stevecanuck
Well-Known Member
Even if that were true, it does not change 9:29 in any way.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Comparing the Bible to the Qur'an.
- Thread starter stevecanuck
- Start date
Even if that were true, it does not change 9:29 in any way.
Muffled
Jesus in me
Another issue: Who can pay tax? No one is required to pay tax unless he is under an authority. I wouldn't have to pay that tax because my country does not have that tax. (Not to mention that I am a believer as a Christian)
stevecanuck
Well-Known Member
Are you referring to the jizya? If so, 9:29 is clearly describing a scenario in which fighting and subjugating is indeed happening where you are, therefore the ruling Islamic authorities would be the tax collectors. How is that not the bleedin' obvious?
No, Christians are NOT believers.
5:68 - "Say [to them, Mohamed], "O People of the Scripture, you are standing on nothing until you uphold the Torah, the Gospel, and what has been revealed [the Qur'an] to you from your Lord."
5:72 - "They have certainly disbelieved who say, "Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary."
19:88-91 - "And they say, 'The All-merciful has taken unto Himself a son.' You have indeed advanced something hideous! Whereby the heavens are almost torn, and the earth is split asunder, and the mountains fall in ruins, That they ascribe a son (or offspring or children) to the Most Beneficent."
Read that last one as many times as it takes for Islam's revulsion of Christian belief to sink in.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
They shall come with weeping, and with supplications will I lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim [is] my firstborn.
Jeremiah 31:9
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe you have no basis for saying that.
I believe that is not what we say. We say Jesus is Allah in the flesh. To reverse it and say that Allah is Jesus is blasphemy because God does not have a body. It is the body that has the Spirit.
I believe this is true that Jesus did not have a son and would not.
stevecanuck
Well-Known Member
Nobody said anything about Jesus having a son.
Actually the doctrine of sola scriptura does not translate to a strict literal understanding of scripture, but it means the Bible in plain reading is the only authority. I believe a history of Biblical literalism and sola scriptura, goes back to the Church Fathers and the Roman Church in various forms each conditioning the concept to fit their agenda., but evolved in different aspects of the scripture. Martin Luther was a champion of a modified sola scriptura and literal understanding of scripture.
The common belief among those that believed in sola scriptura and literal understanding of scripture is that scripture may have both a literal and figurative meaning.
It is only beginning in the 18th century that 'Age of Enlightenment began to influence Christianity, and a division arose in the churches where moderate Protestant and later the Roman Church (RCC) and some of the Orthodox Churches began to adapt a figurative interpretation of the Pentateuch as a historical record.
The literal interpretation of the Pentateuch history in Islam remains the dominant view as described in the Quran. The polls in Turkey reveal that 75% believe in a literal Genesis Creation and Turkey is considered a moderate Islamic country.
Last edited:
There is no written Koran dated from the 610 to 632. After the death of Mohammad, and the death of many of the persons who had supposedly memorized parts of his sayings, a compilation was made up, and supposedly sent to all the Muslim centers. None of those supposed copies exist. The earliest written partial copy is dated much later, and that would include the verse supposedly written and eaten by the young wife's goat. There are many versions of the Koran in today's world, even though much effort was made to get rid of all but one. The character "Muhammad", meaning "praised one" was made up from a compilation of characters, mostly taken from the Persian, Jewish and Byzantine characters. In the Koran, the term "Muhammad" (praised one) was linked to Isa son of Mary. On an inner wall of the dome of the rock, the term "praised one" (Muhammad) was linked to Isa son of Mary. The dome of the rock was built in the image of the Byzantine cathedral which was visible from the dome of the rock. The supposed Muslim leader of the time had coins made with his image, something not quite in synch with the supposed Muslim precepts. So far, you have the precepts fed to you by the surviving southern Arab sect, but in no way have you verified anything you have said. It is mostly based on the narrative written over 100 years later by sons of Persians, mostly from the area of present-day Baghdad.
Augustus
…
We have 2 non-Islamic sources that refer to either “the Arabs of Muhammad” or mentioning an Arab “prophet”.
Both of these are pretty close to Muhammad’s life time, if not contemporary to it.
He clearly existed.
That may be true:
Church of the Seat of Mary - Wikipedia
Hadith and sirah certainly were.
iirc all 6 of the major Hadith compilers were from the former Persian Empire
There was indeed a guy referred to as "Muhammad", a northern Arab leader, who was set in charge of the northern Arabs by the Persians to keep the northern Arabs in check. Eventually the influence of the northern Arabs was taken over by the southern Arabs. and their place was erased from the Muslim history starting in the Muslim year of 70. This particular northern "Muhammad" was not associated with some backwater place called Mecca. The seat of power of the Muslims in the Muslim year of 70 was located in Damascus, and not Mecca. The descriptive narrative of Mecca was stolen from Petra and Jerusalem. The Kaaba structure is just a representation of the holy of holies, located originally in Jerusalem, before being used in Petra, before being replicated in Mecca. In the Muslim year 70, the armies of Damascus were defeating Petra, and yet had to return to Damascus to bury their leader. At that time the people of Petra packed up and moved to Mecca. The Muslim history is empty for the year 70 except for the note that Petra hired a ton of horses and camels. They were getting out of town before the armies of Damascus returned. As for the Muslim narrative, Abraham and his son Ishmael were from the Jerusalem area, and not Mecca. And Eve did not live in Mecca, nor did some giant Adam live in India and then walk to Mecca. Abraham did not build the Kaaba, and the only link was that Abraham turned away from idolatry, whereas the Kaaba was originally the site for keeping idols. The two stones of Mecca, described as mountains, used the names of the two hills of Jerusalem. The whole Muslim narrative is simply made up. As for the Hadiths, look at the years they were written, and the location of where they were written. Over a century and 600 km from where "Muhammad" supposedly lived, written by Persians who had no idea about his friend influencing the inserting the wearing of the veil into the Koran because he had seen Muhammad's wife going to the bathroom after dark. A Roman historian, traveling with the Roman army through the area of Mecca, at the time period, described it as a desolate wasteland, and not a garden area, full of fruit trees.We have 2 non-Islamic sources that refer to either “the Arabs of Muhammad” or mentioning an Arab “prophet”.
Both of these are pretty close to Muhammad’s life time, if not contemporary to it.
He clearly existed.
That may be true:
Church of the Seat of Mary - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Hadith and sirah certainly were.
iirc all 6 of the major Hadith compilers were from the former Persian Empire
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
We know that .. but he ended up with 2 wives, as he married his wife's 'handmaiden' due
to her being barren.
..but then they BOTH gave birth to sons, and his wives quarreled, so he took one wife and son
away from the area..
..in your opinion .. not in mine.
It still is ( desolate wasteland) relatively speaking.
Madina, however, is a lot more blessed, with gardens of date palms.
stevecanuck
Well-Known Member
Are you sure about that? I've never seen any on-line or print version that is said to be different than any other.
Okay, just place "according to today's Islamic beliefs" in front of anything I say about Islam and go from there. I've been through this discussion before, and I'll say to you what I've said to others - even if everything you say is true, it's 100% moot. The Qur'an says what it says, Muslims believe the narrative I've given, and they act accordingly (which is to say badly. Very, very, badly).
There is a young ex Muslim woman in Britian who went around buying Korans around the world and came up with around 100 different versions, with something like 90,000 different non alignments. The original reason for the early Muslim leaders, according to the Muslim narrative, in making a written version was because of during the early Islamic military excursions, the southern Arabs found the northern Arabs were using a different context. According to the Muslim "history", the southern Muslims went about getting a written version and told everyone else to burn any writing other than then the new southern version. In the early 20th century (around 1910), from Egypt, they tried to reduce the number of versions. They chose one and all the other versions were to be thrown into the Nile River. Well, that worked about as well as the first time. People wanted the versions that were mostly used in their localities and kept them. The area of Northwest Africa uses a different version than Northeast Africa. In general, the original prayer walls of early Northwest Africa and southern Spain, points in a different direction that of later mosques from around the world. After the Muslim year 70, the location of the Kaaba changed from Petra to Mecca. The original Holy of Holies, copied as a Kaaba was located in Jerusalem. The Koran is a compilation taken from parts of Perian, Jewish, and Christian writings, and has no better track record than their source materials. The "Christian" message, the false gospel of grace (gospel of lawlessness) (Mt 13), the message of the "evil one"/"devil", presented by the false prophet Paul (false prophets of Mt 7:15), is the wide path (Mt 7) to "destruction". The "many" who follow the path to "destruction", are led by the "false prophets" (Mt 7:13-15) include both Paul and some smoky figure given the name Muhammad. When Rev 18:4 says come out of "her", he is referring to all the daughters of Babylon. The "few" that enter into life, are not represented by the nearly 2 billion "Christians" nor the nearly 2 billion Muslims. According to Revelation, the reckoning is coming to 2/3 of the whole world, and if it wasn't cut short, the whole world would die (Mt 24). According to Zech 14, it all starts when the countries surrounding Jerusalem come against her. There was no one named "Jesus" in the 1st century, because the letter "J" didn't exist until the 16th century. You can call on the name of "Jesus" all you want, but it will be in vain. and the houses/churches of vanity, will be washed away (Mt 7).
Abraham sent his concubine and her son Ishmael into the wilderness as stated by the "book" of the Jews, described in the Koran as from God. Abraham's true wife eventually gave birth to Isaac, the father of Jacob (Israel). Islam location wise, up until the Muslim year of 70, is better fitted to Essau than Ishmael, as its origins is better located near Petra, the land given to Essau, the son of Isaac. Islam's political center until the Muslim year 70, was located in Damascus. Abraham didn't take Ishmael and his mother anywhere. Independent historical and physical evidence doesn't support your point of view. As for Medina, it was on a trade route, whereas Mecca was desolate except for a single well. Mecca was no Eden, or trade center as described in the Muslim narrative, but was a desolate wilderness, with no trade, or home for Eve. You will find no old foundations in Mecca, for no one at any time found it attractive to live in.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
You opinion is in opposition to the Bible and Qur'an.
I don't think that it can be substantiated.
Why should it?
You follow your 'stuff' and I follow mine.
You might want to look at what the bible says before commenting on it. As for the Koran, it states the "book of the Jews" is from God.
Genesis 8:21
Abraham Sends Hagar and Ishmael Away
8 Isaac grew. The time came for his mother to stop breast-feeding him. On that day Abraham prepared a big celebration. 9 But Sarah saw Ishmael making fun of Isaac. Ishmael was the son Hagar had by Abraham. Hagar was Sarah’s Egyptian slave. 10 Sarah said to Abraham, “Get rid of that slave woman! Get rid of her son! That woman’s son will never have a share of the family’s property. All of it belongs to my son Isaac.”11 What Sarah said upset Abraham very much. After all, Ishmael was his son. 12 But God said to Abraham, “Do not be so upset about the boy and your slave Hagar. Listen to what Sarah tells you, because your family line will continue through Isaac. 13 I will also make the son of your slave into a nation. I will do it because he is your child.”
14 Early the next morning Abraham got some food and a bottle of water. The bottle was made out of animal skin. He gave the food and water to Hagar, placing them on her shoulders. Then he sent her away with the boy. She went on her way and wandered in the Desert of Beersheba.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
..and so?
Genesis is an ancient scripture consisting of many different scrolls of varying age and authors.
The Qur'an was revealed over a period of a few years, to one person, ~1500 years ago.
I believe that the Qur'an is more reliable than the Bible when it comes to place names
and so on. Naturally, if you think that the Qur'an is fraudulent, you will ignore it.
You keep overlooking the fact that in the Koran, it refers to the "book of the people" (Jewish bible which includes Genesis)) is from God. Your "one person", Mohammad, is simply a compilation appropriated from other characters taken from Persia and the area of Jerusalem of the same time period, whose narrative was formed more than a century after Mohammad was supposedly murdered by a woman in response to his murderous behavior. There is no "Koran" dated from the time period directly prior or after the death of the supposed time of Muhammad, even with respect to the supposed copies composed after his death and sent to all the Muslim religious centers. The best you have is a partial writing scrap coming out of Yemen, which was whited out and written over, and is dated to a time previous to the time of this supposed "Muhammad". The supposed Mohammad's man Friday, who was supposedly asked to put the Koran to paper, after the lady supposedly killed Mohammad, was not an Arab, but came from northern Persia. Your mystical Mohammad is much like the false prophet Paul, in which the message is, believe my message or die. Or in the case of the Koran, die for my message, and you will get 70 virgins (fruit dates) and get eternal life. Where these "virgins" come from is another mystery. The "devil"/"serpent" is described in the bible (Genesis) as a deceiver who promises eternal life if you believe and act on his message (eat the apple). For the general Arab population, death is often preferable to life, so you have a large reservoir of possible terrorist, looking for 70 virgins and a better life in death. Not an unused strategy, but one taken to the limit of credibility. A major problem with the Koran and the Moslem narrative, and even the "Christian" (followers of the false prophet Paul) is that the history and context is not viewed closely, lest one fall away and be subject to death, as proscribed in the Koran for Muslims, and less directly by the false prophet Paul.
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe Jesus is God in the flesh.
Can you kill God? Did "God" have a beginning? Is "Jesus"/Yeshua more a tabernacle of God then his "brothers" & "sisters" who do the will of God?
It is one thing to be "LORD", and another to be "Lord". If you do the will of Satan, you are a son of Satan/devil. If you do the will of God, you are a son of God. (1 John 3:9)