounding verses more carefully. The dialog between Jesus and the rich, young ruler is found in Matthew 19:16-22, Mark 10:17-22, and Luke 18:18-23, with the subject continuing to be discussed in the verses that follow.

Have you not learned "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." Galatians 2:16

Secondly, if Paul didn't hate Jesus, why did Paul say that Jesus asked him why he, Paul was persecuting him, Jesus? Did Jesus again had idle time to ask Paul an unnecessary question?

My Reply: Why are you trying to doubt what you failed to understand? Is this statement hatred? Man you are being ludicrous. Hey I not calling you name just pointing out the obvious.

Do you know the background of Paul? Why don't you read the book of Acts through Hebrews or just up to Timothy then lets talk about Paul.

Hey, do have a great day and enjoy the rest of the week. Love you Bro.

The Character of a Good Soldier

The above is the definition of persecute. Paul said that Jesus asked him why he (Paul) persecutes him (Jesus). The meaning of words have consequences. Why would Jesus say that Paul was persecuting him? That is more than enough evidence that Paul hates Jesus. But there are more evidence. Paul has all Christians paying even less attention to the commands than Jesus did. Jesus was very particular in following the commands and even fought vociferously with his contemporaries when he thought they were not giving enough attention to the commands. He even told the man that if he wants eternal life, he should follow the commands. Every religious leader work diligently to train their followers to follow their belief system and all Paul did was completely destroy everything that Jesus stood for. Imagine spending all your resources building a house and someone comes around and light it afire. That is evidence of hatred for that person who dedicated all their resources into building that house. Now there are many other evidence but those examples are more than reasonable.

Galatians was written by Paul and it totally contradict what Jesus believed in. Acts, Hebrews and Timothy are all written by Paul so what is the use. The reality is that Jesus knew nothing about grace when he walked this world. He knew about works and he lived strictly by works. Either Jesus is real and Paul's doctrine about grace is false or Paul's doctrine about grace is real and Jesus is false but they both cannot be real.

Single-Minded Focus

ksazma posted:

The above is the definition of persecute. Paul said that Jesus asked him why he (Paul) persecutes him (Jesus). The meaning of words have consequences. Why would Jesus say that Paul was persecuting him? That is more than enough evidence that Paul hates Jesus. But there are more evidence. Paul has all Christians paying even less attention to the commands than Jesus did. Jesus was very particular in following the commands and even fought vociferously with his contemporaries when he thought they were not giving enough attention to the commands. He even told the man that if he wants eternal life, he should follow the commands. Every religious leader work diligently to train their followers to follow their belief system and all Paul did was completely destroy everything that Jesus stood for. Imagine spending all your resources building a house and someone comes around and light it afire. That is evidence of hatred for that person who dedicated all their resources into building that house. Now there are many other evidence but those examples are more than reasonable.

Galatians was written by Paul and it totally contradict what Jesus believed in. Acts, Hebrews and Timothy are all written by Paul so what is the use. The reality is that Jesus knew nothing about grace when he walked this world. He knew about works and he lived strictly by works. Either Jesus is real and Paul's doctrine about grace is false or Paul's doctrine about grace is real and Jesus is false but they both cannot be real.

Just a few questions for you on top of the ones you have yet to answers. Why did Jesus asked Saul/Paul that question? Is that a hateful question? Is the following a hateful question? ksazma, ksazma why are you slandering what you failing understand?

Forget the questions above and show me where Paul destroyed everything Jesus stood for?

Have you read the book of Acts - 2 Timothy? to get a true understand of the man Saul...I mean Paul?

On the subject of grace. Why don't you read before speaking about things you have no understand of to get understanding. Look at John 8:1-11. The fact that you are alive and able to breath, walk etc. That's GRACE of Jesus.

Why would I care what the con man Paul wrote about himself. That is no different from all the things Trump said about himself and people are already finding out what a huge con man he is. Similarly those like myself who are not religious hacks can easily see what a con man Paul is. Religious hacks cannot see that clearly.

ksazma posted:

Why would I care what the con man Paul wrote about himself. That is no different from all the things Trump said about himself and people are already finding out what a huge con man he is. Similarly those like myself who are not religious hacks can easily see what a con man Paul is. Religious hacks cannot see that clearly.

Is that an acknowledgement you have no proof to show me where "Paul destroyed everything Jesus stood for?"

If you doesn't read to edified yourself you will not understand what's being discuss. Whomever you are listening too is feeding you a misrepresentation of the Word of God and you believe it without seeking out the answer for yourself. I also insist you don't take everything I mention here as Gospel, I challenge you to READ and seek truth. Quit listening to what people apprise you as a youth and READ!.

Where did I state that I never read those books. Didn't I state some time back that I have read the whole Bible? I am not interested in Paul propping himself up after Jesus was dead. He wouldn't have dared that when Jesus was here because Jesus would have totally demolished him. Now that Jesus is dead and can't help or hurt anyone, Paul was free to completely bastardize Jesus' teachings and since Jesus didn't make many friends when he was alive, there were not many if any willing or caring to come to Jesus' defense.

Additionally, I have given more evidence than is reasonable.

Think of this. Preachers claim that the Gospels are the word of God or that they are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Yet we see Luke completely disagreeing with that premise. Luke began his work by stating that many have written about the life and times of Jesus but unfortunately their works are a hodgepodge since they are not as familiar of Jesus as he was. He thought that since he is more educated, he can do a better job. Yet preachers are not willing to accept Luke's admission but they take Paul's words blindly. Paul has managed to steal people who were supposed to follow Jesus away from Jesus and on to Paul's doctrines.

That is why we have the saying "Peter pays for Paul and Paul pays for all". Peter was supposed to advance Jesus' ministry but he fell asleep on the job and allowed Paul freedom to destroy Jesus' ministry.

ksazma posted:

Where did I state that I never read those books. Didn't I state some time back that I have read the whole Bible? I am not interested in Paul propping himself up after Jesus was dead. He wouldn't have dared that when Jesus was here because Jesus would have totally demolished him. Now that Jesus is dead and can't help or hurt anyone, Paul was free to completely bastardize Jesus' teachings and since Jesus didn't make many friends when he was alive, there were not many if any willing or caring to come to Jesus' defense.

Additionally, I have given more evidence than is reasonable.

Glad to have clarification that you read the Bible. The problem here it's understanding what you have read. Start with the basic when reading, WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, WHY...lets add HOW to the mix.

What's highlighted above is the utter nonsense from people I would say failed to understand what he/she has read.

Here is a thought: "Jesus Christ did not come to make bad people good, but to make dead people alive."

I know where you stand on providing evidence, so lets not waste each other time.

Here is another thought. Jesus cannot make anyone good or bad, alive or dead. He doesn't have that kind of power especially now that he is dead.

ksazma posted:

Think of this. Preachers claim that the Gospels are the word of God or that they are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Yet we see Luke completely disagreeing with that premise. Luke began his work by stating that many have written about the life and times of Jesus but unfortunately their works are a hodgepodge since they are not as familiar of Jesus as he was. He thought that since he is more educated, he can do a better job. Yet preachers are not willing to accept Luke's admission but they take Paul's words blindly. Paul has managed to steal people who were supposed to follow Jesus away from Jesus and on to Paul's doctrines.

That is why we have the saying "Peter pays for Paul and Paul pays for all". Peter was supposed to advance Jesus' ministry but he fell asleep on the job and allowed Paul freedom to destroy Jesus' ministry.

Again, what's mention above is utter nonsense from people I would say failed to understand what he/she has read.

The disciples, including Luke as you mention above I would say know Christ better than anyone of us here reading this post. 

---------------------------------------------
ksazma Quote: "Luke began his work by stating that many have written about the life and times of Jesus but unfortunately their works are a hodgepodge since they are not as familiar of Jesus as he was."
---------------------------------------------
Where is this written? Who are the "they" you are referring too? Don't know what you are trying to say but this is the type of claptrap you keep post here. Stop posting pieces of scriptures and post the entire chapter/verse to get the full content of what's being discuss.

---------------------------------------------
ksazma Quotes: "Yet preachers are not willing to accept Luke's admission but they take Paul's words blindly. Paul has managed to steal people who were supposed to follow Jesus away from Jesus and on to Paul's doctrines."
---------------------------------------------
What admission? That Luke knows more than todays preacher/pastors do and are hodgepodge as you are? You certainly don't have anything better to do but to write the nonsense I highlighted here.

Interesting how I can back up my arguments when I care to. Where did Luke state that he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write his account of Jesus? Rather he stated that he was inspired by others' accounts and since he was had better knowledge of it.

Trust me. I am able to understand the written word because I am not enslaved by what the preachers want me to believe. How can preachers say with straight faces that Luke did not mean what he stated?

Luke 1King James Version (KJV)

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

² Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

³ It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

How to Pass Down Our Faith

ksazma posted:

Interesting how I can back up my arguments when I care to. Where did Luke state that he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write his account of Jesus? Rather he stated that he was inspired by others' accounts and since he was had better knowledge of it.

Trust me. I am able to understand the written word because I am not enslaved by what the preachers want me to believe. How can preachers say with straight faces that Luke did not mean what he stated?

Luke 1King James Version (KJV)

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

² Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

³ It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

I don't think you quit understand what those verses are saying. First of all if you are trying to tell me that Luke was not inspired by the Hold Spirit to write the Book of Luke - Acts let me put your doubt to rest right now.

Biblical inspiration may be defined as God's superintending of the human authors so that, using their own individual personalities and even their writing styles, they composed and recorded without error His revelation to man in the words of the original autographs. Inspiration means that "the Holy Spirit of God superintended the human writers in the production of Scripture so that what they wrote was precisely what God wanted written."

When you break the doctrine of inspiration down to its essential elements, there are seven key factors:

Divine origin and causality;
Human agency;
Written verbally (in words);
Plenary (all of Scripture is inspired, not just parts of it);
Only the "Autographs" (the original documents penned by the biblical authors) are inspired;
Because Scripture is inspired, it is inerrant; and
Because Scripture is inspired and inerrant, it alone has final authority.

Jesus promised His followers that it would be the work of the Holy Spirit to provide an accurate recounting of the events of His life (John 14:26). And because of this, I can trust the Bible as the Word of God. The Holy Spirit superintended the process from beginning to end.

Now about the verses you quotes , Luck 1:1-3
Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the Word have handed them down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; (Luke 1:1-3).

Many have taken in hand: Luke writes his gospel with the full knowledge that many have already written histories of the life of Jesus. This may be a reference to the works of Mark and Matthew most people think John was written after Luke, and it may also refer to other biographies of Jesus not directly inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Luke writes about those things which are most surely believed among us. He is writing about things already commonly known and believed among Christians. When Luke wrote, most Christians already knew all about the life of Jesus, both from the oral accounts passed on by the original disciples, and by the biographies that had already been written.

Most excellent Theophilus: Luke addresses his gospel to a man named Theophilus, but it was also written with a wider audience in mind.

By his title most excellent, we gather that Theophilus was probably a Roman government official. It is entirely likely that the books of Luke and Acts make up Paul's defense brief for his trial before Caesar, since Acts leaves Paul waiting for that trial.

Whoever Theophilus was, he had already had some instruction in the faith in which you were instructed.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. (Timothy 3:16-17)

I am glad that you brought it back to it all being inspired by God and you ended with 2 Timothy, 3:16-17. Now my friend, please explain the story about Samson meeting a whore on the road to Gaza and had sex with her. We also have the story of Judah having sex with his daughter-in-law on the roadside. Please explain how 2 Timothy, 3:16-17 applies to these two instances. There are many more but I don't care to add them.

I am ignoring your response to Luke 1:1-3 because it was basically a classic ramble that did not address what Luke stated. Try again. What did Luke mean when he wrote "it seem good to me also"? Do yourself a favor and address only that statement because if you expand it further, you may just end up tripping over yourself like you did in the response yesterday.

Luke 1King James Version (KJV)

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

² Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

³ It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

Living Out Our Faith

ksazma posted:

I am ignoring your response to Luke 1:1-3 because it was basically a classic ramble that did not address what Luke stated. Try again. What did Luke mean when he wrote "it seem good to me also"? Do yourself a favor and address only that statement because if you expand it further, you may just end up tripping over yourself like you did in the response yesterday.

 

Luke 1King James Version (KJV)

1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

² Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

³ It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

This is the problem I kept echoing over and over, you take a phrase or one sentence without reading the before, after or the entire chapter.

So now I say to you READ! Luke 1:1, the verse you took the phrase from and the verse after. I hope you get understanding as you read not once but twice.

ksazma posted:

I am glad that you brought it back to it all being inspired by God and you ended with 2 Timothy, 3:16-17. Now my friend, please explain the story about Samson meeting a whore on the road to Gaza and had sex with her. We also have the story of Judah having sex with his daughter-in-law on the roadside. Please explain how 2 Timothy, 3:16-17 applies to these two instances. There are many more but I don't care to add them.

Will address later busy at the moment unlike you I've a job I get paid to do all the best.

Two things. The point I was making is that Luke admitted that he was not writing his account of Jesus because he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so. He admitted that he did it because he thought he was more capable than those who did before. This also showed that he thought they did so on their own too and not because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so.

Secondly, there goes your condescending attitude again suggesting that unlike you, I don't have a job I get paid to do. For your information, I get paid to be a Financial Controller. I don't know how you feel about that job but I do see it as a responsible one.

The following passage deals with a current activity. It states, "O believers, fasting was prescribed for you as it was prescribed for those before you so you can develop self control". Notice how the passage tells what to do and why? Now your task is to explain why Samson and Judah's having sex on the roadside with a prostitute in the case of Samson and in the case of Judah, he mistook his daughter in law for a prostitute. How do those two passages fit into 2 Timothy 3:16-17?

ksazma posted:

Two things. The point I was making is that Luke admitted that he was not writing his account of Jesus because he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so. He admitted that he did it because he thought he was more capable than those who did before. This also showed that he thought they did so on their own too and not because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so.

My Response:
First, lets address the "Holy Spirit" before we go any further to get an understand of it purpose. In a nutshell Holy spirit is a teacher of rightness one who enable us with understanding of all things, things that we need to know.

Sorry about be so length but the point is to get a clear understand of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said He would send the Spirit to us to be our Helper, Comforter, and Guide. “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever” (John 14:16). The Greek word translated here “Counselor” means “one who is called alongside” and has the idea of someone who encourages and exhorts. The Holy Spirit takes up permanent residence in the hearts of believers (Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, 12:13). Jesus gave the Spirit as a “compensation” for His absence, to perform the functions toward us which He would have done if He had remained personally with us.

The Spirit’s presence within us enables us to understand and interpret God’s Word. Jesus told His disciples that “when He, the Spirit of Truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13). He reveals to our minds the whole counsel of God as it relates to worship, doctrine, and Christian living. He is the ultimate guide, going before, leading the way, removing obstructions, opening the understanding, and making all things plain and clear. He leads in the way we should go in all spiritual things. Without such a guide, we would be apt to fall into error. A crucial part of the truth He reveals is that Jesus is who He said He is (John 15:26; 1 Corinthians 12:3).

Now lets look at the verse in question.
Luke 1:3
"It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,"

Luke is writing what he experience and know about Jesus. His experience like the ones before him such as, Matthew, Mark, and John just to name a few, was lead by the holy spirt which bring all those things into remembrance to write about. Notice the "also" in the verse you seem so fixated about, when there is an "also" we need to look and see what was stated before. Lets examine the verses before Luke 1:3. 

Luke 1:1-2
"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;"

Among Us, disciples of Jesus (Matthew, Mark, John, Luke, Peter, James, etc.)
In the verses above Luke is saying many before him being eyewitnesses have given their written account about the life of Jesus. Hence his statement below.

"It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write......"

Here Luke is saying he also will give his account of the things he witness.

ksazma posted:
Secondly, there goes your condescending attitude again suggesting that unlike you, I don't have a job I get paid to do. For your information, I get paid to be a Financial Controller. I don't know how you feel about that job but I do see it as a responsible one.

My Response:
I apologize my comment was not meant to be condescending. I thought you mention somewhere before about being self employed hence my statement. I'm an IT Security Engineer and yes I do understand how responsible our jobs can be.

Keith posted:

ksazma posted:

I am glad that you brought it back to it all being inspired by God and you ended with 2 Timothy, 3:16-17. Now my friend, please explain the story about Samson meeting a whore on the road to Gaza and had sex with her. We also have the story of Judah having sex with his daughter-in-law on the roadside. Please explain how 2 Timothy, 3:16-17 applies to these two instances. There are many more but I don't care to add them.

Will address later busy at the moment unlike you I've a job I get paid to do all the best.

The simple explanation I can offer you is despise man's short coming God still find a way to used man to edify others in their short coming and to bring forth his purpose and plan. King David, the man after God's own heart, was a murdering adulterer. Abraham, the father of nations, lived a lie using his wife as a pawn to save his own skin. Peter denied Jesus cursing the One who loved him most. Did you know in Jesus linage the woman Rahab was a prostitute?

The list goes on and on of men and women who loved God, men who were greatly used by God almost driven to the ground by their weaknesses. Yet, God was always there saying, "I called you; I will be with you! I will take away the evil of your heart! I will accomplish my will, regardless!"

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 1 Corinthians 1:25.

When I Say Weakness, I Do Not Mean Sensuality. God does not use people weak in righteousness. A man's weakness can lead him into adultery, gambling, drinking and all kinds of indulgences. God is not referring to that kind of weakness. When He calls the base, He is not referring to the wicked.

The weakness God speaks about is our human inability to obey His commandments in our own strength. God calls us to a life of holiness and separation. He tells us we can be free from the bondage of sin. He Word promises freedom from sin's power, as well as forgiveness. God's Word comes to us with some impossible challenges "Resist the devil. Walk in the Spirit. Come out from among them. Do not commit adultery. Love your enemies. Enter into rest. Leave behind all your fears. Put down your lustful desires. Let not sin have dominion over you. As He was in this world so be ye. Overcome self, pride and envy. Sin not!"

Have a great weekend. Peace and Love.

ksazma posted:

The following passage deals with a current activity. It states, "O believers, fasting was prescribed for you as it was prescribed for those before you so you can develop self control". Notice how the passage tells what to do and why? Now your task is to explain why Samson and Judah's having sex on the roadside with a prostitute in the case of Samson and in the case of Judah, he mistook his daughter in law for a prostitute. How do those two passages fit into 2 Timothy 3:16-17?

Dem people used to live in tents, unlike mortar and bricks, dem movable. Roadside is like where the tents were raised, even though roadside din exist then.

Dey were ppl who misbehave. And they have a history of illicit sex, and to the point where mohammad recognised it. After thousand of years, he decreed one man can have several wimem. So he solved the problem of prostitution. Besides, Judah and Samson were muslims, considering it is believed that Adam was also muslim. And those two Johns were ater Adam.

Deliah was not a prostitute, neither was Tamar. Both cases were entrapment.

seignet posted:

ksazma posted:

The following passage deals with a current activity. It states, "O believers, fasting was prescribed for you as it was prescribed for those before you so you can develop self control". Notice how the passage tells what to do and why? Now your task is to explain why Samson and Judah's having sex on the roadside with a prostitute in the case of Samson and in the case of Judah, he mistook his daughter in law for a prostitute. How do those two passages fit into 2 Timothy 3:16-17?

Dem people used to live in tents, unlike mortar and bricks, dem movable. Roadside is like where the tents were raised, even though roadside din exist then.

Dey were ppl who misbehave. And they have a history of illicit sex, and to the point where mohammad recognised it. After thousand of years, he decreed one man can have several wimem. So he solved the problem of prostitution. Besides, Judah and Samson were muslims, considering it is believed that Adam was also muslim. And those two Johns were ater Adam.

Deliah was not a prostitute, neither was Tamar. Both cases were entrapment.

Truthfully, no one even know if Samson or Judah even existed. They could be made up people like so many made up people and stories in the Bible.

But I agree that Adam was a Muslim and so was Jesus.

Keith posted:

ksazma posted:

Two things. The point I was making is that Luke admitted that he was not writing his account of Jesus because he was inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so. He admitted that he did it because he thought he was more capable than those who did before. This also showed that he thought they did so on their own too and not because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to do so.

My Response:
First, lets address the "Holy Spirit" before we go any further to get an understand of it purpose. In a nutshell Holy spirit is a teacher of rightness one who enable us with understanding of all things, things that we need to know.

Sorry about be so length but the point is to get a clear understand of the Holy Spirit. Jesus said He would send the Spirit to us to be our Helper, Comforter, and Guide. “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever” (John 14:16). The Greek word translated here “Counselor” means “one who is called alongside” and has the idea of someone who encourages and exhorts. The Holy Spirit takes up permanent residence in the hearts of believers (Romans 8:9; 1 Corinthians 6:19-20, 12:13). Jesus gave the Spirit as a “compensation” for His absence, to perform the functions toward us which He would have done if He had remained personally with us.

The Spirit’s presence within us enables us to understand and interpret God’s Word. Jesus told His disciples that “when He, the Spirit of Truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13). He reveals to our minds the whole counsel of God as it relates to worship, doctrine, and Christian living. He is the ultimate guide, going before, leading the way, removing obstructions, opening the understanding, and making all things plain and clear. He leads in the way we should go in all spiritual things. Without such a guide, we would be apt to fall into error. A crucial part of the truth He reveals is that Jesus is who He said He is (John 15:26; 1 Corinthians 12:3).

Now lets look at the verse in question.
Luke 1:3
"It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,"

Luke is writing what he experience and know about Jesus. His experience like the ones before him such as, Matthew, Mark, and John just to name a few, was lead by the holy spirt which bring all those things into remembrance to write about. Notice the "also" in the verse you seem so fixated about, when there is an "also" we need to look and see what was stated before. Lets examine the verses before Luke 1:3. 

Luke 1:1-2
"Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;"

Among Us, disciples of Jesus (Matthew, Mark, John, Luke, Peter, James, etc.)
In the verses above Luke is saying many before him being eyewitnesses have given their written account about the life of Jesus. Hence his statement below.

"It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write......"

Here Luke is saying he also will give his account of the things he witness.

ksazma posted:
Secondly, there goes your condescending attitude again suggesting that unlike you, I don't have a job I get paid to do. For your information, I get paid to be a Financial Controller. I don't know how you feel about that job but I do see it as a responsible one.

My Response:
I apologize my comment was not meant to be condescending. I thought you mention somewhere before about being self employed hence my statement. I'm an IT Security Engineer and yes I do understand how responsible our jobs can be.

So basically, all you are saying is that you ASSUME that when Luke stated unequivocally that he was writing of his OWN intuition, he was being inspired to do so by the Holy Spirit.

Using this argument, you would have to accept that Muhammad making statements is also doing so through being inspired by this Holy Spirit. Likewise, you would have to accept that Muhammad's argument that Paul's doctrine is against Jesus' beliefs is also inspired by the Holy Spirit especially the same things that mattered to Jesus also mattered to Muhammad including both of them being totally against taking others as God beside the one true God. Paul and Christians associate partners with God totally going against Jesus' beliefs.

Lastly, my keen eyes did not miss your typing error above. You stated that "Jesus said He would send the Spirit to us to be our Helper, Comforter, and Guide. “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever” (John 14:16)." Jesus did not say that he will send the Spirit as you erroneously wrote above.

Keith posted:

Keith posted:

ksazma posted:

I am glad that you brought it back to it all being inspired by God and you ended with 2 Timothy, 3:16-17. Now my friend, please explain the story about Samson meeting a whore on the road to Gaza and had sex with her. We also have the story of Judah having sex with his daughter-in-law on the roadside. Please explain how 2 Timothy, 3:16-17 applies to these two instances. There are many more but I don't care to add them.

Will address later busy at the moment unlike you I've a job I get paid to do all the best.

The simple explanation I can offer you is despise man's short coming God still find a way to used man to edify others in their short coming and to bring forth his purpose and plan. King David, the man after God's own heart, was a murdering adulterer. Abraham, the father of nations, lived a lie using his wife as a pawn to save his own skin. Peter denied Jesus cursing the One who loved him most. Did you know in Jesus linage the woman Rahab was a prostitute?

The list goes on and on of men and women who loved God, men who were greatly used by God almost driven to the ground by their weaknesses. Yet, God was always there saying, "I called you; I will be with you! I will take away the evil of your heart! I will accomplish my will, regardless!"

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 1 Corinthians 1:25.

When I Say Weakness, I Do Not Mean Sensuality. God does not use people weak in righteousness. A man's weakness can lead him into adultery, gambling, drinking and all kinds of indulgences. God is not referring to that kind of weakness. When He calls the base, He is not referring to the wicked.

The weakness God speaks about is our human inability to obey His commandments in our own strength. God calls us to a life of holiness and separation. He tells us we can be free from the bondage of sin. He Word promises freedom from sin's power, as well as forgiveness. God's Word comes to us with some impossible challenges "Resist the devil. Walk in the Spirit. Come out from among them. Do not commit adultery. Love your enemies. Enter into rest. Leave behind all your fears. Put down your lustful desires. Let not sin have dominion over you. As He was in this world so be ye. Overcome self, pride and envy. Sin not!"

Have a great weekend. Peace and Love.

Unfortunately, the Bible did not mention lessons taught or learned from those two passages cited.

ksazma posted:

seignet posted:

ksazma posted:

The following passage deals with a current activity. It states, "O believers, fasting was prescribed for you as it was prescribed for those before you so you can develop self control". Notice how the passage tells what to do and why? Now your task is to explain why Samson and Judah's having sex on the roadside with a prostitute in the case of Samson and in the case of Judah, he mistook his daughter in law for a prostitute. How do those two passages fit into 2 Timothy 3:16-17?

Dem people used to live in tents, unlike mortar and bricks, dem movable. Roadside is like where the tents were raised, even though roadside din exist then.

Dey were ppl who misbehave. And they have a history of illicit sex, and to the point where mohammad recognised it. After thousand of years, he decreed one man can have several wimem. So he solved the problem of prostitution. Besides, Judah and Samson were muslims, considering it is believed that Adam was also muslim. And those two Johns were ater Adam.

Deliah was not a prostitute, neither was Tamar. Both cases were entrapment.

Truthfully, no one even know if Samson or Judah even existed. They could be made up people like so many made up people and stories in the Bible.

But I agree that Adam was a Muslim and so was Jesus.

If Jesus WAS a muslim, then I agree with you. No one knows what became of him as a muslim. 

As the Son of God, you most definitely hanging His Celestial Being for His piety of death and resurrection.

seignet posted:

ksazma posted:

 

Truthfully, no one even know if Samson or Judah even existed. They could be made up people like so many made up people and stories in the Bible.

But I agree that Adam was a Muslim and so was Jesus.

If Jesus WAS a muslim, then I agree with you. No one knows what became of him as a muslim. 

As the Son of God, you most definitely hanging His Celestial Being for His piety of death and resurrection.

Actually, I am not assaulting Jesus in any way. I believe Pointy pointed that out to you not very long ago. What I did is used my unique style to prove how the Bible incorrectly recorded people and their history. I began a long time ago proving to Bro. Keith that Isaac was at no time Abraham's only son. That was an interpolation by the compilers of the Bible. Interpolations in the Bible did not happen once but on many occasions as the Church and Bible publishers seek to fix problems with the Biblical message. Interpolation is described by Biblical scholars as text added to the "original" manuscripts to bring clarity to Bible. They are not in the "original" manuscripts. Take the passage involving Abraham and the sacrificial son. It stated "take your son, your only son, Isaac". If God is wise and Abraham is sane, God does not need to tell Abraham who is his only son as every sane person knows who their children are and which one is first, second, etc. "Your only son, Isaac" is an interpolation to deny Ishmael his right to existence after the birth of Isaac. This is not the only time that the Bible have sought to deny people their right to existence. You can find many cases littered throughout the Bible as writers during competing times sought to emphasize the importance of their times compared to others at other times. This mischief is the primary reason there are so many contradictions throughout the Bible. Writers maliciously trying to change history allowed their blind malice to create the contradictions we see in the Bible today. Here is another one that came up from Bro. Keith's post yesterday. It involves Jesus' statement about the Comforter.

¹⁶ And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; - John 14:16

²⁶ But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. John 14:26

⁷ Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. John 16:7

The words, "which is the Holy Ghost is an interpolation in the passage, John 14:16. Why I say that? Simple. The Holy Ghost did not need to wait until Jesus was gone before he can come as stated in John 16:7 because the Holy Ghost was already here according to multiple passages in the New Testament. The Holy Ghost was already with John, the Baptist among others. It was already with Jesus when he walked the earth. Heck, the New Testament stated that he gave up the Holy Ghost when he was on the cross. The Biblical writers inserted the words, "which is the Holy Ghost" not really realizing that the mischief of their actions will be uncovered. The biggest problem for the Biblical writers is they never foresaw the information age when passages can be quickly and competently scrutinized.

Muslims don't need this to validate Muhammad's existence but if they cared, they can see many corroboration for Muhammad in what Jesus was characterizing as the Comforter.

¹² I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

¹³ Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

¹⁴ He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. John 16: 12-14

Start with the characterization, 'the Spirit of Truth". No one can deny that Muhammad was a very truthful person. Heck, Khatijah who was 40 when he was 25 proposed marriage to him because of his honesty and trustworthiness. Muhammad never spoke of himself. He spoke of others and events affecting other peoples' lives and existence. While there are countless recordings from others of who Muhammad was and how he lived, there are no recordings of Muhammad lamenting about his personal conditions as the one recorded in the New Testament of Jesus complaining of not even having a place to rest his head. When the people of Taif stoned the prophet and he was bleeding, his companions (who stood with him instead of "being afrightened and fled" as in the case of Jesus' disciples when Jesus was about to be crucified) told him to pray to God to curse them. His reply was classic. He stated that he did not come as a curse but as a mercy. On his dying bed, he was crying and someone asked him why he was crying. He did not say that he was crying because he thinks God has forsaken him as the Bible recorded Jesus doing when he was on the cross. His reply was that he was sadly thinking of his ummah (followers). When the woman who used to throw her garbage on him every time he passed by her place did not do it for a few days, he did not say "maybe she is not well, good for the bitch". Instead he went and enquired how she was doing. Here is a man who throughout his life did what was beneficial to others and all of it was in a simple manner free of all the celestial nonsense wrongfully associated to Jesus as you mentioned above. Jesus' role on earth was very limited. He was not a law maker like Moses and Muhammad ¹⁸ I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. ¹⁹ And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. Deuteronomy 18:18-19. Jesus was a law abider, abiding by the laws of Moses. Jesus was not a leader in the community as Moses and Muhammad were. He did not move a multitude of men as Moses and Muhammad did. He did not leave a legacy as Moses and Muhammad did. What Christians follow is Paul's doctrine. Jesus did not really have a doctrine since he was following Moses' doctrine. Muhammad's Qur'an was not his own work. He also claimed that he did not write it. He stated that the Angel Gabriel spoke it in his ears and he then dictated it to his companions who in turn recorded it. ".......for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak..... John 16:13  "......and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him." Deuteronomy 18:18

Additionally, Muhammad glorified Jesus in many passages in the Qur'an as stated in John 16:14. The speaks volumes of Jesus in a more positive light than the Bible speaks of him. It corrected Paul's lies about Jesus and removed that burden placed on Jesus by the writers of the New Testament when they chose to follow Paul's mischief. It shows him being respectful to his mother as opposed to the way the new Testament showed him being disrespectful to her. It showed him as a pure decent and honorable person as opposed to the New testament showing him as being bigoted, disrespectful and despicable. If it wasn't for Muhammad, reasonable people would be correct to consider Jesus a myth because of how the New Testament characterize him. Muhammad, through the Qur'an give Jesus a decent, honorable and normal existence and removed all the laughable Biblical characterizations of him.

Lastly, the Qur'an give a clear account of what became of Jesus as a Muslim. The difficulty is with the competing and conflicting accounts given in the Bible. It reduced Jesus to a basically a nincompoop. All I do is play the role of how the Bible characterized Jesus. Pointy thinks he knows where I stand on Jesus long before I joined GNI (although I don't personally know Pointy now or prior to me joining GNI). I am using my unique style to show how ridiculous the Biblical account of Jesus is. Like the account of him entering Jerusalem riding a donkey and an ass at the same time. Two Gun kid rode one horse and had two guns. Nothing ridiculously impossible there. That Biblical passage claimed that Jesus entered Jerusalem riding on two animals at the same time. Imagine that image.

Oh, Jesus is not God or any part of God. One God means one God in Abrahamic belief. This many is a European invention that Paul concocted so I have no fear denying Jesus any divinity. In fact, Jesus would appreciate me for not putting that burden on him. Similar to how he demanded that the man who called him "good" desist from doing so pointing out that he was not good but rather only God was good.

God Has a Purpose for Storms

ksazma posted:

Keith posted:

Keith posted:

ksazma posted:

I am glad that you brought it back to it all being inspired by God and you ended with 2 Timothy, 3:16-17. Now my friend, please explain the story about Samson meeting a whore on the road to Gaza and had sex with her. We also have the story of Judah having sex with his daughter-in-law on the roadside. Please explain how 2 Timothy, 3:16-17 applies to these two instances. There are many more but I don't care to add them.

Will address later busy at the moment unlike you I've a job I get paid to do all the best.

The simple explanation I can offer you is despise man's short coming God still find a way to used man to edify others in their short coming and to bring forth his purpose and plan. King David, the man after God's own heart, was a murdering adulterer. Abraham, the father of nations, lived a lie using his wife as a pawn to save his own skin. Peter denied Jesus cursing the One who loved him most. Did you know in Jesus linage the woman Rahab was a prostitute?

The list goes on and on of men and women who loved God, men who were greatly used by God almost driven to the ground by their weaknesses. Yet, God was always there saying, "I called you; I will be with you! I will take away the evil of your heart! I will accomplish my will, regardless!"

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. 1 Corinthians 1:25.

When I Say Weakness, I Do Not Mean Sensuality. God does not use people weak in righteousness. A man's weakness can lead him into adultery, gambling, drinking and all kinds of indulgences. God is not referring to that kind of weakness. When He calls the base, He is not referring to the wicked.

The weakness God speaks about is our human inability to obey His commandments in our own strength. God calls us to a life of holiness and separation. He tells us we can be free from the bondage of sin. He Word promises freedom from sin's power, as well as forgiveness. God's Word comes to us with some impossible challenges "Resist the devil. Walk in the Spirit. Come out from among them. Do not commit adultery. Love your enemies. Enter into rest. Leave behind all your fears. Put down your lustful desires. Let not sin have dominion over you. As He was in this world so be ye. Overcome self, pride and envy. Sin not!"

Have a great weekend. Peace and Love.

Unfortunately, the Bible did not mention lessons taught or learned from those two passages cited.

"I called you; I will be with you! I will take away the evil of your heart! I will accomplish my will, regardless!" is not a scripture reference. Anything that's in the scripture I place the Chapter and verse next too. I was only pointing out through those same folks mention above God will was still accomplish despised man short coming.

ksazma posted:

seignet posted:

ksazma posted:

 

Truthfully, no one even know if Samson or Judah even existed. They could be made up people like so many made up people and stories in the Bible.

But I agree that Adam was a Muslim and so was Jesus.

If Jesus WAS a muslim, then I agree with you. No one knows what became of him as a muslim. 

As the Son of God, you most definitely hanging His Celestial Being for His piety of death and resurrection.

He was not a law maker like Moses and Muhammad ¹⁸ I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. ¹⁹ And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. Deuteronomy 18:18-19. Jesus was a law abider, abiding by the laws of Moses. Jesus was not a leader in the community as Moses and Muhammad were. He did not move a multitude of men as Moses and Muhammad did. He did not leave a legacy as Moses and Muhammad did. What Christians follow is Paul's doctrine. Jesus did not really have a doctrine since he was following Moses' doctrine.

I took the liberty of cutting out the other things I taught was irrelevant. Just to clarify are you saying that Muhammad is like Moses and the verse you quoted above is referencing Muhammad?

By the way, we follow what's written in the bible regardless of who doctrine it is. God allow it to be there and we are obligated to following what He has instructed.

I couldn't say it any better so I took the liberty of quoting CRI.

Islam and Christianity are the two largest and most missionary-minded religions in the world. Their beliefs are very similar in many areas. They are both monotheistic, were founded by a specific individual in a definite, historically verifiable setting, are universal, and believe in the existence of angels, heaven and hell, a future resurrection, and that God has made Himself known to man via a revelation.

However, there also are many obvious differences between them, particularly in relation to the person of Jesus Christ, the way of salvation, and each faith’s scripture or scriptures. These differences encompass the very foundational tenets of each religion, and therefore, while Islam and Christianity can both be false, they both cannot be true.

Our task is to examine each religion’s apologetic, or defense of their faith, to see if the claims of either religion are verifiable. Particular attention will be paid to the founder and the scripture or scriptures of each faith. The reason for this should be self-evident: it is very easy for someone to make claims regarding himself, proving them is an entirely different matter.

ISLAMIC APOLOGETICS

Islam, like Christianity, believes that a person’s faith must be reasonable as well as subjective, that we must worship God with our minds as well as our hearts. In sharing this common ground with Muslims let us then examine why they believe what they believe.

The Miracle of the Qur’an —The Islamic Claim

We must start our study of Islamic apologetics by examining their highest source of authority, the Qur’an. For Muslims, this is the pure word of God with no admixture of human thought or content Indeed, many Muslims have such an intense jealousy for the Qur’an that they keenly resent its being possessed by a non-Muslim.

The word “Qur’an” comes from “an Arabic word meaning ‘reading’ or ‘that which is to be read.’”¹ Muslims affirm that the Qur’an was given to Muhammad in the Arabic language, piece by piece, over a span of 23 years until his death (Qur’an 43:3; 44:58; 17:106). Muslim apologetics for the Qur’an cover four main areas: its preservation, eloquence, alleged prophecies, and compatibility with modern science.

1. Preservation of the Qur’an

Concerning the present authenticity of the Qur’an, Maulvi Muhammad Ali makes the following grandiose statement:

As regards the authenticity of the Holy Qur’an, I need not detain the reader very long. From one end of the world to the other, from China in the Far East to Morocco and Algeria in the Far West, from the scattered islands of the Pacific Ocean to the great desert of Africa, the Qur’an is one, and no copy differing in even a diacritical point is met with in the possession of one among the four hundred millions of Muslims.² There are, and always have been, contending sects, but the same Qur’an is in the possession of one and all…A manuscript with the slightest variation in the text is unknown.³

Thus Muslims not only believe that the Qur’an is God’s word in toto, they also are confident that no error, alteration, or variation has touched it since its inception. This, then, is one of their “proofs” that the Qur’an is a “miracle” from God.

2. Eloquence of the Qur’an

A second claim made to prove the supernatural origin of the Qur’an, found in surah (chapter) 17:88, is that its beauty and eloquence is self-sufficient proof that the author is God:

Say: “If the whole Of mankind and Jinns Were to gather together To produce the like Of this Qur’an, they Could not produce The like thereof, even if They backed up each other With help and support.”

In a footnote within his translation of the Qur’an, Yusuf Ali states, “No human composition could contain the beauty, power, and spiritual insight of the Qur’an.”⁴

However, Muslims do not believe that the Qur’an is a miracle solely because of its eloquence and beauty, but also because in surah 7:157 Muhammad is referred to as “The unlettered Prophet.” Believing that he was illiterate, they ask how such a man could produce the Qur’an.

A final claim concerning the Qur’an’s literary achievement is that it is so consistent throughout that no human could have devised it Suzanne Haneef asks “how the whole Qur’an could be so utterly consistent” if it did not originate from God.⁵

3. Prophecies In the Qur’an

The Qur’an speaks prophetically very little, if indeed it does prophesy at all. Hence, few Muslim apologists use fulfilled prophecy as a proof for their faith. However, there is a series of verses in the Qur’an which promise that the Muslims will be victorious, both at home and abroad.⁶ Maulana Muhammad Ali discusses these prophecies at length in his work The Religion of Islam:

…we find prophecy after prophecy announced in the surest and most certain terms to the effect that the great forces of opposition should be brought to naught…that Islam should spread to the farthest corners of the earth and that it should ultimately he triumphant over all religions of the world.⁷

4. Science and the Qur’an

Finally, there is one recent work, written by a French surgeon named Maurice Bucaille, that attempts to vindicate the divine origin of the Qur’an by showing its supposedly remarkable affinity with modem science. After citing a number of examples, Dr. Bucaille concludes that

…it is inconceivable for a human being living in the seventh century A.D. to have made statements in the Qur’an on a great variety of subjects that do not belong to his period and for them to be in keeping with what was to be known only centuries later. For me, there can be no human explanation to the Qur an.⁸

The “Miracle” of the Qur’an — The Christian Response

1. Preservation of the Qur’an?

Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, in The Meaning of the Glorious Koran, tells us that at the time of Muhammad’s death the surahs (or chapters) of the Qur’an had not yet been collated. This was accomplished during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr.⁹

The second Caliph, Omar, “subsequently made a single volume (mushaf) that he preserved and gave on his death to his daughter Hafsa, the Prophet’s widow.”¹⁰ Finally, under the Caliphate of Uthman all copies of the Qur’an were ordered to be brought in and any that deviated from Uthman’s text were burned.

We have no quarrel with the Islamic position that since the Recension of Uthman the Qur’an has remained intact. However, because of the destruction of all deviant copies no one can know with any certainty if the present Qur’an is exactly the same as what Muhammad gave them.

Islam teaches that the only reason Uthman had all the other collections of the Qur’an burned except his was that there were slight dialectical variations in the different texts. However, there is some evidence which tends to refute this.

First of all, it is very significant that the Qurra, the Muslims who had memorized the entire Qur’an, were vehemently opposed to the Recension. And second, the Shi’ites, who are the second-largest Islamic sect in the world, claim that the Caliph Uthman intentionally eliminated many passages from the Qur’an which related to Ali and the succession of leadership which was to occur after Muhammad’s death.

L. Bevan Jones, in his work The People Of the Mosque, succinctly answers the Muslim argument for the alleged miraculous preservation of the Qur’an: “But while it may be true that no other work has remained for twelve centuries with so pure a text, it is probably equally true that no other has suffered so drastic a purging.”¹¹

2. Eloquence of the Qur’an?

Concerning the Qur’an’s beauty, style, and eloquence, any unbiased reader would have to admit that this is certainly true of much of the Qur’an. However, eloquence itself is hardly a logical test for inspiration. If this were the criteria used to judge a work, then we would have to say that the authors of many of the great works of antiquity were inspired by God. Homer would have to have been a prophet for producing the magnificent Iliad and the Odyssey. In the English language Shakespeare is without a peer as a dramatist, but it would be ludicrous to say that because of this his tragedies were of divine origin. Likewise for the eloquence of the Qur’an.

But what about the consistency of the Qur’an — can it be used to show that this Muslim scripture was inspired? To begin with, it can be shown that the Qur’an is not totally consistent, but rather has some major contradictions in it.¹² Even if we granted the thesis that the Qur’an was totally consistent this still would not prove anything. In an essay entitled “How Muslims Do Apologetics,” Dr. John Warwick Montgomery demonstrates this for us:

This apologetic is likewise of little consequence, for the self-consistency of a writing does not prove that it is a divine revelation. Euclid’s Geometry, for example, is not self-contradictory at any point, but no one claims that this work is therefore divinely inspired in some unique sense.¹³

And finally, what about Muhammad’s alleged illiteracy? First of all, there is a good deal of evidence against it. But even if we granted the fact that Muhammad could not read or write this still would not make the Qur’an miraculous. Why? Because all Muslims know that he had at least several amanuenses or scribes: and therefore, he could easily have composed the Qur’an in this fashion. This would not be unique, as there are precedents for this. One that most people will be familiar with concerns Homer. He was blind and thus, in all likelihood, could not write. Yet he was the author of the Iliad and the Odyssey, the two greatest epics of the ancient world. In like fashion the question of whether or not Muhammad was illiterate really has no hearing on the case in question.

3. Prophecies in the Qur’an?

Can we say that Islam’s vast expansion, predicted by Muhammad, is a fulfillment of prophecy? If we think this through for just a moment, I believe we can easily answer no.

To begin with, a leader promising his troops or followers a victory is not the least bit unique. Every commander or general does this in order to inspire his army and build up their morale. If they are then victorious, he is vindicated; if they lose then we never hear of his promises because they, along with his movement, are forgotten.

Also, the Muslim had several important incentives to consider while fighting to further the cause of Islam. If he died, he was promised to be allowed into paradise. If he lived and they were victorious in battle, the Muslim soldiers would divide up four-fifths of all the booty.

There is another reason why Islam initially expanded so rapidly. If we look at some of the Qur’anic injunctions about what the non-believers could expect at the hands of the Muslims, it is easy to understand why so many “submitted,” as found in surah 5:36:¹⁴

The punishment of those Who wage war against God And his Apostle, and strive With might and main For mischief through the land Is: execution, or crucifixion,Or the cutting off of hands And feet from opposite sides,Or exile from the land.

The polytheists had two choices, submit or die. The Christians and the Jews had a third alternative, paying heavy tribute (Qur’an 9:5, 29).

A final point to be considered is that if the fast and far reaching growth of a movement indicated divine favor, then what about such conquerors as Genghis Khan? He consolidated the Mongol tribes and in a time span shorter than early Islam’s conquered a much larger geographic area. Was his military success evidence that he was led of God? And what of Islam’s own growth which was stopped in the West by Charles Martel A.D. 732) and in the East by Leo III (A.D. 740)? Does this mean that they lost favor with Allah? What of the later history of many Islamic countries who suffered the indignity of becoming colonies of the then world powers? No, we can find nothing mysterious or supernatural about Islam’s amazing early growth or subsequent fall.

4. Science and the Qur’an?

A very recent Islamic polemic. The Bible, the Qur’an and Science by Dr. Maurice Bucaille, attempts to demonstrate that the Qur’an must have been divinely inspired because it allegedly states many things that were unknown in the seventh century and have subsequently become known only in our twentieth century.

In answering Dr. Bucaille it must first be pointed out that the bulk of the book does not deal with the Qur’an and science. Rather, most of it is an attempt (using the techniques of higher criticism) to disgrace the Bible. The portions of his book which do attempt to show that the Qur’an is in amazing agreement with twentieth-century scientific knowledge are very vague.

However, what if we were to grant his thesis that the statements in the Qur’an are in total agreement with modern science? Dr. Bucaille states that if this were true, then “it is unthinkable that a man of Muhammad’s time could have been the author of them.”¹⁵ I agree with his conclusion, assuming his thesis is true. If the Qur’an has detailed scientific statements which we have only recently discovered to be true, and yet it was written in the seventh century A.D., then it could not have been merely the product of Muhammad. But this does not identify the source of the information, it only shows that no human being could have written it without superhuman help.

If indeed the Qur’an had a supernatural origin, then we are still left with the task of finding out who its source was. Dr. Bucaille assumes that it must be God, but why? If we pause and think for just a moment, we realize that there are other supernatural beings besides God. One of these beings is referred to as Satan in the Bible, as well as in the Qur’an. The Bible tells us that he has been on the earth as long as man has, that he has powers and intelligence far superior to ours, and that he is “the father of lies” (John 8:44). To whisper some scientific facts into someone’s ear would be no great feat for him. As a matter of fact the Bible says that he does appear to men from time to time: “For even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:14). It is interesting that this is exactly the initial fear that Muhammad had the first time he heard the voice speak to him.¹⁶

5. Sources of the Qur’an

In concluding this section on the Qur’an the reader may be interested to know that many of the stories or accounts found within the Qur’an are traceable to very similiar (sometimes almost identical) stories found in pre-Islamic writings. I would direct the reader to Clair-Tisdall’s classic The Sources of Islam, Rev. W. Goldsack’s The Origins of the Qur’an, and Samuel M. Zwerner’s Islam: A Challenge to Faith.

Is Muhammad Prophesied in the Bible?

Virtually every religion that began after Christianity attempts to show that it is compatible with the Bible. They also endeavor, usually quite laboriously, to show that their founder or faith is referred to in the Bible.¹⁷ Thus it comes as no surprise to find that Muslims also claim that their founder was prophesied in both the Old and New Testaments.

Our question still needs to be answered: Although Islam is not unique in claiming to be verified by the Bible, might not its claims be nonetheless true? There are some minor, less detailed verses which Muslims claim are “prophecies” related to Muhammad. However, the verses which most Muslims cite as the most explicative are Deuteronomy 18:15-18 and John 14:16; 15:26; and 16:7.

1. Deuteronomy 18:15-18

The Lord your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear.

According to all you desired of the Lord your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, “Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.”

And the Lord said to me: “What they have spoken is good.

I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him.”

This is universally held by Muslims as a prophesy pertaining to Muhammad.¹⁸ There are a number of reasons why they believe it cannot be referring Jesus.

First, the Promised Prophet was to be a Lawgiving Prophet…. Jesus laid no claim to giving a new law…. Secondly, the Promised Prophet was to be raised not from among Israel but from among their brethren and Jesus was an Israelite…. Thirdly, the prophecy was: “I will put my words in his mouth.” But the gospels do not consist of words which God put in Jesus’ mouth. They only tell us the story of Jesus and what he said in some of his public addresses and what his disciples said or did on different occasions. Fourthly, the Promised One was to be a Prophet, while the Christian view is that Jesus was not a Prophet, but the son of God.¹⁹

The Muslim will then point out the many ways in which Muhammad and Moses were alike. Each appeared among idolaters. They were both lawgivers who were initially rejected by their people and had to flee into exile, only to return later to lead their nations. They both married and had children, and were military leaders as well as spiritual leaders. After both of their deaths their successors conquered Palestine.

The Muslim conclusion is that this prophecy was fulfilled only by Muhammad: “If these words do not apply to Muhammad, they still remain unfulfilled.”²⁰

Before we continue any farther, let us first analyze these points. The first objection raised against this prophecy having been fulfilled in Jesus was that Jesus was not a lawgiver. Muslims who claim this only show their own lack of understanding of the New Testament, as shown in John 13:34 and Galatians 6:2:

A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love another.

Bear one another’s burdens, and thus fulfill the law of Christ

The next objection to this prophecy having been fulfilled in Jesus was that “brethren” must refer to the Ishmaelites, not to the Israelites themselves. This argument can easily be refuted by simply looking at how the term “brethren” is used in the Bible. One cogent example is found in Deuteronomy 17:15. Moses instructs the Israelites:

“You shall surely set a king over you whom the Lord your God chooses; one from among your brethren you shall set as king over you; you may not set a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.”

Now, did Israel ever appoint a foreigner as king over them? More specifically, was an Ishmaelite ever appointed king over Israel? Of course not. To choose a king “from among your brethren” refers to choosing someone from one of the 12 tribes of Israel. Likewise, the prophet spoken of in Deuteronomy 18 was to be an Israelite.

Another objection to Deuteronomy 18:15-18 being fulfilled in Jesus is that the Gospels allegedly do not consist of words which God gave Jesus, vitally important in light of verse 18. However, to say that Jesus did not speak what God the Father gave Him again betrays an abysmal ignorance of the New Testament: “For I have not spoken on My own authority; but the Father who sent Me gave Me a command, what I should say and what I should speak” (John 12:49)²¹

The final objection raised against Jesus’ fulfilling these verses is that Christians supposedly only view Jesus as the Son of God, not as a prophet. Once again we see that the Muslim too often has little familiarity with the New Testament. Jesus Himself, prophesying His impending death, said that He must continue His journey to Jerusalem “for it cannot be that a prophet should perish outside of Jerusalem” (Luke 13:33).²²

The Muslim will point out that I still have not explained the many similarities between Moses and Muhammad. It is true that they have many correspondences, but there are also many differences. For example, if Muhammad was illiterate as virtually all Muslims assert, then he was not like Moses who “was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22). Muhammad is said to have received his revelations from the angel Gabriel, while Moses received the Law directly from God. Muhammad performed no signs or miracles to verify his calling, yet Moses performed many signs. Also, Muhammad was Arabic, while Moses was of Jewish origin.

If one were to peruse the Gospels, he would see that although Jesus was unlike Moses in some ways, in other ways He was very much like him. They were both Jewish, which is very important in light of what we have learned about the term “your brethren.” They both left Egypt to minister to their people (Heb. 11:27; Matt 2:15). Both also forsook great riches in order to better identify with their people (Heb. 11:24-26; John 6:15; 2 Cor. 8:9).

So we see that both Jesus and Muhammad had similarities with Moses. In what special way then was this coming prophet to be “like unto Moses”? The answer is found in Deuteronomy 34:8-10 where two distinguishing characteristics of Moses are listed:

But since then there has not arisen in Israel a prophet like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face,

In all the signs and wonders which the Lord sent him to do in the land of Egypt, before Pharaoh, before all his servants, and in all his land,

And by all that mighty power and all the great terror which Moses performed in the sight of all Israel.

This is a direct reference to Deuteronomy 18:15-18. Notice that two specific things are mentioned about Moses here in referring back to the earlier prophecy. The first is that the Lord knew Moses “face to face. “²³ Muhammad never had this type of relationship with God; indeed, in Islam God is so transcendent that except for the unique case of Moses He never spoke directly with men.

Jesus, “the Word made flesh” (John 1:14), is the only one who ever had a relationship with God like Moses had. In fact, Jesus’ relationship far surpasses that of Moses: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1).

The second characteristic feature of Moses, that he came with many “signs” and “wonders,” hardly needs to be expounded on. The many miracles that both Moses and Jesus worked are well known. The Qur’an itself testifies that Muhammad worked no miracles.²⁴

And finally, Jesus Himself tells us who the prophet is that Deuteronomy 18:15-18 is prophesying: “For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote about Me” (John 5:46).²⁵

2. John 14:16; 15:26; 16:7

Muslims claim that the verses speaking of the coming “Comforter” (“Paracletos” in the original Greek) are actually references to the coming of Muhammad. The reason for this is that in the Qur’an Jesus is made to say that after Himself an apostle would be sent, “Whose name shall be Ahmad” (Qur’an 61:6). The following is Yusuf Ali’s commentary on this verse:

“Ahmad,” or “Muhammad,” the Praised One, is almost a translation of the Greek word Periclytos. In the present Gospel of John, xiv. 16, xv. 26, and xvi. 7, the word “Comforter” in the English version is for the Greek word “Paracletos,” which means “Advocate,” “one called to the help of another, a kind friend” rather than “Comforter.” Our doctors contend that Paracletos is a corrupt reading for Periclytos, and that in their [sic] original saying of Jesus there was a prophecy of our holy Prophet Ahmad by name.²⁶

Thus Muslims believe that all of our Bibles have been corrupted and that the apostle John really used the word “Periclytos” in these verses, not the word “Paracletos.”

In examining the Muslim claim that the text has been corrupted the textual critic would quite rightly look to the actual textual evidence. There are over 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament which date from before A.D. 350. Not once in any of the manuscripts which contain these passages do we find the word “Periclytos” used. The word that we find used every time is “Paracletos.” Thus, there is absolutely no textual evidence which would back up their contention that the text was corrupted.

The Muslim position is even more lamentable when we carefully read these verses to see what Jesus was saying. There is a great deal which could be said about each verse; however, we will limit our review to the obvious discrepancies between the Islamic position and what is actually being said: “And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Comforter,²⁷ that He may abide with you forever” (John 14:16). First of all, Jesus said that the Father “will give you another Comforter.” Who was Jesus addressing in these verses? The Arabs, or more specifically, the Ishmaelites? Of course not. He is speaking to Jewish believers. Hence the “Comforter” would be sent initially to them. This cannot be referring to Muhammad.

Second, this verse states that the “Paracletos,” the “Comforter,” would “abide with you forever.” How can this apply to Muhammad? The Muslim prophet has been dead and buried for over 1,300 years.

“Even the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you” (John 14:17). Here “the Spirit of Truth” is used as another title or synonym for the “Paraclete.” We see from this verse that the “Paraclete” would be “in you.” Again, it is impossible to reconcile this statement with the Islamic position.

John 14:26 completely devastates the Muslim hypothesis that Muhammad was actually the one being prophesied in the verses dealing with the coming “Comforter” (or “Paraclete”): “But the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.” Jesus said that the “Comforter” is “the Holy Spirit.” This is the reason why all of the Muslim apologists stay away from this verse, only quoting the verses they like. Jesus commanded His disciples — in Acts 1:4-5 — not to “depart from Jerusalem,” for they would “be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”

Do these verses really apply to Muhammad appearing 600 years later in Mecca? Only a person already biased and completely credulous could believe this. The fulfillment of Jesus’ words occurred 10 days later on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4), not six centuries later, hundreds of miles from Jerusalem.

Prof. ‘Abdu ‘L-Ahad Dauud, in Muhammad in the Bible, states that this alleged prophecy “is one of the strongest proofs that Muhammad was truly a Prophet and that the Qur’an is really a divine revelation”²⁸ (emphasis added). If these verses constitute one of their “strongest proofs,” then I will not belabor the reader with “lesser proofs.” I believe that Blaise Pascal succinctly summarized the situation: “Any man can do what [Muhammad] has done; for he performed no miracles, he was not foretold. No man can do what Christ has done.”²⁹

In the remaining space it will be impossible to give more than an overview of the evidences for the Christian faith.³⁰ The two areas we will examine are the evidences for the reliability of the Bible and the person of Jesus Christ.

The Reliability of the Bible

For Muslims the Bible is virtually worthless as far as being an authentic revelation from God. They believe it has been totally corrupted and is therefore not trustworthy. However, if we examine the biblical documents, using the same thorough standards any historiographer would use, we discover that its reliability is unimpeachable.

The New Testament documents, for example, have more manuscript authority than any 10 works of antiquity put together. As mentioned earlier, we have over 24,000 manuscript copies of portions of the New Testament dating from before A.D. 350. In comparison, the number two book in all of ancient history for manuscript authority is the Iliad with 643 manuscripts.

Dr. John Warwick Montgomery, dean of the Simon Greenleaf School of Law and a noted theologian, comments on this: “To be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament.”³¹

When we turn to the text of the New Testament itself we see that the writers of the New Testament books claimed that they were eyewitnesses, or close associates of eyewitnesses, of the events they narrated.³² We also have excellent external evidence confirming this. Papias, a disciple of the apostle John, confirms the fact that Mark did indeed write the Gospel which is ascribed to him, obtaining his information from the apostle Peter.³³ Polycarp, another disciple of the apostle John, taught his own disciple Irenaeus that the men to whom the four Gospels are ascribed were in truth their real authors.³⁴

In addition to these evidences we can also add the findings of modern archaeology. Time after time archaeology has vindicated biblical accounts which had previously been ridiculed as being grossly inaccurate.³⁵ Concerning this, Nelson Glueck, a world-famous Jewish archaeologist, went so far as to say that “it may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference.”³⁶

In any responsible examination of the biblical documents the evidence for their reliability comes out positive. Even well-known secular historians accept the biblical accounts as being historically reliable. A.N. Sherwin-White, a non-Christian, accepts without question the essential reliability of the Gospels and the Book of Acts:

For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming…any attempt to reject its historicity in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman historians have long taken it for granted.³⁷

It is very interesting to note that Yusuf Ali, in his widely used English translation of the Qur’an, twice cites Sir Frederick Kenyon as a renowned authority.³⁸ Kenyon, formerly the principal curator of the British Museum, was one the world’s greatest authorities on textual criticism of ancient works. Concerning the textual reliability of the Bible, he concluded that “the Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear or hesitation that he holds in it the true Word of God.”³⁹

The Death and Resurrection of Christ

Muslims, denying that Jesus died on the cross, hold that no resurrection occurred. They do this not on the basis of the historical evidence but because the Qur’an simply denies that Jesus was crucified.’ However, once again their beliefs fly in the face of all the evidence.

The following references are a listing of just some of the Old Testament prophecies concerning the sufferings of the Messiah and of their fulfillment in Jesus. We are told the Messiah would come in humility (Zech. 9:9; Matt. 21:6-9), would be sold for 30 pieces of silver (Zech. 11:12; Matt. 26:15), would suffer tremendously (lsa. 50:6; Matt. 26:67), would be pierced and scourged (Isa. 53:5; Matt. 27:26: John 19:34), would not speak in His own defense (Isa. 53:7; Matt. 27:12-14), would be slain (Isa. 53:8; Luke 23:46), would die among thieves and intercede for the transgressors (Isa. 53:12; Matt. 27:38; Luke 23:34), would be mocked (Ps. 22:7-8; Matt. 27:31, 39-40), would have his hands and feet pierced (Ps. 22:16; John 20:25-28), would have lots cast for his garments (Ps. 22:18; John 19:23-24), and would not have his bones broken (Ps. 34:20; John 19:33).

In the New Testament Jesus claimed to be God (John 8:58). Those closest to Him made the same claim for Him (1 John 5:20; 2 Pet. 1:1). Jesus said that the ultimate proof validating His claims would be His resurrection from the dead (Matt 16:21; 17:9; John 2: 18-21).

If these events did not occur (Jesus’ death and resurrection), one is faced with tremendously difficult questions. What accounts for the change in Peter, from being a coward who denied even knowing Jesus, into being a martyr? What accounts for the change of Saul, the greatest persecutor of the early church, into the apostle Paul, the greatest missionary of the early church (who also suffered martyrdom)? What accounted for the birth of the Christian church itself? Christianity was not spread by force. The first Christians had no worldly incentives to preach Jesus’ death and resurrection. Conversely, all they could expect were revilements, persecution, and martyrdom. The only satisfactory answer that can be given to these questions is that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead, just as He promised.

Near the end of the eighteenth century La Revelliere-Lepeaux, a determined non-Christian, was attempting to replace Christianity with Theophilanthropy (a form of deism) as the religion of France. When he told Talleyrand his plans, “the cynical politician replied, ‘All you have to do is get yourself hanged, and revive the third day.’”⁴¹

Indeed, Talleyrand very perceptively showed the main difference between Christianity and every other religion of the world. Jesus Christ raised Himself from the dead, thus verifying His claims to deity. Muhammad and all of the other founders of the various religions are still in the grave. Only Jesus has the power of life over death, as He said in John 11:25-26:

I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if He dies, and everyone who lives and believes In Me shall never die.

There were several Qurans that existed. A documentary was aired a few years ago on the subject. After the death of Mohammad, words compiled by others were issued as qurans. Somewhat like the Gospels. 

At the time Islam planned the invasion of Christendom, the Caliphate was quite aware of the different sects of christians and how they interpreted the the wriiten words of the Apostles. There was no Bible at that time.

Islam, as an organized faith, perhaps the first, ever. And long before the Catholic Church. Heretics were banished, put to death and have their works(qurans) burnt. Thus remaining supposedly, Mohammad's version.

The Caliphate was not going have none of the supposedly confusion as the Christians were having.  Other thoughts and thinking were suppressed into the idea that the writings from Mohammad was from God himself.

I doan think God is a confused Being. He had already given Enoch, the seventh from Adam, His commands, explanations, statutes and His plans for the atonement of mankind sins in the personage of the Elect One. Enoch saw the fire that inscribed the words, today it may be interpreted as laser technology. Methuselah was handed thebooks by his father and given specific instructions to be sure it was handed down all the way to Noah.

Islam can boast of the millions who read the authentic Arabic words. How many understand the langauge? Are they just mouthing the beauty of the chants? They cannot question anything. They are programmed like the children in the madrasahs. They read only the Quran. It is the same as just listen, you do not  have to read.

Just accept what is given.

The Holy Roman Catholic Church was like that too. Only Latin was the language of the Holy Book. To have the Book in another language was unheard of and the those who listened only listened. The masses followed the motions, listened to the chants, can't read only repeated. Fearing the scorch of fire at the stake, many cardinals just followed the church doctrines.

For centuries, the Roman Catholic Church behaved as if they spoke for God.

Then a Catholic Priest in England, Wycliffe would translate the Latin into Old English for the English People. Today, his efforts has paid off in the thousands of languages the Bible has been printed into. Perhaps, there are some wrong interpretation, but the essence of God doan need volumes of incantations. God is always present in the hearts of mankind, He doan need to be studied. 

Ofcourse the Catholic Church din let Wycliffee get away with it. Labelled  a

heretic they hounded him. Persecution of his parishers for daring to want the Holy Book for their edification. 

The Catholic Church prevailed.

After another 100 years Hurt was burnt at the stake for demanding parishers be preached to in their language.

The Catholic Prevailed again.

Another 100 years came Martin Luther, he also was a Catholic Priest. 

Just like the prophets before Christ, Christ came as fulfillment of scriptures.

The same way, after thousands of years, Gods words to Enoch is given in thousand of langauges. No conversion is necessary, anyone can commune with God. He did say, the human body is a temple.

Keith posted:

ksazma posted:

seignet posted:

ksazma posted:

 

Truthfully, no one even know if Samson or Judah even existed. They could be made up people like so many made up people and stories in the Bible.

But I agree that Adam was a Muslim and so was Jesus.

If Jesus WAS a muslim, then I agree with you. No one knows what became of him as a muslim. 

As the Son of God, you most definitely hanging His Celestial Being for His piety of death and resurrection.

He was not a law maker like Moses and Muhammad ¹⁸ I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. ¹⁹ And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him. Deuteronomy 18:18-19. Jesus was a law abider, abiding by the laws of Moses. Jesus was not a leader in the community as Moses and Muhammad were. He did not move a multitude of men as Moses and Muhammad did. He did not leave a legacy as Moses and Muhammad did. What Christians follow is Paul's doctrine. Jesus did not really have a doctrine since he was following Moses' doctrine.

I took the liberty of cutting out the other things I taught was irrelevant. Just to clarify are you saying that Muhammad is like Moses and the verse you quoted above is referencing Muhammad?

By the way, we follow what's written in the bible regardless of who doctrine it is. God allow it to be there and we are obligated to following what He has instructed.

What I said is that Muhammad does not need the help of the Bible to validate his existence. He is not regarded as a myth the way Jesus is. However, if you were to be liberal, Muhammad had many of the same roles and responsibilities as Moses.

Secondly, While you may be following what is written in the Bible, you are not following what Moses or Jesus followed. Both Moses and Jesus knew nothing about a triune God. Both of them follow one God and if you take Jesus at his word, he told the man asking him about everlasting life to pay particular heed to the 1st commandment. When you worship Jesus and the Holy Ghost as co-equal God to God, you are going against what Jesus stood for.

Lastly, you stated that God has allowed what is in the Bible to be there so you are obligated to follow them. Similarly, God has allowed the Qur'an to be in existence to you must feel equally obligated to follow the Qur'an. Interesting, the God described in the Qur'an is the one that Jesus would recognize and the one he worshipped.

Keith posted:

 

The “Miracle” of the Qur’an — The Christian Response

1. Preservation of the Qur’an?

Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, in The Meaning of the Glorious Koran, tells us that at the time of Muhammad’s death the surahs (or chapters) of the Qur’an had not yet been collated. This was accomplished during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr.⁹

The second Caliph, Omar, “subsequently made a single volume (mushaf) that he preserved and gave on his death to his daughter Hafsa, the Prophet’s widow.”¹⁰ Finally, under the Caliphate of Uthman all copies of the Qur’an were ordered to be brought in and any that deviated from Uthman’s text were burned.

We have no quarrel with the Islamic position that since the Recension of Uthman the Qur’an has remained intact. However, because of the destruction of all deviant copies no one can know with any certainty if the present Qur’an is exactly the same as what Muhammad gave them.

Islam teaches that the only reason Uthman had all the other collections of the Qur’an burned except his was that there were slight dialectical variations in the different texts. However, there is some evidence which tends to refute this.

First of all, it is very significant that the Qurra, the Muslims who had memorized the entire Qur’an, were vehemently opposed to the Recension. And second, the Shi’ites, who are the second-largest Islamic sect in the world, claim that the Caliph Uthman intentionally eliminated many passages from the Qur’an which related to Ali and the succession of leadership which was to occur after Muhammad’s death.

L. Bevan Jones, in his work The People Of the Mosque, succinctly answers the Muslim argument for the alleged miraculous preservation of the Qur’an: “But while it may be true that no other work has remained for twelve centuries with so pure a text, it is probably equally true that no other has suffered so drastic a purging.”¹¹

 

Bro Keith, it would really be good if you can present your own argument instead of posting a who piece which a discussion board will never be able to justify. However, I will try to cut your (actually it is from Christian Research Institute) presentation up so that I can respond to it separately. Anyone who knows anything about the origins of the Qur'an will acknowledge that it was an oral revelation to Muhammad over a span of 23 years. As he received them, he would dictate them to his companions some of them entrusted with writing it down. Since it was an oral revelation, emphasis was placed on memorizing it even more than compiling it into a book. Nonetheless, some people used to record passages more applicable to them rather than following a uniform approach to compiling a book. However, the select few who were charged with the proper preservation of the Qur'an put together the one that Umar gave to his daughter, Hafzah. Actually that was only one of three copies that were compiled under the supervision of Umar who was the second leader after the Prophet. Those three copies still exist today. During the Caliphate of Uthman, people were compiling their own records that were not done as meticulously as those three copies. Under his direction, those were all destroyed so as not to create the kind of confusion that exist today with the Bible. Umar was very wise to do so. I don't know why any Christian would make a deal out of this in light of the role of the Council of Nicea in the canonization of the Bible.

Secondly, there was no Shiite at the time of any of the Caliph. Not even when Ali (who the Shiite revere) was Caliph was there any Shiite. So CRI making that argument is baseless.

Lastly, the Qur'an has no direction for any succession. If the Shiite are making this claim which I suspect they are not and it is actually CRI seeking to present a controversy, Uthman would have never been able to remove all references to any succession. The Bible is obsessed with lineage. The Qur'an is more focused on being a guide to mankind.

And yes, L. Bevan Jones only halfway correct. The Qur'an in circulation today is the same one compiled by Umar, not Uthman. And Uthman never burned any Qur'an. He destroyed those documents which while still being correct passages of the established Qur'an, they were not compiled in a uniform manner and had the potential of missing bits and pieces.

seignet posted:

There were several Qurans that existed. A documentary was aired a few years ago on the subject. After the death of Mohammad, words compiled by others were issued as qurans. Somewhat like the Gospels. 

At the time Islam planned the invasion of Christendom, the Caliphate was quite aware of the different sects of christians and how they interpreted the the wriiten words of the Apostles. There was no Bible at that time.

Islam, as an organized faith, perhaps the first, ever. And long before the Catholic Church. Heretics were banished, put to death and have their works(qurans) burnt. Thus remaining supposedly, Mohammad's version.

The Caliphate was not going have none of the supposedly confusion as the Christians were having.  Other thoughts and thinking were suppressed into the idea that the writings from Mohammad was from God himself.

I doan think God is a confused Being. He had already given Enoch, the seventh from Adam, His commands, explanations, statutes and His plans for the atonement of mankind sins in the personage of the Elect One. Enoch saw the fire that inscribed the words, today it may be interpreted as laser technology. Methuselah was handed thebooks by his father and given specific instructions to be sure it was handed down all the way to Noah.

Islam can boast of the millions who read the authentic Arabic words. How many understand the langauge? Are they just mouthing the beauty of the chants? They cannot question anything. They are programmed like the children in the madrasahs. They read only the Quran. It is the same as just listen, you do not  have to read.

Just accept what is given.

The Holy Roman Catholic Church was like that too. Only Latin was the language of the Holy Book. To have the Book in another language was unheard of and the those who listened only listened. The masses followed the motions, listened to the chants, can't read only repeated. Fearing the scorch of fire at the stake, many cardinals just followed the church doctrines.

For centuries, the Roman Catholic Church behaved as if they spoke for God.

Then a Catholic Priest in England, Wycliffe would translate the Latin into Old English for the English People. Today, his efforts has paid off in the thousands of languages the Bible has been printed into. Perhaps, there are some wrong interpretation, but the essence of God doan need volumes of incantations. God is always present in the hearts of mankind, He doan need to be studied. 

Ofcourse the Catholic Church din let Wycliffee get away with it. Labelled  a

heretic they hounded him. Persecution of his parishers for daring to want the Holy Book for their edification. 

The Catholic Church prevailed.

After another 100 years Hurt was burnt at the stake for demanding parishers be preached to in their language.

The Catholic Prevailed again.

Another 100 years came Martin Luther, he also was a Catholic Priest. 

Just like the prophets before Christ, Christ came as fulfillment of scriptures.

The same way, after thousands of years, Gods words to Enoch is given in thousand of langauges. No conversion is necessary, anyone can commune with God. He did say, the human body is a temple.

 

Sagga bai, yuh nah making sense. The first Qur'an word uttered by Muhammad was READ! اقْرَأْ

اقْرَأْ بِاسْمِ رَبِّكَ الَّذِي خَلَق

خَلَقَ الْإِنسَانَ مِنْ عَلَقٍ

اقْرَأْ وَرَبُّكَ الْأَكْرَمُ

الَّذِي عَلَّمَ بِالْقَلَمِ

عَلَّمَ الْإِنسَانَ مَا لَمْ يَعْلَمْ

Read: In the name of thy Lord who createth

Createth man from a clot

Read: And thy Lord is the Most Bounteous

Who teacheth by the pen

Teacheth man that which he knew not.

Reading and researching has always been the culture of the Qur'an. Why do you think more Muslims are more familiar with other religions than the other way around? How do you think I can navigate myself around the Bible the way I do if it wasn't because of natural curiosity? If you want to see where that culture began, just read Muhammad's own words, "seek knowledge even if you have to travel to China". And that is only one example. It was because of the high esteem that the Arabs had for academia that drove them to preserve all the writings of old that people still use today. You are living in an outdated circumstance which was able to make false claims that there was no higher learning outside of Europe but the world has chance and the truth is out that there was indeed higher learning outside of Europe and in fact some of Europe records was preserved by others previously portrayed as useless. Wake up my brother.

Keith posted:

 

The “Miracle” of the Qur’an — The Christian Response

2. Eloquence of the Qur’an?

Concerning the Qur’an’s beauty, style, and eloquence, any unbiased reader would have to admit that this is certainly true of much of the Qur’an. However, eloquence itself is hardly a logical test for inspiration. If this were the criteria used to judge a work, then we would have to say that the authors of many of the great works of antiquity were inspired by God. Homer would have to have been a prophet for producing the magnificent Iliad and the Odyssey. In the English language Shakespeare is without a peer as a dramatist, but it would be ludicrous to say that because of this his tragedies were of divine origin. Likewise for the eloquence of the Qur’an.

But what about the consistency of the Qur’an — can it be used to show that this Muslim scripture was inspired? To begin with, it can be shown that the Qur’an is not totally consistent, but rather has some major contradictions in it.¹² Even if we granted the thesis that the Qur’an was totally consistent this still would not prove anything. In an essay entitled “How Muslims Do Apologetics,” Dr. John Warwick Montgomery demonstrates this for us:

This apologetic is likewise of little consequence, for the self-consistency of a writing does not prove that it is a divine revelation. Euclid’s Geometry, for example, is not self-contradictory at any point, but no one claims that this work is therefore divinely inspired in some unique sense.¹³

And finally, what about Muhammad’s alleged illiteracy? First of all, there is a good deal of evidence against it. But even if we granted the fact that Muhammad could not read or write this still would not make the Qur’an miraculous. Why? Because all Muslims know that he had at least several amanuenses or scribes: and therefore, he could easily have composed the Qur’an in this fashion. This would not be unique, as there are precedents for this. One that most people will be familiar with concerns Homer. He was blind and thus, in all likelihood, could not write. Yet he was the author of the Iliad and the Odyssey, the two greatest epics of the ancient world. In like fashion the question of whether or not Muhammad was illiterate really has no hearing on the case in question.

Nothing Christian Research Institute wrote here makes any sense. They make several proclamations but provide any evidence to support them. They are not like me who usually present the Biblical passage that I am commenting on. I was looking forward to them listing these "major" contradictions but they never did. In fact, the Qur'an itself proclaimed that had it not been from God, it would have many contradictions. It is now some 1500 years later with us living in the information age where any document can be quickly and easily scrutinized through computer programming and still no contradictions in the Qur'an. The other proclamation is that Muhammad was not illiterate but then again no evidence of this. So far, CRI don't seem too committed to their work here. You need better materials, Bro. Keith.

By the way, here is the low down of CRI argument regarding Homer. He is a fictional character and may have never existed. Those works are the works of several contributors. So not only was Homer not blind. He never existed.

Keith posted:

 

The “Miracle” of the Qur’an — The Christian Response

3. Prophecies in the Qur’an?

Can we say that Islam’s vast expansion, predicted by Muhammad, is a fulfillment of prophecy? If we think this through for just a moment, I believe we can easily answer no.

To begin with, a leader promising his troops or followers a victory is not the least bit unique. Every commander or general does this in order to inspire his army and build up their morale. If they are then victorious, he is vindicated; if they lose then we never hear of his promises because they, along with his movement, are forgotten.

Also, the Muslim had several important incentives to consider while fighting to further the cause of Islam. If he died, he was promised to be allowed into paradise. If he lived and they were victorious in battle, the Muslim soldiers would divide up four-fifths of all the booty.

There is another reason why Islam initially expanded so rapidly. If we look at some of the Qur’anic injunctions about what the non-believers could expect at the hands of the Muslims, it is easy to understand why so many “submitted,” as found in surah 5:36:¹⁴

The punishment of those Who wage war against God And his Apostle, and strive With might and main For mischief through the land Is: execution, or crucifixion,Or the cutting off of hands And feet from opposite sides,Or exile from the land.

The polytheists had two choices, submit or die. The Christians and the Jews had a third alternative, paying heavy tribute (Qur’an 9:5, 29).

A final point to be considered is that if the fast and far reaching growth of a movement indicated divine favor, then what about such conquerors as Genghis Khan? He consolidated the Mongol tribes and in a time span shorter than early Islam’s conquered a much larger geographic area. Was his military success evidence that he was led of God? And what of Islam’s own growth which was stopped in the West by Charles Martel A.D. 732) and in the East by Leo III (A.D. 740)? Does this mean that they lost favor with Allah? What of the later history of many Islamic countries who suffered the indignity of becoming colonies of the then world powers? No, we can find nothing mysterious or supernatural about Islam’s amazing early growth or subsequent fall.